Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36061218›Full record

ArticleHabitat international2022

Use and design of public green spaces in Serbian cities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ilija Gubić, Manuel Wolff

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Habitat international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

2 authors.

Ilija GubićUniversity of Belgrade - Faculty of Architecture, Belgrade, Serbia.
Manuel WolffDepartment of Geography, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since December 2019, the global community has been challenged by managing the COVID-19 health crisis. Some governments have restricted the use of public green spaces (PGS), as part of measures for limiting the spread of the virus. Although many scholars studied the changing perception of using PGS during the pandemic, the extent to which the planning and design of new PGS recognize new realities and lessons learned from the ongoing pandemic including requirements for social distancing is less illuminated. Against this background, this article seeks to assess the intersection between the institutional responsibility in planning, designing and managing PSG, and the corresponding perception by PGS users in the two Serbian cities Belgrade and Novi Sad during the ongoing pandemic. Therefore, the paper surveyed 400 respondents about their perception of introduced measures and physical settings of PGS including their specific suggestions concerning which features, if included, would help them remain vigilant during a pandemic. The findings suggest that people have very clear and diverse ideas about the planning, design and management of PGS during a health crisis adapted to their individual needs but also beneficial to the whole local community. In reviewing public green space design competition calls and results published from 2019 to 2021, this study finds that the global lessons learned about the use of public green spaces during the pandemic were not considered by local governments and professionals in Serbia when planning and designing them. In addition, residents are less likely to request changing ways of implementing, designing or managing PGS from their local government. These two aspects are striking in successfully shaping and managing PGS as a crucial resource in cities and communities bouncing back after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Indexed as

Citizen perceptionsCOVID-19Movement restrictionsPublic green spaceUrban designUrban greening

Identifiers

PMID36061218
PMCPMC9420699

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.