PARQUES URBANOS COMO INSTRUMENTOS PARA LA PLANIFICACIÓN SOCIOAMBIENTAL Y LAS POLÍTICAS PÚBLICAS: UNA REVISIÓN SISTEMÁTICA
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56238/revgeov17n4-220Palabras clave:
Parques Urbanos, Infraestructura Verde, Sostenibilidad, Justicia Ambiental, Ciudad Inteligente, Planificación UrbanaResumen
Este estudio tuvo como objetivo analizar los parques urbanos, evaluando sus contribuciones a la sostenibilidad, la justicia social y el bienestar comunitario. La investigación se llevó a cabo mediante una revisión sistemática estructurada de acuerdo con el protocolo PRISMA 2020, incluyendo análisis bibliométricos y bibliográficos de bases de datos internacionales (Scopus y Web of Science), cubriendo el período de 2020 a 2025. Las herramientas utilizadas incluyeron Rayyan para el cribado y la eliminación de duplicados; VOSviewer y Bibliometrix para el análisis bibliométrico; y Zotero, Mendeley y Excel para la gestión y organización de referencias. Cinco preguntas guiaron el estudio para alcanzar su objetivo: (i) ¿qué dimensiones son abordadas por las investigaciones recientes sobre parques urbanos sostenibles? (ii) ¿cuáles son los principales temas discutidos dentro de estas dimensiones? (iii) ¿qué metodologías y herramientas analíticas se han aplicado? (iv) ¿qué vacíos conceptuales y metodológicos permanecen en la literatura? y (v) ¿qué direcciones futuras de investigación pueden sugerirse? Se seleccionaron un total de 61 artículos altamente relevantes, confirmando que los parques funcionan como instrumentos de inclusión social, promoción de la salud y mitigación de impactos ambientales, al mismo tiempo que fomentan la sostenibilidad. En respuesta a las preguntas planteadas, la revisión mostró que los estudios recientes sobre parques urbanos han aumentado, especialmente aquellos que abordan la salud, la justicia socioespacial, la calidad, la gestión y los impactos socioeconómicos, discutiendo temas como la salud mental, la accesibilidad, la gentrificación verde y la participación cívica. Aunque se han aplicado diversas metodologías, persisten vacíos, incluyendo el número limitado de estudios longitudinales, las diferencias entre países desarrollados y en desarrollo, la falta de mantenimiento y seguridad, y la ausencia de estudios sobre los efectos de los parques como espacios terapéuticos para poblaciones neurodivergentes. Se concluye que los parques urbanos deben ser reconocidos como infraestructuras críticas para la salud pública, la inclusión social y la resiliencia climática.
Descargas
Referencias
1. Li, J., Ma, X., Wang, C., Li, X., Peng, Z., & Hong, B. (2025). Multisensory interactions in urban parks: Auditory-olfactory effects on psycho-physiological responses of hypertensive elderly adults. Building and Environment, 283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.113413
2. Kwon, Y., Park, K., Kang, I., Shin, C., Lee, G., & Lee, S. (2025). Examining the relationship between urban park quality and residents’ health in South Korean cities using public data. Land, 14(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/land14061191
3. Smith, M. K., Kowalczyk-Anioł, J., Janiszewski, J., & Grabarczyk, K. (2025). The role of city parks in creating ‘wellbeing societies’: A case study of Piłsudski Park in Łódź, Poland. Turyzm/Tourism, 35(1), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.18778/0867-5856.2025.01
4. Meng, D., Zhang, J., Cai, Z., & Xu, S. (2024). Evaluating the accessibility of seniors to urban park green spaces. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 150(3). https://doi.org/10.1061/JUPDDM.UPENG-4851
5. Wang, L., Zhou, J., Wang, P., Pan, C., & Li, H. (2025). Green gentrification and urban parks: Exploring the complex dynamics of commercial transformation. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 16(2), 6874–6906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02025-5
6. Park, D., Lee, J., Park, S., & Park, M. (2025). Analyzing the mismatch between urban park supply and community needs in Busan: A public health perspective. Sustainability, 17(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094049
7. Hu, Z., & Luo, J. M. (2025). Understanding residents’ motivation, psychological involvement, and psychological well-being in urban parks. Cities, 157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.105598
8. Jin, Y., et al. (2024). Quantifying physiological health efficiency and benefit threshold of greenspace exposure in typical urban landscapes. Environmental Pollution, 362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2024.124726
9. Pongetti, L. S., Faruque, F. S., & Walker, B. H. (2025). Park quality and chronic disease: A city-level analysis. Wellbeing, Space and Society, 8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wss.2025.100265
10. Yi, K., Shi, X., Wei, M., & Zhang, Z. (2025). Benefits of various urban green spaces for public health based on landscape elements: A study of public visual perception. Forests, 16(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/f16040648
11. Meenar, M., Pánek, J., Kitson, J., & York, A. (2025). Mapping the emotional landscapes of parks in post-industrial communities enduring environmental injustices: Potential implications for biophilic city planning. Cities, 158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.105692
12. Paniccià, M., Acito, M., & Grappasonni, I. (2025). How outdoor and indoor green spaces affect human health: A literature review. Annali di Igiene Medicina Preventiva e di Comunità, 37(3), 333–349. https://doi.org/10.7416/ai.2024.2654
13. Rad, T. G., & Alimohammadi, A. (2024). A user-based approach for assessing spatial equity of attractiveness and accessibility to alternative urban parks. Geo-Spatial Information Science, 27(2), 487–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10095020.2022.2135463
14. Wang, J., Jiang, H., Wang, M., Xiong, Y., Zhu, A., & Wang, F. (2025). Assessment of spatial equality and social justice of urban park distribution from park category perspective: Evidence from Shanghai, China. Sustainability, 17(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/su17125474
15. Hung, S.-H. (2025). Does perceived biophilic design contribute to human well-being in urban green spaces? A study of perceived naturalness, biodiversity, perceived restorativeness, and subjective vitality. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2025.128752
16. Yang, Y., Wu, Y., & Jiao, H. (2025). Assessing urban park equity in China through supply and demand balance: A case study of Wuhan City, China. Sustainability, 17(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/su17052255
17. He, B., Wang, S., Xiong, Q., Zhao, Z., & Hou, Y. (2025). Urban park planning for sustainability: Resident insights from China’s major cities. Land, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/land14010128
18. Cao, H., Li, P., Song, W., Chen, J., & Chen, C. (2024). Does supply match demand? Assessing the relationship between urban parks and residents from the perspective of equity and efficiency. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2024.128469
19. Zhang, W., Yang, B., Wang, R., & Guo, X. (2024). An analysis of the effects of different urban park space environment construction on national health. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2024.1433319
20. Li, X., Shang, W.-L., Liu, Q., Liu, X., Lyu, Z., & Ochieng, W. (2024). Towards a sustainable city: Deciphering the determinants of restorative park and spatial patterns. Sustainable Cities and Society, 104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2024.105292
21. Jung, E. (2023). Green spaces for whom? A latent profile analysis of park-rich or -deprived neighborhoods in New York City. Landscape and Urban Planning, 237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104806
22. Zhang, R., Peng, S., Sun, F., Deng, L., & Ren, Y. (2022). Assessing the social equity of urban parks: An improved index integrating multiple quality dimensions and service accessibility. Cities, 129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103839
23. Enßle, F., & Kabisch, N. (2020). 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. Environmental Science & Policy, 109, 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.04.008
24. Kim, J., Won, Y., Kim, Y., & Corley, E. (2025). Preferring local over non-local parks? Green space visit patterns by urban residents in desert cities, Arizona. Landscape and Urban Planning, 256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105292
25. Perry, E. E., Jewiss, J., Manning, R. E., & Ginger, C. (2025). How to define urban park relevance? Examining and integrating US National Park Service and partner views on the goal of ‘relevance to all Americans’. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 68(8), 1950–1968. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2024.2303635
26. Wang, Y., Shi, X., Hong, H., & Chang, Q. (2024). How does multiscale greenspace exposure affect human health? Evidence from urban parks in the central city of Beijing. Journal of Environmental Management, 353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120253
27. Granobles Velandia, F. A., Trilleras, J. M., Romero-Duque, L. P., & Quijas, S. (2024). Understanding the sociocultural valuation of ecosystem services in urban parks: A Colombian study case. Urban Ecosystems, 27(1), 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-023-01438-5
28. Selanon, P., & Chuangchai, W. (2023). The importance of urban green spaces in enhancing holistic health and sustainable well-being for people with disabilities: A narrative review. Buildings, 13(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13082100
29. Halecki, W., Stachura, T., Fudała, W., Stec, A., & Kuboń, S. (2023). Assessment and planning of green spaces in urban parks: A review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104280
30. Guo, Y., & Mell, I. (2021). The planning and design of good quality urban parks in China: The perspectives of technical professionals. Landscape Research, 46(8), 1106–1120. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2021.1948517
31. Li, Z., et al. (2023). The optimal spatial delineation method for the service level of urban park green space from the perspective of opportunity equity. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(36), 85520–85533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-28467-z
32. Lu, A. E. I. Y. (2022). Social and structural determinants of self-rated health in gentrifying neighborhoods in Austin, Texas: A cross-sectional quantitative analysis. International Journal of Community Well-Being. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42413-021-00155-1
33. Wang, Y., & Chang, Q. (2023). The role of urban parks in affecting health outcomes and the differences between vulnerable groups: Evidence from the central city of Beijing. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2023.128110
34. Lu, J., Li, L., & Wang, W. (2025). Assessing accessibility and environmental equity in the context of sustained aging: Pathways for age-friendly urban park planning. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2025.128768
35. Zhang, R., Zhang, C.-Q., Cheng, W., Lai, P. C., & Schüz, B. (2021). The neighborhood socioeconomic inequalities in urban parks in a high-density city: An environmental justice perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning, 211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104099
36. Rigolon, A., Keith, S. J., Harris, B., Mullenbach, L. E., Larson, L. R., & Rushing, J. (2020). More than ‘just green enough’: Helping park professionals achieve equitable greening and limit environmental gentrification. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 38(3), 29–54. https://doi.org/10.18666/JPRA-2019-9654
37. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
38. Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5(210). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
39. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
40. Aria, M. C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
41. Jang, E., Choi, H. B., & Kim, M. (2024). The restorative effects of urban parks on stress control ability and community attachment. Sustainability, 16(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/su16052113
42. Zhang, S., Ye, M., & Liu, X. (2022). Impact of urban historical parks on physical activity and public health in Beijing. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 148(4). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000852
43. Gao, L., Xu, Z., Shang, Z., Li, M., & Wang, J. (2025). Assessing urban park accessibility and equity using open-source data in Jiujiang, China. Land, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/land14010009
44. Zhang, J., & Tan, P. Y. (2023). Assessment of spatial equity of urban park distribution from the perspective of supply-demand interactions. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127827
45. van Puyvelde, A., et al. (2025). Identifying older adults’ needs for park renewal in low-income neighbourhoods: A citizen science approach. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2025.128847
46. Liu, S., Tan, C., Deng, F., Zhang, W., & Wu, X. (2024). A new framework for assessment of park management in smart cities: A study based on social media data and deep learning. Scientific Reports, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-53345-0
47. Lin, B. B., et al. (2023). Policymaker and practitioner perceptions of parks for health and wellbeing: Scoping a holistic approach. Sustainability, 15(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065251
48. van de Mosselaer, F., & Vanneste, D. (2023). The productive role of future expectations in participatory spatial planning: A case study on urban park development in the Netherlands. Planning Theory & Practice, 24(5), 607–620. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2023.2288199
49. Slätmo, E., Nilsson, K., & Huynh, D. (2022). The role of the state in preserving urban green infrastructure—National urban parks in Finland and Sweden. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 65(10), 1821–1841. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2021.1949968
50. Zhao, Y., van den Berg, P. E. W., Ossokina, I. V., & Arentze, T. A. (2024). How do urban parks, neighborhood open spaces, and private gardens relate to individuals’ subjective well-being: Results of a structural equation model. Sustainable Cities and Society, 101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.105094
51. Zhang, J., & Li, J. (2024). Study on the spatial arrangement of urban parkland under the perspective of equity—Taking Harbin main city as an example. Land, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/land13020248
52. Roberts, M., Irvine, K. N., & McVittie, A. (2021). Associations between greenspace and mental health prescription rates in urban areas. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127301
53. Heo, S., Nori-Sarma, A., Kim, S., Lee, J.-T., & Bell, M. L. (2021). Do persons with low socioeconomic status have less access to greenspace? Application of accessibility index to urban parks in Seoul, South Korea. Environmental Research Letters, 16(8). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac12f1
54. Thompson, R. L., et al. (2025). Park use patterns and park satisfaction before and after citywide park renovations in low-income New York City neighborhoods. Scientific Reports, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-07264-3
55. Guo, R., Diehl, J. A., Zhang, R., & Wang, H. (2024). Spatial equity of urban parks from the perspective of recreational opportunities and recreational environment quality: A case study in Singapore. Landscape and Urban Planning, 247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105065
56. Kazemi, F., Hossein Pour, N., & Mahdizadeh, H. (2022). Sustainable low-input urban park design based on some decision-making methods. Land Use Policy, 117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106092
57. Huang, Y., Hong, X., Zheng, Y., Zhang, Y., & Li, Z. (2024). Assessment and optimization of spatial equity for urban parks: A case study in Nanjing, China. Ecological Indicators, 166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112449
58. Li, Y., Zhu, M., Shen, H., Yang, Y., Lange, E., & Lu, X. (2025). Could there be negative sentiments toward urban parks? An analysis of internal and external factors. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2025.128920
59. Harjanti, I. M., Buchori, I., & Kurniati, R. (2023). Does the urban park provision fit the social needs of the community? Evidence for Semarang City, Indonesia. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 31(3), 1271–1295. https://doi.org/10.47836/pjssh.31.3.18
60. Luo, Y., Volk, M., & Chen, K. (2021). Promoting goal-driven performance evaluation: A case study of an urban park in Florida, USA. Landscape Research, 46(5), 673–692. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2021.1882975
61. Park, K., & Khanal, A. (2025). Park features, neighborhood environment, and time factors affect park visitor volume: A meta-analysis. Environment and Behavior, 57(3), 296–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139165251342974
62. Larson, K. L., Brown, J. A., Lee, K. J., & Pearsall, H. (2022). Park equity: Why subjective measures matter. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127733
63. Wang, J., & Foley, K. (2021). Assessing the performance of urban open space for achieving sustainable and resilient cities: A pilot study of two urban parks in Dublin, Ireland. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127180
64. Saint-Onge, K., Coulombe, S., Philibert, M., Wiesztort, L., & Houle, J. (2022). How urban parks nurture eudaimonic and hedonic wellbeing: An explorative large scale qualitative study in Québec, Canada. Wellbeing, Space and Society, 3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wss.2022.100095
65. Liu, R., et al. (2025). How to lead the optimization of parks spatial patterns more comprehensively with the philosophy of green equity: A case of Chengdu. Habitat International, 157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2025.103318
66. da Silva, C. E., Bezerra, A. C., & Cruz Neto, C. C. (2023). Associations between the perception of ecosystem services and well-being in urban parks. Urban Ecosystems, 26(6), 1615–1627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-023-01412-1
