Imagine your perfect park: a qualitative study on adolescents’ usage of green spaces, perceived benefits and preferences

ABSTRACT

Green spaces are essential urban infrastructures. They represent cost-effective interventions to reduce health inequities and contribute to climate-resilient cities and adolescents’ health and well-being. Nevertheless, evidence suggests they are underused by adolescents, especially in Southern Europe. We explored the perspectives of adolescents on their use of green spaces (including frequency of use, activities performed, and types of space), perceived benefits, and preferences regarding green spaces’ characteristics. We performed seven online focus groups with 34 adolescents (15–16 years old) recruited from the Generation XXI cohort (a population-based birth cohort from the Porto Metropolitan Area, Portugal), stratified by socioeconomic status. Data were analyzed thematically by a deductive-inductive approach. Participants reported regular use of green spaces to perform physical activity, rest, and socialize. They perceived associated benefits for their general well-being and respiratory and mental health. The views shared by the participants suggest that the perfect park was idealized as large and multifunctional, providing a diversity of equipment and sufficient vegetation. It should be close to school and residential neighborhoods, upkeep, and made dynamic by the organization of cultural or sports events. Youth-led perspectives in urban planning might improve adolescents’ use of green spaces and encourage sustainable and equitable health-promoting urban environments.

KEYWORDS:

• Adolescent health
• green spaces
• health policy
• qualitative research
• urban health
• urban planning

Introduction

Green spaces benefit individuals’ health throughout life (Hartig et al. 2014). During childhood and adolescence, in particular, exposure to green spaces has been associated with less obesity (Jia et al. 2021), better respiratory function (Queiroz Almeida et al. 2022), higher cognition (Almeida et al. 2022), and less risky behaviors (Mennis et al. 2021). The beneficial effects of green space on mental health are the best documented (Gascon et al. 2015), and recent evidence makes them measurable in practice, showing that urban green space interventions, namely green corridors, can significantly improve mental health burden across the urban population, reducing annual antidepressant use and visits to mental health specialists by 13% (Vidal Yañez et al. 2023). Other than health benefits, urban green spaces promote social (Mitchell and Popham 2008, Mitchell et al. 2015, Kabisch et al. 2017, van den Bosch and Nieuwenhuijsen 2017) and environmental sustainability, being an important urban strategy for adapting to and mitigating climate change (Kabisch et al. 2017).

Considering the physical, mental, and social health benefits provided by green spaces, these should be considered as important elements in public health interventions aimed at tackling all major threats identified for adolescents’ health and well-being.

Despite the expected positive health impacts, multi-country investigations showed that adolescents use green spaces infrequently (Rigolon 2017, Veitch et al. 2017), particularly in southern European cities (Van Hecke et al. 2016, 2018). The less frequent use of these spaces may be due to cultural factors, as well as contextual factors, such as the distance and crowding of these spaces, their inadequate maintenance, or even the absence of equipment or facilities (Dai et al. 2023). In the Portuguese Porto Metropolitan Area, as in most southern European cities, urban green spaces occupy only 1.5% of the total urban area, half the European average (3%) (Copernicus Programme 2018). The scarcity of green spaces tends to be especially evident in the most deprived neighborhoods (Astell-Burt et al. 2014), where usually there is also lower accessibility to high-quality, well-maintained urban green spaces, as it is the case of Porto (Hoffimann et al. 2017).

Adolescents’ needs and desires regarding green spaces tend to be neglected (Gallerani et al. 2017). In Portugal where participatory urban planning approaches are still unusual (Ferreira 2022) adults are those usually represented, and young people are rarely consulted (Gonzalez et al. 2022). However, it has been previously shown that adolescents are particularly willing to participate in urban planning and green spaces design (Gallerani et al. 2017). This might contribute to improving not only the quality and use of green spaces but also foster their social capital (Ozer and Piatt 2017).

A dynamic model of adolescent health urbanism proposed by M. Knöll and J.J. Roe emphasized youth-led participatory urban design and planning, and place affordances, integrating thus both person and place characteristics (Knöll and Roe 2017). Four types of place affordances were identified – physical, emotional, social, and digital ones. These constitute opportunities for adolescent health and well-being in the built environment, linked with mechanisms that underlie the association between exposure to green spaces and health, such as the promotion of healthy diets and physical activity; relaxation and attention restoration; and social interaction (Hartig et al. 2014). Yet, as these authors suggest, the specific attributes or characteristics of green spaces that foster affordances are poorly understood, and qualitative measures of how adolescents use and perceive them are needed to build comprehensive and inclusive urban environments (Knöll and Roe 2017).

This qualitative study explored the perspectives of adolescents from the Porto Metropolitan Area, Portugal, inquiring on their use of green spaces (including frequency of use, activities performed, and type of space), as well as their perceived benefits and preferences regarding green spaces’ characteristics.

Methods

We conducted focus groups to allow us to collect adolescents’ personal opinions and also emergent, confluent, or divergent ideas resulting from the interaction between participants (Morgan 1996). This qualitative methodology is particularly valuable when conducting research about disempowered populations, such as children and adolescents, that may be more reluctant to share their opinions in a person-to-person situation (Peterson-Sweeney 2005). The data were analyzed by deductive-inductive thematic analysis (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane 2006).

Participants and setting

Participants were recruited from the Generation XXI cohort, a population-based birth cohort that follows children living in the Porto Metropolitan Area since 2005–2006 (Larsen et al. 2013). The Porto Metropolitan Area is the second-largest metropolitan area of Portugal. It is located in the northern region of Portugal and has a population of 1.7 million (População residente (N.º) por Local de residência 2021) inhabitants.

At the cohort onset, a total of 8495 mothers were invited to have their newborns participate. As such, 8467 newborns were recruited at the five public maternities of the area, which then accounted for 95% of the region’s births (Larsen et al. 2013).

For this study, we selected participants from Generation XXI – now adolescents aged 15 to 16 – residing in the cities of the Porto Metropolitan Area. This criterion was critical as, for the purpose of this study, we intentionally excluded the perspectives of adolescents residing in more rural areas, where agricultural and natural green spaces, rather than urban green spaces, predominate. The study area presents a shortage of green infrastructure and a large degree of socioeconomic inequality, with 4.4% of the population receiving the Social Integration Income (a social support program that encompasses monetary support and a social insertion contract to help integrate the individuals in the community), while the nationwide percentage is 2.5% (Beneficiárias/os do rendimento social de inserção 2021).

All eligible participants were stratified into quintiles according to SES, defined both by the household income and the socioeconomic deprivation level of the respective residential neighborhood (Ribeiro et al. 2018). After stratification, they were randomly selected from the lowest and highest SES quintiles. A total of four focus groups for each stratum (eight in total) with up to eight participants were deemed necessary to ensure saturation (Guest et al. 2016). An equal proportion of female/male participants was established since green spaces can have different use and effects depending on sex (Sillman et al. 2022).

Participants’ legal representatives were contacted by phone, and informed about the objectives of the study, its methodology, and how the discussion would be conducted. Afterwards an invitation to participate was made, and consent was asked. Later, an informed consent form was sent by email, to be signed by the participant and their legal representative.

Focus groups

Focus groups followed a semi-structured guide developed by the research team (Supplementary Material 1). It explored three main macro-areas: participants’ modes of using urban green spaces, perceived benefits, and preferences regarding the characteristics of green spaces. A pilot focus group with a convenience sample of eight adults from outside the cohort was conducted previously to test and refine the guide.

Considering participants’ availability, focus groups were scheduled between 5 March and 12 April 2022, online (Zoom platform). They were conducted by MSC; TL was present as a silent observer (Litosseliti 2003) and was responsible for field notes, managing unexpected events, and informing the moderator about topics to be further explored.

Discussions were audio and video recorded, so they could be then transcribed and analyzed. Participants were anonymized, and sex and SES were used to refer to quotations (translated by the authors and found between quotation marks).

Analysis

Interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis, using a deductive-inductive approach as described in (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane 2006) with NVivo Release 1.5.2. A preceding thematic tree was first developed through the review of relevant literature on the topic and discussion among the multidisciplinary authors team which included three medical doctors, a geographer, and a sociologist, all with expertise in public, urban and environmental health. The tree was then redefined during thematic analysis (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane 2006) with the addition of emergent new codes and redefinition of the remaining codes. Specific codes are mentioned in bold in the text.

Participants in these focus groups shared and discussed their views on the modes of use of urban green spaces, namely frequency of use, activities performed in these spaces, and types of space used, their perception of the associated benefits, and their preferences, considering barriers and promoters of the use of these spaces (Supplementary Material 3).

The first two focus groups transcriptions were analyzed by both MSC and DQA independently. Afterwards, the analyses were compared, with confrontation and discussion of the differences in the coding of the transcripts. The remaining focus groups transcriptions were analyzed either by MSC or by DQA. Doubts were discussed between the two and, when no consensus was reached regarding how to code a specific part of the transcription, a third author was consulted to reach a final decision concerning how to code that specific transcript.

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Instituto de Saúde Pública da Universidade do Porto [CE21200]. The assembling of Generation XXI cohort was initially approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade do Porto/Hospital de São João on the 27 April 2005 and by the Portuguese Data Protection Authority.

Written informed consent was obtained from participants and their legal representatives. To preserve confidentiality, data was stored in encrypted files accessible only to the research team, and the audiovisual recordings were destroyed after transcription.

Results

Seven focus groups were performed, with a total of 34 adolescents aged between 15 and 16. The duration of the focus groups ranged between 31 and 53 minutes. The characteristics of each focus group can be found in Table 1. An eighth group was deemed unnecessary since data saturation was reached after the seventh focus group.

Table 1. Characteristics of the participants.

Focus group	Number of participants	Socioeconomic status
1	1 Male	High
	4 Female
2	2 Male	High
	4 Female
3	2 Male	High
	4 Female
4	4 Male	High
	1 Female
5	2 Male	Low
	3 Female
6	3 Male	Low
	2 Female
7	1 Male	Low
	1 Female

Modes of use: how do adolescents use green spaces?

Frequency of use

Most participants visited green spaces regularly, as part of their daily (or several times a week) or weekly (or several times a month) routine. Seasonal use was identified, as the use was more frequent during summer holidays, when adolescents, regardless of the habitual use, mentioned having more free time and using different green spaces, namely some larger spaces located away from home. The largest urban green space of the Porto Metropolitan Area (Porto City Park) was the most frequently mentioned green space during summer, whilst smaller green spaces located near home or school were preferred for day-to-day use. Female participants reported daily use more frequently. Participants from lower SES reported a higher frequency of green spaces use all year around and a less seasonal pattern.

Activities

Physical activity and exercise, such as ‘walking’, ‘running’, ‘biking’, ‘skating’, and group sports like ‘soccer’, ‘volleyball’, ‘basketball’, ‘handball’, and ‘American football’, were activities frequently mentioned to be performed in green spaces. Male participants reported using green spaces for physical activity more frequently. Some participants reinforced the idea that performing physical activity in green spaces was more pleasant than doing so in urbanized areas: (‘I think it is a good space to do physical exercise, for example, because it is greener, there is more nature, it is more pleasant to run than, for example, a more urban space’. – Female, High-SES).

While some participants reported enjoying being alone in green spaces (‘alone, when I want to clear my head’. – Male, Low-SES), all participants, regardless of sex and SES, reported using green spaces for sociability purposes, explicitly or implied in other group activities, such as exercise or having meals. Most adolescents used these spaces to interact with peers (’there is a small park near my school where I can go with my friends. We go there after lunch usually’. – Male, Low-SES), with family members (‘when I go with my family is more to stroll around or to talk’. – Female, High-SES), and occasionally to meet new people, as highlighted by one participant: (‘to meet new people, because parks also help with that’. – Female, High-SES).

Other participants mentioned walking the pets (‘I go every day to walk my dogs in the woods nearby my home’ – Female, High-SES), having meals (‘Having lunch sometimes also, we either go get food or we order it and eat there’. – Male, High-SES), or doing creative and cultural activities, such as reading and writing (‘I like to read in green spaces.’ – Female, High-SES), doing photography (‘I get those images of the sunset in my head, I take lots of pictures also’ – Female, High-SES), and playing music (‘I take my guitar or accordion and sometimes I take someone who also plays [musical] instruments and we go there and we play during the afternoons’. – Male, Low-SES).

Types of green spaces used

Public urban parks and gardens freely accessible to the public were the types of green spaces more commonly reported to be used by participants. Some also reported visiting semi-natural green spaces (wild green spaces that underwent some degree of human intervention), such as urban forests and meadows. Few participants reported using paid public parks and gardens like zoological gardens.

Perceived benefits: how do adolescents perceive green spaces’ impact on their health and well-being?

Adolescents perceived health benefits related to the contact with nature in these spaces over a wide range of health domains – social, physical, and mental. Two dimensions were more often reported: respiratory health and well-being and relaxation.

Concerning respiratory health, participants perceived the air in green spaces as cleaner, which was good for their health and for the health of their family members: (‘ … it is always better for him (her younger brother) to breath purer air … ’ – Female, Low-SES).

Regarding well-being and relaxation, many participants reported that using green spaces allowed them to reach a general state of well-being (‘Yes, I think it also makes me (feel healthier) … I feel good.’ – Male, High-SES), to relax (‘It is much more relaxing to be outdoors … Much calmer’. – Male, High-SES), to engage in mindfulness activities (‘ … for meditations, there are lots of people that likes to meditate in green spaces’ – Male, Low-SES) and to deal with their daily life stressors, such as the school workload (‘It is to unwind a bit, to get away of the things from school’. – Female, High-SES) or excessive turmoil and noise exposure in the city (‘The surroundings are usually calmer’. – Female, Low-SES).

Adolescents’ preferences: what characteristics promote (or hinder) adolescents’ use of urban green spaces?

Participants reported several barriers and promoters of the use of green spaces, grouped into (i) quantity and location, (ii) green spaces’ intrinsic characteristics, (iii) management, and (iv) others, such as communication and events organization.

Quantity and location

Proximity was the factor most frequently mentioned as a promoter of use. Yet, conceptions of proximity to green spaces varied. Globally, walking distances of 5 to 15 minutes were preferred. Contrastingly, when distance was pointed out as a barrier to use, this was due to the need of making a trip by car or public transport: (‘I seldom go, because I also have no green spaces close, so … It’s not that easy. I’d have to go by bus or car to a park, and that’s the reason I don’t go that often’ – Female, Low-SES). Nevertheless, regular users were willing to travel greater distances to reach them, either because they use some sports equipment regularly (‘Me and my friends we go to a park where there is a basketball field (…) from my school to the park, I don’t know … It usually takes me half an hour or 40 minutes, no more than that. By foot, by foot’. – Male, Low-SES), or they value green space and contact with nature (‘Yes, yes, I have parks close to my house, but I wouldn’t mind if they were far away. In my case, I’d go anyway. Even because we have buses or bikes … For me it wouldn’t be a big deal, it wouldn’t’. – Male, Low-SES). Willingness to travel greater distance could also vary according to the park characteristics: (‘I think it depends a lot on the park, because for example the City Park, I don’t live that close it takes me half an hour by foot, more or less, but I think the landscape and being located at the beachside, and because it is a reference place, compensates for the time we take to get there.’ – Female, Low-SES).

As the most cited of the promoters, proximity was referred by all participants of the Low-SES group, and ease of transport or accessibility seemed to be more relevant to girls, regardless of their SES.

In terms of quantity, participants were globally satisfied with the number of green spaces; still, they favored the idea of increasing their number in this area. They argued that more green spaces could increase the frequency of use (‘The more there are, I think people would feel more captivated to go at least once, or enjoy them more’ – Male, High-SES), promote more equitable access (‘maybe for me the park is near, but for other people, it is not. So it would be favorable if there were more’ – Female, High-SES) and decrease the density of users in each space (‘I think there should be more, (…) so that people instead of clustering all in one park, could be more or less evenly distributed. (…) it would make it much more appealing to everybody’ – Male, High-SES). Additionally, a higher number of these spaces would be beneficial from an environmental and aesthetic point of view: (‘You can never have too many green spaces in the cities, given that there’s a lot of pollution and everything, and it also serves as an aesthetical form of the city’ – Male, High-SES).

When inquired about their satisfaction with the location of these spaces, a major concern was raised: distribution. Though green spaces might have been well distributed in cities in the past, adolescents admit that today there is a decrease in urban greenspaces in favor of grey areas: (‘Maybe they were properly located, but then more houses have been built with the time that … not anymore! Maybe the park doesn’t fit in all places anymore’ – Female, High-SES). Their implementation in the center of an urban area was regarded as favorable because green spaces would become accessible to a greater number of people, better served by public transportation, and closer to a variety of services, but this perspective was not corroborated by all participants as these locations do not allow effective separation from the urban setting: (‘Some green spaces are badly located because they have a lot of buildings around them’ – Male, Low-SES).

Green spaces’ characteristics

The size and the design of urban green spaces – concerning features such as vegetation, aesthetics and equipment – are aspects that potentiate adolescents’ use of green spaces.

Larger green spaces were associated with lower visitor pressure, especially important during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, tranquility, and capacity to distance from the urban settings and its inherent characteristics. Calm spaces that isolate users from noise and air pollution and, visually, from the city environment, were preferred. Many adolescents reported they valued contact with nature, vegetation abundance, diversity of fauna and flora, and diversity of natural landscapes. These properties were linked with the restorative potential of green spaces, feelings of well-being and relaxation. Indeed, the need to be in contact with nature was one recurring motive to go to urban green spaces (‘ … but also to be in contact with, say, nature’. – Male, High-SES); (‘I usually go more to walk in the park, either to socialize with people, or to interact with the animals that might be there’. – Female, Low-SES). Aesthetics were also highlighted by adolescents: (‘I think that the aesthetics of the park is very important because ahh … because that simply motivates certain people more to go there.’ – Male, Low-SES), as a motivator of green space use: (‘Usually green spaces are much more beautiful’ – Female, Low-SES); (‘It’s much more beautiful to write outdoors than indoors’ – Female, High-SES); (‘where there is nature it is more pleasant to run’ – Female, High-SES).

Accordingly, high visitor pressure or the lack of vegetation constrains adolescents’ willingness to visit green spaces: (‘they are more artificial than natural (…) instead of being parks that enhance nature, that have for example a lot of grass, a lot of trees and so on, they don’t. They are more artificial. In a certain way it demotivates a bit’. – Male, Low-SES). The lack of vegetation as a deterrent to use was mainly pointed out by Low-SES participants.

Besides vegetation, equipment was mentioned. The mode of use determines which type of equipment is preferred: adolescents who usually do sports value the existence of football fields, basketball hoops, and fields, or volleyball areas, while those who used these spaces to socialize value the presence of benches. Walking paths frequently emerged during the discussion, since adolescents preferred built trails/paths. Other attributes such as picnic tables, toilets, or cafes did not arise spontaneously, and views regarding their relevance were sometimes not consensual (‘Picnic tables are important to have lunch there’ – Male, High-SES); (‘It depends. I don’t necessarily need them [picnic tables] to go there and play. No, they are not generally needed’ – Male, High-SES).

Preference for equipment was more pronounced for boys than for girls, regardless of their SES, being thus particularly relevant for Low-SES boys, whilst High-SES adolescents valued more the restorative properties of green spaces.

Some ideas were further put forward – minigolf and urban equipment for pets, such as dog parks – to promote adolescents’ use of urban green spaces.

Adolescents seemed to prefer green spaces that allow a diversity of possible uses, either by their size or by the equipment they provide with. The multifunctionality of a green space might not only serve their own interests and needs at different points in time, but also serve the needs of people who might accompany or meet them there, such as friends or family. The idea of exploring and maximizing different uses, corresponding to different profiles of users in the same park, is suggested: (‘Even, for example, even those places, those attractive things, for example, exercise machines, or fields to play sports. More picnic tables. Each of those things for example brings a certain kind of person, but imagine I am going with my friends to the football field, there are people who can go not to play football, but they go, for example, to meet us and socialize with us there, and they can even do other things and enjoy other … other things available in the park. I mean, a simple thing attracted many people to the park by … by connections. And I think this is something that should be considered’. – Male, High-SES).

Management

Conditions of cleaning and maintenance are of utmost importance for adolescents when deciding to go to a green space (‘and that it is clean also, not very dirty, because when it is dirty I have a feeling like a discomfort’ – Female, Low-SES), and it is not rare that deterioration of these spaces discourages their visit: (‘for example, the garden I have close to me could be much better looked after. The grass is ragged and it’s not as attractive as a clean lawn’ – Female, High-SES).

The perception of insecurity was evoked as a barrier. Insecurity could be felt because of lightning conditions (‘Because I heard that more and more robberies are happening here because there is no lighting. (…) a friend of mine was robbed and it is as he said, if there was lighting he wouldn’t have been robbed so easily’ – Male, Low-SES), or due to the perception of the presence of drug users (‘There’s a lot of drugged people there, and well … I have seen some bad things there, that’s why I don’t frequent that space’ – Female, High-SES).

To overcome security issues, besides improving the lighting of these spaces, cleaning them and the existence of staff and security officers were perceived as relevant: (‘I think that also the municipalities should at the very least clean up and mow the grass, it makes it look a bit safer and also cleaner’ – Female, Low-SES); (‘I think it is very important, for example, maybe to have more … I don’t know, for example, police and so on close to the parks, so they have more attention. Because it’s a very public space, I think it’s necessary that kind of people to keep an eye on’ – Male, Low-SES).

Maintenance, cleanliness, aesthetics, and security were mentioned more frequently by Low-SES adolescents, as facilitators of use. Female participants raised more concerns about security as a barrier, especially Low-SES girls.

Other potential promoters of urban green spaces use

Some adolescents further suggested that the organization and promotion of events or activities in urban green spaces would motivate young people to visit these spaces. They suggested sports tournaments, dance activities, open-air exhibitions, traditional games, or music concerts, reinforcing the double benefit of doing a thing they like in a pleasant environment such as a park, where they could (‘spend a different day’ and ‘breathe some fresh air’ – Female, Low-SES). The need to ensure the existence of free-to-enter green spaces was also mentioned.

Furthermore, the communication of the location, equipment, and activities occurring in urban green spaces, through a (‘website, that informs, according to the region or location, about the existing parks and their dimension, because [the choice] also depends a lot on what use the person wants to make of the space’ – Female, High-SES), was proposed.

Finally, price was identified as a deterrent to the use of urban green spaces, with adolescents advocating for more free spaces (‘It would be good if there were more free parks’ – Female, High-SES).

Discussion

Adolescents regularly use urban green spaces, especially when those are part of their daily trajectories, or close to their school and residential areas. Yet, the use increases during summer holidays as they have more free time. Adolescents perceive health and well-being benefits of the use of urban green spaces, and physical activity, sociability, and relaxation are the main motives for their use. Multifunctionality was perceived as an important promoter of the use of green spaces, both considering their dimension, equipment provision, and abundance of natural green infrastructure. Sports facilities are highly valued by adolescents, and cleanliness and maintenance were identified as priority attributes to allow the enjoyment of green spaces and a higher sense of security. Concerns about the number and distribution of urban green spaces were raised; adolescents reported preferring spaces located within a walkable distance of 5 to 15 minutes.

Adolescents’ modes of use and preferences revealed different affordances being fostered by specific attributes found in green spaces, differently for gender and SES groups, as discussed below.

Physical activity is facilitated by the existence of physical affordances in these spaces, such as sports fields or courts, trails, walking paths, and by their larger size. Physical activity was reported more frequently by male participants, who also valued more the availability of sports equipment in green spaces when compared to female participants. These results align with the already known gender disparity in physical activity, with European 4–18-year-old girls performing around 17% less total daily physical activity than boys (Telford et al. 2016). This disparity is, at least in part, explained by the complex negotiations of gender roles in physically active (Spencer et al. 2015). Still, sports facilities were highly valued by adolescents in general, in line with what was previously found by Zhang et al., 2019 (Zhang et al. 2019). Participants mentioned paved trails as promoters of use, and previous studies have shown that these are strongly associated with physical activity (McCormack et al. 2010, Zhang et al. 2019, Petrunoff et al. 2022), while fitness stations, skating areas, or sports courts are less consistently associated with it (Zhang et al. 2019). Regarding the size of urban green spaces, evidence suggests that larger parks are indeed associated with increased physical activity among the youth (Robertson et al. 2012).

Emotional affordances also emerged. Adolescents – especially females – valued the restorative potential of urban green spaces and seemed to use them more routinely than male participants. Previous studies showed that women tend to value more outdoor recreational activities (Ode Sang et al. 2020). As they seem to more frequently experience anxiety and depression (Van Droogenbroeck et al. 2018), they may use these spaces more often to cope with such mental health issues. Indeed, evidence shows that women obtain greater mental health benefits from green spaces (Fernández Núñez et al. 2022). In accordance, female participants in our sample attributed greater importance to low visitor pressure, diversity of natural landscapes, including abundance and diversity of existing fauna and flora, aesthetics, protection from noise or pollution from the city, and isolation from grey areas in favor of greenness. Likewise, proximity was most frequently valued by girls but less central for adolescents who use sports equipment regularly, as girls tend to use parks for relaxation and social interaction, which are static behaviors, previously associated with the valorization of accessibility (Van Droogenbroeck et al. 2018).

It was noted that High-SES adolescents valued more the restorative properties of green spaces than the presence of sports equipment. We hypothesize that High-SES adolescents value more the emotional affordances of green spaces, as the possibility to escape from everyday routines with tight school and extracurricular schedules. By contrast, Low-SES adolescents, especially boys, may not have the economic capacity to do sports in gyms or clubs, opting for practicing sports in free-to-enter green spaces, valuing their sports equipment, as well as the presence of services such as toilets. Low-SES adolescents might indeed be more dependent on neighborhood green infrastructure for physical activity practice (Romero 2005, Rigolon et al. 2021). This may also justify why participants from lower SES reported more frequent use of green spaces.

Sociability was another common reason to visit green spaces. Social affordances and the possibility of social interactions, especially with peers, have been recognized as important drivers of the use of public spaces by adolescents (Gearin and Kahle 2006, Lloyd et al. 2008). Pro-social behavior and social health were shown to be fostered by the presence of some attributes, either material ones, such as benches, or immaterial, such as shade areas, perceived safety, or tranquility of the space (Sundevall and Jansson 2020).

Physical activity, relaxation, and sociability can be directly linked to the different perceived health benefits: respiratory health, relaxation and well-being. Robust national and international studies have shown that higher exposure to green spaces was associated with better respiratory function (Queiroz Almeida et al. 2022), lower risk of asthma (Winnicki et al. 2022), and lower stress levels (Zhang et al. 2020). The perceived benefit for relaxation and well-being is also aligned with two widely known complementary theories: the stress-recovery theory (Ulrich 1983) and the attention restoration theory (Kaplan 1995). Emotional affordances linked with feelings of relaxation and well-being and benefits for mental health were promoted by characteristics associated with restorative environments, whose value in improving mental well-being is well supported by literature (Sundevall and Jansson 2020, Lyons et al. 2022). Our results reinforce their importance for adolescents (Sundevall and Jansson 2020).

Adolescents voiced a generalized demand to increase the number and size of green spaces, and concerns about their location and distribution. This finding is aligned with the UN Agenda 2030 (Nations 2015) urge for universal access to public green spaces, especially in urban areas where total greenness is below the WHO recommendations on green space, as the Porto Metropolitan Area (ISGlobal Ranking Of Cities 2023). Proximity is a very well-established facilitator of green spaces’ use (Zhang et al. 2019, Moreno et al. 2021), and in this study, it was agreed by adolescents as a walkable distance covered in 5 to 15 minutes or with the same amount of time using independent modes of transport, such as bikes or skates. The same distance is proposed in international recommendations for children/adolescents’ urbanism models (Askew 2018), and it is also compatible with chrono-urbanism models, such as the ‘15-minute city’ (Moreno et al. 2021). Small local green spaces placed close to where people live and spend their day are, thus, necessary (Europe, W.H.O.R.O.f 2016), as these spaces are commonly used regularly by adolescents. Despite being a major predictor of actual green spaces’ use (Schipperijn et al. 2010, Pinto et al. 2021), the distance and time a user is willing to travel to reach it can increase due to the multifunctionality, size and equipment offer, or the season of the year (Van Herzele and Wiedemann 2003, Rigolon 2016, Pinto et al. 2021). These results raise the importance of considering different buffers when studying green spaces according to their specific characteristics.

Thus, not only size or proximity must be considered when designing urban green spaces, but also these spaces’ aesthetics, abundance of vegetation, or provision of equipment, as well as cleanliness and maintenance (Sundevall and Jansson 2020, Lyons et al. 2022). The latter – maintenance, cleanliness, sense of security, and aesthetics – were more frequently highlighted by Low-SES adolescents than by High-SES. This may be since in the city of Porto green spaces closer to more deprived neighborhoods are in poorer condition (Hoffimann et al. 2017). As more vulnerable groups are more dependent on the physical environment, health advantages from urban green space could, more importantly, benefit Low-SES adolescents, especially in terms of stress reduction and improvements in mental health (Ward Thompson et al. 2016, Marselle et al. 2020). The design of urban green spaces can be an effective intervention to reduce health inequalities if access to good-quality green spaces is guaranteed (van den Bosch and Nieuwenhuijsen 2017).

Considering these findings, general measures, such as creating new green spaces or increasing their size and greenness, and improving their maintenance, cleanliness, and aesthetic qualities, may promote its use by adolescents, especially in urban areas with low green coverage. Multifunctionality, through the availability of sports equipment, the increase of vegetation, fauna, and flora, and diversification of natural landscapes has been reported as an important feature both in our study and in previous ones (Sundevall and Jansson 2020, Pinto et al. 2021, Wang et al. 2022). The organization of creative and cultural activities could also foster the use of green spaces (Gearin and Kahle 2006). As a matter of fact, using green spaces to engage adolescents in creative activities might be an important, but still underexplored, mechanism behind the associations between green space exposure and cognition (Dadvand et al. 2015, Bijnens et al. 2020, Almeida et al. 2022) and pro-social behaviour (Putra et al. 2020). Finally, the suggestion of the creation of a website, as a ‘local inventory’ of urban green spaces, puts forward a potential fourth category of affordances of urban green spaces. It is undeniable that digital media, particularly social media, are part of the life of adolescents. Despite associated constraints (Rideout and Robb 2018), their benefits should be maximized, and opportunities to promote health and well-being by these means should be created. In fact, evidence suggests that social media community-related practices transform local experiences, fostering ties between the community and public urban spaces. They might constitute important bottom-up participatory tools with the potential to overcome social constraints and promote grassroot urban re-appropriation (Gatti and Procentese 2021, Gatti et al. 2021).

Strengths and limitations

This study has some limitations that deserve to be discussed. The inclusion of 15 and 16-years old adolescents did not allow information for other ages, of this particularly dynamic phase of life, with changes in identity, personal projects, and preferences (Bullen 2010). Adolescents from minorities, such as immigrant communities, were not represented, nor were adolescents with mobility or cognitive restrictions, who might have different needs. It is important to note that focus groups occurred during a period of easing of restrictions following COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. In this context, information collected might have been influenced by particular patterns of usage and preferences during this period and not exactly representative of typical times. However, when expressing their perspectives, rarely did the participants refer the pandemic as a motive or in association. Furthermore, we consider that pandemic period was actually an opportunity to talk about green spaces, since the awareness about the benefits of nature increased due to lockdowns (Chen et al. 2022, Dushkova et al. 2022).

Equally important are some of the strengths of this study. It included a comprehensive sample that allowed us to identify differences in gender preferences and between SES, and to identify potential strategies to reduce health inequalities. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first qualitative study exploring adolescents’ modes of use of urban green spaces and their perception of its impact on health and wellbeing, as well as their perspectives on barriers and promoters of use, across gender and SES (Lyons et al. 2022). These inputs may inform for a more adequate and effective design of urban green spaces, especially in areas where these are overall scarce (Knöll and Roe 2017, Lyons et al. 2022).

Conclusion

Adolescents, a key demographic in our cities, have expressed the need for more nearby green spaces that offer safe opportunities for physical activity, relaxation, restoration, and social interaction. Based on this study, we identified seven major areas of intervention to enhance green space use in adolescents – improving geographical accessibility, enhancing multifunctionality, making sports facilities available and upkeep, addressing emotional affordances, accounting for socioeconomic and gender differences, promoting pro-social spaces, and exploiting digital platforms – which we detail in Table 2.

Table 2. Seven recommendations for action.

Improve Geographical Accessibility	Increase the number and size of public green spaces, ensuring they are within a walkable distance (5 to 15 minutes) from residential locations and/or schools. Ensure all adolescents, regardless of their socioeconomic status, have access to safe and high-quality green spaces.
Enhance Multifunctionality	Improve green spaces by considering their size, equipment availability, and natural infrastructure to support diverse activities such as sports, cultural and creative pursuits, relaxation, and social interactions.
Make Sports Facilities Available and Upkeep	Recognize the value of sports facilities in green spaces as a way to boost physical activity and lessen sedentary behavior. Ask adolescents about their preferences and increase the availability of miscellaneous sports.
Address Emotional Affordances	Acknowledge the emotional affordances of green spaces, particularly for females who value the restorative effects of green space. Design aesthetically pleasing green spaces that offer tranquility, aesthetics, biodiversity, and protection from urban noise, pollution, and turmoil.
Promote Pro-Social Spaces	Create and ensure green spaces with attributes (such as safety, cleanliness, and maintenance) that encourage social interactions among adolescents and their communities. Consider incorporating urban furniture such as benches and picnic tables.
Account for Socioeconomic and Gender Differences	Acknowledge that adolescents from different genders and socioeconomic backgrounds have different preferences and needs. High-SES adolescents and females may prioritize emotional affordances, while low-SES adolescents may value the existence of sports equipment. Include adolescents in these spaces’ design.
Exploit Digital Platforms	Explore the potential of digital platforms, such as creating websites and apps as ‘local inventories’ of urban green spaces or leveraging social media to enhance awareness and engagement among local communities.

In light of the perceived benefits to adolescents’ respiratory and mental health, as well as their overall well-being, this study underscores the urgent need for urban planners and decision-makers to prioritize youth perspectives in urban design. This can be achieved by establishing regular youth-led participatory forums or integrating youth advisory councils in the planning process. Such inclusive approaches will ensure that urban development is not only more aligned with the needs of younger generations but also contributes to sustainable, fair and impactful changes for future generations.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the families enrolled in Generation XXI for their kindness, in particular the participants that accepted to participate in the focus groups. They would also like to thank all the members of the research team for their enthusiasm and perseverance.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2024.2313927

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by national funds through FCT- Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., under the projects [PTDC/GES-OUT/1662/2020, UIDB/04750/2020 and LA/P/0064/2020]. Ana Isabel Ribeiro is supported by National Funds through FCT, under the ‘Stimulus of Scientific Employment–Individual Support’ programme within the contract [CEECIND/02386/2018].

Notes on contributors

Mariana Sampaio Costa

Mariana Sampaio da Costa earned her master’s degree in Medicine from the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Porto in 2023. Her dissertation project focused on adolescent and urban health. She contributed to the production of the White Book for the MothER Income InequaliTy (MERIT) project as a writer. Currently, Mariana is in the process of exploring and defining her career path in Public Health while working as a medical resident.

Diogo Queiroz Almeida

Diogo Queiroz Almeida has a master’s in Industrial Engineering and Management (2013), and a master’s in Medicine (2019). He finished the CFA Program in 2022. He is currently finishing his PhD in Public Health. He is the author and co-author of scientific articles and oral communications.

José Pedro Silva

José Pedro Silva holds a PhD in sociology, specialty of sociology of environment and territory. He has worked on several research topics, generally using qualitative methodological approaches.

Henrique Barros

Henrique Barros graduated in Medicine in 1981. He is Full Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Porto since 1999. He is currently member of the Executive Commission of the National Ethical Committee for Clinical Investigation (CEIC), President of the Institute of Public Health, University of Porto, Executive Board Member of ASPHER and Past-President of the International Epidemiological Association (2017-20). He has developed research in national and international projects in clinical and perinatal epidemiology and cardiovascular, infectious, and cancer diseases, resulting in (co)authorship of hundreds of scientific publications in international journals.

Ana Isabel Ribeiro

Ana Isabel Ribeiro is an epidemiologist and health geographer. She is a Researcher at the Public Health Institute of the University of Porto and the leader and founder of Lab Health and Territory where she directs a program of research exploring the impact of the neighbourhood’s social and biophysical features on individuals’ health. She has authored >100 publications and led major research projects on urban and environmental health. She also participated in different European projects. Moreover, Ana holds the position of Invited Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Medicine (University of Porto), being actively engaged in training and student supervision.

Teresa Leão

Teresa Leão is a medical doctor (2010) and specialist in Public Health (2019), has a master’s in Public Health (2015) and a Ph.D. in Public Health (2019). Assistant professor in the Medical Faculty of Porto University. She was a researcher in the SILNE-R project (Horizon 2020), working on the economic evaluation of tobacco control policies, an expert in the Portuguese National Health Council, and a consultant in the WHO European Office for Investment for Health and Development, in health equity. Her research mostly focuses on social determinants in health and health inequalities, and analysis of health and social policies, combining quantitative and qualitative methods. Teresa coordinates the Health and Policies LAB from the ITR.