Influence Mechanisms of Community Sports Parks to Enhance Social Interaction: A Bayesian Belief Network Analysis
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Social Interaction
3. Methods
3.1. Sample Area
3.2. Data Collection
- (1)
- Crowds congregate
- (2)
- Engagement with the park
3.3. Bayesian Belief Network
- First step: Draft network
- Second step: Training/calibration network
- Third step: Test network
4. Analyses and Results
4.1. Social Interaction Features Analysis of the Community Sports Parks
4.2. The BBNs of Community Sports Parks Enhancing Social Interaction
4.2.1. Fitness Equipment Space
4.2.2. Path Space
4.2.3. Sports Court Space
4.3. Conditional Probability of Factors on Social Interaction
4.4. Sensitivity Analysis for Factors’ Influence Intensity on Social Interaction
5. Discussion
5.1. The Sports Court Space Is Most Conducive to Enhance Social Interaction
5.2. The Influence Mechanisms to Enhance Social Interaction with Three Types of Sport Spaces in Community Sprots Parks Are Different
5.2.1. Fitness Equipment Space: Physical Activity Mediate Crowds Congregate, Leisure Activity Mediate Engagement with the Park
5.2.2. Path Space: Leisure Activity Mediate Engagement with the Park, Spatial Factors Directly Influence Crowds Congregate
5.2.3. Sports Court Space: Engagement with the Park Is Mediated by Physical Activity and Directly Influenced by Crowds Congregate
5.3. Factors’ Influence Intensity with Three Types of Sports Spaces in Community Sports Parks
5.4. Limitations
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. The Survey Questionnaire
Appendix A.1. The use of Community Sports Parks
Appendix A.1.1. The Name of the Park You Are Currently in
Appendix A.1.2. The Number of the Space Unit You Are Currently in
Appendix A.1.3. The Type of Activity You Are Currently Participating in
Appendix A.1.4. Do You Participate in This Type of Activity Alone (If Not, Please Fill in the Next Question)?
Appendix A.1.5. The Type of Social Relationship between You and Your Partner
Appendix A.2. Engagement with the Park
Appendix A.2.1. What Do You Think about the Extent to Which Type of Activity You Are Currently Participating in Has Promoted Social Interaction?
Appendix A.2.2. The Intensity of Your Willingness to Choose This Space Unit as Your Preferred Activity Space
Appendix A.2.3. The General Frequency of Your Daily Visit to This Park
Appendix A.3. Personal Situation
Appendix A.3.1. Your Gender
Appendix A.3.2. Your Age
Appendix A.3.3. Your Education Level
Appendix A.3.4. Your Occupation
- □
- Heads of state agencies, party organizations, enterprise networks, and public institutions
- □
- Professional skill worker
- □
- Clerks and related personnel
- □
- Commercial and service industry personnel
- □
- student
- □
- Skilled workers
- □
- Unprofessional workers
- □
- Self-employed
- □
- Temporary worker
- □
- other
Appendix A.3.5. Your Financial Income
- □
- Below 1000 yuan □ 1000–3000 yuan □ 3000–5000 yuan
- □
- 5000–10,000 yuan □ 10,000 yuan or more
References
- Fe, A.; Nka, B. 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-ScienceDirect. Environ. Sci. Policy 2020, 109, 36–44. [Google Scholar]
- Costanza, R.; d’Arge, R.; de Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neil, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Costanza, R.; de Groot, R.D.; Braat, L.; Kubiszewski, I.; Fioramonti, L.; Sutton, P.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M. Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 28, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kabisch, N.; van den Bosch, M.; Lafortezza, R. The health benefits of nature-based solutions to urbanization challenges for children and the elderly—A systematic review. Environ. Res. 2017, 159, 362–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Markevych, I.; Schoierer, J.; Hartig, T.; Chudnovsky, A.; Hystad, P.; Dzhambov, A.M.; de Vries, S.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Brauer, M.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; et al. Exploring pathways linking greenspace to health: Theoretical and methodological guidance. Environ. Res. 2017, 158, 301–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larson, L.R.; Keith, S.J.; Fernandez, M.; Hallo, J.C.; Shafer, C.S.; Jennings, V. Ecosystem services and urban greenways: What’s the public’s perspective? Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 22, 111–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dickinson, D.C.; Hobbs, R.J. Cultural ecosystem services: Characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 25, 179–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andersson, E.; Tengö, M.; McPhearson, T.; Kremer, P. Cultural ecosystem services as a gateway for improving urban sustainability. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 12, 165–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petit-Boix, A.; Apul, D. From Cascade to Bottom-Up Ecosystem Services Model: How Does Social Cohesion Emerge from Urban Agriculture? Sustainability 2018, 10, 998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nicholson, N.R. A Review of Social Isolation: An Important but Underassessed Condition in Older Adults. J. Prim. Prev. 2012, 33, 137–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, B.; Cohen, D.; Mckenzie, T.L. Quantifying the contribution of neighborhood parks to physical activity. Prev. Med. 2013, 57, 483–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bonsang, E.; Van Soest, A. Satisfaction with social contacts of older Europeans. Social Indic. Res. 2012, 105, 273–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Rasidi, M.H.; Jamirsah, N.; Said, I. Urban Green Space Design Affects Urban Residents’ Social Interaction. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 68, 464–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kaźmierczak, A. The contribution of local parks to neighbourhood social ties. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 109, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- State Sport General Administration of China. 2015. Available online: https://www.sport.gov.cn/searchweb/news.jsp (accessed on 10 December 2021).
- Urban Planning and Natural Resources Department in Chongqing. 2021. Available online: http://ghzrzyj.cq.gov.cn/zwxx_186/mtgz/202101/t20210118_8779463.html (accessed on 10 December 2021).
- Gallagher, M.W.; Payne, L.A.; White, K.S.; Shear, K.M.; Woods, S.W.; Gorman, J.M.; Barlow, D.H. Mechanisms of change in cognitive behavioral therapy for panic disorder: The unique effects of self-efficacy and anxiety sensitivity. Behav. Res. Ther. 2013, 51, 767–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Baskin, M.L.; Dulin-Keita, A.; Thind, H.; Godsey, E. Social and Cultural Environment Factors Influencing Physical Activity among African-American Adolescents. J. Adolesc. Health 2015, 56, 536–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woodhouse, D.; Conricode, D. In-ger-land, In-ger-land, In-ger-land! Exploring the impact of soccer on the sense of belonging of those seeking asylum in the UK. Int. Rev. Sociol. Sport 2017, 52, 940–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stone, C. Utopian community football? Sport, hope and belongingness in the lives of refugees and asylum seekers. Leis. Stud. 2018, 37, 171–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Contiero, D. Dojo and traditional martial arts: A social community for physical activity and health prevention in later age. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2019, 22, S82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luszczynska, A.; Mazurkiewica, M.; Ziegelmann, J.P.; Schwarzer, R. Recovery self-efficacy and intention as predictors of running or jogging behavior: A cross-lagged panel analysis over a two-year period-ScienceDirect. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2007, 8, 247–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ren, Y.; Li, M. Influence of physical exercise on social anxiety of left-behind children in rural areas in China: The mediator and moderator role of perceived social support. J. Affect. Disord. 2020, 266, 223–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hitchings, R.; Latham, A. How ‘social’ is recreational running? Findings from a qualitative study in London and implications for public health promotion. Health Place 2017, 46, 337–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Krenichyn, K. Women and physical activity in an urban park: Enrichment and support through an ethic of care. J. Environ. Psychol. 2004, 24, 117–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krenichyn, K. ‘The only place to go and be in the city’: Women talk about exercise, being outdoors, and the meanings of a large urban park. Health Place 2006, 12, 631–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moulay, A.; Ujang, N.; Said, I. Legibility of neighborhood parks as a predicator for enhanced social interaction towards social sustainability. Cities 2016, 61, 58–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCormack, G.R.; Rock, M.; Toohey, A.M.; Hignell, D. Characteristics of urban parks associated with park use and physical activity: A review of qualitative research. Health Place 2010, 16, 712–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Staats, H.; Hartig, T. Alone or with a friend: A social context for psychological restoration and environmental preferences. J. Environ. Psychol. 2004, 24, 199–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cox, D.T.; Hudson, H.L.; Shanahan, D.F.; Fuller, R.; Gaston, K.J. The rarity of direct experiences of nature in an urban population. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 160, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Duan, Y.; Wagner, P.; Zhang, R.; Wulff, H.; Brehm, W. Physical activity areas in urban parks and their use by the elderly from two cities in China and Germany. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 178, 261–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linde, V.H.; Ariane, G.; Jelle, V.C.; Veitch, J.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Van Dyck, D.; Clarys, P.; Van De Weghe, N.; Deforche, B. Park characteristics preferred for adolescent park visitation and physical activity: A choice-based conjoint analysis using manipulated photographs. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 178, 144–155. [Google Scholar]
- Dlamini, W.M. A Bayesian belief network analysis of factors influencing wildfire occurrence in Swaziland. Environ. Model. Softw. 2010, 25, 199–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, T.G.; Kuhnert, P.M.; Mengersen, K.; Possingham, H. The power of expert opinion in ecological models using Bayesian methods: Impact of grazing on birds. Ecol. Appl. 2005, 15, 266–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McCann, R.K.; Marcot, B.G.; Ellis, R. Bayesian belief networks: Applications in ecology and natural resource management. Can. J. For. Res. 2006, 36, 3053–3062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tremblay, J.-P.; Hester, A.; Mcleod, J.; Huot, J. Choice and development of decision support tools for the sustainable management of deer-forest systems. For. Ecol. Manag. 2004, 191, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bronfenbrenner, U. The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1979. [Google Scholar]
- Kemperman, A.; Timmermans, H. Green spaces in the direct living environment and social contacts of the aging population. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 129, 44–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kemperman, A.D.A.M.; Timmermans, H.J.P. Children’s recreational physical activity. Leis. Sci. 2011, 33, 183–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hari, R.; Kujala, M.V. Brain basis of human social interaction: From concepts to brain imaging. Physiol. Rev. 2009, 89, 453–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carmona, M.; Tiesdell, S.; Heath, T.; Oc, T. Public Places—Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Gehl, J. Life between Buildings: Using Public Spaces; The John Hopkins University Press: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Smardon, R.C.; Palmer, J.F.; Felleman, J.P. Foundations for Visual Project Analysis; McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Han, K.T. The Effect of Nature and Physical Activity on Emotions and Attention while Engaging in Green Exercise. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 24, 5–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norsys Software Corporation. Netica Verison 6.07. Available online: https://www.norsys.com/download.html (accessed on 10 December 2021).
- Cain, J. Planning Improvements in Natural Resources Management: Guidelines for Using Bayesian Belief Networks to Support the Planning and Management of Development Programmes in the Water Sector and Beyond; Centre for Ecology and Hydrology: Wallingford, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Lauritzen, S.L. The EM algorithm for graphical association models with missing data. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 1995, 19, 191–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalácska, M.; Sánchez-Azofeifa, G.A.; Caelli, T.; Rivard, B.; Boerlage, B. Estimating leaf area index from satellite imagery using Bayesian belief networks. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2005, 43, 1866–1873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colwell, R.G.; Dawid, A.P.; Speigelhalter, D.J. Sequential model criticism in probabilistic expert systems. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 1993, 15, 209–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Korb, K.B.; Nicholson, A.E. Bayesian Artificial Intelligence; CRC Press: London, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Pearl, J. Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference; Morgan Kaufmann: San Mateo, CA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Pollino, C.A.; Woodberry, O.; Nicholson, A.; Korb, K.; Hart, B.T. Parameterisation and evaluation of a Bayesian belief network for use in an ecological risk assessment. Environ. Model. Softw. 2007, 22, 1140–1152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Furber, S.; Pomroy, H.; Grego, S.; Tavener-Smith, K. People’s experiences of using outdoor gym equipment in parks. Health Promot. J. Aust. 2014, 25, 211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Aram, F.; Solgi, E.; Holden, G. The role of green spaces in increasing social interactions in neighborhoods with periodic markets. Habitat Int. 2019, 84, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, D.A.; Marsh, T.; Williamson, S.; Golinelli, D.; McKenzie, T.L. Impact and cost-effectiveness of family Fitness Zones: A natural experiment in urban public parks. Health Place 2012, 18, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cranney, L.; Phongsavan, P.; Kariuki, M.; Stride, V.; Scott, A.; Hua, M. Impact of an outdoor gym on park users’ physical activity: A natural experiment. Health Place 2016, 37, 26–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veitch, J.; Salmon, J.; Abbott, G.; Timpiero, A.; Sahlqvist, S. Understanding the impact of the installation of outdoor fitness equipment and a multi-sports court on park visitation and park-based physical activity: A natural experiment. Health Place 2021, 71, 102662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veitch, J.; Salmon, J.; Ball, K. Children’s perceptions of the use of public open spaces for active free-play. Child. Geogr. 2007, 5, 409–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lloyd, K.; Burden, J.; Kieva, J. Young girls and urban parks: Planning for transition through adolescence. J. Park Recreat. Adm. 2008, 26, 21–38. [Google Scholar]
- Grahn, P.; Stigsdotter, U.K. Workplace greenery and perceived level of stress: Benefits of access to a green outdoor environment at the workplace. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 110, 5–11. [Google Scholar]
- Stigsdotter, U.K.; Corazon, S.S.; Sidenius, U.; Refshauge, A.D.; Patrik, G. Forest design for mental health promotion-using perceived sensory dimensions to elicit restorative responses. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 160, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Hecke, L.; Loyen, A.; Verloigne, M.; van der Ploeg, H.P.; Lakerveld, J.; Brug, J.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Ekelund, U.; Donnelly, A.; Hendriksen, I.; et al. Variation in population levels of physical activity in European children and adolescents according to cross-European studies: A systematic literature review within DEDIPAC. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2016, 13, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- King, K.A.; Vidourek, R.A.; English, L.; Merianos, A.L. Vigorous physical activity among college students: Using the health belief model to assess involvement and social support. Arch. Exerc. Health Dis. 2013, 4, 267–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ayala-Azcárraga, C.; Diaz, D.; Zambrano, L. Characteristics of urban parks and their relation to user well-being. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 189, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Park Name | Location | Site Area | Surrounding Land Use | Inside Function | NO. and Types of Sports Equipment | Green Ratio |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dashuijing Community Sports Park | Intersection of Jiahong Road and Wanxing Road, Jiangbei District | 11,858 m2 | Mainly residential | General fitness area, Children’s play area, Sport counts, Management service area, Leisurely walking area | 15 fitness equipment, 3 children’s play equipment, 1 basketball court, 2 badminton court, 2 tennis tables, 1 plastic running track, 1 recreational walkway | 40% |
Huilongwan Community Sports Park | South of the intersection of Nanhu Road and Dashi First Road, Nanan District | 8199 m2 | Mainly residential, adjacent to the flower market, surrounded by factories | General fitness area, Children’s play area, Sport counts, Management service area, Leisurely walking area | 11 fitness equipment, 4 children’s play equipment, 1 basketball court, 2 badminton courts, 6 tennis tables,1 plastic running track, 1 recreational walkway | 38% |
Danlong Community Sports Park | Southwest of the intersection of Danlong Road and Dashi Road, Nanan District | 3803 m2 | Mainly residential | General fitness area, Children’s play area, Sport counts, Leisure area for the elderly, Management service area, Leisurely walking area | 6 fitness equipment, 1 children’s play equipment, 1 basketball court, 1 badminton court, 4 tennis table, 1 plastic running track, 1 recreational walkway | 37.6% |
Space Type | Unit Numbers | Photo | |
---|---|---|---|
Fitness Equipment Space | Equipment space | 1, 2, 10, 12, 14, 24, 25 | |
Children’s palyground | 9, 11, 26 | ||
Path Space | Plastic runway | 6, 20, 21, 31, 32 | |
Recreational trails | 7, 22, 23, 33, 34, 35 | ||
Sports Court Space | Basketball court | 3, 19, 29 | |
Badminton court | 4, 13, 18, 30 | ||
Table tennis court | 8, 15, 16, 17, 27, 28 | ||
Square dancing venues | 5 |
Activities Types | Fitness Equipment Space | Path Space | Sports Court Space |
---|---|---|---|
Physical Activity | |||
Equipment Fitness | 32.4% | —— | —— |
Children’s equipment playing 1 | 18.5% | —— | —— |
Walking | —— | 37.1% | —— |
Running | —— | 14.8% | —— |
Play basketball | —— | —— | 14.3% |
Play badminton | —— | —— | 12.8% |
Play table tennis | —— | —— | 15.6% |
Square dancing | —— | —— | 17.5% |
Leisure Activity | |||
Relaxation | 6.3% | 7.6% | 11.2% |
Childcare | 10.5% | —— | 5.8% |
Chatting | 23.6% | 12.6% | 2.3% |
Photo shoot | 2.4% | 4.5% | —— |
Play Mobile | 6.3% | —— | —— |
Walking the dog | —— | 3.2% | —— |
Hanging out | —— | 12.6% | —— |
Enjoy the scenery | —— | 3.7% | —— |
Family Gathering | —— | 2.6% | —— |
Neighborhood Meeting | —— | 1.3% | —— |
Watch the game 2 | —— | —— | 13.4% |
Children playing 3 | —— | —— | 7.1% |
Variable | Variable Quantification Methods | Unit |
---|---|---|
Perceptual structure | ||
Accessibility | Walking distance to the nearest entrance/exit location of the park | m |
Space Enclosure | Spatial enclosure = L1/L; where: L1 is the perimeter of the plan layout of trees less than 1.2 m in height and shrubs more than 1.2 m in height below the middle branch combined with the bottom part of the study plot; L is the perimeter of the study unit boundary | —— |
Visual Obstacles | Simulating the 125° field of view of human binocular vision [44], the camera took three photos from left to right with the spatial unit as the origin, and used AutoCAD to process the combined photos to calculate the proportion of visible space | % |
Path Width | Calculated from the current site mapping | m |
Facility Configuration | ||
Seats Density | Length of resting facilities such as benches within 100 m of each walk | m |
Fitness Equipment | Calculate the number of units based on the current site mapping | —— |
Children’s Play Equipment | Calculate the number of units based on the current site mapping | pcs |
Sports Court | Calculate the number of units based on the current site mapping | pcs |
Landscape Greening | ||
Shrub Area | Calculated from the current site mapping | m2 |
Tree Cover | Tree cover = S1/S; where: S1 is the sum of the vertical projection of trees in the unit; S is the site area of the study unit | |
Green View Index | Simulating the 125° field of view of human binocular vision, with the spatial unit as the origin, the camera took three photos from left to right and used AutoCAD to process the combined photos in order to calculate the proportion of greenery elements [45] | —— |
Vegetation Diversity | The Shannon–Wiener index was used to calculate diversity , where P is the proportion of the number of vegetation species in the unit occupied by the ith number of vegetation species, i.e., | —— |
Variable Types | Variable Used in Further BBN |
---|---|
Spatial Variable | accessibility, space enclosure, visual obstacles, path width; seats density, fitness equipment, children’s play equipment, sports court, shrub area; tree cover, green view index, vegetation diversity. |
Non-spatial Variable | physical activity, leisure activity; age, gender, social relationship. |
Social interaction Variable | crowds congregate, engagement with the park |
Crowds Congregate | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Very Low | Low | Medium | High | Very High | ||
Fitness Equipment Space | ||||||
Physical Activity | yes | 31.7 | 28.4 | 19.5 | 17.1 | 3.3 |
no | 19.3 | 23.6 | 23.9 | 23.9 | 9.3 | |
Sex | male | 31.4 | 27.6 | 19.3 | 17.9 | 3.6 |
female | 19.6 | 24.4 | 24.1 | 23.1 | 8.8 | |
Path space | ||||||
Visual Obstacles | 0–10 | 21.4 | 19.1 | 18.8 | 20.0 | 20.0 |
11–20 | 25.1 | 21.8 | 22.3 | 20.0 | 20.0 | |
21–27 | 18.5 | 23.6 | 20.8 | 20.0 | 20.0 | |
28–32 | 17.6 | 18.3 | 19.3 | 20.0 | 20.0 | |
Path Width | narrow | 19.8 | 22.3 | 19.5 | 19.3 | 19.3 |
medium | 20.1 | 21.2 | 22.0 | 18.7 | 17.9 | |
width | 19.7 | 22.7 | 20.8 | 18.6 | 18.2 | |
Seats Density | 0–5 | 21.4 | 21.0 | 19.5 | 19.1 | 19.1 |
6–10 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | |
11–15 | 18.9 | 20.7 | 21.8 | 19.3 | 18.9 | |
16–25 | 19.5 | 22.6 | 21.8 | 18.3 | 17.9 | |
Sports Court space | ||||||
Sports Court | few | 15.2 | 17.6 | 24.4 | 21.9 | 20.8 |
medium | 14.0 | 21.5 | 17.9 | 20.1 | 19.5 | |
many | 17.8 | 22.6 | 20.5 | 17.7 | 21.1 | |
Age | <15 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 |
15–25 | 29.6 | 18.2 | 43.5 | 33.3 | 17.5 | |
26–35 | 12.2 | 29.8 | 26.1 | 15.9 | 15.9 | |
36–45 | 9.8 | 19.7 | 31.7 | 17.8 | 20.6 | |
46–55 | 14.0 | 9.0 | 38.5 | 21.3 | 17.3 | |
56–65 | 12.5 | 26.5 | 16.3 | 15.9 | 32.7 | |
>65 | 24.9 | 24.9 | 15.3 | 15.3 | 15.3 |
Engagement with the Park | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Low | Medium | High | ||
Fitness Equipment Space | ||||
Children’s play Equipment | no | 31.4 | 36.4 | 31.4 |
some | 31.4 | 33.9 | 33.9 | |
many | 31.0 | 31.0 | 37.2 | |
Leisure Activity | yes | 29.5 | 34.5 | 35.3 |
no | 33.3 | 33.3 | 33.3 | |
Age | <15 | 31.4 | 33.9 | 34.3 |
15–25 | 31.4 | 33.9 | 34.3 | |
26–35 | 31.4 | 33.9 | 34.3 | |
36–45 | 31.4 | 33.9 | 34.3 | |
46–55 | 31.4 | 33.9 | 34.3 | |
56–65 | 31.4 | 33.9 | 34.3 | |
>65 | 31.4 | 33.9 | 34.3 | |
Social relationship | alone | 33.3 | 33.3 | 33.3 |
general neighborhood | 33.3 | 33.3 | 33.3 | |
familiar neighborhood | 33.3 | 33.3 | 33.3 | |
family/friends | 25.9 | 35.9 | 37.6 | |
Path space | ||||
Leisure Activity | yes | 33.3 | 33.3 | 32.3 |
no | 34.7 | 34.0 | 31.9 | |
Seats Density | 0–5 | 35.0 | 33.3 | 32.2 |
6–10 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 33.3 | |
11–15 | 32.8 | 36.1 | 31.2 | |
16–25 | 33.1 | 35.6 | 31.3 | |
Vegetation Diversity | 0.2–0.5 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 33.3 |
0.6–0.8 | 35.5 | 32.5 | 31.5 | |
0.9–1.2 | 33.5 | 35.5 | 30.5 | |
1.3–1.8 | 31.5 | 34.5 | 33.1 | |
1.8–2.1 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 33.3 | |
2.2–2.3 | 34.7 | 33.4 | 31.8 | |
Social Relationship | alone | 34.9 | 32.9 | 32.2 |
general neighborhood | 34.3 | 34.0 | 31.1 | |
familiar neighborhood | 32.7 | 35.3 | 31.7 | |
family/friends | 32.4 | 35.4 | 31.8 | |
Sports Court space | ||||
Physical Activity | yes | 26.9 | 36.8 | 36.1 |
no | 26.7 | 42.9 | 30.1 | |
Social Relationship | alone | 32.8 | 37.8 | 28.8 |
general neighborhood | 29.1 | 37.6 | 33.2 | |
familiar neighborhood | 22.7 | 36.9 | 40.2 | |
family/friends | 22.0 | 47.0 | 30.3 | |
Crowds Congregate | very low | 42.6 | 34.1 | 23.2 |
low | 33.8 | 40.6 | 25.1 | |
medium | 17.0 | 57.9 | 25.0 | |
high | 18.7 | 34.2 | 47.0 | |
very high | 21.9 | 32.4 | 45.4 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Sun, Y.; Tan, S.; He, Q.; Shen, J. Influence Mechanisms of Community Sports Parks to Enhance Social Interaction: A Bayesian Belief Network Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1466. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031466
Sun Y, Tan S, He Q, Shen J. Influence Mechanisms of Community Sports Parks to Enhance Social Interaction: A Bayesian Belief Network Analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(3):1466. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031466
Chicago/Turabian StyleSun, Yawen, Shaohua Tan, Qixiao He, and Jize Shen. 2022. "Influence Mechanisms of Community Sports Parks to Enhance Social Interaction: A Bayesian Belief Network Analysis" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 3: 1466. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031466