IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i24p9357-d461945.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Inclusive Parks across Ages: Multifunction and Urban Open Space Management for Children, Adolescents, and the Elderly

Author

Listed:
  • Elin P. Sundevall

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, Planning and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 66, 230 53 Alnarp, Sweden)

  • Märit Jansson

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, Planning and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 66, 230 53 Alnarp, Sweden)

Abstract

In urban areas where increased density has caused loss of urban open space (UOS), there is a need for high-quality parks that are inclusive and fit for multiple user groups. To make parks more inclusive, UOS management may need to consider multifunction and the perspectives of various age groups in future development and maintenance activities. Walking interviews were conducted in a park in central Landskrona, Sweden, with children, adolescents, and elderly users, and also with the head park manager of the city. The results revealed different perspectives among the three age groups of users concerning affordances and UOS management. The manager described user-oriented management to support multifunction and inclusion, including user participation. All user groups studied showed an appreciation of liveliness, contact with nature, social places for their own age group, clean and safe parks, and a variety of different atmospheres and activities in the park. Social multifunction can be developed in programmed or non-programmed ways, but some functions interfere with each other. UOS managers can develop parks to suit different age groups, promote user participation within management, and develop social multifunction to create inclusive parks for various age groups.

Suggested Citation

  • Elin P. Sundevall & Märit Jansson, 2020. "Inclusive Parks across Ages: Multifunction and Urban Open Space Management for Children, Adolescents, and the Elderly," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-17, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:24:p:9357-:d:461945
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/24/9357/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/24/9357/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arne Arnberger & Renate Eder, 2011. "The influence of age on recreational trail preferences of urban green-space visitors: a discrete choice experiment with digitally calibrated images," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(7), pages 891-908, November.
    2. Märit Jansson & Nina Vogel & Hanna Fors & Thomas B. Randrup, 2019. "The governance of landscape management: new approaches to urban open space development," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(8), pages 952-965, November.
    3. Andrej Christian Lindholst & Sidney George Sullivan & Cecil C. Konijnendijk van den Bosch & Hanna Fors, 2015. "The Inherent Politics of Managing the Quality of Urban Green Spaces," Planning Practice & Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(4), pages 376-392, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Liu, Yang & Kwan, Mei-Po & Wong, Man Sing & Yu, Changda, 2023. "Current methods for evaluating people's exposure to green space: A scoping review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 338(C).
    2. Kinga Kimic & Paulina Polko, 2022. "The Use of Urban Parks by Older Adults in the Context of Perceived Security," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-20, March.
    3. Peng Chen & Wei Wang & Chong Qian & Mengqiu Cao & Tianren Yang, 2024. "Gravity-based models for evaluating urban park accessibility: Why does localized selection of attractiveness factors and travel modes matter?," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 51(4), pages 904-922, May.
    4. Valkiria Amaya & Matthias Chardon & Thibauld Moulaert & Nicolas Vuillerme, 2024. "Systematic Review of the Use of the Walk-Along Interview Method to Assess Factors, Facilitators and Barriers Related to Perceived Neighborhood Environment and Walking Activity in Healthy Older Adults," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-22, January.
    5. Minou Weijs-Perrée & Gamze Dane & Pauline van den Berg, 2021. "Editorial for the Special Issue on “Experiencing the City: The Relation between Urban Design and People’s Well-Being”," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-6, March.
    6. Le Zhang & Xiaoxiao Xu & Yanlong Guo, 2023. "The Impact of a Child-Friendly Design on Children’s Activities in Urban Community Pocket Parks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-21, June.
    7. Tianrong Xu & Nikmatul Adha Nordin & Ainoriza Mohd Aini, 2022. "Urban Green Space and Subjective Well-Being of Older People: A Systematic Literature Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-29, October.
    8. Valkiria Amaya & Matthias Chardon & Helen Klein & Thibauld Moulaert & Nicolas Vuillerme, 2022. "What Do We Know about the Use of the Walk-along Method to Identify the Perceived Neighborhood Environment Correlates of Walking Activity in Healthy Older Adults: Methodological Considerations Related ," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-37, September.
    9. Shruti Ashish Lahoti & Shalini Dhyani & Osamu Saito, 2024. "Exploring the Factors Shaping Urban Greenspace Interactions: A Case Study of Nagpur, India," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-16, September.
    10. Märit Jansson & Julia Schneider, 2023. "The Welfare Landscape and Densification—Residents’ Relations to Local Outdoor Environments Affected by Infill Development," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-17, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sergio Cappucci & Serena Nappi & Andrea Cappelli, 2022. "Green Public Areas and Urban Open Spaces Management: New GreenCAL Tool Algorithms and Circular Economy Implications," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-25, June.
    2. Sari Suomalainen & Outi Tahvonen & Helena Kahiluoto, 2022. "From Participation to Involvement in Urban Open Space Management and Maintenance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-19, October.
    3. Mai-Thi Ta & Léa Tardieu & Harold Levrel, 2022. "Characterizing the Demand Side of Urban Greening to Inform Urban Planning – A Discrete Choice Experiment in the Paris Metropolitan Region," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 132(6), pages 907-949.
    4. Ling Qiu & Qujing Chen & Tian Gao, 2021. "The Effects of Urban Natural Environments on Preference and Self-Reported Psychological Restoration of the Elderly," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-14, January.
    5. Liu, Zhaoyang & Hanley, Nick & Campbell, Danny, 2020. "Linking urban air pollution with residents’ willingness to pay for greenspace: A choice experiment study in Beijing," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    6. Carme Miralles-Guasch & Javier Dopico & Xavier Delclòs-Alió & Pablo Knobel & Oriol Marquet & Roser Maneja-Zaragoza & Jasper Schipperijn & Guillem Vich, 2019. "Natural Landscape, Infrastructure, and Health: The Physical Activity Implications of Urban Green Space Composition among the Elderly," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-14, October.
    7. Nadine Schuurman & Leah Rosenkrantz & Scott A. Lear, 2021. "Environmental Preferences and Concerns of Recreational Road Runners," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(12), pages 1-19, June.
    8. Kinga Kimic & Paulina Polko, 2022. "The Use of Urban Parks by Older Adults in the Context of Perceived Security," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-20, March.
    9. Fruth, Erik & Kvistad, Michele & Marshall, Joe & Pfeifer, Lena & Rau, Luisa & Sagebiel, Julian & Soto, Daniel & Tarpey, John & Weir, Jessica & Winiarski, Bradyn, 2019. "Economic valuation of street-level urban greening: A case study from an evolving mixed-use area in Berlin," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    10. Xin Xu & Jing Hu & Li Lv & Jiaojiao Yin & Xiaobo Tian, 2022. "Research on the Matching Relationship between the Supply of Urban Ecological Recreational Space and the Demand of Residents—A Case Study of an Urban Development Area in Wuhan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-19, January.
    11. Renate Eder & Arne Arnberger, 2016. "How heterogeneous are adolescents’ preferences for natural and semi-natural riverscapes as recreational settings?," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(5), pages 555-568, July.
    12. Gosal, Arjan S. & Geijzendorffer, Ilse R. & Václavík, Tomáš & Poulin, Brigitte & Ziv, Guy, 2019. "Using social media, machine learning and natural language processing to map multiple recreational beneficiaries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    13. Piaggio, Matías, 2021. "The value of public urban green spaces: Measuring the effects of proximity to and size of urban green spaces on housing market values in San José, Costa Rica," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    14. Marianne Lefebvre & Pauline Laille & Masha Maslianskaia-Pautrel, 2020. "Individual preferences regarding pesticide-free management of green-spaces: a discret choice experiment with French citizens," Working Papers 2020.02, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    15. Marianne Lefebvre & Masha Maslianskaia-Pautrel & Pauline Laille, 2022. "Alternative adaptation scenarios towards pesticide-free urban green spaces: Welfare implication for French citizens," Post-Print hal-03694169, HAL.
    16. Pauline Laille & Marianne Lefebvre & Masha Maslianskaia-Pautrel, 2020. "Individual preferences regarding pesticide-free management of green-spaces: a discret choice experiment with French citizens," Working Papers hal-02867639, HAL.
    17. Chengxiang Tang & Yucheng Zhang, 2016. "Using discrete choice experiments to value preferences for air quality improvement: the case of curbing haze in urban China," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(8), pages 1473-1494, August.
    18. Talpur, Musharaf & Brouwer, Roy & Koetse, Mark, 2019. "Opt-Out Forced Choice Effect in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Discrete Choice Models: A Gender Perspective," MPRA Paper 99631, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Toledo-Gallegos, Valeria M. & My, Nguyen H.D. & Tuan, Tran Huu & Börger, Tobias, 2022. "Valuing ecosystem services and disservices of blue/green infrastructure. Evidence from a choice experiment in Vietnam," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 114-128.
    20. Marianne Lefebvre & Masha Maslianskaia Pautrel & Pauline Laille, 2018. "Public preferences for pesticide-free urban green spaces: a socio-economic survey [Acceptation du "Zéro-pesticides" dans les espaces publics : Étude socio-économique]," Working Papers hal-02519184, HAL.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:24:p:9357-:d:461945. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.