Evaluation of urban street greenery in urban scape; Case study: Amir Kabir Blvd. in Shiraz, the segment between the Imam Hassan and Ostad Bahman Beigi grade-separated intersections

Document Type : Original Research Paper

Authors

1 Instructor, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran.

2 M.A. in Architecture, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran.

Abstract
Extended Abstract
Background and Objectives: tUrban greenery is widely acknowledged as a key element for creating livable urban environments and enhancing the quality of life for residents. Public green infrastructure provides city dwellers with the opportunity to engage with the natural environment and ecosystems, in line with the Biophilic Hypothesis popularized by Wilson. The Biophilic Hypothesis asserts that individuals possess a deep biological need and desire to engage with nature in order to thrive as a species. It is reported that without engagement with nature, the general health and welfare of communities begins to decline. However, street greenery is an essential component of urban vegetation, providing residents with more frequent access to green spaces. While much of the research on urban green spaces has focused on parks, fewer studies have explored the role of street greenery at a micro-level. This research aims to evaluate and understand the psychological, physiological, and social prosperity benefits that people derive from experiencing high-quality street greenery within an urban landscape. Understanding the needs of local communities is the first step in planning to effectively and equitably address these needs. This case study explores the experiences, expectations, and satisfaction levels of users regarding the characteristics and impacts of urban street greenery along Amir Kabir Blvd in Shiraz, between Imam Hassan intersection and Ostad Bahman Beigi overpass intersections. The study employs the Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) technique to assess these factors. The key research questions are: How can high-quality urban street greenery improve the quality of the street environment? What are the expectations and satisfaction levels of users in the study area concerning the characteristics and impacts of urban street greenery? What should be the priority of management actions based on users’ feedback to address problems and enhance the quality of the street environment, considering the role of street greenery?
Methods: This research was conducted using a mixed-methods approach with a case study. First, bibliographic and documentary collections were used to identify the relevant content. The Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) technique was widely applied to assess how well the attributes of urban street greenery (USG) met the expectations of consumers, clients, users, and visitors. In the measurement and data analysis section, this tool was utilized to evaluate the importance of the attributes and impacts of high-quality USG identified from the literature, comparing them against their relative performance for users of Amir Kabir Blvd in Shiraz, between Imam Hassan intersection and Ostad Bahman Beigi overpass intersections (n=180). Microsoft Excel 2019 and SPSS 27 were used for data analysis and graphing. To design the survey questionnaire, relevant literature, guided by Parker and Simpson and the PRISMA method of Moher et al., was reviewed. Studies conducted through a review of literature and global indicators, such as the World Health Organization’s report titled “Urban Green Spaces: A Brief for Action” and UN-Habitat’s “Global Public Space Toolkit,” were considered. These studies emphasized that street green spaces are part of the street and public space, and that streets serve as public spaces and drivers of urban prosperity. Additionally, both domestic and international articles on public green space, street green space, street-edge green space, and the Biophilic Hypothesis were reviewed.
Findings: The anonymous pen and paper self-report questionnaire used for the survey had categorical demographic questions as well as the question and paired Likert scales required for an IPA assessing 24 attributes of quality UGS spaces for the site users identified from the literature. The IPA asked USG users “How important are the following features of Amir Kabir Blvd. of Shiraz from the Imam Hassan to the Master Bahman Beigi non-coplanar intersections to you and how satisfied are you with their management?” Participants could provide their importance ranking for each of the 24 attributes related to the quality USG space using a 5-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 = Not at All Important to 5 = Extremely Important. Participants provided their performance rankings using a modified 6-point Likert scale that started at 0 = Unable to Report and then spanned from 1 = Not at All Satisfied to 5 = Extremely Satisfied. The demographic profile of the study site users in the autumn 2022 of Shiraz shows, the gender distribution of the surveyed site’s population is skewed towards men. The age of the survey participants is also skewed towards a younger population. Also, about 90% of the studied users are from Shiraz and about 60% live within 5 kilometers of the site, which shows that the user population is skewed towards locals.
The anonymous pen-and-paper self-report questionnaire used for the survey included categorical demographic questions as well as questions with paired Likert scales required for the IPA, which assessed 24 attributes of quality urban green spaces (UGS) for site users, identified from the literature. The IPA asked UGS users, “How important are the following features of Amir Kabir Blvd. in Shiraz, between Imam Hassan intersection and Ostad Bahman Beigi overpass intersections, to you, and how satisfied are you with their management?” Participants ranked the importance of each of the 24 attributes related to the quality of UGS spaces using a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = Not at All Important and 5 = Extremely Important. For performance rankings, participants used a modified 6-point Likert scale, starting at 0 = Unable to Report, and ranging from 1 = Not at All Satisfied to 5 = Extremely Satisfied. The demographic profile of the study participants in autumn 2022 shows that the gender distribution is skewed towards men. The age of the participants is also skewed towards a younger population. Additionally, about 90% of the users surveyed are from Shiraz, and approximately 60% live within 5 kilometers of the site, indicating that the user population is primarily local.
Conclusion: The results of this research emphasize the key role of urban street greenery in the livability of the street environment. The quantitative values for the IPA show that the street green space in the study area is generally of low quality and does not meet the expectations of most users. According to the studies and findings from data analysis, from the users’ view, the weakest performances with the highest importance are related to equality, environmental/ecological, and social impacts. Therefore, the first priority of study and planning actions and projects should focus on creating a suitable environment for the presence of different age and gender groups (elderly, adolescents, and women), managing surface water and flood risk, eliminating street air pollution, improving the level and amount of green space in the study area, and ensuring personal security on the sidewalk (a subcategory of social impacts).

Graphical Abstract

Evaluation of urban street greenery in urban scape; Case study: Amir Kabir Blvd. in Shiraz, the segment between the Imam Hassan and Ostad Bahman Beigi grade-separated intersections

Highlights

- The application of the Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) technique to evaluate the characteristics of green spaces in the study area, which has rarely been used for assessing urban green infrastructure or public urban spaces.
- Emphasis on the key role of street greenery in enhancing the livability of public street spaces, creating more habitable urban environments, improving residents’ quality of life, and ultimately promoting individual and social well-being.

Keywords

Subjects


این پروژه پژوهشی با حمایت مالی کامل دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد شیراز با مجوز شماره 169/پ/393 اجرا  شده است.

This research project was carried out with full financial support from the Islamic Azad University, Shiraz Branch, under the permit No. 169/P/393. 

  1. Andersson, E.; Barthel, S.; Borgström, S.; Colding, J.; Elmqvist, T.; Folke, C.,(2014); Gren, Å. Reconnecting Cities to the Biosphere: Stewardship of Green Infrastructure and Urban Ecosystem Services. Ambio, 43, 445–453.
  2. Bain, L.; Gray, B.; Rodgers, D., (2012) Living Streets: Strategies for Crafting Public Space; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA.
  3. Balram, S.; Dragi´cevi´c, S. ,(2005) Attitudes toward urban green spaces: Integrating questionnaire survey and collaborative GIS techniques to improve attitude measurements. Landsc. Urban Plan., 71, 147–162.
  4. Barth, B.J.; FitzGibbon, S.I. ,(2015); Wilson, R.S. New urban developments that retain more remnant trees have greater bird diversity. Landsc. Urban Plan., 136, 122–129.
  5. Battisti, C.,(2016) Experiential key species for the nature-disconnected generation. Anim. Conserv., 19, 485–487.
  6. Beatley, T.,(2011). Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature into Urban Design and Planning; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA; ISBN 978-1-5972671-5-1.
  7. Bratman, G.N.; Hamilton, P.; Daily, G.C.,(2012) The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function and mental health. N. Y. Acad. Sci., 1249, 118–136.
  8. Cabanek, A.; Zingoni de Baro, M.E.; Newman, P., (2020), Biophilic streets: a design framework for creating multiple urban benefits, Sustainable Earth, 3:7 https://doi.org/10.1186/s42055-020-00027-0
  9. CABE,(2009).Nov.3,(Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment) https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20091103070847/http://www.cabe.org.uk/public-space/streets/
  10. Camacho-Cervantes, M.; Schondube, J.E.; Castillo, A.; Macgregorfors, I.,(2014). How do people perceive urban trees? Assessing likes and dislikes in relation to the trees of a city. Urban Ecosyst.,1-13, 17, 761–773
  11. Carmona M, Heath T, Oc T, Tiesdell T.,(2010), Public places urban spaces. Oxford: Taylor & Francis Ltd;
  12. Coley, R.L.; Sullivan, W.C.; Kuo, F.E.,(1997). Where Does Community Grow? The Social Context Created by Nature in Urban Public Housing. Environ. Behav., 29, 468–494.
  13. Cracknell, D.; White, M.P.; Pahl, S.; Nichols, W.J.; Depledge, M.H.,(2016).Marine biota and psychological well-being: A preliminary examination of dose-response effects in an aquarium setting. Environ. Behav. 48, 1242–1269.
  14. Dale, P.E.R.,(2012). Connelly, R. Wetlands and human health: An overview. Wetl. Ecol. Manag., 20, 165–171.
  15. Diane Toomey. Designing for the urban landscape to meet 21stcentury challenges.2012. http://e360.yale.edu/features/martha_schwartz_urban_landscape_designs_to_meet_21st_century_challenges. (Attumn2022;9 AM.)
  16. Do, Y.; Kim, S.B.; Kim, J.Y.; Joo, G.J. ,(2015). Wetland-based tourism in South Korea: Who, When, and Why. Wetl. Ecol. Manag., 23, 779–787.
  17. Fernow, B.E., (1910).The Care of Trees in Lawn, Street and Park.Henry Holt and company, New York
  18. Ferrini, F.; Fini, A.; Mori, J.; Gori, A.J.S.,( 2020). Role of Vegetation as a Mitigating Factor in the Urban Context. Sustainability, 12, 4247.
  19. Hausmann, A.; Slotow, R.O.B.; Burns, J.K.; Di Minin, E.,(2016), The ecosystem service of sense of place: Benefits for human well-being and biodiversity conservation. Environ. Conserv., 43, 117–127
  20. Irvine, K.N.; Devine-Wright, P.; Payne, S.R.; Fuller, R.A.; Painter, B.; Gaston, K.J., (2009),Green space, soundscape and urban sustainability: An interdisciplinary, empirical study. Local Environ. 2, 14, 155–172.
  21. Jones, C.; Newsome, D.,(2015), Perth (Australia) as one of the world’s most liveable cities: A perspective on society, sustainability and environment. Int. J. Tour. Cities , 1, 18–35.
  22. Keniger, L.E.; Gaston, K.J.; Irvine, K.N.; Fuller, R.A.,(2013), What are the benefits of interacting with nature? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health , 10, 913–935.
  23. Li, X.; Zhang, C.; Li, W.; Kuzovkina, Y.A.; Weiner, D.,(2015), Who lives in greener neighborhoods? The distribution of street greenery and its association with residents’ socioeconomic conditions in Hartford, Connecticut, USA. Urban. For. Urban. Green., 14, 751–759.
  24. Li, X.; Zhang, C.; Li, W.; Ricard, R.; Meng, Q.; Zhang, W.; (2015), Assessing street-level urban greener and using Google Street View a modified green view index, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14, 675-685 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1618866715000874 Elsevier
  25. Liu, Y.; Wang, R.; Xiao, Y.; Huang, B.; Chen, H.; Li, Z.,(2019), Exploring the linkage between greenness exposure and depression among Chinese people: Mediating roles of physical activity, stress and social cohesion and moderating role of urbanicity. Health Place , 58, 102168.
  26. Met Office. (2012), Helping You Understand Weather and Climate; Met Office, Government of the UK: Exeter, UK,pp. 2–3.
  27. Miller, J.R.,(2005), Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends Ecol. Evol., 20, 430–434.
  28. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.,(2009), Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med., 151, 264–269.
  29. Nature and health. In: Compendium of WHO and other UN guidance on health and environment. Geneva: World Health Organization 2021 (WHO/HEP/ECH/EHD/21.02)
  30. Newton, J.,( 2007), Wellbeing and the Natural Environment: A Brief Overview of the Evidence., pp. 1–53. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.475.5690&rep=rep1&type= pdf  (Summer 2022;11:30 AM).
  31. Newton, P.W.,(2012), Liveable and sustainable? Socio-technical challenged for the twenty-first century cities. J. Urban Technol., 19, 81–102
  32. Norton, B.A.; Coutts, A.M.; Livesley, S.J.; Harris, R.J.; Hunter, A.M.; Williams, (2015) N.S. Planning for cooler cities: A framework to prioritise green infrastructure to mitigate high temperatures in urban landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan., 134, 127–138.
  33. Norton, B.A.; Coutts, A.M.; Livesley, S.J.; Harris, R.J.; Hunter, A.M.; Williams, N.S.,( 2015), Planning for cooler cities: A framework to prioritise green infrastructure to mitigate high temperatures in urban landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan., 134, 127–138.
  34. Oh, H. ,(2001),Revisiting importance–performance analysis. Tour. Manag., 22, 617–627.
  35. Parker, J. A Survey of Park User Perception in the Context of Green Space and City Liveability: Lake Claremont, Western Australia. Master’s Thesis, Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia, November 2017. http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/id/eprint/40856/ (Summer 2022;18:30 PM ).
  36. Parker, J.; Simpson, G.D.,(2018), Public green infrastructure contributes to city livability: A systematic quantitative review. Land , 7, 161.
  37. Patroni, J.; Day, A.; Lee, D.; Chan, J.K.L.; Kerr, D.; Newsome, D.; Simpson, G.D.,(2018), Looking for evidence that place of residence influenced visitor attitudes to feeding wild dolphins. Tour. Hosp. Manag. , 24, 87–105.
  38. Pazhouhanfar, M., Kamal, M., (2014). Effect of predictors of visual preference as characteristics of urban natural landscapes in increasing perceived restorative potential. Urban For. Urban Green. 13 (1), 145–151.
  39. Revell, G.,(2014); Anda, M. Sustainable urban biophilia: The case of greenskins for urban density. Sustainability , 6, 5423–5438.
  40. Roy, S., Byrne, J., Pickering, C.,(2012). A systematic quantitative review of urban tree benefits, costs, and assessment methods across cities in different climatic zones. Urban for Urban Green.11(4)351-363
  41. Saboonchi, P., Abarghouyifard, H. & Heshmatollah Motedayen, H. (2018).Green Landscape Networks;The role of articulation in the integrity of green space in landscapes of contemporary cities of Iran. Bagh- e Nazar, 15 (62):5-16 ). (In Persian)
  42. Salehi,E.,2020, Urban Green Space, Green Book 1400 (Guide to the practice of municipalities),Vol.9, The Organization of municipalities and vilages of the country,29. (In Persian)
  43. Samara, T.; Tsitsoni, T.) 2011),The effects of vegetation on reducing traffic noise from a city ring road. Noise Control. Eng. J., 59, 68–74.
  44. Schroeder,H.W.,Cannon Jr.,W.N., (1983). The Esthetic contribution of trees to residentional streets in Ohio towns.J.Arboric.9,237–243.
  45. Shiraz City annual report, 2021-2022,Shiraz Municipolity,4,8,9, https://moba.shiraz.ir  (Attumn 2022,17:10). (In Persian)
  46. Simpson, G.; Newsome, D.,(2017), Environmental history of an urban wetland: From degraded colonial resource to nature conservation area. GEO Geogr. Environ., 4, 1–18
  47. Simpson, G.; Newsome, D.; Day, A.,(2016),Data from a survey to determine visitor attitudes and knowledge about the provisioning of wild dolphins at a marine tourism destination. Data Brief , 9, 940–945.
  48. Simpson, G.; Parker, J.,(2018), Data on Peer Reviewed Papers about Green Infrastructure, Urban Nature, and City Liveability. Data , 3, 51
  49. Simpson, G.; Parker, J.,(2018),Data on Peer Reviewed Papers about Green Infrastructure, Urban Nature, and City Liveability. Data , 3, 51.
  50. Soga, M.; Yamaura, Y.; Aikoh, T.; Shoji, Y.; Kubo, T.; Gaston, K.J.,(2015), Reducing the extinction of experience: Association between urban form and recreational use of public greenspace. Landsc. Urban Plan., 143, 69–75.
  51. Taplin, R.H.,( 2012), Competitive importance-performance analysis of an Australian wildlife park. Tour. Manag., 33, 29–37.
  52. Tapsell, P.; Newsome, D.; Bastian, L.,(2003), Origin of yellow sand from Tamala limestone on the Swan Coastal Plain, Western Australia. Aust. J. Earth Sci., 50, 331–342.
  53. Troy, A.; Morgan Grove, J.; O’Neil-Dunne, J.,( 2012), The relationship between tree canopy and crime rates across an urban–rural gradient in the greater Baltimore region. Landsc. Urban. Plan., 106, 262–270.
  54. Tzoulas, K.; Korpela, K.; Venn, S.; Yli-Pelkonen, V.; Kázmierczak, A.; Niemela, J.; James, P.,( 2007), Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landsc. Urban Plan., 81, 167–178.
  55. Ulrich,R., (1984). View through a window may influence recovery.Science 224 (4647), 224-225
  56. UN-Habitat. (2013). Street as public spaces and drivers of urban prosperity,1ST, Nairobi, 7,30, 46
  57. UN-Habitat. (2016). Global Public Space Toolkit: From Global Principles to Local Policies and Practice Revision, Nairobi, 6
  58. United Nations, Sustainable Development Goals. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld (Attumn2022;9:30 AM)
  59. Van den Berg, A.E.; Hartig, T.; Staats, H.( 2007). Preference for nature in urbanized societies: Stress, restoration, and the pursuit of sustainability. J. Soc. Issues, 63, 79–96.
  60. WHO Regional Office for Europe. Urban Green Spaces: A Brief for Action; WHO Regional Office for Europe: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2017; pp. 1–24.
  61. Wilson, E.O. Biophilia; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1984; ISBN 978-0-6740744-2-2.
  62. Wolf, K.L.(2005), Business district streetscapes, trees, and consumer response. J. For. , 103, 396–400.
  63. Xiao, C.; Shi, Q.; Gu, C.-J.,( 2021), Assessing the Spatial Distribution Pattern of Street Greenery and Its Relationship with Socioeconomic Status and the Built Environment in Shanghai, China. Land, 10, 871.  https://doi.org/10.3390/land10080871
Volume 15, Issue 2 - Serial Number 28
December 2024
Pages 111-126

  • Receive Date 29 March 2023
  • Revise Date 17 July 2023
  • Accept Date 01 November 2023