Green Infrastructure Network as Social Spaces for Well-Being of Urban Residents in Taiping, Malaysia

Transcription

1 Green Infrastructure Network as Social Spaces for Well-Being of Urban Residents in Taiping, Malaysia Mazlina Mansor 1* and Ismail Said 2 1 Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia. 2 Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia. *Corresponding author. Phone: ext / , Fax: mazlina.mansor@gmail.com ABSTRACT Green infrastructure network is greenery and open spaces linked by streets, waterways and drainage ways around and between urban areas, at all spatial scales. It is a network of greenery that provides green lung for a city and promotes healthy society and enriches human quality of life. The quality of life is gained through physical, cognitive and social interactions of urban residents where provision of greenery and open spaces network for recreational, social and leisure activities are vital for these functioning. This paper presents a preliminary study on the roles of green infrastructure network as social spaces for well-being of urban residents in Taiping, a town in central Peninsular Malaysia. Physical, cognitive and social responses of 32 residents on the green infrastructure were elicited. A large percentage of residents (91%) participated in recreational activities with the greenery and open spaces allowing mobility and active living, thus trigger many positive moods such as feeling serene, cheerful, relaxation, comfort and restful. The physical experiences are associated with social interactions of residents in the open spaces that stimulate community integration and empowerment affording sense of harmony, bonding and attachment to the town. Inasmuch, the town park was a landmark that permits many positive emotional feelings. The study suggests that the characteristics and experience of the green network resulted in progressive physical, cognitive and social functioning of urban residents, hence, offering well-being. Keywords: Experience, Green infrastructure, Social spaces, Taiping, Well-being 1. INTRODUCTION Detachment of people from natural environment has happened since the past few hundreds years (Maller et. al, 2005; Axelrod & Suedfeld, 1995; Katcher & Beck, 1987). As a result, physical, psychological and social benefits of contact with nature are diminishing. One of the reasons of little visual contact with nature is the domination of urban landscape by buildings and roads. Such landscape is likely to cause stress to people (Ulrich, 1983; Hartig et al., 1997). Other factors include the lack of open spaces for experience (Ward Thompson, 2002) and fragmentation of open spaces which reduces permeability of urban residents to available green spaces in towns and cities 1

2 (Schneekloth, 2001; Benedict & McMahon, 2000). As a result, the impacts to urban residents are less frequent viewing of greenery and scenic areas, less participating in nature which can afford serenity and reduce mental fatigue and little time performing and participating in recreational activities in gardens and parks. Therefore, they are less agile and their dexterity is low because much of their time is in the indoor, performing sedentary activities. Inasmuch, urban residents make little social contact with friends and neighbours as adults do not interact with adjacent residents, and children do not play and learn social skills. Thus, sense of place and belonging to a community are not felt by residents. Additionally, social integrity and attachment to a community are weak because the residents interact and transact less frequently. Physical and visual contacts with natural features and greenery afford improvement in three aspects of human functioning: physical, psychological and social (Hartig & Staats, 2003; Irvine & Warber, 2003). Physically, outdoor experience allows active living, dexterity and mobility in terms of participating in recreational activities which may include jogging, walking, exercising and playing. Psychologically, physical experience with the greenery and open spaces affords feelings of pleasure including enjoyment, being relaxed, comfort and calms (Korpela, 2002; Ulrich, 2002; Cooper-Marcus, 2000; Rohde & Kendle, 1994), restore attention fatigue, recovery of attention-demanding cognitive performances, positive selfreported emotions and recovery from stress (Wells, 2000; Hartig et al., 1991, 2003; Ulrich et al., 1991; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Ulrich, 1984) and trigger many positive moods such as feeling serene, peaceful, relaxation, comfort and restful (Tzoulas et al, 2007; Korpela, 2002; Ulrich, 2002; Cooper-Marcus, 2000). And, socially, outdoor participation with family, friends and neighbours stimulates community integration and empowerment that is sense of harmony, bonding and attachment to a place (Kim & Kaplan, 2004; Kuo, 2003). Additionally, social experience affords sense of community integrity, community place attachment, bonding and participation and positive social (Tzoulas et al. 2007; Herlin, 2004). In short, contact with nature contributes to the quality of life of residents in towns and cities (Bonaiuto et al., 2003). 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS Green infrastructure comprises of greenery and open spaces linked by streets, water ways and drainage ways around and between urban areas, at all spatial scales. It is a network of greenery that provides green lung for a city, promotes healthy society by providing spaces for recreational, social and leisure activities. Its main components are landform, vegetation, wildlife and water bodies. Contact with the green infrastructure in towns and cities can happen in parks, home gardens, pocket spaces, courtyards, playfields, water bodies and residual spaces (Mazlina & Ismail, 2007). These open spaces are dominated by vegetation that housed a variety of terrestrial and arboreal animals including birds, mammals and insects. Physical characteristics and appropriate spatial arrangement allow contact of nature to take place in towns and cities. Green infrastructure in Taiping consists of the Lake Gardens as town park, green and open spaces of institutional and government buildings, hills landscape, pocket spaces in town, street landscape, residential open spaces and home garden and river corridor. The Lake Gardens (68 hectares) cover 17% of the town area and act as the major patch in Taiping with large rain trees, lakes, recreational amenities and zoo. There are 22 pocket 2

3 spaces between shop houses such as Laman Pasar in town centre. Street landscape connects places within commercial areas, Taming Sari road and Kota road connects town centre with Lake Garden and Maharaja Lela road and Muzium road to residential areas. However, only 26% of the road system in Taiping is considerably green. The composition of green infrastructure extends to the residential neighbourhoods with six community parks, playgrounds and home gardens which make up 13% of green area of the town (Ismail and Mazlina, 2007). Figure 1 illustrates the distributions of green and pocket spaces in Taiping town and nearby areas. LEGEND Figure 1 Distribution of green and pocket spaces in Taiping (Ismail & Mazlina, 2007) The paper presents a preliminary study on physical characteristics of green infrastructure that contribute to progressive behavioural response of urban residents and, thus significantly lead to their physical, cognitive and social well-being. It explores three physical characteristics of green infrastructure, namely; diversity coherence and naturalness as factors to well-being functioning of urban residents in Taiping. Diversity of open space means a variety of forms and sizes of open spaces distributed in a town. Types of space, scale, distribution and a mixture of elements allows optimum experiential choice of activity for physical, cognitive and social functioning and determine residents response to green spaces. Physically, diversity affords better health due to plenty of space for physical activity such as walking and sports, and thus people live longer (de Vries et al., 2003; Takano et al., 2002; Payne et al., 1996; Tanaka et al. 1996; Guralnik, 1994; Rossman & Ulehla, 1977). Cognitively, diversity of open space allows relaxation by reducing mental fatigue and subsequently, diminishing stress on people (Kaplan et al., 1998). Outdoor engagement affords feelings of pleasure including enjoyment, being relaxed, and comfort and calm (Korpela, 2002). And, socially, diversity of open spaces such as home garden allows gardening and sharing of garden produce thus fostering community harmony (Lewis, 1996). Kaplan & Kaplan (1989) suggest that a coherent landscape setting contributes to one s ability to make sense of the environment through providing a sense of order and directing the attention of the observer. Physically, an open space becomes strong visual device (landmark and vistas) that ease wayfinding and orientation for people to access and participate with its features and activities (Thwaites, 2001; Cullen, 1971). Cognitively, people develop a sense of familiarity about where they are, and a setting that 3

4 has coherent such as high permeability may offer experiential choices of routes, diversity of experience and encouragement to explore (Bentley et al., 1992; Rudlin & Falk, 1999). As such, a network of open spaces in a town strengthens its social fabric that provides opportunities for residents to participate in activities and socialize with one another (Gearin & Kahl, 2006; Woolley, 2003). Naturalness of the environment is perceived as in its natural state or as landscaped by man; nevertheless, both offer contact and experience with nature. Land cover type, patch shape, structural integrity of vegetation and the elements of water make up the components for naturalness (Tveit et al., 2006). For example, rain trees and lakes in Taiping, are considered as having structural integrity, hence, providing sense of meaning to the Lake Gardens and to people. Green infrastructure that is highly natural enhances landscape preference of people towards their environment. Kaplan (1977) and Litton et al. (1974) suggest that water, as components of natural feature is seen as a key element shaping human landscape preference. In addition, components of natural feature such as landscaped areas consists of trees, grass, flowers, and other greenery are considered as valued features and should be protected and restored (Gobster & Westphal, 2004). 32 residents of Taiping, a small town in central Peninsular Malaysia were interviewed using open and closed ended questions to elicit empirical evidence why green spaces such as parks are essential land-use and a part of urban fabric. It was administered at three main places; the Lake Gardens, Taiping town centre, and Kampung Jambu and Taman Sentosa. The largest percentage of respondents was adult consisting of 56%. Table 1 illustrates the distribution of respondents that consists of 47% male and 53% of female. A 39-item survey in three sections consist of personal information of the respondents; age, area of residency and length of residency in year in Taiping for first section. Section two relates to physical characteristics of green infrastructure; diversity (types of green spaces, quantity, variety, and frequency of use), coherence (legibility by landmark, connectivity, movement, elements that connects green spaces) and naturalness quality of the environment. Section three addressed the importance of the physical properties and attributes of green infrastructure to well-being functioning. Close-ended questions required a response on a 5-point positive Likert scale by residents on the characteristics, preference and opinion of the green spaces in Taiping. Descriptive statistics were used as strategy for analysis of the data obtained and this is applicable for exploratory study because it concerns with summarizing a sample (Sulaiman, 2004). Table 1 Age Distribution for Unit of Analysis Children Teen Adult Elderly Number of Respondent Percentage (%) 13% 25% 56% 6% 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results from the survey explore the following questions: (a) Do residents recognize the physical characteristics of green infrastructure in Taiping? and (b) Is there a relationship between the physical characteristics of green spaces and well-being of residents? 4

5 Results for diversity suggest that residents of Taiping recognized the importance and existence of the open spaces in Taiping. Using a 5-point response scale (where 0 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree), more than half (66%) of residents felt that Taiping has variety of green spaces for outdoor social activities (Figure 2). Figure 2 Result for diversity - variety of green spaces in Taiping Table 2 indicates that more half the respondents (53%) agreed that the quantity of green spaces is appropriate for users in Taiping. However, 44% of residents felt that the quantity of the green spaces is still inadequate. Even though there was a big difference in agreement, most of residents indicated that they frequently used the green spaces (Table 2). This gives an idea that regardless of an adequate amount, green spaces in Taiping are places to be for outdoor activities. Table 3 illustrates the distribution of green spaces in Taiping, town centre and residential area preferred for activities - which shows that the Lake Gardens and hill sites (85%) are mostly preferred by residents. It appears that none of the residents preferred pocket spaces in town centre such as Laman Pasar or river corridor. Table 2 Results for diversity quantity and frequency of use Agree Undecided Disagree a) The quantity of green infrastructure is appropriate. 53% 3% 44% b) The green spaces are frequently used. 91% 3% 6% Table 3 Preference of spaces for physical, cognitive and social activities Green spaces Spaces (%) Taiping Lake Garden (78%); Hill sites (6.5%); Zoo (6.5%) Town and Lake Garden (50%); Hill sites (12%); Shoplot and Tesco (13%); commercial Residential green spaces Esplanade (3%); Zoo (6%); Not available (16%) Playground (47%); Bukit Jana (13%); Taman Suria (6%); Football field (3%); Lapangan.terbang lama (3%); Not available (6%) As suggested in literature, plenty of spaces for various physical, cognitive and social activities are vital for better health and longevity (e.g. de Vries et al., 2003; Takano et al., 2002; Payne et al., 1996). The results suggest that diversity of green spaces can be found in the Lake Gardens which offers activities like jogging, exercising and leisure recreation. As such, the Lake Gardens possesses many elements for residents outdoor experience 5

6 such as lakes, meandering paths, shady rain trees and open spaces for these activities. Results also pose possible interpretation that residents recognized activities at major patches of green space like the Lake Gardens and hill sites. However, many green spaces in town centre such as pocket spaces in between buildings, open spaces, playfield of government and institutional, and river corridor go unnoticed by residents. Hence, residents did not include these spaces for their choice of activities. Green infrastructure in Taiping may strengthen the coherence in Taiping. The physical characteristics of coherence are defined by legibility (through landmark and nodes of activity), connectivity, accessibility, orientation and wayfinding of residents. Figure 3 shows that 41% of residents pointed out the Lake Gardens and zoo as the most legible features, their focus of reference and wayfinding in Taiping, 44% referred to old buildings such as Clock Tower, Muzeum and Prison and 9% chose Bukit Larut. This suggests that the green infrastructure in Taiping holds similar importance as the built environment in determining the legibility in Taiping. The Lake Gardens is considered as a landmark due to its role as a town park for Taiping and it possesses the elements that make up a unique environment for residents to experience. Connectivity and accessibility to green spaces are other aspects that determine coherence as results in Table 4 suggested that green spaces in Taiping have connectivity. This connectivity is established by means of infrastructure like roads and proximity of places as shown by results in in Table 5. Figure 3 Result for coherence - significant landmarks in Taiping Table 4 Results for coherence connectivity, accessibility and proximity of green spaces Survey item Agree Undecided Disagree It is easy to move from one green spaces to another 81.5% 6% 12.5% Green spaces are located near each other. 78.1% 6.3% 15.6% Table 5 Result for coherence - elements that assist way finding in Taiping Signage Connectivity Landmark No opinion 62.5% 12.5% 9.4% 15.6% In summary, the finding suggests that that Taiping has reasonable sense of coherence in which its green infrastructure helps make the environment in Taiping readable. Hence, the environment supports residents to orientate, finding ways and be familiar with places. Notwithstanding, the Lake Gardens and Bukit Larut were chosen as significant landmarks, because of their picturesque qualities. The Lake Garden owns quality of meandering paths, grotesque rain trees, water bodies, expansive manicured lawns and 6

7 undulating topography. In addition, Bukit Larut is significant as it acts as the backdrop for Taiping (these characteristics are also present the quality of naturalness). Besides, it is supported by the proximity of the green spaces and this ease way finding and familiarity of residents and visitors. Therefore, it can be implied that the green infrastructure consisting of various scenery of gardens, undulating hill, flat lands and built form in town present the quality of environment that is in harmony. The Lake Gardens was mostly preferred by residents as having the most quality of naturalness. 88% indicated hill sites Bukit Larut and Burmese Pool - as having naturalness quality (Figure 4) when residents were asked to exclude Lake Garden as their response. This is in accord with the residents response (81%) that they preferred activities at the hill sites (Table 6). It seems that naturalness is one of the factors of green infrastructure preferred by people. As such, Bukit Larut has lush greenery with hill resorts and natural reserve. Inasmuch, the Burmese Pool is a natural swimming pool at the foot of Bukit Larut with streams and waterfalls that attracts residents for recreation in nature. Figure 4 Naturalness quality opinion on places of natural quality Table 6 Naturalness quality - Green spaces that are natural besides Lake Garden Hill sites Esplanade Residential No opinion 81.3% 3.1% 3.1% 12.5% 4. CONCLUSION The paper communicates the questions whether residents acknowledge the physical characteristics of green infrastructure in the town and how they contribute to well-being of residents. Results recognize that the Lake Gardens as having the most diverse characteristics. It embraces a mixture of elements such as types of spaces in various scale, form and openness. The naturalness of its landscape elements affords residents to perform physical and cognitive activities as individual or in groups. For example, along the road canopied by rain trees, residents perform physical activities such as jogging and walking. Therefore, plenty of space in the Lake Gardens encourages physical activities such as walking and sports, thus, affording better health and longevity as posited by studies (e.g. de Vries et al., 2003; Takano et al., 2002; Payne et al., 1996; Tanaka et al and Guralnik, 1994; Rossman & Ulehla, 1977). Diversity of open spaces in the Lake Garden also allows relaxation that reduces mental fatigue. This is parallel to the study by Kaplan et al. (1998) that the reduction of mental fatigue subsequently diminishes stress. It seems clear that diversity of green space in Taiping allows a variety 7

8 of experiential activities that afford feelings of enjoyment, being relaxed, comfort and calm. The Lake Gardens have a high sense of coherence as it has strong visual characters, high in permeability and offers environment that is posses sense of harmony and unity. These characteristics assist familiarity, wayfinding and orientation of residents. Due to this, residents have the opportunities to participate in activities, explore and experience the diversity of elements in the Lake Gardens. Thus, the opportunities for activities in green spaces in the Lake Gardens can strengthen the social fabric as suggested by Gearin and Kahl (2006) and Woolley (2003). However, residents do not recognize pocket spaces such as Laman Pasar because they are being segregated by buildings. It means that people recognize the pocket spaces as nonintegrated elements of the green spaces. In other words, there is a need to link these pocket spaces with a corridor such as tree-lined walkways or streets. There is a strong structural integrity in the Lake Gardens because of the dominance of rain trees, lakes, undulating landforms and extensive lawns. Thus, the residents prefer the Lake Gardens due to its high naturalness. In contrast, the pocket spaces in town are least preferred by residents because its naturalness is less dominant. For example, the area of Laman Pasar is paved, with few palms and a sculpture, and it lacks of water feature and large canopy trees. This suggests that the residents recognize the green infrastructure as greenery which consists of trees, grass, flowers and water bodies. In other words, introduction of green elements may increase the physical, cognitive and social values of residents towards the pocket spaces that will lead to progressive effects on well-being. The findings of this study are far from conclusive. One of the limitation of study is only low sampling level was taken to examine the response of residents towards green spaces. Increase in sampling level may add to validity of the findings because it will reflect various preferences of residents towards green infrastructure. Secondly, the research does not gather information on how the characteristics of home gardens allow activities of cognitive and social functioning such as gardening and sharing of garden produces that may foster community harmony. 5. REFERENCES Axelrod, L. J. & Suedfeld, P. (1995). Technology, Capitalism, and Christianity: Are They Really the Three Horsemen of The Eco-Collapse? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, Benedict, M. A. & McMahon, E. T. (2002). Green Infrastructure: Smart Conservation for the 21 st Century. Renewable Resources Journal, 20, 3, Bentley, I., Alcock, A., McGlynn, S., Murrain, P. & Smith, G. (1992). Responsive Environments : A Manual for Designers. Oxford: Butterworth Architecture. Bonaiuto, M., Fornara, F. & Bonnes, M. (2003). Indexes of Perceived Residential Environment Quality and Neighbourhood Attachment in Urban Environments: A Confirmation Study on the City of Rome. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65, Booth, M.L., Owen, N., Bauman, A., Clavisi, O. & Leslie, E. (2000). Social Cognitive and Perceived Environment Influences Associated with Physical Activity in Older Australians. Preventive Medicine. 3, Cullen, G. (1971). The Concise Townscape. Oxford: The Architectural Press. 8

9 de Vries, S.,Verheij, R.A., Groenewegen, P.P. & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2003). Natural Environments - Healthy Environments? Environmental Planning. 35, Furnass, B. (1979). Health Values. In: Messer, J. and Mosley, J. G. (eds). The Value of National Parks to the Community: Values and Ways of Improving the Contribution of Australian National Parks to the Community. Sydney: University of Sydney, Australian Conservation Foundation, pp Gearin, E. & Kahle, C Teen and Adult Perceptions of Urban Green Space in Los Angeles. Children, Youth and Environments, 16, 1, Gobster, P. H. & Westphal, L. M. (2004). The Human Dimensions of Urban Greenways: Planning for Recreation and Related Experiences. Landscape and Urban Planning. 68, Grahn, P. (2007). Landscape in Our Minds: People s Choice of Recreative Places in Towns. Landscape Research, 16, 1, Hartig, T. & Staats, H. (2003). Restorative Environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, Hartig, T., Mang, M. & Evans, G. (1991). Restorative Effects of Natural Environment Experiences. Environment and Behavior, 23, Herlin, I. S. (2004). New Challenges in the Field of Spatial Planning: Landscapes. Landscape Research, 29, 4, Herzog, T. R., Black, A. M. Fountaine, K. A. & Knotts, D. J. (1997). Reflection and Attention Recovery as Distinctive Benefits of Restorative Environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, Ismail, S & Mazlina, M. (2007). Green Infrastructure as Network of Social Spaces for Well-being of Urban Residents in Malaysian Towns: A Case Study in Taiping. In: Proceedings of Second International Seminar on Towards Establishing Sustainable Planning and Governance, Sungkyungkwan University, Seoul. Irvine, K. N. & Warber, S. L. (2003). Greening Healthcare: Practicing as if the Natural Environment Really Mattered. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, 5, 8, Kaplan, R & Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kaplan, R. (1977). Down by the Riverside: Informational Factors in Waterscape Preference, in: USDA Forest Service (Ed.) Symposium on River Recreation Management and Research, St. Paul: USDA Forest Service, Kim, J. & Kaplan, R. (2004). Physical and Psychological Factors in Sense of Community: New Urbanism Kentland and Nearby Orchard Village. Environment and Behavior, 36, Korpela, K. (2002). Children s Environment, In: Betchel, R. B. and Churchman, A. (eds.) Handbook of Environmental Psychology, New York: John Wiley, Lewis, C. A. (1996). Green Nature/Human Nature: The Meaning of Plants in Our Lives. Chicago : University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Litton, R. B., Sorensen, J. & Beatty, R. A.(1974). Water and Landscape: An Aesthetic Overview of the Role of Water in the Landscape. New York: Water Information Center. 9

10 Maller, C., Townsend, M., Pryor, A., Brown, P. & St Leger, L. (2005). Healthy Nature Healthy People: Contact with Nature as an Upstream Health Promotion Intervention for Populations. Health Promotion International, 21, 1, Mazlina, M. & Ismail, S. (2007). Green Infrastructure as Network of Social Spaces for Well-being of Urban Residents: A Review. In: Proceeding of International Conference on Built Environment in Developing Countries, Universiti Sains Malaysia. Payne, L., Orsega-Smith, B., Godbey, G. & Roy, M. (1998). Local Parks and the Health of Older Adults: Results from an Exploratory Study. Parks Recreation. 33, 10, Rohde, C. L. E. and Kendle, A. D. (1994). Report to English Nature - Human Well-being, Natural Landscapes and Wildlife in Urban Areas: A Review. Bath: Department of Horticulture and Landscape and the Research Institute for the Care of the Elderly, University of Reading. Rossmann, B. B. & Ulehla, Z. J. (1977). Psychological Reward Values Associated with Wilderness Use: A Functional-Reinforcement Approach. Environment and Behavior, 9, 1, Schneekloth, L. H. (2001). Urban Green Infrastructure. In Watson, D., Plattus, A. & Shibley, R. Time-Saver Standards for Urban Design, New York: McGraw-Hill. Sulaiman Shamsuri (2004). Research Methods for the Social Sciences Made Simple. Klang: DSS Publishing Enterprise. Takano, T., Nakamura, K. & Watanabe, M. (2002). Urban Residential Environments and Senior Citizens Longevity in Mega-city Areas: The Importance of Walkable Green Space. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 56, 12, Tanaka, A., Takano, T., Nakamura, K. & Takeuchi, S. (1996). Health Levels Influenced by Urban Residential Conditions in a Megacity Tokyo. Urban Studies, 33, Thwaites, K. (2001). Experiential Landscape Place: An Exploration of Space and Experience in Neighbourhood Landscape Architecture. Landscape Research, 26, 3, Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Ka zmierczak, A., Niemela, J & James, P. (2007). Promoting Ecosystem and Human Health in Urban Areas Using Green Infrastructure: A Literature Review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81, 3, Ulrich, R. S. (1984). Views through a Window May Influence Recovery from Surgery. Science, 224, Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A. & Nelson, M. (1991). Stress Recovery during Exposure to Natural and Urban Environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, van Mansvelt, J. D. & Kuiper, J. (1999). Criteria for The Humanity Realm: Psychology and Physiognomy and Cultural Heritage, in: J. D. van Mansvelt & M. J. van der Lubbe (Eds) Checklist for Sustainable Landscape Management. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. pp Ward Thompson, C. (2002). Urban Open Space in the 21 st Century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60, Wells, N. M. (2000). At Home with Nature: Effects of Greenness on Children s Cognitive Functioning. Environment and Behavior, 6, 32, Woolley, H. (2003). Urban Open Spaces. London: Spon Press. 10