A bottom-up perspective on green infrastructure in informal settlements: Understanding nature’s benefits through lived experiences

(1)

Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 94 (2024) 128231

Available online 30 January 2024

Original article

A bottom-up perspective on green infrastructure in informal settlements:

Understanding nature ’ s benefits through lived experiences

Elgar Kamjou

^*^,¹

, Mark Scott

²

, Mick Lennon

³

University College Dublin, School of Architecture Planning and Environmental Policy, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland

A R T I C L E I N F O Keywords:

Ecosystem services Green infrastructure Informal settlements The global South

A B S T R A C T

Twenty per cent of the world’s urban population lives in inadequate housing, including informal settlements (IS).

This population often experience a low quality of life and faces multiple environmental challenges heightened by climate change, such as air pollution, flooding, and drought. While there is extensive academic literature sub- stantiating the potential of enhancing green infrastructure (GI) as an effective approach to manage environmental risks, it is often overlooked as an academic focus in the analysis of development issues in informal settlements. Similarly, GI is neglected as an effective environmental approach and planning response in this context often due to a lack of clear understanding of its benefits. This perspective leads to considering GI as a luxury rather than essential in IS. To address this gap in the literature and by considering the socio-cultural importance of green infrastructure, this paper attempts to provide a bottom-up perspective on GI and the ecosystem services (ESS) it supplies for the residents of IS. To do so, two IS in Tehran metropolitan area, Iran, have been studied. Through semi-structured interviews, residents’ conceptions of ESS provided by GI were explored to identify the in/significance of GI in their daily life. The results show that residents’ lived experiences provided them with a profound understanding of the benefits of nature and GI. Through analysing residents’ experiences, this research describes the socio-cultural bonds, environmental benefits, and economic reliance between residents and their surrounding environment. This paper demonstrates that the GI provides valuable and yet substantially different ESS for residents of IS compared to how the concept is conventionally conceived in the global North. The paper argues for necessity of GI in IS as it provides environmental comfort, hazards mitigation, and economic support while having cultural values. Therefore, understanding their lifestyle, rela- tionship with surrounding nature and sociocultural considerations is both effective and necessary in discussing GI in informal settlements.

1. Introduction

Today more than one billion of the world’s urban population live in informal settlements (UN-Habitat, 2020). Informal settlements, as an extensive form of urbanisation in global South cities, often suffer from insufficient infrastructure, poor management, precarious livelihoods, exclusionary planning and inequalities (UN-Habitat, 2020; Wekesa et al., 2011). Further, informal settlements are more susceptible to the effects of global environmental phenomena, such as climate breakdown.

Among the potential environmental risks associated with informal settlements are, frequent flooding, drought, water scarcity, landslides,

pollution, and the depletion of ecosystems (Douglas, 2018; Roy et al., 2018; Girma et al., 2019). Policy interest in the planning and environmental quality of informal settlements has grown over recent decades.

For example, several targets and indicators of the United Nation’s Sus- tainable Development Goal 11 (SDG 11- Sustainable Cities and Com- munities) focus on enhancing the environmental quality of poorer urban neighbourhoods (United-Nations, 2017; UN-Habitat, 2020).

While there have been advances, more environmental actions are still needed targeting poorer populations in the global South (UN-Ha- bitat, 2020, p. 124). Therefore, there is a need for investigating more innovative approaches to address environmental issues in this context.

* Corresponding author.

E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Kamjou).

1 ORCID: 0000–0002-6893–717X

2 ORCID: 0000–0002-8053–5720

3 ORCID: 0000–0001-8613–092X

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Urban Forestry & Urban Greening

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ufug

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2024.128231

Received 5 June 2023; Received in revised form 25 January 2024; Accepted 26 January 2024

(2)

To the fore of such approaches has been ’green infrastructure’ (GI) planning. This approach to managing environmental issues has been applied in multiple cities of the global North, and more recently in the global South (Mell, 2016; Matsler et al., 2021). Yet despite its demon- strated benefits and potential, GI is often overlooked in the context of informal settlements.

Indeed, as an approach largely conceptualised according to the needs and planning realities of the global North, applying GI in the informal settlements of the global South can prove challenging. Thus, in acknowledging the need for a context-sensitive conceptualisation of GI (Du Toit et al., 2018; Cilliers, 2019; Sultana et al., 2020), this paper examines multiple and wide-ranging perspectives of GI among residents of informal settlements. The overall aim of this paper is to provide a

’bottom-up’ perspective on GI in the context of informal settlements.

Such a perspective provides nuance to our understanding of the oft neglected ’lived experience’ of GI in informal settlements. This is important for planning activities in informal settlements by highlighting environmental assets that may be valued by residents yet overlooked by planning authorities. Consequently, this paper’s objectives are, first, to explore the multiple benefits of GI for residents of informal settlements through studying their lived experiences and, secondly, to illustrate the need for contextual sensitivity when studying and deploying the GI planning concept in informal settlements. This is achieved through a case study exploration in Tehran Metropolitan Area (TMA), Iran. The paper first identifies and discusses GI planning as an effective, yet neglected approach in informal settlements of the global South. The methodological approach adopted in the research is then outlined. The paper subsequently presents the results and discusses the results of the analysis. The paper closes by drawing conclusions from the foregoing on how the GI concept is and should be considered when undertaking planning activities in informal settlements.

2. Green infrastructure and informal settlements

GI is not a new concept but a new term in urban planning (Matsler et al., 2021). There is no global consensus on the definition and perception of GI (Mell, 2008; Mell, 2016), yet the definition provided by Benedict et al. (2006, p. 1) is still the most cited: an interconnected network of natural areas and other open spaces that conserves natural ecosystem values and functions, sustains clean air and water, and provides a wide array of benefits to people and wildlife.

A diversity of interpretations of GI now pervades planning, from the water-centric approach of the United States of America (USA) and the ecologically focused concerns of the European Union, to the more holistic socio-ecological approach in the United Kingdom (UK). This is consequent on the spectrum of institutional, physical, social, ecological and economic contexts into which the concept has been translated and adopted (Lennon, 2015; Mell, 2016; Matsler et al., 2021). Despite various definitions of GI, there is a consensus among scholars that GI provides multiple ecosystem services (ESS) (Lennon et al., 2016;

Meerow and Newell, 2017). ESS have been core to many scholars’

definition of GI (Davies et al., 2006; Lafortezza et al., 2013; Lennon and Scott, 2014; European Commission, 2015). From this perspective, urban GI is a network of connected, multi-functional natural assets operating at and between various scales (i.e. open spaces, parks, gardens, green corridors, waterways, and street trees) that provide ESS in urban areas.

The ESS discourse references’ the benefits people obtain from ecosystems’ (MA, 2005, v) and most frequently follows the categorisation of services advanced by the Millennium Ecosystems Assessment. These are namely (MA, 2005, p. 40):

•Supporting Services: services’ necessary for the production of all other ESS’ such as nutrient cycling, water cycling, and soil formation

•Regulating Services: services’ necessary for the production of all other ESS’ such as air quality regulation, climate regulation, water puri- fication and waste treatment.

• Provisioning Services: the provision of ’products obtained from ecosystems’ such as food, fibre, fuel, pharmaceuticals, and fresh water.

• Cultural Services: the ’nonmaterial benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experiences’ such as recreation and tourism, aesthetic values, sense of place, and cultural heritage values.

Although, new GI informed concepts have recently emerged from countries of the global South, such as "Sponge Cities" in China (Chan et al., 2018; Qiao et al., 2020; Yin et al., 2021), the global North framing of the concept dominates international debates. A review of the related literature within the global South illustrates an emerging body of literature, but this is limited to a few geographical contexts, such as some African countries (i.e. South Africa and Tanzania) (Roy et al., 2018; King and Shackleton, 2020; Venter et al., 2020), India (Mell, 2016), and South American countries (i.e. Brazil and Colombia) (Anguelovski et al., 2019; Diep, Dodman and Parikh, 2019). GI in these contexts is often defined based on its Northern definition and refers to urban green spaces at multiple scales, such as the Cintur´on Verde, a greenbelt project in Medellín, Colombia (Anguelovski et al., 2019).

The concept of GI in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) countries such as Iran, Afghanistan, Egypt, and Turkey, where in- dividuals are experiencing severe impacts resulting from climate change, is frequently overlooked. A very limited number of very recent studies discuss resilient cities, ESS, and urban climate adaptation in this region using GI specific terminology and synonyms (e.g. green corridors, greening etc) (Amini Parsa et al., 2019; Ramyar et al., 2019; Ramyar et al., 2020). The region’s generally hot and arid climate, accompanied by rapid urbanization, has resulted in new environmental risks and vulnerabilities that present a new – yet understudied – arena for the deployment of the GI concept. Literature in this region highlights GI’s role in addressing issues such as heat mitigation (Jamali et al., 2021;

Maghrabi et al., 2021) thermal comfort (Matallah et al., 2021; Radhi et al., 2015), flood controlling (Mabrouk et al., 2023; POuYA¹, Aghl- mand and Karsli, 2022), and storm water management (Saeedi et al., 2023; Raei et al., 2019; Jamali et al., 2021; Azouz and Salem, 2023).

This indicates that GI responses to climatic issues in this region vary across different scales. From micro-climate adaptation strategies, such as green roofs and neighbourhood adaptation (Shirgir et al., 2020;

Andric et al., 2020; POuYA¹, Aghlmand and Karsli, 2022) to city-scale interventions like green networks (Aly and Amer, 2010; Furlan and Sinclair, 2021). However, the significance of each approach varies according to the countries in the region, which could be linked to the specific environmental issues they are confronting. The planning literature in Iran, focusing on ESS and climate adaptation, has shown a notable gap in addressing GI within urban contexts. Despite discussions on ESS utilization for climate adaptation and mapping green spaces, there is limited discourse on GI characteristics. Notably absent are discussions elucidating the role of GI in urban settings. As with the case of other Middle Eastern countries, nascent academic and practice dis- courses centre on reducing air pollution and the application of ESS for heat mitigation (Amini Parsa et al., 2019; Ramyar et al., 2020; Ramyar et al., 2019). However, although a significant proportion of the urban population in these countries are living under informality, these areas are not core in such research.

Furthermore, a growing bank of research indicates that GI is often marginalised as a potential’ solution’ and rarely conceived of as

’essential infrastructure’ when planning in global South contexts (Roy et al., 2018; Birtchnell et al., 2019; Venter et al., 2019; Girma et al., 2019). This is despite the multiple socio-cultural benefits that greening projects provide in global South cities (Adegun, 2018a; Du Toit et al., 2018; Adegun, 2019; Tibesigwa et al., 2020). This is most evident in informal settlements where knowledge and application of GI is largely absent.

The definition of informal settlements is still not agreed upon among

(3)

scholars. This is due to their diverse social, political, economic, and governmental characteristics (Winter et al., 2021; Bandauko et al., 2022;

Weimann and Oni, 2019). Studying related literature illustrates that the dominant understanding of informal settlements shifted dramatically over the last three decades from a manifestation of poverty and problematic areas to a manifestation of inequalities and the neglect of a marginalised population’s rights (Shatkin, 2004; Roy, 2005; Dovey and King, 2011;

Wekesa et al., 2011; Chien, 2017; UN-Habitat, 2022; UN-Habitat, 2015).

IS are typically characterised as a process and outcome of unplanned urbanisation with insufficient infrastructure, which, compared to other urban developments, often disproportionately suffer from environmental issues such as pollution and the impacts of climate change (UN-Habitat, 2020). However, there are conflicting views and an overall lack of research regarding how best to address environmental issues within informal areas as a common form of urbanisation in the global South. The existing academic literature defines GI as an effective approach to manage environmental issues in cities, yet despite its essential benefits and potential, GI is often overlooked in developing informal settlements.

While attention to GI in cities of the global South is growing, only a few recent studies have specifically focused on informal urban contexts (Adegun, 2017; Lindley et al., 2018; Venter et al., 2019; Tibesigwa et al., 2020). These studies suggest that GI can help informal residents access basic services such as clean water, fuel, and construction material.

Although the benefits of GI in informal settlements have been briefly discussed in a few studies (G´omez-Baggethun and Barton, 2013; Ade- gun, 2017; Du Toit et al., 2018; Herslund et al., 2018; Dipeolu et al., 2021; Diep et al., 2019; Venter et al., 2020; Pugh, 2000), there remains a lack of clear understanding of the existing ESS provided by GI in informal settlements. Nonetheless, the concept of ESS is fundamental in exploring GI’s benefits in informal settlements. This is because ESS offer essential environmental and economic benefits for the sustenance and well-being of marginalized social groups, such as informal settlement dwellers (Sultana and Alam, 2023). However, the discussion surrounding cultural services and the importance of reinforcing such services is frequently neglected. Studies also suggest that the issues of primary concern in GI planning in the global South differ significantly from those conventionally focused on in the global North, where the concept has received greatest attention (Zhang et al., 2020; Yin et al., 2021; Cilliers, 2019). This has the potential for context insensitivities in the trans- position of the concept from the global North to the global South and may result in ecosystem disservices (ESD).

Accordingly, this paper seeks to enhance our understanding of GI in informal settlements context by redressing the knowledge deficit concerning ESS and ESD. To do so, this paper centres on the analysis of the lived experience of residents of informal settlements. As such, the paper helps rectify the paucity of attention allocated to the study of GI in the global South and provide nuance to our understandings of how GI is perceived by those living in conditions of informality.

3. Methods and case study review 3.1. Data collection methods

To ascertain the ’lived experiences’ of GI by those resident in informal settlements, a qualitative approach was used in the collection and analysis of the case study material. Data collection methods included semi-structured interviews and structured field observation.

Overall, 33 semi-structured interviews were conducted with residents of two informal settlements in Tehran Metropolitan Area, namely Farahzad and Amirieh. During a primary field study of the area, multiple public groups were identified, such as ‘women’s empowerment groups’,

‘school/home linkage groups’, and residents who participate in civic activities such as ‘health plans’, ‘outdoor free sports’, and ‘religious meetings’. Participants from each of these groups were identified and interviewed through a combination of sampling methods encompassing

random, purposive and snowball sampling (Bryman, 2016). Participants from residents of informal settlements were chosen from the residents who live in the case study informal settlements. Almost half of the participants from the residents’ group were selected randomly by walking in different parts of the neighbourhood. The rest of the participants from the residents’ group were approached via public groups. The participants encompassed a diverse range of ages, spanning from 18 to 82 years old, with an almost equal representation of men and women.

The second data collection method was structured field observation, in which multiple parts of the selected informal areas were observed and their characteristics recorded for analysis via photography, videos, notes and maps.

3.2. Case study selection

The concept of GI has barely been discussed in the context of informal settlements in Iran. Only a few studies briefly refer to the topic of GI and informal settlements (Bahrami et al., 2012; Bahrini et al., 2017). Additionally, Iran’s informal settlements have often been neglected in the wider international literature.

In Iran, the growth of informal settlements started seven decades ago. Despite the application of various policies, from demolishing to in- situ upgrading, one-third of the urban population – almost 20 million people – still live in informal settlements in Iran (Ghaderpour et al., 2021). Of this, 2.6 million are living in the informal settlements of the Tehran Metropolitan Area (Municipality of Tehran, 2019), which are scattered across 13 settlements either within the boundaries of Tehran city or the metropolitan area. During this research, primary information was collected through visits to 13 informal settlements, and consulta- tions with local researchers. Based on the gathered data, four criteria were identified to assess these settlements and determine the most suitable case studies. These criteria included location, GI assets, acces- sibility of documents, and potential for safe and effective fieldwork. As a result of this evaluation, the Farahzad neighbourhood, located within Tehran’s municipal boundaries, and the Amirieh neighbourhood, located outside of those boundaries, were selected for further investigation.

3.3. Case study review

Farahzad, with a 200-year history, transitioned from a rural to a reserved residential area due to Tehran’s development in the 1980 s.

Noteworthy for good air quality and a rich natural environment for decades. The population of Farahzad is almost 15,000, 42% reside in informal settlements, primarily along the riverside. Amirieh, is another informal settlement in Tehran Metropolitan Area, emerged from a rural background, expanding rapidly in the last two decades due to Tehran’s growth and nearby industrial development. This area is housing nearly 30,000 people.

Both selected neighbourhoods suffer from poverty, infrastructural deficits, and lack of tenure. The appearance of GI elements in neighbourhoods are strong. Employing a process of structured field observation, several GI elements were recorded in these neighbourhoods, such as potted planting and small agricultural areas, gardens, public green areas, parks, small agricultural areas, street-side green areas, and green walls (see Figs. 1 and 2). Gardens in this context mean a private area, with a medium density of fruit trees and small agriculture areas. These gardens often produce a portion of vegetable and fruit for adjacent areas and cover a considerable portion of the neighbourhood. Farahzad, features diverse GI like unfenced gardens, rivers, urban parks and domestical agriculture. Amirieh, exhibits diverse GI elements, including public and private green areas, agricultural lands, gardens, street-side green areas, green walls, and unconstructed lands.

(4)

3.4. Analysis

Thematic analysis was employed as the data analysis method. The- matic analysis aims to find patterns and themes within qualitative data (Maguire and Delahunt, 2017). The analysis employed a thematic approach, distinguishing ’semantic themes’ for surface meanings and

’latent themes’ for underlying ideas. (Maguire and Delahunt, 2017).

Following Braun and Clarke’s six-step framework, the process involved becoming familiar with the data, generating codes, identifying, reviewing and defining themes, and final write-up (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Through identifying themes, this method provided an opportu- nity to distinguish various perceptions of GI’s benefits among residents of informal settlements. The following sections of the paper provide an analysis of the case study with respect to the paper’s objectives.

4. The benefits of green infrastructure

Four themes emerged from analysing the interview results to describe residents’ perception of the GI’s benefits, namely (i) socio- cultural benefits, (ii) socio-environmental benefits, (iii) hazards’ mitigation, and (iv) economic benefits. As discussed below, informal settlements residents have gained extensive knowledge about the ESS benefits provided by GI through their lived experience. To residents, GI is essential to local quality of life and the development priorities they identify for their neighbourhood, whether it be the conservation of existing green areas such as gardens or investment in other forms of GI assets, such as parks.

4.1. Socio-cultural benefits

Residents often associate non-material cultural ESS benefits with GI, including recreational benefits, visual qualities, nostalgia, relaxation, and an enhanced sense of belonging and place attachment. To residents of both informal settlements of Farahzad and Amirieh, green areas are

an inseparable part of their culture, identity and lifestyle. However, they profile such perspectives differently depending on their lived experiences.

To convey these benefits, residents of Farahzad comment on their feelings toward green areas while relating memories of such areas.

Illustrating the views frequently mentioned by many interviewed is Participant-AY (2020/09/20) who reflects on how, "These gardens are our memories of family members who are not with us anymore, our child- hood, our happy and sad moments". Such quotes show the strong affective connection between people and place, mostly gardens. To them, green areas are their heritage and legacy to the next generation. Their lived experience as gardeners who live within their gardens with their families and close relatives provides them with a unique cultural bond with these green areas.

Although repeated less often, such a perception was also evident among residents of Amirieh. In general, residents of Amirieh shared sense of positive place identity provided by the gardens in their neighbourhood. The comments of a resident illustrate this widely shared perspective. Participant-Y (2020/09/11), from the Amirieh neighbourhood, explains:

"To me, the conservation of gardens is the priority […]. You know, having these gardens feels mundane to some people because they are used to the idea of having them around. But when I talk to residents of other places, I see that they know our neighbourhood because of its gardens." (Partici- pant-Y, 2020/09/11)

In Amirieh, residents are not chiefly gardeners, but they live in an area which is surrounded by many gardens. Thus, although they also describe a strong link between their lived experiences and green areas, their experience differs and mostly includes public green areas and parks. However, as with Farahzad residents, nostalgia remains important in framing local interpretations of public green areas. For example, one resident, referring to their nostalgic memories, explains their feelings toward public green areas as:

"I remember this park. I played in this playground. Kids always end up fighting over the swings and slides. I remember the smell of elm trees and the uneven topography. These are all good memories for me." (Partici- pant-AF, 2020/09/02).

Such experiences and feelings toward GI emerged directly from residents’ experiences. To them, green areas are not just green for today;

they hold their lived memories.

Additionally, to residents, green areas add to their living environment’s visual quality (see Fig. 3). A desire to increase the visual qualities of their neighbourhood was mentioned by many residents in both Far- ahzad and Amirieh. In the often-chaotic environment of informal Fig. 1. Integrated domestical gardens in residential areas of Farahzad (Credit:

Author, 2020).

Fig. 2. Amirieh neighbourhood (Credit: Author,2020).

Fig. 3. A sample of visual qualities provided by green areas from residents’

perspective (Credit: Author, 2020).

(5)

settlements, residents appear to find calmness, relaxation and visual qualities in natural areas, which is critically important for public health (Ghaleh, 2020). As remarked by Participant-AI (2020/08/28) from Amirieh:

"I believe these green areas are very important in making cities beautiful.

For example, the Amir-e-Kabir Park impacted its surrounding areas a hundred per cent". (Participant-AI, 2020/08/28).

Moreover, a widely shared belief among residents of both case studies is that green areas are beneficial for mental health. For example, a participant who is a resident in Farahzad explains, "I have a unique sense of relaxation when I am near the river or in a garden" (Participant-AR, 2020/10/14). Some participants used labels such as "relaxing" (Partici- pant-Y, 2020/09/11), "calm area" (Participant-AI, 2020/08/28), and

"mental health support" (Participant-AM, 2020/09/05) to describe the benefits of green areas and parks.

This intertwining of place and identity is consolidated through the strong ties between religious customs and the green areas of Farahzad.

This is illustrated by the operation of the Waqf concept with respect to Farahzad’s gardens. In Islamic countries, this is the ’custom of giving a piece of land, etc., to a religious institution, so that the revenue can be used for pious or charitable purposes; also, the property given in this way’ (Oxford English Dictionary, 2022). In Iran, a Waqf Organisation, as the religious institution, will be the rightful owner of the donated lands when the Waqf conditions are met, such as the death of the current owner. Waqf is a complex factor in most informal settlements of Iran. A considerable portion of the two informal settlements are built ’Waqfed’ lands (MOT, 2020; Urban Regeneration Corporation of Iran, 2017).

According to the idea of Waqf, and to the Waqf organisation, main- taining the economic function of the properties and their benefits is critical (Kamyar, 2006). However, managing all the Waqfed properties is not possible for this organisation because of the extent of the lands under its jurisdiction. Therefore, instead of managing them directly, this organisation’s current policy is to ask for annual rent or participation in the Waqf purpose from residents who live, work or use the Waqfed properties, including residents’ of informal settlements. As described by one resident:

"You see, most of our gardens are Waqfed. The Waqf organisation is monitoring, but the main responsibility is with the current owners; us.

During the Muharram,¹each family donates food for a day during the memorial. The required funds come from the gardens’ benefits."

(Participant-AZ, 2020/10/19)

This indicates that residents actively contribute to the preservation of a highly revered religious custom that provides societal benefits through the limited means they have available to them.

4.2. Socio-environmental benefits

The socio-environmental benefits of GI, including air quality, temperature mitigation, and recreational benefits, are core to the residents’

discourse. Indeed, the majority of discussions concerning the benefits of GI revolve around perceptions of these issues. However, other perceptions, such as the role of GI in providing clean water, flood and hazard mitigation, biodiversity support, and provisioning services, are equally discussed, mostly by gardeners. Hence, what is discussed below as socio- environmental benefits reflects a combination of regulating and cultural ecosystems services.

Residents often refer to the good air quality of their neighbourhood by comparing it with the air quality of Tehran. Currently air pollution is

one of the biggest challenges for the urban authorities in Tehran. On 9th April 2022, Tehran was rated the most polluted urban area worldwide (IQAir, 2022). Therefore, to residents, having better air quality while being adjacent to Tehran or even within Tehran is a valuable advantage.

They believe the vegetation, green areas and gardens in their neighbourhoods have a role in improving the air quality of their neighbourhood. One resident describes this often-mentioned benefit by explaining,

"It’s [Farahzad] a good place; the air is clean here, and we have blue sky. It is all because of our gardens here" (Participant-AQ, 2020/10/12).

There is no data available to compare Tehran’s air quality to this informal settlement. However, the higher elevation of Farahzad provides residents with a view over the Tehran’s skyline. According to the residents, the sky of Tehran is grey and smoky on most days of the year, while their sky is blue and the air is fresh in Farahzad. In this context, a group of Farahzad residents, who are gardeners, discuss the benefits of GI not only locally but also on a regional scale. Such knowledge emerged from their interaction with nature. By discussing the ecological network of Tehran, they emphasise the importance of Farahzad in enhancing the air quality of the north of Tehran. One of the gardeners/residents describes the importance of Farahzad valley for Tehran as follows:

"Farahzad and Kan [a green valley in Tehran] both are functioning as air vents for Tehran. Farahzad is windy; the air enters from the mountains north of this valley. Touching trees, leaves and vegetation increases the humidity. Then this fresh, clean air enters Tehran. This valley acts like lungs for Tehran." (Participant-AZ, 2020/10/19)

Such comments illustrate gardener residents’ in-depth understanding of their surrounding environment.

Residents’ in the Amirieh neighbourhood hold similar views on local air quality. Here, residents use their experiences of having a conversa- tion with others who live in Tehran to justify their claims regarding the neighbourhood’s air quality. Repeating many, a resident of Amirieh states:

"We have many relatives living in Tehran. Every time they visit, they praise the air quality of Amirieh. For example, they say: ’the air is so fresh and clean here’." (Participant-AH, 2020/08/27)

Such ’fresh and clean air’ is a source of local pride for informal settlements residents often stigmatised by the wider (formal) citizenry of Tehran as they "have something that even residents of Tehran are missing, clean air" (Participant-AP, 2020/10/08). In this sense, such assertions regarding ’fresh and clean air’ reflect a sensitivity to the intertwining of cultural (place identity) and regulating (air quality) ESS provided by GI in both these informal settlements.

Furthermore, residents’ interaction with nature in public green spaces and parks demonstrates such areas’ cultural (recreational) ESS benefits. This perspective is characterised more by residents of Amirieh than Farahzad. The lifestyle and pattern of using public green space among residents in Amirieh makes parks central to their lived experiences. According to such residents, they use parks for many different purposes, including family gatherings, sports, walking, and picnicking.

According to residents, although they use parks on many occasions throughout the year, during the warm months, they use parks more often. For example, one resident in Amirieh notes how:

"These parks are very good. There have been several times that we had guests in our home, and then because it was too warm or because of an electricity outage, we went to the park instead." (Participant-AH, 2020/

08/27).

Additionally, to residents, parks are the only recreational places accessible, affordable and available to them. One interviewee conveys the need for parks, especially in informal settlements, when noting that:

"My family and most families living here are from the working class […]

We cannot afford luxury leisure activities […] our recreations are simple, like going to parks, green areas and such. Withholding this leaves us with

1 “An annual festival in the month of Muharram, commemorating the deaths of the grandsons of Muhammad.” Oxford English Dictionary (2022) ’"art, n.1"’, Oxford University Press (https://www.oed.com). Available at: http://www.oed.

com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/11125.

(6)

nothing. Access to such areas is a high priority for us. Such areas can change our daily life, even if it’s a small change." (Participant-AB, 2020/

08/08)

These comments and many similar ones demonstrate that GI provides more than recreational benefits for residents. Parks and public green spaces, provide a means to negotiate the constraints of low housing quality in informal settlements (i.e. absence of air circulation, the small areas of the residential units, and lack of access to many basic services), by mitigating the impact of the heat, providing space for large groups of people and offering a feasible response to context specific challenges, such as communal outdoor living spaces during electricity outrages. Therefore, such benefits reinforce the value of the green spaces as an essential service as residents seek refuge in the GI of their neighbourhood.

To many residents of Farahzad in particualar, such benefits are provided by their gardens. Because most of their houses are located within their gardens (see Fig. 4), their private green areas provide relief from the summer heat. Demonstrating this widely held perspective is a quote from one of the residents in Farahzad noting:

"We usually don’t go to parks that often. We use our own garden, which is basically our backyard. It’s cooler in the summer, and it is more comfortable." (Participant-AR, 2020/10/14)

However, not all the residents of Farahzad have access to gardens. To this group of residents, access to public green areas seems more important. Although they believe parks can provide recreational benefits, they do not believe that current local parks in their neighbourhood have the potential to provide such benefits. For example:

"We go to parks very often; my husband and I take the kids to play- grounds, and during the summer, we pack our dinner to picnic in parks.

But we never use the parks nearby. They are not good. We always go outside of Farahzad." (Participant-BB, 2020/10/17)

While residents claim there are no good parks in Farahzad, their requirement for access to public green areas is not diminished by this.

On the contrary, residents often seek an alternative in nearby neighbourhoods. The discussion around the reasons to why they prefer the parks outside of their neighbourhood does not fit with the scope of this paper. However, in summation, residents often refer to the in- compatibility with their culture, social norms, and expectations, and the planning, design, and implementation of parks as the core issue.

4.3. Hazards’ mitigation

Residents often also highlight the role of green spaces in hazard mitigation, drawing on local examples. Specifically, they refer to flood control benefits, sandstorm reduction, and safety during an earthquake.

According to residents of both Amirieh and Farahzad, green areas are important in controlling sandstorms in their neighbourhoods. Most residents who have lived in these neighbourhoods for more than twenty years have related memories. For example, a resident from Amirieh notes:

"When we first moved here, there was an empty land instead of this park [pointing at the park]. The dust would get blown around by even a light breeze. It really bothered residents […] now that this area is a park, we don’t have that issue anymore." (Participant-AG, 2020/08/27) Residents also believe green areas and public parks are important features of the informal settlements during a time of crisis, such as earthquakes. By referring to their past experiences, they express concerns about the lack of green spaces as a passive defence against earthquakes. In the past, residents in both the Amirieh and Farahzad neighbourhoods experienced an earthquake. The lack or insufficiency of green areas was concerning for residents when the earthquake happened. Reflecting on their experiences one resident from the Far- ahzad neighbourhood states:

"Compared to the population, we do not have enough accessible public green areas. For example, we were told to spend the night in green and open areas following an earthquake two years ago, but there are only two small parks around; where should we go? (Participant-AX, 2020/09/21) And similarly, a resident of Amirieh explains:

"Ten years ago, we had massive green areas. There was an earthquake; we just jumped out of the house, and although houses were destroyed, no one died. But five years ago, there was another earthquake, and people didn’t know where to run!" (Participant-AB, 2020/08/08)

Therefore, residents of informal settlements consider green areas vital to their survival. Although most residents in both neighbourhoods discuss hazard mitigation associated with green areas, their level of knowledge is different. Their lived experiences have a role to play in their perception of green areas’ benefits in hazard mitigation. For instance, while residents in both neighbourhoods discuss the importance of green areas in dust reduction and passive defence against earthquakes, only residents of Farahzad discuss their importance in flood control. As residents of Farahzad live near the Farahzad river, they have experienced moderate flooding in the past. Through their traditional collective knowledge, they have developed methods to control flooding, including increasing vegetation and building water conservatories and canals.

However, residents of Farahzad expressed concerns about interfering with GI assets in their neighbourhood. One of the gardeners conveyed their concern about flooding as a result of unprofessional interference with nature when explaining:

"Nowadays, everyone knows, even if you ask a three-year-old kid they know, that cutting trees is equal to flooding. Although Farahzad experi- enced occasional mild flooding in the past, we never had major issues.

[…] we have canals and water conservers to collect the excessive water. If nothing blocks them we are not in danger." (Participant-AY, 2020/09/

20)

Such comments illustrate residents’ in-depth understanding of their surrounding environment and ability to identify issues and foresee the consequences. Residents profoundly understand the role of nature and the environment to their survival.

4.4. Economic benefits

Economic benefits are discussed by residents of Farahzad, mostly in the context of the services provided by their locality’s GI assets. In Farahzad, it is mostly gardeners who describe their livelihood as depending on gardens and what nature provides for them. This perspective is described by one of the gardeners of the Farahzad Fig. 4. Integration of houses with gardens in Farahzad (Credit: Author, 2020).

(7)

neighbourhood as follows:

"My main source of income is from selling fruits and vegetables from my garden. Before summer, I walk in the valley, foraging wild herbs and fruits, and sell them too." (Participant-AV, 2020/09/17).

Another participant similarly states:

"My dad is a gardener; he plants vegetables and sells. We have several fruit trees too. Like pear, plums, walnuts, and peach. We live where we work." (Participant-AR, 2020/10/14).

Fig. 5 illustrates a sample of local markets of Farahzad gardeners.

Gardens are crucial to the livelihood of most residents, as they are gardeners. Additionally, residents describe provisioning services as also a livelihood source for most residents. Participant-K (2020/09/14), explains the economic importance of GI to residents:

"I know many gardeners whose livelihood depends on selling their gar- den’s products. They support their young children, and they also use this money to send them to school and university." (Participant-K, 2020/09/

14)

In their narratives, residents describe a critical economic de- pendency on their gardens. According to these interviewees, the link between residents and green areas, especially gardens, is intertwined. In a way, gardens are not just green areas for residents; they ensure residents’ survival. An interviewee states:

"This is Farahzad we are talking about. In every corner, there is a garden.

They are the green structure of this neighbourhood. Even more than that to residents, they live in these gardens, and their income depends on these gardens." (Participant-J, 2020/09/19)

The majority of residents in the Farahzad informal settlements are or used to be farmers due to the history and ongoing position of this settlement as a destination for rural migrants to Tehran. This illustrates another critical aspect of GI for Farahzad residents. To residents, their gardens are essential to their sustainable livelihoods, and without them, they face precarious income.

A summary of what have been described as benefits of GI by residents of each informal settlements presented in Diagram 1.

Applying insights from ESS concept, these perceptions are system- atically translated into the framework of ESS, as detailed in Table 1.

The combination of identified ESS in informal settlements reflects a comprehensive interplay, extending beyond mere recreation and regulating services identified by previous research. It intricately intertwines with residents’ sense of place, economic considerations, cultural values, and even survival, emphasising the multifunctional significance of GI in such communities.

5. Ecosystem services disbenefits

As discussed previously, GI is perceived by residents as providing various benefits to residents. However, residents are not fully satisfied with the existing GI in their neighbourhoods, mainly due to a lack of safety. Hence, issues concerning safety can be considered an ESS disbenefit of GI in informal settlements. The type of safety issues defined by residents in each neighbourhood is different. Residents of Farahzad are generally concerned about the presence of drug addicts not only in parks but also in private gardens. While to residents of Amirieh, male dominance in parks and public gardens are a safety concern. Each of these concerns are discussed separately below.

Most residents in Farahzad neighbourhoods believe the appearance of addicts in parks makes them concerned about using such areas, especially when they are not in a group of friends or family. Drug addicts by sheltering in Farahzad valley, make the environment unsafe for residents for multiple reasons, including sanitation issues, constant presence, use/trading drugs in public, and providing the possibility of serious conflicts. According to an interview with the chief police com- mander of Tehran, there are more than 400,000 people addicted to multiple drugs in Tehran, out of which 20,000 are homeless and shelter in multiple locations in Tehran (including the Farahzad valley). Opium, hashish, heroin, morphine, and methamphetamine are among the most common drugs used by these addicts (ISNA, 2020). Therefore, residents believe parks and public green spaces are not safe in general, but especially for women and children. Comparing the residents’ comments in both neighbourhoods illustrates that such an issue is more problematic in Farahzad than in Amirieh. As explained by Participant-BC (2020/10/11), "parks are very beautiful. They are even more beautiful than many parks in Tehran. But unfortunately, they are always full of ad- dicts. We cannot sit there even for a minute".

In contrast to Amirieh, in which parks are enclosed and have security at night time, in Farahzad, the only existing park is not secured. To residents, being enclosed and having guards around are the main factors that reduce risks. The second factor discussed by residents is the location of parks. Residents of Farahzad highlight that the only park in Farahzad is geographically adjacent to the green valley. Since the green valley of Farahzad is home to addicts, such a park has become a hub for them to shelter and thereby a concern for residents. As one of the residents states:

"The Farahzad Park is in a very bad location. It is exactly at the top of the valley. This valley has been home to addicts for decades, but now they have a better place to live." (Participant-BA, 2020/09/21)

According to residents, the private gardens are also at risk of being occupied by homeless addicts. This situation causes safety concerns for gardeners and their families. Gardeners discuss how the presence of addicts is disturbing their work "I cannot work in my garden anymore, because of their [addicts] presence" (Participant-AX, 2020/09/21), affecting their livelihood "whatever I plant, even fruits get stolen by addicts, I am empty handed each season" (Participant-AY, 2020/09/20), and damaging their gardens "my garden is dead, finished. Addicts destroyed all the trees. I had fig trees, they burnt them all." (Participant-AT, 2020/10/

12). In addition, residents refer to health concerns regarding addicts’

presence. To them, the lack of sanitation where addicts live threaten their health and safety. For example, Participant-AS (2020/10/15) states:

"Addicts are living in Farahzad Park, riverside, even our gardens. Excuse me for saying this, but they use nature as a bathroom; they wash their clothes in the rivers and Park’s fountain. They make this beautiful nature unusable. Even I am worried about transmittable diseases where I live."

(Participant-AS, 2020/10/15)

In Farahzad, the presence of drug addicts prevents residents from benefiting from parks and green areas in their neighbourhood, whereas in Amirieh, residents complain about social behaviours which cause Fig. 5.A sample of local markets of farmers and gardeners in Farahzad (Credit:

Author, 2019).

(8)

safety concerns in public green areas and parks. A widespread perception in interviews with local residents is that such social behaviours result from male dominance in public green areas. Multiple groups of residents comment on verbal and visual harassment in public parks and believe that such areas are unsuitable for families as a result of men’s domination.

Most female residents describe parks as unsafe places for unaccom- panied women. By describing their unpleasant experiences, they express their unwillingness to pass through parks, even as a crossing route while they are alone. In this sense, Participant-AE (2020/09/01) explains their uncomfortable feeling toward parks by commenting:

"I don’t like to pass through parks at all. […] I had an experience when I was younger. After the last day of school, six of us [girls] decided to go to a park to say goodbye. There were a few guys there too. They teased us, made fun of us, and made us actually leave. Even now, after years, when I remember this, I feel very sad." (Participant-AE, 2020/09/01) To women and families, the male dominance of parks is a critical barrier to accessing green spaces. They prefer parks that are more family-oriented that are calm, safe, and welcoming to families and women. It could be argued that the lack of such features, and the unwillingness of many informal settlements residents to use these areas renders parks abandoned spaces in these settlements and reinforces safety concerns regarding their (mis)use.

Diagram 2 provides a summary of the identified GI’s disbenefits from the interview analysis.

Applying insights from ESS concept, these perceptions are system- atically translated into the framework of ESS, as detailed in Table 2.

The identified disservices in informal settlements highlight the negative impact of poor planning and design for public green spaces.

Issues such as safety, restricted access for women, attraction of drug addicts, and sanitation problems stress the need for careful planning to create efficient, safe, and inclusive GI. Additionally, loss of livelihood, social tensions, and environmental degradation emphasise the importance of designing and managing GI in balance with context.

6. Discussion and conclusion

This paper substantiates the work of academics who identify GI as beneficial to informal settlements yet is nevertheless considered a luxury by authorities (Douglas, 2018; Cilliers, 2019; Roy et al., 2018; Girma et al., 2019). Existing studies suggest that the lack of an understanding of Diagram 1. Perceptions regarding GI’s benefits among residents of each IS.

Table 1

Residents’ knowledge of ESS provided by GI in their neighbourhoods.

ESS identified by residents of informal settlements Regulating

Services Air quality, clean water, cooling effects and temperature mitigation, flood control, sandstorm mitigation, and passive defence against earthquakes

Supporting

Services Biodiversity conservation Provisioning

Services Food production, agriculture lands, foraging, and gardening Cultural Services Recreational, visual qualities, nostalgia, relaxation, an

enhanced sense of belonging, religious customs, wellbeing and health

Diagram 2.Perceptions regarding GI’s disbenefits among residents of each informal settlements.

Table 2

Residents’ knowledge of ESD provided by GI in their neighbourhoods.

ESD identified by residents of informal settlements Cultural Disservices Gender imbalance in green spaces, Women’s restricted

green space access Health and Safety

Disservices Verbal and visual harassment, Attraction of drug addicts, Sanitation challenges linked to drug addicts, Health risks from transitional diseases

Economic Disservices Gardening maintenance struggles, Fruit trees as fuel, Livelihood reduction

Social Disservices Community safety issue, Social cohesion strain, disrupted public space

Environmental

Disservices Loss of green spaces

(9)

GI’s benefits for informal settlements acts as a barrier to implementing this concept, contextualised within appropriate and nuanced socio-cultural and environmental settings. In other words, without an understanding of GI’s benefits, its priority in development plans for informal settlements becomes questionable to many urban management actors (Cilliers, 2019; Wijesinghe and Thorn, 2021). To address this gap, this paper analyses the lived experience of residents - in two informal settlements in Iran - to illustrate various benefits and challenges regarding the development of GI in informal settlements. An analysis of the interview data advances the literature, revealing important aspects of GI in the daily life of residents of informal settlements which should encourage planners and other urban officials to consider such an approach as essential infrastructure for informal areas.

The data from both case studies indicate that residents, while not explicitly using the language of ESS, recognize and value cultural, regulating, supporting, and provisioning services. Through interviews about daily life and experiences, this study captures a bottom-up perspective on green GI. Residents’ daily interactions with nature reveal a profound understanding of GI’s operation and benefits, leading them to acknowledge a broad range of GI advantages. Cultural, ecological, and economic services are frequently valued, emphasizing the essential role of GI in residents’ daily lives. For instance, in Farahzad, residents’ livelihoods are tied to gardens in the Farahzad valley.

Additionally, this paper recognises the support that informal settlements receive as a result of the combination of such benefits provided due to their unique physical and social characteristics. The significance of such knowledge among residents is its impact on their survival and ability to maintain and enhance green areas over the decades. Therefore, this paper demonstrates the complexity of benefits and disbenefits provided by GI in informal settlements from an intwined socio- environmental-cultural perspective that is fundamental to understanding of informal settlements dynamics. Such perspectives are frequently overlooked in the urban contexts of the global South, as evidenced by the prevailing influence of ESS and GI perspectives derived from Northern literature.

The emerging literature involving GI in informal settlements often discusses the benefits of GI, such as air quality, biodiversity, and recreational opportunities (Adegun, 2017; Du Toit et al., 2018; Dipeolu et al., 2021; Diep et al., 2019; G´omez-Baggethun and Barton, 2013;

Venter et al., 2020). Cultural services within the existing literature related to informal settlements often refers to aesthetic values, recreational options, social integration and health benefits (Adegun, 2017; Du Toit et al., 2018; Herslund et al., 2018; Dipeolu et al., 2021; Diep, Dodman and Parikh, 2019). However, by focusing on residents’ lived experiences of GI, this paper identifies a wider range of cultural services.

The results from the case studies suggest that GI is part of the identity of informal settlements and carries residents’ memories. In both case studies, GI is considered one of the few valuable aspects of informal areas. It supports feelings of being proud, satisfied, and fortunate, along with being a source of local identity for residents. Additionally, data suggests that cultural services could vary in each context. For instance, in Amirieh, recreational benefits and the neighbourhood’s identity are strongly linked to gardens and public green areas, while in Farahzad, the nostalgic memories and history of the neighbourhood are attached to its gardens. The importance of GI in each neighbourhood is linked to the multiple benefits that residents perceive.

This paper supports the existing literature regarding the cultural sensitivity of public green areas (Mell et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2020;

Mell, 2016) and illustrates the importance of cultural sensitivity in the development of GI plans. In this sense, the paper illustrates that there are cultural dimensions to the perception of safety issues in public green areas in informal settlements, which while often neglected in studies of ESS in informal settlements, are nevertheless central to residents’ experience of GI assets in such contexts. Therefore, understanding the norms and culture of a society is essential for inclusive GI interventions.

This topic, although previously discussed in other urban contexts

(Sultana et al., 2020; Birtchnell et al., 2019), is particularly important in informal settlements where parks and green areas are often at the centre of crime and personal safety concerns (Adegun, 2018b).

Moreover, this study illustrates that both public and private green spaces such as parks and gardens, critically address residents’ social requirements. To residents, public green areas are the only affordable and accessible recreational option for their families. Their pattern of using public green areas is family-oriented. For instance, they picnic and hold family gatherings in parks. Results also suggest the potential of GI as a refuge in informal settlements. Residents of informal settlements, due to poor housing conditions characterised by a lack of access to air conditioners, stable basic services (e.g. electricity) and sufficient living space, are more dependent on public green areas. According to residents, public green areas provide relief through temperature mitigation in summer, enough space for family gatherings and even light during a power outage. This resonates with research conducted in other MENA countries that highlights the importance of green spaces in providing thermal comfort in urban areas in a hot and arid climate (Jamali et al., 2021; Maghrabi et al., 2021; Matallah et al., 2021; Radhi et al., 2015).

The notable contribution of this paper is to unpack and illustrate the importance of such GI interventions in the context of informal settlements in this region. The accumulation and reinforcement of different services that parks provide to informal residents create positive syn- ergies that increase the value of parks in this context. GI and parks provide more than ‘recreational’ benefits for residents. Therefore, the findings demonstrate that parks are more than simply ‘beneficial’: they are a ‘necessity’ in Tehran’s informal settlements.

Moreover, results show that residents from both neighbourhoods highlighted hazards mitigation as a significant benefit of GI. In partic- ular, the local knowledge of flood-controlling interventions along riv- ersides emerged as a crucial aspect in addressing potential hazards. This perspective aligns with existing literature on GI in the MENA region, where changing precipitation norms, largely influenced by climate change, have prompted discussions on the need for effective nature based stormwater management and flood control (Saeedi et al., 2023;

Raei, Alizadeh et al., 2019; Jamali et al., 2021; Azouz and Salem, 2023).

Moreover, residents emphasised the need for accessible green spaces during times of earthquakes, acknowledging the multifunctional role of GI in providing safe areas and contributing to overall community resil- ience. This perspective introduces a novel aspect that hasn’t been widely discussed in GI literature. This emphasis gains significance, particularly in informal settlements where the quality of construction is low, and population density is high. This dual focus on hazards mitigation illustrates how residents recognise GI not only for its environmental benefits but also as a crucial component of a holistic strategy to mitigate the impacts of various hazards on their neighbourhoods.

By mapping a bottom-up perspective of GI, this paper illustrates the complexities of ESS benefits and disbenefits provided by GI for residents of informal settlements. Importantly, how these ESS benefits and disbenefits of GI are entangled in informal settlements contexts of the global South often lies beyond the horizon of analytical perspective heavily informed by studies emanating from the global North.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Kamjou Elgar: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Software, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Lennon Mick: Writing – review &

editing, Writing – original draft, Supervision, Methodology, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. Scott Mark: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Supervision, Methodology, Formal analysis, Conceptualization.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare the following financial interests/personal