1. Introduction
The New Urban Agenda, released by the UN in 2016, set the objective of achieving sustainable city development focused on the population’s psychological and physical health [
1]. The COVID-19 pandemic has only further highlighted the importance of pursuing this goal, not only during the pandemic, but also after it. The pandemic has changed people’s travel habits, leisure activities, work organization, social relationships, and physical and emotional health [
2,
3,
4]. Isolation and the inability to communicate led to loneliness and feelings of isolation, which contributed to the onset of depression [
5,
6]. People were forced by the pandemic to spend their free time in their homes or other nearby living spaces. Many studies have highlighted the importance of public spaces during the COVID-19 pandemic for the emotional and physical well-being of residents [
2,
3,
4,
7,
8,
9]. The presence of public spaces in the neighborhood during the pandemic allowed residents to go outdoors, as well as use playgrounds and sports equipment. Within the constraints, this became one of the places where people could socialize while keeping their distance. The range of leisure opportunities provided in public areas could accommodate the needs of people of various ages [
7,
10,
11]. Children could play in playgrounds, adults could use sports equipment, and the elderly could use parks or footpaths. A well-organized living environment encourages residents to be outdoors, use its benefits, engage in physical activities, or communicate with neighbors. The pandemic highlighted the importance of public spaces for human wellbeing and that cities should be expanded to ensure the good physical and mental health of its citizens [
12]. Ma, Huang, and Liu [
13] found that residents who lived in neighborhoods with a better developed living environment experienced a smaller deterioration in mental well-being during the pandemic than residents who lived in poorer neighborhoods. Gul, Jokhio, Sultan, Smith, Nizam, Moeinaddini, and Hafiz [
14] found that neighborhoods with more visual access to green space were more comfortable during the pandemic. According to McCormack, Petersen, Naish, Ghoneim, and Doyle-Baker [
15], during the epidemic, individuals started using public areas as locations to exercise and maintain their physical activity. Faedda, Plaisant, Talu, and Tola [
16] determined that cities must be expanded to ensure residents have access to public spaces, as they are important for both physical and mental health, and that the development must be carried out after assessing the changed socialization habits of residents as a result of the pandemic. The pandemic caused business closures, job losses and a decline in economic well-being. The loss of jobs was caused by the closure of various institutions, where it was no longer possible to organize teleworking [
17]. Seeing how various organizations were closing, people began to worry about their jobs, financial stability, and existing commitments. The pandemic caused anxiety about their future, ensuring their family’s financial well-being, and their ability to generate income. Most of the job losses were in companies where contactless work could not be ensured—factories, convenience stores, and service companies. Mostly, such jobs do not pay well and are occupied by minimum wage earners. They often live in old neighborhoods, and, therefore, they tend to be most affected by the pandemic. The loss of jobs also limited them socially, as they could no longer afford to go to places that required spending money—theatres, sports clubs, various activities, etc. As the pandemic left people isolated and unemployed, the effects of the pandemic are still being felt now that the restrictions are over. One way to help people recover more quickly from the pandemic and its consequences is to revitalize old neighborhoods—renew environmental and public spaces. Revitalization, as a physical renewal of the living environment, should improve people’s social well-being, economic well-being, and ensure sustainability [
18].
The social and economic well-being of the population remains one of the main objectives of urbanization, and urban development must be people-centered first and foremost. Sustainable urbanization must encourage residents to use public spaces, footpaths, and cycle paths. It must allow for the development of social ties and economic prosperity. As much as we would like to ensure the well-being of residents across all the city, we are aware of neighborhoods in cities that are unattractive, have no leisure facilities, are unmaintained, and have the stigma of being an ‘unsafe’ neighborhood [
19]. Most often, cities have such old neighborhoods adjacent to the central part of the city, which were created only after the beginning of urban development. Cities began to spread laterally as the world’s population increased, and most of the investment went towards developing new neighborhoods rather than improving old ones. In order to achieve sustainable urbanization—which focuses on the physical, psychological, social, and economic well-being of the population—we need not only to build new functional neighborhoods, but also to renovate the old ones.
Revitalization is the most common approach to renew old neighborhoods, because it has multiple benefits as a physical improvement of the living environment. Revitalization improves the physical condition of the neighborhood by providing sidewalks, bicycle paths, and public spaces; by increasing the social well-being of residents; by providing an opportunity to make social connections and increase the economic well-being of residents; and by increasing the price of real estate [
20,
21]. The revitalization of residential neighborhoods is a widely studied topic among academics. It analyzes its processes, offers suggestions for their improvement and optimization [
22,
23,
24,
25], uses technology to reduce the number of errors [
26,
27], and analyses the social and economic benefits of revitalization [
28,
29,
30,
31,
32].
The beneficiaries of the revitalization process are the residents of the neighborhood, so it is crucial to know what has changed in their lives after revitalization. The literature review found that social and economic changes are primarily only assessed in the general context of revitalization—everything is seen as a process that has had positive or negative benefits [
27,
30,
31,
33]. However, there is a lack of analysis that identifies the link between revitalization project solutions and the social and economic well-being of residents. The article examines neighborhood revitalization as a physical renewal of the environment, during which sidewalks are renewed, bicycle paths are installed, and public spaces are created.
In order to remedy this knowledge gap, the study has two main objectives: (1) to determine the impact of the typical technical solutions used in revitalization on the social well-being of the population and (2) to determine the impact of the typical technical solutions used in revitalization on the economic well-being of residents. To achieve the objectives, a revitalization project of the Žirmūnai triangle neighborhood was selected. After identifying the typical technical solutions applied in the revitalization, a survey of the residents of the Žirmūnai triangle was carried out to examine the relationship between the typical technical solutions and the social and economic well-being of the residents.
The paper is organized as follows.
Section 2 of the paper provides a literature review on revitalization and its impact on social and economic well-being.
Section 3 presents the study area and analyses it before and after revitalization.
Section 4 describes the materials and methodology used in the study.
Section 5 presents the results of the study.
Section 6 discusses the results obtained.
Section 7 presents the conclusions of the study.
2. Literature Review
The physical renewal of neighborhood environments in the literature is usually called “urban revitalization”, “urban renewal”, or “urban regeneration”. All these terms essentially refer to the same environmental renewal procedure for the neighborhood. Balsas [
34] highlighted that there was no universally accepted concept of “urban revitalization”, and that its application had changed throughout time. Yu and Kwon [
21] described “urban revitalization” as the renewal of the neighborhood’s physical environment through infrastructure improvements that create opportunity for the neighborhood’s living environment to flourish. Zheng, Qiping, and Wang [
35] used the term “urban regeneration,” which indicates the environmental renewal of the neighborhood to address the social and economic issues of the residents. Meanwhile, Huang, Pai, and Liu [
36] and Heang, Zheng, Hong, Liu, and Liu [
19] described the renewal of the neighborhood physical environment as “urban renewal”, which ensures social and economic well-being of residents. In essence, “urban regeneration”, “urban renewal”, and “urban revitalization” all refer to the physical neighborhood environment renewing, which has an impact on the social and economic well-being of residents. For the purpose of maintaining consistency in terminology, this article will refer to the physical renewal of the neighborhood environment as revitalization. This phrase was used in the Žirmūnai triangle project vision.
Revitalization is initiated by local authorities, as they are responsible for urban development and maintenance. Funding is often local, or there may be a mix of funding, either partly from local authorities or from international projects. Cai, Yang, and Li [
37] found that the success of revitalization was determined by factors such as the project development process, legal structure, unknown consequences, and funding sources. According to Zhu, Li, and Jiang [
29], the failure of revitalization was caused by citizens’ unwillingness to participate financially, a lack of revitalization initiatives examples, ill-conceived project designs, and confusing legal frameworks. Liu, Wu, Liu, and Li [
38] also asserted that the lack of cooperation between municipal authorities and residents had a negative impact on revitalization. Heang, Zheng, Hong, Liu, and Liu’s [
23] study confirmed that the best revitalization results were achieved through cooperation between the authorities and residents, as residents pointed out problem areas in the neighborhood that could only be identified after a long period of time. It is also important to be aware of the difficulties that are most often encountered in cooperation between authorities and residents [
29]. It is common to find more than one neighborhood in a city that needs revitalization, and it is, therefore, necessary to establish criteria for the selection of priority areas [
24].
It has been observed, after analyzing the implemented examples of revitalization, that it is carried out mostly in multistory apartment buildings neighborhoods [
39]. However, previous studies identified the same problems in multistory apartment building neighborhoods: a lack of green spaces, lack of parking spaces, lack of playgrounds or sports grounds, unpaved pedestrian pathways, and a lack of bicycle paths [
25,
39,
40]. An analysis of the Re-Block urban renewal projects in Budapest, Magdeburg, Rome, Gelsenkirchen showed that all the projects used the same technical solutions: the creation of a central square, the creation of pedestrian paths, the creation of cycle paths, the creation of sports grounds and playgrounds, and the creation of parking spaces [
41,
42]. It might be stated that the project organizer is responsible for the use of selected solutions; however, an examination of other revitalization projects revealed the same typical solutions as those stated above [
21,
31,
39,
43]. Taking into account the most commonly used revitalization solutions, the article names sidewalks, bicycle paths, central squares, sports fields, playgrounds, and parking lot installation as typical revitalization solutions. In Slovakia, the revitalization of small towns was based on park renovations, pedestrian pathways, bicycle path, and playground installation [
44]. Mareeva, Ahmad, Ferwati, and Garba [
45] explored the possibilities of neighborhood renewal and proposed implementation solutions that were analogous to typical solutions. The identification of typical revitalization solutions and knowledge sharing enabled the prevention of potential errors [
46]. Solutions such as pedestrian path installation, bicycle path installation, and public space creation are also used because of their benefits for the residents. Duan, Lei, Tong, Wang, and Hou [
47] revealed that inhabitants had more route alternatives, including walking routes and routes for quick walks to service providers, the wider the network of pedestrian paths were. According to the study, by balancing the amount of green space and pedestrian paths, people were more likely to enjoy walking. Sehgal and Toscano [
48] investigated how the developed environment in neighborhoods in terms of pedestrian paths, amenities, parking, and green spaces interacted with blood pressure. It was found that neighborhoods lacking such infrastructure or leisure facilities had higher blood pressure compared to neighborhoods with such infrastructure. The study also suggested that residential environments should be designed to protect and promote the health of the population. Rivera-Navarro, Bonilla, Gullon, Gonzalez-Salgado, and Franco [
49] found that the physical activity of the residents was directly related to the availability of physical activity facilities in the neighborhood. Physical activity is linked to psychological health. Haron, Zainol, Wan Omar, and Rahman [
50] examined the relationship between the provision of a cycling path and the willingness to use it in a neighborhood and found that the main factors that influenced cycling in a neighborhood were the opportunities created for cycling by the provision of paths, the benefits gained in terms of shorter paths, faster access to facilities, and the physical activity generated.
The existence of interpersonal connections and a feeling of community, as well as the accessibility of social services, are indicators of social well-being, and they depend on the physical environment of the neighborhood [
51,
52]. Thus, revitalization technical solutions that improve the neighborhood environment have a positive impact on social well-being. The environment in the new neighborhoods is far better than that in the old ones. Csomós, Farkas, Kolcsár, Szilassi, and Kovács [
53] discovered that the distribution of social groupings in various sorts of communities was what caused the biggest social inequities. Young people want to live in nice neighborhoods where real estate is more expensive and they can afford it, while low-income people cannot afford to buy property in nice neighborhoods, thus leading to marked social inequalities. Planners of revitalization projects should understand that the decisions they make could influence social capital in a neighborhood. The built environment can promote or hinge social interactions between residents [
54]. The presence of public spaces in the neighborhood helps to integrate different social groups [
36]. Shemai and Hananel [
55] noted that revitalization not only aimed to ensure urban diversity, but also created social and economic diversity. The public areas can be modified for different occasions and to facilitate interaction between members of various social groupings [
12]. Further social benefits result from using the newly built public places for events as well as leisure areas, since various individuals participate in similar pursuits. It also adds economic benefits, as investors, event hosts, and food vendors are attracted. Community centers are established in some regeneration projects so that residents can participate in a variety of activities [
56]. Community centers can encourage social capital in neighborhood [
57,
58]. Mouratidis and Yiannakou [
51] found that services and their accessibility also had a positive impact on social well-being. Revitalization in small towns had included the creation of public spaces, local frontages, social gathering places, and the renovation of natural places such as lakes and riversides. These solutions helped to create social links, as people become involved in organized events, met new people, and crime rates also decreased [
59]. According to recent research, community revitalization projects that refurbished public places fostered social interactions, made it easier for newcomers to settle in, boosted neighborhood satisfaction, and enhanced their inhabitants’ psychological well-being [
60]. The renovated environment of the neighborhood gives residents satisfaction regarding their living environment [
32]. However, there are also negative effects of neighborhood revitalization. Nixon, Carlton, and Ma [
61] examined an example where the economic value of a neighborhood increased because of revitalization and residents were displaced from their residences, as new residents with higher incomes took their place. This was also confirmed by Ruming, Mee, and McGuirk [
62], who determined that the effort to ensure equality between different groups of people, by revitalizing neighborhoods, did not always end in ensuring equality, as it can deepen social exclusion. Therefore, when preparing revitalization projects, it is important to maintain a balance so that residents are not pushed out of their neighborhoods.
Depending on the location of a neighborhood in a city, the economic prosperity of neighborhoods and the number of businesses located there vary. Neighborhoods closer to the city center have an increase in the number of businesses and small shops, while those further away have a corresponding decrease. As most jobs are concentrated in the central part of the city, businesses are concentrated around the center. Therefore, the distance to the city center also changes the indicator of economic well-being. As the neighborhoods close to the city center are old, even though their location is convenient, businesses do not locate there. These neighborhoods are usually places with a few shops, beauty salons, and other local service businesses. Park and Kim [
33] found that the revitalization of the park had increased the sales of the surrounding stores, attracted more people, increased economic prosperity, and created new jobs. A study on the revitalization of small towns in Poland found that revitalization helped to create new jobs for locals but did not reduce the unemployment rate [
59]. Lin, Huang, Fu, Chen, Zhao, Li, and Tzeng [
63] and Hui, Chen, Lang, and Ou [
43] discovered that revitalizing a neighborhood boosts the area’s economic prosperity. It becomes attractive to investors due to the landscaped environment and new residents who would like to buy a home there. Wadu Mesthrigea, Wongb, and Yuka [
64] confirmed that revitalizing a whole neighborhood, rather than a single building, increased the price of real estate in the neighborhood and had a positive impact on surrounding areas. This conclusion was supported by Dewi, Susanti, and Wungo’s [
65] study, which found an increase in the price of real estate in the neighborhood after revitalization. As the price of real estate in the whole neighborhood increases, the economic well-being of the residents also improves, as they have higher-value properties. Also, as the neighborhood is revitalized, new businesses seek to locate there, thereby producing jobs. Wilaon and Hodges [
66] found that the emergence of local retail outlets in the neighborhoods increased social connections between local people.
Following the pandemic, communication patterns have changed, and people have become more secretive by avoiding encounters and gathering in public spaces. Residents have been found to prefer small public spaces adjacent to their homes where there are fewer people than large public spaces in common urban areas [
67]. In the post-pandemic period, residents feel safer walking in spaces where there are up to three people, more greenery, and fewer paths in the general area. Such change also shapes a new approach to planning solutions for public spaces. Sikorska and Sikorski [
68] analyzed possible solutions for the management of public spaces that restricted the flow of people. It was proposed to organize the environment in such a way that the most necessary services could be reached on foot or by bicycle, as well as ensure people’s physical activity. After the pandemic, people’s daily routines altered; they now spend more time in local communities and make less unnecessary trips [
12]. Also, the pandemic compelled planners to consider innovative urban design strategies that would be advantageous both during and after the outbreak. Sait and Jivraj [
69] proposed a possible neighborhood design option that had ensured a 15-minute neighborhood concept but, at the same time, had ensured normal life during the pandemic. It was proposed to create various public and private spaces to allow free time and safe communication with neighbors to ensure daily services within the neighborhood (goods, work, sports) that would be accessible on foot or by bicycle. The 15-minute city concept ensures the accessibility of services and the reduction of the need to move around the city. According to this concept, the most necessary daily services are obtained in the neighborhood, thus reducing the need to make trips by means of vehicles, thus reducing environmental pollution, which is an important aspect to ensure city sustainability [
70]. Mocák, Matlovičová, Matlovic, Penzes, Pachura, Mishra, Kostilníková, and Demková [
71] examined the example of the revitalization of the neighborhood of Špitalka, which had created places for trade so that residents could purchase goods and sellers could earn money without moving away from their place of residence. This example not only substantiates the concept of the 15-minute city, but also confirms how important it is to have common spaces in the community where residents can meet, communicate, and ensure social capital [
54].
Bereitschaft and Scheller [
72] analyzed the solutions for the transformation of public spaces applied in the world during the pandemic period. Wider than necessary sidewalks and bicycle paths were installed to ensure distance, so that residents could feel safe using them. Instead of parking spaces on the streets, small public spaces with raised seating areas were set up for communication. In order to preserve the distance, cafes used to occupy the seats with plush toys. Business owners tried to adapt to the pandemic restrictions and at the same time ensure quality services during the quarantine period. Askarizad and He [
5] used the grid-based method in their studio, proposed furniture and landscaping solutions for public spaces that ensured a safe distance of at least one meter between seating areas, and created many separate small spaces for safe communication in a large public space. In small spaces, 2–4 people could communicate while keeping a safe distance. Such a design of public spaces would ensure safe distance and allow people to communicate in more private spaces.
After the pandemic, the goal is to maintain safe distances, although personal safety from criminality is still crucial. Built environment can promote safety in neighborhood [
54]. The most vulnerable groups in terms of security are children and women [
73]. Blöbaum and Hunecke [
74] found that women had not used neighborhood public spaces, recreation areas, sports equipment, or other leisure opportunities due to a sense of insecurity. For women, the feeling of security in the environment increases by the presence of other women, environmental lighting, and visibility of space [
75]. Perez-Tejera, Anguera, Guardia-Olmos, Dalmau-Bueno, and Valera [
73] and Sun, Lin, and Yin [
54] found that women felt safer when living in a neighborhood for a long time, even though it did not have additional security solutions. Matlovičová, Mocák, and Kolesárová [
76] analyzed environmental planning solutions that could increase security—such as the creation of monitored spaces (increases the feeling of security), the use of greenery near buildings (to protect against vandalism), and the installation of lighting (ensures the ability to notice other people). When choosing revitalization solutions, it is important to consider the safety of the most vulnerable groups of people, because designers have the potential to prevent crime from happening [
77]. Alonso, Andrews, and Jorda [
78] found that, after the revitalization and proper re-planning of spaces, the number of crimes in the neighborhood decreased by 10–15 percent.
The review of the literature showed that revitalization, in which only the physical environment was renewed, not only improved the neighborhood’s aesthetics, but also increased social ties among residents, improved their social well-being, and boosted the neighborhood’s and the surrounding area’s economic prosperity. The distinctiveness of the living environment was particularly accentuated by the pandemic, as it was probably the only place where inhabitants could spend their leisure time safely. Revitalization is about neighborhood renewal technical solutions that change many areas of life. Yet, little research has been done to determine how the most common revitalization solutions actually increase social and economic well-being. Using the example of Žirmūnai triangle revitalization project, during which the physical environment of the neighborhood was renewed; pedestrian paths and bicycle paths were installed; and public spaces, playgrounds, and sports fields were created, this study’s aim is to identify the link between these typical revitalization solutions and the social and economic well-being of the inhabitants.
6. Discussion
The COVID-19 pandemic affected people’s physical and mental health, since they felt alone and unable to communicate with others [
2,
3,
4], as well as their economic well-being, because many lost their employment [
6,
24,
28]. The pandemic showed the importance of a close living environment, as it was probably the only place where people could exercise, socialize, and spend their leisure time safely. When restrictions started, some residents found that there was no leisure space in their neighborhood, no public spaces, no sports grounds, and no playgrounds. This made the residents’ psychological health even worse, as they felt inferior to the residents of the other new neighborhoods. With the end of the pandemic, the need of residents to spend their free time in their living environment has not changed [
85]. The pandemic has shown how important and necessary a close living environment is for maintaining good physical and psychological well-being. It seems that once the pandemic is over, the population should return to life as it was before the pandemic. People should go to work, public places, and sports clubs again, as well as want to communicate with other people. However, the pandemic has isolated people and changed their living habits: now residents avoid physical contact. This is because the COVID-19 virus has not disappeared. Some people have lost their loved ones because of it and are afraid of getting sick or infecting other people. Therefore, the renovation of the living environment after the pandemic period creates favorable opportunities for making social connections safely and keeping a social distance, since residents can communicate with neighbors in the public spaces provided. Neighborhood revitalization is also a sustainable way of renewing the environment, as it aims to turn the old into new again, thereby giving the neighborhood the opportunity to look attractive again and make the residents want to be there. The end of the pandemic has confirmed the need to change the approach to public spaces and learn to plan them anew in order to ensure the needs of the population both during and after the pandemic [
86,
87].
Revitalization is also used to ensure equal living conditions in the city by renewing a neighborhood’s environment. Typical solutions used in revitalization are the creation of public spaces, the installation of sports grounds and playgrounds, and the renewal of pavements and bicycle paths. Revitalization as a physical renewal of the neighborhood environment brings positive changes to social and economic well-being as well. A renewed environment provides residents with opportunities to use and interact in public spaces and to engage in physical activities on sports grounds or in playgrounds. The upgraded environment of the neighborhood attracts investment, increases the value of property in the neighborhood, creates new jobs, and, thus, improves the economic well-being of the residents. Revitalization has been found to improve social and economic well-being. However, there is a lack of research that clearly identifies the benefits of the typical revitalization solutions used in terms of social and economic well-being.
To find out the benefits of the adapted typical revitalization solution for social and economic well-being, a survey of the Žirmūnai triangle residents after revitalization was conducted. The survey consisted of two groups of questions: the first group of questions was compared with the results of a survey carried out in 2015, before the revitalization of the neighborhood, while the second group of questions was analyzed to establish the link between the solutions used and the social and economic well-being changes. The survey was carried out in December 2021, when COVID-19 restrictions were still in force in Lithuania.
The results showed a decrease in physical activity in 2021, with a 15p% increase in the number of daily car trips, a 12p% decrease in the number of public transport trips, and a 4p% decrease in the number of bicycle trips compared to 2015. The provision of a bicycle path during revitalization did not encourage residents to cycle more (73%), and the provision of a more convenient pedestrian path system did not encourage residents to use public transport (91%). The respondents’ varied ages are somewhat reflected in these results. In 2015, the majority of responders were between the ages of 50 and 69; in 2021, the age range was 18 to 39. As a result, there are differences in physical activity levels between age groups, with older people often being less active. The decrease in physical activity was also due to the pandemic, as a part of the population worked from home and no longer needed to commute to work, while the remaining part of the population that continued to work from home avoided the possibility of being infected and opted for private transport instead of public transport. This observation is also mentioned by Majewska, Denis, Jarecka-Bidziska, Jaroszewicz, and Krupowicz [
12], who found that, during the pandemic, the population switched from using public transport to driving.
The results show that, during the COVID-19 period, residents avoided interacting with their neighbors, because they did not get to know their neighbors after improving the neighborhood’s surroundings and installing public and sports spaces (87%), and the lack of contact with neighbors was also due to the lack of knowledge about whether the resident’s apartment building was part of the “Kaimynijų” program (45%).
It has been found that the typical solutions used in the revitalization process—the provision of public spaces, sports, and playgrounds—will directly contribute to the social and economic well-being of the residents. As a result, 17% of the residents experienced an improvement in their economic well-being, 17% of the residents got to know their neighbors, and 95% of the residents indicated that they like living in this neighborhood. The use of public spaces, sports, and playgrounds is directly related to physical activity, so the provision of such facilities in the neighborhood also improves the physical health of the residents. It was found that typical revitalization solutions used in the neighborhood, such as the provision of bicycle paths and pedestrian paths, were not associated with a change in socio-economic well-being. It should be observed that most respondents in the study concerning the effects of revitalization typical solutions on social and economic well-being were in the range of ages of 18 and 39. Therefore, the obtained results reflect the changes experienced by the residents of these younger age groups rather than respondents of 2015 survey. It has been established that social well-being deteriorates with increasing age, and, for people aged 55 and older, social well-being is most dependent on their financial status [
88,
89]. However, Enssle and Kabisch [
90] found that public spaces in the residential environment can have a positive effect on the social well-being of elderly residents. Taking this into account, it is likely that the renovated living environment during the revitalization should have a positive impact on the elderly population but should not improve their economic well-being. Additionally, the obtained results mostly reflect changes in the social and economic well-being of the population aged 18–39.
The results confirm studies [
2,
3,
4,
5,
6] that found that the physical health and psychological health of the population deteriorated during the pandemic period, as the population was less physically active and did not socialize with people. The results of the study support the study of Sendi and Kerbler [
19], who found that the creation of public spaces had a positive impact on the social connections of the residents. The results obtained and the example of the revitalization of the Žirmūnai triangle analyzed are in line with the study of Zielinska-Szczepkowska, Jaszczak, and Žukovskis [
59], who analyzed revitalization solutions in small towns that improved the sense of security, but the revitalization of the Žirmūnai triangle did not lead to the creation of any new jobs. This study extends the study of Dsoiza et al. [
11] by providing an example of revitalization with clearly identified outcomes that could motivate residents to contribute to revitalization. The results of the study are complementary to the study of Mareeva et al. [
45], which proposes revitalization solutions for the neighborhood to be used in the revitalization of the Žirmūnai triangle, and our study can be used to find the results of changes in the social and economic well-being of the residents. The results obtained are analogous to those of Rivera-Navarro et al. [
49], who found that residents were more physically active in the presence of various sports facilities in the neighborhood than in the absence of sports facilities in the neighborhood. The results are different from the studies of Bogdanovic and Mitkovic [
39] and Haron et al. [
50], which suggest that the creation of pedestrian paths and bicycle paths promotes physical activity, yet the studies did not establish a link between the provision of pedestrian paths and bicycle paths to commuting that included physical activity.
In addition to improving the neighborhood’s environment, revitalization should focus on the development of public spaces, as well as sports and play facilities, to improve the social and economic well-being of the residents, as these are the most important contributors to their social and economic well-being. The provision of pedestrian paths and bicycle paths during revitalization did not have an impact on social and economic well-being.
The study could be used as a basis for further research on the impact of revitalization solutions on the social and economic well-being of their corresponding residents. It is suggested that a revitalized neighborhood and the non-revitalized neighborhood be used as a control group for further study in order to compare the social and economic changes between the revitalized and the non-revitalized neighborhoods.