Conceptualizing multidimensional barriers: a framework for assessing constraints in realizing recreational benefits of urban green spaces

Abstract

Although potential urban green space accessibility is being discussed widely, specific barriers that affect accessibility are often under-estimated. They do not equate to limited or uneven accessibility nor are they exclusively related to physical settings. Rather, the range of barriers and their complex interactions, including people's perceptions, personal conditions, and institutional frameworks, make this topic less clear cut and difficult to put into practice for planning purposes. Given the importance of barriers when people make decisions, we present a conceptual framework to capture the cumulative and interactive effects of different barriers on realizing recreational benefits of urban green spaces. The framework classifies physical, personal, and institutional barriers and highlights their interactions based on three case studies: Stockholm, Leipzig, and Lodz. We argue that constraints to the accessibility of urban green spaces are not so much the interactions between various physical, personal, and institutional barriers, but more the significance that beneficiaries assign to them as perceived barrier effects. Studying barriers seeks to improve the knowledge about the non-use of urban green spaces and to enable us to draw conclusions about the actual accessibility of recreational benefits. Deduced from the conceptual framework, three pathways are contrasted for improving accessibility to the recreational benefits of urban green spaces: the environment, knowledge, and engagement. We argue that these pathways should not be a diffuse objective, but a sensitive and scale-dependent rebalance of individual, physical, and institutional factors for considering justice in environmental and green space planning and management. Our systematic conceptualization and classification of multidimensional barriers enables a more comprehensive understanding of individuals' decisions in terms of accessing recreational benefits.

Inequalities and Injustices of Urban Green Regeneration: Applying the Conflict Analysis Perspective

“…Its main goal is to show how a conflict analysis approach can give us a more in-depth understanding of inequalities and injustices within the framework of urban regeneration. To do so, this paper uses the conflict analysis perspective to reanalyse empirical material about the inner east area of Leipzig, Germany, within the period between 2016 and 2021 that has (in part) already been published between 2020 and 2022 [33][34][35][36]. The included studies provide empirical evidence of green gentrification, environmental justice, and multiple barriers to UGSs, as well as inclusiveness and justice challenges and trade-offs of urban green space development for the area.…”

A Transdisciplinary Framework to Unlock the Potential Benefits of Green Spaces for Urban Communities Under Changing Contexts

“…; Matthews et al 2015 , Biernacka and Kronenberg 2018 ). The ongoing privatization of urban space (Webster, 2002 , 2007 ) can be expected to further limit options for accessing green space benefits (e.g., Wolff et al 2022 ). This is especially true for marginalized groups and less resourced neighborhoods, who tend to be both more exposed to environmental hazards and have fewer opportunities to realize desired use of green space, potentially leading to a downward spiral in which the neglect or lacking maintenance of existing green spaces may reduce their attractivity or functionality (e.g., Nassauer and Raskin 2014 ).…”

Based on nature, enabled by social-ecological-technological context: deriving benefit from urban green and blue infrastructure

“…Local GBI was completely absent from mental maps of recreational opportunities and spaces, an absence reflecting, the authors explain, neighborhood neglect and the multi-scalar character of urban recreational ideas/behavior. Wolff et al (2022) conceptualize and explore the barrier effects of interacting social-ecological-technological factors. The study uses a framework of physical, personal, and institutional barriers to analyze three case studies: Stockholm, Sweden; Leipzig, Germany; and Lodz, Poland.…”