Small Green Spaces in Dense Cities: An Exploratory Study of Perception and Use in Florence, Italy

Abstract

This study investigates human perception and use of Small Green Spaces (SGS) in a dense Western city (Florence, Italy). While there is some work on social dynamics in large urban parks, empirical studies of SGS are fewer. The research adopts an exploratory approach with a mixed methods strategy (observation sessions, 50 in-depth interviews, and 430 questionnaires). The analysis is framed within a tripartite model of interaction between people and space as spontaneous appropriation of space through the body, senses, and mind. The analysis of use patterns, practices, and conflicts in SGS illustrates how continuous use and proximity make SGS persistent scenarios of users’ daily life, differently from large city parks. Sociality and restorative opportunities afforded by natural features define users’ experiences and SGS appreciation across genders and age groups. The discussion illustrates how the theoretical constructs of functional indetermination and non-normativity explain users’ perception of SGS as open-ended settings, spared from the extensive compression of publicness and commodification of other public spaces in contemporary cities. Implications of the study outcomes are discussed in relation to social cohesion in open public spaces and with the declining sense of urbanity in large cities. Some indications on design, planning, and management of SGS are also suggested.

1. Introduction

1.1. Framing This Study in the Research Field

The presence of greenery within the urban context is receiving increasing attention due to the growing research about plants’ impact on several dimensions of human health and quality of life, and more in general on public health [1]. As several reviews have shown [2,3,4], the existing research follows three main pathways, focusing on the relationship between green spaces and (a) their effect on physical or mental health; (b) the ecological benefits they produce; and (c) their impact on the social sphere, such as community revitalisation. These three relationships have been studied in different contexts, ranging from the small scale of domestic or work spaces (e.g., [5,6]) to the large urban scale [7].

Studies have shown a remarkable variety of effects produced by the presence of plants in different contexts. Studies in dense metropolitan districts have shown, for example, a relationship between the presence of green areas close to the home and overall health [8,9], or between the exposure to green spaces and the reduction of stress, depression, and anxiety [10,11]. Other studies have investigated the outcomes of green spaces presence on the extensive ecological systems of cities, focusing, for example, on their contribution to biodiversity [12], pollination [13] or, more in general, on how the increased contact with nature in cities favours pro-environmental behaviours that, in turn, promote a healthier ecosystem [14]. As to the social implications of greenery in urban green spaces, it has been shown that the presence of plants promotes social cohesion [15], a notion that refers to the strength of social ties in a community [16], and that the positive and frequent interactions taking place in urban green spaces affect some of social cohesion dimensions, such as place attachment and social capital (see, e.g., [17]). Consequently, urban green spaces have been construed as a resource to contrast the crisis of sociality in contemporary Western cities [18].

However, research on the effects of greenery in urban contexts has several limits. First, as Taylor and Hochuli have remarked [19], there is a tendency of many studies to refer to equivocally defined green spaces, where vegetation is present at significantly different degrees. Secondly, of the three aforementioned categories of impact of green spaces, sociality has been significantly less investigated than the other two [4,20]. Thirdly, the limited research on social dynamics in urban green spaces has mainly focussed on large public parks and gardens (see, inter alia, [21,22,23,24,25]), while empirically based studies of smaller urban green spaces are fewer, despite their notable presence in contemporary dense cities (see, e.g., [26,27]).

This study builds on these critical observations in two ways. First, the research explores a specific type of green space, namely Small Green Spaces, in a definite type of urban fabric, that of the Western dense city, as such addressing the lack of specificity denounced by Taylor and Hochuli [19]. Secondly, this study pointedly deals with the social dimension, the least explored of the three mentioned above.

Small Green Spaces (hereafter SGS) are also worth investigating because they represent a promising way to increase the presence of greenery in urban areas due to their spatial granularity. Being of small size, they can contribute to urban renaturalisation and reforestation, as they are highly adaptable to the scarce availability of space typical of dense urban environments.

As such, and in light of the limited existing research on this specific urban space, we conducted empirical exploratory research on SGS, in order to identify the main dimensions defining users’ perception and use of such spaces in a dense city, such as Florence. We consider this exploration a necessary step to inform future research on these urban spaces and to help develop knowledge that can orient urban green space design, planning, and management.

1.2. A Theoretical Framework for Perception and Use

Human perception and use of space are to be understood as relational processes, where subjects interface with the surrounding environment. The complexity of these processes of interaction is better comprehended when we construe physical space as an opportunity for human engagement and habitation, in the broad sense of spontaneous appropriation of space [28]. In Chiesi [29] it was proposed to categorise this engagement as an opportunity to (1) use the body, (2) have an aesthetic experience, (3) manipulate signs to access meaning [30,31].

First, we inhabit space with our bodies. We move in space, place ourselves, and express ourselves in a continuous proxemic discourse. Space is, from the perspective of the body, a repository of affordances, that is, perceived opportunities for action [32]. Affordances have two dominant attributes: proxemic and relational. On the immediate scale of the space that surrounds the body, the space allows a wide range of possibilities, from those offered by a small touch screen on a phone on which fingers make micro movements to those of a well-designed bench on which the body comfortably rests in an urban park. Proxemic affordances are a set of opportunities that imply direct bodily contact and that can be realised through the plasticity of the body, thus forming the so-called extended-body, a system made of the mutual integration of the body proper and the object [33]. Affordances may also provide a framework for engaging in relationships: opportunities for the body embedded in space may favour or inhibit contact between bodies, speaking, looking at each other, etc. These relational qualities of affordances enable the modulation of interpersonal relationships and are realised in pairs or groups or even in solitude when privacy is preferred. As such, affordances may be construed as socio-fugal, when they inhibit relationships, and socio-petal when they favour relationships [34].

Secondly, space offers opportunities for sensorial experience. We might say that we ‘taste’ space through our senses. Space penetrates us through sensorial channels and activates highly diversified internal processes. Aesthetic experience is a universal category of human experience, and the physical environment that surrounds the body constitutes one primary opportunity for aesthetic appreciation [35,36], contrary to the common knowledge that associates aesthetic experience solely with works of art, especially painting and sculpture [37]. Quotidian aesthetic experience of space is continuous, whereas works of art are discrete, and emerge from the ordinary into the extraordinary; it is spontaneous, that is, disengaged from critical discourse and reception [38]; and it is interested, in that it manifests with an affective investment that attracts or repels us [39]. This kind of aesthetic experience is frequently elicited by exposure to the natural environment, as nature has been the primary source of sensorial stimuli for the most part of human evolution. The presence of greenery in modern urban life is therefore an important component of aesthetic experience at large [40].

Lastly, physical space is the support on which signs materialise. A sign is ‘everything which can be taken as significantly substituting for something else’ [41] (p. 7), and space offers opportunities, on the one hand, to inscribe signs that refer to meanings and, on the other, to associate meanings to signs inscribed by others. These opportunities activate our capacity of identifying links between the tangible world of signs and the intangible mental world of meanings. There are two categories of signs inscribed in physical space. There are signs inscribed in space during the design process (conception and construction) by designers. Then there are signs that users inscribe in the space during habitation: these are additions that add communicative content while not modifying affordances [29]. In the urban context, a myriad of signs is constantly interpreted and connected with meanings, consciously or otherwise. This dual interplay between signs and meanings shapes the experience of place in subtle ways as it deals with the imaginary and symbolic, and yet its effects are remarkable in determining the overall experiential content.

This theoretical framework informed the methodological structure of the research, as explained in the following Section 2. Section 3 illustrates the results of the data analysis. Section 4 discusses the main results of the analysis and proposes two theoretical constructs which help elucidate SGS perception and use, and their differences with other types of public open spaces. Section 5 closes the article showing how its results can contribute to further research on SGS, and illustrating some of their implications on the design, planning, and management of SGS.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Case Studies

The research took place in a particularly dense city, Florence. Its urban fabric, especially in the central area, is similar to that of many other dense cities in Europe, and in other parts of the world.

A set of 10 SGS was selected after preliminary visits to 66 SGS located in or close to the central area of Florence (Figure 1). This selection was driven by four criteria evaluated during the visits. First of all, to allow comparison with similar studies (e.g., [26]), selected SGS had to fulfil a series of formal qualities: they had to be smaller than 5600 m²; they had to have at least some vegetation (all have trees, and in six cases their green area is at least half of the total area; see Table 1); and they had to have their own entrance or distinguishable boundaries which separate them from the surrounding public space. Second, all spaces had to show a significant degree of usage, since exploring human habitation was the main goal of the research. Third, as the research focus is on the dense urban fabric, selected SGS had to be in the historic centre or at its edge.

This is the case for eight of the 10 selected SGS; two other SGS were selected outside the city’s historic centre and with less greenery for comparison and contrast with the rest of the sample. Fourth, the sample was selected to guarantee a degree of variety across cases, which is necessary in exploratory studies. Three SGS are small public gardens; one is an unmanaged green area on the riverbanks of the river Arno; three are paved squares that include trees and greenery; the last three are green spaces that open on the side of streets (Figure 2). They all vary in size and proportion of green surface (Table 1).

2.2. Research Design and Structure of the Analysis

The theoretical framework presented in Section 1.2 informed the methodological structure of the research, both in the data collection and analysis. Investigating habitation requires a specific set of research tools which called for a mixed-methods strategy [42], involving three data gathering techniques. First, observation and in-depth interviews with users were performed, then followed by a questionnaire. Observation was crucial to investigate habitation processes in relation to affordances, which are often non-reflexive and therefore difficult to be directly discussed with subjects; interviews and the questionnaire, instead, allowed further investigation on insights that emerged during observation, focusing on specific aspects, and outlining a quantitative description of users and their practices [43].

The data-gathering phase of the research took place in the spring of 2016 when SGS use was expected to be significant. In-depth interviews were conducted with 50 SGS users, five per SGS, for a total of 30 h of conversation. Then, 430 users were surveyed with questionnaires administered directly on-site at the selected SGS (at least 40 per SGS). The samples of both in-depth interviews and questionnaires were stratified by gender and age, resulting in a balanced distribution (Table 2). A total of 377 questionnaire respondents were Italian (87.7%), consistent with the overall ethnic composition of the Florentine population [44]. The other 53 respondents were residents from the most common ethnic groups in Florence (e.g., Albanians and Romanians) and tourists of various nationalities (only two SGS in our sample are regularly visited by tourists). The 51 respondents who were using the space for the first time were excluded from the analyses about seasonality and frequency of use. Given the size of the sample, an analysis of the differences between spaces would not have enough statistical significance and was not conducted.

Due to the exploratory approach of the research, this paper reports a selection of analysis outcomes. For the sake of brevity, some data, such as some cross-age and gender analysis are not reported when showing no relevance.

3. Results

3.1. Patterns of Use

Questionnaire data illustrate patterns of SGS use that are related to the frequency and duration of visits, the means of transport used to get there, and where users come from and go to before and after visiting SGS. As will be discussed later, these data show how SGS use happens in patterns that differ from larger city parks.

3.1.1. Frequency and Duration

The first key factor that defines the relationship of people with SGS is continuity of use. Data show continuous use throughout the year, as over half of the respondents use SGS in all seasons (Table 3A). Yearlong continuity is coupled with frequency of use on a shorter-term basis. As the cumulative distribution shows (Table 3B), frequency is at least daily for around 40% of users. The percentage of users visiting SGS more than once a week is around 75%, and this cumulative proportion rises to almost 95% when including users who visit SGS two or three times a month. Use is also constant throughout the entire week. Almost all respondents (90%) visit SGS on working days and 60% of respondents go there during the weekend (Table 3C). Daily SGS use is balanced between morning and afternoon (Table 3D).

The analysis across generations shows that the elderly have the most intense use of SGS (Table 3B), as they go there daily in a higher proportion than average. Use throughout the day is also linked to age. People above 50 years go to SGS more in the morning, whereas people under 30 visit SGS more at lunch time and in the afternoon. In the evening, attendance is more balanced generationally, except for the 51–70 age group, whose presence is lower than average.

The average time users spend in SGS is around 30 min (Table 3E). Most visits last between 10 and 30 min (Figure 3) but when they are longer, they tend to last around an hour. Duration of visits is not significantly correlated to age (r = 0.23, Figure 4). Duration of visit is also independent of gender (data not shown).

3.1.2. Getting to and from SGS

The mobility data show that SGS are not only frequently visited by users but are also located in the proximity of other settings where most of users’ daily life takes place (Table 4). Home—or hotels, in the case of tourists—is by far the predominant place users come from when they get to SGS. Although to a lesser extent, home is also the most common destination upon leaving. Compared to larger parks, SGS are less a final destination than an intermediate one, as confirmed also by this respondent:

This garden represents an interlude between two destinations. I see it as a pause. […] larger parks, on the other hand, can be seen as a final destination, where the aim is specifically to spend time there.

[F50] (Respondents’ gender and age are tagged at the end of each verbatim quote from interviews)

As it was clear in many in-depth interviews, this proximity is crucial for specific user categories, such as the elderly. As in the words of these two interviewees:

When I was young, I often went to the [main large city] park. But now that I’m old I can’t walk too far, and this is the only green space I still visit.

[F80]

At the Cascine [the largest city park in Florence] there are comfortable benches with backrests in the shade. But it’s too far for me, I cannot walk that far anymore. So I slowly walk this short path, being careful not to fall, and I get to this small parklet. Even if I don’t like it as much as the Cascine, it’s closer.

[F75]

3.2. Types of Practices

Looking at users’ practices allows for a detailed description of the life that takes place in SGS. First, it should be noted that experiences happening within SGS are better understood if construed as behavioural routines that span before, during, and after visiting them, due to SGS proximity to other settings (such as the home and the workplace) and their continuity of use. The strong connection between life within and outside SGS is a recurring theme in many interviews, and this quote, related to SGS that are close to a bus stop, is an example:

I’m not young anymore and standing in the sun while waiting for the bus is just too tiring. Thus, I prefer to come here a bit earlier, even an hour before, and sit down for a while to read my book. Then, when the time comes, I move over to the bus stop.

[F54]

Focusing on activities within SGS, respondents reported a wide variety of performed practices, often during the same visit. These two quotes illustrate the heterogeneity of the opportunities SGS offer to users, even across generations:

I like walking about, here and there, looking at the trees. Sometimes I stop for a few minutes, and I just look at them. When I’m tired, I might sit for a bit on the bench and I also like to watch the people going by, I find it relaxing. […] Sometimes I come here with friends, we talk and kill time. We stay at that low wall there, some standing and some sitting on it. Sometimes we also bring cards and manage to play there in pairs, even if it is a bit uncomfortable.

[M70]

I live nearby […] it’s my pit stop before going back home! I stop to smoke a cigarette, listen to some music, relax, observe Florence from this patch of green, and then I take off again. I’ll hang out for about twenty minutes, half an hour at most. Loads of tourists pass by here so you never feel alone.

[F25]

The two most performed activities in SGS are those connected with socialisation and the enjoyment of the outdoors, which were mentioned, respectively, by two-thirds of the sample and almost half of it (Table 5). The pre-eminence of relational experiences in SGS is confirmed across all age groups, especially in the younger and older generations (i.e., under 20 and over 60 years old).

In SGS users spend their time mainly with friends, partners, and relatives (Table 6). Being with friends is mentioned by more than half of users, being the most common option for three of the four age groups considered, in particular for younger users. Around a fifth of the sample, however, use SGS alone, a proportion that is higher in men and in lower middle-aged users (31–50 y.o.).

Activities related to pets are performed by a quarter of respondents (Table 5). Although these often start as individual practices, observation confirmed that walking and playing with dogs promotes serendipitous social encounters as well, especially among dog owners. Dog owners’ use profile is generally defined by the needs of their pets, which require frequent attendance (mostly daily) and generally for a short time.

Smoking is a common activity in SGS for about a third of users. This proportion being higher than the rate of Italian smokers (18.4% of the population older than 14 y.o.; [45]) suggests that SGS are perceived to have fewer restrictions than other public spaces, where smoking is often forbidden by law or informally sanctioned. As it will be seen in Section 3.4.2, both smoking and eating in SGS during working breaks indicate another common perception of respondents, who see SGS as spaces suitable to take a break from the routine.

Other activities performed in SGS involve the use of electronic devices or, more generally, objects. Smartphones, for example, are used in SGS by one-quarter of the respondents. Reading of newspapers/magazines or books is carried out in slightly different proportions by different age and gender groups, as shown in Table 5.

Another individual practice performed with devices is listening to music, mostly through smartphones. Listening to music on loudspeakers, as a group practice, is more common in larger spaces than in SGS. In Florence, for example, this occurs in the largest urban park (Cascine, 1.6 km²), often among ethnic minorities. In our SGS sample, there were no specific practices of space appropriation connected with ethnicity, in contrast to what has been observed in cities with a more diverse ethnic composition (e.g., [46]).

There are limited differences in performed practices in relation to age and gender. For instance, going out to enjoy fresh air is more widespread among older users (Table 5). Other activities are more common in younger people. The generational factor is significant for the use of electronic devices, and this also applies to the use of tablets and mobile phones to listen to music, a practice that users under 30 years old perform in a proportion that is almost twice as much the average. Similarly, lying on the grass is a way of appropriating SGS more frequently practiced by users between 20 and 30 years old.

Playing games is one of the activities performed in SGS that connects generations. Although none of the analysed SGS has playgrounds, informal playing is often performed, not just by younger users but also by their parents and grandparents.

In conclusion, all activities mentioned by users, even the ones with lower percentages (see Table 5), contribute to the variety of users’ experiences. As interviews have shown, each SGS experience frequently encompasses several actions, often simultaneous, that blend into articulated sequences of practices. The opportunity to perform a diversified and interconnected set of activities is a feature that users strongly appreciate and, as it will be discussed, often contrast with expanding negative aspects of other urban public spaces.

Conflicts of Practices and Users

Intense and varied use in limited space can produce conflicts among different user groups. Young users often seek opportunities to play, move about, and have fun:

It would be great if football goals would fit here! […] And also to climb up the walls and jump on top. What a view you’d get!

[M18]

We like relaxing on a blanket and chatting, but we also play football or skate.

[M18]

These practices, however, are sometimes feared by the elderly, as this man clearly points out:

There is another small park close by, but now, during the school vacation it is full of kids, and someone like me can’t spend time there: if I get hit by a ball, it’s over for me, I am done! I prefer staying here, it’s a bit noisier but it’s better than risking being hit by a ball!

[M84]

Furthermore, dogs’ presence can be seen as problematic by users who do not own a dog, such as young people wanting to play or those who go to SGS with children, as reported by this grandparent:

This space is used by many dogs! All these unleashed dogs! You just can’t sit here, dogs are going to eat my sandwich! […] And how can you bring children here? They can’t even sit or lie on the grass, or they risk landing on dog’s poo!

[F54]

Observations showed that high accessibility and low level of control of SGS are perceived as desirable features by the homeless, who tend to use SGS as shelters and benches as places to sleep. This informal use of SGS is generally accepted by users, as it has a low impact on the daily use of most spaces. However, in some cases the homeless are perceived as threats:

Some spaces are perfect for children, but you can’t take them there because the homeless sleep there on the benches. Some of them are harsh, if you don’t give them something, they yell at you!

[F69]

These conflicts can be seen as more problematic by some user groups, but they rarely prevent the use of SGS. Such conflicts and the informal uses that sometimes generate them in fact seem to be side effects of two features general users appreciate in SGS and that will be further discussed: the wide range of practices that SGS afford in relatively small spaces and the low level of social control perceived by users.

3.3. Opportunities for Social Activation

Social activities, such as meeting and being with others, are the most performed activities in SGS (Table 5). These spaces are perceived as ideal settings for this purpose, as clearly explained by this interviewee:

We meet up here altogether [as a group] as it’s peaceful; we like this place because there’s some greenery and us older people really like the shade, the oxygen. When we are here, we rejuvenate, at least I wish! [laughs].

[M73]

The observation of activities in SGS through the tripartite model of interaction between people and space (see Section 1.2) further showed how SGS promote social interactions. Observing proxemic and relational affordances that people perceive and realise in SGS spaces illuminates the dynamics of social practices. SGS proxemic affordances are those that allow users to relate their bodies to the spaces around them to take the opportunity to sit, lean, or stretch out both on designed devices, such as benches, walls, or fences, and on natural elements, such as lawns, trees, or large stones. Relational affordances are the spatial opportunities that allow people to experience a variety of social relations: in SGS, for example, they include interacting with others, talking with friends or strangers, playing or watching children or others play, but also spending time by themselves, to read, think or meditate, in more socio-fugal areas of SGS. Often proxemic and relational affordances overlap, when the postures afforded by the proxemic opportunities also affect social relations, allowing different degrees of interaction.

Interviews further elucidate how SGS users are sensitive to designed opportunities in connection with interpersonal relations. A woman, for example, describing the different seating options in one SGS, clearly referred to the socio-petal and socio-fugal opportunities:

If you want to be alone, you can sit on one of these benches here [arranged in line, along the side of the SGS]. If you want to try to talk to someone, you can go and sit on those benches over there, which are facing each other. […] You have both chances in this space.

[F27]

Seating options are essential to SGS users. Additional seating is the second most requested feature among all changes users would like to see in the SGS they frequent (see Table 7, below). The familiarity of users with the SGS they frequent allows them to understand how situated spatial opportunities affect sociality. Users often point out how specific layouts of existing or newly introduced spatial devices such as benches can alter their likelihood to have different kinds of relational experiences, even serendipitous ones, or compromise social interactions. As an interviewee remarked:

If one bench is here and another there [indicating two benches far from each other] and two strangers come and sit down, how are they going to start talking? No way! […] The day they changed the benches, I asked if they could place them one next to the other, at a squared angle, so that people coming here in the afternoon could have a way to chat.

[F65]

This comment shows how sophisticated the user’s spatial awareness is with regard to design implications for behaviour, as it is with most respondents. In some cases users’ remarks demonstrate their understanding of how proxemic and relational affordances are connected, resulting in spaces that allow different degrees of social relations, as in this example:

The new seating [installed during the recent SGS redesign] is very comfortable, it fits the body. However, it’s for just one person! What if there are more of us? Often one person is sitting and another has to stand on their feet right in front if they want to talk.

[F24]

Observations also showed alterations indicating various forms of informal appropriation of spaces. For example, observation showed that benches were repositioned by users in a more socio-petal setting (Figure 5). These episodes of self-redesign are examples of social production of space that further demonstrate how relational needs are strongly felt in SGS.

3.4. Restorative Opportunities

3.4.1. Health and Wellbeing

A variety of opportunities perceived in SGS have a role in shaping user experiences, both sensorially and symbolically. Firstly, respondents often appreciated how the perceptions experienced in the SGS environment promote positive states of mind that allow relaxation and contemplation, as in these two interviews:

It’s nice to sit down here, there’s the view, the noise of the river; it’s all very relaxing.

[F50]

When I find myself alone in small parks like this, I like to sit down and listen to different sounds: of the wind, plants, animals, people… and I think.

[F35]

The effects of green spaces on various dimensions of health and wellbeing have been illustrated in many studies, although research is not clear yet about the amount of exposure needed to generate such an effect (see Section 1.1). Even if these effects usually occur without people being aware of them, some respondents explicitly referred to the effects of SGS use on their health, as in the case of this young user:

It gives me a sense of calm, of peace… and health. Yes, I even feel healthier here.

[F21]

3.4.2. Escapes and Retreats

Secondly, SGS are perceived and used as convenient escapes, as make-do outdoor retreats that interrupt the stressful patterns of daily life. These interruptions can be experienced daily or in special circumstances, socially or in solitude. The next quotes show two possible combinations of the many ways SGS allow such interruptions: the first illustrates breaks taken in a group and in eventful and celebrative moments, while the second refers to more solitary and daily experiences.

Now and then we also come to celebrate when it’s someone’s birthday. We open a bottle of bubbly and then we go back to work. It is a pleasure to have this place nearby.

[F54]

I work nearby. As soon as I can get away from my daily chores, I go out in the open air. Sometimes I even come here during the lunch break to eat a sandwich rather than going to the cafeteria […]. Basically, as soon as I can I seek out a bit of space in nature!

[F38]

SGS are also seen as places of refuge that help cope with the hyper-stimulation of the urban environment. SGS provide access to a sensorial experience that strongly contrasts with the chaotic character of most public spaces. These two quotes exemplify this perception:

The city weighs on me both mentally and physically. When I’m surrounded by greenery it’s all so much lighter! Too much grey affects the mood. […] It’s really about colours.

[M20]

These green spaces are important as they provide the right contrast from the chaos of the city. I think it’s great to be able to turn the corner and find a green patch. At least there’s peace, no passing cars and it’s unlikely you’ll find people shouting.

[F21]

3.4.3. Natural Features

Continuity of SGS use allows users to appreciate the changing seasonal features throughout the entire year. Users are explicit as to how greenery is relevant in shaping their overall positive aesthetic experience of SGS. This appreciation for SGS natural features encompasses different aspects of their relationship to the environment, that relate to the senses and the world of meanings, as these two quotes respectively illustrate:

When I come here I relax and I really like to do so when surrounded by space with greenery, it’s a lovely feeling. There’s another square in this area […] but I much prefer coming here because there’s more greenery.

[F50]

I love to see the trees that change with the seasons, it’s a wonder… Looking at a tree moved by the wind, like that one there [indicates a large tree], I, who am not a music connoisseur, I finally understood what a musical composition is.

[F70]

These perceptions are consistent with data collected through the questionnaire: additional greenery (in various forms: trees, shrubbery, flowers, etc.) is by far the most mentioned request (43%) users made when asked what they would like to change in their SGS (Table 7). This further explains how important natural features are for users; but also, how such features concur to create opportunities for users in every category of spatial habitation.

4. Discussion

4.1. Specificity of SGS

Results show specific features of SGS, framing them as a setting for urban practices and perceptions that are different from those of other urban green environments. Results also show interesting contrast between SGS and large city parks.

Habitation of SGS is continuous throughout the year, and relatively independent from seasonality: even though Florence has extensive seasonal fluctuations, the climatic factor is less relevant for SGS in our sample than reported by other studies about larger green spaces and urban parks, in places where seasons have significant variations [47]. This continuity is also confirmed on a weekly and daily basis. Overall, our data show that people go to SGS more often and for a shorter time compared with larger green spaces (see, e.g., [24,48,49]). Around 50% of large park users go there occasionally, less than once or twice a month (see, e.g., [23]); moreover, large parks are used more often on weekends than weekdays (see, e.g., [50]). On the contrary, our data show that SGS is a persistent daily scenario of most SGS users’ urban life. Interestingly, dog owners—one of the few user groups that have continuous use of large parks [49]—in SGS blend with the other users, having a similar, continuous, use profile.

A wide set of data (i.e., reaching time, destinations before and after a visit, means of transportation, and networks of routines before and after visit) have shown that SGS use is strongly dependent on their relative proximity. SGS are experienced as a neighbourhood opportunity near users’ most frequented urban settings, and specifically their homes. Such proximity contributes to the continuity of use and is a defining accessibility factor for specific user groups, notably the elderly, a growing segment of the aging population of Italy, as well as of most countries from the Global North [51].

Data also showed how SGS allow access to a variety of practices and experiences. Users primarily see SGS as a space for sociality, but also to perform a series of other practices. The intensity of sociality has an effect on how other practices are performed in SGS. For example, observation showed that the negative impact of smartphones on sociality (see, e.g., [52,53]) is reduced in SGS. This is consistent with research that shows that mobile phone use is less common in public spaces where sociality is intense [54].

Practices performed in SGS are, for most cases, independent from gender or age. The slight cross-age and gender differences (regarding, e.g., smoking, reading, use of mobile phones, see Table 5) are consistent with those in the general population [45].

Interviews and observation show that SGS are also perceived as opportunities to escape from stress and urban overstimulation and to get restorative opportunities for physical and mental health [55]. In fact, all user groups show a generalised appreciation for the diversity of opportunities that SGS offer.

The practices performed in SGS are for most cases similar to those performed in larger parks. However, the proximity of SGS allows continuous availability of such opportunities on a short-term basis. Thus, sociality and the relationship with nature become available in users’ urban everyday life, thereby not remaining confined to dislocated experiences that happen ‘not here, but somewhere, and once in a while’, as with the scarcely available large urban parks, or the countryside.

4.2. Two Constructs for the Analysis of SGS Experience

Data gathered through in-depth interviews and observation have shown that the opportunities for social activation and the perceptions connected to wellbeing, the reduction of stress, and the beneficial effects of nature all play a prominent role in defining subjective experience in SGS. The theoretical constructs of functional indetermination and non-normativity emerge from our analysis, allowing a better understanding of users’ perspectives in experiencing SGS. These two constructs bear significance in the more general matter of urban publicness as well.

4.2.1. Functional Indetermination

The wide range of practices performed in SGS is promoted by the perception that SGS do not direct users towards rigidly predefined functions, in other words, by their functional indetermination. An example about seating coming from observation will clarify this idea. While many users sit on benches, and in so doing they fulfil their function, others may choose to perform the same practice in several different ways, according to what the space affords, for example, sit on low walls, railings, and fences, large stones or on grass. The same grass affords other practices as well, such as playing, doing physical activities, or just lying down and resting. Natural elements, such as trunks, lawns, rocks, hedges, trees, often afford a wider range of opportunities than many designed devices. The wider the variety of possibilities, the more functionally indetermined a space is. As shown, users value a space that affords multiple opportunities, such as, for example, being in solitude and interacting with others. Although functional indetermination is mainly a matter of affordances, it can also be reinforced by the availability of positive sensorial experiences. For example, while in a square only a few people would sit down on the unforgiving surface of its pavement, in a SGS many would do it on the soft texture of the grass, either to enjoy the sun or the shade under the canopy of trees. This also shows how often affordances and opportunities for the senses are intertwined, as this quote illustrates:

Sometimes I prefer to sit on the ground because I find it more relaxing to read in that position, but above all because I can detach from the city chaos and be in closer contact with nature.

[F42]

4.2.2. Non-Normativity

As mentioned, SGS are often perceived as spaces of refuge from everyday life. This perception is reinforced by the fact that users perceive SGS as places that allow for a set of negative liberties, that is, freedom from external constraints [56], such as social institutions (e.g., family, market, and government) that exercise regulative control in many areas of present-day city life. In this sense, SGS are valued by users as non-normative spaces, and this perception affects several aspects of their SGS experience. For example, SGS suitability for sociality is perceived as connected to the lack of restrictions and spatial boundaries that are instead common in many environments, public, semi-public, or private, such as homes, community centres, shopping malls, etc. The home, for instance, is often mentioned by teenagers as a place where the social control of parents and family is exercised, a control that is absent in SGS. This perception is connected both with how users can perform certain activities in SGS, but also with the symbolic meanings associated with some of their features. These quotes exemplify social representations of non-normativity, with influences on how different user groups experience sociality in SGS:

I’m a widow and I often get bored alone in the house all day. For old women like me, this garden is a sort of a hangout spot. We don’t arrange a time, we know that if you want to have a chat, you come here and you always find someone. Everyone knows it. […] There’s no other place like this in the neighbourhood, it’s quiet and has many conveniences, for instance, the benches close to the shade or the drinking fountain. It doesn’t belong to anyone, but it belongs to everyone; you don’t need to ask anyone for permission, if you feel like it, you just come here. It’s different, for example, from asking to borrow a room in the community centre or someone’s home.

[F80]

This space is very convenient […] we come here and meet up in a quiet place, far away from our parents.

[F18]

The higher rate of smokers in SGS than in the general population, in a social context where smoking is forbidden or socially sanctioned in most public spaces, can be interpreted as another effect of the perceived non-normativity of SGS. Similarly, informal practices performed by the homeless in SGS result from non-normativity: as in many other city centres, in Florence such practices are carefully controlled and regulated by the administration, mainly to preserve the stereotypical image of the historic city centre, and SGS remain one of the few public spaces where the homeless can find shelter.

SGS users value this reduced pressure from the social control they commonly experience elsewhere, and in SGS they enjoy the freedom of not having to respond to any authority that presides over space. Moreover, the public nature of SGS makes them fully accessible. As a result, people can meet and spend time there at no cost, in contrast to, for example, sitting in a cafe. This makes gatherings free from time constraints, and users do not need to plan ahead to meet others and only rely on the reasonable expectation there will be someone to socialise with.

4.2.3. Open-Ended Experiences

The high degree of functional indetermination and non-normativity allow for a range of open-ended experiences that affect all practices in SGS, including the activities connected with socialisation, the most frequent in SGS. Serendipitous interaction with strangers, so common and appreciated among some user groups (e.g., the elderly and dog owners), is one of the social experiences promoted by this open-endedness. In a way, and especially for elders, SGS recall what squares used to be in the past, as described by this interviewee who illustrates how public spaces were once indeterminate venues offering opportunities for sociality and for other practices to a wide range of users:

Squares used to be meeting places. We could go down the street or square… there was always someone! We would hang out there chatting, playing cards, little children played here and there… It was really nice, each town had a square, and each town met in that square.

[F68]

Both functional indetermination and non-normativity mutually contribute to the open-endedness of users’ experiences in SGS: with functional indetermination, users are less driven to perform specific activities, and this leads to a heightened sense of freedom. At the same time, a perceived non-normativity makes users feel more open to exploring the wide experiential opportunities afforded by functional indetermination.

4.3. Contrasting SGS with Other Urban Public Spaces

SGS functional indetermination and non-normativity have implications that extend to the urban scale. The relevance of these two theoretical constructs is further revealed in comparison with what is happening to public spaces in many large contemporary cities, where since the 1990s there has been an extensive commodification and privatisation of urban spaces (see, e.g., [57,58]). Such transformations have led to an overall reduction of the diversity, vitality, and authenticity of the experiences that the urban environment has traditionally offered [59,60,61]. In this framework, public spaces are increasingly shaped according to a restricted set of predictable and homogenous experiential themes that follow dominant economic trends and the corresponding social and cultural narratives. In the case of Florence, for example, in the last decades, the city has followed an urban growth model that is increasingly centred on tourism. More recently, this has produced the typical negative effects of touristification and over-tourism [62]. As in other European historic cities (see, e.g., [63]), this process has increased short-term rentals and has produced gentrification, de facto expelling most long-term residents from the city centre [64,65]. These phenomena have been denounced by residents, who also criticise a compression of public use of spaces [66,67]. In Florence, for instance, the transformation of the city centre into a ‘food-dominant retail space for tourists’ [68] (p. 2) brought an increase in the proportion of public spaces, such as pavements, plazas, etc., occupied by outdoor seating areas for private catering.

Several SGS users have remarked how many streets and squares in Florence have lost the accessibility and indetermination they consider essential qualities of public spaces. One user summarised the commodification of Florentine public spaces referencing the regress of accessibility to the Baptistry, the XIII century building standing in front of the Cathedral, whose entrance is nowadays regulated and no longer free:

When we were young, we used to meet at the Cathedral. But on rainy days we used to meet up inside the Baptistry. Now you cannot do it anymore, you have to buy a ticket to enter!

[F70]

Several respondents mentioned the process of touristification as an impactful transformation of the city, as in this quote:

In the past, in squares there weren’t all these things [newly installed urban furniture] that we find now, but there were people. Now it’s only tourists, the squares have become almost entirely commercial places.

[F68]

Users significantly contrast SGS and their open-endedness with the changes they observe in the city and the decay of the values of urbanity in many of its public spaces. Users perceive SGS as spared from the undesirable transformations affecting other urban spaces, and appreciate open-endedness as an antidote to the processes of degradation of urban publicness.

As such, the theoretical constructs of functional indetermination and non-normativity, and the ensuing perception of open-endedness, offer a framework for the investigation of contemporary public spaces in dense cities in general, and for the assessment of the effects of the urban policies which regulate them.

5. Conclusions

This study explored human perception and use of Small Green Spaces in a dense city, in the context of urban everyday life. The cases were selected in Florence, Italy, a typical dense city similar to many other cases of dense cities, in Europe and worldwide. With a mixed-methods approach, this study analysed in detail practices of appropriation of space in SGS and their meaning from the perspective of users.

The results of this study help identify the differences between SGS and other urban green spaces, specifically large urban parks. This contributes to overcoming the limits remarked by Taylor and Hochuly ([19], see Section 1.1), producing evidence that is not related to generic green spaces but that, instead, is about a specific green space, in a specific context, namely Small Green Spaces in dense urban environments. As such, the results bear significance beyond the city of Florence and can be generalised to other similar dense urban environments, in the Global North. Hopefully, these results can inform similar analyses and inspire SGS management and planning in many areas of the world.

The adoption of the tripartite theoretical framework proposed in Section 1.2 Introduction called for the mixed methods approach, needed to explore the different dimensions of perception and appropriation of SGS, in short, of their habitation. The wide spectrum of the exploration produced strong evidence that supports the two theoretical constructs of functional indetermination and non-normativity, proposed and discussed in Section 4.2. A series of examples further show how these constructs could contribute to the development of this emerging field of research and to face the challenges of urban green policies discussed in the Introduction of this paper.

First, the data showed a notable level of sociality in SGS. This level of sociality is consistent with the hypothesis that urban green spaces promote social cohesion. As more research is needed to further confirm this hypothesis, the theoretical constructs of functional indetermination and non-normativity could help better define this relationship, in SGS and in other green spaces. In future research, for example, it would be interesting to test whether social cohesion is more strongly supported by SGS with higher degrees of functional indetermination and non-normativity. Testing this hypothesis will require a careful operationalisation of the two constructs and mixed methods data gathering techniques, with structured observations on the physical space and behaviours on one hand, and questionnaires and in-depth interviews investigating users’ perceptions on the other.

Functional indetermination and non-normativity have implications for the design, planning, and management of SGS, illustrated by two examples related to the few conflicts found in SGS. Conflicting practices can be construed as collateral effects of SGS features that are valued by users. Some practices generate conflict because of the limited size of SGS, a feature that, however, allows their proximate and widespread availability in the city. These types of conflicts in SGS could be addressed by a variety of strategies, related to both SGS management and planning. Regarding management, policies based on time scheduling of potentially conflicting activities could alleviate the intensity of such conflicts. On the other hand, planning a highly distributed network of proximate SGS could disperse conflicting opportunities in different SGS that are close enough to each other. This reinforced proximity would increase the accessibility to the neighbourhood experience of SGS. However, whatever strategies are adopted, it would be essential that they all preserve the SGS functional indetermination, as this positively affects users’ experience.

Another example refers to the management of conflicts arising from informal practices performed by the homeless. This informality can be interpreted as an effect—although problematic—of the non-normativity so valued by users. Addressing the effects of such informal practices obviously requires a multidimensional approach, going beyond just SGS management. However, if new regulations are introduced to address this issue, they should be designed to preserve the perceived sense of freedom and non-normativity in SGS that users value so much.

SGS are an urban setting with remarkable positive potential for dense cities planning. In such cities, SGS can result from the opportunistic appropriation of urban spaces abandoned to themselves and overlooked by explicit planning intentions. SGS could be the planned output of the redesign of urban residual spaces, which derive from the imperfect integration of the urban fabric [69]. Given the scarcity of space in dense cities, residual or vacant spaces are an interesting asset, discussed in current debates within the architectural, urban design, and planning domains [70]. Such spaces command attention because they are a rare reserve of design and urban planning opportunities, considering that existing urban areas are, in general, highly saturated spaces and are subject to powerful interests that serve economic productivity and real estate investments. Residual and vacant spaces might find their vocation in becoming SGS [71], allowing the insertion of natural elements in the ‘mineral’ environment of the city. Redesigning vacant spaces as SGS may create new places of opportunities appreciated by citizens, places where some of the most spontaneous and undirected practices of urban life, such as socialisation, can coalesce.

In conclusion, it is worth continuing the investigation of Small Green Spaces. These public spaces represent an exemplary opportunity to increase the availability of natural resources and their effects on urban citizens around the world, in many dense urban contexts, and also a valuable resource for the accessibility of an all-round experience of urbanity, especially in an era of compression of publicness in cities.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, L.C. and P.C.; methodology, L.C. and P.C.; investigation, L.C. and P.C.; analysis, L.C. and P.C.; writing—original draft preparation, L.C. and P.C.; writing—review and editing, L.C. and P.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data are presented in the paper.

Acknowledgments

This study was conducted within the research initiative “Pocket Parks for All. The development of residual spaces as opportunities for an inclusive city”, coordinated by Antonio Laurìa. We wish to acknowledge the students of the Urban Sociology class of the Urban, Regional and Landscape Planning program of the School of Architecture of the University of Florence, who participated in the data-gathering stage of the research. We wish to thank for their valuable time all the SGS users who participated in the research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1. The location of the 10 selected case studies (in black) and the 66 initially considered for analysis (in grey). The black line delimits the historic area of Florence catalogued as World Heritage Site by UNESCO.

Figure 2. Examples of the four kinds of sampled SGS: above left, Torrino di Santa Rosa, an unmanaged green area on the riverbank; above right, Piazza Demidoff, one of the SGS opening on the side of streets; below left, Piazzale Donatello, the largest paved square in the sample; below right, the small public garden in Via dei Bastioni, alongside the medieval city walls.

Figure 3. Most SGS visits last between 10 and 30 min. When they last more, they tend to last around one hour. Absolute values.

Figure 4. Duration of visit of SGS and age are very lightly correlated (r(371) = 0.23, p < 0.01).

Figure 5. An example of benches that have been repositioned by users to meet their relational needs.

Table 1

Some data about the SGS sample. Cases vary in size and ratios of greenery. All SGS have trees and in six of them, the proportion of green area is at least half of the total area. The two SGS having less green area were included in the sample to allow comparison and contrast with the other cases. Green area values include both ground spaces and areas covered by tree canopies.

Space	Total Area	Green Area
	m2	m2	%
Piazzale Donatello	5600	3626	65%
Via Solferino	3500	1921	55%
Torrino di Santa Rosa	2753	2312	84%
Piazza Demidoff	2520	822	33%
Santa Rosa Garden	2430	1225	50%
Via dei Bastioni	1470	1260	86%
Lungarno Torrigiani	1439	720	50%
Piazza San Jacopino	1038	126	12%
Chelazzi Garden	900	400	44%
Piazza Antonelli	248	38	15%

Table 2

The distribution of the questionnaire respondents by age and gender. The sample is balanced gender-wise in all age groups.

Age	Gender				Total
	Men		Women
10–30	84	49.7%	85	50.3%	169	39.3%
31–50	56	50.9%	54	49.1%	110	25.6%
51–70	44	50.0%	44	50.0%	88	20.5%
71–90	35	55.6%	28	44.4%	63	14.7%
Total	219	50.9%	211	49.1%	430	100.0%

Table 3

Data related to patterns of use of SGS.

A. Seasons (n = 382)
Winter		Spring				Summer				Fall
221	57.9%	345		90.3%		330		86.4%		249	65.2%
B. Frequency of use (n = 378)
		Age								Total
		10–30		31–50		51–70		71–90		n.	%	Cum. %
More than once a day		10	6.9%	14	15.1%	15	19.2%	10	15.9%	49	13.0%	13.0%
Daily		31	21.5%	21	22.6%	24	30.8%	29	46.0%	105	27.8%	40.7%
More than once a week		56	38.9%	28	30.1%	29	37.2%	18	28.6%	131	34.7%	75.4%
Once a week		22	15.3%	10	10.8%	2	2.6%			34	9.0%	84.4%
Less than once a week		2	1.4%							2	0.5%	84.9%
2–3 times a month		15	10.4%	12	12.9%	5	6.4%	5	7.9%	37	9.8%	94.7%
Once a month		2	1.4%	5	5.4%	1	1.3%			8	2.1%	96.8%
Less than once a month		6	4.2%	3	3.2%	2	2.6%	1	1.6%	12	3.2%	100.0%
Total		144	100.0%	93	100.0%	78	100.0%	63	100.0%	378	100.0%
C. Use on a weekly basis (n = 379)
Only during the week		Only at the weekend				Both during the week and at the weekend				Total
146	38.5%	21		5.5%		212		55.9%		379	100.0%
D. Use on a daily basis (n = 373)
		Age								Total
		10–30		31–50		51–70		71–90		(answers)
Morning		33	23.2%	32	36.0%	41	51.9%	30	47.6%	136	36.5%
Lunch time		22	15.5%	11	12.4%	8	10.1%	3	4.8%	44	11.8%
Afternoon		72	50.7%	38	42.7%	29	36.7%	20	31.7%	159	42.6%
Evening		24	16.9%	14	15.7%	6	7.6%	9	14.3%	53	14.2%
At any time of the day		31	21.8%	21	23.6%	26	32.9%	23	36.5%	101	27.1%
Total (respondents)		142		89		79		63		373
E. Duration of visits (n = 373)
Mean		Mode				Median				St. Dev.
29:45 min		11–20 min				20 min				22.10

Table 4

(A) The starting points and destinations before and after SGS visits; (B) Time to arrive at SGS.

A. Before and after SGS (n = 430)
	Coming from		Going to
Home/hotel	316	73.5%	244	56.7%
Work	42	9.8%	55	12.8%
School	15	3.5%	9	2.1%
Other	57	13.3%	122	28.4%
	430	100.0%	430	100.0%
B. Time to arrive to SGS (n = 429)
Mean	Mode	Median	St. Dev.
9:30 min	5:00 min	6:00 min	9.27

Table 5

Activities carried out in the SGS by respondents in the month before the interview, by gender and age.

Activities (n = 426)
	Gender				Age																Total
	Men		Women		10–20		21–30		31–40		41–50		51–60		61–70		71–80		81–90		(Answers)
Spending time in company/talking/chatting	129	50.4%	127	49.6%	47	77.0%	57	53.3%	30	50.0%	22	45.8%	11	37.9%	38	65.5%	40	80.0%	11	84.6%	256	60.1%
Sitting in the “open air”	86	45.5%	103	54.5%	18	29.5%	51	47.7%	22	36.7%	19	39.6%	11	37.9%	33	56.9%	23	46.0%	12	92.3%	189	44.4%
Smoking	76	58.0%	55	42.0%	20	32.8%	56	52.3%	20	33.3%	12	25.0%	6	20.7%	9	15.5%	7	14.0%	1	7.7%	131	30.8%
Walking/playing with a dog	57	50.9%	55	49.1%	11	18.0%	17	15.9%	21	35.0%	11	22.9%	10	34.5%	24	41.4%	18	36.0%			112	26.3%
Using a mobile phone/tablet	63	60.6%	41	39.4%	27	44.3%	46	43.0%	17	28.3%	8	16.7%	2	6.9%	3	5.2%	1	2.0%			104	24.4%
Waiting for someone	50	56.8%	38	43.2%	25	41.0%	29	27.1%	8	13.3%	9	18.8%	5	17.2%	8	13.8%	4	8.0%			88	20.7%
Reading anewspaper/magazine	38	55.9%	30	44.1%	1	1.6%	7	6.5%	7	11.7%	10	20.8%	9	31.0%	16	27.6%	15	30.0%	3	23.1%	68	16.0%
Eating	28	43.1%	37	56.9%	7	11.5%	32	29.9%	13	21.7%	7	14.6%	5	17.2%			1	2.0%			65	15.3%
Reading a book	18	36.0%	32	64.0%	4	6.6%	17	15.9%	7	11.7%	5	10.4%	5	17.2%	4	6.9%	6	12.0%	2	15.4%	50	11.7%
Listening to music	21	53.8%	18	46.2%	17	27.9%	18	16.8%	3	5.0%					1	1.7%					39	9.2%
Playing	14	46.7%	16	53.3%	13	21.3%	4	3.7%	5	8.3%	1	2.1%			2	3.4%	5	10.0%			30	7.0%
Stretching out	9	34.6%	17	65.4%	4	6.6%	15	14.0%	1	1.7%	3	6.3%	1	3.4%	2	3.4%					26	6.1%
Getting water/a drink	10	52.6%	9	47.4%	3	4.9%	1	0.9%	4	6.7%	1	2.1%	1	3.4%	4	6.9%	5	10.0%			19	4.5%
Waiting for publictransport	8	44.4%	10	55.6%	3	4.9%	7	6.5%	3	5.0%	1	2.1%			1	1.7%	3	6.0%			18	4.2%
Working	4	44.4%	5	55.6%			2	1.9%	3	5.0%	1	2.1%	2	6.9%			1	2.0%			9	2.1%
Total (respondents)	217		209		61		107		60		48		29		58		50		13		426

Table 6

Time spent socialising with different categories of people. Percentages by gender and age.

Categories of People (n = 428)
	Gender				Age								Total
	Men		Women		10–30		31–50		51–70		71–90		(Answers)
Friends	123	53.9%	105	46.1%	125	74.4%	44	40.0%	30	34.5%	29	46.0%	228	53.3%
Partner	50	50.0%	50	50.0%	25	14.9%	25	22.7%	33	37.9%	17	27.0%	100	23.4%
Alone	48	59.3%	33	40.7%	22	13.1%	29	26.4%	19	21.8%	11	17.5%	81	18.9%
Children	20	44.4%	25	55.6%	0	0.0%	32	29.1%	9	10.3%	4	6.3%	45	10.5%
Grandchildren	18	40.0%	27	60.0%	1	0.6%	3	2.7%	26	29.9%	15	23.8%	45	10.5%
Parents	5	33.3%	10	66.7%	10	6.0%	5	4.5%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	15	3.5%
Colleagues	6	60.0%	4	40.0%	1	0.6%	6	5.5%	3	3.4%	0	0.0%	10	2.3%
Caregivers	1	11.1%	8	88.9%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	1	1.1%	8	12.7%	9	2.1%
Elderly people being looked after	1	11.1%	8	88.9%	0	0.0%	4	3.6%	3	3.4%	2	3.2%	9	2.1%
Children being looked after	3	50.0%	3	50.0%	3	1.8%	1	0.9%	2	2.3%	0	0.0%	6	1.4%
Siblings	1	20.0%	4	80.0%	2	1.2%	2	1.8%	1	1.1%	0	0.0%	5	1.2%
Total (respondents)	218		210		168		110		87		63		428

Table 7

Topics mentioned in user answers to the open question “What would you change in this green space?”.

What Would You Change… (n = 250)
Additional Greenery (Trees, Shrubbery, Flowers, etc.)	Additional Seatings	Maintenance and Care	Shadow	Drinking Fountains	Playgrounds	Other (Snack Bar, Lighting, etc.)
107	70	59	28	21	15	15
42.8%	28.0%	23.6%	11.2%	8.4	6.0%	6.0%

References

1. Jennings, V.; Browning, M.H.E.M.; Rigolon, A. Urban Green Spaces: Public Health and Sustainability in the United States; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; ISBN 978-3-030-10468-9

2. Hartig, T.; Mitchell, R.; de Vries, S.; Frumkin, H. Nature and Health. Annu. Rev. Public Health; 2014; 35, pp. 207-228. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182443] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24387090]

3. Kuo, M. How Might Contact with Nature Promote Human Health? Promising Mechanisms and a Possible Central Pathway. Front. Psychol.; 2015; 6, 1093. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01093] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26379564]

4. Zhang, J.; Yu, Z.; Zhao, B.; Sun, R.; Vejre, H. Links between green space and public health: A bibliometric review of global research trends and future prospects from 1901 to 2019. Environ. Res. Lett.; 2020; 15, 063001. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab7f64]

5. Raanaas, R.K.; Evensen, K.H.; Rich, D.; Sjøstrøm, G.; Patil, G. Benefits of indoor plants on attention capacity in an office setting. J. Environ. Psychol.; 2011; 31, pp. 99-105. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.11.005]

6. Lee, K.E.; Williams, K.J.; Sargent, L.D.; Williams, N.S.; Johnson, K.A. 40-second green roof views sustain attention: The role of micro-breaks in attention restoration. J. Environ. Psychol.; 2015; 42, pp. 182-189. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.04.003]

7. Qin, B.; Zhu, W.; Wang, J.; Peng, Y. Understanding the relationship between neighbourhood green space and mental wellbeing: A case study of Beijing, China. Cities; 2020; 109, 103039. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.103039]

8. Maas, J.; Verheij, R.A.; de Vries, S.; Spreeuwenberg, P.; Schellevis, F.G.; Groenewegen, P.P. Morbidity is related to a green living environment. J. Epidemiol. Community Health; 2009; 63, pp. 967-973. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech.2008.079038] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19833605]

9. Li, Q. Effect of forest bathing trips on human immune function. Environ. Health Prev. Med.; 2010; 15, pp. 9-17. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12199-008-0068-3]

10. Thompson, C.W.; Roe, J.; Aspinall, P.; Mitchell, R.; Clow, A.; Miller, D. More green space is linked to less stress in deprived communities: Evidence from salivary cortisol patterns. Landsc. Urban Plan.; 2012; 105, pp. 221-229. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.12.015]

11. Gascon, M.; Sánchez-Benavides, G.; Dadvand, P.; Martínez, D.; Gramunt, N.; Gotsens, X.; Cirach, M.; Vert, C.; Molinuevo, J.L.; Crous-Bou, M. et al. Long-term exposure to residential green and blue spaces and anxiety and depression in adults: A cross-sectional study. Environ. Res.; 2018; 162, pp. 231-239. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.012]

12. Strohbach, M.; Lerman, S.B.; Warren, P.S. Are small greening areas enhancing bird diversity? Insights from community-driven greening projects in Boston. Landsc. Urban Plan.; 2013; 114, pp. 69-79. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.02.007]

13. Ghazoul, J. Qualifying pollinator decline evidence. Science; 2015; 348, pp. 981-982. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.348.6238.981-b] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26023128]

14. Russ, A.; Krasny, M.E. Urban Environmental Education Review; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, Greece, 2017; ISBN 978-1-5017-1279-1

15. Jennings, V.; Bamkole, O. The Relationship between Social Cohesion and Urban Green Space: An Avenue for Health Promotion. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2019; 16, 452. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16030452] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30720732]

16. Schiefer, D.; van der Noll, J. The Essentials of Social Cohesion: A Literature Review. Soc. Indic. Res.; 2017; 132, pp. 579-603. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1314-5]

17. Kazmierczak, A. The contribution of local parks to neighbourhood social ties. Landsc. Urban Plan.; 2013; 109, pp. 31-44. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.05.007]

18. Cassiers, T.; Kesteloot, C. Socio-spatial Inequalities and Social Cohesion in European Cities. Urban Stud.; 2012; 49, pp. 1909-1924. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098012444888]

19. Taylor, L.; Hochuli, D.F. Defining greenspace: Multiple uses across multiple disciplines. Landsc. Urban Plan.; 2017; 158, pp. 25-38. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.024]

20. Keniger, L.E.; Gaston, K.J.; Irvine, K.N.; Fuller, R.A. What are the Benefits of Interacting with Nature?. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2013; 10, pp. 913-935. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph10030913]

21. Payne, L.L.; Mowen, A.J.; Orsega-Smith, E. An Examination of Park Preferences and Behaviors Among Urban Residents: The Role of Residential Location, Race, and Age. Leis. Sci.; 2002; 24, pp. 181-198. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01490400252900149]

22. Chiesura, A. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landsc. Urban Plan.; 2004; 68, pp. 129-138. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.003]

23. Özgüner, H. Cultural Differences in Attitudes towards Urban Parks and Green Spaces. Landsc. Res.; 2011; 36, pp. 599-620. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2011.560474]

24. Kothencz, G.; Blaschke, T. Urban parks: Visitors’ perceptions versus spatial indicators. Land Use Policy; 2017; 64, pp. 233-244. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.02.012]

25. Mak, B.K.; Jim, C. Linking park users’ socio-demographic characteristics and visit-related preferences to improve urban parks. Cities; 2019; 92, pp. 97-111. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.03.008]

26. Peschardt, K.K.; Schipperijn, J.; Stigsdotter, U.K. Use of Small Public Urban Green Spaces (SPUGS). Urban For. Urban Green.; 2012; 11, pp. 235-244. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2012.04.002]

27. MacIntyre, V.G.; Cotterill, S.; Anderson, J.; Phillipson, C.; Benton, J.S.; French, D.P. “I Would Never Come Here Because I’ve Got My Own Garden”: Older Adults’ Perceptions of Small Urban Green Spaces. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2019; 16, 1994. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16111994]

28. Seamon, D. Life Takes Place: Phenomenology, Lifeworlds, and Place Making; Routledge: London, UK, 2018.

29. Chiesi, L. Territoriality as Appropriation of Space. How “engaging with Space” Frames Sociality. Cultural Sustainability and Regional Development: Theories and Practices of Territorialisation; Dessein, J.; Battaglini, E.; Horlings, L. Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 146-161. ISBN 978-1-138-83008-0

30. Rapoport, A. The Meaning of the Built Environment: A Nonverbal Communication Approach; Sage Publications: Beverly Hills, CA, USA, 1982; ISBN 978-0-8039-1892-4

31. Lang, J. Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of the Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design; Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York, NY, USA, 1987; ISBN 978-0-442-25981-5

32. Gibson, J.J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception; Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA, USA, 1979.

33. Hall, E.T. The Hidden Dimension; Doubleday: New York, NY, USA, 1966.

34. Osmond, H. Function as the Basis of Psychiatric Ward Design. Psychiatr. Serv.; 1957; 8, pp. 23-27. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1176/ps.8.4.23]

35. Griffero, T. Atmosferologia: Estetica Degli Spazi Emozionali; Laterza: Bari, Italy, 2010; ISBN 88-420-9392-0

36. Nanay, B. Aesthetics as Philosophy of Perception; Oxford University Press: Oxford, NY, USA, 2016; ISBN 978-0-19-965844-2

37. Carlson, A. Aesthetics and the Environment: The Appreciation of Nature, Art, and Architecture; Routledge: London, UK, 2000; ISBN 0-415-20683-9

38. Brady, E. The Sublime in Modern Philosophy: Aesthetics, Ethics, and Nature; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2013; ISBN 978-0-521-19414-3

39. Dutton, D. The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, and Human Evolution; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2009; ISBN 0-19-953942-1

40. Brady, E.; Prior, J. Environmental aesthetics: A synthetic review. People Nat.; 2020; 2, pp. 254-266. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10089]

41. Eco, U. A Theory of Semiotics; Indiana University Press: Bloomington, IN, USA, 1976; ISBN 978-0-253-35955-1

42. Creswell, J.W.; Creswell, J.D. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches; SAGE: London, UK, 2017; ISBN 978-1-5063-8669-0

43. Marcus, C.C.; Francis, C. People Places: Design Guidelines for Urban Open Space; Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York, NY, USA, 1998; ISBN 978-0-442-02546-5

44. Comune di Firenze. Migranti. Le Cifre 2018; Comune di Firenze: Firenze, Italy, 2018.

45. Istat. Annuario Statistico Italiano—2020; Istat: Roma, Italy, 2020.

46. Jay, M.; Schraml, U. Diversity in mind: Towards a differentiated understanding of migrants’ recreational practices in urban forests. Urban For. Urban Green.; 2014; 13, pp. 38-47. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2013.10.001]

47. Knez, I.; Thorsson, S. Thermal, emotional and perceptual evaluations of a park: Cross-cultural and environmental attitude comparisons. Build. Environ.; 2008; 43, pp. 1483-1490. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2007.08.002]

48. Sanesi, G.; Chiarello, F. Residents and urban green spaces: The case of Bari. Urban For. Urban Green.; 2006; 4, pp. 125-134. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2005.12.001]

49. Iojă, C.I.; Rozylowicz, L.; Pătroescu, M.; Niţă, M.R.; Vânau, G.O. Dog walkers’ vs. other park visitors’ perceptions: The importance of planning sustainable urban parks in Bucharest, Romania. Landsc. Urban Plan.; 2011; 103, pp. 74-82. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.06.002]

50. Bertram, C.; Meyerhoff, J.; Rehdanz, K.; Wüstemann, H. Differences in the recreational value of urban parks between weekdays and weekends: A discrete choice analysis. Landsc. Urban Plan.; 2017; 159, pp. 5-14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.10.006]

51. Van Hoof, J.; Kazak, J.K.; Perek-Białas, J.M.; Peek, S.T.M. The challenges of urban ageing: Making cities age-friendly in Europe. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2018; 15, 2473. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15112473] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30714577]

52. Rotondi, V.; Stanca, L.; Tomasuolo, M. Connecting alone: Smartphone use, quality of social interactions and well-being. J. Econ. Psychol.; 2017; 63, pp. 17-26. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2017.09.001]

53. Kushlev, K.; Hunter, J.F.; Proulx, J.; Pressman, S.D.; Dunn, E. Smartphones reduce smiles between strangers. Comput. Hum. Behav.; 2019; 91, pp. 12-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.09.023]

54. Hampton, K.N.; Goulet, L.S.; Albanesius, G. Change in the social life of urban public spaces: The rise of mobile phones and women, and the decline of aloneness over 30 years. Urban Stud.; 2015; 52, pp. 1489-1504. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098014534905]

55. Kaplan, S. The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. J. Environ. Psychol.; 1995; 15, pp. 169-182. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2]

56. Bowring, F. Negative and Positive Freedom: Lessons from, and to, Sociology. Sociology; 2015; 49, pp. 156-171. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0038038514525291]

57. Kohn, M. Brave New Neighborhoods: The Privatization of Public Space; Routledge: London, UK, 2004; ISBN 978-0-415-94463-2

58. Madanipour, A.; Knierbein, S.; Degros, A. Public Space and the Challenges of Urban Transformation in Europe; Routledge: London, UK, 2013; ISBN 978-1-134-73824-3

59. Jacobs, J. The Death and Life of Great American Cities; Random House: New York, NY, USA, 1961.

60. Zukin, S. Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places; Illustrated ed. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2011; ISBN 978-0-19-979446-1

61. Gehl, J. Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space; 6th ed. Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2011; ISBN 978-1-59726-827-1

62. Veríssimo, M.; Moraes, M.; Breda, Z.; Guizi, A.; Costa, C. Overtourism and tourismphobia. Tourism; 2020; 68, pp. 156-169. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.37741/t.68.2.4]

63. Diaz-Parra, I.; Jover, J. Overtourism, place alienation and the right to the city: Insights from the historic centre of Seville, Spain. J. Sustain. Tour.; 2021; 29, pp. 158-175. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1717504]

64. Picascia, S.; Romano, A.; Teobaldi, M. The Airification of Cities. Making Sense of the Impact of Peer to Peer Short Term Letting on Urban Functions and Economy 2019. Proceedings of the Annual Congress of the Association of European Schools of Planning; Lisbon, Portugal, 11–14 July 2017.

65. Oskam, J.A. Commodification of the ‘Local’ in Urban Tourism: The Airbnb Contradiction. The Overtourism Debate; Oskam, J.A. Emerald: Bingley, UK, 2020; pp. 151-170. ISBN 978-1-83867-487-8

66. Colomb, C.; Novy, J. Protest and Resistance in the Tourist City; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; ISBN 978-1-138-34224-8

67. Martín Martín, J.M.; Guaita Martínez, J.M.; Salinas Fernández, J.A. An Analysis of the Factors behind the Citizen’s Attitude of Rejection towards Tourism in a Context of Overtourism and Economic Dependence on This Activity. Sustainability; 2018; 10, 2851. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10082851]

68. Loda, M.; Bonati, S.; Puttilli, M. History to eat. The foodification of the historic centre of Florence. Cities; 2020; 103, 102746. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102746]

69. Piccinno, G.; Lega, E. Spatial Design for New Typologies of Places: In-Between Urban Spaces. Space and Place: Diversity in Reality, Imagination, and Representation; Rogers, B.L.; Sugiyama, A. Brill: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 41-49. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1163/9781848881266_005]

70. Anderson, E.C.; Minor, E.S. Vacant lots: An underexplored resource for ecological and social benefits in cities. Urban For. Urban Green.; 2017; 21, pp. 146-152. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.11.015]

71. Pearsall, H.; Lucas, S. Vacant land: The new urban green?. Cities; 2014; 40, pp. 121-123. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2013.10.001]