IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i18p4868-d264666.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sustainable Development of Urban Green Areas for Quality of Life Improvement—Argument for Increased Citizen Participation

Author

Listed:
  • Mihaela Constantinescu

    (Marketing Department, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest 010404, Romania)

  • Andreea Orîndaru

    (Marketing Department, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest 010404, Romania)

  • Ștefan-Claudiu Căescu

    (Marketing Department, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest 010404, Romania)

  • Andreea Pachițanu

    (Marketing Department, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest 010404, Romania)

Abstract

Considering the imperative need for sustainable urban development, this article argues for increased citizen participation in the decision-making process, as it generates better outcomes (due to a wider range of perspectives) and also makes people better citizens, as they will be partially responsible for the results. One major dimension of urban areas’ which needs a sustainable development is represented by parks, which can be directly associated to citizens’ quality of life (QoL). Thus, we have conducted direct research (face-to-face interviews) of park visitors in order to analyze the perceived impact of green areas on their quality of life. From all the QoL dimensions, we have selected six which are directly linked to park visits—health (mental and physical), social interaction, education and culture, family life, freedom, and connection with nature—in order to determine the perceived degree of association between them, as well as the specific activities done in the park that impact those six dimensions. The research results were used to develop a conceptual model which links quality of life to park visits, a model that can and should be used by public authorities in order to build a collaborative process for urban sustainable development.

Suggested Citation

  • Mihaela Constantinescu & Andreea Orîndaru & Ștefan-Claudiu Căescu & Andreea Pachițanu, 2019. "Sustainable Development of Urban Green Areas for Quality of Life Improvement—Argument for Increased Citizen Participation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-16, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:18:p:4868-:d:264666
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/18/4868/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/18/4868/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joan Font & Magdalena Wojcieszak & Clemente J. Navarro, 2015. "Participation, Representation and Expertise: Citizen Preferences for Political Decision-Making Processes," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 63, pages 153-172, April.
    2. Mihaela CONSTANTINESCU, 2012. "The economic crisis – implications on methods and instruments used in quality of life studies," Theoretical and Applied Economics, Asociatia Generala a Economistilor din Romania - AGER, vol. 0(8(573)), pages 125-134, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Liangjun Peng & Mengdi Gu & Zhijun Peng, 2020. "Study on the Optimized Mode of Waste Governance with Sustainable Urban Development—Case from China’s Urban Waste Classified Collection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-12, May.
    2. Shabir Hussain Khahro & Mir Aftab Hussain Talpur & Musrat Gul Bhellar & Gopal Das & Haris Shaikh & Basel Sultan, 2023. "GIS-Based Sustainable Accessibility Mapping of Urban Parks: Evidence from the Second Largest Settlement of Sindh, Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-27, April.
    3. Chuanyu Peng & Guoping Yuan & Yanhui Mao & Xin Wang & Jianhong Ma & Marino Bonaiuto, 2020. "Expanding Social, Psychological, and Physical Indicators of Urbanites’ Life Satisfaction toward Residential Community: A Structural Equation Modeling Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-23, December.
    4. Maria Stella Righettini, 2021. "Framing Sustainability. Evidence from Participatory Forums to Taylor the Regional 2030 Agenda to Local Contexts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-15, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. John Mary Kanyamurwa & Joseph Okeyo Obosi, 2020. "The Influence of Citizen Competence on District Level Political Accountability in Uganda," Journal of Public Administration and Governance, Macrothink Institute, vol. 10(3), pages 443462-4434, December.
    2. Carlos Rico Motos, 2019. "‘Let the Citizens Fix This Mess!’ Podemos’ Claim for Participatory Democracy in Spain," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(2), pages 187-197.
    3. Philipp Harms & Claudia Landwehr & Maximilian Lutz & Markus Tepe, 2020. "Deciding how to decide on public goods provision: The role of instrumental vs. intrinsic motives," Working Papers 2018, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    4. Christensen, Henrik Serup, 2019. "How citizens evaluate participatory processes: A conjoint analysis," SocArXiv 5t72a, Center for Open Science.
    5. Reinhard Heinisch & Carsten Wegscheider, 2020. "Disentangling How Populism and Radical Host Ideologies Shape Citizens’ Conceptions of Democratic Decision-Making," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(3), pages 32-44.
    6. Ernesto Ganuza & Joan Font, 2020. "Experts in Government: What for? Ambiguities in Public Opinion Towards Technocracy," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 520-532.
    7. Robert Weymouth & Janette Hartz-Karp & Dora Marinova, 2020. "Repairing Political Trust for Practical Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-25, August.
    8. Philipp Harms & Claudia Landwehr, 2017. "Preferences for direct democracy: intrinsic or instrumental? Evidence from a survey experiment," Working Papers 1719, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    9. Antonio Arcos & Maria del Mar Rueda & Sara Pasadas-del-Amo, 2020. "Treating Nonresponse in Probability-Based Online Panels through Calibration: Empirical Evidence from a Survey of Political Decision-Making Procedures," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-16, March.
    10. Grieco, Daniela & Bripi, Francesco, 2022. "Participation of charity beneficiaries," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 199(C), pages 1-17.
    11. Claudia Landwehr & Thorsten Faas, 2017. "Who Wants Democratic Innovations, and Why?," Working Papers 1705, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    12. Soliño, Mario & Raposo, Rosa, 2022. "Contributing to healthy forests: Social preferences for pest and disease mitigation programs in Spain," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    13. Yunyi Qin, 2023. "Grassroots governance and social development: theoretical and comparative legal aspects," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-9, December.
    14. Soliño, M. & Alía, R. & Agúndez, D., 2020. "Citizens' preferences for research programs on forest genetic resources: A case applied to Pinus pinaster Ait. in Spain," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:18:p:4868-:d:264666. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

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

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

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

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

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