74
J. A. R. Plata et al.
Green infrastructure quality integrates a wide spectrum of open spaces: natural
areas, woodlands, waterways, greenways, private and public lands, parks and other
open spaces. A green infrastructure network connects all these spaces in a system
of hubs, sites and links (Bendict and McMahon 2006) Hubs anchor green infrastructure network and may integrate strategic lands, ecosystems and landscapes for
the biodiversity conservation. Sites are smaller than hubs but also provide important
ecological and social functions. Links are key components to interconnect hubs and
sites and create a system. It can be realized that components of a green infrastructure network are not all green and that can vary in size and ownerships. Despite
the ecological and social potential of green infrastructure to provide environmental
services and to contribute to urban sustainability, it depends on the ecosystem quality
e integrity.
Urban sustainability is often reduced to the search for balance between the natural and built environments. However, the concept goes beyond the conservation
of nature and its availability to meet the current and future material needs of the
population. Urban sustainability implies to make the city livable, regardless of its
size (Lezama and Domínguez 2006), meaning the quality of a place to meet the
people’s needs and aspirations in the individual and collective spheres (Castro 1999
cited by Moreno 2008). Thus, the adaptation of the surrounding environment has
a purpose: to improve the quality of life. Pérez Maldonado (1999 cited by Moreno
2008) argues that the quality of urban life, which is an aspect of social welfare,
involves the feeling of biological and psychosocial comfort of those who inhabit and
live in the city, according to the degree of satisfaction in the use of services and the
perception of the urban space as healthy, safe and visually pleasing. The presence of
natural open spaces is therefore a conditioning factor of urban livability, resulting in
the improvement of the inhabitant’s quality of life and social welfare (Álcala 2007).
People perceptions about open natural spaces strive the conservation and planning of a green infrastructure network. Land can possess a network of parks, gardens,
water bodies or natural areas broad enough to be recognized by inhabitants. Some
people may appreciate that open spaces meet key functions for environment conservation and environment enhancement (e.g. provision of shade, contribution to clean
air, biodiversity refugee, increase places attractiveness). In opposite, to many people
open space simply refer not developed land without specific functions or dysfunctional spaces, where environmental problems and delinquency emerge (Busquets and
Cortina 2009). This condition can affect the provision of ecological benefits of green
infrastructure and be an obstacle for the enjoyment of social benefits.
J. A. R. Plata et al.
Green infrastructure quality integrates a wide spectrum of open spaces: natural
areas, woodlands, waterways, greenways, private and public lands, parks and other
open spaces. A green infrastructure network connects all these spaces in a system
of hubs, sites and links (Bendict and McMahon 2006) Hubs anchor green infrastructure network and may integrate strategic lands, ecosystems and landscapes for
the biodiversity conservation. Sites are smaller than hubs but also provide important
ecological and social functions. Links are key components to interconnect hubs and
sites and create a system. It can be realized that components of a green infrastructure network are not all green and that can vary in size and ownerships. Despite
the ecological and social potential of green infrastructure to provide environmental
services and to contribute to urban sustainability, it depends on the ecosystem quality
e integrity.
Urban sustainability is often reduced to the search for balance between the natural and built environments. However, the concept goes beyond the conservation
of nature and its availability to meet the current and future material needs of the
population. Urban sustainability implies to make the city livable, regardless of its
size (Lezama and Domínguez 2006), meaning the quality of a place to meet the
people’s needs and aspirations in the individual and collective spheres (Castro 1999
cited by Moreno 2008). Thus, the adaptation of the surrounding environment has
a purpose: to improve the quality of life. Pérez Maldonado (1999 cited by Moreno
2008) argues that the quality of urban life, which is an aspect of social welfare,
involves the feeling of biological and psychosocial comfort of those who inhabit and
live in the city, according to the degree of satisfaction in the use of services and the
perception of the urban space as healthy, safe and visually pleasing. The presence of
natural open spaces is therefore a conditioning factor of urban livability, resulting in
the improvement of the inhabitant’s quality of life and social welfare (Álcala 2007).
People perceptions about open natural spaces strive the conservation and planning of a green infrastructure network. Land can possess a network of parks, gardens,
water bodies or natural areas broad enough to be recognized by inhabitants. Some
people may appreciate that open spaces meet key functions for environment conservation and environment enhancement (e.g. provision of shade, contribution to clean
air, biodiversity refugee, increase places attractiveness). In opposite, to many people
open space simply refer not developed land without specific functions or dysfunctional spaces, where environmental problems and delinquency emerge (Busquets and
Cortina 2009). This condition can affect the provision of ecological benefits of green
infrastructure and be an obstacle for the enjoyment of social benefits.