Psychosocial Implications for Disparities in Urban Green Space Equity

Psychosocial Implications for Disparities in Urban Green Space Equity.

Bailey Adams & Matthew Foreman

a1759284 & a1762656

G.5.3

“Design always presents itself as serving the human but its real ambition is to redesign the human. The history of design is therefore a history of evolving conceptions of the human. To talk about design is to talk about the state of our species.”

Beatrize Colomina and Mark Wigley. 2016. Are we Human? Notes on an Archaeology of Design. Zürich: Lars Mülller Publisher

Contents

Summary

Position

Humanity’s Impact on the Designed Environment

Critiquing “Are We Human?”

Psychosocial Implications of Green Space Disparities

Context

Urban Green Infrastructure

Foundations of Urban Green Infrastructure Research

Supporting Perspectives on Green Infrastructure

Sources

Understanding and Applying Sources

Discussion

Bridging Systematic Barriers

Shaping Social and Psychological Wellbeing

Conclusion References

Summary

Human implications of inequitable distributed urban green space are crucial considerations within urban planning, impacting social equity and public health. The discourse focuses on disparities in urban green space and their psychosocial implications, highlighting the issue of unequal access to green infrastructure and its impact on psychosocial well-being. We argue equitable distribution of urban green infrastructure is crucial for mitigating health disparities and promoting psychosocial well-being. We also argue experiences of nature significantly influence social and psychological development. Urban green infrastructure distribution impacts health and equity; inaction risks future well-being and results in systematic barriers to health and human outcomes.

1. A green wall at City of Adelaide’s Pirie Street service centre (Source: Internet - Photo by City of Adelaide)

Humanity’s Impact on the Designed Environment

The philosophical perspectives analyses the relationship between design and humans presented in the book ‘Are We Human?’ by Colomina and Wigley specifically focusing on chapter two, ‘The Plastic Human,’ and chapter four, ‘The Invention of the Human.’ The writing emphasises the reciprocal relationship between humans and their surroundings, highlighting the significant role of the environment in shaping human outcomes. This inquiry seeks to investigate the intricate and dynamic relationship between human beings and their designed environment.

Chapter two presents the “Plastic Human” and discusses the instability and malleability of the human species.² The text suggests that the greater the malleability and indeterminacy of humanity, the more profound its impact on shaping the environment. This plasticity empowers humans not only to redesign themselves but also to shape the entire planet. This narrative pushes the boundaries of creation, prompting the response between the relationship of the environment they produce and humanity itself. Throughout this exploration, a significant theme that arises is the gap between human intentions and outcomes. This gap portrays the concept of the Earth being a dynamic design studio, where humans tinker with unexpected consequences.

Chapter Four “The Invention of The Human” challenges conventional notions of human evolution. Emphasising the symbiotic relationship between tools and humans highlights that each not only influences but actively produces the other. This perspective highlights the close relationship between humans and their artifacts, depicting each artifact as an integral component of human biology and cognitive processes. Rather than solely viewing the human brain as a source, it is seen as a generator of innovative tools, exposing a multifaceted dynamic that influences human cognition and sense of self. This represents the variability of human thinking and the perpetual tension between being the cause and the effect in the designed world contribute to the inventive nature of the human species.

Critiquing “Are We Human?”

The relevance of Colomina and Wigley’s perspective on “Are We Human?” is crucial in understanding the intricate relationship between humans and their environment. Critiquing their perspective from a psychosocial perspective allows for the exploration of the complexities of human-environment interactions.

The environmental-human dynamics outlined by Colomina and Wigley provide a framework to analyse the relationship between the environment and human behaviour. Understanding how these urban green spaces impact psychological and social development can contribute to a nuanced discussion about how the environment influences human behaviour and outcomes.⁴ It is crucial to recognise the effects of urban environments on well-being and development, especially in areas with limited resources and inadequate infrastructure. This recognition can also help identify systematic barriers, such as disparities in green infrastructure, resulting in unequal outcomes in oppressive urban settings.

Our understanding of the human-environment interaction has been broadened by exploring the unique perspectives presented by Colomina and Wigley. The interdisciplinary method used in this research, which draws from psychology, sociology, and design,

provides a comprehensive understanding of the psychosocial aspects affected by discrepancies in green infrastructure. This interdisciplinary approach is vital in tackling complex urban issues and creating solutions that consider environmental and social factors. By bringing together diverse perspectives, the research aims to advocate a more inclusive approach to urban planning and design that meets the needs of various communities.

Overall, engaging with Colomina and Wigley’s perspective from a psychosocial standpoint, enhances our exploration of interactions between humans and their environment. This supplements the discourse with depth, allowing for a more comprehensive understanding of approaches to urban planning and design.

Psychosocial Implications of Green Space Disparities

The discussion examines the complex relationship between human outcomes and green infrastructure disparities, in particular on psychosocial factors (psychological and social) that shape human outcomes. These elements illustrate the complex relationship between human malleability and the designed environment. Employing critical and historical reading methodology, this approach integrates studies of historical instances of green infrastructure disparities and psychosocial human outcomes. The discussion engages with and critiques Colomina and Wigley’s perspective on “Are We Human?” which presents that humans and their environments influence each other’s design (See Figure 2).⁵ We propose that humans are primarily influenced and constrained by their environment, suggesting a more deterministic relationship where the environment predominantly shapes human behaviour and outcomes. The argument focuses on identifying discrepancies in access, quality, and quantity of green infrastructure that shape developmental and health outcomes, promoting discussions of systematic barriers in urban planning.

2. First copy of book Are We Human? Notes on an archaeology of design by Beatriz Colomina & Mark Wigley. (Source: Internet - Photo by Poyraz Tütüncü)

Scope of Urban Green Infrastructure

Urban green infrastructure is a vital concept within the field of urban planning and environmental management, addressing the challenges posed by rapid urbanisation and climate change. The retention and establishment of green spaces, including parks, gardens, and urban forests, have become increasingly critical for maintaining ecological equilibrium, promoting residents’ well-being, and mitigating environmental risks. Core arguments in urban green infrastructure literature emphasise the multifaceted benefits and importance of balancing the urban ecosystem. This includes its role in promoting biodiversity, improving air and water quality, carbon sequestration, reducing urban heat island effects, and benefits to health and wellbeing.

The broad mapping of ideas within the research context encompasses various themes, including the ecological functions, socioeconomic impacts on communities, policy frameworks guiding its implementation, challenges associated with establishment and maintenance, and health implications. The research context provides a narrower scope into urban green infrastructure management, specifically examining how variations in access and spatial distribution affect social and health outcomes.

A review of the existing literature identifies several recurring themes. It highlights the establishment of the relationship between wellbeing and nature, particularly how access to green spaces impacts social and psychological well-being. The literature also highlights the intricate complexity of human-environment relationships, emphasising the inadequacy of a one-size-fits-all approach (See Figure 3).

Additionally, the studies acknowledge the challenges of maintaining and managing green infrastructure amid population growth and urbanisation. Studies also scrutinise the unequal distribution of access and quality of green infrastructure, taking into account demographic factors such as racial, cultural, and socioeconomic status, and their influence on planning and resource allocation. The scope of research emphasises the significance of evaluating the outcomes of proposed solutions and their effectiveness in addressing disparities in access and quality of green infrastructure.

Monash University Forum landscape designed by Taylor Cullity Lethlean with Peter Elliot Architecture and Urban Design, located on Kulin nation land (Source: Internet - Photo by Will Salter)

Foundations of Urban Green Infrastructure Research

The research conducted by Rachel and Stephen Kaplan during the 1970’s and 1980’s significantly contributed to the understanding of the intricate relationship between humans and their environment.⁶ Their research has laid the foundation for recognising the influence of green infrastructure on the human population, providing a theoretical framework for further studies. The emphasis on the importance of access to natural environments for psychological restoration and stress reduction was refined and elaborated upon in their book, establishing the theory of ‘Attention Restoration Theory (ART)’.⁷ Rachel and Stephen Kaplan’s influential research is a confirmation of the significance of green infrastructure in enhancing human well-being. Their work continues to be highly relevant in shaping our comprehension of the mutually beneficial relationship between individuals and their environment.

Stephen R. Kellert’s research analyses the niche field of the developmental outcomes of childhood exposure to nature. His perspective examines the relationship between humans and the environment, specifically focusing on how children’s interactions with nature influence their social and psychological development. His research emphasises the significance of nature experiences in shaping a child’s emotional, cognitive, and evaluative growth.⁸

Kellert thoroughly explores the intricacies of child development, identifying the emergence of distinct values across different developmental stages. In the initial stage (ages three to six), children begin to form values regarding nature, emphasising utilitarian, dominionistic, and negativistic values. In the second phase (ages six to twelve), humanistic, symbolic, aesthetic, and scientific values develop.⁹ Kellert additionally raises concerns about the diminishing opportunities for children to engage with nature due to environmental degradation and urbanisation, suggesting potential consequences for their psychological well-being and development.¹⁰ Kellert creates the basis for the added depth and nuance to the complexity of this relationship with a focus on key developmental outcomes.

Frances Kuo’s researches into the profound benefits of green infrastructure on health, particularly in reducing stress and anxiety.

In areas with higher coverage of green spaces, like residential areas with 90% green space, a lower prevalence of stressrelated disorders is observed compared to denser urban areas.¹¹ Identifying, the presence of green spaces contributes to improved cognitive function, concentration, and well-being. Kuo’s work highlights the vital role of nature in promoting mental well-being,

this represents the need for integrated green infrastructure in urban planning and design.

They elaborate that residents’ personal characteristics and socioeconomic status have no significant influence on the mental health benefits derived from green environments. Studies also show a positive correlation between neighbourhood greenness and residents’ mental health, even after adjusting for socio-economic factors.¹² The therapeutic effects of green spaces are multifaceted, helping individuals cope with stress, recover from adversity, and foster psychological resilience.¹³

Supporting Perspectives on Green Infrastructure

Building on the discourse presented, supplementary sources reinforce the themes discussed. Additional sources contribute to the discussion regarding the relation of green space to health. Notably, Cinderby et al. and Breuste et al. emphasise the importance of access to nearby parks and the role of natural settings in reducing stress, improving cognitive function, alleviating depressive symptoms, and promoting relaxation. These studies further outline the positive effects of green spaces on mental health, reducing anxiety, and enhancing overall physical wellbeing.14,15

De Haas et al. and Ferguson et al. highlight the challenges that green infrastructure faces in urban environments, identifying urbanisation as one of the key challenges in the retention and establishment of green space. They also express concern over the unequal distribution of urban green spaces. Promoting discussions of environment injustices as low-income, socially marginalised, and racial minority groups have less access to such spaces than higher socio-economic groups.16,17

Irvine et al. investigates the ecological and psychological value of urban green space, highlighting the importance of nature.

The study examines the impact of urbanisation on biodiversity and the unequal allocation of green spaces, which leads to health inequalities. This research provides insights into the distribution of green spaces and its consequences on public health and wellbeing.18

Cocks and Shackleton, as well as Sugiyama et al, suggest that there is added complexity to the dynamics between humans and their environment. Sugiyama et al.’s results contradict the existing discourse, that green infrastructure of parks does not have a significant impact on reducing psychological distress. Rather, alluding that other factors must be taken into account, such as the quality and maintenance of the green spaces, as well as expanded urban green typologies.19 Cocks and Shackleton propose that urban green infrastructure affects individuals differently based on cultural and spiritual interpretations of nature, rather than a one-size-fitsall approach.20

Wolch et al. Identifies urban green space as critical for human wellbeing, referencing ecosystem services. Emphasising that access to green space is often unequal, exacerbates public health challenges, particularly for marginalised communities. The authors propose

interventions aimed at creating “green enough” infrastructure, prioritising collaboration with communities to ensure equitable distribution that address environmental injustice.21

These sources provide a vast range of perspectives regarding urban green infrastructure and are significant in supporting the understanding of its multifaceted influence. Through the combination of various studies, it becomes evident that urban green spaces play a crucial role in shaping psychosocial developmental outcomes.

Understanding and Applying Sources

The sources cover a comprehensive perspective on the relationship between green spaces and human well-being. They provide insights into the dynamics of nature-related psychosocial outcomes, contributing to a thorough understanding of this relationship. Together, they offer various perspectives that cover a significant range discussed within the research context.

in ecological gentrification.27 This perspective raises important questions that need to be addressed in future research.

The works of Kaplan, Kuo, Cinderby et al. and Breuste et al. establish a solid foundation for comprehending the link between nature and human well-being.22,23 These sources provide details into the intricacies and theories of the health and medical implications of diverse experiences in nature, emphasising the vital relationship between health and access to nature.24,25

Kellert offers valuable insights into a niche component within the context of urban greening research, they particularly emphasise how access to nature can affect childhood development and how such access disparities can result in different developmental outcomes.26 Wolch et al. presents an undervalued perspective, discussing the common theme of unequal distribution of green infrastructure and how the solutions implemented to target this often result

De Haas et al, Irvine et al, and Ferguson et al contribute to the discussion, highlighting urbanisation as one of the key challenges in the retention and establishment of green space.28 Additionally, they express concern over the unequal distribution of urban green spaces, indicating systematic barriers.29,30 Cocks and Shackleton and Sugiyama et al. both add nuance to the discussion about the relationship between humans and nature. Cocks and Shackleton argue that research in this field often has a Western approach and that it’s important to consider demographic background, culture, and spiritual relations that individuals have with nature.31 Sugiyama et al. contradicts the typical perspective between human well-being and nature, emphasising the need to consider different perspectives and the added complexity of quantifying this relationship.32

The selected sources were directly relevant to the topic and contributed significantly to the understanding of the relationship between access to urban green spaces and psychosocial outcomes. The sources aimed to provide a variety of perspectives, allowing for a broader understanding of the factors affecting psychosocial

outcomes in relation to urban greening and human well-being.

Primary sources such as Kaplan, Kellert, and Kuo were selected for their foundational theoretical frameworks and evidence supporting the positive correlation between access to green spaces and human well-being outcomes. These sources provide comprehensive insights into how nature influences psychological and social development.

Supplementary studies by Cinderby et al., Breuste et al., De Haas et al., Ferguson et al., Irvine et al., Cocks and Shackleton, Sugiyama et al., and Wolch et al. were included to complement the primary research by offering diverse perspectives that address the multifaceted dynamics inherent in urban green infrastructure and human well-being. These secondary sources supplement the discussion by providing additional insights into the complexities surrounding the relationship between humans and urban green spaces.

Other sources were omitted due to the lack of direct relevance to the research theme or if their content significantly overlapped with the selected ones. The prioritisation of sources directly addressing the psychosocial implications of disparities in urban green space equity ensured a focused and well-supported discussion.

The sources selected support our proposition of the psychosocial implications of disparities in urban green space, by providing different perspectives on the multifaceted dynamics between human well-being and urban greening. Authors, Kaplan, Kellert, and Kuo offer theoretical frameworks and evidence that establish a positive correlation between access to green spaces and human well-being. Kaplan’s Attention Restoration Theory (ART) emphasises the psychological benefits of green space access, such as stress reduction and restoration, laying a solid foundation for the argument (See Figure 4).33 Kellert’s research explores the developmental outcomes of childhood exposure to nature, providing insights into how different nature experiences shape children’s social and psychological development.34 Additionally, Kuo’s work underscores the positive impact of green infrastructure on mental well-being, particularly in stress reduction and resilience-building. 35

Furthermore, the secondary sources, including Cinderby et al., Breuste et al., De Haas et al., Ferguson et al., Irvine et al., Cocks and Shackleton, Sugiyama et al., and Wolch et al., complement the primary research by offering diverse perspectives and addressing multifaceted challenges inherent in urban green infrastructure. These sources strengthen the themes discussed in the primary

research while providing additional insights into the complexities of urban green infrastructure and its influence on psychosocial outcomes. By integrating findings from both primary and secondary sources, the discussion gains depth and nuance, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted relationship between humans and urban green infrastructure

4.

Natural elements such as big trees and access to the sea are known to be good for mental and physical health (Source: Book - Photo by Kjell Nilsson)

Bridging Systematic Barriers

Health disparities between disadvantaged and wealthy neighbourhoods highlight the importance of equitable distribution of green infrastructure. Planning for urban green spaces often reflects systematic biases, leading to uneven distribution and access among different socioeconomic groups. Urban green spaces have been shown to mitigate health gaps across socioeconomic groups, especially in mortality and cardiovascular disease rates.36 This disparity worsens existing health inequalities, as marginalised communities with limited access to nature experience poorer health outcomes.37 Therefore by implementing increased green infrastructure amongst communities, it can serve as a means to improve health and psychosocial well-being, bridging socioeconomic gaps.

Systematic biases in urban green space planning contribute to health disparities among different socioeconomic groups. Addressing biases through the equitable distribution of green spaces offers an opportunity to alleviate disparities and promote social and psychological well-being amongst disadvantaged communities. In consideration of the health disparities among different socioeconomic groups, it is essential to explore the contribution of urban green space planning to the overall health of residents.

By investigating the impact of urban greening solutions, cities can work towards further improvement in reducing asset disparity and discrimination in systematic planning, thereby promoting the overall well-being of all residents.

Despite the acknowledged importance of urban green spaces for human well-being, neglecting equity considerations in the design of urban green spaces contributes to social inequalities and exacerbates psychological and social outcome disparities. This neglect further deepens the divide between different socioeconomic groups. In designing and planning, it is essential to acknowledge that a universal approach neglects the diverse ways in which different demographics interact with urban green spaces. Particularly as individuals with disabilities, females and ethnic minorities are significantly less likely to use specific types of green spaces. Solutions must focus on creating equitable landscapes that cater to the diverse needs of various demographic groups. Failure to consider the diverse needs and preferences of different communities can lead to green spaces that are not accessible and that may not effectively serve different demographic groups.

Assessing the impact of urban greening solutions on existing communities is crucial to addressing asset disparity and discrimination, as demonstrated by projects like the Atlanta Beltline and High Line (see Figure 5).38 While these initiatives aim to establish more high-quality green spaces in low-income neighbourhoods, their outcomes result in an ecological gentrification process, which leads to the displacement of the existing community from their neighbourhoods. To ensure that all members of the community can benefit psychologically and socially from urban green spaces, equitable design principles should prioritise accessibility, inclusivity, and cultural suitability. Community engagement and participatory design processes can be incorporated to ensure that urban green spaces meet the needs of diverse populations and promote social cohesion and well-being.

Shaping Social and Psychological Wellbeing

Childhood experiences of nature significantly shape social and psychological development, due to the malleability throughout childhood and developmental stages. Exposure during this critical period is linked to improved cognitive development, emotional regulation, and social skills.39 Discrepancies in the distribution of urban green infrastructure can have significant implications for different childhood experiences and access to green infrastructure. Limited exposure to nature during childhood may result in adverse psychological outcomes later in life, such as increased stress and decreased resilience.

Differential experiences with nature can result in varied outcomes for individuals, particularly shaping personal characteristics and influencing psychological and social well-being. Childhood experiences of nature, play a formative and enduring role in shaping individuals’ characteristics and outcomes, similar to other childhood traumas or experiences. A negative experience of nature throughout the first stage of development, ages three to six, can result in the development of avoidance behaviours, as well as feelings of lack of comfort, security, and control. 40

Direct contact with nearby nature is particularly important for intellectual development throughout childhood, offering a world

of exploration, imagination, and later independence. The natural environment plays a crucial role in developmental outcomes, as it attracts and stimulates, significantly influencing maturation and development. 41 Equitable access to urban green spaces is vital for positively shaping individuals’ experiences with nature and promoting their development. By prioritising the design of inclusive and accessible urban green spaces, individuals can nurture positive relationships and experiences with nature from childhood.

Addressing disparities in urban green space equity is crucial for shaping human well-being. Discrepancies in green space distribution lead to differing experiences with nature and unequal access to vital environments. Managing green spaces solely for biodiversity may overlook the influence urban green space have on psychological and social wellbeing. The accessibility to and experiences in urban green spaces lead to various outcomes related to psychosocial health. These include improved cognitive function, relief from symptoms of depression and anxiety, and the promotion of relaxation and overall well-being. It is important to ensure that planning for urban green spaces is equitable so that individuals from diverse demographics can equally benefit from these positives.

Ensuring equitable access involves prioritising the retention of existing green infrastructure and preserving the public residents’ well-being amidst urbanisation. This approach addresses environmental justice and mitigates negative psychosocial impacts. Investing in green infrastructure in marginalised communities tackles underlying social inequalities and fosters positive psychosocial development. The relationship between green spaces and psychosocial well-being highlights the necessity for a holistic approach across research, design, and planning processes. Engaging communities in design processes and incorporating biophilic principles that create inclusive environments supporting positive outcomes for all individuals. Such efforts cultivate healthier, resilient urban environments promoting well-being regardless of socioeconomic status.

The High Line, New York City.

(Source: Internet -

Photo by Domenico Convertini)

Word Count: 4051 Words

Conclusion

Within the complex relationship between humans and nature, humans are constrained by their environment. This is evident in analysing the psychosocial implications of disparities and inequities in urban green infrastructure. Critiquing the perspective presented by Colominina and Wigley in “Are We Human?” of how humans and their environments influence each other’s design. We propose that humans are primarily constrained by their environment, suggesting a deterministic relationship where the environment predominantly shapes human behaviour and outcomes. This theory is supported by the works of Stephen and Rachel Kaplan, Stephen R. Kellert, and Frances Kuo. The study emphasises the significant impact of urban green spaces on mental and physical health, highlighting how systematic barriers can worsen existing injustices’.

The significance of disparities in the distribution of green spaces, especially in marginalised and low socioeconomic communities, highlights the crucial need for equal access to urban green infrastructure. Systematic biases in urban planning often worsen these disparities, resulting in unequal access to spaces that are essential for well-being. Communities with limited green space experience higher rates of stress-related disorders and poorer health outcomes, highlighting the importance of addressing these disparities. The findings

support the need for inclusive design processes that consider the diverse needs of different demographic groups, ensuring accessibility and inclusivity in urban green spaces. Inclusive design is crucial for fostering social cohesion and well-being across all communities. The importance of nature experiences in shaping social and psychological development emphasises the critical need to ensure equitable distribution of urban green infrastructure. Disparities in access to green spaces can significantly impact individuals’ well-being and their developmental outcomes, especially throughout the malleable stage of childhood. By prioritising equitable access and design of urban green spaces, the designed environment can support the psychosocial well-being of all individuals, regardless of demographic factors.

Future research should explore innovative approaches to green infrastructure that address current disparities and anticipate evolving urban population needs. Advanced technologies, such as machine learning, AI-assisted tools in Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), and remote sensing, provide valuable insights into urban green spaces. Treepedia project by the Senseable City Lab at MIT is an example of an innovative research project within urban green infrastructure management. 42 The project illustrates the humanistic perspective of assessing urban greening,

offering street-level analysis that traditional satellite-based studies may overlook, providing an enhanced depiction of the human experience. The project utilises Google Street View to assess street-level urban greenery through image delineation to generate a Green View Index. 43 Further studies aligning with this humanistic perspective of urban green space will enhance the ability to mitigate urban greenery issues comprehensively.

Engaging with interdisciplinary research that combines psychology, sociology, urban planning, and environmental science is crucial. Such collaborations leads to a holistic understanding of human-environment interactions and inform more effective strategies for promoting psychosocial well-being through urban design.

Addressing disparities in urban green space is a critical step toward avoiding further systemic issues and fostering healthier communities. Building on the foundational insights of existing research and exploring innovative and inclusive approaches is crucial in addressing the implications of urban green space inequity. These efforts permit the development of equitable and sustainable urban environments that enhance the well-being of all individuals.

Endnotes

1. Colomina, Beatriz, and Mark Wigley. Are We Human? Notes on an Archaeology of Design. Lars Müller Publishers, 2016.

2. Colomina, Beatriz, and Mark Wigley. “The Plastic Human” In Are We Human?: Notes on an Archaeology of Design, 23-29. Lars Müller Publishers, 2016.

3. Colomina, Beatriz, and Mark Wigley. “The Invention of the Human” In Are We Human?: Notes on an Archaeology of Design, 50-61. Lars Müller Publishers, 2016.

4. Colomina, Beatriz, and Mark Wigley. Are We Human? Notes on an Archaeology of Design. Lars Müller Publishers, 2016.

5. Colomina, Beatriz, and Mark Wigley. Are We Human? Notes on an Archaeology of Design. Lars Müller Publishers, 2016.

6. Kaplan, Rachel, and Stephen Kaplan. Humanscape: Environments for People. Duxbury Press, Division of Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1978.

7. Ibid.

8. Kellert, Stephen R. “Experiencing Nature: Affective, Cognitive, and Evaluative Development in Children.” In Children and Nature: psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations, edited by Peter H. Kahn, Jr. and Stephen R. Kellert, 117-151. MIT Press, 2002.

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid.

11. Kuo, Frances E. (Ming). “Parks and Other Green Environments: ‘Essential Components of a Healthy Human Habitat’.” Australasian Parks and Leisure 14, no.1 (2011).

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid.

14. Cinderby, S., D. Archer, V.K. Mehta, C. Neale, R. Opiyo, R.M. Pateman, C. Muhoza, C. Adelina, and H. Tukhanen. “Assessing Inequalities in Wellbeing at a Neighbourhood Scale in Low-Middle-Income-Country Secondary Cities and Their Implications for Long-Term Livability.” Frontiers in Sociology 6 (2021)

15. Breuste, Jürgen, Martina Artmann, Cristian Ioja, and Salman Qureshi. Making Green Cities Concepts, Challenges and Practice: Concepts, Challenges and Practice. 2020.

16. De Haas, Wim, Jan Hassink, and Marian Stuiver. “The Role of Urban Green Space in Promoting Inclusion: Experiences From the Netherlands.” Frontiers in Environmental Science 9 (2021).

17. Ferguson, M., H.E. Roberts, R.R.C. McEachan, and M. Dallimer. “Contrasting distributions of urban green infrastructure across social and ethno-racial groups.” Landscape and Urban Planning 175 (2018): 136-148.

18. Irvine, K.N., Richard A. Fuller, Patrick Devine-Wright, Jamie Tratalos, Sarah R. Payne, Philip H. Warren, Kevin J. Lomas, and Kevin J. Gaston. “Ecological and Psychological Value of Urban Green Space.” In Dimensions of the Sustainable City, edited by Mike Jenks and Colin Jones, Future City, vol. 2, 123-145. Dordrecht: Springer, 2010.

19. Sugiyama, Takemi, Karen Villanueva, Matthew Knuiman, Jacinta Francis, Sarah Foster, Lisa Wood, and Billie Giles-Corti. “Can neighborhood green space mitigate health inequalities? A study of socio-economic status and mental health.” Health & Place 38 (2016): 16-21.

20. Shackleton, Charlie M., and Michelle L. Cocks, eds. Urban Nature: Enriching Belonging, Wellbeing and Bioculture. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis, 2020.

21. Wolch, Jennifer R., Jason Byrne, and Joshua P. Newell. “Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’.” Landscape and Urban Planning 125 (2014): 234-244.

22. Kaplan, Rachel, and Stephen Kaplan. Humanscape: Environments for People. Duxbury Press, Division of Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1978.

23. Kuo, Frances E. (Ming). “Parks and Other Green Environments: ‘Essential Components of a Healthy Human Habitat’.” Australasian Parks and Leisure 14, no.1 (2011).

24. Cinderby, S., D. Archer, V.K. Mehta, C. Neale, R. Opiyo, R.M. Pateman, C. Muhoza, C. Adelina, and H. Tukhanen. “Assessing Inequalities in Wellbeing at a Neighbourhood Scale in Low-Middle-Income-Country Secondary Cities and Their Implications for Long-Term Livability.” Frontiers in Sociology 6 (2021)

25. Breuste, Jürgen, Martina Artmann, Cristian Ioja, and Salman Qureshi. Making Green Cities Concepts, Challenges and Practice: Concepts, Challenges and Practice. 2020.

26. Kellert, Stephen R. “Experiencing Nature: Affective, Cognitive, and Evaluative Development in Children.” In Children and Nature: psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations, edited by Peter H. Kahn, Jr. and Stephen R. Kellert, 117-151. MIT Press, 2002.

27. Wolch, Jennifer R., Jason Byrne, and Joshua P. Newell. “Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’.” Landscape and Urban Planning 125 (2014): 234-244.

28. De Haas, Wim, Jan Hassink, and Marian Stuiver. “The Role of Urban Green Space in Promoting Inclusion: Experiences From the Netherlands.” Frontiers in Environmental Science 9 (2021).

29. Irvine, K.N., Richard A. Fuller, Patrick Devine-Wright, Jamie Tratalos, Sarah R. Payne, Philip H. Warren, Kevin J. Lomas, and Kevin J. Gaston. “Ecological and Psychological Value of Urban Green Space.” In Dimensions of the Sustainable City, edited by Mike Jenks and Colin Jones, Future City, vol. 2, 123-145. Dordrecht: Springer, 2010.

30. Ferguson, M., H.E. Roberts, R.R.C. McEachan, and M. Dallimer. “Contrasting distributions of urban green infrastructure across social and ethno-racial groups.” Landscape and Urban Planning 175 (2018): 136-148.

31. Shackleton, Charlie M., and Michelle L. Cocks, eds. Urban Nature: Enriching Belonging, Wellbeing and Bioculture. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis, 2020.

32. Sugiyama, Takemi, Karen Villanueva, Matthew Knuiman, Jacinta Francis, Sarah Foster, Lisa Wood, and Billie Giles-Corti. “Can neighborhood green space mitigate health inequalities? A study of socio-economic status and mental health.” Health & Place 38 (2016): 16-21.

33. Kaplan, Rachel, and Stephen Kaplan. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

34. Kellert, Stephen R. “Experiencing Nature: Affective, Cognitive, and Evaluative Development in Children.” In Children and Nature: psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations, edited by Peter H. Kahn, Jr. and Stephen R. Kellert, 117-151. MIT Press, 2002.

35. Kuo, Frances E. (Ming). “Parks and Other Green Environments: ‘Essential Components of a Healthy Human Habitat’.” Australasian Parks and Leisure 14, no.1 (2011).

36. Sugiyama, Takemi, Karen Villanueva, Matthew Knuiman, Jacinta Francis, Sarah Foster, Lisa Wood, and Billie Giles-Corti. “Can neighborhood green space mitigate health inequalities? A study of socio-economic status and mental health.” Health & Place 38 (2016): p.17.

37. Wolch, Jennifer R., Jason Byrne, and Joshua P. Newell. “Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’.” Landscape and Urban Planning 125 (2014): p.236.

38. Ibid

39. Cinderby, S., D. Archer, V.K. Mehta, C. Neale, R. Opiyo, R.M. Pateman, C. Muhoza, C. Adelina, and H. Tukhanen. “Assessing Inequalities in Wellbeing at a Neighbourhood Scale in Low-Middle-Income-Country Secondary Cities and Their Implications for Long-Term Livability.” Frontiers in Sociology 6 (2021)

40. Kellert, Stephen R. “Experiencing Nature: Affective, Cognitive, and Evaluative Development in Children.” In Children and Nature: psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations, edited by Peter H. Kahn, Jr. and Stephen R. Kellert, 117-151. MIT Press, 2002.

41. Ibid.

42. Li, Xiaojiang, Chuanrong Zhang, Weidong Li, Robert Ricard, Qingyan Meng, and Weixing Zhang. “Assessing Street-Level Urban Greenery Using Google Street View and a Modified Green View Index.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 14, no. 3 (2015): p. 675-685.

43. Ibid.

Bibliography

Breuste, Jürgen, Martina Artmann, Cristian Ioja, and Salman Qureshi. Making Green Cities Concepts, Challenges and Practice: Concepts, Challenges and Practice. 2020.

Cinderby, S., D. Archer, V.K. Mehta, C. Neale, R. Opiyo, R.M. Pateman, C. Muhoza, C. Adelina, and H. Tukhanen. “Assessing Inequalities in Wellbeing at a Neighbourhood Scale in Low-Middle-Income-Country Secondary Cities and Their Implications for Long-Term Livability.” Frontiers in Sociology 6 (2021)

Colomina, Beatriz, and Mark Wigley. Are We Human? Notes on an Archaeology of Design. Lars Müller Publishers, 2016.

De Haas, Wim, Jan Hassink, and Marian Stuiver. “The Role of Urban Green Space in Promoting Inclusion: Experiences From the Netherlands.” Frontiers in Environmental Science 9 (2021).

Ferguson, M., H.E. Roberts, R.R.C. McEachan, and M. Dallimer. “Contrasting distributions of urban green infrastructure across social and ethno-racial groups.” Landscape and Urban Planning 175 (2018): 136-148.

Irvine, K.N., Richard A. Fuller, Patrick Devine-Wright, Jamie Tratalos, Sarah R. Payne, Philip H. Warren, Kevin J. Lomas, and Kevin J. Gaston. “Ecological and Psychological Value of Urban Green Space.” In Dimensions of the Sustainable City, edited by Mike Jenks and Colin Jones, Future City, vol. 2, 123-145. Dordrecht: Springer, 2010.

Kaplan, Rachel, and Stephen Kaplan. Humanscape: Environments for People. Duxbury Press, Division of Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1978.

Kaplan, Rachel, and Stephen Kaplan. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Kellert, Stephen R. “Experiencing Nature: Affective, Cognitive, and Evaluative Development in Children.” In Children and Nature: psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations, edited by Peter H. Kahn, Jr. and Stephen R. Kellert, 117-151. MIT Press, 2002.

Kuo, Frances E. (Ming). “Parks and Other Green Environments: ‘Essential Components of a Healthy Human Habitat’.” Australasian Parks and Leisure 14, no.1 (2011).

Li, Xiaojiang, Chuanrong Zhang, Weidong Li, Robert Ricard, Qingyan Meng, and Weixing Zhang. “Assessing Street-Level Urban Greenery Using Google Street View and a Modified Green View Index.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 14, no. 3 (2015): p. 675-685.

Shackleton, Charlie M., and Michelle L. Cocks, eds. Urban Nature: Enriching Belonging, Wellbeing and Bioculture. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis, 2020.

Sugiyama, Takemi, Karen Villanueva, Matthew Knuiman, Jacinta Francis, Sarah Foster, Lisa Wood, and Billie Giles-Corti. “Can neighborhood green space mitigate health inequalities? A study of socio-economic status and mental health.” Health & Place 38 (2016): 16-21.

Wolch, Jennifer R., Jason Byrne, and Joshua P. Newell. “Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’.” Landscape and Urban Planning 125 (2014): 234-244.

Images

1. City of Adelaide. A green wall at City of Adelaide’s Pirie Street service centre. Photograph. November 12, 2021. https://landscapeaustralia.com/articles/ botanical-boon-for-adelaide/

2. Tütüncü, Poyraz. Cover of Are We Human?: Notes on an Archaeology of Design. Photograph. October 15, 2016. Istanbul Archaeological Museums. https://www.eflux.com/announcements/10818/are-we-human-the-design-of-the-species-2seconds-2-days-2-years-200-years-200-000-years/

3. Salter, W. 2015. Monash University Forum Landscape. Taylor Cullity Lethlean with Peter Elliot Architecture and Urban Design, IFLA. Clayton, Victoria.

4. Nilsson, K. 2010. “Natural Elements Such as Big Trees and Access to the Sea Are Known to Be Good for Mental and Physical Health.” In Forests, Trees and Human Health, 2. Berlin, Germany: Springer Dordrecht.

5. Convertini, Domenico. The High Line New York. Photograph. Phys.org. Accessed April 4, 2024. https://phys.org/news/2022-12-urban-green-infrastructure-equityanalysis.html