| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | AA | AB | AC | AD | AE | AF | AG | AH | AI | AJ | AK | AL | AM | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Table S3. Multi-criteria data extraction matrix | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Code | Descriptive parameters | Theoretical codes | Methodological codes | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | Authors | Article title | DOI | Year | Country or study region | Type or strategy of participation promoted | Theoretical approaches to urban resilience | Unit of analysis (Type of green public space) | Scale of incidence | Objetive | Main results | Applied methodology | Nature of the intervention | Predominant dimensions (priority/secondary) and sub-dimensions of urban resilience, according to the SGPENVE Framework (social, governance, physical, environmental, economic) | Predominant urban resilience subdimensions used | Indicators of urban participation and resilience used | Types of urban participation and resilience instruments applied | Nature of the instrument | Relevant item or question | Measuring scale | Availability of the instrument | ||||||||||||||||||
5 | Subdimension 1 | Subdimension 2 | Subdimension 3 | Subdimension 4 | Subdimension 5 | Indicator 1 | Indicator 2 | Indicator 3 | Indicator 4 | Indicator 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | A1 | Chilaule, R. & Mottelson, J.; et. al. | Informal infrastructure provision: Self-organized street paving in Maputo, Mozambique | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2025.103405 | 2025 | Maputo, Mozambique | Community self-organization and self-management | Community self-organization | Community and Adaptive Resilience | Pocket park | Public space in front of the plot | Neighborhood | Neighborhood | Analyze informal and community infrastructure | Informally paved streets recently emerged in the Maxaquene settlement and expanded to cover 11.7 % of public space over a three-year period. Residents organize and coordinate the financing and implementation of paving to reduce erosion risks and property damage, with minimal state intervention. Residents perceive the public space in front of their plots as a legitimate extension of private property and feel authorized to invest in its development. Authorities recognize the need for infrastructure but view it as a temporary solution and a potential lapse in state responsibility. A conceptual distinction exists between centralized infrastructure (e.g., electricity) and decentralized/internal developments (e.g., paved streets). Technical challenges include variations in paving quality and post-implementation issues. Recommendations: standardize designs, promote pooled financing, and improve coordination to prevent future problems given likely ongoing lack of state commitment. | Qualitative | Semi-structured interviews: to capture perceptions, motivations, coordination mechanisms among residents, and the attitudes of authorities toward these self-managed initiatives. Geospatial surveys: to quantify the expansion of paving stones in public spaces; they documented that, over a three-year period, paving stones covered approximately 11.7% of public spaces. Photographic documentation: to complement the quantitative data and provide visual evidence of paving stone quality, the settlement context, and self-construction processes. | Participatory project | SOCIAL Citizen participation | S2 | SOCIAL Risk Management | S5 | Social and infrastructure Resilience is conceptualized as the ability of communities to self-organize and provide basic infrastructure, facing urban challenges without formal institutional support. | Accessibility | Environmental quality | Security | Infrastructure and equipment | Citizen participation | distance and ease of access to the green space. | cleaning, maintenance, biodiversity. | Perception of security, lighting. | Availability and quality of furniture, games, bathrooms. | Opportunities to get involved in space management. | Semi-structured interview, Photographic observation, GIS-based mixed methodology | Quantitative and Qualitative | Closed questions: "How satisfied are you with… [variable]?" Open question: "What suggestions do you have for improving this space? | Nominal (categories without order, e.g. gender, park type)", "Ordinal (categories with order, e.g. frequency of use: never, sometimes, always) | ||
7 | A2 | Alméstar, M. & Romero-Muñoz, S. | (Re)designing the Rules: Collaborative Planning and Institutional Innovation in Schoolyard Transformations in Madrid | https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/6/1174 | 2025 | Madrid, España | Multi-actor co-management and co-design | Multi-actor co-management: students, teachers, community, municipal technicians | Comprehensive and Participatory Urban Resilience | Green schoolyards | Schoolyards transformed into community green spaces | Neighborhood | Neighborhood–local (San Cristóbal de los Ángeles, district of Villaverde) | Analyze how collaborative planning and actor networks transform institutional arrangements in schoolyards | Institutional reconfiguration without regulatory reform; expansion of actors; co-production; emergence of deliberative dynamics. | Qualitative | Qualitative case study + IAD (Institutional and Development Analysis) framework + observation + interviews + documentary analysis. Participatory transformation of school spaces into green and resilient infrastructure. | Case study | SOCIAL Cooperation and alliances | S1 | GOVERNANCE Cooperation and alliances (Neighborhood promoters) | G1 | Institutional, social and climatic (network strengthening, regulatory flexibility, thermal adaptation) | Citizen participation | Sense of belonging/affection | Social cohesion | Frequency of use | Perceived health | Collective activities | Emotional connection with the park | Meetings with neighbors | Use of the park as a relational space | Impact on physical and mental well-being | Semi-structured interview | Qualitative/Quant. | Have you ever participated in community activities related to the park? How important is this park to your daily life or memory of the neighborhood? Do you often meet neighbors or acquaintances in this park? How often do you use the nearest park? Do you feel the park contributes to your physical and mental well-being? | "Nominal (categories without order, e.g. gender, park type)", Open (free text), Coded (whether classified as positive/negative/neutral), "Ordinal (categories with order, e.g. frequency of use: never, sometimes, always)" | ||
8 | A3 | Fernandez-Salido, N.; et. al. | Cultivating Bonds: On Urban Allotment Gardens and Their Relationship with Social Capital | https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15101048 | 2025 | Valencia, España | Multi-actor co-management and co-design | Community co-management: active participation, self-management, decision-making in assemblies, shared management with neighborhood networks and institutional actors | Social and Participatory Resilience. | Urban gardens | Urban allotment gardens. | Metropolitan | Urban and metropolitan (FUA of Valencia) | Analyze how urban gardens in Valencia contribute to the generation and reproduction of local social capital through sustained participatory processes and community governance | Urban gardens function as relational infrastructures that promote social cohesion, inclusive and intergenerational participation. They reinforce pre-existing social ties and create new reciprocity bonds. Tensions exist between their inclusive potential and risks of exclusion/gentrification. Positive impacts on older adults include sense of purpose and combating loneliness. A bidirectional governance model between community and public administration is proposed. | Qualitative | Qualitative: 15 in-depth interviews with key stakeholders with experience in managing, promoting, and studying urban gardens. Thematic analysis of three dimensions: organizational objectives, components of social capital, and governance models. Observational, based on empirical experiences with existing gardens in Valencia (not experimental). Active, sustained, and institutionalized participation by social stakeholders. | Case study | SOCIAL Cooperation and alliances | S1 | GOVERNANCE Cooperation and alliances (Neighborhood promoters) | G1 | Social (strengthening social capital, bonds of trust, belonging, collaborative networks) Institutional (participatory governance and sustained collaborative models) | Social networks | Sense of belonging | Security | Reciprocity | Shared values | -Generation of red -Barriers to inclusion (prejudice, mistrust) | -Recovery of territorial ties -Migrant belonging -Diversity in belonging | -Food safety -Social security and accessibility -Physical insecurity (theft, vandalism) | -Mutual aid collaboration -Cultural references to reciprocity (tornallom, proverbs) | -Solidarity -Respect -Empathy -Mutual support | Semi-structured interview, In-depth interview | Qualitative data Narratives and testimonies Lived experiences Subjective perceptions | Not Specified | Without numerical scales | ||
9 | A4 | Mitić, A; et.al | Multi-Level Perspective on Sustainability Transition towards Nature-Based Solutions and Co-Creation in Urban Planning of Belgrade, Serbia | https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147576 | 2021 | Serbia | Multi-actor co-management and co-design | Active Citizen Participation in Urban Planning. Collaborative participation through co-creation, including: Co-design with citizens Participatory workshops Interactive digital platform Participatory design competitions Public–private–community partnerships | Participatory Urban Resilience | Nature-based solutions (NbS) | Urban green and blue public spaces (squares, parks, green corridors, coastal areas, etc. | Intermediate city | Belgrade, although it is the capital of Serbia, in the European context it is considered an intermediate city in processes of urban sustainability according to usual territorial scale classifications in urban studies | Explore how different approaches to urban planning (one participatory, another conflictive) can contribute to a sustainable transition toward the co-creation of nature-based solutions (NbS) in urban contexts, using the multi-level perspective (MLP) framework | Linear Park case represents a niche innovation in co-created urban planning. Avala Film Complex case showed intense civic resistance against urban forest destruction. Need for informal instruments was identified to foster effective co-creation and citizen participation. Belgrade process demonstrates potential for transition to sustainability through nature-based solutions (NbS). | Qualitative | Type of study: Multiple case study Approach: Exploratory and participant observation Instruments: Document review (urban plans, public records) Direct observation and participation in community processes Open-ended questionnaires Participatory mapping Focus groups Community workshops Collaborative digital platform (BELLAB)" | Case study | SOCIAL Cooperation and alliances | S1 | GOVERNANCE Cooperation and alliances (Government agents) | G2 | Social (participatory) citizen participation in all stages of NBS development: in its planning, design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. | Citizen participation | Citizen participation | institutional trust | Citizen satisfaction | Not applicable | Presence of participatory processes in planning. | Level of citizen participation in decisions | Trust in local governments to represent citizens' interests | Level of satisfaction with urban planning | Not applicable | Mixed methodology based on GIS | -Qualitative (presence/absence) -Qualitative (low/medium/high) -Qualitative (perception) -Qualitative (ordinal) | They did not use surveys, but rather a mixed methodology based on GIS (Geographic Information System), documentary analysis, and public policy review. | "Nominal (categories without order, e.g. gender, park type)", "Ordinal (categories with order, e.g. frequency of use: never, sometimes, always)", Open (free text) | ||
10 | A5 | Aristyowati A.; et. al. | An investigation of socio-spatial equality in blue-green space at the Setu Babakan Area, Jakarta | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cacint.2023.100137 | 2024 | Jagakarsa, South Jakarta - Parque Setu Babakan | Active and collaborative non-institutionalized participation | Community participation | Socio-ecological and Community Resilience | Cultural park | Cultural park | Town | Town | This study aims to holistically capture the complexities surrounding the use of blue-green spaces in Setu Babakan from the perspectives of visitors, street vendors, and government policies | The study found that both visitors and street vendors emphasized the need for equitable access to this vital public service. Factors such as accessibility and the population density of vendors within the neighborhood complicate the pursuit of socio-spatial equity. The presence of six distinct types of warungs or street vendor stalls, which spontaneously emerge in the transitional zones between blue-green public spaces and private community lands, highlights the challenge for local government in developing policies that achieve legally and inclusively equitable socio-spatial outcomes. This study suggests that Setu Babakan embodies a unique convergence of cultural, social, and environmental values, providing a model of how multifunctional public spaces can meet diverse urban needs while promoting community well-being. Accordingly, regulatory clarity is needed, recommending the implementation of formalized guidelines such as temporary permits or designated zones to harmonize the conflicting demands of the informal economy and environmental sustainability. | Mixed | Mixed-use approach. To assess the relationship between public urban green spaces and human well-being, the study focused primarily on the perceptions of green space users. Observations focused on interactions between individual and group visitors, aiming to provide an in-depth understanding of the logic behind how activity space programs are replicated within Jakarta's blue-green spaces. A cultural park belonging to the Betawi people, called Setu Babakan, was chosen as a case study. | Case study | SOCIAL Social cohesion | S4 | ENVIRONMENTAL Biodiversity and ecosystem services | EN1 | Social (community) | Citizen participation | Social interaction | Sense of community | Social inclusion | Perceived security | Participation in community activities or decision-making related to public space. | Frequency of interaction with other people in the green space. | Perception of belonging or ties with other users of the space. | Accessibility and appropriation of space by various groups. | Level of perceived security when using the space. | Structured Interviews | Qualitative/Quant. | Have you participated in organized activities at your local park or green space? How often do you talk to other people when you visit the park? Do you feel part of a community when you're in the park? Do you think the park is designed to be used by people of all ages and abilities? Do you feel safe in the park during the day and at night? | "Nominal (categories without order, e.g. gender, park type)", "Ordinal (categories with order, e.g. frequency of use: never, sometimes, always)", Open (free text) | ||
11 | A6 | Bolleter, J.; et. al. | Density my way: Community attitudes to neighbourhood densification scenarios | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104596 | 2024 | Australia Occidental, barrios hipotéticos | Active and collaborative non-institutionalized participation | Community participation | Socio-ecological and Participatory Resilience | Urban green infrastructure | Around a bus station, along a highway, parks and backyards | Neighborhood | Neighborhood | Understand which types of urban densification with TOD (Transit-Oriented Development) are useful for communities and how the perception or benefit of these models changes according to demographic characteristics | This study is the first to capture the sentiment of the Australian community in evaluating urban densification models, based on planning theories, at the neighborhood scale under a hypothetical baseline scenario. To a large extent, this hypothetical site avoids focusing on local concerns, such as vested interests associated with land ownership. Therefore, it could be argued that the findings provide a more accurate assessment of collective attitudes toward urban densification than those obtained through conventional community participation around specific densification projects. The document reveals general community support for precinct-scale densification approaches and opposition to scattered infill, despite some contrary assumptions by the local government. Indeed, this finding has significant implications for urban densification policy. Policies allowing ad hoc infill should be stricter to generate momentum behind proactive, precinct-led densification strategies, such as TOD (Transit-Oriented Development) and GOD (Green-Space Oriented Development). It is imperative that this occurs soon, as large TOD and GOD projects can take many years, even decades, from initiation to completion. The findings also provide some assurance of community support for densification in general and for established TOD precinct models in particular, representing a rare alignment between the orthodoxy of urban densification planning and community sentiment. Therefore, the results support precinct-scale approaches promoted in emerging urban densification policies, such as the new Western Australia Precinct Design Guidelines. Furthermore, the document reveals that resistance to urban densification tends to come from a small, often vocal minority, while the majority quietly supports it. This result has implications for how planners engage with communities and goes beyond what has been pejoratively labeled as the “squeaky wheels.” | Quantitative | The survey was developed using the online SurveyMonkey® (2021) tool to identify and unravel community preferences for neighborhood-scale urban densification scenarios. The survey consisted of two sections. The first introductory section addressed respondents' general attitudes toward urban densification in their city and neighborhood. Participants were asked: Do you think population growth should be accommodated through 1) new suburban development on the city fringes or 2) urban densification in existing neighborhoods? | Case study | SOCIAL Citizen participation | S2 | ENVIRONMENTAL Biodiversity and ecosystem services | EN1 | Social (demographic factors), environmental (urban consolidation factors) | Attitudes at the city (metropolitan) level | Attitudes at the neighborhood level | Preferences for densification typologies | Urban infrastructure | Public Services | Preference for growth in suburbs over growth in existing neighborhoods | 2.1 Support or rejection of densification in your own neighborhood 2.2 Reasons for supporting densification (sprawl prevention, service improvements) 2.3 Reasons for rejecting densification (congestion, loss of neighborhood character, etc.) | 3.1 Preference ranking among densification scenarios 3.2 Justification for the choice | Improvement of public spaces, streets, facilities | Access to transportation, parks, community facilities. | Online questionnaire | Quantitative (ordinal and categorical scale) and qualitative (open-ended comments). -Quantitative analysis: chi-square tests, logistic regression, and Kendall's coefficient of concordance (W) were applied. -Qualitative analysis: manual coding of comments as positive, negative, or neutral. | -Do you think population growth should be addressed with new suburbs or with densification in existing neighborhoods? -Do you support urban densification in your neighborhood? Why do you support densification in your neighborhood? (Ranking of reasons) -Order the scenarios presented to you from 1 to 4: 1) ALL stations, 2) ALL boulevards, 3) ALL parks, 4) hidden density in courtyards Comment box: Explain why you ranked the scenarios as you did. - What changes could alleviate your concerns about densification? (Ranking of desired improvements) What services would help you better accept densification in your neighborhood? | "Nominal (categories without order, e.g. gender, park type)", "Ordinal (categories with order, e.g. frequency of use: never, sometimes, always)", Open (free text) | ||
12 | A7 | Lahoti, S.; et. al. | Exploring the Factors Shaping Urban Greenspace Interactions: A Case Study of Nagpur, India | https://doi.org/10.3390/land13101576 | 2024 | India, ciudad de Nagpur | Active and collaborative non-institutionalized participation | Active use and individual engagement, no co-management or community governance documented. Participation understood as everyday and emotional interaction (connection with nature), not institutional participation. Accepted as an empirical study of the social use of UGS | Socio-ecological Resilience | Urban green infrastructure | Urban Green Spaces (UGS): parques vecinales, jardines, corredores verdes urbanos | Intermediate city | Urban (Nagpur, intermediate city in rapid urbanization) | Investigate the factors shaping patterns of interaction and use of urban green spaces in Nagpur, India, based on demographic variables, availability, accessibility, and connection with nature | Proximity and accessibility of Urban Green Spaces (UGS) are key factors in promoting frequent visits. Physical activities are the most common among daily users. Older adults use UGS less frequently, suggesting potential barriers. There is a strong association between connection to nature and the frequency of UGS use. It is recommended to strengthen this connection through environmental education and awareness programs. | Quantitative | Quantitative. In-person survey of 2,002 people using the Survey 123 app. Multivariate statistical analysis with R (v4.3.2) to correlate UGS use with age, gender, employment, proximity, UGS type, and level of connection to nature. | Case study | SOCIAL Social cohesion | S4 | ENVIRONMENTAL Biodiversity and ecosystem services | EN1 | Social (inclusive use, well-being, social cohesion, connection with nature) Psychological (emotional and mental benefits of contact with nature) Territorial/Spatial (equitable access and sustainable urban planning) | Demographics: Age Gender Employment Status | Connection with Nature: Nature Self-Assessment | Commitment: Activities carried out in urban green spaces | Interaction: Types of Urban Green Spaces (UGS) Availability of UGS Frequency of visits | Not applicable | Age group (18-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, over 60) Male/Female Working, studying, unemployed, retired | Visual Levels: 1. Separate 2. Somewhat connected 3. Connected 4. Close connection 5. Inseparable | -Physical activity -Sitting/relaxing -Socializing | City, Community, Neighborhood High, Moderate, Low Every day, 2 or 3 times a week, and once a week | Not applicable | Online questionnaire | Quantitative (nominal and ordinal) Qualitative (free text – if you included open field) Geospatial (residential coordinates) – if relevant to your study | How often do you visit urban green spaces? (7 categories: from once a year to every day) What type of green space do you prefer to visit? (Neighborhood, community, city) - What activities do you do in urban green spaces? (multiple answers, then grouped into: physical activity, sitting/relaxing, socializing) What is your age? What is your gender? What is your current employment status? Select the image that best represents your relationship with nature (visual scale of 5 overlapping images) | "Nominal (categories without order, e.g. gender, park type)", "Ordinal (categories with order, e.g. frequency of use: never, sometimes, always)" | ||
13 | A8 | Lara, A. & Del Moral, L. | Nature-Based Solutions to Hydro-Climatic Risks: Barriers and Triggers for Their Implementation in Seville (Spain) | https://doi.org/10.3390/land11060868 | 2022 | Sevilla, España | Multi-actor co-management and co-design | Active citizen participation, social movements, participant observation, collaborative governance | Participatory and Comprehensive Resilience | Floodable park | Urban green infrastructure: floodable parks, green corridors, hydro-ecological belts | Metropolitan | City (Seville) | Identify barriers and triggers for the implementation of Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) in Seville as a climate change adaptation strategy | Persistence of grey infrastructure, institutional resistance, sectoral silos, and lack of territorial vulnerability analysis; however, citizen actors promoting Nature-based Solutions (NbS) with positive social impact were also identified. | Qualitative | Document review, semi-structured interviews (24 social and institutional actors), participant observation. Non-direct intervention; case study based on planning and social mobilization processes for green infrastructure. | Case study | SOCIAL Citizen participation | S2 | AMBIENTAL Recursos hídricos | EN2 | Social (Participation, cohesion and social inclusion), Environmental (water resources and biodiversity), Governance (institutional and citizen alliances), Physical (green vs. gray infrastructure), Economic (budgetary constraints) | Climate risk perception | Urban strengths and weaknesses | Social vulnerability | Citizen participation in plans | Not applicable | Risk identified as priority (heat waves, droughts, floods) | Examples cited by the actors: architectural traditions, infrastructure, trees, etc. | Mention of vulnerable groups: elderly people, children, migrants, exposed workers | Opinion on whether climate plans were implemented and whether there was real or symbolic participation. | Not applicable | Semi-structured interview, Participant observation | Qualitative textual Qualitative categorical Qualitative interpretive (based on frequency and emphasis in responses) | Section 1: Climate Emergency and Risks What do you consider to be the most significant climate risk in Seville? What strengths and weaknesses does the city have in addressing it? Which areas are most exposed? Which social groups are most vulnerable? Section 2: Governance and Climate Action What resilience plans are you aware of? Are these plans being implemented? Are these plans targeted at vulnerable groups? | "Nominal (categories without order, e.g. gender, park type)", "Ordinal (categories with order, e.g. frequency of use: never, sometimes, always)" | ||
14 | A9 | Ricart, S.; et. al. | The Social, Political, and Environmental Dimensions in Designing Urban Public Space from a Water Management Perspective: Testing European Experiences | https://doi.org/10.3390/land11091575 | 2022 | Ten compact European cities: Malmö (Sweden), Copenhagen (Denmark), Rotterdam (Netherlands), Berlin (Germany), London (United Kingdom), Paris (France), Varese (Italy), Thessaloniki (Greece), Barcelona (Spain) and Lisbon (Portugal) | Consultative or indirect participation | Partial citizen participation: workshops, social observations, community consultations in some cases | Comprehensive Urban Resilience | Nature-based solutions (NbS) | Urban green and blue public spaces (squares, parks, green corridors, coastal areas, etc.) | Metropolitan | Urban/metropolitan (compact European cities) | Analyze how urban public spaces integrate social, political, and environmental dimensions in their climate-resilient design and management | Improvements in social cohesion and well-being were observed, but vulnerable groups remained excluded; progress was made in governance and climate plans, with environmental achievements noted, yet attention to specific water management remained limited. | Qualitative | Definition of the methodological approach: Triple-loop (social, political, environmental) to assess urban resilience. Case study selection: Ten projects in compact European cities, implemented over the last 25 years. Critical qualitative analysis: Comparative study of the cases, evaluating each proposal from the three axes. Construction of integrated conclusions, highlighting achievements, limitations, and opportunities for improvement in water-oriented urban governance and design. | Case study | SOCIAL Social cohesion | S4 | ENVIRONMENTAL Biodiversity and ecosystem services | EN1 | Social (well-being, cohesion, unequal access), Governance (plans, participation, legitimacy), Environmental (green infrastructure, ecological connectivity, climate adaptation) | Citizen welfare | Space benefits | Vulnerable citizen segments | Governance and participation | Financing | W1 Build-improve social cohesion W2 Promote-increase access to urban spaces W3 Encourage recreation and exercise W4 Improve education W5 Ensure safety W6 Provide health benefits | S1 Creating quality spaces S2 Improving slow mobility S3 Context sensitivity S4 Accommodations | V1 Seniors V2 Children and Adolescents V3 Immigrants V4 Women V5 People with Special Needs V6 Residents V7 Others | G1 Type of participation process G2 Context of the participation process G3 Participants | F1 Public/Private F2 Developer F3 Cost | Document analysis, informal interviews | Categorical qualitative, based on the review of documents, reports, and informal interviews on the case study. Indicated by the presence (v) or absence (.) of each indicator per project. | The study did not use closed surveys, but rather documentary analysis and informal interviews/consultations about the case studies. The items were categories analyzed in 10 European projects. There were no questionnaire-type questions, but rather an analysis of whether or not each project included each of the above indicators. | "Nominal (categories without order, e.g. gender, park type)" | ||
15 | A10 | Rosso, F.; et. al. | Tactical urban pocket parks (TUPPs) for subjective and objective multi-domain comfort enhancement | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119447 | 2024 | New York, EEUU | Consultative or indirect participation | Consultative or passive participation | Socio-ecological Resilience | Pocket park | Pocket parks | Neighborhood | Neighborhood | Assess to what extent Tactical Urban Pocket Parks (TUPPs): Mitigate adverse microclimatic conditions (objective comfort) Improve users’ perception of urban comfort (subjective comfort) | Objective comfort: Moderate reduction in temperature, solar radiation, and wind speed in PP and POP. The IP showed variable and even negative effects in some cases. Subjective comfort: All TUPPs significantly improved the perception of comfort compared to streets. PPs obtained the highest ratings in all aspects (visual, thermal, acoustic, etc.). Objective-subjective gap: Even without notable physical improvements, users perceive greater comfort, highlighting the value of the design and perception of space. | Mixed | The article uses a robust mixed-methods approach, combining: Quantitative microclimatic analysis to assess real improvements in environmental comfort. Qualitative surveys to capture users' subjective experience. | Case study | SOCIAL Social cohesion | S4 | ENVIRONMENTAL Biodiversity and ecosystem services | EN1 | Environmental and social impact through heat island mitigation analysis and urban microclimate improvement. Subjective user comfort: visual, thermal, acoustic, and air quality. | Subjective perception of comfort | Microclimate mitigation: environmental parameters | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | - C1 Total comfort - C2 Visual comfort - C3 Acoustic comfort - C4 Air quality - C5 Thermal comfort | -P1 Air temperature -P2 Relative humidity -P3 Solar radiation -P4 Wind speed -P5 Apparent temperature | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Mixed methodology based on GIS | Ordinal qualitative (mostly perception and level of agreement), and also categorical quantitative in some cases (such as educational level or attendance at organizations). The questionnaire survey first investigates the complete feeling of comfort, so that respondents are not biased by having already dissected their specific individual sensations. Then, visual comfort; acoustic comfort; air quality; and finally, thermal comfort. Respondents had to indicate their perception in the perspective illustrated above using a 5-point Likert scale, where "0" is neutral comfort and the extremes are "-2" very bad, "-1" bad, "+1" good, and "+2" very good feeling of comfort. | (Not all items are detailed literally in the article, but it is made explicit that the above-mentioned indicators were operationalized in specific items within the questionnaire.) | "Ordinal (categories with order, e.g. frequency of use: never, sometimes, always)" | ||
16 | A11 | Zhang, J.; et. al. | From Health Risks to Environmental Actions: Research on the Pathway of Guiding Citizens to Participate in Pocket-Park Governance | https://doi.org/10.3390/land13101612 | 2024 | China | Active and collaborative non-institutionalized participation | Voluntary pro-environmental participation (Participatory Pro-Environmental Behavior – Pu-PEB), non-institutionalized but with active citizen intention in governance. A type of collaborative participation motivated by moral norms and civic intention, beyond simple consultation | Resiliencia urbana transformadora e integral. | Pocket park | Pocket parks in dense residential areas | Local neighborhood | Urban, at the level of community parks in densely populated cities | Develop and empirically test a theoretical framework explaining the factors that influence citizens’ intention to participate in pocket park governance after health crises, integrating social information processing theory and the norm activation model | Health risks and perceived environmental quality positively influence the perceived usefulness of parks. Personal (moral) norms and attitudes toward the environment mediate the effect of external factors on participation intention. Three key stages are identified: information processing, norm activation, and the formation of participatory intention. Sustainable governance is proposed based on internal motivations, rather than coercive mechanisms. | Quantitative | Quantitative. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) applied to 719 online surveys (November–December 2023) of Chinese citizens. This study assessed citizen perceptions and intentions regarding environmental governance in pocket parks in a post-COVID context. This study did not study a physical intervention case, but rather a predictive model of participation. | Case study | SOCIAL Social cohesion | S4 | ENVIRONMENTAL Biodiversity and ecosystem services | EN1 | Social (strengthening moral norms, pro-environmental attitudes, sense of collective responsibility) Environmental (improving ecological quality and participatory maintenance of green spaces) Emerging institutional (recommendations for public policies based on collaborative governance) | Awareness of the consequences AC | AR Attribution of Responsibility | PN Personal Standards | Intention to participate in IPPPG | Perceived usefulness | -AC1 Environmentally harmful behaviors harm pocket parks. -AC2 These behaviors increase the risk of disease transmission. -AC3 They have negative impacts on physical health. -AC4 They do not help offset disease risks. | -AR1: I feel jointly responsible for the environmental damage in the parks. -AR2: I feel responsible for the pollution problems in the parks. -AR3: Every citizen is partially responsible for the environmental damage. -AR4: Every citizen must assume responsibility for pollution. | -PN1: I feel compelled to protect pocket parks. -PN2: I would feel guilty for not taking environmental measures in them. -PN3: Not doing so would go against my moral principles. | -IPPPG1: I am willing to take steps to keep the park clean. -IPPPG2: Consider participating in its environmental governance. -IPPPG3: I would like to participate in such governance. -IPPPG4: I would participate if I had the opportunity. | - PU1 Pocket parks provide usable green spaces during the pandemic. - PU2 Pocket parks offer opportunities for physical exercise. - PU3 Pocket parks offer opportunities for recreation and relaxation. - PU4 The use of pocket parks contributes to physical health and reduces the risk of disease. - PU5 Pocket parks contribute to my quality of life during the pandemic. | Structured interviews, online questionnaire | Quantitative | A pilot survey was conducted with 60 participants from Chengdu, China, of varying gender and age (27 men and 33 women, ranging in age from 18 to 70). Based on feedback and problems encountered during the pilot survey, the researchers made adjustments and modifications as needed. All measurement items in the questionnaire were scored on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). | Interval (e.g. temperature in °C) | ||
17 | A12 | Valle, P.; et. al. | The influence of the urban model on civic involvement and public time. A study applied to the commuting population of the Greater Metropolitan Area of San José, Costa Rica | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.104849 | 2024 | Costa Rica | Multi-actor co-management and co-design | Active participation, both individual and community. Involvement measured in organizations, communal activities, protests, cultural events, etc. Not just consultation, but direct engagement | Transformative and Comprehensive Urban Resilience | Urban green infrastructure | Diverse public spaces: parks, streets, fairs, cultural centers, squares, and other everyday urban elements that allow community activity. Although not specified as “nature-based,” they meet criteria of accessibility, civic use, and sustainability | Metropolitan | Neighborhoods of lower density and compact city areas of the Metropolitan Area of San José, Costa Rica | Evaluate how the urban model (compact city vs. sprawl) influences civic participation and the use of public time in the GAM of San José, Costa Rica | People who live in compact cities report greater awareness and use of public spaces and greater civic participation. There were no differences in the amount of free time, but there were differences in how it was used: those who live in compact areas spend more time on community activities. There is greater sustainable mobility (walking, train, bicycle) in compact areas, which favors cohesion and social engagement." | Quantitative | A survey was conducted with 572 participants, using a 27-item, multiple-choice Likert-scale questionnaire (4 levels), aimed at assessing the use of public space, leisure time, mobility, and civic participation. Descriptive statistical analyses and Mann-Whitney U tests were used using SPSS software. | Case study | SOCIAL Citizen participation | S2 | PHYSICAL Mobility and connectivity | P2 | Social and Physical Citizen Participation and Mobility | Participation in civil organizations | Participation in neighborhood associations | Commitment to social causes | Participation in protests or demonstrations | Participation in public cultural activities and participation in community activities in the neighborhood | Be an active part of a civil or collective organization | Membership of a neighborhood association or ADI | Support and dedication to a social cause | Having participated in strikes, marches or other forms of protest | Attendance at cultural events in the city and active participation in community activities in the neighborhood. | Structured Interviews | Quantitative | "I participate in a civic or collective organization." "I participate in a neighborhood association or ADI (Integral Development Association)." "I support a social cause and dedicate time to it." "I have participated in strikes and protests." "In the last year, I have participated in cultural activities in my city." "In the last year, I have participated in community activities in my neighborhood." | "Ordinal (categories with order, e.g. frequency of use: never, sometimes, always)" | ||
18 | A13 | Wood; et. al. | Employing citizen science to enhance active and healthy ageing in urban environments | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2022.102954 | 2023 | Reino Unido (Birmingham) | Active and collaborative non-institutionalized participation | Urban public and green spaces in general (not individually specified) | Social and Participatory Resilience | Urban public park | Urban public and green spaces in general (not individually specified) | Metropolitan | Local (city of Birmingham) | Identify barriers and facilitators affecting active and healthy aging of older adults in Birmingham, and co-produce recommendations to improve local urban areas | Urban barriers and facilitators to active aging were identified. Local recommendations were consistent with those of the WHO Age-Friendly Cities model. An implementation framework with multilevel action pathways was developed. | Mixed | Mixed (Our Voice Citizen Science Method, Applied Participatory Project (Our Voice), based on participatory data collection with mobile tools, collective analysis and intersectoral dialogue) | Participatory project | SOCIAL Citizen participation | S2 | PHYSICAL Integral infrastructure | P1 | Social (community) | Social Participation | Social inclusion and respect | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | PS1 Access to public spaces PS2 Community activities | I1 Community Integration I2 Intergenerational Spaces | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Online questionnaire, Focus group | Qualitative (text, audio, and photos) Instrument: Stanford Discovery Tool mobile app | We didn't use structured closed-ended questions. Instead, recommendations emerged from guided walks, photos, and group discussions. For example: What elements of this space make walking easier or more difficult? What improvements would you propose to this park to make it more user-friendly? How do cars parked on the sidewalk impact your mobility? What outdoor amenities would you like to have available? What spaces make you feel part of your community? These questions were implicit during: Walks with data collection (photos + comments) Participatory group discussions | "Nominal (categories without order, e.g. gender, type of park)", Interval (e.g. temperature in °C) | ||
19 | A14 | Adlakha, D.; et. al. | Designing Age-Friendly Communities: Exploring Qualitative Perspectives on Urban Green Spaces and Ageing in Two Indian Megacities | https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041491 | 2021 | India (megaciudades: Nueva Delhi y Chennai) | Active and collaborative non-institutionalized participation | Active use, daily appropriation, and affective relationship with UGS from the experience of older adults. Participation based on lived experience, not institutionalized | Comprehensive Urban Resilience | Parque público urbano | Urban Green Spaces (UGS): neighborhood parks, gardens, community green spaces | Metropolitan | Urban – two megacities (New Delhi and Chennai), focusing on low-income neighborhoods | Explore how urban green spaces affect healthy aging of older people in India, especially in low-income urban contexts, from a qualitative perspective centered on lived experience | Urban green spaces (UGS) promote social capital, emotional well-being, physical activity, and social resilience in older adults. Barriers such as poor maintenance, insecurity, non-inclusive infrastructure, and unequal access affect their use in low-income neighborhoods. The lack of quality UGS deepens environmental inequity for older adults. There is a need for intersectoral planning (urban health + urban planning) to create age-friendly communities. | Qualitative | Qualitative: 60 semi-structured interviews in New Delhi and Chennai (people aged 60 and over, 51% women, snowball sampling). Observational and exploratory, with no direct intervention. Based on older adults' perceptions and experiences regarding the use of UGS in their neighborhoods. | Case study | SOCIAL Social inclusion | S3 | PHYSICAL Integral infrastructure | EN1 | Social (inclusion, well-being, community support networks) Health/psychological (stress reduction, improved emotional and mental well-being) Environmental (reduced exposure to pollution and heat, improved microclimate) | Community health | Inclusion Access for vulnerable groups (elderly, women, low income). | Social Connectivity: Community Interactions in UGS. | Security: Perception of security in UGS. | Not applicable | Frequency of use of UGS. | Perceived quality (maintenance, benches, lighting). | Barriers (unsafe infrastructure, crime). | Social benefits (walking groups, cultural events). | Impact on health (stress reduction, promotion of physical activity). | Semi-structured interview, Participant observation | Qualitative | semi-structured interviews with open questions | "Nominal (categories without order, e.g. gender, park type)" | ||
20 | A15 | Vieira, T. A. & Panagopoulos, T. | Urban agriculture in Brazil: Possibilities and challenges for Santarém, eastern Amazonia | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107082 | 2024 | Brasil, Santarém, Amazonía oriental | Consultative or indirect participation | Consultative social participation (policy-making with social actors), community focus in neighborhoods, school programs, women farmers | Multi-level Governance and Urban Planning Practices | Public agro-urban park | Vacant urban land, schools, community areas, urban agriculture as a nature-based solution. | Municipality | Municipal and National | Examine existing and proposed Brazilian public policies to promote urban agriculture; explore their application in Santarém | Urban agriculture helps mitigate social, economic, and environmental problems; strengthens social networks; is key for food security; and requires integrated policies, financing, and technical assistance. | Qualitative | Case study focusing on public policy analysis, ongoing programs, and municipal planning | Case study | SOCIAL Social inclusion | S3 | ENVIRONMENTAL Biodiversity and ecosystem services | EN1 | Socio-environmental | Accessibility Fair distribution of urban land for agriculture. | Active participation of women and marginalized communities. | Use of agroecological technologies and waste recycling. | Coordination between public, private and community actors. | Not applicable | Number of families benefited. | Income generated from the sale of products. | Reduction of organic waste through composting. | Increase in productive green areas. | Not applicable | Document analysis, Focus group, GIS-based mixed methodology | Quantitative / Qualitative. | Document review/Case studies/Key stakeholders' opinions | "Nominal (categories without order, e.g. gender, park type)", "Ordinal (categories with order, e.g. frequency of use: never, sometimes, always)", Interval (e.g. temperature in °C) | ||
21 | A16 | Rui, J. | Green disparities, happiness elusive: Decoding the spatial mismatch between green equity and the happiness from vulnerable perspectives | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2025.106063 | 2025 | China, Nanjing (urbano) | Active and collaborative non-institutionalized participation | Indirect participation, spontaneous appropriation, social perception | Multi-level Governance and Urban Planning Practices | Urban public park | Urban parks – Streetscape Greenness (SG), Neighborhood Greenery (NG), Public Green Spaces (PGS) | Metropolitan | Urban (City of Nanjing) | Explore how the equity of different types of urban green spaces affects the happiness of vulnerable groups and establish spatial priorities for green planning. | Inequities in access to UGS negatively affect the happiness of vulnerable groups. Non-linear effects, impact thresholds, and strong inequality in central areas are observed. Differentiated planning is proposed according to the type of vulnerable group. | Quantitative | The study combines: Spatial variables, calculating the presence, density, or green cover by area (SG, NG, PGS), Measuring the emotional state (happiness) of vulnerable people, Spatial statistical analysis to detect "mismatches" between access to greenery and happiness. | Case study | SOCIAL Social inclusion | S3 | ENVIRONMENTAL Biodiversity and ecosystem services | EN1 | Social (perceptual, spatial) | Equity in access to green spaces. | Differentiated use by vulnerable groups. | Mental well-being as an indicator of community resilience. | Not applicable | Not applicable | Gini index: To measure equity in the distribution of green spaces. | Happiness Index: derived from sentiment analysis on Weibo. | Quantity, quality and vigor of vegetation | Not applicable | Not applicable | Mixed methodology based on GIS and BIG DATA | Quantitative / Qualitative. | Weibo geotagged data: Social media posts (January–December 2023) to measure happiness. Census data (7th National Population Census): Socioeconomic variables. OpenStreetMap and Baidu Maps: For neighborhood boundaries and road networks. | "Ordinal (categories with order, e.g. frequency of use: never, sometimes, always)", Interval (e.g. temperature in °C) | ||
22 | A17 | Aydin, N.Y.; et. al. | Rebuilding Antakya: Cultivating urban resilience through cultural identity and education for post-disaster reconstruction in Turkey | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2025.105196 | 2025 | Antakya, Turquía | Consultative or indirect participation | Indirect participation, spontaneous appropriation, social perception | Resilience integrating Social Justice and Equity | Community monuments | Community monuments, places of worship, and public spaces dedicated to those affected by disasters | Metropolitan | Urban | Integrate cultural identity and education in reconstruction | The crucial role of educational services: The reopening and continuity of schools are fundamental to promoting post-disaster recovery in Antakya. Cultural identity as a decisive factor: The cultural identity of Antakya directly influences its recovery capacity, serving as an anchor for social cohesion and urban resilience. Severe impact on urban and cultural fabric: Over 50% of Antakya’s infrastructure was destroyed, including historical monuments and cultural heritage, affecting collective memory. Challenges in management and coordination: There are tensions regarding the application of reconstruction laws and concerns over the loss of the historic center and its cultural heritage. Complex interaction between physical, social, and cultural factors: Recovery depends on multiple dimensions that must be addressed in an integrated manner to avoid repeating previous vulnerabilities. Need for strategic and long-term planning: Recovery requires policies that consider not only physical restoration but also social, economic, and cultural restoration. Problems arising from waste management and public health: The proximity of debris disposal sites to residential areas generates environmental and health risks. Housing reconstruction and solutions: Prefabricated units and TOKI housing are highlighted to respond to urgent housing needs. Importance of social cohesion and community networks: Communities with strong social networks have a greater capacity to recover. | Qualitative | The study adopts a qualitative approach based on the participation of local stakeholders through interactive methods such as focus groups and in-depth interviews. This methodology allows for: Capturing the complexities of post-disaster reconstruction, Highlighting the value of cultural and educational dimensions in resilience, Informing policies and practices that are more sensitive to the social and emotional context of affected communities. | Case study | SOCIAL Risk Management | S5 | SOCIAL Social cohesion | S4 | Cultural and educational Resilience is approached from a cultural and educational perspective, focusing on the community's ability to adapt and transform after a disaster, maintaining its cultural identity and reactivating educational services. | Robustness: Ability to withstand impacts. | Recovery time for basic services. | Availability of financing and materials | Flexibility in reconstruction plans. | Not applicable | Functionality of water and energy systems. | Accessibility to schools and hospitals. | Citizen participation in decision-making. | Mention of terms such as “identity” and “history” in interviews. | Not applicable | Semi-structured interview, Document analysis, Focus group, Participant observation | Quantitative / Qualitative. | Semi-structured interviews: Personal experiences during the earthquake. Perceptions of reconstruction. Service needs (e.g., education, housing). Focus groups: Discussions with local stakeholders (e.g., professional cameramen, residents). Field observation: Photographs and notes from downtown Antakya. | "Nominal (categories without order, e.g. gender, park type)", "Ordinal (categories with order, e.g. frequency of use: never, sometimes, always)" | ||
23 | A18 | Cambra-Fierro, J.; et. al. | Managing public-private partnerships for urban design and regeneration: Lessons learned from the Hermitage Museum Barcelona odyssey | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2025.105714 | 2025 | Barcelona, España | Institutional or technical participation | Public–private partnership | Multi-level Governance and Urban Planning Practices | Public terraces | Public spaces (square–viewpoint) | Metropolitan | Urban | Lessons from failed public–private partnerships | The misalignment between the value propositions of stakeholders (public and private) was central to the project’s failure. Conflict management and the lack of effective mediation mechanisms complicated progress. The figure of the “champion” (a key actor who coordinates interests within each group) was identified as a critical factor to facilitate agreements. It is concluded that aligning strategic objectives and establishing trustful relationships from the outset is vital in complex Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs). | Qualitative | Retrospective case study. Semi-structured interviews: 12 interviews conducted online between June 2020 and June 2021. Duration: 30 to 80 minutes. Interviewees: Representatives of Barcelona City Council, Port Authority, HMB executives, neighborhood associations, and local museum directors. Format: Open-ended questions about the role, milestones, expectations, and project evaluation, allowing for exploration of perceptions and interaction dynamics. Documentation and archives: Proposals, tenders, contracts, and allegations. Internal materials from public and private stakeholders. Press and articles in local and international media. Information from institutional websites. Multiple evidence: A triangulated database was created with interviews, official documents, internal archives, and press releases. | Policy | GOVERNANCE Cooperation and alliances (Government agents) | G2 | GOVERNANCE Cooperation and alliances (Private agents) | G3 | Resilience is addressed from the perspective of urban governance, focusing on the capacity of institutions to effectively manage public-private partnerships in urban regeneration projects. | Institutional flexibility | Inclusion: Representation of residents and local stakeholders in decision-making. | Cultural sustainability: balancing tourism and local authenticity. | Not applicable | Not applicable | Degree of political alignment: Support/opposition of the City Council vs. Port Authority. | Social consensus: Positioning of neighborhood associations. | Environmental Impact: Technical Reports on Mobility and Climate Risk. | Economic viability | Not applicable | Semi-structured interview, Document analysis | Content analysis (interviews, documents). Classification of actors and positions (e.g., "for" vs. "against"). | 12 interviews with key stakeholders (City Council, Port Authority, HMB, neighborhood associations, museum directors). | "Nominal (categories without order, e.g. gender, park type)", Qualitative | ||
24 | A19 | Herreros-Cantis et. al. | Co-producing research and data visualization for environmental justice advocacy in climate change adaptation: The Milwaukee Flood-Health Vulnerability Assessment | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.105474 | 2024 | Estados Unidos (Milwaukee, Wisconsin) | Multi-actor co-management and co-design | Co-production of knowledge with local and scientific actors | Social, Participatory, and Adaptive Resilience | Urban green infrastructure | Urban green infrastructure | Metropolitan | Urban (City of Milwaukee) | Develop a participatory spatial analysis of exposure and health impacts from flooding in Milwaukee, promoting environmental justice and inclusive planning through green infrastructure | Identification of priority areas of exposure and vulnerability; strengthening the role of environmental justice organizations in adaptive planning. Ten common collaboration challenges were identified, and 17 tools inspired by Service Design were proposed. Reduction of runoff, creation of green areas, reuse of treated water, improvement of water quality, and promotion of sustainable planning. | Mixed | Iterative co-production process, spatial analysis, vulnerability mapping, story mapping. Applied project with case study, development of a participatory digital tool (story map). | Participatory project | GOVERNANCE Cooperation and alliances (Government agents) | G2 | SOCIAL Risk Management | S5 | Social (Institutional) and Environmental | Social vulnerability: health, sociodemographic conditions and household characteristics. | Risk exposure | Community participation | Not applicable | Not applicable | Flood hazard map | Percentage of roads and homes affected. | Thematic indexes (health, sociodemographic, home) | Not applicable | Not applicable | Focus group, Document analysis, GIS-based mixed methodology | Quantitative / Qualitative. | Spatial data Sociodemographic and health data. Stakeholder participation | Interval (e.g. temperature in °C), "Ordinal (categories with order, e.g. frequency of use: never, sometimes, always)" | ||
25 | A20 | Tapia, F.; et. al. | From design to action: Service design tools for enhancing collaboration in nature-based solutions implementation | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.124739 | 2025 | Europa (varios países, proyectos Horizon 2020) | Multi-actor co-management and co-design | Co-design, co-governance, multi-actor cooperation | Social and Participatory Resilience with a Governance Approach | Nature-based solutions (NbS) | Nature-based solutions (NbS) in urban settings | Metropolitan | Urban (European cities) | Propose Service Design tools to improve collaboration in the implementation of NbS | Identification of priority areas of exposure and vulnerability; strengthening the role of environmental justice organizations in adaptive planning. Ten common collaboration challenges were identified, and 17 tools inspired by Service Design were proposed. | Qualitative | Systematic document review methodology with an inductive approach to analyze Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) projects. Methodological design Type of study: Systematic review of documentary evidence. Objective: To build a methodological framework that facilitates collaboration in the implementation of NbS. Unit of analysis: NbS projects in European urban contexts, implemented under the Horizon 2020 program. Case selection Initial sample: 29 projects documented in the Handbook for Practitioners (2019). Selection criteria: Implementation period: 2013–2023. Urban context. Focus on climate adaptation and mitigation. Use of participatory planning and governance. Final sample: 11 projects (7 urban, 4 sustainable agriculture/forestry within urban boundaries). Methodological results Triangulation between academic literature and project documents allowed us to identify common patterns of collaboration. and recurring barriers. The use of Service Design tools (co-creation, co-governance, hybrid digital-in-person methodologies, integration of AI and ICT) was proposed as an innovative framework for improving collaborative processes. | Case study | GOVERNANCE Cooperation and alliances (Government agents) | G2 | SOCIAL Citizen participation | S2 | Institutional, social, technological | Collaborative governance | Community participation | Ecological resilience | Not applicable | Not applicable | Existence of implementation plans, alignment with policies. | Level of participation of the actors. | Use of service design tools (e.g., stakeholder maps, motivation matrices). | Not applicable | Not applicable | Document analysis, Analytical matrices. | Quantitative / Qualitative. | Systematic review of 11 Horizon 2020 Nature-based Solutions projects. Documentary analysis of reports, scientific publications, and practice repositories. | "Nominal (categories without order, e.g. gender, park type)", "Ordinal (categories with order, e.g. frequency of use: never, sometimes, always)" | ||
26 | A21 | Sánchez-Almodóvar, E.; et. al. | Adaptation Strategies for Flooding Risk from Rainfall Events in Southeast Spain: Case Studies from the Bajo Segura, Alicante | https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/14/2/146 | 2021 | Bajo Segura Region, Alicante Province, Spain | Institutional or technical participation | Institutional and local technical management (municipalities and Hidraqua concessionary company) | Adaptive and Comprehensive Resilience | Floodable park | Urban recreational parks with sustainable drainage (El Recorral Park, Europa Park), floodable lagoons | Municipality | Municipal (intermediate cities of Bajo Segura: Rojales, Daya Nueva, San Fulgencio) | Analyze runoff management and adaptation actions in Bajo Segura, evaluate their efficiency, and promote NbS/SUDS as urban resilience measures | Reduction of runoff, creation of green areas, reuse of treated water, improvement of water quality, and promotion of sustainable planning. | Mixed | Document analysis, technical project review, field visits with local technicians. Implementation of soft solutions (SBN, SUDS) and wastewater reuse in urban public spaces. | Case study | AMBIENTAL Recursos hídricos | EN2 | PHYSICAL Integral infrastructure | P1 | Environmental (green infrastructure, runoff reduction and water quality improvement), Physical (multifunctional spaces, flood control), Economic (use of treated water and saving water resources) | Use of non-conventional water (treated and rainwater). | Flood mitigation through green infrastructure. | Post-storm storage and treatment systems. | Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals | Not applicable | Volume of water reused | Efficiency of SBN in reducing runoff. | Reduction of polluting discharges into wetlands. | Participation of local actors in projects. | Not applicable | Structured Interviews, GIS-based Mixed Methodology, Document Analysis, Participant Observation | Qualitative / Quantitative | Literature review/ Interviews/ Fieldwork | "Nominal (categories without order, e.g. gender, park type)", "Ordinal (categories with order, e.g. frequency of use: never, sometimes, always)", Interval (e.g. temperature in °C) | ||
27 | A22 | Montero-Gutiérrez, P.; et. al. | Improving urban resilience and habitability by an effective regeneration of the streets: A comprehensive approach step-by-step validated in a real case | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111471 | 2024 | Sevilla, España | Multi-actor co-management and co-design | Co-design with stakeholders | Comprehensive Urban Resilience | Street | Streets | Neighborhood | Neighborhood | Develop and validate an urban regeneration methodology that: Incorporates anthropogenic heat into urban microclimate modeling Improves the thermal comfort index (COMFA) in public spaces through physical and natural interventions Promotes the recovery of urban life in environments affected by climate change | Reduction of the COMFA index by 35% to 65%, depending on the month and user metabolic activity. Decrease in street air temperature by up to 2 °C and reduction of pavement surface temperature by up to 6 °C. Increase in perceived thermal comfort: from 3.2% in 2021 to 10.5% in 2022 of people feeling thermally comfortable. Co-simulation model validated with an error of less than 1% compared to real measurements. | Quantitative | A step-by-step methodology is used, consisting of: Urban and climatic analysis of the space (urban canyon). Justification of the intervention through environmental monitoring and surveys. Microclimatic simulation with ENVI-met software and co-simulation with the inclusion of anthropogenic heat. Validation with real data before and after the intervention (surveys, sensors, and weather stations). | Case study | ENVIRONMENTAL Biodiversity and ecosystem services | EN1 | PHYSICAL Integral infrastructure | P1 | Environmentally and socially, by reducing the urban heat island effect, using reflective pavements, plant shade, and sustainable drainage systems. | reduction of surface and air temperatures. | Surveys of comfort perception in inhabitants. | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Thermal load [W/m²] to assess comfort | Temperatures: Surface (pavements/facades) and air. | Solar radiation: incident, absorbed and reflected. | Anthropogenic variables: Heat generated by traffic (Qt) and buildings (Qb). | Not applicable | Online questionnaire, Participant observation | Qualitative / Quantitative | Thermal sensors / comfort and thermal sensation surveys | "Nominal (categories without order, e.g. gender, park type)", "Ordinal (categories with order, e.g. frequency of use: never, sometimes, always)", Interval (e.g. temperature in °C) | ||
28 | A23 | Sánchez-Almodóvar, E.; et. al. | Floods and Adaptation to Climate Change in Tourist Areas: Management Experiences on the Coast of the Province of Alicante (Spain) | https://doi.org/10.3390/w15040807 | 2023 | Province of Alicante, Spain (Alicante, Torrevieja, Benidorm) | Institutional or technical participation | Technical–institutional co-management (local governments and concessionary companies) | Urban, Adaptive, and Comprehensive Resilience | Floodable park | Floodable parks, urban green infrastructure, nature-based solutions (NbS) | Municipality | Municipal (coastal tourist cities) | Analyze actions in tourist municipalities to improve stormwater management and reduce flood risk, highlight SUDS and NbS-based measures, and propose future climate adaptation strategies | Effective reduction of flood risk; improvement in the image and safety of tourist destinations; replicable cases; need for socialization to ensure sustainability. | Qualitative | Case analysis (Alicante, Torrevieja, Benidorm) through review of technical projects and field visits with specialized teams | Case study | ENVIRONMENTAL Biodiversity and ecosystem services | EN1 | PHYSICAL Integral infrastructure | P1 | Environmental (ecosystem services, green infrastructure, runoff reduction), Physical (adaptive green-blue urban infrastructure), Social (urban safety, citizen perception), Economic (tourism protection, economic damage mitigation) | Adaptability | Vulnerability reduction | Rapid recovery: post-storm storage systems. | Sustainability: Compliance with the SDGs (6, 11, 13) and European regulations (e.g. Directive 2000/60/EC). | Not applicable | Volume of stored water | Efficiency in extreme events | Reduction of polluting discharges into wetlands and coasts. | Increase in permeable areas in urban areas. | Participation of local actors in projects. | Structured Interviews, GIS-based Mixed Methodology, Document Analysis, Participant Observation | Qualitative / Quantitative | Bibliographic analysis / fieldwork interviews | "Nominal (categories without order, e.g. gender, park type)", Interval (e.g. temperature in °C), "Ordinal (categories with order, e.g. frequency of use: never, sometimes, always)" | ||
29 | A24 | Suárez, M.; et. al. | Urban resilience through green infrastructure: A framework for policy analysis applied to Madrid, Spain | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104923 | 2024 | Madrid, España | Consultative or indirect participation | Citizen participation in policies | Collaborative and Socio-ecological Resilience | Urban green infrastructure | Urban green infrastructure | Metropolitan | Urban | Evaluate public policies on green infrastructure | Green infrastructure policies targeted at vulnerable neighborhoods and incorporating citizen participation mechanisms are the most effective at fostering urban resilience. | Qualitative | The methodology was based on a case study applied to Madrid, through the construction of a conceptual framework of six resilience factors and the application of a resilience index with 30 indicators derived from green infrastructure policies. This is a conceptual-quantitative approach, supported by a documentary review of public policies and their comparative analysis based on urban resilience. | Participatory project | ENVIRONMENTAL Biodiversity and ecosystem services | EN1 | PHYSICAL Integral infrastructure | P1 | Environmental and social Urban resilience is understood as the capacity of urban systems to absorb disturbances through green infrastructure, promoting socio-ecological justice and social cohesion. | Socioecological justice | Social cohesion | Diversity | Learning and innovation | Polycentric governance | Diversity of green infrastructure users. | Diversity of organized citizen groups | Diversity of ecosystem services | Biodiversity | Not applicable | Expert interviews, Document analysis | Qualitative | Standardized evaluation templates for public policy document review - Interviews with 7 municipal officials | "Ordinal (categories with order, e.g. frequency of use: never, sometimes, always)" | ||
30 | A25 | Działek, J.; et. al. | (Re)greening transition of academic green spaces as a response to social and environmental challenges: The role of bottom-up initiatives | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2025.128692 | 2025 | Polonia (Europa Central) | Institutional or technical participation | Institutional activism | Socio-ecological and Participatory Resilience | Academic green spaces (university campus) | Grassroots university activism (students and teachers), community participation | Local neighborhood | Campus / Local | Examine the role of grassroots university activism in the ecological transition of green spaces on a post-socialist university campus | Identification of stages in the (re)greening process; strengthening of ecosystem services; institutional paradigm shift toward a bio-ecocentric approach. | Mixed | The methodology was multi-method, predominantly using qualitative documentary analysis and supported by retrospective autoethnographic observation, comparative visits to other European campuses, and quantitative student surveys. This combination allowed us to reconstruct the campus's (re)greening transition and assess the role of grassroots initiatives in its socio-ecological transformation. | Case study | ENVIRONMENTAL Biodiversity and ecosystem services | EN1 | SOCIAL Citizen participation | S2 | Social (Governance) | Ecological connectivity (green corridors). | Accessibility and recreational use of AGS | Using nature-based solutions (NBS) | Environmental education and awareness. | Not applicable | Biodiversity: Number of reintroduced native species | Social perception: satisfaction with green spaces (2019 and 2023). | Climate: Surface of permeable vs impermeable areas. | Participation: Number of collaborative projects | Not applicable | Mixed methodology based on GIS, Document analysis | Qualitative: Description of participatory processes and case studies. Quantitative: Biodiversity metrics, survey data. | Geo-questionnaire (Maptionnaire, 2023) "How often do you use the green spaces on campus?" "What activities do you do in them? (walking, studying, socializing)." "How do you rate the availability of shaded areas?" "What changes would you propose for these spaces? | "Ordinal (categories with order, e.g. frequency of use: never, sometimes, always)", "Nominal (categories without order, e.g. gender, park type)" | ||
31 | A26 | Fanfani, D.; et. al. | Assessing the Public Peri-Urban Agricultural Park as a Tool for the Sustainable Planning of Peri-Urban Areas: The Case Study of Prato | https://doi.org/10.3390/su16187946 | 2024 | Toscana, Italia | Active and collaborative non-institutionalized participation | Active, direct, and deliberative participation | Socio-ecological and Participatory Resilience | Urban public park | Public Agro-urban Park | Local peri-urban neighborhood | Local peri-urban | Explore and evaluate the Agro-urban Public Park (PAP) model as a sustainable planning tool for peri-urban areas, using a participatory design approach and an economic–financial feasibility analysis, applied to the city of Prato | The peri-urban agricultural park of Prato acts as an effective instrument of sustainable planning, promoting the multifunctionality of the peri-urban territory. | Mixed | Single-case study: focused on the Prato Peri-Urban Agricultural Park (Italy). The methodology combines territorialism (urban bioregion), participatory co-design with local stakeholders (interviews, community meetings, envisioning), and financial evaluation using Break-even Analysis. This comprehensive, multi-stakeholder approach allowed the Prato Peri-Urban Agricultural Park (PAP) to be conceptualized as a replicable model of sustainable and resilient peri-urban planning. | Case study | ENVIRONMENTAL Biodiversity and ecosystem services | EN1 | SOCIAL Social cohesion | S4 | Environmental, social, and economic. Through improving biodiversity. Active citizen participation, strengthening a sense of belonging, and providing spaces for well-being and social cohesion. Promoting local markets, local agriculture, and sustainable tourism. | Ecological connectivity (green corridors). | Citizen inclusion in design | Educational services | economic viability | Income diversification | Area used for agriculture versus urbanized areas | Number of introduced plant species (orchards, olive groves). | Number of participatory workshops held. | Accessibility to recreational spaces. | Not applicable | Document analysis, Semi-structured interview, Focus group | Qualitative / Quantitative | Interviews with residents --- Participatory meetings with the community -- Documentary analysis of plans | "Ordinal (categories with order, e.g. frequency of use: never, sometimes, always)", "Nominal (categories without order, e.g. gender, park type)" | ||
32 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
33 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
34 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
35 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
36 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
37 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
38 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
39 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
40 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
41 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
42 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
43 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
44 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
45 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
46 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
47 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
48 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
49 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
50 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
51 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
52 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
53 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
54 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
55 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
56 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
57 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
58 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
59 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
60 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
62 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
63 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
64 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
65 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
66 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
67 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
68 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
69 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
70 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
71 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
72 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
73 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
74 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
76 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
77 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
78 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
79 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
80 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
81 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
82 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
83 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
84 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
85 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
86 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
87 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
88 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
89 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
90 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
91 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
92 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
93 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
94 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
95 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
96 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
97 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
98 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
99 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
100 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||