You are on page 1of 19

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AS NETWORK OF SOCIAL SPACES FOR WELL-BEING OF URBAN RESIDENTS: A REVIEW

Mazlina Mansor1 and Ismail Said2 PhD Candidate, Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia 2 Associate Professor, Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia mazlina.mansor@gmail.com b-ismail@utm.my
1

ABSTRACT: This paper presents a conceptual framework on the role of green infrastructure as network of social space for health and well-being of urban residents. The framework is derived from a review of more than 70 theoretical and empirical studies on urban open spaces, greenery and greenways from six fields: urban ecosystem, arboriculture and forestry, urban planning and environmental planning, environmental psychology and behavior, preventative medicine, community health and health promotion, landscape architecture and renewable resources. Green infrastructure comprises of greenery and open spaces linked by streets, waterways and drainage ways around and between urban areas, at all spatial scales. It is a network of greenery that provides green lung for a city, promotes healthy society by providing spaces for recreational, social and leisure activities. Its main components are landform, vegetation, wildlife and water bodies. Physical experience with the greenery and open spaces trigger many positive moods such as feeling serene, peaceful, relaxation, comfort and restful. Cognitive experience allows people to establish personal meanings such as place identity, place attachment, topophilia and favorite place. Social experience affords sense of community integrity, community place attachment, bonding, participation, social territoriality and social imageability. Therefore, for the well-being of its residents, a town or city has to formulate the green infrastructure by organizing the landscape resources into a spatial arrangement consisting of patches, corridors and matrices. Keywords: Green infrastructure, Place attachment, Spatial arrangement, Personal meaning, Community integrity

1. INTRODUCTION Studies on people experience with outdoor environment reveal that physical and visual contacts with natural features and greenery afford improvement of three aspects of human functioning: psychological, physical and social (Hartig and Staats, 2003; Irvine and Warber, 2003). Psychologically, outdoor engagement affords feelings of pleasure including enjoyment, being relaxed, comfort and calms (Korpela, 2002; Ulrich, 2002; Cooper-Marcus, 2000) and sustains attention or interest (Rohde and Kendle, 1994). Inasmuch, passive viewing produces stress-ameliorating effects which may confer health benefits (Ulrich, 1984). Physically, outdoor experience allows active living, dexterity and mobility in terms of participating in recreational activities which may include jogging, walking and playing. And, socially, outdoor participation with family, friends or neighbors stimulates community integration and empowerment that is sense of harmony,

bonding and attachment to a place (Kuo, 2003). In short, contact with nature contributes to the quality of life of residents in towns and cities (Bonaiuto et al., 2003). The psychological, physical and social benefits of contact with nature are vanishing in urban community due to disengagement of residents from the natural environment (Katcher and Beck, 1987; Axelrod and Suedfeld, 1995). The disengagement is caused by two major factors: (1) lack of open spaces for urban residents to experience (Ward Thompson, 2002), and (2) fragmentation of open spaces in urban setting making less accessible for residents to experience them (Benedict and McMahon, 2000; Schneekloth, 2001). In other words, urban residents contact with nature in urban is diminishing. They are less frequent viewing greenery and scenic areas which can afford serenity and reduce mental fatigue. One of the reasons of little visual contact with nature is due to much of the urban landscape is dominated by buildings and roads. Studies in environmental psychology suggest that such landscape is likely to cause stress to people (Ulrich, 1983; Hartig et al., 1997). Urban dwellers also spend little time on recreational activities in gardens and parks. In other words, they are less agile and their dexterity is low, and much of their time is in the indoor performing sedentary activities. Inasmuch, they make little social contact with neighbors. Therefore, adults do not interact with adjacent residents, and children do not play and learn social skills. Thus, sense of place to a community is not felt by the residents. Therefore, community integrity and attachment to community are weak in urban community due to lack of sensual and motoric participations in urban greens. Contact with nature in towns and cities can happen in parks, home gardens, pocket spaces, courtyards, playfields, water bodies and residual spaces. These open spaces are dominated by vegetation that housed a variety of terrestrial and arboreal animals including birds, mammals and insects. Inadequacy of open spaces for visual and physical experiences is prevalent in many towns and cities throughout the world. This phenomenon includes towns in Malaysia (Federal Department of Town and Country Planning, 2005). The inadequacy is confounded by lack of connectivity between the open spaces. It means a neighborhood park stands alone, disconnected by streets and buildings to another park. And, playground in a community is separated by street from home gardens. In other words, urban residents could not easily access to the open spaces by walking or cycling. Inasmuch, the street which is a social place is also disconnected by other streets and junctions. Pocket spaces in between buildings are also left isolated without linkage to another green space by walkway. Therefore, the

opportunities for residents to do recreational activities including socializing with neighbors and friend are limited. As such, children are much confined to their homes or schools, and thus playgrounds and playfields are often standing idle. Theoretically, linking an open space to another by walkways, streets and trails will enable urban residents to get easy access, visually and physically. A composite of the linkage will form into a network of greenways which is referred as green infrastructure that facilitate urban residents to play, to socialize and other transactional activities that lead to their well being. This paper presents a concept framework of the green infrastructure explaining its contribution to the physical, cognitive and social functioning of urban dwellers. It reveals the characteristics of green infrastructure and its land use components as network of social spaces that can meet physical, social and cognitive health functioning and residents well-being. 2. DEFINITION OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE Green infrastructure comprises of greenery and open spaces linked by streets, waterways and drainage ways around and between urban areas, at all spatial scales (Tzoulas et al. 2007). Essentially, it comprises of all natural, semi-natural and artificial networks of multifunctional ecological systems within, around and between urban areas, at all spatial scales (Tzoulas et al., 2007) which is introduced to upgrade urban green space systems as a coherent planning entity (Sandstrm, 2002). In other words, green infrastructure network does not only cover experiences of using parks and open spaces by residents, but also, embraces the experience of using loose-fit places (Dovey et al. (2002), residual spaces (Davidson, 1999) and streets (Ward Thompson, 2002) as valuable land use components. Translating this definition to Taiping, a town in Malaysia, its green infrastructure consisted of Lake Garden (a town park), street planting, open spaces of public buildings, pocket spaces between shophouses, school playfields, home gardens, and river corridors (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Distribution of Open Space in Taiping (Source: Ismail, 2007)

Greenery and open spaces in urban environment is not just amenities but an interconnected network of ecological systems that conserves air, water, microclimate and energy resources and enriches human quality of life (Benedict and McMahon, 2002; Schneekloth, 2001). As a whole, it is a term that described the abundance and distribution of natural features in the landscapes like forests, wetlands, and streams which provide the ecosystem services that are equally necessary for well-being (Weber et al., 2006). Taking Taiping as an example, the Lake Garden stores and provides water supply to the town, harbors wildlife, and affords residents a large outdoor place for recreation activities. Moreover, its pocket spaces and street planting in the town area allow people to enjoy the greenery that can enrich their emotional well-being and health. The pocket spaces are considered as loose-fit spaces that permit shop owners to display their merchandises and shoppers to move around in unregulated, relax and free manner. Street, for example, is a part of green infrastructure network which is referred as the true representative of public open space and the one place in which the whole population may be comfortable in using (Ward Thompson, 2002). Many opportunities are present in streets including for people to engage and interact with one another compared to parks or plazas. For example, in Taiping, Kota Street, Taming Sari Street and Pasar Street are the major routes connecting the town park with a few street plantings and scattered pocket spaces located between shophouses. The streets are meeting place for residents to trade and buy produces, and to eat in cafes. Generally, the crowd of people

is in the morning and decreases in the late afternoon signifying that peoples activities are mainly buying and selling of goods in shophouses and departmental stores. The need to look at network, mosaic or systems of linked spaces that are woven into the fabric of urban areas is crucial, since those spaces have already existed either by incidence or planned in urban areas (Thwaites et al., 2005). The spatial arrangement of the green network is best described by Forman (1995) as patch-corridor-matrix. A patch is the individual open space such as a home garden or a town park which links to one another by a corridor that includes a street planting or a waterway. It means street planting provides shade for pedestrians to walk along walkway from a pocket park to a square or other open spaces. And, matrix is the texture of landscape, for example, commercial area in a Malaysia town is dominated by low-rise shophouses and public buildings integrated with pocket spaces, street planting, school fields, and river corridors. In general, a commercial matrix has more streets and less green than a residential one. In summary, green infrastructure network is essential for urban development as elements that knit an urban fabric into a network of open spaces and where it facilitates urban residents to socialize, play and do activities that offer benefits to their health and well-being. 3. METHODS The conceptual framework of green infrastructure is derived from a review of 81 theoretical and empirical studies on urban open spaces, greenery and greenways derived from six fields, namely; (1) urban ecosystem, (2) arboriculture and forestry, (3) urban planning and environmental planning, (4) environmental psychology and behavior, (5) preventative medicine, community health, and health promotion, (6) landscape architecture and renewable resource. The largest percentage (82%) of the studies was published in journal papers and was accessed from electronic databases including Science Direct, Proquest and IngentaConnect. The remaining studies were obtained from handbooks, theses, governmental reports, and books. The review categorized the parameters, variables or factors of the green infrastructure into two types: (1) attributes, and (2) benefits or adversities on human functioning. The attributes include urban parks, green open spaces, greenery and greenways in urban environment. The benefits are categorized into three benefits, namely, physical, cognitive and social.

4. RESULTS Studies of green infrastructure by the six fields are summarized in Table 1. Urban ecosystem focuses on the health of the ecosystem that is the diversity of species of plant and animals and habitat variedness. Species-rich habitats are considered resilient and highly productive (Tzoulas et al., 2007) which consequently provide ecosystem services to urban population including air purification, amelioration of microclimate, aesthetic, recreational and cultural (Butler and Oluoch-Kosura, 2006). In arboriculture and forestry, species-rich heterogeneous habitats mean forest ecosystem comprising of a composite of trees, treelets, shrubs, groundcovers, ferns and herbaceous plants. The plant composition harbored a variety of subterranean, terrestrial and arboreal animal. Both the plant and animals are considered as ecosystem service to urban community that generate feeling of well-being including comfort, calm, and community integrity (e.g. Aoki, 1991; Wolf, 2005). Forests and other open spaces such as parks, home garden, courtyards, and drainage or river corridors are considered in urban planning and environmental planning as recreational space for human to perform physical exercise, to reduce stress and to interact and transact with fellow being. Urban planning emphasizes that the open spaces are linked forming a network or fabric of greenery that facilitates users to have a sequential experience with comfort and safety (Thwaites et al., 2005). The sequential experience means users easily recognized the location, direction and transition of an open space in relation to the others. Thwaites (2001) and Thwaites et al. (2005) suggested the spatial distribution of the open spaces in a model developed by Forman (1995) called patch-corridor-matrix.
Table 1. Summary of studies on contributions of green infrastructure Field
Urban ecosystem

Author
Tzoulas et al. (2007); Wolf (2003); Weber & Wolf (2006); Benedict and McMahon (2000); Schneekloth (2001); Sandstrm, (2002); Pickett et al. (1997) Aoki (1991); Aoki et al. (1992); Wolf (1997); Mudrak (1981); Ellis et al. (2006); Wolf (2005); Dwyer et al. (1991); Kuo (2003) ; zgner et al. (2007); Arnold (1993); Lohr et al. (2004); Lewis (1990); Ulrich (2002) Thwaites et al. (2005); Maruani & Amit-Cohen (2007); Thwaites (2001); Ward Thompson (2002); Tyrvinen et al. (2007); Mackenzie (2006); Yokohari & Amati (2005); Tan (2006); Herlin (2004); Jackson (2003); Forman (1995); Davidson (1999); deVries et al (2003); Dovey (2000); Rohde and Kendle (1994); Wooley (2003); Federal Department of Town and Country Planning (2005).

Aspect of study
Green infrastructure contributes to the ecosystem health such as capturing valuable biodiversity and natural resources for decision making, conservation and ultimately health of urban population. Benefits of urban forests to peoples well being, the role of trees for healthy social ecology and meanings of greenery to community and their well-being.

Arboriculture and forestry

Urban planning and environmental planning

Urban spaces and types, regeneration and restorative urban open spaces based on network of spaces woven into the urban fabric, social values of green spaces and recognition of the values of wild spaces, informal, loose fit, messy places which are as valuable as the formal spaces.

Table 1. continued
Environmental psychology and behavior Kaplan (1995); Herzog et al. (1997); Kaplan (1984); Ulrich (1979); Parry-Jones (1990); axelrod and Suedfeld (1995); Bonnes and Secchiaroli (1995); Hartig and Staats (2003); Irvine and Warber (2003); Kaplan and Kaplan (1989); Kim and Kaplan (2004); Korpela and Hartig (1996); Korpela (1989; 1992); Korpela et al. (2001); Kweon et al. (1998); Newell (1997); Rosmann and Ulehla (1977); Shumaker and Taylor (1983); Ulrich (1983); Hartig et al. (1997) Frumkin (2001), Maller et al. (2005); St Leger (2003); Takano et al. (2002), Wells (2000); Payne et al. (1998); Tanaka et al (1996) Human interaction with natural environment and manmade environments produce cognitive and emotional feelings that reduce attention fatigue and stress, thus provides tranquility and psychological well-being.

Preventive medicine, community health, and health promotion Landscape architecture and renewable resources

Benefits of contact with nature through viewing natural scenes and being in natural environments in parks environments for the promotion of health of urban population. Landscape physical and visual qualities offer users of various green open spaces environments that foster health benefits.

Grahn (2007); Gearin & Kahle (2006); Kanazawa and Che Jun (2002); Francis (2003); Coleman (2003); Bradley & Millward (1986) ; OBrien (2006); Ryan (2005); Gobster & Westphal (2004); Loram (2007); Fraser and Kenney (2000); Tveit et al. (2006); Yuen & Hien (2005); Velarde et al. (2007); Bonaiuto et al. (2003); Furnass (1979)

The fields of environmental psychology and behavior view that physical and visual interaction with urban open spaces can stimulate progressive feelings such as being relaxed, calm and comfort (Kaplan, 1995; Hartig, 1996; Herzog et al., 1997; Korpela, 2002). This is because viewing greenery reduces attention fatigue and stress (Kaplan et al., 1998) leading to restoration benefits include recovery from stress (Ulrich et al., 1991; Ulrich, 1999), feeling of relaxation, calmness and clearing minds (Korpela and Hartig, 1996), positive emotional changes and renewal of cognitive capacities (Hartig et al., 1996; Wells, 2000; Korpela et al., 2002), self-regulation (Korpela et al., 2001; Korpela, 2002), satisfaction (Kaplan, 2001) and recovery from fatigue of directed attention (Herzog et al., 2002). The restorative qualities of visual contact with greenery are paralleled to the perspective of preventive medicine, community health and health promotion. For example, Wells (2000) levels of attention capacity of young children improved in a residential setting surrounded with open spaces and greenery. Likewise, landscape architecture and renewable resource view that the green infrastructure is a resource that fosters well-being in three aspects: physical, cognitive (psychological) and social (Grahn, 2007). These benefits are possible through urban landscape planning which integrates human physical and social needs with the ecosystem of green and open spaces (Herlin, 2004). There are a growing number of studies investigating the benefits of greens and open spaces on human well-beings (Table 2). As can be seen in Table 2 that largest

percentage of theoretical and empirical studies are in cognitive well-being (Table 2). The aspects are discussed in the following section. Most of the psychological studies on human contact with greens and open spaces are in environmental psychology and human behavior in environment. The studies are underpinned by at least three theories or concepts including Prospect and Refuge Theory (Appleton, 1973), Theory of Landscape Preferences (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989), Attention Restorative Theory (Kaplan et al., 1998), and Green Infrastructure Framework (Tzoulas et al., 2007).
Table 2. Percentage of studies investigating human well-being with greens and open spaces Types of Well-being Quantities of Studies Physical 41 Cognitive 49 Social 33

5. DISCUSSION: BENEFITS OF EXPERIENCING GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE A considerable body of research shows that either contact with nature, viewing nature or participating in nature can generate positive and progressive effects to well being. This review research posits that nature provides many benefits to human functioning and well-being. The term health and well-being is used by WHO (1948) in which health is defined as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being including in biological, sociological, economical, environmental, cultural and political factors, whereas, the term well-being includes material security, personal freedoms, good social relations and physical health (Millennium Assessment, 2003). In short, the health and well-being benefits can be categorized into three aspects: physical, cognitive and social. A well-distributed open space and network of green infrastructure in a town or city is crucial to allow its residents to experience these benefits. 5.1 Physical Well-being Physical experience with the greenery and open spaces trigger many positive moods such as feeling serene, peaceful, relaxation, comfort and restful. For example, Ulrich (1979, 1982) posits that nature increases positive mood affect feelings of pleasure. In addition, Rohde and Kendle (1994) suggested that nature sustains attention or interest, relaxed wakefulness and diminution of negative emotions, such as anger and anxiety. Evidence of improved attention functioning and emotional gains in natural settings was also found in study by Hartig et al. (1991).

Outdoor physical experience allows active living, dexterity and mobility through participation in recreational activities including jogging, walking and playing. Green space provides opportunities for low-intensity, long-duration activities, such as walking, cycling and gardening that have been recommended to combat serious health problems of an increasingly sedentary urban lifestyle (World Health Organization, 1997). The review suggests that green areas are imperative for mobility, producing active living and agility. An experience of nature can help strengthen the activities of the right hemisphere of the brain, and restore harmony to the functions of the brain as a whole (Furnass, 1979), which simply means that the process, for example, going for a stroll in natural setting can actually clear ones head. Parks are ideal places for physical activities specifically to foster restorative experience and as settings for recovery from mental fatigue (Kaplan, 1981). People who have access to nearby natural settings have been found to be healthier overall than other individuals (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989). This is supported by Hartig et al. (1991) who found that mental fatigue was most successfully relieved by a walk in a park. In a study on choices of recreational places, Rossman and Ulehla (1977) look at the connection between outdoor environment and experience. They found that the highest preferences for urban outdoor recreation areas were for sport where people can physically perform active tasks (Grahn, 2007, p.11). In urban planning, Tanaka et al. (1996) and Takano et al. (2002) examined the relationship between senior citizens and green space by means of physical activities like walking. The outcome was a positive relationship between senior citizens longevity and gre en space. Consequently, this relationship implies that park and urban green space users had better self-reported health (de Vries et al., 2003), better general perceived health, higher levels of activity and achieve the ability to relax faster (Payne et al., 1998). This is due to the availability of space that enables physical activities like walking or strolling to take place and thus, helps maintain a high physical functional status of people. The summary of review on physical well-being experiencing greenery and open spaces is shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Physical experience and physiological effects encountering greenery Authors


Ulrich (1979; 1982), Furnas (1979), Kaplan and Kaplan (1981; 1989), Verderber (1986), Hartig et al. (1991, 2003), Wells (2000), Ulrich (1984), Ulrich et al. (1991), Herzog (1997), Kuo and Sullivan (2001) Kaplan and Kaplan (1989)

Concerns of research
Recovery from mental fatigue, restore attention fatigue, recovery of attention-demanding cognitive performances, relaxation, positive self-reported emotions, recovery from stress, irritability, accidents, and improve problem solving ability and concentration, decrease aggression and violence. People with access to nearby natural settings are healthier, increased levels of satisfaction with ones home, ones job and with life in general. Outdoor engagement affords feelings of pleasure including enjoyment, being relaxed, and comfort and calms. Urban green space and longevity, better self-reported health, better general perceived health, more physical activity and relaxation, space availability for walking increased activity, thus live longer. Highest preferences for urban outdoor recreation areas were for sport.

Parameter measured
Active living Dexterity Mobility Self regulation Peaceful Comfort Relaxation

Korpela (2002), Ulrich (2002), Cooper-Marcus (2000) Takano et al. (2002), Tanaka et al. (1996), Payne et al. (1996), de Vries et al.(2003) Rossman and Ulehla (1977)

What do the importance of physical interaction of human with greens and open spaces link to landscape urban planning? Provision of open spaces in a town or city place affords urban dwellers to exercise that directly effecting health, both preventative and curative (Ministry of Health, 2004). Foliage of trees traps air-borne particles and thus improves air hygiene which links better respiratory environment for urban residents. Greenery is natural water purifier that filters water and slowly releases it to natural streams or rivers that become recreational amenity for the residents. Parks, street plantings and river corridors are habitats for many wildlife including birds, insects and small mammals which are necessary components of the ecological system of the urban environment. Thus, children can participate in bird watching, catching jumping spiders and butterflies, and observing bees and bumble bees visiting flowers. These are motoric activities that can harness children motor skills and growth development (McDevitt and Ormrod, 2002). In short, it is essential for urban planners to plan and provide a network of greens and open spaces in towns and cities. The network is an experiential landscape that affords the urban residents to practice exercise and sports. 5.2 Cognitive Well-being Cognitive experience allows people to establish personal meanings such place identity, place attachment, topophilia and favorite place. One of the rationales behind the positive response towards preference of natural scenes is underpinned by the perceptual theory, Landscape Preference Theory by Kaplan and Kaplan (1989). Kaplan posits that nature is preferred by human-being for the reason that the information in this setting is the

10

easiest to extract which is needed for humans to function. Extraction of the information involves involuntary attention which did not afford mental fatigue (Hartig and Staats, 2002). Experiences are the most crucial part of how people perceive, utilize or live their green areas (Relph, 1976). The experience triggers personal meanings which are the important characteristics of a place for local people either it is based on aesthetic, social characteristics and cultural values and meanings (Tyrvinen et al., 2007). For example, it is indicated that people have the ability and the need to form emotional attachments to other people (Levitt, 1991; Weiss, 1991) and as well as the environment (Shumaker and Taylor, 1983). Place attachment study that relates to green infrastructure components found that environmental change and development can have sad consequences for those who have an attachment to natural areas (Ryan, 2005). Early study by Marc Fried (1963) showed that some urban residents who had the strongest attachment to their former neighborhood, experienced intense grief and depression when forced to relocate for urban renewal. Those strong attachments lead to grief on the loss of their close-knit social network and the particular places that have become residents favorite areas. This is in accord with the research on residential areas by Kim and Kaplan (2004) who suggested that natural features and open spaces play an important role in residents feelings of attachment towards the community, and their interactions with other residents. Additionally, studies on peoples favorite places indicate that people visit particular neighborhood places, mainly natural settings, for regulation of their feelings (Korpela, 1989; Korpela, 1992). Natural places constituted 5060 per cent of their stated favorite places (Korpela and Hartig, 1996; Newell, 1997; Korpela et al., 2001). The natural places can be different types of landscapes and scenes that give effects to human health and well-being. Research also suggested that different landscapes influence emotional states of people (Parry-Jones, 1990). This is in agreement with the recent review of literature by Velarde et al. (2007), who examined various landscape and scene types, therefore implying that various scenes in nature and urban settings provide different level of health benefits to people. Study on symbolic values of greenery in the field of arboriculture postulates that urban parks and trees hold special meanings for urban residents (Dwyer et al. 1991). As an example, in urban environment, trees are appreciated because of their enduring nature and ability to live in harsh condition of concrete jungle. Therefore, involvement of

11

people in community service, efforts for tree preservation such as saving trees from destruction or removal are due to these personal meanings and symbolic values towards greenery in urban environments. Studies by various researchers on the effects of greenery and open spaces to well-being of individuals and groups are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4. Cognitive experience and meaning relate with greenery Authors
Tyrvinen et al (2005), Tyrvinen et al (2007) Ryan (2005) Kim and Kaplan (2004)

Concerns of research
Social values of green spaces to urban dwellers Public attachment to urban parks and natural areas Nature/open spaces as role in residents feelings of attachment towards the community, and their interactions with other residents. Peoples visit favorite places for regulation of their feelings. Natural places relates to favorite places. Visual contact with greens reduces mental fatigue. Different landscapes influence emotional states of people Symbolic values of greenery Favorite settings as serene, peaceful and restful. Personal meaning and cultural values linking to restoration and psychological well-being Residents preferences and emotional feelings to greenery People attached many meanings to the places they valued e.g. symbolic importance and personal place memories. Afford a sense of escape from fast-paced urban life and a place for solitude and contemplation

Parameter measured
Preference Place attachment Social interaction Cognitive performances Self-regulation Favorite place Sense of place Comfort and being relaxed Personal meaning Aesthetic

Korpela (1989;1992), Korpela and Hartig (1996), Newell (1997), Korpela et al., (2001) Parry-Jones (1990), Velarde et al. (2007) (Dwyer et al. 1996) Schroeder (1988), Dwyer et al. (1991) Brown et al. (2003), CooperMarcus (1995), Lalli (1992), Rivlin (1987), Ahlbrandt (1984) OBrien (2006), Bishop et al. (2002), Henwood and Pidgeon (2001), Macnaghten et al. (1998) Gearin and Kahl (2006), Everheart (1983), Wolch et al. (2002).

What do the importance of cognitive benefits of interacting with greens and open spaces link to landscape urban planning? Provision and maintenance of open spaces at all spatial scales, from home garden to large town park, afford the urban residents place for relaxation from stress, trigger positive emotions such as place attachment and increase attention capacity and cognitive capacity. Residents would feel the identity of home garden by planting fruit trees, flowering plants and herbs. The planting is a reflection of their ethnic beliefs and cultural values toward living place and natural environment. Exchanging garden produce would enhance the community integrity. The greens and open spaces also afford children to create their own favorite place such as dens and nooks and crannies. These places are niches that permit the children to social interaction with peers in a residential community. In addition, larger open spaces such as town parks would offer the locals to feel sense of belonging and place identity to the town. The park can be a gathering place for individual and group that would lead to community participation and integration.

12

5.3

Social Well-being Social experience affords sense of community integrity, community place attachment, bonding, participation, social territoriality and social imageability. According to Cooper Marcus and Sarkissian (1986), a positive relationship between natural elements, psychological and social responses of people in urban settings has been shown to be consistence in numerous psychological and social studies. Social well-being related with greenery and green open spaces can be observed mostly in the disciplines of landscape architecture, urban planning, environmental planning and arboriculture. Outdoor participation with family, friends or neighbors stimulates community integration and empowerment that is sense of harmony, bonding and attachment to a place (Kuo, 2003). Kweon et al. (1998) reported that spending time in green outdoor common spaces is related to stronger social interaction among residents. This study is supported by Kuo (2003) indicating that greener buildings and spaces were consistently characterized by better performance on a wide range of social ecosystem indicators. These include greater use of residential outdoor spaces by adults and children, healthier patterns of childrens outdoor activity, more social interaction and supervision, stronger social ties and greater resource sharing among adults, greater sense of safety and adjustment, lower level of graffiti and other signs of social disorder and fewer property and violent crimes. Other researcher too has supported the result indicating the role of trees on neighborhood satisfaction. For example, Peterson (1967) found that harmony with nature is a preferred quality of neighborhood residents. Therefore, community benefits of social contact with nature can also be observed especially if the area has parks and gardens. These places provide opportunities for socializing and learning from fellow residents which are normally unavailable in other places. Social interaction enhances community cohesion by dissolving prejudices about race, and economic or educational status (Lewis, 1990; Lewis, 1996). Urban open space, therefore, can strengthen the social fabric in cities by providing opportunities for residents to participate in activities and socialize with one another (Woolley, 2003). Access to green space by urban residents has been shown to afford a sense of escape from fast-paced urban life and a place for solitude and contemplation, especially among residents who often have very little private space to themselves (Everheart 1983; Wolch et al., 2002). Essentially, urban open spaces signify bonding of people with their places. People may form attachments to places which satisfy particular motivational needs and desires,

13

or which exhibit fine design and distinctive environmental quality, or which are meaningful in terms of events (Thwaites, 2001). Places are said to be significant when they have physical or social value, are able to satisfy specific needs, and are regularly visited (Bonnes and Secchiaroli, 1995). Thus, green open spaces actually represent social imageability to a place. Imageability means qualities of a landscape present in totality or through elements; landmarks and special features; both natural and cultural making the landscape create strong visual image in the observer, and making landscape distinguishable and memorable (Tveit and Fry, 2006). A community area that owns imageability may develop a stronger sense of attachment from its community. Studies of effects from contact with green infrastructure to social well-being are summarized in Table 5.
Table 5. Social experience with greenery and effects to community well-being Authors
Kuo (2003), Tan (2006)

Concerns of research
Community integration and empowerment, sense of harmony, bonding and attachment to a place. greener buildings and spaces relate to better social i ndicators, social integrity. Positive relationship between natural elements, psychological and social responses of people in urban settings in psychological and social studies. Harmony with nature is a preferred quality of neighborhood residents. Community cohesion due to participation in nature. Attachments to places that exhibit fine design, distinctive environmental quality, events, social values. Community imageability Social Interaction with nature. Nature and work environment

Parameter measured

Cooper Marcus and Sarkissian (1986) Peterson (1967), Ellis et al, (2006). Lewis (1990; 1996), Maller (2005) Thwaites, (2001), Bonnes and Secchiaroli (1995), Tveit and Fry (2006) Ward Thompson (2002) Lewis (1996), Leather et al (1998), Randall et al. (1992), Larsen et al. (1998) Gearin and Kahl (2006), Woolley (2003)

Sense of community integrity Social territoriality Bonding Social imageability Social integrity Community place attachment Sense of place Participation

Urban open space strengthens social fabric in cities, providing opportunities for residents and visitors to participate in activities and socialize with one another.

What the importance of social interaction of urban residents in open spaces link to landscape urban planning? Provision of open spaces in a town or city place affords urban residents informal social contacts. A network of greens and open spaces can influence patterns of these informal contacts through its various functions. For instance, parks are used as places for gathering and social events of community during occasions. Playgrounds are for children to perform healthier outdoor activities and other green spaces in community areas allow children to engage in various creative play. Streets and comfortable pedestrian spaces in neighbourhoods permit residents to meet and converse with one another. Therefore, provision of suitable network of greens and

14

open spaces encourages urban residents to use these spaces in a variety of manner, hence, improve their social interactions among each other. This as well, strengthens positive social territoriality of a residential community. As a result, community integration, sense of belonging and attachment towards urban places are formed. Accordingly, informal surveillance of a residential community can be improved, hence, deterring crime in the community areas and offers a sense of safety towards a place. In short, planning and provision of green open spaces with care by urban planners would ensure that the needs of urban residents to experience social contacts are fulfilled.

6. CONCLUSION There is a plethora of research evidences and findings suggesting that green infrastructure made up of the land use components of urban parks, green open spaces, incidental spaces and loose-fit places provide progressive outcomes either to physical, cognitive or social health and well-being of urban residents. Physical experience of green infrastructure speeds recovery from mental fatigue, stress or even reduces irritability, aggression and violence. It provides positive emotions including enjoyment, being relaxed, comfort, calm and feeling of pleasure. In short, people with access to nearby natural settings can ultimately carry out physical activities such as strolling and playing which in turn afford mobility, dexterity and active living. As a result, they are healthier, satisfied with life in general or possibly live longer. Cognitive experience of green infrastructure evokes a sense of attachment to green spaces and towards a community as a whole. This is because parks and urban green spaces offer people positive emotional states make available favorite places that are serene, peaceful and restful. These are the places of solitude and contemplation which afford a sense of escape from frenzied urban life. Urban green spaces too give personal meaning such as symbolic importance and personal place memories that strengthened the bonding of people to places. And, social experience of green infrastructure offers community integration and empowerment, harmony and cohesion among urban residents since social interaction and transaction in urban open spaces afford opportunities for participation in activities and socializing which in turn strengthen positive social territoriality of a place.

15

7. REFERENCES Aoki, Y. (1991). Evaluation Methods for Landscapes with Greenery. Landscape Research. 16, 3, 3-6. Axelrod, L. J. and Suedfeld, P. (1995). Technology, Capitalism, and Christianity: Are They Really the Three Horsemen of The Eco-Collapse? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 183-195. Benedict, M. A. and McMahon, E. T. (2002). Green Infrastructure: Smart Conservation for the 21st Century. Renewable Resources Journal, 20, 3, 12-17. Bonaiuto, M., Fornara, F., Bonnes, M. (2003). Indexes of Perceived Residential Environment Quality and Neighbourhood Attachment in Urban Environments: A Confirmation Study on the City of Rome. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65, 4152. Bonnes, M. & Secchiaroli, G. (1995) Environmental Psychology: a Psycho-social Introduction. London: Sage Publications. Butler, C.D. and Oluoch-Kosura, W. (2006). Linking Future Ecosystem Services and Future Human Well-being. Ecol. Soc., 11, 1, 30. Cooper Marcus, C., Sarkissian, W. (1986). Housing as if People Mattered. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Davidson, N. (1999). Urban Grafts: A Study of Residual Space in Urban Restructuring Strategies. MA Thesis, Edinburgh College of Art/Heriot-Watt University. de Vries, S., Verheij, R. A., Groenewegen, P. P. and Spreeuwenberg, P. (2003). Natural Environments - Healthy Environments? Environmental Planning, 35, 1717-1731. Dovey, K., (2000). Spaces of Becoming. In: Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the International Association for People Environment Studies, Paris. Dwyer, J. F., Schroeder, H. W. and Gobster, P. H. (1991).The Significance of Urban Trees and Forests: Towards a Deeper Understanding of Values. Journal of Arboriculture, 17, 10, 276-284. Ellis,C.D, Lee, Sang-Woo and Kweon, Byoung-Suk (2006). Retail Land use, Neighborhood Satisfaction and the Urban Forest: An Investigation into the Moderating and Mediating Effects of Trees and Shrubs. Landscape and Urban Planning, 74, 7078. Everheart, W. (1983). The National Park Service. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Federal Department of Town and Country Planning. (2005). Planning Standards for Open Space and Recreation (JPBD Planning Standard 21/97). Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Peninsular Malaysia. Federal Department of Town and Country Planning. (2005). Open Spaces in Urban Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Peninsular Malaysia. Federal Department of Town and Country Planning. (2006). National Urbanization Policy. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Peninsular Malaysia. Forman, R. T. T. (1995). Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. New York: Cambridge University Press. Fried, M. (1963). Grieving for a Lost Home. In L. J. Duhl (ed.), The Urban Condition: People and Policy in the Metropolis, New York: Basic Books, pp. 151-171. Frumkin, H. (2001). Beyond Toxicity: Human health and the natural environment. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 3, 20, 234-240. Furnass, B. (1979). Health Values. In: Messer, J. and Mosley, J. G. (eds). The Value of National Parks to the Community: Values and Ways of Improving the Contribution of Australian National Parks to the Community. Sydney: University of Sydney, Australian Conservation Foundation, pp. 6069.

16

Grahn, P. (2007). Landscape in Our Minds: Peoples Choice of Recreative Places in Towns. Landscape Research, 16, 1, 11-19. Hartig, T. and Staats, H. (2003). Restorative Environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 103-107. Hartig, T., Book, A., Garill, J. Olsson, T. and Garling, G. (1996). Environmental Influence on Psychological Restoration. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 37, 378-393. Hartig, T., Kaiser, F. G. and Bowler, P. A. (1997). Further Development of a Measure of Perceived Environmental Restorativeness. Working Paper No.5, Institute for Housing Research, Uppsala University, Gavle, Sweden. Hartig, T., Mang, M. and Evans, G. (1991). Restorative Effects of Natural Environment Experiences. Environment and Behavior, 23, 3-26. Herlin, I. S. (2004). New Challenges in the Field of Spatial Planning: Landscapes. Landscape Research, 29, 4, 399-411. Herzog, T. R., Black, A. M. Fountaine, K. A. and Knotts, D. J. (1997). Reflection and Attention Recovery as Distinctive Benefits of Restorative Environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 165-170. Herzog, T. R., Chen, H. C. and Primeau, J. S. (2002). Perception of the Restorative Potential of natural and Other Settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 295306. Irvine, K. N. and Warber, S. L. (2003). Greening Healthcare: Practicing as if the Natural Environment Really Mattered. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine , 5, 8, 76- 82. Ismail, S. (2007). Landscape Urban Design Studio 2007, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Unpublished Report. Kaplan, R and Kaplan , S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. and Ryan, R. L. (1988). With People in Mind: Design and Management of Everyday Nature . Washington DC: Island Press. Kaplan, S. (1995). The Restorative Benefits of Nature: Towards an Integrative Framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169-182. Katcher, A. and Beck, A. (1987). Health and Caring for Living Things. Anthrozoos, 1, 175 183. Kim, J., Kaplan, R., 2004. Physical and Psychological Factors in Sense of Community. New Urbanist Kentlands and Nearby Orchard Village. Environment and Behavior, 36, 313340. Korpela, K. (2002). Childrens Environment, In: Betchel, R. B. and Churchman, A. (eds.) Handbook of Environmental Psychology, New York: John Wiley, 363-373. Korpela, K. and Hartig, T. (1996). Restorative Qualities of Favorite Places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 221-233. Korpela, K. M. (1989). Place-identity as a Product of Environmental Self Regulation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 241-256. Korpela, K. M. (1992). Adolescents Favourite Places and Environmental Self-regulation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 249-258. Korpela, K. M., Hartig, T., Kaiser, F. and Fuhrer, U. (2001). Restorative Experience and Selfregulation in Favourite Places. Environment and Behavior, 33, 572589. Korpela, K. M., Kytta, M. and Hartig, T. (2002). Restorative Experience, Self-regulation, and Childrens Place Preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 387-398. Kuo, F. E. (2003). Social Aspects of Urban Forestry: The Role of Arboriculture in a Healthy Social Ecology. Journal of Arboriculture, 29, 3, 148-155. Kweon, B., Sullivan,W.C.,Wiley, A.R. (1998). Green Common Spaces and the Social Interaction of Inner-city Older Adults. Environment and Behavior, 30, 6, 832858.

17

Levitt, M. A. (1991). Attachment and Close Relationships: A Life-Span Perspective. In: J. L. Gewirtz and W. M. Kurtines (eds.), Intersections with Attachment, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 183-205. Lewis, C. A. (1996). Green Nature/Human Nature: The Meaning of Plants in our Lives. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Lewis, C. M. (1990). Gardening as Healing Process. In: Francis, M. and Hester, R. T. J. (eds.) The Meaning of Gardens, Cambridge: MIT Press. Maller, C., Townsend, M., Pryor, A., Brown, P. and St Leger, L. (2005). Healthy Nature Healthy People: Contact with Nature as an Upstream Health Promotion Intervention for Populations. Health Promotion International, 21, 1, 45-54. McDevitt, T. M. and Ormrod, J. E. (2002). Child Development and Education. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall. Millennium Assessment, 2003. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series. Island Press, Washington, DC. Ministry of Health Malaysia (2004). Malaysias Health 2004: Technical Report , MOH/K/JKA (TR), Kuala Lumpur. Newell, P. B. (1997). A Cross-Cultural Examination of Favorite Places. Environment and Behavior, 4, 29, 495-514. Parry-Jones, W. L. (1990). Natural Landscape, Psychological Well-being and Mental Health. Landscape Research, 15, 2, 7-11. Payne, L., Orsega-Smith, B., Godbey, G., Roy, M. (1998). Local Parks and the Health of Older Adults: Results from an Exploratory Study. Parks Recreation, 33, 10, 6471. Peterson, G.L. (1967). Model of Preference: Qualitative Analysis of the Perception of the Visual Appearance of Residential Neighborhoods. Journal of Regional Science , 7, 1, 19 31. Relph, E. (1976). Place and Placelessness. London: Pion. Rohde, C. L. E. and Kendle, A. D. (1994). Report to English Nature - Human Well-being, Natural Landscapes and Wildlife in Urban Areas: A Review . Bath: Department of Horticulture and Landscape and the Research Institute for the Care of the Elderly, University of Reading. Rossmann, B. B. and Ulehla, Z. J. (1977). Psychological Reward Values Associated with Wilderness Use: A Functional-Reinforcement Approach. Environment and Behavior, 9, 1, 41-66. Ryan, R. L. (2005). Exploring the Effects of Environmental Experience on Attachment to Urban Natural Areas. Environment and Behavior, 37,1, 3-42. Sandstrm, U.F. (2002). Green Infrastructure Planning in Urban Sweden . Planning Practice Research, 17, 4, 373385. Shumaker, S. A. and Taylor, R. B. (1983). Toward a Clarification of People-Place Relationships: A Model of Attachment to Place. In: Feimar, N. R. and Geller, E. S. (eds.), Environmental Psychology: Directions and Perspectives, New York: Praeger, pp. 219251. Schneekloth, L. H. (2001). Urban Green Infrastructure. In Watson, D., Plattus, A. & Shibley, R. Time-Saver Standards for Urban Design, New York: McGraw-Hill. St Leger, L. (2003). Health and Nature-New Challenges for Health Promotion. Health Promotion International, 18, 3, 173-175. Takano, T., Nakamura, K. and Watanabe, M. (2002). Urban Residential Environments and Senior Citizens Longevity in Mega -city Areas: The Importance of Walkable Green Space. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 56, 12, 913916. Tanaka, A., Takano, T., Nakamura, K. and Takeuchi, S. (1996). Health Levels Influenced by Urban Residential Conditions in a Megacity Tokyo. Urban Studies, 33, 879894.

18

Thwaites, K. (2001). Experiential Landscape Place: An Exploration of Space and Experience in Neighbourhood Landscape Architecture. Landscape Research, 26, 3, 245-255. Thwaites, K., Helleur, E. and Simkins, I. M. (2005). Restorative Urban Space: Exploring the Spatial Configuration of Human Emotional Fulfilment in Urban Open Space. Landscape Research, 3, 4, 525 547. Tveit, M., Ode, A. and Fry, G. (2006). Key Concepts in a Framework for Analysing Visual Landscape Character. Landscape Research, 31, 3, 229-255. Tyrvinen, L., Mkinen, K and Schipperijn, J. (2007). Tool for Mapping Social Values of Urban Woodlands and Other Green Areas. Landscape and Urban Planning , 79, 5-19. Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kazmierczak, A., Niemela, J and James, P. (2007). Promoting Ecosystem and Human Health in Urban Areas Using Green Infrastructure: A Literature Review. Landscape and Urban Planning , 81, 3, 167178. Ulrich, R. S. (1999). Effects of Gardens on Health Outcomes: Theory and Research. In: Cooper Marcus, C and Barnes, M. eds. Healing Gardens: Therapeutic Benefits and Design Recommnedations, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 27-86. Ulrich, R. S. (1979). Visual Landscapes and Psychological Well-being. Landscape Research, 4, 1, 17 23. Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and Affective Response to Natural Environment. In: Altman, I. and Wohlwill, J. F., (eds.). Human Behavior and Environment, 85-125. Ulrich, R. S. (1984). Views through a Window May Influence Recovery from Surgery. Science, 224, 420-421. Ulrich, R. S. (2002). Health Benefits of Gardens in Hospitals: Plants for People. Proceedings of the International Exhibition Floriade, 2002. Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A. and Nelson, M. (1991). Stress Recovery during Exposure to Natural and Urban Environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 201-230. Velarde, M. D., Fry, G. and Tveit, M. (2007). Health Effects of Viewing Landscapes Landscapes Types in Environmental Psychology. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 1-14. Ward Thompson, C. (2002). Urban Open Space in the 21 st Century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60, 59-72. Weber, T., Sloan, A. and Wolf, J. (2006). Maryland s Green Infrastructure Assessment: Development of a Comprehensive Approach to Land Conservation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 77: 94-110. Weiss, R. S. (1991). The Attachment Bond in Childhood and Adulthood. In C.M. Parkes and J. Stevenson-Hinde (eds.), Attachment Across the Llife Cycle, New York: Routledge, pp. 66-76. Wells, N. M. (2000). At Home with Nature: Effects of Greenness on Childrens Cognitive Functioning. Environment and Behavior, 6, 32, 775-795. Wolch, J., Wilson, J.P. and Fehrenbach, J. (2002). Parks and Park Funding in Los Angeles: An Equity Mapping Analysis. Los Angeles, University of Southern California Sustainable Cities Program. Woolley, H. (2003). Urban Open Spaces. London: Spon Press. World Health Organization (1948). Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the International Health Conference , New York: Official Records of the World Health Organization, 2, p. 100. World Health Organization (1997). Obesity: Preventing the Global Epidemic. Geneva: World Health Organization.

19

You might also like