IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i21p15262-d1267051.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sustainability of Urban Parks: Applicable Methodological Framework for a Simple Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Teresa González

    (Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Panamericana, Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer 101, Aguascalientes 20296, Aguascalientes, Mexico)

  • Pia Berger

    (Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Panamericana, Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer 101, Aguascalientes 20296, Aguascalientes, Mexico)

  • Claudia N. Sánchez

    (Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Panamericana, Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer 101, Aguascalientes 20296, Aguascalientes, Mexico)

  • Faezeh Mahichi

    (Asia Pacific Studies (APS), Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University (APU), 1-1 Jumonjibaru, Beppu 874-8577, Japan)

Abstract

Urban parks are central to advancing urban sustainability and improving overall quality of life by providing green spaces that promote physical and mental well-being, mitigate environmental issues, and foster community cohesion. However, there is a lack of methodologies that measure these benefits and provide a sustainability rating. In this study, we propose a valuable tool for measuring the sustainability level of urban parks: low (0–50%), medium (51–79%), and high (80–100%). It employs effective and affordable measures for the daily management of urban parks. It is rooted in the three pillars of sustainability: environmental, social, and economic. We have defined 19 indicators (e.g., renewable energy and energy efficiency, environmental impact on society) and 50 criteria (e.g., clean energy generation, water workshops). A multi-criteria analysis facilitated the selection process for these indicators and criteria. This methodology is developed by characterizing and systematically documenting the park’s day-to-day operations. We present a case study of Cárcamos Park in Guanajuato, Mexico. Through this real-life scenario, we demonstrate our methodology’s high applicability and effectiveness. The sustainability assessment of Cárcamos Park reveals a level of 57%, with the environmental pillar at 47.7%, the economic pillar at 49%, and the social pillar at 75%. The adaptability of our methodology during the design phase of new parks plays a crucial role in shaping sustainable park layouts. Park managers can apply our procedure to any park, evaluate their sustainability status, and detect areas of opportunity.

Suggested Citation

  • Teresa González & Pia Berger & Claudia N. Sánchez & Faezeh Mahichi, 2023. "Sustainability of Urban Parks: Applicable Methodological Framework for a Simple Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-22, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:21:p:15262-:d:1267051
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/21/15262/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/21/15262/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marufa Sultana & Max Müller & Magdalena Meyer & Ilse Storch, 2022. "Neighboring Green Network and Landscape Metrics Explain Biodiversity within Small Urban Green Areas—A Case Study on Birds," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-11, May.
    2. Hang Yan & Zhijiang Liu, 2023. "A New Perspective on the Evaluation of Urbanization Sustainability: Urban Health Examination," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-18, June.
    3. Baral, Nabin & Stern, Marc J. & Bhattarai, Ranju, 2008. "Contingent valuation of ecotourism in Annapurna conservation area, Nepal: Implications for sustainable park finance and local development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 218-227, June.
    4. Rammel, Christian & van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M., 2003. "Evolutionary policies for sustainable development: adaptive flexibility and risk minimising," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(2-3), pages 121-133, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Wai Soe Zin & Aya Suzuki & Kelvin S.-H. Peh & Alexandros Gasparatos, 2019. "Economic Value of Cultural Ecosystem Services from Recreation in Popa Mountain National Park, Myanmar: A Comparison of Two Rapid Valuation Techniques," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    2. Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, 2014. "Sustainable development in ecological economics," Chapters, in: Giles Atkinson & Simon Dietz & Eric Neumayer & Matthew Agarwala (ed.), Handbook of Sustainable Development, chapter 3, pages 41-54, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Salehnia, Mina & Hayati, Baballah & Ghahremanzadeh, Mohammad & Molaei, Morteza, 2015. "Estimating the Value of Improvement in Lake Urmia’s Environmental Situation Using Choice Experiment," International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development (IJAMAD), Iranian Association of Agricultural Economics, vol. 5(4), December.
    4. Marletto, Gerardo, 2011. "Structure, agency and change in the car regime. A review of the literature," European Transport \ Trasporti Europei, ISTIEE, Institute for the Study of Transport within the European Economic Integration, issue 47, pages 71-88.
    5. Valeria Costantini & Francesco Crespi, 2013. "Public policies for a sustainable energy sector: regulation, diversity and fostering of innovation," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 401-429, April.
    6. van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2008. "Optimal diversity: Increasing returns versus recombinant innovation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(3-4), pages 565-580, December.
    7. Nill, Jan & Kemp, Ren, 2009. "Evolutionary approaches for sustainable innovation policies: From niche to paradigm?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 668-680, May.
    8. Hahn, Thomas & McDermott, Constance & Ituarte-Lima, Claudia & Schultz, Maria & Green, Tom & Tuvendal, Magnus, 2015. "Purposes and degrees of commodification: Economic instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services need not rely on markets or monetary valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 74-82.
    9. Daniela M. Salvioni & Simona Franzoni & Raffaella Cassano, 2017. "Sustainability in the Higher Education System: An Opportunity to Improve Quality and Image," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-27, May.
    10. Grzegorz Drozdowski, 2021. "Economic Calculus Qua an Instrument to Support Sustainable Development under Increasing Risk," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, January.
    11. Halkos, George E. & Jones, Nikoleta, 2012. "Modeling the effect of social factors on improving biodiversity protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 90-99.
    12. Kostas Bithas, 2008. "Tracing operational conditions for the Ecologically Sustainable Economic Development: the Pareto optimality and the preservation of the biological crucial levels," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 373-390, June.
    13. Kuokkanen, A. & Nurmi, A. & Mikkilä, M. & Kuisma, M. & Kahiluoto, H. & Linnanen, L., 2018. "Agency in regime destabilization through the selection environment: The Finnish food system’s sustainability transition," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1513-1522.
    14. Wei Fang & Gloria Rui Gou & Lewis T. O. Cheung & Lincoln Fok & Alice S. Y. Chow & Ke Zhang, 2024. "An Investigation of Willingness to Pay for Geopark Management and Conservation: A Case Study of Geotourists in the Greater China Region," Resources, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-16, February.
    15. Francesco Crespi & Claudia Ghisetti & Francesco Quatraro, 2015. "Taxonomy of Implemented Policy Instruments to Foster the Production of Green Technologies and Improve Environmental and Economic Performance. WWWforEurope Working Paper No. 90," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 58131, April.
    16. Marc Prieto & Assen Slim, 2009. "Évaluation des actifs environnementaux : quels prix pour quelles valeurs ?," Post-Print hal-01273549, HAL.
    17. Kangkang Yu & Cheng Qian & Lingbo Zhang, 2021. "Understanding sustainable development flexibility: An information perspective," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 2173-2183, May.
    18. Francesco Crespi & Claudia Ghisetti & Francesco Quatraro, 2015. "Environmental and innovation policies for the evolution of green technologies: a survey and a test," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 5(2), pages 343-370, December.
    19. Jerry Courvisanos, 2012. "Political Economy of Innovation and Sustainable Development," Chapters, in: Blandine Laperche & Nadine Levratto & Dimitri Uzunidis (ed.), Crisis, Innovation and Sustainable Development, chapter 8, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Chuang, Ming Chih & Ma, Hwong Wen, 2013. "Energy security and improvements in the function of diversity indices—Taiwan energy supply structure case study," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 9-20.

    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:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:21:p:15262-:d:1267051. 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.