Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32325854›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020

Providing Access to Urban Green Spaces: A Participatory Benefit-Cost Analysis in Spain.

Silvestre García de Jalón, Aline Chiabai, Alyvia Mc Tague, Naiara Artaza, Amaia de Ayala, Sonia Quiroga, Hanneke Kruize, Cristina Suárez, Ruth Bell, Timothy Taylor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Silvestre García de JalónBasque Centre for Climate Change (BC3), 48940 Leioa, Spain.
Aline ChiabaiBasque Centre for Climate Change (BC3), 48940 Leioa, Spain.
Alyvia Mc TagueBasque Centre for Climate Change (BC3), 48940 Leioa, Spain.
Naiara ArtazaBasque Centre for Climate Change (BC3), 48940 Leioa, Spain.
Amaia de AyalaBasque Centre for Climate Change (BC3), 48940 Leioa, Spain.
Sonia QuirogaDepartment of Economics, Universidad de Alcalá, 28801 Alcalá de Henares, Spain.
Hanneke KruizeNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Cristina SuárezDepartment of Economics, Universidad de Alcalá, 28801 Alcalá de Henares, Spain.
Ruth BellDepartment of Epidemiology & Public Health, University College London, London WC1E 7HB, UK.
Timothy TaylorEuropean Centre for Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter Medical School, Truro Campus, RCH Treliske, Truro TR1 3HD, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The opening up of green spaces could provide significant benefits to society. This study develops a framework to assess the economic benefits and costs of public interventions providing citizen access to urban green spaces. The Thinking Fadura project in Getxo (Spain) was used as a case study. A method for participatory benefit-cost analysis is developed, where a stakeholder-participatory evaluation is combined with a standard cost-benefit analysis. The participatory evaluation followed a bottom-up approach in a sequential evaluation including three main focal points: key stakeholders and experts, visitors and the general public. The assessment demonstrates that the Thinking Fadura project's benefits outweigh the costs. The results suggest that projects designed with the purpose of improving green space accessibility to the general public can be beneficial from a societal perspective. The highest economic benefits were an increase in the amenity and recreational value and an increase in people's physical activity. The participatory evaluation indicates that giving access to people of lower socio-economic status and vulnerable groups and improving recreational use were perceived as the most beneficial. An increase in noise, dirt, and risk of criminal activities as well as potential conflicts between green space users were perceived as the most negative impacts of opening a previously restricted area to the general public. The economic assessment of Thinking Fadura project could serve as a model in the decision-making process in locations where the use of greenspaces is restricted.

Indexed as

Environment DesignExerciseCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansSpaincost-benefit analysisgreen spaceparticipatory benefit-cost analysisparticipatory evaluation

Identifiers

PMID32325854
PMCPMC7216070

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.