Talk:Urban green space

public health
Hello,

I've taken a crack at perhaps improving the public health page.

It is by no means perfect, so please feel free to help improve.

Thank you!


 * The distinction between "individual" and "communal" is to my mind not a helpful dichotomy. Are we to understand by this that the epidemiological study cited not a study of 'individuals'? I suggest that this section is considerably rewritten, summarising the public health benefits of urban green space. I will try to attend to this soon.Jimjamjak (talk) 09:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

nature
i have a big problem with the use of "nature" in this article. 99.99% of all parks are human-made cultural artifacts. but i don't want to just change everything. what should i do?95.91.247.199 (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Be bold! Make the changes you believe are appropriate.Jimjamjak (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

"Controversy"
There is nothing in this section which is "controversial". I suggest removing the section heading and placing the information therein in other parts of the article.Jimjamjak (talk) 09:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Doing some reorganizing
I'm planning on doing some general reorganizing of this page. I'll mostly be working on getting rid of some of the sub-categories in the "benefits" section so that it's not so broken up. In addition to the reorganization, I'm working on expanding the "history" section so it includes more than one place and fitting in a section about sustainability practices in the "current trends section." Gabibleuel (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I made a lot of changes to the "benefits" section including deleting some information that I don't think added to the understanding of this page. If there's anything you think should not have been deleted please let me know. Gabibleuel (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I suggest that Public open space be merged to this article, for it's hard (if possible) to tell any difference between "urban open spaces" and "public open spaces". In addition, the definition (like "public" and "open") discussed in Urban open space is discussed in Public open space too. Two articles, Urban open space and Public space, are enough to distinguish between the two concepts (whether "open to the sky" or not), and there is no point to give a third definition in between. --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 03:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The urban open space article makes sense under the term “public open space”. I’m not familiar with the term urban open space. Adondai (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose, as urban spaces are distinct from suburban or rural spaces, which can also be public. The lede of urban open space does make this distinction. I also think that the two topics are independently notable. Klbrain (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposition to change the name of the article to "Urban green space"
The content of the article is about natural territories, not about play fields. It is very important to write about that issue and there are many things that should be added like decrease of air pollution by trees. But the WHO call it urban green space and I think that in Wikipedia it should be the same, for avoid confusion and for that people who search the word will find it in Wikipedia. So there are 2 ways: creating a new page "Urban green space" and copying almost all the content to it, or changing the name of this page and creating other page about Urban open space. I think the second is easier. --אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am going to boldly do that, its the much more common definition. Sadads (talk) 12:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Moved stuff
Moving the following here from Sustainable planting. This is a long article and the text is likely redundant, but perhaps the references can be recycled:

Over a hundred peer-reviewed studies published during or after the year 2010 show that urban green space lowers air and ground temperatures and improves air quality. The size, quality and density of urban green spaces are positively correlated with the derived benefits. Sustainable urban green spaces dramatically reduce heat-stress related deaths and hospitalizations in urban communities and improve the overall health of individuals within those communities.

And here's a source which seems to be about urban planning, I think -something about the polder model and involving stakeholders I'll bet; in any case it does not corroborate the sentence it was referencing:

"Ecological" section brevity and verifiability
Currently, 50% of the "Ecological" section is built on the back of a "Toronto civic affairs bulletin entitled Urban Open Space: Luxury or Necessity." Though it is possible that this bulletin exists and is supported by detailed research of its own, such a long portion of this section on an unaccessible source should possibly be replaced by a section with easy-to-access references.

Furthermore, the second half of this section — whilst still under "Ecological" benefits — leans again on the human benefits on the human experience of being within nature. This information is supported by personal and/or subjective writings from Bill McKibben and Henry David Thoreau, which though valid interpretations, may perhaps be more valuable in a different section if an appropriate place could be found. Theobrad (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA23 - Sect 201 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by Jasminezapple (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Applied Plant Ecology Winter 2024
— Assignment last updated by Warmedforbs (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Brownfield sites
This article contains a long detailed story about Brownfield sites which is not really relevant to the topic of this article. I will paste it below to ensure it is preserved. Polygnotus (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Case study: Redevelopment of Brownfield sites
Brownfield sites are defined as "abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination." The City of Toronto undertook an extensive redevelopment of brownfield sites into green spaces starting in the 1950s. The first step was motivation. In 1954, Hurricane Hazel hit the city and caused considerable damage. The city subsequently obtained "flood lands" as a buffer to protect against future hurricanes. Later, there was an impetus to convert contaminated brownfields into greenspace for the perceived benefits, the top reasons being the creation of ecological habitats and to provide recreational opportunities. After establishing the motivation, the second step was to conduct a survey of all the brownfield sites. Although the City of Toronto was responsible for the management of brownfield sites, they had limited resources to do so. They began by taking an inventory of all the land that could be considered brownfields. By contrast, the greenspace is much more actively managed by both the City of Toronto and the Toronto Region Conservation Authority. Over 12% of the urban land in Toronto is classified as green space.

The third step involved holding meetings with both public and private stakeholders. Including the local neighborhood in the decision-making process was seen as key to securing the cooperation of the public. Because there was little perceived economic gain by private stakeholders, the redevelopment project was largely carried out by the public sector. The fourth step was delegation. A single department was put in charge of the project, which in this case was the municipal government's Parks Department (the government absorbed 90–100% of the implementation costs). It was expected that implementation would take several years after delegation – in this case, redevelopment took between 3–5 years for each individual site. The fifth step was collaboration with other government agencies. Government agencies that shared land in common with the municipal government, such as flood plains and waterfronts, negotiated with each other in order to ensure the concurrency of the goals between the various agencies and Toronto's redevelopment efforts. A sixth step involved the acquisition of private land, which was either donated or purchased by the city. It is important to recognize that a substantial amount of brownfield sites may reside on private land, and that a city must legally acquire it in order to implement redevelopment. The seventh step assessed each site individually. Because the sites were contaminated to different degrees, specific cleanup criteria were determined for each site, with various remediation strategies for each. The most common method was to cap (bury) the contaminants in situ. None of this could have happened unless there was a prerequisite zeroth step: creating an atmosphere of high trust. The City of Toronto was trusted by its citizens, and that trust enabled the city to redevelop brownfield sites. The public sector was expected to do its job and to prevent people using the new green space from being exposed to contaminants. CITY–WIDE GREEN SPACE PLANNING: The concept that ecosystems provide services that improve quality of life for city residents is becoming more and more recognized.

With that recognition, a shift in understanding green space from being an aesthetic contribution to city beautification to an essential part of the urban center is occurring. However, city planners are increasingly faced with densification and population increase in urban centers. This places stress on existing green spaces and can inhibit the creation of new green spaces. Notably, per capita GDP was found to be positively correlated with the amount of green space coverage. This suggests that economic systems that facilitate the accumulation of wealth can provision a city with increased green space. This must be balanced with the finding that greening efforts in low income sections of a city can cause rents to rise and make housing less affordable there. Additionally, it was found that European cities that distributed the management of green space among several governmental agencies were less successful in green space planning compared to cities with only one agency responsible.

Lack of public awareness about the value of urban green space can also lead to less stakeholder contribution to green space planning. This suggests that public education can lead the population to more fully participate as informed stakeholders to a much greater extent. Additionally, improvement in the quality of green space can be pursued when no additional green space can be added. Furthermore, the concept of "green fingers," can be implemented in city-wide planning in order to optimize green space geometry. "Green fingers" is a strategy that connects urban green space from the city center to the periphery, thereby linking the rural to the urban in a continuous fashion and enabling better resident access. Developing green roofs, gardens, and facades may be appropriate strategies for private land and buildings, but these cannot fulfill the functions of a public green space. Nevertheless, they provide valuable contributions to resident quality of life, and can be supported by various tax beak incentives. Finally, heritage green space sites can be protected by various laws and regulations. All in all, the implementation of urban green space strategies must consider the entire urban region in question in order to achieve the overarching goal to provide urban residents with a higher quality of life.

While the current research on the impacts of green space of mental health appears broad, the future of green space is still of utmost importance. Many US cities have unique plans to address this issue, while others are already experiencing the effects of reduced greenspace. Denver, for example, once boasted a meager 20% of the city having been paved or built-over in the mid-1970s. However, this number could reach closer to 70% by 2040 due to an explosion of the city's population. The hyper-functionality of modern-day cities must also be able to exist in a way that portrays beauty in the infrastructure itself. One proposed solution to this involves shifting grey infrastructure made of concrete towards green infrastructure that looks less industrial and more like an ecosystem. This proposal, brought forth by the California Center for Sustainable Communities, accompanies another idea that cities should assess green space initiatives based on their cultural and natural assets. For example, Cairns, Australia embraces "tropical urbanism" as the basis for its green space landscape throughout the city, while Salt Lake City describes its future parks as "mountain urbanism". One study found that there was not a significant association between the amount of green space in residents' local areas and mental wellbeing, suggesting that the quality of green space may be what matters most. Ultimately, improving the quality of green space is a main concern for cities of the future and acting on a city's cultural and natural strengths is the best method to achieve this.

Mental health
I also removed the following, added in this edit. It is some kind of essay about mental health, not encyclopedic content. It originally came from a dissertation called Understanding of public open spaces in urban context by someone called Arjun Singh. Polygnotus (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Impacts on mental health
The advocacy for mental health is becoming increasingly rampant, given the psychiatric illnesses that contribute significantly to morbidity and mortality in the United States. Health disparities existing within and amongst communities make this issue of paramount importance. The correlation between psychological distress and socioeconomic status (SES) has previously been examined. Sugiyama demonstrates that psychological distress is positively correlated with lower SES. A contributing factor to this socioeconomic disparity is the higher amounts of green space among residents with higher SES. Access to and active utilization of urban green space results in decreased rates of anxiety and depression, which are among the most common mental health illnesses. The positive association between mental health and green space was also supported by Van den Berg. The positive influence of urban green space on a community's perceived sense of mental wellness is achieved through uplifted moods, decreased stress levels, relaxation, recuperation, and increased human contact, which in itself promotes mental well-being. Given the burden of mental illness in the United States, it is important to examine the impact of urban green space on mental health and utilize this information to promote mental well-being across communities.

Modern research evidence demonstrates urban green space has positive impacts on population level mental health. Evidence shows that designated green space in urban areas facilitates social interaction, fosters well-being, increases opportunities for exercise, and contributes to improvement in common mental health problems such as anxiety, depression, and stress. One randomized trial studied two groups: one composed of residents living in a neighborhood that had a greening intervention and one that did not. Among the participants who now live in a green neighborhood, those feeling depressed decreased by 41.5% and self-reported poor mental health decreased by 62.8%. Another study indicates that "the difference in depressive symptoms between an individual living in an environment with no tree canopy and an environment with tree canopy is larger than the difference in symptoms associated between individuals who are uninsured compared with individuals with private insurance". Incorporating green space into urban design is an impactful, equitable, affordable, and accessible way to decrease the burden of mental health.

Further research on urban open spaces have recently found a positive link associating a mental health and well-being with increased access to green spaces in urban areas. The RESIDE Project, for example, has found a dose-response effect where the total area of public green spaces is associated with a greater overall wellbeing. Based on the study participants' survey responses, urban neighborhoods with more access to green spaces are more likely to report increased optimism, perception of usefulness, confidence, social interaction, and interest in new activities. Additionally, individuals living in neighborhoods within walking distance of parks have more opportunities to participate in recreational activities which is also associated with positive health outcomes. Another study published in the Journal of Epidemiology compared the effect of green spaces on 2,169 pairs of twins. After adjusting for genetic confounders and childhood environments, researchers found significant association between green spaces and decreased depression. Both examples of green spaces in urban areas illustrate how individual's environment can affect mental health and highlight the importance of access to green spaces.