IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i17p6836-d402877.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Green Infrastructures in the Peri-Urban Landscape: Exploring Local Perception of Well-Being through ‘Go-Alongs’ and ‘Semi-Structured Interviews’

Author

Listed:
  • Rocío Santo-Tomás Muro

    (Department of Architecture and Design, Institute of Technology, Montepríncipe Campus, Universidad San Pablo CEU, CEU Universities, 28668 Madrid, Spain)

  • Carlota Sáenz de Tejada Granados

    (Department of Architecture and Design, Institute of Technology, Montepríncipe Campus, Universidad San Pablo CEU, CEU Universities, 28668 Madrid, Spain)

  • Eva J. Rodríguez Romero

    (Department of Architecture and Design, Institute of Technology, Montepríncipe Campus, Universidad San Pablo CEU, CEU Universities, 28668 Madrid, Spain)

Abstract

Providing conditions for health and well-being, especially for those most exposed to social and environmental inequalities, is a precondition for sustainable development. Green infrastructures in peri-urban areas have the potential to improve the quality of life of locals by fostering healthy practices, providing views, or bringing nature closer to the city. This work explores the local perception of well-being within urban green infrastructures (UGI) in the peri-urban fringe of Madrid (Spain) through a combination of qualitative methods: “go-alongs” and “semi-structured static interviews”. The grounded-theory based codification of the data using NVivo software and their subsequent analysis results in the identification of social, natural, and perceptual elements that prove to play a relevant role in locals’ perception of well-being. Among these, connectivity with other green spaces, panoramic views and place-based memories are aspects that seem to make UGI serve the community at its full potential, including perceived physical and psychological well-being. We identify in each case study both positive characteristics of UGI and dysfunctional aspects and areas of opportunity. Lastly, a methodological, geographical, and theoretical discussion is made on the relevance of the case studies and pertinence of the two interview methods as valuable tools for analysis and intervention in the peri-urban landscape.

Suggested Citation

  • Rocío Santo-Tomás Muro & Carlota Sáenz de Tejada Granados & Eva J. Rodríguez Romero, 2020. "Green Infrastructures in the Peri-Urban Landscape: Exploring Local Perception of Well-Being through ‘Go-Alongs’ and ‘Semi-Structured Interviews’," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-26, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:17:p:6836-:d:402877
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/17/6836/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/17/6836/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthias Bürgi & Panna Ali & Afroza Chowdhury & Andreas Heinimann & Cornelia Hett & Felix Kienast & Manoranjan Kumar Mondal & Bishnu Raj Upreti & Peter H. Verburg, 2017. "Integrated Landscape Approach: Closing the Gap between Theory and Application," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-13, August.
    2. Sarah L. Bell & Michael Westley & Rebecca Lovell & Benedict W. Wheeler, 2018. "Everyday green space and experienced well-being: the significance of wildlife encounters," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(1), pages 8-19, January.
    3. Kathryn Colley & Caroline Brown & Alicia Montarzino, 2016. "Restorative wildscapes at work: an investigation of the wellbeing benefits of greenspace at urban fringe business sites using ‘go-along’ interviews," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(6), pages 598-615, August.
    4. Maria Elena Menconi & Sara Artemi & Piero Borghi & David Grohmann, 2018. "Role of Local Action Groups in Improving the Sense of Belonging of Local Communities with Their Territories," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-19, December.
    5. Elizabeth Evered, 2016. "The role of the urban landscape in restoring mental health in Sheffield, UK: service user perspectives," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(6), pages 678-694, August.
    6. Siân de Bell & Hilary Graham & Piran C. L. White, 2020. "Evaluating Dual Ecological and Well-Being Benefits from an Urban Restoration Project," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-28, January.
    7. Peter Howley & Mark Scott & Declan Redmond, 2009. "Sustainability versus liveability: an investigation of neighbourhood satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(6), pages 847-864.
    8. M. Gallardo & J. Martínez-Vega, 2016. "Three decades of land-use changes in the region of Madrid and how they relate to territorial planning," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(5), pages 1016-1033, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mulliner, Emma & Smallbone, Kieran & Maliene, Vida, 2013. "An assessment of sustainable housing affordability using a multiple criteria decision making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 270-279.
    2. Laura Lecluyse & Mirjam Knockaert & André Spithoven, 2019. "The contribution of science parks: a literature review and future research agenda," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 559-595, April.
    3. Theresa Kotulla & Jon Martin Denstadli & Are Oust & Elisabeth Beusker, 2019. "What Does It Take to Make the Compact City Liveable for Wider Groups? Identifying Key Neighbourhood and Dwelling Features," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-18, June.
    4. González-García, Alberto & Palomo, Ignacio & González, José A. & López, César A. & Montes, Carlos, 2020. "Quantifying spatial supply-demand mismatches in ecosystem services provides insights for land-use planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    5. Duy X. Tran & Diane Pearson & Alan Palmer & David Gray, 2020. "Developing a Landscape Design Approach for the Sustainable Land Management of Hill Country Farms in New Zealand," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-29, June.
    6. Andrew Allan & Ali Soltani & Mohammad Hamed Abdi & Melika Zarei, 2022. "Driving Forces behind Land Use and Land Cover Change: A Systematic and Bibliometric Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-20, August.
    7. Zaheer Allam & Ayyoob Sharifi & Simon Elias Bibri & Didier Chabaud, 2022. "Emerging Trends and Knowledge Structures of Smart Urban Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-29, April.
    8. Dorota Mantey, 2021. "Objective and Subjective Determinants of Neighborhood Satisfaction in the Context of Retrofitting Suburbs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-19, October.
    9. Aditjandra, Paulus Teguh & Mulley, Corinne & Nelson, John D., 2013. "The influence of neighbourhood design on travel behaviour: Empirical evidence from North East England," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 54-65.
    10. Henriette Cristiana Calin & Radu Antohe & Florica Georgeta Rotaru, 2018. "Information and communication technology(ICT) based on modern farming: solution for sustainable agriculture," International Conference on Competitiveness of Agro-food and Environmental Economy Proceedings, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, vol. 7, pages 183-188.
    11. Qi Zhang & Esther Hiu-Kwan Yung & Edwin Hon-Wan Chan, 2021. "Meshing Sustainability with Satisfaction: An Investigation of Residents’ Perceptions in Three Different Neighbourhoods in Chengdu, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-32, November.
    12. Yuan Gao & Kun Liu & Peiling Zhou & Hongkun Xie, 2021. "The Effects of Residential Built Environment on Supporting Physical Activity Diversity in High-Density Cities: A Case Study in Shenzhen, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(13), pages 1-16, June.
    13. de Chazal, Jacqueline, 2010. "A systems approach to liveability and sustainability: Defining terms and mapping relationships to link desires with ecological opportunities and constraints," Research Reports 95056, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    14. Eziyi O. Ibem & Pearl A. Opoko & Egidario B. Aduwo, 2017. "Satisfaction with Neighbourhood Environments in Public Housing: Evidence from Ogun State, Nigeria," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 130(2), pages 733-757, January.
    15. Šťastná Milada & Vaishar Antonín, 2023. "Opportunities for the Development of a Borderland Rural Territory: A Case Study of the Hlučín Region," Quaestiones Geographicae, Sciendo, vol. 42(4), pages 91-106, December.
    16. Serena Santis, 2020. "The Demographic and Economic Determinants of Financial Sustainability: An Analysis of Italian Local Governments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-16, September.
    17. Paulina G. Karimova & Kuang-Chung Lee, 2022. "An Integrated Landscape–Seascape Approach in the Making: Facilitating Multi-Stakeholder Partnership for Socio-Ecological Revitalisation in Eastern Coastal Taiwan (2016–2021)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-22, April.
    18. Kailin Hatlestad & Joakim Wehlin & Karl-Johan Lindholm, 2021. "Coping with Risk. A Deep-Time Perspective on Societal Responses to Ecological Uncertainty in the River Dalälven Catchment Area in Sweden," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-18, August.
    19. Tingting Su & Kaiping Wang & Shuangshuang Li & Xinyan Wang & Huan Li & Huanru Ding & Yanfei Chen & Chenhui Liu & Min Liu & Yunlu Zhang, 2022. "Analysis and Optimization of Landscape Preference Characteristics of Rural Public Space Based on Eye-Tracking Technology: The Case of Huangshandian Village, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-25, December.
    20. Greg D. Simpson & Jackie Parker, 2018. "Data on Peer-Reviewed Papers about Green Infrastructure, Urban Nature, and City Liveability," Data, MDPI, vol. 3(4), pages 1-10, November.

    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:12:y:2020:i:17:p:6836-:d:402877. 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.