# Urban green spaces in kara city (Togo): Typology and community expectations

Bawa Anissou, Palanga Koffi Kibalou, Atato Abalo, Toyou Donald, Kansiwoe Yawo, Polorigni Botolisa, Komlan Batawila

► To cite this version:

Bawa Anissou, Palanga Koffi Kibalou, Atato Abalo, Toyou Donald, Kansiwoe Yawo, et al.. Urban green spaces in kara city (Togo): Typology and community expectations. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 25 (1), pp.1488 - 1496. 10.30574/wjarr.2025.25.1.0097. hal-04972939

HAL Id: hal-04972939

https://hal.science/hal-04972939v1

Submitted on 2 Mar 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
(RESEARCH ARTICLE)

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Check for updates

Urban green spaces in kara city (Togo): Typology and community expectations

Anissou Bawa <fnref n="1" />,*, Koffi Kibalou Palanga <fnref n="1" />, Abalo Atato <fnref n="1" />, Donald Toyou <fnref n="1" />, Yawo Kansiwoe <fnref n="3" />, Botolisa Polorigni <fnref n="4" /> and Batawila Komlan <fnref n="2" />

World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 25(01), 1488-1496

Publication history: Received on 01 December 2024; revised on 16 January 2025; accepted on 19 January 2025

Article DOI: https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2025.25.1.0097

**Abstract**

Urban green spaces (UGS) are essential to ensure the quality of life and fulfillment of city dwellers. There is a growing interest in research investigating the association between green space and climate resilience in urban area. This study aims to inventory both formal and informal green spaces in Kara, the second-largest city in Togo, and to analyze the characteristics expected by the local population. The photo-interpretation method was used to find UGSs, using very high-resolution satellite images under Google Earth Pro software. For each UGS found, the surface areas were determined using GPS forms. The proportion of UGSs per habitant was established in comparison with the standard defined by the Word Health Organization (WHO). In additional, a survey from 373 informants was carried out the challenges of UGSs sustainability, including local community needs. The results show that Kara city has 39 green spaces, ranging in size from 0.1 hectares to 5.59 hectares. These are mainly building greens spaces (51.3%), natural and semi-natural areas (28.2%), trees lining the roads (17.9%), and parks and recreation (2.6%). Per capita green space calculated was 0.2 square meters. very low compared with the threshold of 10 square meters per inhabitant recommended by the WHO. Despite their small size, the green spaces in this town are still very important. Local community expected eight (08) challenges of UGS project, including accessibility, cleanliness and the availability of development infrastructures (safety, lighting, drinking fountains, walking routes, shaded areas and children's playgrounds). It is therefore important for municipal authorities to give much more attention to green spaces in future urban development plans.

**Keywords:** Urban green spaces; Community expectations; Climate resilience infrastructure; Togo

**1. Introduction**

Urban green space (UGS), such as parks, green corridors, and residential greenery, can provide multiple benefits for urban wellbeing (1–5). Multiple age groups visit UGSs. The well-being benefits gained and the ecosystem services of UGS include the provision of plant species that are useful as food or medicine, have been extensively documented (6–10). There is a growing interest in research investigating the association between green space and Climate resilience in urban area. In the African context, there is low prioritization of the conservation of UGS (11–14). In recent years, the loss of green spaces in urban area is a worrying problem that can have consequences for a number of ecosystem services.

Research founds that pressure from competing land uses is the primary force behind their loss in many cities globally. Bawa (2017) outline how individual housing policy of municipal governance can precipitate the losses in West Africa. Pressure against the conservation of UGS will be exacerbated by densification in cities, pollution and climate change (16–18). By 2050, an additional 950 million city-dwellers will be added to the 567 million people living in African urban

<footnote n="1">¹ Department of Sustainable Plant Protection, High Institute of Agricultural Professions, University of Kara, Kara, Togo.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Department of Botany and plant ecology, University of Lome, Togo.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Department of the Environment and Forest Resources, Kara, Togo.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Département of Urban wellbeing National Service, Ministry of Urban Development, Togo.</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author: Anissou Bawa</footnote>
agglomerations in 2015 (19). Thinking about more sustainable cities calls for the development of green areas, the management of which is often part of an urban forestry program. The sustainability of these UGSs depends on the needs of local populations being taken into account. Urban green spaces are becoming essential elements of modern urban planning.

Countering the loss of UGS requires effective policies and strong political will. In Togo, policy on green spaces is governed by two main pieces of legislation. These are the Constitution of the 4th Republic of 14 October 1992 and Law No. 2008-005 of 30 May 2008 on the environment (20). It is therefore part of sustainable development cities policies and strategies. But urban development in Togo is beyond the control of public authorities and planners, and green spaces are under-valued and subject to poor management. Planned green spaces are either not marked out on the ground due to high land pressure. Most of the research on green spaces in Togo focuses on Lome the national capital of Togo. Secondary towns, where densification is taking place, are overlooked. This study was to draw up an inventory of formal and informal green spaces and their characteristics expected by the local population in Kara where such studies remain scarce, the second largest city in Togo.

## 2. Material and methods

### 2.1. Study area

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1** Study area</figcaption></figure>
Kara is 411km north of Lome (Fig. 1). It has a total population of 193, 625 making it the most second populated city in Togo (21). It is located in the moist tropical semi-deciduous vegetation zone, which has favorable soil conditions that support farming and green vegetation. Rainfall averages 709.8mm. The population is mainly made up of indigenous people, notably the kabies and tems. There are also mobas, lossos, lambas, lougbas, ewes, tchambas, nagos and fulanis. Farming and livestock rearing are the main activities of these populations. These communities have initiate most of the green spaces of Kara but now they are losing the green spaces due to several human-induced activities. This made the communities suitable places for the study to know the diversity and the challenges of UGSs.

## 2.2. Data collection and analysis

The first step of this study was to find UGSs. It was determined by photo-interpretation employed statistic morphological approach, and using very high-resolution satellite images under Google earth Pro software. It is a reliable method for extracting urban agglomerations and UGSs (22–24). We used images taken at the end of the dry season and the beginning of the rainy season, when cultivated areas are clearly distinguishable from natural vegetation and built-up areas. Mapping was carried out at an altitude of 1000 meters above ground level. The classification of UGSs was based on the typology of green spaces, described by Rall et al. (2015); and Bougé (2009). For each UGS found, the surface area was determined using GPS forms. Per capita green space ($R_{UGS}$) was calculated according to the population data provided by the Statistical Center of Togo. It was established in comparison with the standard defined by the World Health Organization (WHO). The $R_{UGS}$ was calculated as follows $R_{UGS} = (Surface of green space found) / (Total population of the Town)$.

The second step was to carry out the challenges of UGSs found sustainability, including local community needs. This study uses a combination of quantitative and qualitative methodologies (27,28). Due to the lack of official data on the use of green spaces in the town of Kara, a large number of local residents were surveyed in order to ensure that the population of Kara was representative. The survey was conducted between 26 August 2024 and 25 November 2024, using semi-structured questionnaires. Informants were contacted at their place of work or on the outskirts of the green spaces. Their consent to take part in the survey was sought after explaining the purpose of the study (29,30). Information on the sociodemographic characteristics of informants, and the characteristics of the green spaces expected by informants was collected. The data analysis focuses on the frequency of citations (Fr). The Fr was calculated as follows: $Fr = (Number of times a particular characteristic of UGS was mentioned)/(total number of characteristic mentioned)×100$.

# 3. Results and discussion

## 3.1. Diversity and typology of UGSs in Kara city

In total, thirty-nine (39) UGSs, ranging in size from 0.1 hectares to 5.59 hectares, were identified and mapped (Fig. 2). The calculated green space per capita is 0.2 square meters, which is very low compared with the threshold of 10 square meters per capita recommended by the WHO. This ratio is also lower than that of the city of Lome, the capital of Togo (0.75 square meters) (20). It is similar to the value calculated for the cities of Ouida (0.27 square meters) and Porto-Novo (0.18 square meters). The supply of urban green space in Kara is better than in Cotonou (0.12 square meters), Abomey-Calavi (0.06 square meters) and Sèmè (0.06 square meters) in Benin (31). Financial constraints, land ownership, political interference and ineffective park management have been identified as reasons for the scarcity of green spaces in southern countries (32). It is therefore important that urban authorities pay greater attention to green spaces, taking into account the needs and expectations of local populations.

With respect to Rall and al. (2015); and Bougé's typology (2009), these inventoried UGSs are grouped into four categories (Table 1). These are mainly: **A** - building greens spaces (51.3%), **B** - Natural and semi-natural areas (28.2%), **C**-Trees lining the roads (17.9%), and **D** - Parks and recreation (2.6%). The inventory includes green and partially green spaces. Agricultural land, Blue spaces (water, wetlands) and grey spaces (rocks) were not taken into account in the study. In total, 04 categories of green space are identified in this study. This categorization is not a typology in the strict sense and other ways of grouping green spaces are possible and legitimate. Other structuring possibilities could include spatial complexity, social function, quantity and quality of ecosystem services (12,33,34). The diversity of green spaces is a rich and varied field of study, which crystallises the multiple and complex issues underlying the relationship between man and nature in urban areas.
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2** Distribution of green spaces in the city of Kara (Togo)</figcaption></figure>

<table><caption>**Table 1** The categories of the UGS inventory with a description and photos of examples</caption><thead><tr><td>Categoriedes</td><td>Description</td><td>Photos of exemples</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>building greenspaces</td><td>Green spaces accompanying buildings including green balconies, ground-level plant walls, facade plant walls, hedge, house garden, green playground, school ground</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>Natural, semi-natural areas</td><td>Riverbank green, forest (remnant wood-land, managed forests, mixed forms), shrubland, abandoned spaces</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Trees lining the roads</td><td>Street green and green verge, Roadside verges, roundabouts, tree rings, informal trails</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Parks and recreation</td><td>Large urban park, historical park/garden, pocket park, institutional green space, green sport facility</td><td></td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

## 3.2. Challenges of UGSs sustainability

The challenges in this study is to provide information for the proper planning, design and development of urban green spaces that meet users' needs.

### 3.2.1. Sociodemographic characteristics of informants

A total of 373 informants were surveyed (Table 2). The sex ratio was 0.52. Most were men (65.7%). Women were under-represented (34.3%). The majority were young under 30 years of age (78%) and adults (12.6%). Older people aged over 61 (9.4%) were also included. Most of them are indigenous (68.1%) and married (59.9%) or single (38.2%). There are a large proportion of informants who have not attended school (34.8%) and others who have reached secondary school (16.9%) and university (30.4%). They are mostly employees (64.3%) and students (63%), who visit green spaces daily (10.1%), or 2 to 5 times a week (53.1%), or 1 time per week (21.7%) to recreate, walk, etc. These characteristics show a sample where all users are represented regardless of gender, age, marital status, level of education, professional status, ethnic groups or frequency of visits. This may not influence the results in terms of preferences and expectations (35,36).
<table><caption>**Table 2** Socio-demographic characteristics of informants</caption><thead><tr><td>Sociodemographic characteristics</td><td>Number (%)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Gender</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>245 (65.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>128 (34.3)</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Young (≤ 35 years old)</td><td>291 (78)</td></tr><tr><td>Adults (>35 and < 60)</td><td>47 (12.6)</td></tr><tr><td>Old (≥ 60)</td><td>35 (9.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Marital status</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Single</td><td>142 (38.2)</td></tr><tr><td>Married</td><td>223 (59.9)</td></tr><tr><td>Divorced / separated</td><td>7 (1.9)</td></tr><tr><td>Educational level</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Uneducated</td><td>130 (34.8)</td></tr><tr><td>Primary school</td><td>67 (17.9)</td></tr><tr><td>High school</td><td>63 (16.9)</td></tr><tr><td>University</td><td>113 (30.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Jobs status</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Employed</td><td>240 (64.3)</td></tr><tr><td>Unemployed</td><td>43 (11.6)</td></tr><tr><td>Student</td><td>63 (16.9)</td></tr><tr><td>Retired</td><td>27 (7.2)</td></tr><tr><td>Ethnic groups</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Indigenous</td><td>254 (68.1)</td></tr><tr><td>Non indigenous</td><td>119 (31.9)</td></tr><tr><td>Visit frequency (per week)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>never (0)</td><td>56 (15.0)</td></tr><tr><td>Rarely (1)</td><td>81 (21.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Frequent (2 to 5)</td><td>198 (53.1)</td></tr><tr><td>Daily (7)</td><td>38 (10.1)</td></tr></tbody></table>

**3.3. Local population's expectations of urban green spaces**

The results show that expectations mainly relate to the comfort, safety and functionality of the spaces. Eight (08) expectations were expressed by the respondents (Table 3). In order of importance, they included cleanliness (70.2%), lighting (59.9%), the availability of a water source (57.3%), a shaded rest area (57.3%), a walking path (55.1%), and children's play areas (48.1%). Respondents also mentioned the need for security guards (48.7%) and easier accessibility (38.4%). Several studies corroborate our findings on expectations in terms of urban green spaces. In Brazil and China, urban populations favour green spaces for cleanliness, accessibility, and rest areas (37,38). In Burkina Faso, research on green spaces highlights the importance of facilities such as water points and security, particularly in Ouagadougou (39,40). These studies, although conducted in a variety of contexts, highlight universal needs for a better quality of life
in urban areas (41,42). Differences emerge, particularly in studies of highly urbanized contexts, such as the United States and Europe. The results show that aesthetics, identity and cultural activities dominate the expectations of people in these regions, unlike the city of Kara, where cleanliness and lighting are priorities (43–45). These disparities can be explained by cultural, economic and environmental differences specific to each region.

<table><caption>**Table 3** Frequency of people's expectation of UGs</caption><thead><tr><td>Characteristics of green spaces</td><td>Frequency, N (%)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Cleanliness</td><td>262 (70,2)</td></tr><tr><td>Lighting</td><td>223 (59,9)</td></tr><tr><td>drinking fountains</td><td>214 (57,3)</td></tr><tr><td>Shaded rest area</td><td>214 (57,3)</td></tr><tr><td>Walking routes</td><td>206 (55,1)</td></tr><tr><td>Safety</td><td>182 (48,7)</td></tr><tr><td>children's playgrounds</td><td>180 (48,1)</td></tr><tr><td>Accessibility</td><td>143 (38,4)</td></tr></tbody></table>

This study differs from others in that it focuses on Kara, a secondary city in sub-Saharan Africa, where studies on green spaces are still rare. It thus offers a unique perspective on a little-documented region that is facing multiple problems such as climate change, population densification and food security. It is helping to provide concrete data on the specific expectations of the inhabitants of the city of Kara, encouraging the creation of suitable green spaces. The results can guide decision-makers towards inclusive and sustainable projects.

## 4. Conclusion

This study inventoried 39 urban green spaces (UGS) in the town of Kara (Togo), categorizing them into four distinct types. The most prevalent category comprises green spaces associated with buildings, such as green balconies, ground-level plant walls, facade plant walls, hedges, house gardens, and green playgrounds. Moreover, the findings reveal that local populations place significant importance on eight key attributes of UGS: cleanliness, lighting, drinking fountains, and shaded rest areas, walking routes, safety, and children's playgrounds. These insights highlight the critical need for municipal authorities to integrate UGS as a priority in urban development plans. By addressing the identified challenges and aligning UGS designs with community expectations, decision-makers can create a more resilient and livable urban environment. Furthermore, the results offer valuable guidance for ensuring the long-term sustainability of green space projects by focusing on user-centric designs. Future research should investigate the broader impacts of UGS on community health and well-being, particularly in the context of climate change. Additionally, exploring innovative strategies for enhancing the ecological and social sustainability of UGS will be essential for fostering urban resilience in the years to come.

## Compliance with ethical standards

### Acknowledgments

This study was carried out with the technical support of National Sanitation and Public Health Agency of Togo (ANASAP TOGO)

### Disclosure of conflict of interest

No conflict of interest to be disclosed.

## References

[1] Reyes-Riveros R, Altamirano A, De La Barrera F, Rozas-Vásquez D, Vieli L, Meli P. Linking public urban green spaces and human well-being: A systematic review. Urban For Urban Green. 2021, 61:127105.
[2] Pinto LV, Inácio M, Ferreira CSS, Ferreira AD, Pereira P. Ecosystem services and well-being dimensions related to urban green spaces—A systematic review. Sustain Cities Soc. 2022, 85:104072.

[3] Zhang Y, Mavoa S, Zhao J, Raphael D, Smith M. The association between green space and adolescents' mental well-being: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020, 17(18):6640.

[4] Enssle F, Kabisch N. Urban green spaces for the social interaction, health and well-being of older people—An integrated view of urban ecosystem services and socio-environmental justice. Environ Sci Policy. 2020, 109:36-44.

[5] Rigolon A, Browning MH, McAnirlin O, Yoon H. Green space and health equity: a systematic review on the potential of green space to reduce health disparities. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021, 18(5):2563.

[6] Giannico V, Spano G, Elia M, D'Este M, Sanesi G, Lafortezza R. Green spaces, quality of life, and citizen perception in European cities. Environ Res. 2021, 196:110922.

[7] Heidt V, Neef M. Benefits of urban green space for improving urban climate. In: Ecology, planning, and management of urban forests: International perspectives. Springer, 2008. p. 84-96.

[8] Zhou X, Parves Rana M. Social benefits of urban green space: A conceptual framework of valuation and accessibility measurements. Manag Environ Qual Int J. 2012, 23(2):173-89.

[9] Wolch JR, Byrne J, Newell JP. Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities “just green enough.”Landsc Urban Plan. 2014, 125:234-44.

[10] Wendel HEW, Zarger RK, Mihelcic JR. Accessibility and usability: Green space preferences, perceptions, and barriers in a rapidly urbanizing city in Latin America. Landsc Urban Plan. 2012, 107(3):272-82.

[11] Makworo M, Mireri C. Public open spaces in Nairobi City, Kenya, under threat. J Environ Plan Manag. 2011, 54(8):1107-23.

[12] Mensah CA. Urban green spaces in Africa: Nature and challenges. Int J Ecosyst. 2014, 4(1):1-11.

[13] Wessels N, Sitas N, Esler KJ, O'Farrell P. Understanding community perceptions of a natural open space system for urban conservation and stewardship in a metropolitan city in Africa. Environ Conserv. 2021, 48(4):244-54.

[14] Poynton J, Roberts D. Urban open space planning in South Africa: A biogeographical perspective. South Afr J Sci. 1985, 81(1):33-7.

[15] Bawa A. Mutation des périphéries urbaines au Sud du Togo : des espaces ruraux à l'épreuve du peuplement et de la marchandisation des terres [Thèse de Doctorat en Ecologie des Communautés]. [Territoires Environnement Télédétection et Information Spatiale, Cirad, Montpellier, France]: Université Montpellier, 2017.

[16] Roy M, Shemdoe R, Hulme D, Mwageni N, Gough A. Climate change and declining levels of green structures: Life in informal settlements of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Landsc Urban Plan. 2018, 180:282-93.

[17] Atator LT, Kamou H, Bawa A, Agbodan KML, Polo AA, Akpavi SB, et al. Determination of Air Pollutant Concentrations in Plant Species in Relation to Pollution Sources. 2021,

[18] Moriconi-Ebrard F, San Emeterio JL, Chatel C, Gazel H, Bawa A. Estudio de las dinámicas de urbanización en África a partir de la base Geopolis. Rev Demogr Histórica. 2022, 39(III):121-44.

[19] Sahel, West Africa Club. Cahiers de l'Afrique de l'Ouest Dynamiques de l'urbanisation africaine 2020 Africapolis, une nouvelle géographie urbaine. OECD Publishing, 2020.

[20] Polorigni B, Radji R, Kokou K. Perceptions, tendances et préférences en foresterie urbaine: Cas de la ville de Lomé au Togo. Eur Sci J [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2015 Dec 2], 10(5). Available from: http://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/view/2724

[21] INSEED. 5ème Récenssement Général de la population et de l'habitat (RGPH-5). Lomé, Togo: Ministère de la Planification du Développement et de la Coopération, 2022.

[22] San Emeterio JL, Mering C. Mapping of African urban settlements using Google Earth images. Int J Remote Sens. 2021 Jul 3, 42(13):4882-97.

[23] Moriconi-Ebrard F, Perez J. An Urban World. Glob Settl Dyn People Inhabit World. 2024, 63-103.

[24] Shahtahmassebi AR, Li C, Fan Y, Wu Y, Gan M, Wang K, et al. Remote sensing of urban green spaces: A review. Urban For Urban Green. 2021, 57:126946.
[25] Rall L, Niemela J, Pauleit S, Pintar M, Lafortezza R, Santos A, et al. A typology of urban green spaces, eco-system services provisioning services and demands. Rep D3. 2015, 1.

[26] Bougé F. Caractérisation des espaces verts publics en fonction de leur place dans le gradient urbain rural. 2009,

[27] Del Mar Rueda M, Cobo B, Rueda-Sánchez JL, Ferri-García R, Castro-Martín L. Kernel Weighting for blending probability and non-probability survey samples. SORT-Stat Oper Res Trans. 2024, 93-124.

[28] Borgstede M, Scholz M. Quantitative and qualitative approaches to generalization and replication-A representationalist view. Front Psychol. 2021, 12:605191.

[29] Uprety Y. Diversity of use and local knowleage of wild edible plant ressources in nepal. J Ethnobiol. 2012, (8):16.

[30] Atakpama W, Adoko SA, Batawila KA, Atakpama W. Plantes et prise en charge de la santé maternelle dans la région Maritime du Togo Plants and mother's healthcare in the Maritime Region of Togo. Ann Afr Med. 2021, 14(3):e4196.

[31] Amontcha AAM, Djego JG, Lougbegnon TO, Sinsin BA. Typologie et répartition des espaces verts publics dans le grand Nokoué (Sud Bénin). Eur Sci J. 2017, 13(21):79-97.

[32] Amegah AK, Yeboah K, Owusu V, Afriyie L, Kyere-Gyeabour E, Appiah DC, et al. Socio-demographic and neighbourhood factors influencing urban green space use and development at home: A population-based survey in Accra, Ghana. Plos One. 2023, 18(6):e0286332.

[33] Cilliers S, Cilliers J, Lubbe R, Siebert S. Ecosystem services of urban green spaces in African countries—perspectives and challenges. Urban Ecosyst. 2013, 16:681-702.

[34] Ward CD, Parker CM, Shackleton CM. The use and appreciation of botanical gardens as urban green spaces in South Africa. Urban For Urban Green. 2010, 9(1):49-55.

[35] Sang ÅO, Knez I, Gunnarsson B, Hedblom M. The effects of naturalness, gender, and age on how urban green space is perceived and used. Urban For Urban Green. 2016, 18:268-76.

[36] Schipperijn J, Ekholm O, Stigsdotter UK, Toftager M, Bentsen P, Kamper-Jørgensen F, et al. Factors influencing the use of green space: Results from a Danish national representative survey. Landsc Urban Plan. 2010, 95(3):130-7.

[37] Jim CY, Chen WY. Perception and attitude of residents toward urban green spaces in Guangzhou (China). Environ Manage. 2006, 38:338-49.

[38] Vargas-Hernández JG, Pallagst K, Zdunek-Wielgołaska J. Urban green spaces as a component of an ecosystem. In: Sustainable development and environmental stewardship: Global initiatives towards engaged sustainability. Springer, 2023. p. 165-98.

[39] Lindley S, Pauleit S, Yeshitela K, Cilliers S, Shackleton C. Rethinking urban green infrastructure and ecosystem services from the perspective of sub-Saharan African cities. Landsc Urban Plan. 2018, 180:328-38.

[40] Du Toit MJ, Cilliers SS, Dallimer M, Goddard M, Guenat S, Cornelius SF. Urban green infrastructure and ecosystem services in sub-Saharan Africa. Landsc Urban Plan. 2018, 180:249-61.

[41] Braće O, Garrido-Cumbrera M, Correa-Fernández J. Gender differences in the perceptions of green spaces characteristics. Soc Sci Q. 2021, 102(6):2640-8.

[42] Reece R, Elliott L, Bray I, Bornioli A. How properties of urban green spaces shape well-being across age groups: A qualitative study. Wellbeing Space Soc. 2024, 100206.

[43] Dickinson DC, Hobbs RJ. Cultural ecosystem services: Characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research. Ecosyst Serv. 2017, 25:179-94.

[44] Ko H, Son Y. Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services in urban green spaces: A case study in Gwacheon, Republic of Korea. Ecol Indic. 2018, 91:299-306.

[45] Özgüner H. Cultural differences in attitudes towards urban parks and green spaces. Landsc Res. 2011, 36(5):599-620.