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

Abstract

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

Expanding Social, Psychological, and Physical Indicators of Urbanites’ Life Satisfaction toward Residential Community: A Structural Equation Modeling Analysis

“…Green area is not only recognized as a suitable setting for running and jogging, but also for its potential in the alleviation of self-reported nervous problems and medication use [83]. In this sense, green area is considered as an important means by which to improve the quality of life of urbanites [84]. Indeed, empirical evidence has found that green area directly affects people's physical health and psychological well-being in a positive way, which may improve life satisfaction of residents [85].…”

Study on the Optimized Mode of Waste Governance with Sustainable Urban Development—Case from China’s Urban Waste Classified Collection

“…As Bednar [20] and Millimet [21] have stated, although the environmental federalism has received widespread attention worldwide, determining the optimal allocation of environmental authority at all levels of government remains a challenge. Considering the urgent need for sustainable urban development, Constantinescu et al [22] advocate increasing citizen participation in the decision-making process, as it can produce better results and can hold people accountable.…”

Framing Sustainability. Evidence from Participatory Forums to Taylor the Regional 2030 Agenda to Local Contexts

“…Several interlinkages between sustainable development goals (SDGs) and an even more significant number of targets are glocal [7] and compete for local public attention needing to be framed and incorporated both in state and local governments' programs and citizens' real life [8]. Recent contributions confirm urban sustainable development planning addresses citizens' concern about the quality of life and environmental protection by increasing their participation in policymaking processes and their involvement in designing nature-based and socially inclusive solutions [9][10][11]. What is commonly agreed upon is that participation can influence SDGs framing, meant as deliberate crafting.…”

“…As there can be simultaneously many ways of understanding a problem and finding solutions, according to the government and actors involved, participation is considered a suitable tool to elicit and mediate between distinct preferences and facilitate different and more adaptive solutions. Engaging citizens at the local level needs to rethink collaboration settings and partnerships [9] to better establish tools for integrating traditional approaches [10] to empower local communities in practice, allowing them to portray the context of sustainability better and build public acceptance in policymaking. Despite widespread support for public participation, there is no explicit consensus on the purpose or evidence of this practice's actual outputs and its effects on policy framing.…”