An Impact Asymmetry Analysis of Small Urban Green Space Attributes to Enhance Visitor Satisfaction
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. The Asymmetric Effect of Attributes on Satisfaction
2.2. Resident Perception and Satisfaction with Green Space Attributes
3. Study Methods
3.1. Study Site
3.2. Data Collection
3.3. Measurement Development
3.4. Exploratory Factor Analysis
3.5. Reliability, Construct Validity, and Method Biases
3.6. Impact Range Performance Analysis (IRPA) and IAA
- (1)
- The first group of dummy variables (penalty index) was created to estimate the impact of the low performance of an attribute on satisfaction; this was performed by encoding the lowest score of an attribute as 1. When the representation of the attribute was 1, it was entered as 1. Zero was entered for attribute scores 2, 3, 4, and 5.
- (2)
- To evaluate the effect of the high performance of an attribute on satisfaction, the second set of reward indices was generated by encoding the highest score of an attribute as 1. When an attribute had a score of 5, 1 was entered. Zero was entered for attribute scores 1, 2, 3, and 4.
- (3)
- Then, satisfaction regression was conducted for the two dummy variables, and penalty and reward indices were obtained. Penalty indices (PIs) indicate the properties that negatively correlate with satisfaction, while Reward indices (RIs) indicate the properties that positively correlate with satisfaction. Table 3 shows PI and RI values.
- (1)
- SGPi = RI/RISi
- (2)
- DGPi = |PI|/RISi
- (3)
- IAi = SGPi − DGPi
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive Statistics and Usability Pattern
4.2. The Impact of Descriptive Statistics and Usability Pattern on Satisfaction
4.3. Differences and Similarities on Attributes of Nine SUGS
4.4. Results of IRPA and IAA
5. Discussion and Conclusions
5.1. Theoretical Contributions
5.2. Management Implications
5.3. Limitations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- World Health Organization. Urban Population Growth, Global Health Observatory Database. World Health Organization. 2013. Available online: www.who.int/gho/urban_health/situation_trends/urban_population_growth_text/en/index.html (accessed on 14 February 2014).
- Popescu, C.R.; Popescu, G. An Exploratory Study Based on a Questionnaire Concerning Green and Sustainable Finance, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Performance: Evidence from the Romanian Business Environment. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2019, 12, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, J.S.; Lee, T.J.; Hyun, S.S. Estimating the economic value of urban forest parks: Focusing on restorative experiences and environmental concerns. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2021, 20, 106–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, H.; Ren, H.; Remme, R.P.; Nong, H.; Sui, C. The effect of urban nature exposure on mental health a case study of Guangzhou. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 304, 127100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ostoić, S.K.; Van Den Bosch, C.C.; Vuleti, D. Citizens’ perception of and satisfaction with urban forests and green space: Results from selected Southeast European cities. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 23, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, S.; Zhou, W.Q. Recreational visits to urban parks and factors affecting park visits: Evidence from geotagged social media data. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 180, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, Y.; Chen, B.; Kwan, M. How does urban expansion impact people’s exposure to green environments? A comparative study of 290 Chinese cities. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 246, 119018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haaland, C.; van den Bosch, C.K. Challenges and strategies for urban green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: A review. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 760–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nordh, H.; Hartig, T.; Hagerhall, C.M.; Fry, G. Components of small urban parks that predict the possibility for restoration. Urban For. Urban Green. 2009, 8, 225–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Danford, R.S.; Strohbach, M.L.; Warren, P.S.; Ryan, R.L. Active Greening or Rewilding the city: How does the intention behind small pockets of urban green affect use? Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 29, 377–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mesimäki, M.; Kaisa, H.; Susanna, L. Do small green roofs have the possibility to offer recreational and experiential benefits in a dense urban area? A case study in Helsinki, Finland. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 40, 114–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, Y.; Chen, B.; Ho, H.C.; Kwan, M.P. Observed inequality in urban greenspace exposure in China. Environ. Int. 2021, 156, 106–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sugiyama, T.; Carver, A.; Koohsari, M.J.; Veitch, J. Advantages of public green spaces in enhancing population health. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 178, 12–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peschardt, K.K.; Schipperijn, J.; Stigsdotter, U.K. Use of Small Public Urban Green Spaces (SPUGS). Urban For. Urban Green. 2012, 11, 235–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, P.W.; Zhou, B.; Han, L.R.; Mei, R. The motivation and factors influencing visits to small urban parks in Shanghai, China. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 60, 127086. [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] [PubMed]
- Anderson, E.; Mittal, V. Strengthening the satisfaction-profit chain. J. Serv. Res. 2000, 3, 107–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mittal, V.; Ross, W.; Baldasare, P. The asymmetric impact of negative and positive attribute-level performance on overall satisfaction and repurchase intentions. J. Mark. Res. 1998, 62, 33–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Oliver, R.L. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Customer; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Streukens, S.; Ruyter, K. Reconsidering nonlinearity and asymmetry in customer satisfaction and loyalty models: An empirical study in three retail service settings. Mark. Lett. 2004, 15, 99–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mikulić, J.; Prebeẑac, D. Prioritizing improvement of service attributes using impact range-performance analysis and impact-asymmetry analysis. Manag. Serv. Qual. 2008, 18, 559–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, W.; Cao, X.Y.; Wu, X.Y.; Dong, Y. Examining pedestrian satisfaction in gated and open communities: An integration of gradient boosting decision trees and impact-asymmetry Analysis. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 185, 246–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Back, K. Impact-range performance analysis and asymmetry analysis for improving quality of Korean food attributes. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 31, 535–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herzberg, F.; Mausner, B.; Snyderman, B. The Motivation to Work; John Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1959. [Google Scholar]
- Kano, N. Attractive quality and must be quality. Hinshitsu 1984, 14, 147–156. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, J.S.; Choi, Y.J.; Chiang, C.H. Exploring the dynamic effect of multi-quality attributes on overall satisfaction: The case of incentive events. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 64, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Back, K.J.; Lee, C.K. Determining the attributes of casino customer satisfaction: Applying impact-range performance and asymmetry analyses. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2015, 32, 747–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faullant, R.; Matzler, K.; Füller, J. The impact of satisfaction and image on loyalty: The case of alpine ski resorts. Manag. Serv. Qual. Int. J. 2008, 18, 163–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, J.Q.; Deng, J.Y.; Pierskalla, C.; King, B. Urban tourism attributes and overall satisfaction: An asymmetric impact-performance analysis. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 30, 169–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, S.; Lee, J.S.; Nicolau, J.L. Understanding the dynamics of the quality of airline service attributes: Satisfiers and dissatisfiers. Tour. Manag. 2020, 81, 104–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chen, P.Z.; Liu, W.Y. Assessing management performance of the national forest park using impact range-performance analysis and impact-asymmetry analysis. For. Policy Econ. 2019, 104, 121–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coles, R.W.; Bussey, S.C. Urban forest landscapes in the UK—progressing the social agenda. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2000, 52, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aspinall, P.A.; Thompson, C.W.; Alves, S.; Sugiyama, T.; Brice, R.; Vickers, A. Preference and relative importance for environmental attributes of neighbourhood open space in older people. Environ. Plan. B Plan 2010, 37, 1022–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adinolfi, C.; Suárez-Cáceres, G.P.; Cariṅanos, P. Relation between visitors’ behaviour and characteristics of green spaces in the city of Granada, south-eastern Spain. Urban For. Urban Green. 2014, 13, 534–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wan, C.; Shen, G.Q. Salient attributes of urban green space in high density cities: The case of Hong Kong. Habitat Int. 2015, 49, 92–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Y.C.; Kim, K.H. Attitudes of citizens towards urban parks and green spaces for urban sustainability: The case of Gyeongsan city, Republic of Korea. Sustainability 2015, 7, 8240–8254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McCormak, G.R.; Graham, T.M.; Swanson, K.; Massolo, A. Changes in visitor profiles and activity patterns following dog supportive modifications to parks: A natural experiment on the health impact of an urban policy. SSM-Popul. Health 2016, 2, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Jim, C.Y.; Chen, W.Y. Perception and attitude of residents toward urban green spaces in Guangzhou (China). Environ. Manag. 2006, 38, 338–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giles-Corti, B.; Broomhall, M.H.; Knuiman, M.; Collins, C.; Douglas, K.; Ng, K.; Lange, A.; Donovan, R.J. Increasing walking: How important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space? Am. J. Prev. Med. 2005, 28, 169–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rey Gozalo, G.; Barrigón Morillas, J.M.; González, D.M. Perceptions and use of urban green spaces on the basis of size. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 46, 126470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rey Gozalo, G.; Barrigón Morillas, J.M.; González, D.M. Relationships among satisfaction, noise perception, and use of urban green spaces. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 624, 438–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gundersen, V.S.; Frivold, L.H. Public preferences for forest structures: A review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban For. Urban Green. 2008, 7, 241–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerstenberg, T.; Hofmann, M. Perception and preference of trees: A psychological contribution to tree species selection in urban areas. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 15, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberts, H.; Kellara, I.; Conner, M. Associations between park features, park satisfaction and park use in a multi-ethnic deprived urban area. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2019, 46, 126–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kerishnan, P.B.; Maruthaveeran, S.; Maulan, S. Investigating the usability pattern and constraints of pocket parks in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 50, 126–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verlič, A.; Arnberger, A.; Japelj, A.; Simončič, P.; Pirnat, J. Perceptions of recreational trail impacts on an urban forest walk: A controlled field experiment. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sreetheran, M.; van den Bosch, C.C.K. A socio-ecological exploration of fear of crime in urban green spaces—A systematic review. Urban For. Urban Green. 2014, 13, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wright Wendel, H.E.; Zarger, R.K.; Mihelcic, J.R. Accessibility and usability: Green space preferences, perceptions, and barriers in a rapidly urbanizing city in Latin America. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 107, 272–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, D.A.; Marsh, T.; Williamson, S.; Derose, K.P. Parks and physical activity: Why are some parks used more than others? Prev. Med. 2010, 50, 9–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Abenoza, R.F.; Cats, O.; Susilo, Y.O. Determinants of traveler satisfaction: Evidence for non-linear and asymmetric effects. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2019, 66, 339–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mak, B.K.L.; Jim, C.K. Examining fear-evoking factors in urban parks in Hong Kong. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 171, 42–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Churchill, G., Jr. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J. Mark. Res. 1979, 16, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Vellis, R. Scale Development: Theory and Applications; Applied Social Research Methods Series; Sage: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1991; No. 26. [Google Scholar]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schriesheim, C. The similarity of individual directed and group directed leader behavior descriptions. Acad. Manag. J. 1979, 22, 345–355. [Google Scholar]
- Podsakoff, P.; Todor, W.; Grover, R.; Huber, V. Situational moderators of leader reward and punishment behaviors: Fact or fiction? Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process 1984, 34, 21–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J.; Wang, S.; Wang, H.; Zhang, Z.; Liao, F. Is there an incompatibility between personal motives and social capital in triggering pro-environmental behavioral intentions in urban parks? A perspective of motivation-behavior relations. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2021, 39, 100–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brandt, D.R. A procedure for identifying value-enhancing service components using customer satisfaction survey data. In Add Value to Your Service: The Key to Success, 6th Annual Services Marketing Conference Proceedings; Surprenanct, C., Ed.; American Marketing Association: Chicago, IL, USA, 1987; pp. 61–64. [Google Scholar]
- Addy, C.L.; Wilson, D.K.; Kirtland, K.A.; Ainsworth, B.E.; Sharpe, P.; Kimsey, D. Associations of perceived social and physical environmental supports with physical activity and walking behavior. Am. J. Public Health 2004, 94, 440–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wu, X.; Cao, X.; Ding, C. Exploring rider satisfaction with arterial BRT: An application of impact asymmetry analysis. Travel Behav. Soc. 2020, 19, 82–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- WHO. Environmental Noise Guidelines for European Region; World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Rey Gozalo, G.; Barrigón Morillas, J.M. Perceptions and effects of the acoustic environment in quiet residential areas. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2018, 141, 2418–2429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rey Gozalo, G.; Barrigón Morillas, J.M.; Gómez Escobar, V. Analyzing nocturnal noise stratification. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 479–480, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gaikwada, A.; Shinde, K. Use of parks by older persons and perceived health benefits: A developing country context. Cities 2019, 84, 134–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- WHO. Global Age-Friendly Cities: A Guide. 2007. Available online: http://www.who.int/ageing/publications/Global_age_friendly_cities_Guide_English.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2020).
Name | Size | Location | Sport and Entertainment Facilities | Natural Conditions |
---|---|---|---|---|
Liyuan Park | 1.7 acres | Liyuan Road, Huangpu District | Fitness facilities, shared basketball courts, and activity square | Trees, bushes, a few flowers, and an empty green space |
Yanchun Park | 1.29 acres | Yingkou Road, Yangpu District | Fitness facilities and slide (for children) | Trees, bushes, and a few flowers |
Jiaotong Park | 1.58 acres | Xinma Road, Jingan District | Fitness facilities, shared basketball courts, and slide (for children) | Trees, bushes, and a few flowers |
Hengshan Park | 1.19 acres | Guanyuan Road, Xuhui District | Fitness facilities, badminton courts, and activity square | Trees, bushes, a few flowers, and an empty green space |
Yichuan Park | 1.88 acres | Yichuan Road, Putuo District | Fitness facilities, slide (for children), and activity square | Trees, bushes, a few flowers, and a lake |
Guannong Park | 1.25 acres | Guannong Road, Putuo District | Fitness facilities and slide (for children) | Trees, bushes, and a few flowers |
Hudiewan Park | 1.6 acres | Kangding East Road, Jingan District | Shared basketball court and activity square | Trees, bushes, a few flowers, and a river |
Shuixia Park | 1.18 acres | Xianxia Road, Changning District | Fitness facilities and slide (for children) | Trees, bushes, a few flowers, and a stream |
Liangcheng Park | 1.37 acres | Chezhan North Road, Hongkou District | Fitness facilities, slide (for children), and activity square | Trees, bushes, and some flowers |
Factors | Skewness | Kurtosis | Factor Loading | Cronbach α | AVE | CR |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Factor 1: Spatial and environmental characteristics (% of variance: 23.8) | ||||||
Distance | −0.771 | −0.538 | 0.654 | 0.809 | 0.51 | 0.84 |
Design of walking paths | −0.750 | −0.582 | 0.737 | |||
Noise | 0.444 | 0.706 | 0.756 | |||
Green land | 0.701 | 0.728 | 0.727 | |||
Squares | 0.355 | 0.776 | 0.702 | |||
Factor 2: Social environment (% of variance: 21.3) | ||||||
Safety | −0.383 | −0.856 | 0.843 | 0.798 | 0.57 | 0.84 |
Social interaction | −0.270 | −0.784 | 0.684 | |||
Ease of seeing friends | −0.460 | −0.763 | 0.857 | |||
Other visitors’ behaviors | −0.245 | −0.742 | 0.600 | |||
Factor 3: Presence and quality of facilities (% of variance: 18.6) | ||||||
Sports facilities | −0.595 | −0.629 | 0.727 | 0.815 | 0.64 | 0.84 |
Leisure facilities | −0.707 | −0.451 | 0.853 | |||
Amenities | −0.786 | −0.086 | 0.823 | |||
Over satisfaction | 0.222 | −0.804 |
Dimensions | Attributes | RI | PI | RIS | SGP | DGP | IA | Type | Mean Scores |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Spatial and environmental characteristics | Distance | 0.016 | 0.034 | 0.05 | 0.32 | 0.68 | −0.36 | Dissatisfier | 3.79 |
Squares | 0.028 | 0.024 | 0.052 | 0.54 | 0.46 | 0.08 | Hybrid | 3.49 | |
Green land | −0.017 | 0.012 | 0.029 | −0.59 | 0.41 | −1.00 | Frustrator | 3.71 | |
Design of walking paths | 0.058 | 0.043 | 0.101 | 0.57 | 0.43 | 0.15 | Hybrid | 3.72 | |
Noise | −0.008 | 0.003 | 0.011 | −0.73 | 0.27 | −1.00 | Frustrator | 3.51 | |
Social environment | Social interaction | −0.009 | 0.001 | 0.01 | −0.90 | 0.10 | −1.00 | Frustrator | 3.23 |
Ease of seeing friends | 0.082 | 0.001 | 0.083 | 0.99 | 0.01 | 0.98 | Delighter | 3.46 | |
Safety | −0.103 | 0.001 | 0.104 | −0.99 | 0.01 | −1.00 | Frustrator | 3.37 | |
Other visitors’ behaviors | 0.018 | 0.012 | 0.031 | 0.58 | 0.39 | 0.19 | Hybrid | 3.25 | |
Presence and quality of facilities | Sports facilities | 0.085 | 0.005 | 0.09 | 0.94 | 0.06 | 0.89 | Delighter | 3.71 |
Amenities | −0.016 | 0.107 | 0.123 | −0.13 | 0.87 | −1.00 | Frustrator | 4.00 | |
Leisure facilities | 0.004 | 0.049 | 0.053 | 0.08 | 0.92 | −0.85 | Frustrator | 3.86 |
Variable | Total Sample | Percentage | Variable | Total Sample | Percentage | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number | Number | ||||||
Gender | Male | 245 | 48.3% | Stay time | <30 min | 15 | 3% |
Female | 262 | 51.7% | 30 min–1 h | 120 | 23.7% | ||
Age | 18–20 | 36 | 7.1% | 1 h–2 h | 179 | 35.3% | |
21–30 | 135 | 26.6% | 2 h–4 h | 147 | 29% | ||
31–40 | 126 | 24.9% | 4 h–6 h | 39 | 7.7% | ||
41–50 | 58 | 11.4% | >6h | 7 | 1.4% | ||
51–60 | 43 | 8.5% | Activities | Individual activities | 225 | 44.4% | |
>60 | 109 | 21.6% | Small group activities (2–4 people) | 254 | 50.1% | ||
Education | High school and below | 142 | 28% | Group activities (≥5 people) | 28 | 5.5% | |
College | 94 | 18.5% | Frequency | 1–3 times a month | 284 | 56% | |
Undergraduate | 207 | 40.8% | 1–2 times a week | 106 | 20.9% | ||
Postgraduate or above | 64 | 12.6% | 3–5 times a week | 51 | 10.1% | ||
Monthly Income(RMB) | <3000 | 77 | 15.2% | every day | 66 | 13% | |
3000–6000 | 147 | 29% | Motivation | Relaxation and rest | 267 | 52.7% | |
6000–8000 | 113 | 22.3% | Physical exercise | 136 | 26.8% | ||
8000–10,000 | 86 | 17% | Walk | 87 | 17.2% | ||
>10,000 | 84 | 16.6% | Take children out | 82 | 16.2% | ||
Marriage | Single | 150 | 29.6% | Meet with friends | 44 | 8.7% | |
Married | 348 | 68.6% | Access to nature and fresh air | 40 | 7.9% | ||
Divorced | 9 | 1.8% | Enjoy the aesthetics | 19 | 3.7% | ||
Other | 13 | 2.6% |
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
Wang, P.; Han, L.; Mei, R. An Impact Asymmetry Analysis of Small Urban Green Space Attributes to Enhance Visitor Satisfaction. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 2922. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052922
Wang P, Han L, Mei R. An Impact Asymmetry Analysis of Small Urban Green Space Attributes to Enhance Visitor Satisfaction. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(5):2922. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052922
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Pengwei, Lirong Han, and Rong Mei. 2022. "An Impact Asymmetry Analysis of Small Urban Green Space Attributes to Enhance Visitor Satisfaction" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 5: 2922. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052922