The linkages between urban green spaces and residents’ wellbeing: A conceptual framework
List of Authors
  • Alan Wee-Khang Keh , William Wee-Lim Hew

Keyword
  • Organisational Performance, Strategic Agility, Dynamic Capability, I-Top Strategic Agility Model

Abstract
  • Sustainable development has been one of the biggest challenges the world has ever faced in recent decades. The term sustainable development is a dynamic process which brings together global and local concerns while linking social, economic, and environmental issues in order to resolve the needs of both current and future generations. It is therefore important to achieve sustainable development as urban residents' wellbeing, meaning their health, sense of security, freedom and social relations with others are heavily dependent upon it. In the modern era, sustainable development has become even more challenging because the nature of urban development which is often intertwined with urban issues such as urban sprawl, immigration, city planning. Similarly in Malaysia, the rapid urbanisation, transformation and expansion of urban cities has pushed the country towards the need for urban sustainability. Nonetheless, the destruction of natural green spaces, noise and overcrowding is one of the negative implications in compact cities that threatens urban residents’ wellbeing. This is worrisome because the urban green spaces are essential in promoting social interaction, health and wellbeing. Therefore, urban green spaces are among the most important sustainable urban development elements to integrate in residential development initiatives to achieve residents’ wellbeing. This paper provides insight into the function of spatial values of these urban green spaces in explaining residents' wellbeing. In this paper, there are three dimensions namely urban green spatial characteristics, urban green spatial value, and residents' wellbeing. This paper posits that favourable urban green spatial characteristics improves the perceptions of urban green spatial values, and consequently promotes residents' sense of wellbeing.

Reference
  • 1. Assaye, R., Suryabhagavan, K. V., Balakrishnan, M., & Hameed, S. (2017). Geo-spatial approach for urban green space and environmental quality assessment: a case study in Addis Ababa City. Journal of Geographic Information System, 9(2), 191-206.

    2. Bertram, C., & Rehdanz, K. (2015). Preferences for cultural urban ecosystem services: Comparing attitudes, perception, and use. Ecosystem Services, 12, 187-199.

    3. Bolund, P., & Hunhammar, S. (1999). Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological economics, 29(2), 293-301.

    4. Carrus, G., Lafortezza, R., Colangelo, G., Dentamaro, I., Scopelliti, M., & Sanesi, G. (2013). Relations between naturalness and perceived restorativeness of different urban green spaces. Psyecology, 4(3), 227-244.

    5. Chang, J., Qu, Z., Xu, R., Pan, K., Xu, B., Min, Y., Ren, Y., Yang, G. & Ge, Y. (2017). Assessing the ecosystem services provided by urban green spaces along urban center-edge gradients. Scientific reports, 7(1), 1-9.

    6. Enssle, F., & Kabisch, N. (2020). Urban green spaces for the social interaction, health and well-being of older people—An integrated view of urban ecosystem services and socio-environmental justice. Environmental science & policy, 109, 36-44.

    7. Franěk, M. (2013). Environmental factors influencing pedestrian walking speed. Perceptual and motor skills, 116(3), 992-1019.

    8. Gunnarsson, B., Knez, I., Hedblom, M., and Sang, Å (2017). Effects of biodiversity and environment-related attitude on perception of urban green space. Urban Ecosyst. 20, 37–49.

    9. Hedblom, M., Knez, I., Gunarsson, B., and Ode Sang, Å (2017). Evaluations of natural sounds in urban greenery: potential impact for urban nature preservation. R. Soc. Open Sci. 4:170037

    10. Howley, P., Scott, M., & Redmond, D. (2009). Sustainability versus liveability: an investigation of neighbourhood satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52(6), 847–864

    11. Hurd, A. R., & Anderson, D. M. (2010). The park and recreation professional's handbook. Human Kinetics.

    12. Knez, I., & Eliasson, I. (2017). Relationships between personal and collective place identity and well-being in mountain communities. Frontiers in Psychology, 79.

    13. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and psychological measurement, 30(3), 607-610.

    14. Kim, K. C., & Byrne, L. B. (2006). Biodiversity loss and the taxonomic bottleneck: emerging biodiversity science. Ecological Research, 21(6), 794-810

    15. Levy, M., Babu, S. C., Hamilton, K., Rhoe, V., Catenazzi, A., Chen, M., Reid, W. V., Sengupta, D., Cai, X., Bond, W. & Balmford, A. (2005). Ecosystem conditions and human well-being.

    16. Loveridge, R., Sallu, S. M., Pesha, I. J., & Marshall, A. R. (2020). Measuring human wellbeing: A protocol for selecting local indicators. Environmental Science & Policy, 114, 461-469.

    17. Milcu, A. I., Hanspach, J., Abson, D., & Fischer, J. (2013). Cultural ecosystem services: a literature review and prospects for future research. Ecology and society, 18(3).

    18. Ode Sang, Å., Knez, I., Gunnarsson, B., & Hedblom, M. (2016). The effects of naturalness, gender, and age on how urban green space is perceived and used. Urban For Urban Green 18: 268–276.

    19. Oleksy, T., & Wnuk, A. (2017). Catch them all and increase your place attachment! The role of location-based augmented reality games in changing people-place relations. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 3-8.

    20. Rainey, K., Dancy, M., Mickelson, R., Stearns, E., & Moller, S. (2018). Race and gender differences in how sense of belonging influences decisions to major in STEM. International journal of STEM education, 5(1), 1-14.

    21. Reid, W. V., Mooney, H. A., Cropper, A., Capistrano, D., Carpenter, S. R., Chopra, K., Dasgupta, P., Dietz, T., Duraiappah, A. K., Hassan, R., Kasperson, R., Leemans, R., May, R. M., McMichael, T., Pingali, P., Samper, C., Scholes, R., Watson, R. T., Zakri, A. H., Shidong, Z., Neville, J. A., Elena, B., Pushpam, K., Marcus, J. L., Ciara, R., Henk, S., Jillian, T. & Zurek, M. B. (2005). Millennium ecosystem assessment synthesis report.

    22. Rostami, R., Lamit, H., Khoshnava, S. M., & Rostami, R. (2014). The role of historical Persian gardens on the health status of contemporary urban residents. EcoHealth, 11(3), 308-321.

    23. Park, B. J., Furuya, K., Kasetani, T., Takayama, N., Kagawa, T., & Miyazaki, Y. (2011). Relationship between psychological responses and physical environments in forest settings. Landscape and Urban Planning, 102(1), 24-32.

    24. Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010). Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of environmental psychology, 30(1), 1-10.

    25. TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity). (2011). Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban Management.

    26. Turner, R. J., & Brown, R. L. (2010). Social support and mental health. A handbook for the study of mental health: Social contexts, theories, and systems, 2, 200-212.