Characterizing the Urban Green Spaces in Davao City, Philippines: Implications for Design and Management
Ryan C. Songcayauon
University of the Philippines Mindanao, PHILIPPINES
Abstract
Urban green spaces (UGS) are important contributors to urban quality of life. UGS support human well-being by providing ecosystem services such as climate regulation, the capture of pollutants, and flood regulation.
They also help in the communities' social interactions. This study defines the UGS in Davao City, Philippines by considering their physical and social dimensions. Using a geographic information system (GIS) software, QGIS, and a spatial pattern analysis program, Fragstats, the physical characteristics of the UGS were measured by factoring in the indicators of quality, quantity, spatial distribution, and accessibility. The study surveyed six UGS by applying the Public Space Index (PSI), which measures how good the UGS are in terms of inclusiveness, meaningful activities, safety, comfort, and pleasurability, alongside users’ needs and preferences. Results showed that the green space per inhabitant is only 0.37 square meters (m2), which is below the recommendations cited by numerous studies. The shape index is 1.03 and aggregation is 50.15, which means that the majority of UGS are square and are neither aggregated nor fragmented. The average PSI of all six surveyed UGS is 66.09 with 71.64 as the highest individual score. User perceptions varied accordingly, which are directly correlated with the results of the computed PSI. Even though the average result is high, each UGS should also be viewed separately to determine its strengths that may be emulated and weaknesses that needs to be improved. Space planners, designers, and policymakers may use these results in planning and appropriating UGS in Davao City.
Keywords: urban green space · urban parks · public space index · GIS · Davao City · Philippines
Correspondence: RC Songcayauon. Department of Architecture, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of the Philippines Mindanao, Mintal, Davao City, Philippines 8022. Telephone: +63 082 293 0863. Email: [email protected] Editors: Raymundo R. Pavo, PhD, University of the Philippines Mindanao, PHILIPPINES
Isidoro R. Malaque III, PhD, University of the Philippines Mindanao, PHILIPPINES
Received: 10 May 2022 Accepted: 04 October 2022 Published: 11 October 2022 Copyright: © 2022 Songcayauon. This is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal article.
Funding Source: Personally-funded project
Competing Interest: The author has declared no competing interest.
Citation: Songcayauon, Ryan C. 2022. "Characterizing the Urban Green Spaces in Davao City, Philippines: Implications for Design and Management." Banwa A 15: art073.
R E S E A R C H A R T I C L E
Characterizing the Urban Green Spaces
in Davao City, Philippines:
Implications for Design and Management
Ryan C. Songcayauon
University of the Philippines Mindanao, PHILIPPINES
Introduction
Urban green spaces (UGS) are important contributors to urban quality of life. These spaces support human well-being by providing ecosystem services such as climate regulation, the capture of pollutants, flood regulation, and support for the interaction of neighborhoods and communities (Carrus et al. 2015; Marselle et al. 2015; Chiesura 2004; Dobbs et al. 2014;
Larondelle et al. 2014). They also provide a favorable place for health, relaxation, and nature contemplation (Lee and Maheswaran 2011). Previous studies concluded that UGS benefits vary according to size, distance, and accessibility (Box and Harrison 1993; Harrison et al. 1995). The United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) sustainable development goals (SDGs) state that to create sustainable cities and communities, one should invest in public transportation, create green public spaces, and improve urban planning and management in participatory and inclusive ways. Protection of biodiversity and the urban green areas has always been a significant subject in discussing sustainable urban development, especially in the post-COVID-19 times since outdoor spaces will provide a safe space for people to socialize and escape from the confines of their homes (UNDP 2020). Thus, there is a need to characterize UGS to fully understand the services it provides.
There are several indicators that can be used in assessing UGS. One of the widely used indicators is the total area of UGS with respect to the total population, expressed in
square meters per inhabitant (m2/inh) of the neighborhood (Taylor et al. 2011; Van Herzele and Wiedemann 2003; Caspersen et al.
2006; Kabisch and Haase 2013; International Organization for Standardization 2014).
However, this indicator does not capture the overall characteristics and assessment of the UGS such as the actual distribution in the city or unit, the ecosystem services provided (Yao et al. 2014), and its accessibility to different population groups (Reyes-Paecke and Aldunce 2010; Weiland et al. 2011; Zhou and Kim 2013;
la Rosa 2014). For these reasons, other studies considered quantity, quality, and accessibility (Chen et al. 2009; Wright Wendel et al. 2012;
Zhou and Kim 2013; Yao et al. 2014), and further investigated availability, fragmentation, public-private ownership, and accessibility in detail (le Texier et al. 2018). Mehta (2014) proposed the public space index to measure the quality of public spaces such as parks and green spaces. Few studies considered integrating these indicators to fully assess the UGS (de la Barrera et al. 2016). Thus, there is a need to look deeper and consider the relationships of these indicators in assessing UGS.
The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends nine square meters (9 m2) of green space per inhabitant, and the European Environment Agency (Stanners and Bourdeau 1995) recommends access to green space within 15 minutes of walking distance or about 1.61 kilometers (one mile), and the Brazilian Society of Urban Arborization (SBAU) proposed 15 m2/inh minimum index for recreational use (SBAU 1996). A study in the City of Bogota in Colombia (Gantiva et al. 2018) found that only 4 m2 of green space is available per inhabitant and suggested locations and distributions of green space around the city for the year 2040 using ordinary least squares (OLS) and geographic weighted regression (GWR) models. In the case of Sao Paulo, Brazil, its unplanned development led to serious impacts on its green areas that caused many worsening social and environmental problems (Gomes et al. 2011). Kurban (2017) suggested adopting two parameters of bioclimatic indicators of green space for the Metropolitan Area of San
Juan, Argentina: area of green spaces with its population and area of urban land. Tisma and Neto (2011) used three indicators, namely:
quantity, quality, and usability to analyze the green spaces of Randstad, the Netherlands, and found out that there are deficiencies in green spaces for recreation. People do not use these green spaces according to their functions, and environmental quality is not an important precondition in the perception of the quality of these green spaces. A report by Plant (2017) found that people in Australia give importance to the quantities of urban trees and canopy cover above that of the measure in use and experience. Other discussed measures were the ecosystem services and accessibility. Among other discussion points, the report also stated the context of privatization of public green space and the need to quantify the loss of value. Thus, there is a need to assess the UGS of a given locality and thoroughly examine the indicators that directly impact ecological and social dimensions since some of these localities have their UGS neither partly assessed nor totally assessed.
In the case of the Philippines, a study by Gonzales and Magnaye (2017) provided an analytical approach to assessing urban biodiversity in the City of Manila. The study only focused on the relationship of urban biodiversity with human settlement resiliency, particularly in areas where flooding occurs, to propose urban planning and development interventions. Their comprehensive documentation and analysis provided valuable recommendations, especially in incorporating biodiversity in urban planning and development, and formulation of an urban biodiversity development and management plan (Gonzales and Magnaye 2016). In the context of Davao City, a few studies have focused on this problem. A position paper published by Interface Development Interventions (IDIS), Inc. on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) and Zoning Ordinance reported that green spaces in Davao City are below the WHO standard (IDIS 2019). The same organization also highlighted in their report, which is aimed at improving and making more accessible green open spaces, that the city lacks access to public open spaces as compared to other cities in developing countries.
They also highlighted other issues such as informal settlement and maintenance, lack of primary amenities, and inadequate tree covers (IDIS 2017). Given these scenarios, the UGS of Davao City is assessed according to whether these are enough to support the well-being of its citizens and provide the needed services to its users despite numerous policy recommendations initiated by various concerned organizations.
This study, therefore, aims to characterize the UGS of Davao City guided by the following questions: What are the physical qualities and social aspects of each UGS? What policies can be recommended to better improve the UGS services? This assessment includes quantification and qualification (physical dimension) of the UGS of Davao City and a user survey regarding their needs and preferences (social dimension) in these spaces. By doing this, a general definition of the existing UGS will be determined and therefore aid in formulating strategies to plan and manage the UGS.
Characterizing Urban Green Space Green Space Defined
The World Health Organization (2016) defines green space as parks and sports fields, woods and natural meadows, and wetlands or other ecosystems that represent an essential part of any urban ecosystem. It states that green urban areas facilitate activity and relaxation, form a refuge from noise, and perform a critical role in cooling cities. Green space provides safe routes for walking and cycling; and a site for physical activities, social interaction, and general recreation. They are also important to mental health since having access to these spaces can reduce health inequalities, improve well-being, and aid in the treatment of mental illnesses (Hartig et al. 1991) as evidenced by the recovery of attentional capability, which natural settings restore since they facilitate recovery from mental fatigue—people feel rejuvenated after a wilderness trip and being away from one’s day-to-day routine.
There are a number of technical definitions of “greenspace” or “green space” used in varying disciplines, cultures, and contexts. Taylor and
Hochuli (2017) tried to define “greenspace”
after reviewing the literature regarding greenspace and found that many have failed to define the word that emerged with multiple definitions. They recommended that instead of trying to have a detailed typology for such word, greenspace should be both quantified and qualified to have a more meaningful definition.
They proposed an example of how to define greenspace in different contexts (Table 1). Thus, urban green space in this study, represents urban space accessible to people, which includes parks, gardens, yards, urban forest, and urban farms (vegetated variant of open space in the urban environment) supported by indicators that help in assessing these green spaces.
Urban Green Space Indicators
A number of indicators can be considered in assessing these UGS. For example, the effective assessment of UGS and its ecosystem service provision depends on its quantity, quality, and accessibility (Chen et al. 2009; Wright Wendel
TABLE 1 Criteria in defining greenspace (with reference from Taylor and Hochuli 2017) Examples of
Criteria Examples of how the criteria might be defined Category of
criteria Example of discipline Definition Greenspace refers to urban parks and wetlands that
comprise some vegetation Qualitative Urban ecology
Examples Greenspace refers to small urban parks, including public parks, street verges, cemeteries, and sports
grounds Qualitative Urban planning
Size The greenspace has an area of 2 ha. or less Quantitative Public health Ownership The greenspace is located on public land that is
maintained by the local government or council Qualitative Geography Landscape The greenspace is calculated across the full extent of
the city, as defined by the local GIS boundaries and zonal statistics
Qualitative
and Quantitative Psychology Ecological
information
All greenspace has a minimum biodiversity of at least 10 different tree species, 8 shrub species, lawn, and 5
bird species have been counted there during one visit. Quantitative Ecology Access All greenspaces are located within 10 km of the
participants’ homes. Quantitative Public health
Amenities
Greenspaces are chosen because they have amenities that made them accessible to low-mobility residents, requiring paths, flat surfaces, and numerous benches for frequent rests.
Qualitative Sociology
Tree cover In order to reduce urban heat, greenspace considered in this study includes vegetated land comprised of
>40% mature tree cover. Quantitative Cooling
and carbon sequestration
et al. 2012; Zhou and Kim 2013). However, few studies have evaluated these aspects in an integrated manner, which is summarized below:
Quantity refers to the size and shape of UGS, which means that the larger the size, the greater the magnitude and diversity of the ecosystem the UGS provide. It also allows various activities such as cultural services, health and wellness, and other gatherings (Sugiyama and Thompson 2008; Maas et al. 2009; Krellenberg et al. 2014).
UGS that have larger portions covered by trees are more effective in providing regulating services such as climate regulation and flood control (Chiesura 2004; Jenerette et al. 2007;
Cavan et al. 2014; Niemela 2014).
Quality, on the other hand, is a function of size, shape, and elements inside the UGS (Taylor et al. 2011; Dobbs et al. 2014; Tian et al. 2014).
One key element of green spaces is vegetation as one of the main providers of ecosystem services, and can be used as a measure of quality of a UGS (Cilliers et al. 2012; Zhou and Kim 2013).
Accessibility to the UGS relates to their spatial distribution throughout the urban area (Schipperijin et al. 2010; Krellenberg et al. 2014).
Other indicators may include other variables not included as those previously stated. For example, Le Texier et al. (2018) defined the assessment and suggested four indicators that are related to provision and access:
Availability concerns itself with the size of the UGS. Some studies excluded UGS smaller than two hectares (Coombes et al. 2010) since such sites are too small to support physical activities. Larger UGS have more diverse flora and fauna that affect ecological qualities of the UGS. UGS with many trees and green vegetation decrease temperature and pollution rates, which affect the health and quality of life of the close- by population. The green space ratio metric is commonly used to measure availability of UGS (Haq 2011).
Fragmentation is important since small UGS are more likely to be evenly spread across a city but provide fewer benefits (Talen and Anselin 1998). It may also result from residential preferences for close-by green space. Enlarging the provision of green space rather than designing it as a unique belt for instance, can increase utility (Caruso et al. 2008; 2015).
Public-private ownership is a significant aspect of provision as private UGS offer an opportunity to compensate for the absence of public UGS (Ibes 2015; Barbosa et al. 2007;
Dehring and Dunse 2006). Some studies considering only parks listed by authorities fail to notice the significance of informal green spaces (Shafer et al. 2013). Both private and informal UGS play a role in supporting biodiversity and providing ecosystem services in urban areas and act as a substitute to public green space (Barbosa et al. 2007; Rupprecht and Byrne 2014). Using the presence of vegetation as the only criteria to define UGS would overestimate provision and access to UGS as it would include smaller units than an analysis focusing on formal green space (Barbosa et al. 2007; Nicol and Blake 2000).
Accessibility indices are defined to measure relative remoteness and proximity to UGS, thus complementing availability within the neighborhood with more accessible alternatives,
which may be located outside the considered spatial entity (Nicholls 2001; Sister et al. 2009;
Loukaitou-Sideris and Sideris 2009). Other advancements have been put forth including the consideration of overcrowding of parks through the use of the two-step floating catchment area (2SFCA) method and/or access via different modes of transportation (Dai 2011; Dony et al.
2015).
Given these dimensions and indicators, a thorough valuation may be conducted that will specifically characterize the UGS of a particular locality. Quantity, quality, and accessibility are the three main indicators and under each of these indicators are specific variables that can measure the UGS in detail.
Good Public Space
Public spaces were used as a venue to aid the basic survival, communication and entertainment needs; and to perform a number of political, religious, commercial, civic, and social functions (Mehta 2014). However, many of these functions changed to private, virtual spaces or to various forms of privatized and parochial spaces (Brill 1989; Rybczynski 1993;
Banerjee 2001). These changes increased the requirement for proper, well-designed spaces for people to spend time, relax, socialize, and be one with the urban life (Gehl and Matan 2009).
Nevertheless, the public still depends on public space for functional, social, and leisure activities.
Researchers clarified that public space is needed in political, social, and cultural contexts as a venue for the growth of the individual and the society. Thomas (1991), for example, emphasized the social role of public space and proposed that “public space is an essential arena which provides opportunities for individuals and communities to develop and enrich their lives”
and identified four social roles of public space as: (1) space for public life, (2) gathering place for different social groups, (3) place for the showcase of symbols and images in society, and (4) part of the communication system between urban activities. This is further emphasized by Mehta (2014) by stating that good public space creates a stage for meeting and discussion, for planned and unprompted encounters, and for learning of
diverse attitudes and beliefs.
Public spaces such as parks, open space, and greenspace truly reflect the society of a particular locality as they reveal the many facets of the city:
social, cultural, political, spiritual, psychological, and physiological that not only define the public space but also define its people.
Public Space Index
The public space index (PSI) developed by Mehta (2014) to assess public spaces such as parks includes five main aspects: inclusiveness, meaningful activities, comfort, safety, and pleasurability (Figure 1). Inclusiveness means that the space should fulfill the needs of users meaning that different activities could be performed by different types of people. The PSI measure the inclusiveness of the space by rating its accessibility to different types of people and how their activities and behaviors are supported inside this space. Meaningful activities is measured in the context of the capability of the space to support activities the users perform, sociability, and place meaning. This means that a place is meaningful when it is valuable and supports activities that are meaningful both symbolically and culturally. Safety is determined by how people feel safe, from crimes or traffic, and every time they are inside these spaces.
Safety may also be evaluated by the physical condition and maintenance of the place, and the surveillance present that may make them feel protected or not. Comfort is affected by different factors. For the PSI, comfort refers to the physical set up and environmental factors such as the weather and temperature. The space may be rated by the provision of tree canopies and shelter as protection from the natural elements, and the ease of use of the amenities and other physical objects inside the space. Pleasurability is determined by rating the space’s imageability, spatial quality, sensory complexity, and attractiveness of the space. Imageability means that people can remember a strong image of the place. There can be positive and negative images that a user could relate to a space but the PSI only considers the positive attributes. There are numerous ways that users could create an image of the place and subsequently generate pleasure—
the shapes and arrangements that compose the physical elements of the space, the colors, the smell, and other visual elements present in the space.
FIGURE 1 The five aspects of public space (adopted from Mehta 2014)
The Physical and Social Dimensions of Urban Green Space
Following the proposition by Taylor and Hochuli (2017) on the need to quantify and qualify green space, this paper proposes a framework in characterizing UGS using two dimensions – the physical and social dimensions presented (Figure 2). The physical dimension will anchor on the studies of de la Barrera et al. (2016) and le Texier et al. (2018) using the indicators in assessing the UGS, which are grouped into quantity, spatial distribution and accessibility, and quality. The social dimension will adopt Mehta’s (2014) Public Space Index (PSI) alongside the needs and preferences of the users to make up the Good Public Space. With this framework, the UGS will be holistically defined not only through its spatial qualities but at the same time relate to the perceptions of the users of the UGS.
Methodology
The Physical Dimension
The quantity of the UGS including other spatial variables were calculated using the Quantum Geographic Information System (QGIS) software, a free and open-source geographic information software (GIS) developed by the Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project. The quality and spatial distribution and accessibility of these UGS were determined using Fragstats, a computer software program designed
FIGURE 2 Conceptual framework of the study
to compute landscape metrics developed by McGarigal et al. (2002) as a spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps. A map of the study area (majority located in the población) or the urban district was prepared using overlays from Google Maps and Open Street Map and includes the boundaries of each of the barangay.
The Social Dimension
The PSI survey is composed of two parts:
researcher observations and user perception.
Each of the five aspects has variables belonging to the research observation and user perception: inclusiveness has nine variables for researcher observation and five for user perception; meaningful activities has five variables for researcher observation and three for user perception; comfort has five variable for researcher observation and four for user perception; security has three for researcher observation and six for user perception;
and pleasurability has seven for researcher observation and three for user perception. The user perception survey also has three open-ended questions. The survey was conducted at the end of 2019 and the beginning of 2020 before the COVID-19 lockdown. A total of 236 randomly- selected respondents participated in the survey conducted wherein 92.37% are residents of Davao City and the remaining are from cities and municipalities outside of the city. All survey materials have free, prior, and informed consent from the participants as stated in the survey form. The survey was conducted in the morning
and late afternoon spread across weekdays and weekends.
Characterizing the Urban Green Spaces of Davao City
Davao City is a major city in the island of Mindanao south of the Philippines (Figure 3).
The city has a total population of 1,776,949 according to the 2020 Census of Population from the Philippine Statistics Authority (2020) and a population density of 6.69 persons per hectare. The poblacion area belonging to the First Congressional District has a total population of 174,121 from the 40 barangays or communities with an average population density of 219.66/ha. and 828.59/ha. as highest in a particular barangay. Seventy-six percent of the population lives in the urban barangays.
The current Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP 2013-2022) of the city sets aside 61.73 has or 0.03% of its total land as parks, and 1,258.80 has or 0.52% of its land area as open space or undeveloped areas located in the urban center. This study focused on the urban district of the city (Figure 3) where six major urban green spaces were considered following Rakhshandehroo’s (2014) classification: People’s Park as a city/central park; Magsaysay Park as a park with or near water bodies; Davao City Botanical Garden as a neighborhood park; Millennium Park as a plaza; and Rizal and Quezon Parks, and Osmeña Park as city squares. Other publicly accessible green spaces considered were those found in Abreeza Ayala
Mall and an open space in Marfori Heights Subdivision, both privately-owned but publicly accessible. A total of 42 barangays were included to compose the urban district or study area.
The Physical Dimension of UGS Quantity of UGS
The urban green spaces add up to about 0.12 square kilometers (km2) or 118.61 has, which represents around 0.96% of the total land area of the urban district (Figure 4). UGS per inhabitant, based on the 2015 urban district population, is just 0.37 square meters per inhabitant (m2/inh), which is far from the WHO's recommendation of about 9 m2 of green space per inhabitant. It is important to note that the case study area only covers the urban district of the city and is why a lot of the greenspaces, majority of which are not in the urban areas that may increase this proportion of greenspace per inhabitant, were not included. Table 2 presents the summary of the computed values for the quantity, quality, spatial distribution, and accessibility of the identified UGS.
Quality of UGS
Davao City’s urban district has an average UGS size of 0.5 ha (5,157.13 m2) with a shape index of 1.03, which means that the majority of the UGS is square or near this shape. The map shows that most of them are square or rectangular except those found in Abreeza Ayala Mall where the patches are irregularly shaped.
Since the total area of these irregularly shaped is lesser compared to the other UGS, it has little effect on the shape index.
Mean vegetation cover on the UGS is only 0.23%, which is around 0.21 m2/inh of vegetation. This is directly related to the overall UGS per inhabitant (0.37 m2/inh). This low mean vegetation cover is a result of too much impervious surfaces in the UGS such as that of Rizal Park and Quezon Park, which is around 13–20% only and too many open areas, usually of grass and shrubs, such as that of the open space near Marfori Heights and Abreeza Ayala Mall at around 8–26% only. Details of these vegetation cover and its percentage share are in Table 3 and a visual representation of the city’s urban district vegetation cover and built-up area is in Figure 5.
FIGURE 3 Location of Davao City and its urban district in Mindanao, Southern Philippines
TABLE 2 Indicators for UGS evaluated in the urban district area (with reference from de la Barrera et al. 2016)
Indicators Value
Quantity of UGS
UGS per inhabitant (2015) (m2/inh) 0.37 UGS per built-up area (%) 2.29 UGS per impervious cover (%) 1.66
UGS per bare soil (%) 7.87
UGS per vegetation cover (%) 4.77 Quality of UGS
Mean size of UGS (m2) [SDa in
brackets] 5,157.13
[10,455.94]
Shape index of UGS [SD in brackets]b 1.03 [0.162]
Mean vegetation cover per UGS (%)
[SD in brackets] 0.23
[564.525]
Vegetation cover on UGS per
inhabitant (m2/inh) 0.21
Spatial distribution and accessibility Aggregation/Fragmentation index
of UGS 50.15
Share of population supplied by
all UGS at 100m buffer (%) 7.56 Share of UGS>0.5ha. per total
area (%) 61.96
Share of population supplied by
UGS>0.5ha. at 300m buffer (%) 17.96
a Standard Deviation
b Shape Index is an a-dimensional indicator, the value is 1 when the patch is square and increases without limit as patch shape becomes more irregular
FIGURE 4 Urban green space of Davao City urban district
Spatial Distribution and Accessibility
The aggregation index of UGS of the urban district is only 50.15. A 100 index means the UGS is aggregated and a zero (0) index means it is fragmented. Fragments of UGS are not totally aggregated or adjacent to each other but not totally fragmented or isolated from each other. The share of population provided by all of the UGS listed with a buffer of 100 meters (m) from its boundary is only 7.56% and in the case of UGS, which are more than 0.5 ha and with a buffer of 300m from their boundaries, the share will increase to about 17.96%. This slight increase is because 61.96% of the UGS (based on land area) is more than the 0.5 ha parameter.
This means that if the area of each UGS is at least 0.5 ha (5,000 m2), all of the UGS can provide
their services to all of the population within the 300-meter buffer around its boundaries.
All of the UGS are easily accessed by private vehicles but in terms of public transportation (i.e., public utility jeep or jeepneys), Clifford Park and Millennium Park are more accessible with 44 and 36 direct jeepney routes, followed by Magsaysay Park and Osmeña Park with 31 and 29. Davao City Botanical Garden has the lowest jeepney routes available with only three indirect routes (about a block away). The open space at Marfori Heights has no jeepneys at all. However, these areas are also accessible by public tricycles that come from the corners of JP Laurel Avenue and F. Torres Street and trisikad or non-motorized tricycles from Bankerohan Market area.
The Social Dimension of UGS Public Space Index
People’s Park
People’s Park scored the highest average PSI (71.64) among the parks evaluated (Table 9).
This could be because the park’s design provides attractiveness, interestingness, and sensory experiences—translated from the amenities and facilities present such as the durian-domed visitor’s center, statues around the park, children’s play area, forested areas, and jogging track.
Specifically, People’s Park scored 73.13 for inclusiveness; 66.79 for meaningful activities;
68.07 for comfort; 70.68 for safety; and 79.52 for pleasurability as shown in Figure 6 (see Tables 4–8 for detailed scores). Since the park is enclosed with a perimeter fence and other adjacent developments together with strict security checks, People’s Park is considered one of the safest public open spaces in the city. Its score for safety is the highest among the parks evaluated. In terms of comfort, the park scored the highest given the tree-lined areas inside and ample seating and sheds, and the perceived noise from outside vehicular traffic. It also scored highest for being inclusive due to the presence of
FIGURE 5 Distribution of vegetation cover and urban green space in the urban district area
TABLE 3 Vegetation cover per urban green space Urban green space Vegetation
cover (m2) Share in UGS (%)*
People’s Park 20,892.23 56.92 Magsaysay Park 30,592.70 41.41 Davao City
Botanical Garden 6,834.82 64.59
Millennium Park 528.17 30.20
Clifford Park 1,045.22 56.28
Osmeña Park 3,912.20 64.30
Rizal Park 392.13 13.40
Quezon Park 317.99 22.84
Open Space at
Marfori Heights 1,058.32 8.86 Abreeza Ayala Mall 2,323.48 26.34
* Means the share in the total UGS vegetation cover calculated on all UGS surveyed.
diverse people, age, gender, and activities that the space provided through its different amenities.
Magsaysay Park
Magsaysay Park has the second highest overall index of 65.88. This could be attributed to the range of activities, community-gathering spaces inside the park, the unique views the Davao Gulf offers, and the experiences of visitors with the Cultural Village.
The park scored 67.33 for inclusiveness, 76.14 for meaningful activities, 58.61 for comfort, 61.11 for safety, and 66.28 for pleasurability as presented in Figure 7. The park’s low specific score in the aspect of safety from among the parks evaluated is due to the physical condition of the spaces inside, which lack maintenance, considering its age, and the quality of lighting during night-time. Even though it scored low in this aspect, Magsaysay Park scored the highest among the parks surveyed in terms of meaningful activities. The reason may be the business establishments present inside the park that offer food and beverages and other activities such as bike and roller skate rentals. Outside the park’s entrance are vendors selling the famous durian and other fruits in season, which are very popular among tourists and residents of
the city. The park is also readily accessible from the Davao City Chinatown, which also offers a lot of activities such as shopping for cheap wholesale products and famous home-grown food establishments that offer Filipino, Chinese, and other international cuisines.
Davao City Botanical Garden
Davao City Botanical Garden scored an overall public space index of 62.42. Its overall PSI score landed the garden the second lowest scores, which may be qualified due to the very strict rules inside such as no bringing of food, pets, and playing of ball games and any remote- controlled toys.
It scored 68.97 for inclusiveness, 51.43 for meaningful activities, 56.61 for comfort, 63.22 for safety, and 71.86 for pleasurability as shown in Figure 8. The botanical garden was the lowest in terms of the meaningful activities aspect. Seating is also a concern since only a portion of the garden is provided with limited seats and benches and only one small kiosk to act as shade and shelter during rain. Only a number of large-canopy trees are present in the garden to provide shade. This created a small portion of the garden that is utilized as a practice and study area for students, gathering place of families and friends, or relaxation space.
Millennium Park
The Millennium Park scored the lowest in the overall public space index at 60.83. The scores of inclusiveness, comfort, and pleasurability significantly contributed to its overall low PSI score.
The park has a score of 66.08 for inclusiveness, 64.54 for meaningful activities, 54.72 for comfort, 68.63 for safety, and 50.20 for pleasurability as presented in Figure 9. The park is unique from among the parks evaluated as it transforms into a bustling space during the night when the Roxas Night Market is assembled adjacent to the park. Since it is in the middle of the street (Roxas Avenue), its sense of enclosure, variety of sub-spaces, spaces providing different sensory experiences, and perceived interestingness of the space affect the low score of pleasurability. Comfort is also compared to
the other parks, which may be a result of its proximity to the street thereby adding to the vehicular traffic noise experienced by the users.
Given that the park is just a strip of land, the presence of people is limited especially during the day since the space acts as a transition space between the opposing lanes. The night market slightly improved the score in meaningfulness of the space due to the availability of food and other businesses.
Rizal and Quezon Parks
Rizal Park and Quezon Park are in the vicinity of the Davao City Hall. These two parks ranked third on the highest overall PSI at 66.71 from among the six evaluated UGS.
Specifically, Rizal and Quezon Parks scored 72.11 for inclusiveness, 67.96 for meaningful activities, 57.17 for comfort, 73.21 for safety, and 63.11 for pleasurability as shown in Figure 10. Rizal and Quezon Parks scored the second highest in meaningful activities as they are one of the easily accessible parks in the city due to its proximity to primary spaces such as the City Hall, Sanggunian Panlungsod building and other key local government offices, the San Pedro Cathedral; and a myriad of business establishments from food services, clothing, and many others. Consequently, these parks scored the highest in terms of safety. This may be attributed to the presence of security forces especially during the night and the psychological effect that the parks are located near the government center of the city.
Osmeña Park
Osmeña Park is located beside the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Davao City. It scored the second highest in the overall PSI at 69.06 next to Peoples’ Park, which may be attributed to the high score in the aspect of comfort.
The park has a specific score of 67.45 for inclusiveness, 68.83 for meaningful activities, 70.75 for comfort, 71.83 for safety, and 66.42 for pleasurability as presented in Figure 11.
Osmeña Park scored the highest in terms of comfort, which could be the result of the climatic comfort of the space due to the available shade and shelter provided by a lot of trees in the area
and also a high score in the perceived minimal noise from traffic outside of the park. The perception of a cooler environment may have also originated when users compare the temperature of the surrounding areas of the park. These areas
FIGURE 6 Index rating and places of interests
in People’s Park FIGURE 7 Index rating and places of interests in Magsaysay Park
include the Davao City Hall Complex where the other two parks (Rizal and Quezon) are located, which are finished in semi- and non-permeable surfaces, the Sangguniang Panlungsod building, and the San Pedro Cathedral.
FIGURE 8 Index rating and places of interests
in Davao City Botanical Garden FIGURE 9 Index rating and places of interests in Millennium Park
Results and Discussion
The Physical Dimension. The characterization of the UGS of Davao City is made by considering several factors. Each UGS presented has its own unique environment and users that it caters to. With the aid of QGIS and Fragstats, UGS quantity, quality, and spatial distribution and accessibility were computed. Results revealed that the UGS per inhabitant in the urban district is only 0.37 m2/inh , which is below the recommendation of WHO (also reflected in the percentage of built-up area in the urban district). However, there are areas in the urban district that could be developed into additional UGS. The city’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan proposed that the banks of Davao River bisecting the urban district will be classified as Floodway Mitigation Zone. This proposal is a big step in protecting settlements from the hazards of flooding and a great avenue for allocating areas that could be developed into urban green spaces.
This will translate to about 2.95 km2 of green space within the urban district. Moreover, areas along the shoreline facing Davao Gulf could also be developed into mangrove forests which could
also shield those living near this area from storm surges during heavy rains and typhoons.
The vegetation cover in these UGS of only 0.23% of the UGS land area is due to the impervious surfaces that make up a lot of the UGS analyzed. Moreover, aggregation index of these UGS is only 50.51, which means that they are not totally adjacent and not totally isolated to each other and this translates to about 7.56%
of population to have access given a 100 m buffer form the UGS boundaries and increases to 17.96% given a 300 m buffer. In addition, all UGS are easily accessible by public utility vehicles that service these areas. Allocating more UGS in the urban district will give access to the majority of the users and visitors in these spaces even with a lower buffer of 100 m. Furthermore, planning the public transportation routes to consider existing and planned UGS will give users direct access. In the planned Floodway Mitigation Zone of Davao River, small river cruises and transport will be a good means to provide direct access from those across the river banks.
FIGURE 10 Index rating and places of interests
in Rizal and Quezon Parks FIGURE 11 Index rating and places of interest in Osmeña Park
Aspect of Public
Space People's Park Magsaysay
Park Botanical
Garden Millennium
Park Rizal Park Osmeña Park Inclusiveness W*
Presence of people of diverse
ages 0.40 2.60 1.04 2.60 1.04 2.00 0.80 1.80 0.72 2.80 1.12 2.20 0.88 Presence of
people of
different gender 0.40 2.80 1.12 2.80 1.12 2.40 0.96 2.200 0.88 2.80 1.12 2.80 1.12 Presence of
people of diverse
classes 0.40 2.20 0.88 1.60 0.64 2.00 0.80 2.00 0.80 1.80 0.72 1.60 0.64 Presence of
people of diverse
races 0.40 1.40 0.56 1.40 0.56 1.40 0.56 1.20 0.48 1.40 0.56 0.60 0.24 Presence of
people with diverse physical abilities
0.40 1.40 0.56 1.20 0.48 1.20 0.48 1.00 0.40 1.60 0.64 1.2 0.48
Control of entrance to public space: presence of lockable gates, fences, etc.
1.00 2.40 2.40 2.60 2.60 2.20 2.20 1.40 1.40 2.20 2.20 2.00 2.00
Range of activities
and behaviors 1.00 2.40 2.40 2.20 2.20 1.80 1.80 1.20 1.20 0.80 0.80 2.60 2.60 Opening hours of
public space 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.40 2.40 2.80 2.80 2.40 2.40 2.00 2.00 Presence of
posted signs to exclude certain people or behaviors
1.00 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.25 1.25 2.200 2.20 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80
The presence of surveillance cameras, security guards, guides, ushers, etc. is intimidating and privacy is infringed upon
1.00 2.46 2.46 2.30 2.30 2.82 2.82 2.50 2.50 2.76 2.76 2.68 2.68
Perceived openness and
accessibility 2.00 2.46 4.92 1.93 3.85 2.65 5.29 2.444 4.889 2.67 5.33 2.20 4.40 Perceived ability
to conduct and participate in activities and events in space
1.00 1.79 1.79 1.61 1.61 1.32 1.32 1.556 1.556 2.18 2.18 1.40 1.40
Aggregate score 10.00 21.94 20.20 20.69 19.824 21.63 20.24
Index rating for
Inclusiveness 73.13 67.33 68.97 66.081 72.11 67.45
TABLE 4 Result of the public space index (PSI) inclusiveness survey of the six UGS of Davao City (with reference from Mehta 2014)
*Assigned weighting to variable
TABLE 5 Result of the public space index (PSI) meaningful activities survey of the six UGS of Davao City (with reference from Mehta 2014)
Aspect of Public
Space People's Park Magsaysay
Park Botanical
Garden Millennium
Park Rizal Park Osmeña Park Meaningful
Activities W*
Presence of community- gathering third places
2.00 2.80 5.60 2.80 5.60 1.40 2.80 1.40 2.80 1.80 3.60 2.60 5.20 Range of activities
and behaviors 1.00 2.20 2.20 2.80 2.80 1.60 1.60 1.20 1.20 1.40 1.40 2.60 2.60 Space flexibility to
suit user needs 1.00 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 1.00 1.00 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.80 1.80 Availability of
food within or at the edges of the space
2.00 1.60 3.20 2.40 4.80 1.60 3.20 3.00 6.00 3.00 6.00 1.80 3.60
Variety of business and other uses at the edges of the space
1.00 1.40 1.40 2.20 2.20 1.80 1.80 2.80 2.80 2.40 2.40 2.00 2.00
Perceived suitability of space layout and design to activities and behavior
2.00 2.10 4.21 1.74 3.48 1.94 3.88 1.64 3.28 1.97 3.94 1.93 3.85
Perceived usefulness of business and other uses
1.00 1.23 1.23 1.76 1.76 1.15 1.15 2.08 2.08 1.85 1.85 1.60 1.60
Aggregate score 10.00 20.04 22.84 15.43 19.36 20.39 20.65
Index rating for Meaningful
Activities 66.79 76.14 51.43 64.54 67.96 68.83
*Assigned weighting to variable
TABLE 6 Result of the public space index (PSI) comfort survey of the six UGS of Davao City (with reference from Mehta 2014)
Aspect of Public
Space People's Park Magsaysay
Park Botanical
Garden Millennium
Park Rizal Park Osmeña Park
Comfort W*
Places to sit without paying for goods and services
2.00 3.00 6.00 2.80 5.60 1.80 3.60 2.60 5.20 2.40 4.80 3.00 6.00
Seating provided
by businesses 1.00 0.80 0.80 1.60 1.60 0.60 0.60 1.20 1.20 0.60 0.60 1.00 1.00 Other furniture
and artifacts in the
space 1.00 2.40 2.40 1.40 1.40 1.60 1.60 1.40 1.40 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 Climatic comfort
of the space—
shade and shelter 2.00 2.00 4.00 1.40 2.80 1.20 2.40 1.40 2.80 1.00 2.00 2.60 5.20 Design elements
discouraging use
of space 1.00 1.40 1.40 1.60 1.60 2.40 2.40 1.40 1.40 1.80 1.80 1.00 1.00 Perceived physical
condition and maintenance appropriate for the space
2.00 1.97 3.95 1.41 2.81 2.41 4.82 1.72 3.44 2.30 4.61 2.00 4.00
Perceived nuisance noise from traffic or otherwise
1.00 1.87 1.87 1.74 1.74 1.56 1.56 0.97 0.97 1.55 1.55 2.23 2.23
Aggregate score 10.00 20.42 17.56 16.98 16.42 17.15 21.23
Index rating for
Comfort 68.07 58.52 56.61 54.72 57.17 70.75
*Assigned weighting to variable
TABLE 7 Result of the public space index (PSI) safety survey of the six UGS of Davao City (with reference from Mehta 2014)
Aspect of Public
Space People's Park Magsaysay
Park Botanical
Garden Millennium
Park Rizal Park Osmeña Park
Safety W*
Visual and physical connection and openness to adjacent street/s or spaces
1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 1.80 1.80
Physical condition and maintenance appropriate for the space
1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.20 2.20 1.60 1.60 2.00 2.00 1.80 1.80
Lighting quality in space after
dark 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.40 1.40 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.80 1.80 Perceived safety
from presence of surveillance cameras, security guards, guides, ushers, etc. providing safety
1.00 2.44 2.44 2.26 2.26 1.65 1.65 2.39 2.39 2.79 2.79 2.45 2.45
Perceived safety from crime
during daytime 2.00 2.26 4.51 2.13 4.26 2.41 4.82 2.28 4.56 2.45 4.91 2.55 5.10 Perceived safety
from crime after
dark 2.00 1.97 3.95 1.74 3.48 1.71 3.41 2.19 4.39 2.15 4.30 1.975 3.95 Perceived safety
from traffic 2.00 2.15 4.31 2.17 4.33 1.44 2.88 1.53 3.06 2.18 4.36 2.325 4.65
Aggregate score 10.00 21.21 18.33 18.96 20.59 21.96 21.55
Index rating for
Comfort 70.68 61.11 63.22 68.63 73.21 71.83
*Assigned weighting to variable
TABLE 8 Result of the public space index (PSI) pleasurability survey of the six UGS of Davao City (with reference from Mehta 2014)
Aspect of
Public Space People's Park Magsaysay
Park Botanical
Garden Millennium
Park Rizal Park Osmeña Park Pleasurability W*
Presence of memorable architectural or landscape features (imageability)
1.00 2.40 2.40 1.60 1.60 2.00 2.00 1.20 1.20 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80
Sense of
enclosure 1.00 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40 1.60 1.60 1.40 1.40 1.20 1.20 2.20 2.20 Variety of sub-
spaces 1.00 2.40 2.40 2.20 2.20 1.60 1.60 0.80 0.80 1.40 1.40 2.40 2.40 Density of
elements in space providing sensory complexity
1.00 2.60 2.60 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.20 1.20 1.80 1.80 1.40 1.40
Variety of elements in space providing sensory complexity
1.00 2.60 2.60 2.00 2.00 2.20 2.20 1.00 1.00 1.80 1.80 1.40 1.40
Design elements providing focal points
1.00 2.80 2.80 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.80 1.80 2.00 2.00 2.20 2.20
Visual and physical connection and openness to adjacent street/s or spaces
1.00 2.40 2.40 2.00 2.00 2.60 2.60 2.80 2.80 2.60 2.60 2.40 2.40
Perceived attractiveness
of space 2.00 2.13 4.26 1.89 3.78 2.53 5.06 1.64 3.28 2.12 4.24 2.05 4.10 Perceived
interestingness
of space 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.91 1.91 2.50 2.50 1.58 1.58 2.09 2.09 2.025 2.025 Aggregate
score 10.00 23.86 19.89 21.56 15.06 18.93 19.925
Index rating for
Pleasurability 79.52 66.28 71.86 50.20 63.11 66.42
*Assigned weighting to variable
The Social Dimension. Evaluation of the user perception revealed that comfort is a major issue of users in all of the parks appraised due to design elements that discourage the use of space (fences, hedges, and railings), noise from traffic and other sources, absence of businesses providing services (e.g., food), and the maintenance of the space in general. In People’s Park and Davao City Botanical Garden, no businesses or vendors selling food are allowed inside the area thus incurring a very low score in meaningful activities. Users could bring food to these parks but would be a great disappointment for those who failed to bring food or wanted to take a bite while already inside. The lack of shaded areas and additional furnishings such as tables and benches added to the low rating of Davao City Botanical Garden in the aspect of comfort. Magsaysay Park scored low in safety given its physical condition and lighting quality at night, which in general is dimly lit and a lot of portions do not have provision for lighting at all. This tends to be true, based on Kelling and Wilson’s (1982) “Broken Windows,” which theorized that an untended place leads to crime. A broken lighting fixture or a broken bench would give an impression that the park is unsafe. Numerous studies show that safety is affected by the existence of litter, defacement, and worn-out furniture and building (Skogan and Maxfield 1982; Hope and Hough 1988; Perkins et. al 1992). This is opposite to that of People’s Park with its well-maintained facility that gave it the highest score for safety.
With the evaluation of the UGS, it is presumed that the size of the space greatly affect the quality of the park since the more sub-spaces it could provide, the wider a range of activities it could create (Mehta 2014). This is evident from the high score of People's Park considering that it is the largest and well-planned UGS and that of Millennium Park (scored the lowest overall),
which is narrow and bounded on its sides by roads, affecting its comfort and perception of safety. It may be resolved that People’s Park is an example of a good urban green space considering the five aspects of public space as shown by its overall score and a comparative representation of the public space index (Figure 12).
Implications for Design and Management The survey and analysis of the UGS in Davao City will help the urban planning and development authorities by looking into both the physical characteristics and the public’s perception of these spaces. Insights may be used in crafting policies that frame the future of urban green space allocation and management of the city.
Urban green space development. It should be a continuing program of the city that UGS be an integral part of any urban development to gradually meet the desired green space per inhabitant. The city should devise ways that will encourage private individuals and groups who own undeveloped lands in the urban district to develop these into UGS or integrate UGS in their planned development. Critical zones such as the Davao River and coastal areas should be developed into UGS and categorize them as protected areas. The mouth of Davao River is an excellent area to be developed and may complement the proposed coastal road that will traverse the coastal area of the urban district where green spaces could be integrated. Urban greening should be a continuous program of the city including rehabilitation and improvement of existing UGS in terms of additional vegetation covers and the use of a more sustainable and greener materials for hardscapes. The Rizal Park, Quezon Park, and the Millennium Park may be upgraded and developed to increase their comfortability and pleasurability.
TABLE 9 Result of the overall public space index (PSI) survey of the six UGS of Davao City Aspect of Public Space People's
Park Magsaysay
Park Botanical
Garden Millennium
Park Rizal Park Osmeña Park Total score for all
aspects of public space 107.46 98.81 93.63 91.25 100.07 103.59
Average public space
index 71.64 65.88 62.42 60.83 66.71 69.06
FIGURE 12 Comparative visual representation of the public space index of the six parks
Roles of planning, design, and management authorities. The Office of the City Planning and Development Coordinator (OCPDC) and the City Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) have the primary role in the appropriation and management of the UGS in the comprehensive planning and supervision and management of UGS. These offices should work together and plan project implementation in a more efficient way considering time and funds. The city should allocate funds for the capacity training and development of essential personnel to investigate and catalog all the UGS of the city, propose future UGS allocations and developments, and oversee the management of the UGS. Other interventions that should be carried out would include benchmarking on the best practices in UGS allocation and management in other cities in the country and abroad, recruitment of qualified planning and design professionals, and investing on the purchase or development of computer-aided design (CAD) software to help in the planning and design of the UGS.
Importance of research and development.
Research conducted by institutions (academic, private, and non-government and peoples’
organization, etc.) should be utilized in the planning and decision-making processes by the city’s planning authorities. Studies on the environmental importance of UGS, usage and user behavior patterns, and accessibility to different types of users (such as children and older population, differently-abled, etc.) are just a few of the areas that research on UGS could be made. The city should review factors (legal, financial, social, and other related challenges) that may impede the use of these research and foster partnership with these institutions for a well-designed and managed UGS.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Assessment of the urban green spaces in Davao City revealed that only 0.37 m2/inhabitant of green space is available in the urban district.
This means that it is substantially lower than the suggested green space of 9 m2/inh. Moreover, the computed shape index is 1.03, which
suggests that the majority of UGS are square in shape and aggregation is 50.15, suggesting that these spaces are neither totally aggregated nor fragmented. Furthermore, these UGS can be easily accessed by means of public transport.
The use of geospatial information and spatial pattern analysis software significantly helped in characterizing the physical dimension of the UGS.The average public space index (PSI) for all six UGS surveyed is 66.09, with People’s Park having the highest score of 71.64. For each PSI aspect, People’s Park scored the highest for inclusiveness (73.13) and pleasurability (79.52), while Magsaysay Park scored highest in meaningful activities (76.14), Osmeña Park scored highest in comfort (70.75), and Rizal and Quezon Parks scored highest in safety (73.21).
While People’s Park scored highest overall due to its well-planned landscape, it should also be noted that planners and designers may get ideas from other UGS that scored high on specific aspect of the PSI. The PSI is a powerful tool in capturing the social impact of the UGS through its major aspects and numerous variables. A more in-depth interview with survey participants may reveal more ideas on why they scored these specific indicators of the PSI.
This study shows that much should be done in terms of planning and development of the city’s UGS to achieve the required space ratio per inhabitant and accessibility. Furthermore, each UGS has its own characteristics that set them above or below the rest with regards to how good these spaces provide the needed services and amenities that users look into. Moreover, existing UGS could serve as a basis in proposing new urban green spaces and parks or on the rehabilitation and maintenance of these spaces.
The city may look into these individual aspects as it would help designers in proposing new UGS or retrofitting existing UGS that scored low in a specific aspect and variable of the PSI. For example, more trees may be planted inside the Rizal and Quezon and Parks like that of Osmeña Park, which is almost covered in trees as shade from the sun. Lighting should be improved in Magsaysay Park and Rizal and Quezon Parks to improve the feeling of safety of users affected
by the illumination quality of these spaces. The Davao City Botanical Garden may be improved by allocating more space for various activities like that of Osmeña Park, which has more seating areas. For future UGS, a land area comparable to People’s Park should be proposed to have a more inclusive space that is able to accommodate diverse users and more space for various activities in which they may engage in.
It is recommended that studies of UGS in other emerging urban centers should be made in order to characterize the whole UGS and green space of the city in general as part of enriching the concept of its physical dimension. Moreover, in-depth interviews or focus group discussions should be made to further substantiate the user perceptions, and at the same time, the future directions of the city in terms of planning, designing, and managing the UGS as part of the social dimension in characterizing UGS.
References
Banerjee, Tridib. 2001. “The Future of Public Space: Beyond Invented Streets and Reinvented Places.” Journal of the American Planning Association 67 (1): 9–24.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360108976352 Barbosa, Olga, Jamie A. Tratalos, Paul
R. Armsworth, Richard G. Davies, Richard A. Fuller, Pat Johnson, and Kevin J.
Gaston. 2007. “Who Benefits from Access to Green Space? A Case Study from Sheffield, UK.”
Landscape and Urban Planning 83: 187–195.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.04.004
Box, John, and Carolyn Harrison. 1993.
“Natural Spaces in Urban Places.” Town and Country Planning 62 (9): 231–35.
Brill, Michael. 1989. “Transformation, Nostalgia, and Illusion in Public Life and Public Place.” In Public Places and Spaces, edited by Irwin Altman and Ervin H.
Zube, 10:7–29. New York: Plenum Press.
Carrus, Giuseppe, Massimiliano Scopelliti, R affa ele Lafortezz a, Giuseppe Colangelo, Francesco Ferrini, Fabio
