A Conceptual Model for Planning and Management of Areas of Public Space and Meeting in Colombia

Citation: Jiménez-Caldera, J.; Serrano-Montes, J.L.; Pérez-Arévalo, R.; Rodrigo-Comino, J.; Salvati, L.; Caballero-Calvo, A. A Conceptual Model for Planning and Management of Areas of Public Space and Meeting in Colombia. Land 2022,11, 1922. https://doi.org/10.3390/ land11111922 Academic Editors: Andrzej Greinert, Anna Bazan-Krzywosza´nska, Katarzyna Tokarczyk-Dorociak, Sinan Tankut Gülhan and Eduarda Marques da Costa Received: 25 September 2022 Accepted: 25 October 2022 Published: 28 October 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). land Article A Conceptual Model for Planning and Management of Areas of Public Space and Meeting in Colombia Juan Jiménez-Caldera 1, JoséLuis Serrano-Montes 2, Raúl Pérez-Arévalo 3, Jesús Rodrigo-Comino 4, Luca Salvati 5and Andrés Caballero-Calvo 4,* 1Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Environmental Engineering, University of Córdoba, Montería 230002, Colombia 2Department of Human Geography, Faculty of Philosophy and Letters, Cartuja Campus, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain 3Faculty of Architecture, Universidad del Atlántico, Puerto Colombia 081007, Colombia 4Department of Regional Geographic Analysis and Physical Geography, Faculty of Philosophy and Letters, Cartuja Campus, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain 5Department of Methods and Models for Economics, Territory and Finance, Faculty of Economics, Sapienza University of Rome, I-00161 Rome, Italy *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: A refined investigation of new trends in urban analysis assuming a sustainable design of Areas of Public Space and Meeting (APSM) is a fundamental response to the challenges of inclusive and efficient cities. Even though the APSM are districts regarded as urban structuring systems, there is a lack of territorial planning instruments and conceptual models aimed at explaining their longterm dynamics. Based on these premises, we developed a conceptual model that articulates relevant variables of interest for the planning and management of APSM. The construction of the model includes the review and analysis of the literature and the validation process based on a consultation with a panel of experts on the subject. Our findings demonstrate that the existing research does not address the APSM issue adequately, and the methodologies proposed so far do not lead to accurate and comprehensive analyses of urban complexity in light of sustainability targets. There are only isolated, disjointed, and partial approaches to variables of interest, making it difficult to carry out holistic studies. Our technical and scientific proposal offers a framework for an exhaustive evaluation of these areas. The model has been structured according to the assumptions of urban sustainability and can be applied to diverse urban environments in South America. Keywords: city life quality; sustainability; public participation; urbanism; regional development 1. Introduction The correct morphology and functional articulation of Areas of Public Space and Meeting (APSM), such as parks, squares, sports, cultural venues, and outdoor comfortable areas free of vehicles, are key parts of the structuring systems of consolidated cities [1–3] . Their correct provision and adequate disposal are necessary to mitigate ecological deterioration, preserve environmental quality at large, and improve social welfare and life quality [ 4 – 8 ]. Integral planning and management of these areas demand a joint and articulated approach that evaluates, together, multiple variables of interest capable of assuming the complexity of urban systems [ 9 – 12 ]. The exhaustiveness of the diagnoses and proposals for spatial organization around these spaces is the duty of urban planners and analysts, who should choose relevant variables and analysis for that purpose [ 13 ]. The international call for sustainable, inclusive, and participatory urban planning is one of the Sustainable Development Goals (number 11), which highlights the role of cities in achieving sustainable development [14]. Land 2022,11, 1922. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11111922 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land Land 2022,11, 1922 2 of 21 The use of the technical and scientific literature could offer enough elements of analysis for an exhaustive evaluation of APSM. From these documents, useful elements for identifying and solving sociospatial conflicts that affect environmental quality and urban life could be identified and even foreseen. For example, there are recent valuable proposals for assessment models based just on a few variables of interest [ 11 , 12 , 15 – 22 ] or on a more complex evaluation system [ 23 – 30 ] with relevant positive results; however, in most cases, these findings are neglected by policymakers and urban planners. The lack of a common conceptual model denotes the existence of isolated and disjointed approaches that could negatively affect the efficiency of decision-making processes in urban spatial configurations. Given the above-mentioned scenario, we propose a conceptual model based on the selection and articulation of relevant variables of interest, proposing key analysis elements that lead to exhaustive diagnoses for an accurate and effective spatial planning of these areas. Such approaches are particularly welcome in South America, especially in some countries where the unstable political situation and the intrinsic vulnerability to environmental changes, such as climate change, pollution, or loss of biodiversity, are consolidated facts. This assumption is based on the hypothesis that the integration and articulation of adequate variables stimulate the production of geographical outputs with policy implications, e.g., improving and optimizing decision-making processes that have an impact on the urban spatial configuration. The configuration of a common conceptual model should pay attention to the inherent logic in planning and management processes. One example is Colombia where there are weak normative guidelines that only contemplate elements of basic analysis leading to incomplete diagnoses or those lacking in rigor [30,31]. Therefore, in this research, the main aim was to design a conceptual model for Colombia considering three precepts/assumptions related to urban sustainability: preservation of the environment, sociospatial justice, and public participation. It has been considered that APSM stand out as structural elements of the models of sustainable cities thanks to their multiple uses and socioecological benefits [ 32 – 37 ]. To achieve this goal, an exhaustive review, classification, and synthesis of the technical and scientific literature focusing on the analysis of these infrastructures was carried out. A preliminary model specification went through a validation process, including an analysis and optimization within an expert panel made up of professionals and researchers in the field of urban and particularly public space planning and management. We hypothesized that this conceptual model could be used to correctly manage and prevent nonfunctional land plans that try to use APSM as articulating areas. The implementation of the model in the official processes of planning and management of cities would have a favorable impact on the quality of urban life since the approach to the individual variables proposed in our analysis makes it possible to detect sociospatial injustices. The exhaustive diagnoses to which the model leads facilitate the formulation of successful spatial organization proposals capable of solving the detected problems. In addition, the model, by proposing the analysis of variables that depend on community participation, promotes the democratic construction of the city. This is a need that responds to the complexity of contemporary urbanization [38–41]. In the next section of the literature review, the pertinence of the three mentioned precepts is presented. Subsequently, in the methodology section, the different phases of the research are described for a better understanding of the results achieved. In the results section, after presenting the normative situation of APSM in Colombia, the variables used for the analysis are illustrated, having their organization in Figure 2 as the main outcome of this investigation. The manuscript concludes by highlighting some challenges and final remarks, evidencing the originality and novelty of the approach and arguing some (positive and normative) limits of the approach that should be elaborated on more in future studies. Land 2022,11, 1922 3 of 21 2. Literature Review 2.1. Planning and Management of Public and Meeting Spaces: Urban Sustainability Assumptions 2.1.1. Precept 1. Preservation of the Environment: The Role of Public Green Areas Free-access public urban green areas are spaces whose surface area is partially covered by vegetation, and some authors classify them into parks, squares, water roundabouts, and, in general, recreation contexts that present such kinds of characteristics [ 17 ]. Green areas are part of the key elements of sustainable urban systems as they play an important ecological role associated with the absorption of heat and carbon dioxide, reduction in pollution, control of stormwater runoff, recharge of aquifer mantle, temperature regulation, and biodiversity preservation [ 19 , 34 ]. The environmental, landscape-related, and social benefits provided by these spaces are greater as their size increases [ 42 – 45 ]. Various authors agree in referring to this variable as a fundamental condition for the conservation of diversity and richness of flora and fauna [ 46 , 47 ], a controlling factor for floods and sediment fluxes [ 48 ], diversifying the intensity of uses [ 11 ], and improving air quality and regulation of a human-favorable temperature [20]. 2.1.2. Precept 2. APSM and Sociospatial Justice A sustainable city should be fair from a social point of view. The principle of social justice in sustainable development implies that citizens, without any kind of discrimination, can aim for quality of life [ 49 ]. Regarding the functionality of APSM, the manifestation of inequalities or social injustices is due to the existence of adverse physical–spatial conditions that limit or make it impossible to access, use, and enjoy these infrastructures [ 29 ]. Social justice theory is related to spatial justice theory as it addresses concerns about how space is used and how decisions about the use and design of particular spaces are determined [ 50 ]. This theory was developed by Edward Soja [ 51 ], focusing on spatial justice assumed as the equitable distribution of space, resources, and accessibility. There are exogenous and endogenous injustices, respectively, products of impositions of hierarchical power and decisions related to the unequal distribution of basic urban services [ 51 ]. The spatial injustices related to the functionality of these spaces are of an endogenous type, a consequence of erroneous urban planning and management processes. The technical and scientific literature mainly describes the existence of five factors that affect the equitable use of APSM, and they are all related to the theory of social and spatial justice. Factor 1: Accessibility Factor 1 is related to accessibility, which involves the concept of connection and proximity [ 28 ]. The interest in going to a sustainably and accessibly articulated APSM is influenced, among other aspects, by the proximity that exists among these and the places of residence, since this affects distances traveled or access costs [ 52 , 53 ]. Therefore, an analysis of accessibility is key to investigating the spatial distribution of these spaces. The equitable distribution of the APSM means that the inhabitants have similar conditions to access and make use of these spaces [ 20 , 29 ]. Pedestrian access is a key aspect facilitating the public use of such spaces [54], cited by [15]. Factor 2: Satisfaction Factor 2 points out the level of satisfaction provided by APSM. The different preferences and interests of people toward these spaces can vary according to sociodemographic aspects, such as gender, age, culture, and physical abilities [ 18 , 55 ]. No public space manages to satisfy all the preferences and interests of each resident. Therefore, the strategy focuses on the sum of all the public spaces of a city to satisfy all citizens [ 4 , 24 ]. From planning, it is important to promote the complementary design of these articulating spaces that lead to the diversity of functions [ 56 ] and, likewise, conduct diagnostic analyses based on strategic (typological) differentiation [ 57 ]. Multifunctional heterogeneous public and meeting spaces should be networking tools that consider the presence of natural elements to provide (i) climatic comfort and natural aesthetics; (ii) varied furniture placed in a planned manner; Land 2022,11, 1922 4 of 21 (iii) tools for sports activities and children’s recreation; (iv) biohealthy modules; and (v) cultural elements, such as monuments, sculptures, and pieces of art [ 23 , 25 , 58 , 59 ]. Individual perceptions determine the intention to use a space, being influenced by sociodemographic aspects, such as occupation, socioeconomic status, or social class [ 18 , 60 ]. This aspect has been studied as related to the perception around insecurity [ 12 , 61 ] that, in addition to being stimulated by objective acts of violence and crime, is influenced by external factors to design, such as improper use and bad practices [ 25 , 62 ]. An additional impact was exerted by internal factors related to the design of each public space, such as inadequate lighting, lack of maintenance and cleanliness (see also Factor 4), or the absence of surveillance authorities [12,63,64]. Factor 3: Sufficiency Factor 3 is related to the public space network that can prove its sufficiency. The lack of the APSM reduces the possibilities of satisfying the recreational needs of citizens and their free choice for spending leisure time, and, therefore, the integration of the population in its city. Likewise, this condition affects the balance between the demands on the natural environment and those socially constructed [ 24 , 29 ]. This possible deficit could be estimated in two ways: (i) by comparing the total urbanized area with the number of spaces available [ 24 ] or (ii) by considering the proportion between the existing spaces and the number of inhabitants [21,65]. Factors 4 and 5: Physical Conditions and Distribution To achieve a sustainable development of APSM, it is necessary to consider their physical conditions. The deterioration of these spaces makes it impossible to provide possibilities of active or passive recreation. Deterioration denotes a qualitative deficit, an element of analysis that must be considered in urban planning and management [ 21 , 22 ]. Regarding Factor 5, the spatial distribution also matters. The United Nations highlights that it is vital to ensure the city-wide distribution of APSM, mainly to avoid inequalities and redistribute benefits [ 66 ]. From a spatial perspective, an equitable distribution of APSM is achieved if the population has the possibility of accessing them from anywhere in the city [ 12 , 15 , 20 ]. From the sociospatial point of view, in addition to physical conditions (Factor 4), proximity and connectivity must prevail over the possibility of having access to a diversified APSM network, capable of offering various entertainment options associated with both active and passive recreation [29]. 2.1.3. Precept 3. Public Participation in Planning and Management of APSM The technical conception of public spaces can be more coherent with their uses if it is not separated from the knowledge derived from the perceptions, experiences, and actions of the users [ 10 , 12 , 67 ]. Citizen participation should be projected as a basic strategy to solve the difficult situations that arise in large cities [ 57 ]. The opinion of the urban population, which is always diverse, allows for investigating the needs concerning people’s preferences and interests, the level of satisfaction that existing spaces provide, or the imaginary barriers that condition or limit their use [ 61 , 68 ]. Participatory design is related to the use and belonging in space [ 69 ], and for this reason, to have a positive impact on its beneficiaries, it is important to obtain specific knowledge associated with the profile of users, visiting patterns, and activities they conduct and the degree of satisfaction [ 70 ]. In this sense, it is important to establish practical mechanisms that allow the recurring collection of the required inputs [ 19 ]. Public participation is key to addressing Landscape Quality Objectives, where public space plays an important role. These objectives are understood as inhabitants’ goals and aspirations toward their landscapes [71]. Land 2022,11, 1922 5 of 21 3. Methodology The proposed conceptual model results from the analysis and sequential development of a series of procedures (Figure 1) summarized in 4 phases: (i) identification of problems around the current planning and management of APSM; (ii) conceptualization, which implies the selection and description of variables of interest and the determination of essential analysis elements for the adequate approach of these spaces; (iii) design of the model, referring to the conceptualization represented through its schematization; and (iv) model validation. Land 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 22 3. Methodology The proposed conceptual model results from the analysis and sequential development of a series of procedures (Figure 1) summarized in 4 phases: (i) identification of problems around the current planning and management of APSM; (ii) conceptualization, which implies the selection and description of variables of interest and the determination of essential analysis elements for the adequate approach of these spaces; (iii) design of the model, referring to the conceptualization represented through its schematization; and (iv) model validation. Figure 1. A flowchart explaining the development of the conceptual model for Planning and Management of APSM in Colombia. The construction of the model is based on an exhaustive process of review and synthesis of the technical and scientific literature. Various documents consulted on different websites and scientific databases were reviewed and analyzed, including the current official regulatory standards of the country, scientific articles, books, reports of academic events, websites of governmental and nongovernmental organizations, research institutes, universities, and urban observatories on the study of public spaces. A summary Figure 1. A flowchart explaining the development of the conceptual model for Planning and Management of APSM in Colombia. The construction of the model is based on an exhaustive process of review and synthesis of the technical and scientific literature. Various documents consulted on different websites and scientific databases were reviewed and analyzed, including the current official regulatory standards of the country, scientific articles, books, reports of academic events, websites of governmental and nongovernmental organizations, research institutes, universities, and urban observatories on the study of public spaces. A summary description of the Land 2022,11, 1922 6 of 21 literature was carried out according to the following purposes: (i) the construction of the conceptual and theoretical framework that supports the selection process of relevant variables of interest for sustainable planning and management of APSM; (ii) the identification of problems linked to the current processes of planning, organization, and management of APSM, emphasizing two main aspects: the evaluation of the guidelines established in the regulation of the study area (Colombia) and the proposals for the analysis of these important urban pieces; (iii) the identification of relevant variables of interest for the right planning and management of APSM; and (iv) the determination of specific elements that lead to the elaboration of exhaustive diagnoses and to the formulation of proposals for the spatial organization under the approach of urban sustainability. Based on the foregoing, the development of the model considered the following premises: (i) The methodological guidelines established in the official regulations, Decree 1504/1998, which regulates the management of public spaces within the territorial planning of Colombia. This decree suggests the obligatory implementation of quantitative and qualitative indicators in order to support the diagnoses that are elaborated within the frame of official instruments of territorial planning; (ii) The conceptual model should highlight the omission and disarticulation of variables of interest, causing a lack of information to support the decision-making processes that affect the urban spatial configuration [ 30 , 31 ]; (iii) The conceptual and theoretical framework built under the urban sustainability approach, which takes into account the three basic precepts established as structuring axes of the proposed modeling (conservation and preservation of the environment, sociospatial justice, and citizen participation); and (iv) The variables and elements of analysis exposed in the evaluation of APSM, giving greater relevance to those that are in accordance with the aforementioned sustainability precepts. Finally, the first draft of the model was presented to a group of professionals in the field of study and experts on urban planning and public spaces through a focus group made up of 6 participants (see Appendix A). The experts exposed the arguments that led to the optimization of the conceptualization. The identification of the participants was carried out through social research networks and directly through visits to the offices of municipal administrations. Among the selection criteria, academic training (basic profession and specialties) and research experience related to the research topic of the study area were considered. The purpose of the presentation to the experts was to promote a debate around aspects related to the design, relevance, and applicability of the model. 4. Results and Discussion 4.1. Planning and Management of the Public and Meeting Spaces in Colombia 4.1.1. Current Guidelines to Obtain a Theoretical Framework from Colombia The norm that informs the planning and management of APSM in Colombia is the Decree 1504/1998. It proposes a general inventory of the constituent elements of the public spaces based on a typological classification according to the scale or area of influence as follows: (i) structural elements of general, national, departmental, metropolitan, municipal, or district influence and (ii) elements at the municipal, local, zonal, and neighborhood levels within the municipality. This document also proposes the implementation of the effective public space coverage indicator (composed of green areas, parks, and squares) per inhabitant, also known as Public Space Per Capita, and the quantitative deficit indicator of effective public space, which emphasizes the number of spaces a city requires, depending on the number of inhabitants and concerning the reference index established as a goal. The document also raises the estimation of the qualitative deficit of effective public space, an indicator associated with inadequate conditions for the use and enjoyment of these infrastructures with special emphasis on situations of inaccessibility due to conditions of deterioration, insecurity, or physical impossibility of access. Land 2022,11, 1922 7 of 21 4.1.2. Problems Surrounding the Analysis of APSM One of the main issues related to the APSM approach in Colombia is the absence of guidelines that contribute to the formulation of adequate standards for planning and management of these spaces on the urban scale, beyond what is provided in the Decree 1504/1998 [ 31 ]. The National Policy on Public Space, established through the document named ‘Conpes 3718/2012 0 , highlights the irregular ways in which the qualitative and quantitative deficits of public space are addressed, two of the main elements of analysis that the regulations proposed. The first is because it is approached in a perceptive manner, without emphasizing the factors (or conditions) that generate the deficit and the consequences that derive from the impossibility of using APSM. The second is because during its approach, various irregularities are incurred, among them stand out the “lack of precision in the application of concepts established by the norm; inadequate methodologies and measurement instruments; technical and technological weaknesses (GIS) for measurement; imprecision of the information related to cession areas destined to public space” [ 31 ], page 9 . It is also evident that the elements of the analysis proposed by the Decree 1504/1998 (described in Section 4.1.1), when contrasted with the basic precepts of urban sustainability (described in Section 2), prove to be insufficient to achieve exhaustive diagnostic analyses that lead to the formulation of successful proposals for the spatial organization that mitigate or eradicate the problems identified in urbanized territory. 4.2. Variables of Interest and Elements of Analysis for the Planning and Management of the APSM 4.2.1. Variable 1: Diversity The first variable was diversity, which is expressed through strategic typological classifications. In this sense, three classification proposals that lead to different types of analysis were considered here. Strategic Classification 1 This classification was established based on activities or general uses that can be developed in APSM, taking account of the physical features associated with the design (Table 1). The classification allows questions about the level of general satisfaction of preferences or interests of the population, concerning the possibility to exercise active or passive recreation following the classification of Garnica and Jiménez [29]. Table 1. Classification criteria and categories according to their internal composition and function they provide to local communities. Category/Scenario Function Description Sport Leisure and active recreation Surface intended solely for the exercise of the sports activity of the community (soccer, baseball, basketball, shuffleboard, etc.) Children Leisure and active recreation The surface is intended, due to its constituent elements (children’s equipment), solely for the exercise of recreational activity for children. Stay Leisure, passive recreation, meeting, and harmony Surfaces are made up of environmental elements, such as trees or grass, and equipped with furniture, such as benches, intended for passive activity. Biohealthy scenarios Leisure and active recreation Surfaces are equipped with machines or special instruments for the improvement of the health and physical condition of people. Source. Modified from Garnica and Jiménez [29] (p. 264). Land 2022,11, 1922 8 of 21 This classification allows the estimation of the percentage of urban public space (% PUPEsc: stay, children’s, sports, and biohealthy) concerning the totality of public and meeting spaces existing in the urban area through the following formula: % PUPEsc =# total APSM Esc (i) # total APSM ×100 (1) % PUPEsc = Percentage of the presence of certain scenarios of the urban public space. # total APSM = total number of existing public and meeting spaces in the study area (city, community, neighborhood, or any other planning unit or urban action defined in the planning instrument). # total APSM Esc (i) = total number of APSM per scenario (stay, child, sports, or biohealthy). Notably, the probability that the sum of all the individual % PUPEsc (% children’s scenarios + % sports scenarios + % stay scenarios + % biohealthy scenarios) is equal to 100 % is very low since, in the cities, many units of public space usually provide more than one service to society. The percentage of the presence can be 100 % only when all APSM have the presence of a single type of scenario. The % PUPEsc helps to identify the segments of the population that would be benefiting to a greater or lesser extent concerning the provision of these articulating spaces. Greater diversity indicates a greater chance that different preferences and recreational interests will be satisfied. Strategic Classification 2 This determines an influence level or scale based on the representativeness or particularity that each APSM has within the set of existing public and common spaces in the urbanized area (Table 2). The analysis proposed from this perspective is based on the potential of spaces with unique characteristics as recipients of users from distant places [ 29 ]. Table 2. Classification criteria and categories according to scale or area of influence associated with the representativeness and particularity of the spaces. Scale or Influence Description Municipal/regional Large dimension and high urban and environmental values, icons of a city, which meet the needs of the local population and residents from other distant locations. They are not abundant or predominant in urban area. Zonal Variable dimension, equipped with common areas suitable for urban planning, with furniture and unusual internal components among existing public spaces. They are not abundant or predominant. That is why they are visited by people from distant towns or neighborhoods. Local/neighborhood Small size, intended for recreation, meeting, and community integration. They cover the needs of neighborhoods. They present similar characteristics to most of the existing public spaces in the city. They are generally distributed throughout the urban area. Source. Modified from Garnica and Jiménez [29] (p. 264). The receiving public and meeting spaces of the distant population need special amenities, such as public restrooms, parking for bicycles, and motorized vehicles. This constitutes a criterion for evaluating the quality of urban public space. Land 2022,11, 1922 9 of 21 Strategic Classification 3 This was established according to the size or surface area. In the study area, the classification used by the BogotáPublic Space Observatory of the Administrative Department of the Public Space Ombudsman DADEP stands out, which establishes scales or areas of influence according to the surface of the spaces (Table 3). This approach maintains a relationship with the guidelines established in the Regulatory Decree 1504/1998, which suggests the inventory and classification of public spaces according to the scale or area of influence, but without describing or specifying the characteristics of the categories that compose it. Table 3. Classification criteria per scale or area of influence associated with the surface of the spaces. Scale Description Metropolitan Area greater than 10 ha Zonal The area between 1 and 10 ha Neighborhoods 1Area smaller than 1 ha Pocket 2Area smaller than 1000 m2 Source: Self elaboration in base to the report entitled Administrative Department of the Public Space Ombudsman DADEP [ 27 ]. Observatory of the Public Space of Bogotá. 1 Neighborhood spaces are known as free areas intended for recreation, meeting, and community integration to meet the needs of neighborhoods. They are generically called parks, green areas, or assignments for parks. 2 Pocket ones cover the needs of neighborhoods or groups of houses around the infrastructure. The surface of the articulating public and meeting spaces is related to the intensity and diversity of the offered uses [ 11 ], and, likewise, it is linked to a greater possibility of environmental benefits being granted [ 46 – 48 ]. Therefore, the surface constitutes the first criterion for evaluating the functionality of these public infrastructures. Large spaces tend to be few in cities, which is why they wield more influence. Given that they are spaces that potentially receive users from distant places, they require special internal amenities. This constitutes a second criterion for evaluating the quality of spaces. 4.2.2. Variable 2: Physical Condition or State of Conservation This quality determines, limits, or restricts the use of public and meeting spaces, generating different levels of dissatisfaction within the population, mainly those who live in the surroundings. The impossibility of using these spaces makes it necessary to move to others in a good state of conservation, affecting access costs, whether in time or distance traveled and even in terms of economic expenses. The influx of people to other APSM, due to the poor conservation of some of them, would lead to overuse, affecting the development of recreational activities that can be performed. The norm that regulates the management of public space in the Territorial Planning Plans of Colombia contemplates the assessment of the qualitative deficit of public space, referring to the inadequate conditions for its use, in turn emphasizing situations of inaccessibility among which are the conditions of deterioration. This rule does not specify how to address the qualitative deficit. Based on the above-mentioned issues, Jiménez and Garnica proposed a methodology that allows the estimation of this deficit, facilitating not only its approach but also its reporting and interpretation based on the detection of sociospatial problems or conflicts [ 22 ]. The proposed methodology was called “Individualized Qualitative Deficit of public space” (IQD) and is based on the design of a format for the exhaustive collection of data in the field, related to the conditions that generate deficits specified in the guide standard. Considering that the internal characteristics of these spaces vary according to their typology, the methodology considers the prior characterization of each unit of public space according to the strategic typological classification. This classification is based on the internal composition and the function it provides to local communities (Table 1), and it is also related to the scale or area of influence (Tables 2and 3). The IQD is expressed in percentage values, which are then grouped into ranges that are associated with qualitative Land 2022,11, 1922 16 of 21 between the total urbanized area and the number of available spaces. In this line, it should be underlined that the reference index established by the UN-Habitat public space program suggests that 15% of the entire urban area should be designated for open public spaces, whether as green areas or not [24]. Finally, it is also pertinent to highlight the relevance of variable distribution, whose analysis is proposed in the conceptualization based on equity, determined from the analysis articulated around three key variables: proximity, accessibility, and diversity. The distribution proposal formulated by Jiménez and Garnica, accepts those criteria, which is why it was established as the main element of analysis that supports the approach of this variable [ 29 ]. However, other proposals also analyzed the distribution of public spaces based on equity, according to the variables of proximity and accessibility, but without including diversity. Mayorga determined the distribution concerning the coverage of available spaces for the population (area per inhabitant) [ 15 ]. Castelao et al. took into consideration the number of people residing within an established area of proximity [ 19 ]. Regardless of the focus of the analysis, equitable distribution of the articulating public and meeting spaces does not guarantee the public use of these infrastructures, since it depends on other conditions that determine the availability of use. In other words, the equity in the distribution of these spaces is affected to the extent that the implementation of other elements of analysis derived from the variables of interest reveals irregularities in the urban geospatial configuration. The model has tackled and solved the weaknesses shown by the regulations that rule the management of APSM in Colombia (found in different land-use plans, as described in Section 4.1.2). Therefore, the model can be considered as a reference frame for the updating and reformulation of public policies related to the planning and management of public spaces. The model could also work as a framework for the design and implementation of an Urban Public Space Observatory that recurrently collects relevant data. This future observatory will present useful information for decision making, which could ensure a more functional management of these spaces. Finally, it is necessary to emphasize that although the variables that make up the model ensure its applicability to any urban environment, the elements of analysis that support these variables were selected based on Colombian reality. Additional elements of the analysis could be incorporated into the model before its implementation in other geographical contexts. Furthermore, the diversity and complexity of APSM in any context and the dependency on the willingness of public authorities could be a handicap to the implementation of the proposed model. 5. Conclusions The conceptual model proposed in this article seeks to strengthen decision-making processes related to the planning and management of urban spaces concerning the APSM approach. The model was designed according to the problems and deficiencies linked to the current guidelines that govern or guide these processes in Colombia. However, we consider that the relevance and applicability of the proposed model are also projected to other urban areas since it is made up of fundamental precepts of urban sustainability that respond to the challenges implicit in the global goals and objectives of sustainable development. To guarantee the functionality and the applicability of the model in the study area, it is necessary to restructure the official guidelines related to the processes of planning and management of APSM. Nowadays, decision makers only consider those elements of analysis stipulated in the current and weak official guidelines. In the Colombian context, the analysis proposals around these important infrastructures do not lead to the exhaustiveness that the urban sustainability approach demands. In this sense, the model constitutes the first step in promoting strengthened regulations that rule the approach of these spaces in terms of sustainability. In the future, the model should be complemented (or adjusted) according to the new or improved methodological proposals focused on the analysis of urban spaces, which contributes to the clear and timely identification of sociospatial injustices related to the functionality of APSM. Likewise, it is Land 2022,11, 1922 17 of 21 considered necessary to promote the design of interactive geoinformation mechanisms that enable and facilitate the adequate and recurrent collection of the data required to plan and manage these areas, mainly those that depend on public citizen participation. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.J.-C. and A.C.-C.; methodology, J.J.-C. and A.C.-C.; software, J.J.-C. and R.P.-A.; validation, J.R.-C. and L.S.; formal analysis, J.J.-C.; investigation, J.J.-C. ; resources, A.C.-C.; data curation, J.J.-C., R.P.-A., J.L.S.-M.; writing—original draft preparation, J.J.-C. , A.C.-C., and J.L.S.-M.; writing—review and editing, A.C.-C., J.L.S.-M., R.P.-A., J.R.-C., and L.S.; visualization, R.P.-A., J.L.S.-M., J.R.-C., and L.S.; supervision, A.C.-C. and J.L.S.-M.; funding acquisition, A.C.-C., J.L.S.-M., and J.R.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. The APC was partially funded by University of Granada. Data Availability Statement: Not applicable. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Appendix A Table A1. Description of the members of expert panel who took part in the validation process of the proposed conceptual model. Participant Professional Profile Experience in the Field of URBAN (and Public Space) Planning and Management Expert 1. - Professional in architecture - Specialist in public space - Master’s in urban and regional planning In consultancy for more than 10 years in private projects of public spaces and landscaping. Expert contractor in public space for the formulation of land management plans. Expert 2 - Professional in architecture. - Master’s in urban design. - Master’s in urban and territorial development. Specialized professional for the area of public spaces in a planning secretariat of a territorial entity. University professor in the area of urban planning. Participation in interdisciplinary teams for the formulation of land management plans. Expert 3 - Professional in sociology. - Specialization in urban sociology. - Master’s in urban and regional planning. Work in social and environmental management during the execution of public space projects, green areas, zonal parks, and metropolitan parks. Participation in the creation and implementation of a Public Space Observatory. Participation in the process of formulation and adoption of public space policies. Academic coordinator in the Master’s program in architecture. Professor of urban planning in the Master’s program in sustainable design. Participation in interdisciplinary teams for the formulation of land management plans. Participation in the implementation of an observatory of urban and social dynamics. Expert 4 - Professional in architecture. - Specialist in public management. - Specialist in urban environmental management. - Master’s in social work. Participation in the development of regulations for the zonal planning units during the adoption of a territorial ordering plan. In the projection of master plans for parks, squares, and other types of public spaces. Participation in a research exercise on appropriation, development, and self-construction of spaces for recreation and sports for a group of adolescents and young people. Participation in interdisciplinary teams for the formulation of land management plans. Land 2022,11, 1922 18 of 21 Table A1. Cont. Participant Professional Profile Experience in the Field of URBAN (and Public Space) Planning and Management Expert 5 - Professional in architecture. - Specialist in regional urban planning. - Master’s in environment and development. - Ph.D. student in Engineering The research focused on the analysis of public spaces. University lecturer Consulting, mainly on issues of partial plans. Expert 6 - Professional in architecture. - Master’s in management and urban development. - Specialist in land development and management Public officials depend on a municipal administration related to land-use planning and management. Professional experience focused on the formulation and management of urban planning instruments, in particular the formulation of land-use plans and the evaluation of partial plans. Extensive knowledge in the development and coordination of planning, design, and construction projects at different scales. Extensive experience in the development of participatory plans and designs and skills in group management, administrative management, and management of standardization processes. References 1. Shen, Y.; Sun, F.; Che, Y. Public green spaces and human wellbeing: Mapping the spatial inequity and mismatching status of public green space in the Central City of Shanghai. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017,27, 59–68. [CrossRef] 2. Restrepo Carvajal, D. Espacio Público Como Estructurante de las Ciudades y el Territorio. Master’s Thesis, Universidad Nacional de Colombia Sede Medellín, Medellín, Colombia, 2017. 3. Ceballos Ramos, O.L. La evolución del planeamiento urbano en la configuración del espacio público del área periférica de BOGOTÁ.Bitácora Urbano Territ. 2005 ,9, 17–26. Available online: https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/bitacora/article/ view/18732 (accessed on 15 February 2022). 4. Carmona, M. Principles for public space design, planning to do better. Urban Des. Int. 2019,24, 47–59. [CrossRef] 5. Tavares, S.G.; Sellars, D.; Mews, G.; Dupré, K.; Cândido, C.; Towle, S. Public health and wellbeing in public open spaces through climate responsive urban planning and design. J. Public Space 2020,5, 1–6. [CrossRef] 6. Hunter, R.F.; Cleland, C.; Cleary, A.; Droomers, M.; Wheeler, B.W.; Sinnett, D.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; Braubach, M. Environmental, health, wellbeing, social and equity effects of urban green space interventions: A meta-narrative evidence synthesis. Environ. Int. 2019,130, 104923. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 7. Larson, L.R.; Jennings, V.; Cloutier, S.A. Public Parks and Wellbeing in Urban Areas of the United States. PLoS ONE 2016 ,11, e0153211. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 8. Byrne, J.; Sipe, N. Green and Open Space Planning for Urban Consolidation—A Review of the Literature and Best Practice; Urban Research Program, Griffith University: Brisbane, Australia, 2010; ISBN 978-1-921291-96-8000. 9. Wang, X.-J. Analysis of problems in urban green space system planning in China. J. For. Res. 2009,20, 79–82. [CrossRef] 10. Oliveros, L.I. Del espacio público planeado a los espacios públicos vivos y vividos: Reflexión sobre la planificación de los espacios públicos en Bogotá. Seminario Internacional de Investigación en Urbanismo. In IX Seminario Internacional de Investigación en Urbanismo, Barcelona-Bogotá, Junio 2017; DUOT: Barcelona, Spain, 2017. 11. Reyes Päcke, S.; Figueroa Aldunce, I.M. Distribución, superficie y accesibilidad de las áreas verdes en Santiago de Chile. EURE 2010,36, 89–110. [CrossRef] 12. Cárdenas O’Byrne, S. Medir el uso del espacio público urbano seguro. Soc. Econ. 2017 ,33, 33–54. Available online: https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=99654715002 (accessed on 15 March 2022). [CrossRef] 13. Wolch, J.R.; Byrne, J.; Newell, J.P. Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities “just green enough”. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014,125, 234–244. [CrossRef] 14. Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo, PNUD. Objetivos del desarrollo sostenible. 2020. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/es/cities/ (accessed on 15 April 2022). 15. Mayorga, J.M. Medición de la cobertura y la accesibilidad del espacio público en Bogotá, Medellín y Cali. Cuad. Vivienda Urban. 2018,11, 1–10. [CrossRef] 16. Barbosa, O.; Tratalos, J.A.; Armsworth, P.R.; Davies, R.G.; Fuller, R.A.; Johnson, P.; Gaston, K.J. Who benefits with access from green space? A case gstudy from Sheffield UK. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007,83, 187–195. [CrossRef] Land 2022,11, 1922 19 of 21 17. Gómez Piovano, J.; Mesa, A. Análisis de los modos de acceso y los patrones de uso de la población respecto a los espacios verdes urbanos, como base para su planificación. Urbano 2015 ,18, 38–49. Available online: http://revistas.ubiobio.cl/index.php/RU/ article/view/1995 (accessed on 2 February 2022). 18. Garcia, R.; Dolors, M.; Guitart, A.O.; Ferret, M.P. (Eds.) Espacios Públicos, Género y Diversidad: Geografías para unas Ciudades Inclusivas; Icaria: Barcelona, Spain, 2014; Volume 62, 280p, ISBN 9788498886115. 19. Castelao, G.; Gómez, N.; Finelli, N. Distribución de espacios verdes públicos y calidad de vida: Análisis comparativo en tres municipios de la provincia de Santa Fe. XXI Jornadas de Geografía de la UNLP. Construyendo una Geografía Crítica y Transformadora: En defensa de la Ciencia y la Universidad Pública. EN: [Actas]. Ensenada: Universidad Nacional de La Plata. 2019. Available online: http://www.memoria.fahce.unlp.edu.ar/trab_eventos/ev.13518/ev.13518.pdf (accessed on 12 March 2022). 20. Giraldo-Ospina, T.; Vásquez-Varela, L.R. Distribución e indicadores de cobertura y accesibilidad del espacio público en Manizales, Colombia. Cuad. Geogr. Rev. Colomb. Geogr. 2021,30, 158–177. [CrossRef] 21. República de Colombia. Decreto 1504 de 1998: Por el cual se reglamenta el manejo del espacio público en los planes de ordenamiento territorial. Agosto 04 de 1998. D.O. No. 43357 (Colombia). Available online: https://www.funcionpublica.gov.co/ eva/gestornormativo/norma.php?i=1259 (accessed on 19 March 2022). 22. Jiménez Caldera, J.; Garnica Berrocal, R. Metodología para la Medición del Déficit Cualitativo de Espacio Público en Colombia: Un Indicador Clave del Ordenamiento Territorial. Rev. Urban. 2016,35, 69–99. [CrossRef] 23. Villanueva, K.; Badland, H.; Hooper, P.; Koohsari, M.; Mavoa, S.; Davern, M.; Goldfeld, S. Developing indicators of public open space to promote health and wellbeing in communities. Appl. Geogr. 2015,57, 112–119. [CrossRef] 24. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). Global Public Space Programme Annual Report 2020; UN-Habitat: Nairobi, Kenya, 2021; p. 59. Available online: https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2021/02/final_annual_report_2020_interactive.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2021). 25. Páramo, P.; Arroyo, A.M.B. Valoración de las condiciones que hacen habitable el espacio público en Colombia. Territorios 2013 ,28, 187–206. Available online: https://revistas.urosario.edu.co/index.php/territorios/article/download/2557/2146/0 (accessed on 22 February 2022). 26. Mehta, V. Evaluating Public Space. J. Urban Des. 2014,19, 53–88. [CrossRef] 27. Departamento Administrativo de La Defensoría Del Espacio Público DADEP. Observatorio del Espacio Público de Bogotá. Reporte técnico de Indicadores de Espacio Público 2020; Departamento Administrativo de La Defensoría Del Espacio Público DADEP: Bogotá, Colombia, 2020. 28. Departamento Administrativo de La Defensoría Del Espacio Público DADEP. Observatorio del Espacio Público de Bogotá. Reporte técnico de Indicadores de Espacio Público 2019; Departamento Administrativo de La Defensoría Del Espacio Público DADEP: Bogotá, Colombia, 2019. 29. Garnica, R.; Jiménez Caldera, J. La calidad de vida urbana y la dimensión físico-espacial del espacio público: Aportes metodológicos para el ordenamiento territorial de Montería. Perspect. Geográfica 2014,18, 257–280. [CrossRef] 30. Jiménez, J.E.; Durango, G.Y. Diagnóstico y planificación del espacio público urbano. La participación de los ciudadanos usuarios. Bitácora Urbano Territ. 2021,31, 257–281. [CrossRef] 31. Consejo Nacional de Política Económica y Social—CONPES. Documento Conpes 3718, Política Nacional de Espacio Público; Consejo Nacional de Política Económica y Social—CONPES: Bogotá, Colombia, 2012. 32. Hancock, T. Ciudades Ocultas: La Agenda de Investigación de la Red Global de Investigación sobre Equidad en Salud Urbana (GRNUHE); La Revista Facultad Nacional de Salud Pública: Medellín, Colombia, 2013. 33. Terraza, H.; Rubio, D.; Vera, F. De Ciudades Emergentes a Ciudades Sostenibles; Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo BID, Ediciones ARQ, Escuela de Arquitectura Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile: Santiago, Chile, 2016. 34. Cohen, S. The Sustainable City; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [CrossRef] 35. Chiesura, A. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014,68, 129–138. [CrossRef] 36. Cardiff University. (s. f.). Public Space Observatory. Available online: https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/research/explore/find-a- project/view/public-space-observatory (accessed on 20 February 2021). 37. Salas, L.; López, J.; Gómez, S.; Franco, D.; Martínez, E. Ciudades Sostenibles y Saludables: Estrategias en Busca de la Calidad de Vida. Revista Facultad Nacional de Salud Pública; Universidad de Antioquia: Medellín, Colombia, 2016; Volume 34, pp. 105–110. Available online: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/120/12043924012.pdf (accessed on 22 March 2022). 38. ONU-Habitat. Participación Comunitaria en Proyectos de Espacio Público y Diseño Urbano Durante la Pandemia. 2021. Available online: http://publicacionesonuhabitat.org/onuhabitatmexico/Participacion-comunitaria_COVID19_p.pdf ( accessed on 1 October 2021). 39. Salvati, L.; Gargiulo Morelli, V. Unveiling Urban Sprawl in the Mediterranean Region: Towards a Latent Urban Transformation? Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2014,38, 1935–1953. [CrossRef] 40. Chelleri, L.; Schuetze, T.; Salvati, L. Integrating resilience with urban sustainability in neglected neighborhoods: Challenges and opportunities of transitioning to decentralized water management in Mexico City. Habitat Int. 2015,48, 122–130. [CrossRef] 41. Zambon, I.; Colantoni, A.; Salvati, L. Horizontal vs vertical growth: Understanding latent patterns of urban expansion in large metropolitan regions. Sci. Total Environ. 2019,654, 778–785. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 42. Jenerette, G.D.; Harían, L.S.; Brazel, A.; Jones, N.; Larsen, L.; Stefanov, W.L. Regional relationships between surface temperature, vegetation and human setdement in a rapidly urbanizing ecosystems. Landsc. Ecol. 2007,22, 353–365. [CrossRef] 43. Hernández, J. La situación del arbolado urbano en Santiago. Ambiente For. 2007,3, 14–16. [CrossRef] Land 2022,11, 1922 20 of 21 44. Falcón, A. Espacios Verdes para una Ciudad Sostenible, 1st ed.; Gustavo Gili: Barcelona, Spain, 2007. 45. Schubert, H.; Rauchecker, M.; Caballero-Calvo, A.; Schütt, B. Land use changes and their perception in the Hinterland of Barranquilla, Colombian Caribbean. Sustainability 2019,11, 6729. [CrossRef] 46. Kühn, I.; Brandl, R.; Klotz, S. The flora of German cities is naturally species rich. Evol. Ecol. Res. 2004,6, 749–764. 47. Knapp, S.; Kühn, I.; Mosbrugger, V.; Klotz, S. Do protected areas in urban and rural landscapes differ in species diversity? Biodivers. Conserv. 2008,17, 1595–1612. [CrossRef] 48. Sorensen, M.; Berzatti, V.; Kerpi, K.; Williams, J. Manejo de las Áreas Verdes Urbanas; Departamento de Desarrollo Sostenible N◦ENV-109; Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo: Washington, DC, USA, 1998. 49. Lezama, J.L.; Domínguez, J. Medio ambiente y sustentabilidad urbana. Pap. Población 2006 ,12, 153–176. Available online: http: //www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1405-74252006000300007&lng=es&tlng=es (accessed on 16 February 2022). 50. Nordquist, M. Seeking spatial Justice. Contemp. Political Theory 2013,12, 16–18. [CrossRef] 51. Soja, E. Seeking Spatial Justice; University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2010; 256p. 52. Neuvonen, M.; Sievänen, T.; Tönnes, S.; Koskela, T. Access to green areas and the frequency of visits. A case study in Helsinki. Urban For. Urban Green. 2007,6, 235–247. [CrossRef] 53. Lotfi, S.; Koohsari, M.J. Analyzing Accessibility Dimension of Urban Quality of Life: Where Urban Designers Face Duality between Subjective and Objective Reading of Place. Soc. Indic. Res. 2009,94, 417–435. [CrossRef] 54. Morar, T.; Radoslav, R.; Spiridon, L.; Pacurar, L. Assessing Pedestrian Accessibility to Green Space Using GIS. Transylv. Rev. Adm. Sci. 2004,42, 116–139. 55. Mehta, V. A toolkit for performance measures of public space. In Proceedings of the 43rd ISOCARP Congress, Antwerp, Belgium, 19–23 September 2007. 56. Pascual González, A.; Peña Díaz, J. Espacios abiertos de uso público. Arquit. Urban. 2012 ,33, 25–42. Available online: http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1815-58982012000100003&lng=es&tlng=es (accessed on 31 December 2020). 57. Flores-Xolocotzi, R.; González-Guillén, M.D.J. Planificación de sistemas de áreas verdes y parques públicos. Rev. Mex. Cienc. For. 2010 ,1, 17–24. Available online: http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2007-11322010000100003&lng= es&tlng=es (accessed on 15 August 2020). [CrossRef] 58. Cedeño, M. Relaciones Sociales y Prácticas de Apropiación Espacial en los Parques Públicos Urbanos. El Caso de Le Parc de Les Planes de L’Hospitalet de Llobregat—Barcelona. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, 2005. Available online: https://www.tdx.cat/bitstream/handle/10803/715/04.MCP_RESULTADOS_CONCLUSIONES.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y (accessed on 1 January 2021). 59. Muñoz-Vanegas, P.; Quizhpe-Marín, M.; Salazar-Guamán, X. Uso y percepción del espacio público, una mirada desde la población: El caso de Cuenca, Ecuador. Rev. Urban. 2019,41, 1–19. [CrossRef] 60. Ochoa, B.; Pasquali, C. Ecoturismo urbano: ¿existen condiciones para desarrollar la observación de aves, como actividad turística en Caracas? Universidad de Zulia. Multiciencias 2010,10, 117–124. 61. Heal Cities Campaign & ChangeLab Solutions. Los Sistemas Completos de Parques. 2016. Available online: https://www.changelabsolutions.org/sites/default/files/Complete_Parks_Playbook-Selections-SPANISH_FISPANISH_ FINAL_201603-web.pdf (accessed on 10 June 2021). 62. Rengert, G. Spatial aspects of criminal behavior. In Crime: A Spatial Perspective; Georges-Abeyie, D.E., Harries, K.D., Eds.; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1980; pp. 47–57. 63. Olivarría, F.; González, M.; López, L. Violencia hacia las mujeres en el espacio urbano y la seguridad ciudadana. In Equidad de Sexo: Análisis y actualidades, 1st ed.; ITSON: Ciudad Obregón, Mexico, 2015; pp. 44–57. 64. Espinoza, J.; Méndez, V.; Monge-Nájera, J. Percepción de seguridad, uso y mantenimiento de los parques municipales en Costa Rica, según el sexo de los usuarios. Cuad. Investig. UNED 2017 ,9, 65–71. Available online: http://www.scielo.sa.cr/scielo.php? script=sci_arttext&pid=S1659-42662017000100065&lng=en&tlng=es (accessed on 9 June 2021). [CrossRef] 65. WHO Expert Consultation. “Health Indicators of Sustainable Cities”. In Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development Initial. 2012. Available online: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/environment-climate-change-and-health/sustainabledevelopment-indicator-cities.pdf?sfvrsn=c005156b_2 (accessed on 29 February 2021). 66. Naciones Unidas. Hábitat III—Desarrollo Sostenible. Temas Habitat III-11—Espacio Público. Conferencia sobre la Vivienda y el Desarrollo Urbano Sostenible; Naciones Unidas: New York, NY, USA, 2015. 67. Pérez, H.; Edmundo. Percepción del espacio público. Rev. Bitácora Urbano Territ. 2004 ,1, 27–31. Available online: https: //www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=74800804 (accessed on 25 December 2021). 68. Páramo, P.; Burbano, A.; Jiménez-Domínguez, B.; Barrios, V.; Pasquali, C.; Vivas, F.; Moros, O.; Alzate, M.; Jaramillo Fayad, J.C.; Moyano, E. La habitabilidad del espacio público en las ciudades de América Latina. Av. Psicol. Latinoam. 2018 ,36, 345–362. [CrossRef] 69. Asociación Nacional de Parques y Recreación de México—ANPR México. 8 Pasos Para Establecer un Sistema de Parques Exitoso. 2020. Available online: https://anpr.org.mx/8-pasos-para-establecer-un-sistema-de-parques-exitoso/ (accessed on 10 June 2021). 70. Madrid, A. Perfil, Actividades y Grado de Satisfacción de los Usuarios en Parques Urbanos. Estudio en tres Parques Urbanos. Master’s Thesis, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile, 2010. Available online: http://mgpa.forestaluchile.cl/Tesis/Madrid%20 Andres.pdf (accessed on 1 March 2021). Land 2022,11, 1922 21 of 21 71. Consejo de Europa. Convenio Europeo del Paisaje; Council of Europe, Cultural Heritage, Landscape and Spatial Planning Division: Florencia, Colombia, 2000. 72. Natural England. ‘Nature Nearby’ Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards. Natural England. 2010. Available online: http://www.ukmaburbanforum.co.uk/docunents/other/nature_nearby.pdf (accessed on 5 July 2021). 73. Sukopp, H.; Werner, P. Naturaleza en las Ciudades: Desarrollo de Flora y Fauna en Áreas Urbanas; MOPT Secretaría de Estado para las Políticas del Agua y el Medio Ambiente: Madrid, Spain, 1991. 74. Salvador, P. La Planificación Verde en las Ciudades; Gustavo Gili: Barcelona, Spain, 2003. 75. Barker, G. A Framework for the Future: Green Networks with Multiple Uses in and around Towns and Cities; English Nature: Peterborough, UK, 1997. 76. Espinoza, F.; Enrique, I. Distancias Caminables: Redescubriendo al Peatón en el Diseño Urbano; Editorial Trillas: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2013; p. 168. ISBN 6071714664/9786071714664. 77. RMIT University. Public Open Space—Australian Urban Observatory. 2020. Available online: https://auo.org.au/portal/ metadata/access-to-areas-of-public-open-space/ (accessed on 18 December 2020). 78. World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe. Urban Green Spaces and Health. World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe. 2016. Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/345751 (accessed on 1 January 2022). 79. Briceño-Ávila, M. Paisaje urbano y espacio público como expresión de la vida cotidiana. Rev. Arquit. 2018 ,20, 10–19. [CrossRef] 80. Rueda, S. Plan Especial de Indicadores de Sostenibilidad Ambiental de la Actividad Urbanística de Sevilla, 1st ed.; Ayuntamiento de Sevilla: Sevilla, Spain, 2007. 81. Flores, R.; González, M. Consideraciones sociales en el diseño y planificación de parques urbanos. Econ. Soc. Territ. 2007,6, 913–951. 82. La Secretaría de Desarrollo Social SEDESOL. Sistema Normativo de Equipamiento Urbano. Tomo V Recreación y Deporte. 1999. Available online: http://aducarte.weebly.com/uploads/5/1/2/7/5127290/tomo5.pdf (accessed on 22 August 2021).