Article Preview
TopIntroduction
The United Nations released in 2015 the Sustainable Development Goals, which primary end is to balance environmental, economic and social sustainability through development (United Nations Development Programme [UNDP], 2015a). As part of these objectives it can be named the Goal 12 of Responsible consumption and production, the same that remarks the importance of the efficient management of shared natural resources, as well as the way toxic wastes and pollutants are disposed. Also, it makes reference to the relevance of encouraging industries and consumers to reduce waste recycle, and to adopt sustainable patterns of consumption (UNDP, 2015b).
This has made the development of Bio-economics to gain relevance, since it is defined as an aggregated set of economic operations and activities related to the use of natural and biological resources or processes to produce goods, capturing economic value, growth and well-being benefits for human development (Vargas-Hernández, Pallagst & Hammer, 2018). Inside the framework of Bio-economics, green infrastructure is defined as a network of natural and artificially created urban and rural vegetation and water areas, which provides positive impacts into the ecosystem, biodiversity and areas resilience (Schneider, Meyer & Plat, 2020). The strategic approach of Bio-economics in the urban context is to understand the city surface as a potential green infrastructure capable of deliver environmental, social and economic benefits. Therefore, the use of public spaces can contribute to the achievement of this, since public spaces can and should fulfill a structuring role of the urban form, which also plays an aesthetic role, beautifying transportation corridors and housing complexes (León Balza, 1998). On the other hand, the presence of a vacant lot often represents the appearance of undesirable situations such as the under-utilization of land, garbage, sources of infection, overgrown weeds, increased crime rates and a reduced real estate value of the area, as well as negative effects on the physical and mental health of the inhabitants. Vacancies are also associated with abandonment, economic and social failure, and a decrease in life satisfaction. Thus the cumulative effects of vacancies lead to a reduction in community well-being (Accordino & Johnson, 2000; Goldstein, Jensen & Reiskin, 2001; Garvin, Cannuscio & Branas, 2013).
An attractive solution to these problems turns out to be to undertake a greening project at the affected place, turning it into natural capital. Natural capital, in contrast to economic capital, refers to those benefits provided to human society by natural ecosystems and landscapes (Jiménez & Chávez, 2009). In addition to the possible production of goods such as wood, fruits and nuts, ecosystem and landscape services also support life and provide direct economic benefits through functions such as purification of the atmosphere and water, nutrient recycling, preservation and renewal of soil fertility, partial climate stabilization, preservation of bio-diversity, aesthetics provision and pest control (Odum, Barret & Aguilar, 2006), crop pollination (Lowenstein, Matteson & Minor, 2015), rainwater retention (Walsh, 2000) and increased capital gains on assets roots of the area (Accordino & Johnson, 2000; De Groot et al., 2013). All of these factors have raised the relevance of such transformations of the natural capital today.
In addition to this, living close to a green area correlates positively with higher levels of satisfaction with life and physiological well-being (Brown & Grant, 2005; White, Alcock, Wheeler & Depledge, 2013; Krekel, Kolve & Wüstemann, 2016; Anderson & Minor, 2017). In general, there are many reasons why the greening of an urban area can therefore represent a series of improvements regarding the well-being of the population from a sustainable, social and economic perspective (Wu, 2010).