Miliase al. Compu a ional U ban Science (2024) 4:15
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s43762-024-00126-0
ORIGINAL PAPER Open Access
© The Au ho (s) 2024. Open Access This a icle is licensed unde a C ea i e Commons A ibu ion 4.0 In e na ional License, which
pe mi s use, sha ing, adap a ion, dis ibu ion and ep oduc ion in any medium o o ma , as long as you gi e app op ia e c edi o he
o iginal au ho (s) and he sou ce, p o ide a link o he C ea i e Commons licence, and indica e i changes we e made. The images o
o he hi d pa y ma e ial in his a icle a e included in he a icle’s C ea i e Commons licence, unless indica ed o he wise in a c edi line
o he ma e ial. I ma e ial is no included in he a icle’s C ea i e Commons licence and you in ended use is no pe mi ed by s a u o y
egula ion o exceeds he pe mi ed use, you will need o ob ain pe mission di ec ly om he copy igh holde . To iew a copy o his
licence, isi h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/.
Compu a ional U ban
Science
C owdsou cing hein luence o physical
ea u es on helikely use o public open spaces
Vasileios Milias1* , Roos Teeuwen1, Alessand o Bozzon1 and Achilleas Psyllidis1
Abs ac
The con igu a ion o public open spaces plays a c ucial ole in shaping how di e en people use hem. Ne e heless,
ou unde s anding o how he physical ea u es o public open spaces in luence he ac i i ies conduc ed wi hin hem,
and he ex en o which his impac di e s ac oss a ious indi iduals and popula ion g oups, is cu en ly limi ed.
In his s udy, we explo e how he physical cha ac e is ics o public open spaces in luence he likelihood o use
among indi iduals, spanning di e en age and gende g oups. By employing c owdsou cing, s ee -le el image y, s a-
is ical compa isons, and e lexi e hema ic analysis we unco e signi ican a ia ions in he sui abili y o public open
spaces o dis inc ac i i ies, such as socializing o exe cising. G eenspaces eme ge as he p e e ed choice o almos
all ac i i ies, whe eas s ee s a e consis en ly a ed as he leas sui able. Addi ionally, we iden i ied a ious cha ac-
e is ics ha in luence he ac i i ies people a e likely o engage in. These include he size o he space, he p esence
o sea ing, na u al elemen s such as ege a ion o wa e bodies, and he p oximi y o anspo in as uc u e. Su -
p isingly, we do no obse e s a is ically signi ican di e ences in p e e ences among mos age and gende g oups.
O e all, ou s udy unde sco es he need o p o iding a di e se ange o public open spaces ailo ed o accommoda e
di e en indi iduals, popula ion g oups, and ac i i ies.
Keywo ds Public open space, Ac i i ies, C owdsou cing, S ee -le el image y, Demog aphics
1 In oduc ion
Public open spaces, such as public squa es, g eenspaces,
and s ee s, cons i u e a undamen al pa o e e y ci y
whe e di e en people can pe o m a wide ange o
ac i i ies. In his wo k, “public open space” e e s o
spaces open o he gene al public, loca ed ou doo s,
and ypically owned by go e nmen al au ho i ies o
o ganiza ions.
Va ious ac o s could impac how likely indi iduals
a e o engage in speci ic ac i i ies in public open spaces,
wi h physical ea u es playing a signi ican ole (Jacobs,
1961; Ewing e al., 2006; Meh a, 2014). Physical cha -
ac e is ics include he size o he space, he p esence o
sea ing, he abundance o ameni ies, and he p esence
o na u al elemen s such as ees, g ass, o wa e bod-
ies. Such cha ac e is ics in luence how equen ly public
open spaces a e used and shape hei capaci y o se e
as hubs o social in e ac ion and o engaging in di e -
en ac i i ies (Meh a, 2009; Why e, 2012; Neu ens e al.,
2013; Pu nam e al., 2000; Mon gome y, 1998; Cohen
e al., 2010; Lin e al., 2014; Wolch e al., 2014; Why e
e al., 1980). Fo ins ance, na owe s ee s wi h a ious
ameni ies, wide sidewalks, and he a ailabili y o s ee
u ni u e along sidewalks ha e been iden i ied o encou -
age social in e ac ions (Meh a, 2009). Simila ly, he size
o g eenspaces has been ound o in luence he ange o
ac i i ies conduc ed wi hin hem. La ge g eenspaces a e
o en deemed mo e sui able o physical ac i i ies, while
smalle ones a e conside ed p e e able o socializing and
elaxa ion (Lee e al., 2015; Pescha d e al., 2012).
Addi ionally, he p e e ences o di e en popula ion
g oups may lead o a ied choices in using public open
*Co espondence:
Vasileios Milias
.milias@ udel .nl
1 Del Uni e si y o Technology, Landbe gs aa 15, Del 2628CE, The
Ne he lands
Page 2 o 17
Miliase al. Compu a ional U ban Science (2024) 4:15
spaces o speci ic ac i i ies (Sunde all & Jansson, 2020;
Wen e al., 2018; Skel on, 2004). Fo example, esea ch
e eals ha olde indi iduals and women may pe cei e
ewe spaces as sui able o exe cise compa ed o men
and younge adul s (Fos e & Giles-Co i, 2008). Senio s
and women ha e also epo ed eeling ulne able and
ha ing g ea e secu i y conce ns when walking (Basu
e al., 2022). The impo ance o c ea ing spaces ha ca e
o he di e se p e e ences o a ious popula ion g oups is
widely ecognized (Meh a, 2009; Why e, 2012; Neu ens
e al., 2013; Pu nam e al., 2000; Mon gome y, 1998), as
emphasized by he Uni ed Na ions’ Sus ainable De elop-
men Ta ge 11.7 (UN Gene al Assembly, 2015), which
unde sco es he necessi y o inclusi e spaces designed
o accommoda e e e yone, wi h speci ic a en ion o he
needs o women, child en, and olde indi iduals.
To comp ehend how he physical a ibu es o pub-
lic open spaces in luence hei use, esea che s ha e
employed a ious me hods such as pa icipan obse a-
ion (Sunde all & Jansson, 2020; Why e, 2012; Meh a,
2009; Uslu e al., 2010), (online) ques ionnai es (Phillips
e al., 2021; Jankowski e al., 2016;Talen e al., 2023), o
c owdsou cing app oaches (Salesses e al., 2013; T aun-
muelle e al., 2015). O en, hese s udies a e ocused on
speci ic ac i i ies like exe cising o walking (Koohsa i
e al., 2013; Lu, 2019), pa icula demog aphic g oups
such as he elde ly (Le y-S o ms e al., 2018) o child en
(Talen & Co inda e , 1999), o on speci ic quali ies o a
space like pe cei ed sa e y o a ac i eness o pe o m-
ing ac i i ies (T aunmuelle e al., 2015). None heless,
ou unde s anding o how he physical cha ac e is ics o
public open spaces a ec he sui abili y o a ious ypes
o spaces o di e en ac i i ies, and he ex en o which
his sui abili y a ies among di e en popula ion g oups,
emains limi ed.
This wo k employs a c owdsou cing app oach o
explo e how physical cha ac e is ics o public open
spaces in luence he likelihood o hei u iliza ion among
indi iduals o a ious ages and gende s. We ec ui 409
pa icipan s om 21 Eu opean coun ies in a ho ough
examina ion o people’s p opensi y o use public open
spaces. To ensu e a b oad ange o physical cha ac e is-
ics, we selec a ious public open spaces such as public
squa es, open ma ke places, g eenspaces, pocke pa ks,
play spaces, and s ee s, sou ced om h ee Eu opean
ci ies: Ro e dam, Ba celona, and Go henbu g. We o -
mula e h ee hypo heses and subjec hem o s a is ical
es ing: (H1) The likely use o public open spaces a ies
signi ican ly by place ype (e.g., pa ks, squa es, s ee s);
(H2) The likely use o public open spaces a ies signi i-
can ly ac oss age g oups; and (H3) The likely use o pub-
lic open spaces a ies signi ican ly ac oss gende g oups.
Subsequen ly, guided by he ou comes o he s a is ical
analyses, we pinpoin cases whe e no ewo hy di e ences
we e obse ed. Fo hese ins ances, we employ e lexi e
hema ic analysis o quali a i ely assess he cha ac e is-
ics o public open spaces men ioned by pa icipan s as
easons o he iden i ied dispa i ies.
In ou app oach, he collec ed a ings se e as a p oxy
o he p obable use o space, indica ing he likelihood
ha indi iduals would engage in ac i i ies he e. By
ocusing on he likelihood o space usage a he han he
obse ed beha io (i.e., eal ac i i ies unde aken by peo-
ple), we can accoun o ac o s un ela ed o he physical
cha ac e is ics o spaces ha migh discou age indi idu-
als om engaging in ac i i ies, such as no esiding in
close p oximi y (Neu ens e al., 2013). Addi ionally, in
con as o con en ional da a collec ion app oaches, such
as pa icipan obse a ions o in e iews, c owdsou cing
se es as a ime and esou ce-e icien me hod, allow-
ing o he comp ehensi e s udy o a ious public open
spaces and he ec ui men o a di e se sample o pa ici-
pan s in e ms o age and gende .
The emainde o his a icle is o ganized as ollows.
Fi s , we explain ou app oach o cap u ing he likely use
o public open spaces. Then, we desc ibe he s a is ical
es s conduc ed o sc u inize ou hypo heses and how
we quali a i ely analyzed he collec ed da a o iden i y
he physical cha ac e is ics ha in luence he likely use
o public open spaces. Nex , we de ail he da a sou ces
used in ou empi ical analysis and p o ide in o ma ion
abou he pa icipan s o ou s udy. Finally, we epo he
esul s o ou s udy and discuss he empi ical indings,
implica ions, and limi a ions o ou app oach, as well as
u u e lines o esea ch.
2 Me hod
Ou me hodology consis s o ou main s eps: (1) sam-
pling a a ie y o public open spaces in h ee Eu opean
ci ies, (2) c owdsou cing he ypes o likely use, (3) es -
ing h ee hypo heses using s a is ical me hods, and (4)
quali a i ely explo ing he physical cha ac e is ics o
public open spaces ha a ec hei use.
2.1 Selec ing public open spaces
We selec public open spaces in h ee Eu opean ci ies:
Ba celona (Spain), Ro e dam (Ne he lands), and Go h-
enbu g (Sweden). These ci ies ep esen u ban en i on-
men s in he Sou he n, Wes e n, and No he n Eu opean
egions. Consequen ly, ou selec ion includes a wide
ange o spaces, en iching ou s udy wi h a di e se se o
spaces’ physical cha ac e is ics and ypes.
The public open spaces included in his s udy we e
collec ed om OpenS ee Map (OSM) using he O e -
pass API and he OSMnx Py hon lib a y (Boeing, 2017).
OSM ep esen s he physical ea u es o he en i onmen
Page 3 o 17
Miliase al. Compu a ional U ban Science (2024) 4:15
using ags. To ensu e a b oad ange o public open spaces
we selec ed a a ie y o ags om OSM. We iden i ied
OSM ags ela ed o public open spaces which e lec
h ee main ypes o spaces: (1) ege a ed spaces such as
pa ks o o es s, (2) play spaces dedica ed o child en’s
ac i i ies such as playg ounds, and (3) o he public open
spaces such as squa es and ma ke places. Since he ags
ela ed o he ege a ed spaces encompass e y di e -
en sizes o spaces, in acco dance wi h ecommenda ions
by he Wo ld Heal h O ganiza ion Regional O ice o
Eu ope (2017), as well as he Eu opean Common Indica-
o o g eenspace accessibili y (Ambien e I alia, 2003),
we di ided ege a ed spaces in o wo ypes: g eenspaces
ha a e la ge han 0.5 hec a es, such as pa ks, o es s,
and na u e ese es; and pocke pa ks ha e lec he
ege a ed spaces ha a e up o 0.5 hec a es. Addi ion-
ally, gi en ha s ee s e lec he la ges po ion o public
open space in e e y ci y, we also collec ed s ee s ha a e
accessible o pedes ians.
A e de ining hese OSM ags, we collec ed all he
spaces ha ell unde a leas one o hese i e ags o all
h ee case-s udy ci ies. Then, we in es iga ed he spaces’
ep esen a ion in Google S ee -View. Using Google’s
S ee View S a ic API, we iden i ied he spaces o
which he e is a s ee -le el image wi hin no mo e han
15me e s, a eliable dis ance o obse e and in e p e an
e en acco ding o Ami i and C ain (2019). Ul ima ely,
we andomly sampled 420 public open spaces (140 pe
ci y), balanced in e ms o OSM ype. We hen manually
examined hei s ee -le el images and excluded spaces
wi h images o poo quali y, sho du ing nigh ime, o no
accu a ely ep esen ing he public open space because
o he u ban objec s obs uc ed he iew (e.g., hedges o
ences), and eplaced hese wi h o he andomly sampled
loca ions o he same ype un il all s ee -le el images
passed he es . In case a place is loca ed in di ec icini y
o mul iple ypes (e.g., a public squa e loca ed wi hin a
pa k), we assign i o bo h ypes. Table1 summa izes he
ypes o public open spaces included in his s udy along
wi h he numbe o collec ed spaces pe ype and ci y,
and he ags used o collec hem om OSM.
2.2 Cap u ing helikely use o public open spaces
h oughc owdsou cing
To collec in o ma ion abou how people o di e en
ages and gende s a e likely o use public open spaces,
we ollow a c owdsou cing app oach and use s ee -le el
images. S ee -le el image y allows us o isually p e-
sen he physical cha ac e is ics o spaces ha po en ially
in luence hei use, such as sea ing, ameni ies, and ees.
Rega ding he likely use o public open spaces, we
ocus on he ollowing i e ypes o ac i i ies: socializing,
elaxing, exe cising, commu ing, and child en- ela ed
Table 1 Types o public open spaces, OSM ags used, numbe o collec ed spaces pe ype and ci y (Ro e dam (RTM), Ba celona
(BAR), Go henbu g (GOT)), and examples o he ac i i ies examined
Public Open Spaces
Ca ego y Examples OSM Tags RTM BAR GOT TOTAL
G eenspaces Pa ks, na u e ese es o es s (la ge
han 0.5 hec a es) leisu e:pa k | na u e ese e,
landuse:meadow | g ass | il-
lage_g een | o es ,
na u al:wood | sc ub | hea h |
g assland | ell | sh ubbe y
37 42 35 114
Pocke pa ks Pa ks, na u e ese es (up o 0.5
hec a es) Same ags as o g eenspaces 31 30 30 91
Play spaces Playg ounds leisu e:playg ound | schoolya d
(access! = p i a e) 28 29 27 84
Public squa es
& ma ke places Open public
squa es, open ma ke places place:squa e,
ameni y:ma ke place,
leisu e:common
30 44 28 102
S ee s S ee s accessible o pedes ians ne wo k ype = walk
(OSMnx) 37 38 31 107
Ac i i ies
Type Examples
Socializing Picnics, mee ing iends o o he s
Relaxing Reading, o simply doing no hing
Exe cising Doing physical ac i i ies such as spo s, walking/biking o un
Commu ing Walk o bike o des ina ions
Child en- ela ed Ac i i ies o child en such as playing ou doo s
Page 4 o 17
Miliase al. Compu a ional U ban Science (2024) 4:15
ac i i ies. The selec ion o he ac i i ies conside ed in his
wo k is aligned wi h and suppo ed by K uize e al. (2020)
and Van den Be g e al. (2016), and aims o encompass a
a ie y o ac i i ies ha di e en indi iduals pe o m in
public open spaces. In ou expe imen s, we p esen o
pa icipan s i e di e en spaces and ask hem o indica e
o wha deg ee, and why, hey conside hem sui able o
any o he a o emen ioned ac i i ies.
Ou c owdsou cing campaign is implemen ed using
he cloud-based esea ch pla o m Qual ics. The
c owdsou cing ask consis s o ou s eps and equi es
15 o 20minu es o be comple ed. Fi s , we in o m he
Fig. 1 Main c owdsou cing ask: pa icipan s i s explo e a public open space, ep esen ed as a 360◦ pano amic image, and hen p o ide answe s
ega ding he ac i i ies hey would pe o m in ha space
Page 5 o 17
Miliase al. Compu a ional U ban Science (2024) 4:15
pa icipan abou he ask and ask o hei consen o
pa icipa e. Second, we ask he pa icipan hei age and
sel - epo ed gende . The hi d s ep consis s o he main
c owdsou cing ask, as illus a ed in Fig.1. In his ask,
we ini ially show he pa icipan a public open space ep-
esen ed as a 360◦ pano amic image and gi e hem some
ime o pan a ound he image. A e wa ds, d awing om
he wo k o K uize e al. (2020) and Van den Be g e al.
(2016), we ask hem o a e, on a 5-poin Like scale, i
hey ind his place sui able o social, physical, elaxa-
ion, commu ing, o child en’s ac i i ies, and explain in
hei own wo ds wha cha ac e is ics in luenced hei
a ings. We epea his ques ion o i e di e en public
open spaces. In he ou h s ep, we ask pa icipan s how
impo an i is o hem o ha e a space nea hei home
whe e hey can ca y ou hese ac i i ies.
We ec ui ed pa icipan s using he P oli ic pla o m.
In o al, we ec ui ed 420 pa icipan s, e enly dis ibu ed
ac oss gende g oups, as well as age g oups ca ego ized
by decades (i.e., 18–30, 30–40, 40–50, 50–60, 60 +). We
selec ed pa icipan s based on he ollowing c i e ia.
Fi s , we only allowed pa icipa ion h ough a lap op o
desk op. Second, o ensu e a simila le el o amilia -
i y wi h he shown spaces we only ec ui ed pa icipan s
esiding in Eu ope. In addi ion, we ensu ed ha people
ha e no isi ed he shown spaces in eal li e, h ough a
ques ion we included in ou c owdsou cing ask. Thi d,
we selec ed pa icipan s only i hey had a high app o al
a e, based on he p e ious asks hey had con ibu ed o.
Fou h, we only selec ed pa icipan s who a e p o icien
in English. All pa icipan s we e abo e 18yea s old, p o-
ided in o med consen o pa icipa e, and we e compen-
sa ed acco ding o he minimum wage in [coun y hidden
o anonymi y due o he blind e iew p ocess].
To ensu e adequa e quali y o collec ed esponses,
we only kep esponses om pa icipan s who passed
a eCAPTCHA bo es , answe ed co ec ly o a simple
a en ion check, and clicked a leas ou imes inside
he 360◦ images, as a p oxy o panning a ound in he
pano amic image. Fo each i e a ion, we ensu ed ha
he ques ions we e displayed in a andomized o de , and
ha he loca ions we e selec ed a andom om all public
open spaces wi hin one o he case-s udy ci ies.
2.3 Hypo heses es ing
A e he c owdsou cing ask, we ha e a se o spaces
accompanied by he pa icipan s’ a ings e lec ing how
sui able hese spaces a e o social, elaxa ion, physical,
commu ing, o child en’s ac i i ies (Fig.1). We use his
in o ma ion o examine how he cha ac e is ics o public
open spaces in luence how likely people a e o pe o m
ac i i ies he e and he deg ee o which his a ies among
di e en age and gende g oups. In pa icula , we o mu-
la e h ee hypo heses:
• (H1) The likely use o public open spaces a ies signi i-
can ly by place ype
• (H2) The likely use o public open spaces a ies signi i-
can ly ac oss age g oups
• (H3) The likely use o public open spaces a ies signi i-
can ly ac oss gende g oups
Wi h he i s hypo hesis, we explo e he a ia ion in
he use o public open spaces based on hei ypes, o
examine que ies such as: Does he likelihood o using
a g eenspace, public squa e, o pocke pa k o ac i i-
ies like socializing o exe cise emain consis en , o do
ce ain ypes o public open spaces na u ally encou age
speci ic ac i i ies mo e han o he s? Wi h he second
hypo hesis, we examine whe he he e a e a ia ions in
he likely use o public open spaces among di e en age
g oups, o ins ance: To wha ex en do younge adul s
conside he same spaces sui able o socializing o elax-
ing as olde adul s. Wi h he hi d hypo hesis, we in es-
iga e whe he he likely use o public open spaces a ies
among di e en gende s.
We es hese hypo heses using he a ings p o ided
by he pa icipan s (i.e., 5-poin Like scale a ings). Fo
H1, we agg ega e all o dinal a ings o each space using
he median a ing pe ac i i y. The e o e, each space is
assigned i e median a ings, one pe ac i i y- ype. To
es i he di e en ypes o spaces ecei ed s a is ically
di e en a ings we use he K uskal–Wallis es . The
K uskal–Wallis es is sui able o ou analysis as i is a
non-pa ame ic s a is ical es used o de ec a ia ions
among h ee o mo e independen ly sampled g oups
based on a single non-no mally dis ibu ed a iable. This
es is o en employed o o dinal da a (K uskal & Wallis,
1952; McKigh & Najab, 2010). We pe o m i e K uskal–
Wallis es s and examine i he di e en ypes o spaces
ecei ed signi ican ly di e en a ings o each ac i i y.
To add ess he issue o mul iple compa isons and educe
he likelihood o Type I e o s, we applied he Bon e oni
co ec ion (A ms ong, 2014), se ing ou signi icance
h eshold o p- alue = 0.05/5. I ’s impo an o no e ha
while he use o Bon e oni co ec ion may ele a e he
isk o Type II e o s, he decision o employ i e lec s
ou emphasis on mi iga ing Type I e o s, hus s i ing o
minimize alse disco e ies.
Fo H2, pa icipan s’ a ings we e ini ially segmen ed
based on age g oups and hen agg ega ed pe space,
again using he median alue. To es H2 we compa ed
he spaces’ a ings pe ac i i y be ween each pai o ages
using he Mann–Whi ney U es . The Mann–Whi ney U
es , is a non-pa ame ic s a is ical me hod employed o
Page 6 o 17
Miliase al. Compu a ional U ban Science (2024) 4:15
de ec a ia ions be ween wo g oups on a single o di-
nal a iable (Mann & Whi ney, 1947; Wilcoxon, 1992).
Fo ins ance, we es ed i he a ings o spaces o social
ac i i ies di e ed signi ican ly be ween he age g oups
[18–29] and [30–39], and conduc ed nine addi ional es s
o compa e all age g oups pai wise. This p ocess was hen
epea ed o o he ac i i y ypes.
We op ed o pai wise es s using he Mann–Whi ney
U es ins ead o simul aneously es ing all age g oups
(e.g., using he K uskal–Wallis es ), due o he insu -
icien numbe o spaces o which we ob ained a ings
om all age g oups, limi ing s a is ical compa isons.
Thus, o each ac i i y, we pe o med en pai wise com-
pa isons ( i e age g oups compa ed wi h each o he ),
esul ing in i y es s ac oss all i e ac i i ies. To add ess
he issue o mul iple compa isons, we adjus ed ou signi -
icance h eshold using he Bon e oni co ec ion, se ing
he p- alue o 0.05/50.
Fo H3, pa icipan s’ a ings we e i s di ided based on
gende g oups and hen agg ega ed pe space, employ-
ing he median alue. Simila o H1, o es H3 we com-
pa ed he a ings o spaces pe ac i i y be ween gende s
using he Mann–Whi ney U es . As ou pa icipan pool
included wo gende g oups and i e ac i i ies, we con-
duc ed one es pe ac i i y o assess di e ences be ween
he wo g oups, o aling 5 es s. Once again, o add ess
mul iple compa isons, we employed he Bon e oni co -
ec ion, se ing he p- alue o 0.05/5.
Fo H2 and H3, pa icipan s’ a ings we e i s seg-
men ed based on age o gende g oups and hen agg e-
ga ed pe space, using he median alue. To es H2
and H3, we compa ed he a ings o space pe ac i -
i y be ween e e y pai o age o gende g oups using
he Mann–Whi ney U es . Fo ins ance, we assessed
whe he he a ings o spaces o social ac i i ies di e ed
s a is ically be ween he age g oups [18–29] and [30–39],
and conduc ed nine addi ional es s o compa e all age
g oups wi h each o he . This p ocess was hen epea ed
o o he ac i i y ypes. We op ed o pai wise es s using
Mann–Whi ney U es ins ead o simul aneously es ing
all age g oups, because he numbe o spaces o which
we ecei ed a ings om all age g oups was insu icien
o acili a e s a is ical compa isons.
2.4 Thema ic analysis
To p o ide u he insigh in o ou quan i a i e esul s,
we quali a i ely explo e he easons indi idual pa ici-
pan s p o ide o explain hei a ings. Speci ically, we
ocus on he cases o which we ind signi ican di e -
ences in he likely use o public open spaces, whe he
hose pe ain o he ypes o space (H1) o o he demo-
g aphic g oups (H2, H3). We employ e lexi e hema ic
analysis (Cla ke & B aun, 2013), using i e a i e induc-
i e coding ollowed by iden i ying common hemes, and
documen ou analysis in A las TI.
3 Resul s
3.1 Desc ip i e s a is ics onpa icipan s andspaces
Among all ec ui ed pa icipan s, 409 pa icipan s me
ou quali y s anda ds as desc ibed in 2.2. These 409 pa -
icipan s comple ed ou ask in Ma ch—May 2023 and
eside in 21 di e en Eu opean coun ies. The du a ion
o pa icipan s o comple e hei ask a ied be ween
15 and 20minu es. Pa icipan s we e e enly dis ibu ed
ac oss age g oups ca ego ized by decades wi h 80–82
pa icipan s pe g oup (i.e., 18–30, 30–40, 40–50, 50–60,
and 60 +). Simila ly, hey we e e enly sp ead among gen-
de s, including only emale and male g oups since mos
pa icipan s sel -iden i ied as such and we did no ha e
enough da a o pe o m s a is ical analyses on he o he
gende g oups. Following he exclusion o da a due o
echnical issues (such as delayed pano ama loading) o in
cases whe e pa icipan s showed no in e ac ion wi h he
pano ama (i.e., no clicks o pan o zoom), 413 places we e
included in his s udy, ep esen ing 102 public squa es
and ma ke places, 107 s ee s, 114 g eenspaces, 91
pocke pa ks, and 84 play spaces (Table1). Each pa ici-
pan p o ided inpu o i e di e en public open spaces,
esul ing in 9700 a ings and 6388 sho explana ions o
hese a ings.
All pa icipan s s a ed ha hey ound he ask clea ,
93% s a ed hey u ned he 360 images o look a ound as
eques ed, and 95% answe ed ha hey we e no amil-
ia wi h he spaces hey we e asked o a e, as planned.
Fo mos pa icipan s (> 70%), ha ing space o nea ly
all ac i i ies is conside ed impo an o e y impo an .
Excep ions a e obse ed o social and child en- ela ed
ac i i ies. Ha ing access o space o social ac i i ies is
deemed ( e y) impo an by 60.8% o esponden s, while
10.5% conside i no impo an (a all). Mo eo e , ha -
ing space o child en- ela ed ac i i ies is iewed as
( e y) impo an by 75.2% o pa icipan s wi h child en,
wi h 10.3% a ing hem as no impo an a all. Among
esponden s wi hou child en, such spaces a e consid-
e ed as ( e y) impo an by only 21.1%, while 56.5%
ega d hem as no impo an a all.
O e all, pa icipan s would o en/always use a ela-
i ely la ge p opo ion o public open spaces o commu -
ing ac i i ies (41.4% o spaces), a smalle p opo ion o
physical and child en- ela ed ac i i ies (≈ 20%), ega d-
less o whe he conside ing pa icipan s wi h o wi hou
child en, and an e en smalle o social and elaxa ion
ac i i ies (≈ 12%).
Page 7 o 17
Miliase al. Compu a ional U ban Science (2024) 4:15
3.2 Hypo heses es ing
In his sec ion, we p esen he esul s o ou h ee
hypo heses. In case he hypo heses a e accep ed, we pe -
o m explo a o y analyses o gain deepe insigh s in o he
iden i ied s a is ical di e ences.
3.2.1 H1: The likely use o public open spaces a ies
signi ican ly byplace ype
O e iew Wi h his hypo hesis, we examine i he ac i -
i ies people would pe o m in a gi en public open space
a y pe ype o space (e.g., public squa e, g eenspace,
s ee ). To es ou hypo hesis, we pe o m i e K uskal-
Wallis es s, one o each ac i i y- ype (i.e., social, elaxa-
ion, physical, commu ing, child en- ela ed). Fo each
ac i i y, we es i pa icipan s’ a ings a e signi ican ly
di e en o di e en ypes o public open spaces.
Resul H1 was accep ed o social (p = 3.32 × 10−11),
elaxa ion( p = 5.04 × 10−11), physical (p = 2.71 × 10−10),
and child en- ela ed ac i i ies (p = 1.26 × 10−26). Howe e ,
i was ejec ed o commu ing ac i i ies (p = 5.90 × 10−1).
In o he wo ds, he deg ee o which people a e likely o
use a space o social, elaxa ion, physical, o child en-
ela ed ac i i ies a ies o di e en ypes o public open
spaces. Fo commu ing ac i i ies, we did no ind e i-
dence o such a ia ion.
Explo a o y analysis Based on ou esul s, we u -
he explo e (1) which ypes o spaces would pa ici-
pan s mo e o en use o social, elaxa ion, physical, o
child en- ela ed ac i i ies (Fig.2) and (2) wha a ie y o
ac i i ies people a e likely o pe o m in he same space
(Fig.3).
G eenspaces, as illus a ed in Fig.2, eme ge as highly
a o ed loca ions o mos ac i i ies. An excep ion
o his is ound o he child en- ela ed ac i i ies o
which, unsu p isingly, play spaces a e p e e ed he
mos . In pa icula , pa icipan s’ a ings sugges ha
hey would o en use g een spaces o commu ing,
some imes o socializing, elaxing, and exe cising, and
a ely/ne e o child en- ela ed ac i i ies. No ably,
pocke pa ks a e less a o ed han g eenspaces o all
ypes o ac i i ies. Pa icipan s would some imes use
pocke pa ks o commu ing and exe cising and a ely
o socializing, elaxing, and child en- ela ed ac i i ies.
Conce ning public squa es and ma ke places, we no e
ha pa icipan s ga e hem ela i ely low a ings o
mos ac i i ies. In pa icula , pa icipan s would ne e
o a ely use hese spaces o elaxa ion o child en-
ela ed ac i i ies, and would a ely o some imes use
hem o social and physical ac i i ies. Public squa es
and ma ke places a e p edominan ly p e e ed o com-
mu ing. We obse e simila esul s o s ee s. No ably,
s ee s ecei ed he lowes a ings among all ypes o
spaces and o all ac i i ies excep o commu ing, o
which pa icipan s would some imes use hem.
Finally, ega ding play spaces, apa om being o en
conside ed o be used o child en- ela ed ac i i ies,
hey we e also conside ed some imes sui able o social-
izing, exe cising, and commu ing. The leas app op ia e
ac i i y o pe o m in a play space, as indica ed by he
pa icipan s, is elaxing.
Fu he mo e, o iden i y he di e en ac i i ies pa ici-
pan s would pe o m in he same public open space, we
measu e he co ela ions among he spaces’ a ings o
each pai o ac i i ies using he Spea man’s ank co e-
la ion coe icien . The co esponding co ela ion ma ix
is p esen ed in Fig.3. O e all, only posi i e co ela ions
we e ound. A s ong and s a is ically signi ican co ela-
ion was ound be ween social and elaxa ion ac i i ies
(ρ = 0.76, p < 0.05), indica ing ha spaces ha a e con-
side ed sui able o socializing a e also deemed sui able
o elaxing and ice e sa. Child en- ela ed ac i i ies
we e also ound o ha e a mode a e and signi ican co -
ela ion wi h bo h elaxa ion (ρ = 0.67, p < 0.05) and social
ac i i ies (ρ = 0.57, p < 0.05). Mo eo e , physical ac i i ies
exhibi a signi ican weak o mode a e co ela ion wi h
all o he ac i i ies. No ably, commu ing is he sole ac i -
i y ype lacking a signi ican co ela ion wi h all he o he
ac i i ies, excluding exe cising.
3.2.2 The likely use o public open spaces a ies signi ican ly
ac ossage g oups
O e iew Wi h his hypo hesis, we examine i he ac i -
i ies pa icipan s a e likely o pe o m in public open
spaces a y pe age g oup. To es ou hypo hesis, we
pe o m Mann–Whi ney U es s: one o each ac i i y
and each pai o age g oups. As explained in Sec ion.2.2,
he age g oups included in ou es s a e [18–29], [30–39],
[40–49], [50–59], [60 +].
Resul H2 was accep ed o physical ac i i ies be ween
he age g oups [18–29]–[60 +] and o commu ing ac i i-
ies be ween he age g oups [30–39]–[60 +]. Howe e , i
was ejec ed o all o he ac i i ies and age g oups. Tha
is, se e al age g oups we e ound o di e in how likely
hey would use public open spaces o physical ac i i ies
and commu ing ac i i ies, bu we do no ha e su icien
e idence o conclude ha he deg ee o which di e en
age g oups would use a space o pe o m social, elaxa-
ion, o child en- ela ed ac i i ies di e s signi ican ly.
Page 8 o 17
Miliase al. Compu a ional U ban Science (2024) 4:15
Fig. 2 Ra ings o he likely use o public open spaces pe ac i i y
Page 9 o 17
Miliase al. Compu a ional U ban Science (2024) 4:15
3.2.3 H3: The likely use o public open spaces a ies
signi ican ly ac ossgende s
O e iew Wi h his hypo hesis, we examine i he ac i -
i ies pa icipan s in end o pe o m in public open spaces
di e be ween gende g oups. Ou o all pa icipan s,
49% sel -iden i ied as males, 49% as emales, and 2% as
non-bina y, hi d gende , o p e e o sel -desc ibe o
no o say. To s a is ically es ou hypo hesis we limi o
males and emales since we do no ha e su icien da a o
d aw s a is ical conclusions o he o he g oups. In pa -
icula , we pe o med ou Mann–Whi ney U es s, one
o each ype o ac i i y, be ween he a ings we ecei ed
om male and emale pa icipan s.
Resul H3 was ejec ed o all ypes o ac i i ies. Tha
is, we do no ha e su icien e idence o conclude ha
he likely use o public open spaces be ween males and
emales di e s signi ican ly.
3.3 Thema ic analysis
The aim o he hema ic analysis is o explo e wha cha -
ac e is ics people conside p omo ing o obs uc ing
Fig. 3 Co ela ion o ac i i y-based a ings
Table 2 Mos p e alen cha ac e is ics o public open spaces ha posi i ely o nega i ely in luenced pa icipan s’ a ings
Posi i e Nega i e
Social ameni ies, si ing spaces, calm, open, nice o picnic, ib an , na u e,
nice mee ing place, iew lack o ameni ies, lack o si ing spaces, una ac i e, lack o space,
oad/ a ic/ca s, lack o na u e, in- dus ial, noisy, busy, dedica ed
o ce ain age g oups, no calm
Relaxa ion na u e, calm, quie , si ing spaces, nice o eading, sun/shade,
open, iew, li le a ic/ca s, a ac i e, p i a e noisy, busy, lack o si ing spaces, high a - ic/ca s, no na u e, indus-
ial, una ac i e, no calm, lack o space, unsa e
Physical space, na u e, dedica ed o speci ic spo s (e.g., walking, biking,
pools), sa e, open, calm, li le a ic, a ac- i e, quie , iew li le space, busy, unsa e, una ac i e, high a ic/ca s, indus ial, li le
na u e, na ow, pollu ion, bad iew
Child en play equipmen , sa e (supe - ised/unsupe ised),
ameni ies, na u e, space, open, quie , li le a ic, si ing spaces unsa e, high a ic/ca s, no hing o chil- d en o do, nea by oads,
li le space, lack o ameni ies, indus ial, blue spaces (consid- e ed
unsa e), isola ed, li le na u e
Page 16 o 17
Miliase al. Compu a ional U ban Science (2024) 4:15
gende g oups, ega ding he ac i i ies hey would engage
in ac oss a a ie y o public open spaces, and he cha ac-
e is ics ha ma e o hem. Ou indings e eal signi i-
can di e ences ega ding he sui abili y o di e en ypes
o public open spaces o di e en ac i i ies. G eens-
paces eme ged as he mos a o ed o nea ly all ac i i-
ies, while pocke pa ks we e less p e e ed, and s ee s
we e conside ed he leas sui able o engaging in a ious
ac i i ies. Addi ionally, ou indings sugges ha he sui -
abili y o a space o one ac i i y implies i s sui abili y o
o he ac i i ies. Con a y o expec a ions, mos ins ances
did no e eal signi ican di e ences among di e en age
and gende g oups in hei p e e ences o engaging in
speci ic ac i i ies in public open spaces. When a ia ions
we e obse ed, hey s emmed ei he om dis inc p e -
e ences o speci ic cha ac e is ics o public open spaces
among a ious g oups o om di e ing pe cep ions o
sha ed, ecognized cha ac e is ics. Ou indings unde -
sco e he impo ance o ensu ing di e si y in public open
spaces o accommoda e he p e e ences o di e en indi-
iduals, ac i i ies, and popula ion g oups.
Acknowledgemen s
We hank all pa icipan s o con ibu ing o ou s udy.
Au ho s’ con ibu ions
Vasileios Milias: Concep ualiza ion, me hodology, da a cu a ion, o mal
analysis, so wa e, alida ion, isualiza ion, w i ing – o iginal d a , w i ing – e iew
and edi ing. Roos Teeuwen: Concep ualiza ion, me hodology, da a cu a ion,
w i ing – o iginal d a . Alessand o Bozzon: Funding acquisi ion, me hodology,
supe ision. Achilleas Psyllidis: Concep ualiza ion, me hodology, unding
acquisi ion, esou ces, supe ision, w i ing – o iginal d a , w i ing – e iew
and edi ing.
Funding
This esea ch has ecei ed unding om he Eu opean Union’s Ho izon 2020
esea ch and inno a ion p og am unde g an ag eemen No 874724.
A ailabili y o da a and ma e ial
The da a collec ed om he pa icipan s and he code used o he analysis a e
publicly a ailable on h ps:// zenodo. o g/ eco ds/ 10974 191. The s ee -le el
image y ob ained by Google S ee -View canno be publicly sha ed due o he
company’s da a-sha ing egula ions.
Decla a ions
Compe ing in e es s
The au ho s decla e no po en ial con lic s o in e es .
Recei ed: 11 Ma ch 2024 Re ised: 13 May 2024 Accep ed: 31 May 2024
Re e ences
Ambien e, I alia. (2003). Eu opean common indica o s: Towa ds a local sus ain-
abili y p o ile. Ambien e I alia Resea ch Ins i u e: Repo .
Ami i, S., & C ain, D. R. (2019). Quan i ying jacobs’ no ion o ‘eyes upon he
s ee ’ in 3-dimensions. Jou nal o U ban Design, 25(4), 467–485.
A ms ong, R. A. (2014). When o use he b on e oni co ec ion. Oph halmic
and Physiological Op ics, 34(5), 502–508.
Ba ne , D. W., Ba ne , A., Na han, A., Van Cauwenbe g, J., Ce in, E., & on En i-
onmen , C., and wo king g oup, P. A. C.-O. A. (2017). Buil en i onmen al
co ela es o olde adul s’ o al physical ac i i y and walking: A sys ema ic
e iew and me a-analysis. In e na ional Jou nal o Beha io al Nu i ion and
Physical Ac i i y, 14, 1–24.
Basu, N., O iedo-T espalacios, O., King, M., Kam uzzaman, M., & Haque, M. M.
(2022). The in luence o he buil en i onmen on pedes ians’ pe cep-
ions o a ac i eness, sa e y and secu i y. T anspo a ion Resea ch Pa :
T a ic Psychology and Beha iou , 87, 203–218.
Be olini, L. (2020). F om “s ee s o a ic” o “s ee s o people”: Can s ee
expe imen s ans o m u ban mobili y? T anspo Re iews, 40(6), 734–753.
Boeing, G. (2017). Osmnx: New me hods o acqui ing, cons uc ing, analyzing,
and isualizing complex s ee ne wo ks. Compu e s, En i onmen and
U ban Sys ems, 65, 126–139.
Bubalo, M., an Zan en, B. T., & Ve bu g, P. H. (2019). C owdsou cing geo-in o -
ma ion on landscape pe cep ions and p e e ences: A e iew. Landscape
and U ban Planning, 184, 101–111.
Cla ke, V., & B aun, V. (2013). Success ul quali a i e esea ch: A p ac ical guide o
beginne s. Sage publica ions.
Cohen, D. A., Ma sh, T., Williamson, S., De ose, K. P., Ma inez, H., Se odji, C., &
McKenzie, T. L. (2010). Pa ks and physical ac i i y: Why a e some pa ks
used mo e han o he s? P e en i e Medicine, 50, S9–S12.
Coley, R. L., Sulli an, W. C., & Kuo, F. E. (1997). Whe e does communi y g ow?
he social con ex c ea ed by na u e in u ban public housing. En i on-
men and Beha io , 29(4), 468–494.
Ewing, R., Handy, S., B ownson, R. C., Clemen e, O., & Wins on, E. (2006). Iden i-
ying and measu ing u ban design quali ies ela ed o walkabili y. Jou nal
o Physical Ac i i y and Heal h, 3(s1), S223–S240.
Fos e , S., & Giles-Co i, B. (2008). The buil en i onmen , neighbo hood c ime
and cons ained physical ac i i y: An explo a ion o inconsis en indings.
P e en i e Medicine, 47(3), 241–251.
Goličnik, B., & Thompson, C. W. (2010). Eme ging ela ionships be ween design
and use o u ban pa k spaces. Landscape and U ban Planning, 94(1),
38–53.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The Uses o Neighbo hood Pa ks, chap e 5, pages 116–145.
Mode n Lib a y, New Yo k.
Jankowski, P., Czepkiewicz, M., M-lodkowski, M., & Zwolin´ski, Z. (2016). Geo-
ques ionnai e: A me hod and ool o public p e e ence elici a ion in land
use planning. T ansac ions in GIS, 20(6), 903–924.
Koohsa i, M. J., Ka akiewicz, J. A., & Kaczynski, A. T. (2013). Public open space
and walking: The ole o p oximi y, pe cep ual quali ies o he su -
ounding buil en i onmen , and s ee con igu a ion. En i onmen and
Beha io , 45(6), 706–736.
K uize, H., an Kamp, I., an den Be g, M., an Kempen, E., Wendel-Vos, W., &
Ruijsb oek, A., Swa , W., Maas, J., Gidlow, C., Smi h, G., Ellis, N., Hu s , G.,
Mas e son, D., T igue o-Mas, M., Ci ach, M., G azule iciene, R., Van den
Hazel, P., and Nieuwenhuijsen, M. (2020). Explo ing mechanisms unde ly-
ing he ela ionship be ween he na u al ou doo en i onmen and
heal h and well-being– esul s om he pheno ype p ojec . En i onmen
In e na ional, 134, 105173.
K uskal, W. H., & Wallis, W. A. (1952). Use o anks in one-c i e ion a iance
analysis. Jou nal o he Ame ican s a is ical Associa ion, 47(260), 583–621.
Lee, A. C. K., Jo dan, H. C., & Ho sley, J. (2015). Value o u ban g een spaces in
p omo ing heal hy li ing and wellbeing: p ospec s o planning. Risk
managemen and heal hca e policy, 8, 131–137.
Le y-S o ms, L., Chen, L., & Loukai ou-Side is, A. (2018). Olde adul s’ needs
and p e e ences o open space and physical ac i i y in and nea pa ks: A
sys ema ic e iew. Jou nal o Aging and Physical Ac i i y, 26(4), 682–696.
Lin, B. B., Fulle , R. A., Bush, R., Gas on, K. J., & Shanahan, D. F. (2014). Oppo -
uni y o o ien a ion? who uses u ban pa ks and why. PLoS ONE, 9(1),
e87422.
Linday, N. (1978). I all comes down o a com o able place o si and wa ch.
Landscape A chi ec u e, 68(6), 492–497.
Lu, Y. (2019). Using google s ee iew o in es iga e he associa ion be ween
s ee g eene y and physical ac i i y. Landscape and U ban Planning, 191,
103435.
Page 17 o 17
Miliase al. Compu a ional U ban Science (2024) 4:15
Mann, H. B. & Whi ney, D. R. (1947). On a es o whe he one o wo andom
a iables is s ochas ically la ge han he o he . The annals o ma hema i-
cal s a is ics, pages 50–60.
McKigh , P. E. and Najab, J. (2010). K uskal-wallis es . The co sini encyclopedia o
psychology, pages 1–1.
Meh a, V. (2009). Look closely and you will see, lis en ca e ully and you will
hea : U ban design and social in e ac ion on s ee s. Jou nal o U ban
Design, 14(1), 29–64.
Meh a, V. (2014). E alua ing public space. Jou nal o U ban Design, 19(1), 53–88.
Milias, V., Sha i i Noo ian, S., Bozzon, A., and Psyllidis, A. (2023). Is i sa e o be
a ac i e? disen angling he in luence o s ee scape ea u es on he pe -
cei ed sa e y and a ac i eness o ci y s ee s. AGILE: GIScience Se ies, 4:8.
Mon gome y, J. (1998). Making a ci y: U bani y, i ali y and u ban design.
Jou nal o U ban Design, 3(1), 93–116.
Na a e e-He nandez, P., Ve o, A., & Concha, P. (2021). Building sa e public
spaces: Explo ing gende di e ence in he pe cep ion o sa e y in public
space h ough u ban design in e en ions. Landscape and U ban Plan-
ning, 214, 104180.
Neu ens, T., Fa be , S., Dela on aine, M., & Boussauw, K. (2013). Spa ial a ia ion
in he po en ial o social in e ac ion: A case s udy in lande s (belgium).
Compu e s, En i onmen and U ban Sys ems, 41, 318–331.
Pescha d , K. K., Schippe ijn, J., & S igsdo e , U. K. (2012). Use o small public
u ban g een spaces (spugs). U ban Fo es y & U ban G eening, 11(3),
235–244.
Phillips, A., Khan, A. Z., & Can e s, F. (2021). Use- ela ed and socio-demog aphic
a ia ions in u ban g een space p e e ences. Sus ainabili y, 13(6), 3461.
Pu nam, R. D., e al. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and e i al o Ame ican
communi y. Simon and schus e .
Rees-Punia, E., Ha haway, E. D., & Gay, J. L. (2018). C ime, pe cei ed sa e y, and
physical ac i i y: A me a-analysis. P e en i e Medicine, 111, 307–313.
Salesses, P., Schech ne , K., & Hidalgo, C. A. (2013). The collabo a i e image
o he ci y: Mapping he inequali y o u ban pe cep ion. PLoS ONE, 8(7),
e68400.
Skel on, T. (2004). ‘no hing o do, nowhe e o go?’: eenage gi ls and
‘public’space in he hondda alleys, sou h wales. In Child en’s geog a-
phies, pages 69–85. Rou ledge.
Sulli an, W. C., Kuo, F. E., & Depoo e , S. F. (2004). The ui o u ban na u e: Vi al
neighbo hood spaces. En i onmen and Beha io , 36(5), 678–700.
Sunde all, E. P., & Jansson, M. (2020). Inclusi e pa ks ac oss ages: Mul i unc ion
and u ban open space managemen o child en, adolescen s, and he
elde ly. In e na ional Jou nal o En i onmen al Resea ch and Public Heal h,
17(24), 9357.
Talen, E., Choe, K. W., Akcelik, G. N., Be man, M. G., & Meidenbaue , K. L. (2023).
S ee design p e e ence: an on-line su ey. Jou nal o U ban Design, 28(1),
1–24.
Talen, E., & Co inda e , M. (1999). The u opianism o child en: An empi ical
s udy o child en’s neighbo hood design p e e ences. Jou nal o Planning
Educa ion and Resea ch, 18(4), 321–331.
Thompson, C. W. (2002). U ban open space in he 21s cen u y. Landscape and
U ban Planning, 60(2), 59–72.
T aunmuelle , M., Ma shall, P., and Cap a, L. (2015). C owdsou cing sa e y pe -
cep ions o people: Oppo uni ies and limi a ions. In Social In o ma ics:
7 h In e na ional Con e ence, SocIn o 2015, Beijing, China, Decembe 9–12,
2015, P oceedings 7, pages 120–135. Sp inge .
UN Gene al Assembly (2015). T ans o ming ou wo ld: he 2030 agenda o
sus ainable de elopmen . Resolu ion adop ed by he Gene al Assembly
on 21 Oc obe 2015, A/RES/70/1.
Uslu, A., e al. (2010). Social in e ac ion in u ban ans o ma ion a eas and he
cha ac e is ics o u ban ou doo spaces: A case s udy om u key. A ican
Jou nal o Ag icul u al Resea ch, 5(20), 2801–2810.
Van den Be g, M., Van Poppel, M., Van Kamp, I., And usai y e, S., Balse iciene,
B., Ci ach, M., Danile iciu e, A., Ellis, N., Hu s , G., Mas e son, D., G aham, S.,
T igue o- Mas, M., Uzdana iciu e, I., de Wi , P., an Mechelen, W., Gidlow,
C., G azule iciene, R., Nieuwenhuijsen, M., K uize, H., & Maas, J. (2016).
Visi ing g een space is associa ed wi h men al heal h and i ali y: A c oss-
sec ional s udy in ou Eu opean ci ies. Heal h & Place, 38, 8–15.
Wen, C., Albe , C., & Von Haa en, C. (2018). The elde ly in g een spaces: Explo -
ing equi emen s and p e e ences conce ning na u e-based ec ea ion.
Sus ainable Ci ies and Socie y, 38, 582–593.
Why e, W. H., e al. (1980). The social li e o small u ban spaces. DC: Conse a ion
Founda ion Washing on.
Why e, W. H. (2012). Ci y: Redisco e ing he cen e . Uni e si y o Pennsyl ania
P ess.
Wilcoxon, F. (1992). Indi idual compa isons by anking me hods. In B eak-
h oughs in s a is ics: Me hodology and dis ibu ion, pages 196–202.
Sp inge .
Wolch, J. R., By ne, J., & Newell, J. P. (2014). U ban g een space, public heal h,
and en i onmen al jus ice: The challenge o making ci ies ‘jus g een
enough.’ Landscape and U ban Planning, 125, 234–244.
Wo ld Heal h O ganiza ion Regional O ice o Eu ope (2017). U ban g een
spaces: a b ie o ac ion. Repo .
Publishe ’s No e
Sp inge Na u e emains neu al wi h ega d o ju isdic ional claims in pub-
lished maps and ins i u ional a ilia ions.
