The Network–Place Effect of Urban Greenways on Residents’ Pro-Nature Behaviors: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Urban greenways are essential ecological infrastructure connecting residents to nature and enhancing well-being. However, previous research has largely focused on the health benefits and related spatial patterns of greenways, while their roles and mechanisms in promoting pro-nature behaviors remain underexplored. Pro-nature behaviors are external manifestations of connectedness with nature, forming a gradient from visitation to usage habits and alignment with nature, thereby fostering sustainable human–nature relationships and enhancing urban well-being. At the deepest level, alignment with nature refers to residents’ deep engagement with natural environments, characterized by immersive perception and environmentally responsible behaviors that reflect an awareness of human–nature interdependence. This study systematically reviews existing literature to explore how urban greenways promote residents’ pro-nature behaviors. Grounded in the theory of connectedness with nature, this study develops a hierarchical framework linking network–place attributes to multilevel pro-nature behaviors (visitation, usage habits, and alignment with nature) to guide a systematic review of 88 articles retrieved from Web of Science and Scopus. Results show that visitation and usage habits are shaped mainly by greenway connectivity of built environment elements and internal features such as facilities, maintenance, and social factors, whereas alignment with nature is driven by ecological connectivity and habitat quality. The study argues that enduring pro-nature behaviors emerge when greenways integrate two complementary attributes: network coupling that links urban systems and ecological corridors, and composite place-based qualities that sustain human–nature interactions. These findings offer theoretical and practical insights for designing and managing urban greenways that combine ecological functionality with social well-being and promote sustainable urban development.

1. Introduction

The sociobiologist Wilson proposed the concept of biophilia based on evolutionary psychology theory, which refers to humans’ innate tendency to be attracted to and connected with other natural organisms [1]. Pro-nature behaviors represent the external behavioral manifestation of connectedness with nature, forming a gradient from visitation to usage habits and alignment with nature [2,3]. These behavioral expressions encompass diverse forms, including, but not limited to, non-routine recreational activities in parks, daily physical exercise within natural environments, shinrin-yoku (forest bathing) for psychological restoration, biodiversity-oriented interactions, and environmentally responsible actions driven by nature–identity cognition. Such pro-nature behaviors play a vital role in sustaining human cognitive development, health and well-being, and social sustainability [4,5].

However, the lack of natural spaces in urban built environments deprives residents of public outdoor areas and opportunities to come into contact with nature. This deprivation constrains direct nature experiences and weakens human–nature connections [6]. Such limitations not only lead to declining physical health, insufficient social interaction, and delayed sensory development among residents but also hinder the establishment of proper cognitive relationships with nature, reinforcing anthropocentric thinking that impedes sustainable urban development [7,8]. Greenways (here intended as linear green spaces that connect ecological networks and public activity areas) have gained global prominence since the 1990s due to their spatial flexibility, multifunctional potential, and ecological performance [9,10,11]. These spaces enhance natural resources within limited urban gray areas and strengthen human–nature relationships [12,13]. Existing studies have demonstrated that greenways effectively enhance access to nature [12,14], facilitate diverse slow-mobility physical activities [15,16], enrich nature perception experiences [17,18,19], and foster social interactions through shared natural landscapes [20,21,22]. They offer multiple values, including recreation, health restoration, green commuting, and social connectivity [17,23,24].

Nevertheless, current research largely remains within the health-and-well-being paradigm [16,20,25,26], analyzing spatial behavior patterns without exploring whether greenways genuinely foster intrinsic human–nature connections or the mechanisms underlying such relationships. As scarce natural resources embedded in highly built urban environments, greenways’ profound value lies in fostering emotional bonds and relational cognition between urban dwellers and nature, which manifests as pro-nature behaviors. To capture this additional, often neglected layer, greenways can be reinterpreted through human–nature relational lenses to decode their pro-nature effects in built environments, thereby providing a theoretical basis for sustainable environmental management and green infrastructure planning and optimizing reciprocal natural–social values.

The concept of nature connectedness provides a theoretical foundation for understanding the relationships between humans and nature. It encompasses three hierarchical levels ranging from superficial to profound: natural attraction, closeness to nature, and belonging to nature [7,27,28,29,30]. Natural attraction refers to individuals’ preferences for positive emotional responses to natural elements and their spontaneous tendency to approach them [27]. Attracted by nature, people engage in outdoor activities within natural environments, stimulating visitation behaviors. This stage represents an initial, emotionally driven engagement, where curiosity and sensory pleasure evoke short-term recreational contact with nature. Closeness to nature reflects the human desire for intimate contact with nature, characterized by sustained familiarity and comfort [27,29,30]. Motivated by the need to maintain close connections with nature, people engage with natural environments at regular frequencies in their daily lives, thereby developing habit of nature contact. Belonging to nature occurs when individuals perceive themselves as integral components of nature, recognizing the fundamental interdependence between human survival and development and their relationship with the natural world. Belonging to nature corresponds to alignment with nature, which extends from immersive sensory and experiential engagement with natural environments to encompass environmental responsibility [31]. It entails an embodied awareness through which individuals attune their perceptions, emotions, and behaviors to ecological rhythms—experiencing nature not only as a space for physical immersion and psychological restoration but also as an object of care and protection [28]. Through such immersive encounters, residents develop multisensory intimacy with natural elements—sounds, textures, light, and climatic variations—thus reinforcing their sense of ecological belonging and fostering self-reflective, self-regulatory behaviors aligned with the values of human–nature symbiosis [32].

Accordingly, the three hierarchical manifestations of pro-nature behaviors—visitation, usage habits, and alignment with nature—serve as external indicators for understanding urban residents’ intrinsic relationships with natural environments [18,33,34,35]. On this basis, a foundational conceptual framework of pro-nature behavior is proposed to elucidate greenways’ pro-nature effects in built environments (Figure 1).

Distinct from most natural resources, greenways inherently exhibit a network–place effect, serving as a critical spatial mechanism that promotes residents’ pro-nature behaviors [15,33,36]. This effect emerges from the synergistic interplay between network attributes and place-based attributes. The network attributes refer to the morphological characteristics of greenways as linear corridors that continuously connect natural patches, residential areas, urban facilities, and road systems [15,36,37]. The place-based attributes, in contrast, embody local spatial features derived from the coexistence of human-centered functions and natural habitats [38,39,40]. Together, network attributes integrate the built environment’s amenities with natural systems, enabling residents to engage with nature in everyday life and maintain long-term interactions. Place-based attributes facilitate access to diverse natural elements, support multifunctional activities, foster profound nature experiences, and shape environmental attitudes and stewardship. Across varied urban contexts, the interplay between the network attributes and the place-based attributes forms the spatial basis for human–nature relationships, externally expressed through graduated levels of pro-nature behaviors.

Despite growing empirical research on the health, recreational, and social functions of greenways, discussions of the spatial mechanisms through which they cultivate pro-nature behaviors remain limited. Existing studies show that greenway accessibility encourages physical activity [15,24], ecological connectivity enhances habitat quality and nature experience [13,41], and facility support fosters long-time use and place attachment [36,42,43]. These findings imply that network and place attributes shape human–nature interactions. Yet, few studies integrate these dimensions to reveal how spatial attributes of “network–place” drive gradient pro-nature behaviors. In particular, limited attention has been paid to the stage of alignment with nature—the deepest form of pro-nature behavior—despite its potential to transform nature experience into environmental responsibility. Understanding this transition offers critical insight for integrating human well-being with environmental stewardship in sustainable urban design [3,34,44,45,46,47]. Addressing this gap is essential for advancing spatially informed environmental management strategies that promote human–nature connection. In response, this study conducts a systematic literature review to explore how urban greenways promote residents’ pro-nature behaviors. It classifies behavior types associated with urban greenways, synthesizes evidence on the network and place-based attributes associated with each behavior type, and proposes a conceptual framework of how their synergistic interactions support human–nature connection. The findings aim to provide a theoretical and practical reference for sustainable environmental management and green infrastructure planning that integrates ecological functionality and social well-being, aligning with contemporary urban sustainability goals.

This study is grounded in the theoretical assumption that the urban greenways’ spatial attributes of network–place influence residents’ pro-nature behaviors. Specifically, it hypothesizes that greenway network attributes (e.g., connectivity to urban infrastructures and ecological systems) and place-based attributes (e.g., landscape resources, facilities, and social environment) collectively shape three hierarchical forms of pro-nature behaviors: occasional and non-routine visitation, usage habits in daily life, and deeper alignment with nature. This theoretical integration organizes the subsequent literature review and guides both the classification of behavioral types and the interpretation of the specific greenway network–place attributes, thereby providing a coherent analytical foundation for examining how these spatial attributes shape pro-nature behaviors and human–nature relationships (Figure 2).

Accordingly, the remainder of this article is organized as follows. Section 2 details the systematic review methodology, including database search strategies, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and quality assessment of eligible studies. Then, Section 3 presents the results, identifying the characteristics and mechanisms of greenway-related pro-nature behaviors across three hierarchical levels—visitation, usage habits, and alignment with nature—and analyzes their associated network and place-based attributes. Furthermore, Section 4 discusses the findings in light of the proposed conceptual framework, highlighting the activation, anchoring, and nurturing effects of greenway network–place attributes on residents’ pro-nature behaviors. Subsequently, Section 5 addresses limitations and outlines future research directions, and finally, Section 6 concludes with key theoretical and practical implications for sustainable greenway planning and urban environmental design.

2. Methods

Building on this theoretical framework, the following Methods section translates the conceptual model into a structured process of evidence selection, evaluation, and categorization. To ensure rigorous literature screening, a systematic search strategy (

Table 1. Database search strategy.

Database	Search Query
Web of Science	(“urban*” OR “cit*”) AND ((“behavio*” OR “activit*” OR “use pattern*” OR “usage pattern*” OR “user* behavio*”) OR (“biophilia” OR ((“nature” OR “environment*”) AND (“connectedness” OR “connection” OR “affinity” OR “emotion*” OR “love” OR “care” OR “empathy” OR “inclusion” OR “motiv*” OR “responsible behavior”))) OR (“immersive perception*” OR “engaging perception*” OR “acceptance behavior*” OR “natural acceptance”)) AND (“greenway*” OR “linear park*” OR “linear green space*” OR “park connector*” OR “green corridor*” OR “green infrastructure*”)(Topic)
Scopus	TITLE-ABS-KEY(“urban*” OR “cit*”) AND ((“behavio*” OR “activit*” OR “use pattern*” OR “usage pattern*” OR “user* behavio*”) OR (“biophilia” OR ((“nature” OR “environment*”) AND (“connectedness” OR “connection” OR “affinity” OR “emotion*” OR “love” OR “care” OR “empathy” OR “inclusion” OR “motiv*” OR “responsible behavior”))) OR (“immersive perception*” OR “engaging perception*” OR “acceptance behavior*” OR “natural acceptance”)) AND (“greenway*” OR “linear park*” OR “linear green space*” OR “park connector*” OR “green corridor*” OR “green infrastructure*”)

The “*” in the search terms is a wildcard, which represents any trailing characters in database searches (e.g., “urban*” includes “urban”, “urbanized”, etc.).

) and predefined inclusion criteria (

Table 2. Literature inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Category	Inclusion Criteria	Exclusion Criteria
Research content	Studies focusing on the impact of greenways on residents’ pro-nature behaviors; Studies focusing on linear natural spaces in urban built environments, including greenways, park trails, waterfront walkways, and vegetated streets; Studies focusing on virtual environments simulating natural greenways; Studies comparing greenway conditions before and after interventions.	Studies broadly describing greenways’ benefits for recreation, slow-traffic commuting, physical activities, and health improvement but failing to examine the underlying influence mechanisms; Studies focusing on greenways’ effects on residents’ physical activity intensity and related health benefits, yet failing to clarify specific behavioral contents; Studies on urban slow-traffic corridors such as shared streets and complete streets; Studies on green infrastructure, including parks, informal green spaces, and wilderness areas; Landscape ecological corridors.
Outcomes	Studies examining the direct impact of greenways on residents’ behaviors; Studies discussing the influence of greenway use on residents’ pro-nature behaviors.	Studies solely addressing ecological aspects, flora/fauna, or air/water environmental quality with no mention of residents’ behaviors; Studies focusing solely on improvements in physiological or mental health resulting from greenway usage, without explicitly linking these improvements to behavioral outcomes.
Study design	Empirical studies; Review studies.	Practice-focused summary studies.
Literature type	Studies published in journals or conference papers; Studies classified as “all open access”, “gold”, “gold-hybrid”, “free to read”, and “green published” (for Web of Science) and as “all open access”, “gold”, and “hybrid gold” (for Scopus); Studies written in English.	Preprints and retracted literature; Studies with open access levels classified as “Green Accepted” and “Green Submitted” in Web of Science, and those classified as “Green” and “Bronze” in Scopus; Studies written in other languages.

) were applied, and the quality of eligible studies was assessed using the Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool (CCAT). Guided by the conceptual definition of hierarchical pro-nature behaviors, the reviewed studies were classified into three behavioral types (

Table 3. CCAT criteria and descriptions.

CCAT Domain	Core Evaluation Focus
Preliminaries	Title includes study aims and design; abstract contains balanced, key information; text provides sufficient detail for reproducibility and presents clear writing, tables, diagrams, or figures.
Introduction	Summarizes current knowledge and clarifies the specific problem addressed; states at least one primary objective, hypothesis, or aim; secondary questions (if applicable) are aligned with the primary objective.
Design	Specifies the chosen research design and its rationale, ensuring suitability for the research question; details interventions/treatments/exposures (including validity and reliability) and clearly defines outcomes/outputs/predictors/measures (with validity and reliability); identifies potential bias and confounding variables; and ensures appropriate sequence generation, group allocation, and equivalent treatment of participants.
Sampling	Describes the sampling method and its rationale, ensuring suitability for the study; specifies sample size, calculation method, and rationale; defines target/actual/sample populations, explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria, and transparent recruitment procedures.
Data collection	Details the chosen data collection method and its rationale, ensuring suitability; includes clear protocols (dates, locations, personnel, materials); implements methods to enhance measurement quality (e.g., pilot studies, calibration); and manages non-participation, withdrawal, or lost data.
Ethical matters	Ensures informed consent and equity for participants; protects privacy, confidentiality, or anonymity; provides ethical approval statements; discloses funding sources and conflicts of interest; addresses researcher subjectivities and potential impacts on outcomes.
Results	Uses appropriate statistical/non-statistical methods to analyze/integrate/interpret primary and additional outcomes; reports participant flow, baseline characteristics, raw data analysis, and response rates; summarizes results with precision and effect size; considers benefits/harms, unexpected results, and outlying data.
Discussion	Interprets results in the context of current evidence and study objectives; draws inferences consistent with data strength; explores alternative explanations for results and accounts for bias/confounding; discusses the study’s practical usefulness and generalizability; highlights strengths, limitations, and suggestions for future research.

) and analyzed alongside the network–place attributes framework (

Table 4. Classification framework of reviewed literature.

Pro-Nature Behavior Types	Classification Criteria	Representative Studies
Visitation	Primary greenway users exhibit visitation frequencies of fewer than once per month.	[15,48,49,50]
Usage habits	Primary greenway users demonstrate usage frequencies ranging from daily to at least once per month.	[51,52]
Alignment with nature	Greenway content emphasizes user–nature interaction behaviors or nature perception experiences; The study focuses on analyzing the mechanisms through which greenways influence pro-environmental behaviors among residents, or how nature experiences along greenways shape residents’ environmentally responsible behaviors.	[41,53,54]
Mixed-type	The study focuses on the mechanisms of multiple pro-nature behaviors promoted by greenways.	[33,36,55]

) to provide a comprehensive analytical basis for understanding how urban greenways foster pro-nature behaviors.

2.1. Search Strategy

We conducted a systematic literature review based on the PRISMA guidelines [56], a methodology widely adopted in social science research. The literature search was performed across two databases: Web of Science and Scopus. The Web of Science and Scopus databases were selected because they are widely recognized indexing platforms in the fields of environmental planning, landscape architecture, and sustainable urban design. Both databases ensure broad disciplinary coverage, rigorous index inclusion standards, and overlap with the major journals publishing on greenway and pro-nature behavior research.

The search terms were derived directly from the conceptual framework introduced above. To operationalize the hierarchical model of pro-nature behaviors, the search queries combined three conceptual dimensions: (1) the spatial domain of urban greenways (e.g., “greenway”, “linear park”, “green corridor”), (2) the behavioral domain reflecting human–nature interaction (e.g., “behavior”, “activity”, “use pattern”), and (3) the psychological domain representing nature connectedness (e.g., “biophilia”). It should be noted that, regarding the proposed concept of alignment with nature, there is a paucity of relevant research examining the spatial patterns of resident activities in greenways. Consequently, given its composite connotation, we deconstructed this concept into two components—nature immersive perception and environmental responsibility behavior—and incorporated them into our search parameters (Table 1).

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

To ensure the objectivity and comparability of literature selection, a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria was developed (Table 2). These criteria encompassed four major dimensions—research content, outcomes, study design, and literature type. The inclusion principles emphasize studies that explicitly examine the natural attributes of urban greenways and their influence on residents’ pro-nature behaviors, while the exclusion criteria filter out unrelated or insufficiently defined studies. This framework guided the successive screening process, ensuring that the selected publications were both methodologically robust and conceptually aligned with the study’s aims. Two independent reviewers screened each record (title/abstract) and each retrieved report (full-text) against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Disagreements between reviewers were resolved through discussion.

In the study selection process, we observed that several “near-miss” studies shared a common feature: they focused on the benefits and assessment of greenways (e.g., accessibility, comfort, ecological or functional performance), but did not measure residents’ pro-nature behaviors or analyze the influence mechanisms linking greenway characteristics to such behaviors. For example, a Czech study on urban river greenway assessment examined spatial and ecological attributes without reporting behavioral outcomes [57]. The urban green infrastructure connecting corridors study classified and evaluated green corridors while omitting mechanisms and behavioral indicators [58]. The Sheffield Victoria Quays regeneration study addressed nature-based solutions and regional regeneration effects without investigating how greenway features shape residents’ pro-nature activities [59]. Consequently, these “near-miss” studies were excluded because they did not meet our content and outcome eligibility criteria.

2.3. Data Extraction and Analysis

As noted earlier, the study employed the CCAT to assess the quality of included studies. The CCAT is a methodological instrument developed by Michael Crowe and colleagues to systematically evaluate research quality across diverse study designs [60,61,62]. The CCAT was selected for its applicability across qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies, providing a unified, flexible framework to enhance methodological transparency—more suitable than CASP/MMAT for heterogeneous research designs [62,63,64]. The CCAT evaluates study quality across eight domains: preliminaries, introduction, design, sampling, data collection, ethical matters, results, and discussion (Table 3). Each domain is scored on a 0–5 scale, resulting in a maximum total score of 40, with final results converted to a percentage of the total score. Studies scoring above 75% are classified as high-quality literature, while those scoring below 50% are considered low-quality and subjected to potential exclusion. Meanwhile, studies with notably low scores in any single CCAT domain are flagged for scrutiny and potentially excluded if deemed methodologically unsound. Section 3.1.2 Quality Assessment below will elaborate on the results of the literature quality assessment.

Classifying literature based on various pro-nature behaviors forms the foundation for subsequent analysis of greenways’ mechanisms in promoting such pro-nature behaviors. The screened literature was categorized into visitation, usage habit, and alignment with nature. Based on this, the study’s literature classification criteria are as follows (Table 4).

Some studies used observational methods or VGI (volunteered geographic information) to examine factors influencing greenway visitation at specific time points, but did not analyze usage patterns. Therefore, these were classified as visitation-type studies.

To systematically analyze the mechanisms through which greenway “ network–place” attributes influence pro-nature behaviors in existing literature, this study proposes an analytical framework for these attributes. Existing studies demonstrate that greenway morphological characteristics (e.g., continuity, length), urban location, distribution of surrounding transit stops, land-use diversity (e.g., combination of residential, commercial, and public service land), and connections to major parks influence greenway accessibility and convenience, consequently affecting residents’ usage behaviors [15,24,33]. The internal landscape quality, natural elements, service facilities, community activities, interpersonal interactions, and cleanliness maintenance of greenways can influence residents’ natural experience, comfort level, sense of safety, activity diversity, and satisfaction during greenway use. These experiences, in turn, affect the duration, modes, and frequency of residents’ greenway usage [19,36,51,65,66,67]. Building upon previous research, this study develops a network–place analytical framework for greenways (

Table 5. Network–place analytical framework for greenway analysis.

Greenway Network–Place Attributes	Elements
Network attributes	The internal network structure of greenways themselves; connectivity between greenways and road networks; connectivity between greenways and pedestrian/cycling networks; linkages between greenways and urban facilities; and linkages between greenways and ecological networks.
Place-based attributes	Landscape resources; natural perception elements; supporting facilities; residents’ activities within greenways; and operational maintenance.

), in which network attributes reflect ecological and urban-facility connectivity, while place-based attributes encompass landscape, facility, activity, and maintenance dimensions.

3. Results

Literature searches were conducted in the Web of Science and Scopus databases, yielding an initial 1817 records (1027 from Web of Science; 790 from Scopus). After removal of duplicate entries, 1093 records remained; of these, 109 records were excluded during title and abstract screening, leaving 180 articles for full-text eligibility assessment. Following full-text review, 71 articles met the predefined inclusion criteria. An additional 17 studies were identified via snowball sampling of references within the included articles, resulting in a final sample of 88 studies included in the analysis (Figure 3).

3.1. Study Distribution and Quality Assessment

3.1.1. Distribution of Study

Among the 88 selected studies on greenway-related pro-nature behaviors of residents, the studies were widely distributed across 25 countries, with China, the United States, the United Kingdom, South Korea, and Australia being the top five countries in terms of study quantity (Figure 4). Most studies focused on greenways in a single country, while a few review or empirical comparative studies involved multi-country greenway analyses (Figure 5).

Among the selected studies, 67 (76% of the total) focused on a single type of pro-nature behavior, while the remaining 21 (24%) examined mixed-behavior types (Figure 6). The distribution of studies on single vs. multiple pro-nature behaviors shows that single-type research accounted for the majority. For the single-behavior studies specifically, research attention from highest to lowest centered on alignment with nature (35 studies), usage habits (22 studies), and visitation (10 studies) (Figure 7). For the mixed-behavior studies, the quantities from highest to lowest included visitation and usage habits (8 studies), usage habits and alignment with nature (6 studies), visitation and usage habits and alignment with nature (4 studies), and visitation and alignment with nature (3 studies). When these mixed-behavior studies were further reclassified into each aforementioned behavior category, alignment with nature remained the most researched type (48 studies), followed by usage habits (40 studies), and greenway visitation had the fewest studies (25 studies) (Figure 8).

3.1.2. Quality Assessment

The evaluation results based on the CCAT scale showed that all study scores exceeded 80%. Among them, all preliminaries, introductions, and data collection components scored 4 or 5 points. In terms of research design, one review study was rated 3 points due to its failure to include a literature screening flowchart or provide detailed exclusion criteria for literature screening [53]. Regarding sampling, 26 studies were rated 3 points for not clarifying the rationale behind sample selection or sampling methods or addressing potential sample bias [52,68,69]. In research ethics, 15 studies received 3 points because they did not mention ethical committee approval, participant informed consent procedures, funding sources, or conflicts of interest [70,71,72]. For the results section, one study was rated 3 points, as it involved only a research protocol without actual data or precise effect size reporting [73]. In the discussion section, two studies scored 3 points due to insufficient discussion of paradoxical findings, limitations, and potential improvements [13,72].

3.2. Characteristics of Greenway-Related Pro-Nature Behaviors

Existing studies reveal significant distinctions among three types of behaviors—visitation, usage habits, and alignment with nature—in terms of their pro-nature behavioral characteristics and content. Visitation primarily serves as non-routine recreational activities aimed at leisure entertainment, nature contact, and social interaction, with “escaping daily routines” being a key psychological motivation [33,74]. This non-routine characteristic manifests in activity timing, spatial distribution, content, and decision-making rationale. Temporally, visitation is concentrated on weekends or holidays. Spatially, greenways associated with visitation are predominantly located in suburban areas, requiring longer travel times primarily via private cars or public transit [67,75]. Case studies from Beijing explicitly contrast urban regeneration-focused greenways versus suburban greenways for ecological tourism. Specifically, urban greenways exhibit high-frequency, short-duration use linked to daily routines, while suburban greenways serve as weekend/holiday destinations with extended stays concentrated in natural landscapes like waterfronts or forested trails [33]. Residents typically visit in family or friend groups, engaging in collective activities and shared recreational experiences within high-quality natural landscapes [65,76]. In terms of content, appreciating high-quality natural landscapes along greenways constitutes a core component of visitation, including exploring natural and cultural heritage, accessing unique viewing perspectives, and observing seasonal flowers and fruits. Consistent with these distinctions, waterfront greenways along the Huangpu River emphasize scenic vistas and water-based recreation, attracting users motivated by stress relief and social interaction [55]. Similarly, in Purple Mountain Forest Park, mountainous hiking greenways support more physically demanding activities preferred by younger visitors [77]. In contrast, Taichung’s Calligraphy Greenway exemplifies an urban cultural greenway, hosting predominantly passive recreational activities—such as art exhibitions and festivals—where visitor surveys indicate that cultural landscapes and artistic settings constitute primary motivations for use [74]. Extended greenway recreation enables residents to gain rich, interesting, and distinctive high-quality nature-based recreational experiences. Diverse water-based activities (e.g., swimming, boating, wading) exhibit strong appeal to residents, as they effectively alleviate stress, promote positive emotions, and enhance social connections [67,78]. In addition, group activities in natural settings—such as picnics and interactive games—enable residents to transcend their daily social roles, thereby deepening interpersonal connections and creating lasting memories [50]. Culturally influential events (e.g., music festivals, art exhibitions) enhance the recreational appeal of greenways, particularly for passive spectating activities [19,67,74]. Notably, the non-routine attribute of greenway recreation and associated travel costs prompts residents to prioritize destination reputation and share their experiences through social media reviews—factors that make this a critical component of recreational decision-making [48,67]. To more accurately capture such heterogeneous and context-dependent visitation patterns, unconventional data collection approaches have been increasingly adopted, including GPS-based mapping of incidental cycling behavior [31], large-scale fine-grained spatiotemporal movement records derived from VGI [15], and machine-vision analysis integrating street-view and bikeshare data [18,43]. Collectively, residents’ greenway visitation is strongly associated with the natural resources of greenways, as such visits involve distinctive recreational content that requires abundant, visually appealing landscape resources to support prolonged recreational experiences.

Compared with visitation, usage habits demonstrate significant differences in purposes of visiting greenways, travel timing, spatial distribution, companion modes, and activity contents. Primarily serving utilitarian needs like daily commuting and active transportation, usage habits also fulfill functions such as passive nature exposure, physical exercise, and leisure viewing [24,33]. Consequently, usage habits are most prominent during weekday commuting peaks but maintain consistent distribution across other time periods. Greenways associated with usage habits are predominantly located in urban areas, especially in central districts. Residents typically use them alone or occasionally with family members, often incorporating neighborhood interactions into daily routines [23,33]. Daily greenway habits are typically measured through on-site questionnaires capturing routine frequency, timing, and activity purposes [33,65], complemented by digital trajectory data from mobile apps that reveal fine-grained spatiotemporal patterns [75]. Automated counters further quantify continuous pedestrian and cyclist flows, while mixed approaches integrating surveys and observed data improve accuracy in documenting everyday use [65]. A case study in Guangzhou reveals that urban community greenways primarily support daily commuting and essential activities (e.g., shopping, dog-walking), with >59% of residents using them ≥7 times weekly via walking/bicycling within 10 min [23]. Notably, activities on these greenways are closely integrated with residents’ daily lives, including trips to workplaces, schools, commercial facilities, and parks, as well as dog-walking, jogging, and cycling [12,23,79]. Health-conscious residents frequently utilize fitness equipment and sports facilities along greenways. Community-oriented activities—such as square dancing, shared furniture exchanges, gardening, and neighborhood beautification—serve as key motivators for regular use [23,54]. Additionally, daily users tend to avoid risk factors like vehicular conflicts, cycling–pedestrian collisions, and crime risks [24,36,80]. Thus, usage habits are deeply intertwined with residents’ daily mobility, requiring greenways to support convenient access, comfort, social bonding, and safety.

Alignment with nature, on the one hand, manifests as residents’ immersive perception of natural environmental characteristics. This primarily involves residents engaging multiple senses (visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile) with natural elements as the focal point, forming profound and rich nature-based experiences through close interactions with the environment [12,32,46,55]. For instance, during nature hikes, residents may listen to wind rustling leaves, birdsong, insect chirps, or flowing water; observe wildlife like birds and insects; touch cool streams or rough tree bark; and perceive subtle terrain variations underfoot. Through such multisensory immersion, residents often develop positive emotions (e.g., awe, joy, relaxation), intuitively recognize the interconnectedness of natural systems, appreciate environmental value and fragility, and cultivate ecological reverence by acknowledging humans as part of nature. On the other hand, positive immersive nature experiences foster environmentally responsible behaviors within greenways, including adherence to conduct codes, participation in eco-education programs, litter collection, vegetation and water conservation, and intervention against others’ destructive actions [34,41,46,81]. These environmentally responsible behaviors further extend to daily life, influencing practices like environmental beautification, low-carbon commuting, and resource conservation [34,46,82]. Thus, greenway-related alignment with nature—encompassing deep human–nature interactions and environmentally responsible behaviors—represents an advanced expression of residents’ pro-nature behaviors. In empirical studies of alignment with nature, multi-stage qualitative designs collect data on multisensory engagement, wildlife encounters, and environmentally responsible behaviors through participant-generated maps, mobile interviews, and place-based observations [32]. These materials are subsequently examined using narrative or thematic analysis to identify patterned meanings in natural immersion experiences and pro-environmental actions [32,66].

3.3. Associations Between Pro-Nature Behaviors and Greenway Environments

3.3.1. Associations Between Visitation and Greenway Environments

In terms of network attributes, greenway network connectivity, integration with road networks, and connection to urban facilities positively influence visitation frequency (

Table 6. Built environment characteristics influencing greenway visitation.

Greenway Attributes	Associated Elements	Built Environment Characteristics	Indicators	References
Network attributes	The internal network structure of greenways themselves	Greenway network internal connectivity	Greenway network density; Greenway node connectivity ratio.	[15]
		Greenway internal movement barriers	Path length; Terrain complexity; Physical barriers.	[36,48,69,77,83,84]
	Connectivity between greenways and road networks	Greenways located in urban areas	Greenways located in suburban areas; Travel distance; Distance to urban areas.	[33,67,77]
		Greenway road network connectivity	Intersection count; Road network global integration value; Road network local integration value; 15 min greenway walkability; High-choice segments; Bridge-equipped routes; Road density; Accessibility to transit, metro, and bikeshare stations; Motor vehicle Parking facilities; Bicycle racks and rental services; Distance to urban arterial roads.	[15,19,24,36,43,49,50,55,67,69,74,75,77,83,85]
	Linkages between greenways and urban facilities	Distribution of tourism resources around greenways	Distribution of accommodation and catering facilities.	[48,71]
			Scenic spot count.	[48,75,83]
		Distribution of residential buildings around greenways	Residential area density.	[15,75]
		Surrounding land-use diversity	Land-use mix degree.	[15,43]
		Accessibility to nearby parks and green spaces	Park green spaces.	[15,43,75]
Place-based attributes	Landscape resources	Uniqueness of landscape elements	Water bodies and riparian scenery; Unique viewpoints; Repurposed historic railways; Protected habitats.	[19,33,67,69,71,75,84]
		Scale of landscape elements	Greenway hierarchy.	[15]
		Greenway social reputation	Social media ratings; User review content; Personal recommendations; Media promotion; Greenway recognition.	[19,24,33,48,71,85]
	Natural perception elements	Natural perceptual trigger elements	Distance to water bodies; Shade.	[19,50,55,75,78]
		Greenway vegetation spatial patterns	Greening level; Sense of enclosure; Sky openness; Greenway width; Greenway tortuosity; Relative vegetation abundance; Green space ratio; Tree species.	[13,43,49,55,66,67,71,75,78,84]
	Supporting facilities	Basic service facilities	Trails; Benches; Water stations; Restrooms; Trash bins; Lighting facilities; Surveillance; Signage clarity; Guardrails; Emergency equipment.	[19,24,36,49,55,67,71,74,77,86]
		Recreational and sports facilities	Children’s playgrounds; Fitness equipment; Public activity spaces.	[19,49,67,86,87]
		Social nodes	Small open areas; Shaded pavilions; Table and seating.	[55,74,85,86]
	Residents’ activities within greenways	Large-scale cultural and recreational events	Cultural and recreational events.	[12,74,87]
		Visitor flow volume	Visitor density.	[19,24,36,50]
		Others’ environmental behaviors	Uncivilized behaviors.	[36,67,72,88]
	Operational maintenance	Facility maintenance and vegetation care	Facility cleanliness; Facility repair; Vegetation pruning and care.	[36,71,74,77,78,89]
		Entrance fees	Entrance fees	[74]
		Commercial vendors	Commercial vendors	[67,71]

). Internal movement barriers generally deter visitation, though complex terrain may attract hiking enthusiasts. Higher greenway network density and node connectivity ratio correlate with increased public usage [15]. Greenway geographic location demonstrates mixed effects: suburban greenways incur higher temporal costs that deter visits [33,67], yet their remoteness from built environments offers superior natural qualities that fulfill recreational needs for stress relief, attracting visitors on weekends or holidays [77]. Connectivity between greenways and road networks—global integration values, local integration values, 15 min walkability, high-choice segments, bridge-equipped routes, and road density—enhances greenway road network connectivity and accessibility, boosting visitation probability [49,75,83]. Transit and bikeshare access, parking facilities, and bike racks facilitate multimodal travel, supporting mid-to-long-distance visitation [15,19,24,49,67]. Greenway surrounding intersection density and proximity to arterial roads exhibit dual effects. Positively, higher intersection counts and closer proximity to arterial roads enhance connectivity, accessibility, and convenience, leading to increased usage intensity [15]. However, these factors simultaneously elevate vehicle conflict risks, noise disturbances, and disruptions to travel continuity, negatively impacting safety perception [43,69]. Linkages to tourism resources, residential areas, parks, and mixed land uses strengthen recreational appeal, mobility convenience, and multifunctionality, positively impacting visitation [15,48,71,75,83].

In terms of place-based attributes, greenway landscape resources primarily influence visitation through three dimensions: uniqueness of landscape elements, scale of landscape elements, and social reputation. High-quality distinctive landscapes—including water bodies and riparian scenery, unique viewpoints, repurposed historic railways, and protected habitats—satisfy residents’ psychological need for “escape”, demonstrating stronger visual appeal, recreational value, and health benefits [67,71,84]. High-level greenways (e.g., regional greenways) with larger scales and superior natural conditions better support long-distance travel and recreational functions, attracting more visitors [15]. Social media ratings and user reviews reflect visitation rates, motivations, and evaluations, aiding recreational decision-making [48]. Also, personal recommendations and popularity significantly boost visitation [19,24,33,85]. The natural perception characteristics and elements of greenways influence residents’ visitation through perceptual triggers and vegetation spatial patterns. Water bodies enhance comfort and recreational appeal via riparian landscapes, volatile scents, and microclimate regulation, thereby encouraging visitation [50]. Moreover, closer proximity between trails and water bodies enhances aquatic attractiveness [55,75,78]. Ample tree canopy coverage improves thermal comfort, thereby encouraging visitation frequency [50]. Greenway greening level, width, vegetation abundance, and green space ratio enhance visitation by providing superior natural landscapes and supporting diverse activities [13,43,67,75]. Moderate canopy enclosure improves perceived safety, while excessive enclosure reduces comfort [43,55,71,78]. Higher sky openness positively correlates with weekend cycling but may deter weekday use due to direct sunlight exposure [43]. Tree species composition significantly impacts usage intensity: broadleaf forests better align with leisure needs, whereas coniferous forests exhibit weaker effects [84]. Basic service facilities, recreational and sports facilities, and social nodes enable diverse activities during greenway visits. Basic service facilities (trails, benches, water stations, restrooms, trash bins, lighting, surveillance, signage, guardrails, emergency equipment) provide safe and comfortable conditions, enhancing visitor satisfaction [24,36,55,67,74,77,86]. Recreational and sports facilities (playgrounds, fitness equipment, public activity spaces) cater to families with children, fitness enthusiasts, and group visitors [49,86,87]. Social nodes (picnic areas, pavilions, seating) increase activity diversity and social vibrancy [55,74,85]. Large cultural events (e.g., exhibitions, jazz performances, street art) significantly boost recreational appeal, especially low-threshold spectating activities [74,87]. Moderate visitor density is preferred, as overcrowding strains resources while low density reduces perceived safety and interest [19,24,36,50]. Others’ uncivilized environmental behaviors (littering, speeding bikes, unleashed pets) negatively impact visitation intentions by degrading aesthetics, safety, and comfort [36,67,72,88]. Facility cleanliness, equipment maintenance, and vegetation care directly impact residents’ recreational sensory experiences and aesthetic perceptions. Well-maintained trails, clean restrooms, high pavement smoothness, and intact railings enhance service quality [36,71,74,77,89]. Vegetation care significantly affects landscape aesthetics and safety perception. Overgrown or excessively dense vegetation reduces visual appeal and may evoke fear [36,77,78]. Low-cost or free greenways are preferred by surrounding residents, while tourists show greater tolerance for entrance fees [74]. Commercial vendors in greenways particularly attract tourists and families with children. Comprehensive facilities enhance environmental safety, comfort, and satisfaction by meeting diverse needs during extended visits [67,71]. Such satisfaction encourages repeat visits and positive word-of-mouth promotion. Detailed indicator-level information, including impacts and references, is provided in the Supplementary Materials (Table S1).

3.3.2. Associations Between Usage Habits and Greenway Environments

In terms of network attributes, the internal network structure of greenways themselves, internal movement barriers, urban location, connectivity between greenways and road networks, connectivity between greenways and pedestrian/cycling networks, distribution of surrounding residential buildings, land-use diversity, accessibility to nearby parks and green spaces, and distribution of daily life facilities can influence the accessibility, convenience, and comfort of residents’ daily use of greenways, thereby affecting their frequency of greenway usage (Table 7). Greenway node density and continuity enhance the intrinsic connectivity of the network, providing residents with more route choices and reducing path interruptions, thereby improving accessibility within the greenway network [19,70,79,88,90]. Greenway length and slope increase movement difficulty, creating barriers to daily slow-traffic activities [70,76]. Urban greenways are used more frequently in daily life due to their close integration with residents’ daily routines, work, and education [19,33]. The connectivity between greenways and urban transportation networks has bidirectional effects. High road intersection density and physical barriers reduce network continuity and hinder daily greenway use [36,69,88,91,92]. The proximity of greenways to urban roads has dual effects: vehicle traffic may cause disturbances but can also enhance accessibility [19,24]. Public transit stops and parking spaces positively promote usage frequency [19,21,24,52,72]. Connectivity with pedestrian/cycling networks significantly encourages resident usage habits, with key factors including the number of access points, bicycle lane connections, pedestrian-friendly surroundings, 15 min slow-traffic coverage, connection-node ratios, direct walking path proportions to residential areas, and walkability indices [24,43,52,73,77,88]. The relationship between greenways and residential buildings is the most critical factor influencing daily usage frequency, with metrics including residential connectivity, proximity, density, community openness, and greenway coverage length near homes [16,21,24,33,52,65,68,70,73,86,93,94]. Overall, shorter distances between greenways and residences and higher accessibility correlate with increased daily usage frequency [24,33,65]. However, some studies note that nearby residents may exhibit dissatisfaction due to NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) effects or landscape fatigue, reducing usage [36,65]. Land-use diversity, park accessibility, and daily facility distribution around greenways signify their utilitarian accessibility [24,43]. By supporting daily activities like commuting and recreation, greenways increase residents’ usage frequency.

In terms of place-based attributes, factors affecting residents’ greenway usage habits include uniqueness of landscape elements, greenway social reputation, natural perceptual trigger elements, richness of natural perceptual elements, greenway vegetation spatial patterns, basic service facilities, recreational and sports facilities, greenway pet amenities, social nodes, nature observation facilities, cultural and art installations, positive neighborhood interactions, community co-creation, pedestrian flow, others’ environmental behaviors, facility maintenance and vegetation care, entrance fees, and greenway usage security and management. High-quality special landscapes like water bodies and dense vegetation create more comfortable, natural atmospheres that promote daily use for commuting, recreation and physical activity [19,86]. Greenway recognition and social media recommendations enhance familiarity, trust and identity [12,18,36,95]. Especially, natural elements exhibit dual effects. Positively, natural perceptual trigger elements, like wildlife, seasonal landscapes, dynamic scenery, water bodies, wetlands, aromatic plants and bird sounds, enhance nature interaction opportunities and interest [12,96]. Meanwhile, these natural elements enhance residents’ nature-connected experiences through landscape aesthetics, light and shadow effects, temperature and humidity variations, material textures, natural sounds, and vegetation fragrances, thereby promoting positive emotions such as pleasure and relaxation and facilitating daily psychological restoration [19,52,66,94,96]. However, excessive natural elements may have negative effects. Urban wildlife such as rats, mosquitoes, and snakes can trigger residents’ fear and disgust [54,97,98]. Excessive vegetation may encroach upon residents’ activity spaces, reduce activity diversity, and decrease greenway usage frequency [23,24,36,67,79]. Similarly, green visibility rate, vegetation coverage, canopy closure, tree density, and natural visibility can enhance landscape aesthetic value and improve thermal comfort within greenways through shading effects, thereby promoting usage frequency when maintained at moderate levels [89,90,91]. However, studies have found that excessive vegetation may create an eerie atmosphere, triggering users’ sense of insecurity and discouraging usage [89]. Also, moderate enclosure can mitigate visual and auditory disturbances from adjacent motor vehicles, enhance residents’ sense of safety, optimize microclimate conditions, foster spatial belongingness, and support physical activity [43]. Greenway openness exhibits temporal heterogeneity: open spaces positively promote recreational activities on weekends, while negatively inhibiting residents’ slow-traffic commuting on weekdays due to reduced thermal comfort from sun exposure [33,43,96]. Curvilinear paths can provide dynamic landscape variations that enhance residents’ usage [33]. The richness of natural perception elements, including landscape diversity, topographic variation, species diversity, chromatic diversity, and vegetation diversity, can enhance residents’ environmental interaction intensity and satisfaction through immersive nature-connected experiences, thereby fostering usage habits [36,52,74,90,96]. Basic service facilities can fulfill residents’ needs for safety, comfort, and convenience, prolong single-use duration, expand usage time windows, and improve satisfaction with greenway experiences, thereby promoting higher usage frequency [52,73,86,93]. Recreational and sports facilities, along with Greenway pet amenities, can meet the critical daily needs of family groups, elderly populations, and pet owners, thereby attracting residents to frequent greenways regularly [24,86,93]. Social nodes can foster interactions among companions and neighbors, increasing residents’ stay time in greenways [21]. Natural observation facilities, such as bird-watching stations, observation decks, and waterfront docks, can lower the threshold for natural observation, provide conditions for staying, and convert “one-time accidental contact” into “repetitive pro-nature behaviors” while meeting the needs of diverse populations [77]. Cultural and art installations can enhance the cultural and educational functions of greenways and strengthen residents’ value recognition of greenways [74]. Moderately dense pedestrian flow can enhance greenway vitality and attract visitors, while excessively high density may cause crowding and reduce comfort levels [72,90]. Others’ environmental behaviors in greenways can influence individuals’ perceptual evaluations of greenways, thereby affecting residents’ usage frequency. Uncivilized behaviors such as disorderly conduct, user conflicts, environmental vandalism, and motor vehicle interference can compromise greenway safety, aesthetic perception, and user experience [42,72,97]. Neighborhood-friendly interactions and community events not only constitute the daily life of residents but also foster neighborly exchanges and trigger positive social bonds, cultivating residents’ sense of belonging and identity to the community, thereby increasing their daily greenway usage frequency (e.g., community marathons, neighborhood gatherings, walking groups) [42,73]. Furthermore, community co-creation activities, such as sharing used furniture, spontaneous planting, litter-picking walks, and self-organized space function expansions, enable residents to participate in greenway maintenance and micro-transformation decisions through lightweight yet high-frequency engagement formats [23]. Vegetation pruning and care, facility repair, facility cleanliness, and greenway water treatment can enhance residents’ greenway experience, satisfaction, and sense of place identity [36,80,97]. Residents living near greenways exhibit higher price sensitivity, and user fees may deter visitation among certain population segments [74]. Mosquito control measures, security patrols, slow-traffic policy support, and behavioral management can enhance residents’ comfort and perceived safety on greenways, prolong daily usage duration, and increase usage frequency [23,72,80,88]. Detailed indicator-level information, including impacts and references, is provided in the Supplementary Materials (Table S2).

Table 7. Built environment characteristics influencing greenway usage habits.

Greenway Attributes	Associated Elements	Built Environment Characteristics	Indicators	References
Network attributes	The internal network structure of greenways themselves	Greenway network internal connectivity	Greenway node density; Greenway continuity.	[19,70,79,88,90]
		Greenway internal movement barriers	Path length; Slope.	[70,76]
	Connectivity between greenways and road networks	Greenways located in urban areas	Greenways located in urban areas.	[19,33]
		Greenway road network connectivity	Intersection count; Motor vehicle parking facilities; Physical barriers; Accessibility to transit; Distance to urban arterial roads.	[12,19,21,24,33,36,51,52,65,69,70,72,77,80,87,88,91,92]
	Connectivity between greenways and pedestrian/cycling networks	Connectivity between greenways and slow-traffic networks	Number of access points; Bicycle lane connections; Pedestrian-friendly surroundings; 15 min slow-traffic coverage; Greenway connection-node ratio; Proportion of direct walking paths between greenways and residential areas; Walkability indices.	[24,43,52,73,77,88]
	Linkages between greenways and urban facilities	Distribution of residential buildings around greenways	Residential connectivity; Residential proximity; Residential area density; Community openness; Greenway coverage length near residential areas.	[12,16,18,19,21,23,24,33,36,52,65,68,70,73,74,76,77,86,87,93,94]
		Surrounding land-use diversity	Land-use mix degree.	[24,43]
		Accessibility to nearby parks and green spaces	Accessibility to nearby parks and green spaces.	[92,93]
		Distribution of daily life facilities around greenways	Connectivity to daily activity destinations; Building density.	[12,21,23,43,80,88]
Place-based attributes	Landscape resources	Uniqueness of landscape elements	Water bodies; Dense vegetation.	[16,19,86,87,97]
		Greenway social reputation	Greenway recognition; Social media recommendations.	[12,18,36,73,95]
	Natural perception elements	Natural perceptual trigger elements	Wildlife; Seasonal natural landscapes; Dynamic scenery; Water bodies and riparian scenery; Wetlands; Woodlands; Aromatic plants; Fruit trees; Wooden boardwalks; Bird sounds.	[12,19,23,42,52,66,69,73,86,87,88,91,96,97]
		Richness of natural perceptual elements	Richness of natural landscapes; Topographic variation; Species diversity; Chromatic diversity; Vegetation diversity.	[12,36,51,52,72,74,90,96,97,99,100]
		Greenway vegetation spatial patterns	Green visibility index; Enclosure; Openness; Canopy closure; Curvilinear forms; Natural visibility; Vegetation coverage; Tree density.	[42,43,51,87,90,92,94,96,99]
	Supporting facilities	Basic service facilities	Trails; Benches; Water stations; Restrooms; Trash bins; Lighting facilities; Surveillance; Signage clarity; Guardrails; Emergency equipment; Management office; Pergolas; Barrier-free facilities.	[12,13,14,19,21,23,24,36,42,43,51,52,65,70,72,73,74,76,77,79,80,86,87,88,90,91,93,96,99,100]
		Recreational and sports facilities	Fitness equipment; Sports fields; Children’s playgrounds.	[13,14,21,24,33,51,77,79,86,87,93,96,101]
		Pet amenities	Pet-friendly paths; Pet activity areas.	[14,24,86]
		Social nodes	Rest and social nodes; Barbecue areas; Table and seating.	[12,14,19,21,24,72,77,86,100]
		Natural observation facilities	Environmental education signage.	[12,72,77,86]
		Cultural and Art Installations	Cultural and art installations.	[13,73,74,85,90]
	Residents’ activities within greenways	Neighborhood interactions	Neighborhood-friendly interactions; Community event organization.	[12,42,73,74,88]
		Community environmental co-creation	Community environmental co-creation; Spontaneous planting behaviors.	[21,23,53,73,74,88]
		Pedestrian flow	Crowd density.	[19,36,72,90,91,101]
		Others’ environmental behaviors	Disorderly behaviors; Usage conflicts between different users; Environmental vandalism; Motor vehicle interference.	[19,23,42,51,65,72,76,77,90,97,99]
	Operational maintenance	Facility maintenance and vegetation care	Vegetation pruning and care; Facility repair; Water treatment; Facility cleanliness.	[14,19,23,36,42,51,52,69,73,76,77,79,80,86,91,93,97,99,100,102]
		Entrance fees	Entrance fees.	[74]
		Greenway usage security and management	Mosquito control; Security patrols; Slow-traffic Policy support; Behavioral management.	[23,52,72,76,80,87,88]

Table 7. Built environment characteristics influencing greenway usage habits.

Greenway Attributes	Associated Elements	Built Environment Characteristics	Indicators	References
Network attributes	The internal network structure of greenways themselves	Greenway network internal connectivity	Greenway node density; Greenway continuity.	[19,70,79,88,90]
		Greenway internal movement barriers	Path length; Slope.	[70,76]
	Connectivity between greenways and road networks	Greenways located in urban areas	Greenways located in urban areas.	[19,33]
		Greenway road network connectivity	Intersection count; Motor vehicle parking facilities; Physical barriers; Accessibility to transit; Distance to urban arterial roads.	[12,19,21,24,33,36,51,52,65,69,70,72,77,80,87,88,91,92]
	Connectivity between greenways and pedestrian/cycling networks	Connectivity between greenways and slow-traffic networks	Number of access points; Bicycle lane connections; Pedestrian-friendly surroundings; 15 min slow-traffic coverage; Greenway connection-node ratio; Proportion of direct walking paths between greenways and residential areas; Walkability indices.	[24,43,52,73,77,88]
	Linkages between greenways and urban facilities	Distribution of residential buildings around greenways	Residential connectivity; Residential proximity; Residential area density; Community openness; Greenway coverage length near residential areas.	[12,16,18,19,21,23,24,33,36,52,65,68,70,73,74,76,77,86,87,93,94]
		Surrounding land-use diversity	Land-use mix degree.	[24,43]
		Accessibility to nearby parks and green spaces	Accessibility to nearby parks and green spaces.	[92,93]
		Distribution of daily life facilities around greenways	Connectivity to daily activity destinations; Building density.	[12,21,23,43,80,88]
Place-based attributes	Landscape resources	Uniqueness of landscape elements	Water bodies; Dense vegetation.	[16,19,86,87,97]
		Greenway social reputation	Greenway recognition; Social media recommendations.	[12,18,36,73,95]
	Natural perception elements	Natural perceptual trigger elements	Wildlife; Seasonal natural landscapes; Dynamic scenery; Water bodies and riparian scenery; Wetlands; Woodlands; Aromatic plants; Fruit trees; Wooden boardwalks; Bird sounds.	[12,19,23,42,52,66,69,73,86,87,88,91,96,97]
		Richness of natural perceptual elements	Richness of natural landscapes; Topographic variation; Species diversity; Chromatic diversity; Vegetation diversity.	[12,36,51,52,72,74,90,96,97,99,100]
		Greenway vegetation spatial patterns	Green visibility index; Enclosure; Openness; Canopy closure; Curvilinear forms; Natural visibility; Vegetation coverage; Tree density.	[42,43,51,87,90,92,94,96,99]
	Supporting facilities	Basic service facilities	Trails; Benches; Water stations; Restrooms; Trash bins; Lighting facilities; Surveillance; Signage clarity; Guardrails; Emergency equipment; Management office; Pergolas; Barrier-free facilities.	[12,13,14,19,21,23,24,36,42,43,51,52,65,70,72,73,74,76,77,79,80,86,87,88,90,91,93,96,99,100]
		Recreational and sports facilities	Fitness equipment; Sports fields; Children’s playgrounds.	[13,14,21,24,33,51,77,79,86,87,93,96,101]
		Pet amenities	Pet-friendly paths; Pet activity areas.	[14,24,86]
		Social nodes	Rest and social nodes; Barbecue areas; Table and seating.	[12,14,19,21,24,72,77,86,100]
		Natural observation facilities	Environmental education signage.	[12,72,77,86]
		Cultural and Art Installations	Cultural and art installations.	[13,73,74,85,90]
	Residents’ activities within greenways	Neighborhood interactions	Neighborhood-friendly interactions; Community event organization.	[12,42,73,74,88]
		Community environmental co-creation	Community environmental co-creation; Spontaneous planting behaviors.	[21,23,53,73,74,88]
		Pedestrian flow	Crowd density.	[19,36,72,90,91,101]
		Others’ environmental behaviors	Disorderly behaviors; Usage conflicts between different users; Environmental vandalism; Motor vehicle interference.	[19,23,42,51,65,72,76,77,90,97,99]
	Operational maintenance	Facility maintenance and vegetation care	Vegetation pruning and care; Facility repair; Water treatment; Facility cleanliness.	[14,19,23,36,42,51,52,69,73,76,77,79,80,86,91,93,97,99,100,102]
		Entrance fees	Entrance fees.	[74]
		Greenway usage security and management	Mosquito control; Security patrols; Slow-traffic Policy support; Behavioral management.	[23,52,72,76,80,87,88]

3.3.3. Associations Between Alignment with Nature and Greenway Environments

In terms of network attributes, tortuous and continuous greenways can provide residents with ecological flow experiences, reduce directional cognitive load, and enhance landscape mystery and surprise [53,66] (Table 8). Greenway internal movement barriers, like complex terrain and extended paths, exhibit dual effects, as they promote wilderness perception and sustained nature-connected opportunities while increasing exploration appeal, albeit with higher challenge levels [66,103]. The accessibility of park green spaces surrounding greenways enhances residents’ opportunities for nature contact and continuity of nature experiences [15,67]. The connectivity between greenways and ecological networks, including centrality within ecological networks, coupling with ecological corridors, linear corridor proximity, and connectivity with various natural patches, signifies greenways’ capacity to facilitate wildlife movement and habitat formation. This enhances residents’ biodiversity perception, promotes human–animal interactions, supports richer species observation opportunities, and fosters habitat diversity experiences. Such connectivity positively contributes to residents’ holistic ecological cognition [13,32,55,104].

In terms of place-based attributes, the uniqueness of landscape elements, such as mountains, forests, rivers, lakes, rain gardens, pristine coastlines, and wetlands, enhances natural experiences by offering visual appreciation and recreational spaces and psychological restoration environments. These features foster nature connectedness and promote environmentally responsible behaviors [54,104,105]. The larger the scale of natural resource elements underlying greenways, the more profound the natural experiences and immersive engagement they facilitate, fostering feelings of nature awe and ecological identity [13]. Natural perceptual triggers can create multisensory-rich nature experiences through visual aesthetics of landscapes, natural sounds, shade and microclimate regulation, tactile textures, taste experiences from foraging wild fruits, and olfactory stimulation from plant fragrances. Among these, wildlife activities such as bird calls and insect movements enhance ecological awareness and foster a sense of nature connectedness [12,67,97]. Flowing water bodies induce psychological tranquility and meditative effects through auditory stimulation, tactile interaction, and negative ion olfactory perception, thereby promoting humans’ holistic ecological cognition [12,67,97]. Flowering plants create visual impact and aromatic experiences, triggering ecological seasonal perception [46]. Multi-layered plant communities provide shade, enrich visual details, and regulate microclimates, thereby enhancing immersive nature experiences [89]. Majestic ancient trees foster cultural identity and evoke nature reverence among urban residents [66]. Distinctive rock formations, such as exposed cliffs and natural stone beaches, possess primal mystique that stimulates residents’ curiosity, exploratory desire, and sense of awe [66,82]. Edible fruits trigger gustatory experiences and impart ecological education significance [66]. Unanticipated natural phenomena such as rainbows and falling leaves generate surprise effects that enhance attention restoration [12]. Gentle slopes and depressions create shifting visual perspectives and varied footpath textures, enhancing nature immersion through dynamic terrain experiences [12,53]. Dynamic elements like flowing water and shifting cloud shadows enhance environmental vitality, fostering humans’ holistic ecological cognition [12]. Seasonal landscapes featuring flowers, fruits, and snow and ice promote diverse nature interaction modalities, strengthening nature connectedness [12,53,66,67]. Sequential landscape vistas (i.e., landscapes that unfold as users move sequentially along the greenway) cultivate exploratory interest through alternating visual corridors. Biophilia design elements such as waterfront edges, rough tree bark, and bird-watching facilities stimulate multisensory nature engagement [66]. Subtle ecological triggers such as shifting tree shadows, moss patches, and fungal growths elicit focused observation, fostering sensations of natural vitality and awe-inspired wonder [53,105]. Hazardous natural elements such as caves, snake dens, venomous flora or fauna, and insect swarms elicit biophobic responses characterized by instinctive fear and disgust reactions [66,105]. Beyond specific natural elements, the richness of natural perceptual elements in greenway environments, including vegetation diversity, plant layered structures, chromatic diversity, biodiversity, and landscape element diversity, can enhance residents’ exploratory interest and sense of wonder through direct and diverse nature experiences. By showcasing synergistic scenes of ecological symbiosis among biological elements, these features promote residents’ holistic ecological cognition while simultaneously evoking vitality perception and nature reverence [41,53,67,74,96,106]. Furthermore, the greenway vegetation spatial patterns serve as a critical determinant influencing residents’ immersive nature experiences and emotional connections with nature. Tortuous greenways can enhance landscape mystery and surprise [53,66]. The features, which are characterized by dense vegetation canopies, high vegetation coverage rates, green view indices, and three-dimensional green volume, exhibit high visual proportions. These features align with residents’ aesthetic preferences for natural landscapes and meet their microclimate comfort needs, fostering perceptions of shaded refuge, natural immersion, and ecological intimacy [31,36,67,74,107,108,109]. However, excessive visual proportions of vegetation elements can evoke residents’ perception of insecurity [89,107,109]. Blue view indices can stimulate residents’ pleasure perception and water-oriented behavioral intentions [109]. Tall arboreal specimens evoke residents’ awe toward natural forces through their imposing verticality and ecological dominance [66]. Landscape fragmentation indices negatively impact residents’ formation of holistic ecological cognition [96]. Moderate sky exposure regulates light–dark transitions, balancing shading and illumination needs to achieve openness, visual permeability, and comfort [96]. Environmental authenticity, characterized by low artificial interference, high naturalness, and freedom from urban noise, facilitates residents’ nature immersion, aligns with their psychological need for escape, and delivers enhanced restorative benefits [41,53,66]. Meanwhile, biomimetic design, landscape ecological adaptation, and authenticity-focused design can stimulate residents’ primal ecological connections and enhance their biophilic perception [66,105]. In pristine natural features, such as undisturbed fallen logs, naturally formed stream banks, and native soil layers, residents develop cognition of ecological succession and experience awe toward wilderness [41,53]. Native-design-based service facilities can be seamlessly integrated into high-natural environments, balancing residents’ needs for safe passage, rest, and rain shelter with the ecological integrity of greenway habitats [53]. Rest areas not only fulfill residents’ resting needs but also encourage trail users to pause and observe nature, thereby fostering social connections [41,89,106]. Well-maintained trails and provision of trash bins can lower the threshold for residents to adopt environmentally responsible behaviors, thereby promoting proactive environmental actions [54,81,89,102]. Nature observation facilities such as bird-watching stations and viewing platforms stimulate intentional nature engagement, transforming residents’ subconscious nature immersion into conscious nature interaction, thereby enhancing emotional bonds with nature [12]. Beyond physical facilities, social factors exert significant influence on alignment with nature. Moderate pedestrian flow helps balance greenway safety perception and deep nature immersion needs, positively enhancing residents’ nature experiences [105]. Community environmental co-creation activities, such as maintaining community gardens, caring for street trees, and organizing neighborhood clean-ups, facilitate interpersonal interactions among residents, transform individual isolation, and establish stable social relationships [22]. Nature-based activities such as citizen science programs and tree planting enable residents to perceive the value of individual actions in environmental conservation, thereby enhancing ecological responsibility and self-efficacy cognition [53,110]. Nature education classrooms can facilitate residents’ transformation of perceptual nature experiences into acquired environmental attitudes and rational ecological cognition, though low-quality nature education facilities demonstrate limited effectiveness [44,81,110]. Others’ environmentally responsible behaviors enhance subjective norms through social modeling, thereby guiding individuals’ pro-environmental actions [45,97,105]. Facility maintenance and vegetation care positively influence residents’ alignment with nature behaviors. Clear water quality promotes diverse water-based activities and enhances nature connectedness [67,97]. Moderate pruning of diseased trees can balance perceptions of wild charm and orderliness [105]. Poorly maintained trails with erosion and muddiness exacerbate visitors’ trampling behaviors [44]. Detailed indicator-level information, including impacts and references, is provided in the Supplementary Materials (Table S3).

Table 8. Built environment characteristics influencing users’ alignment with nature.

Greenway Attributes	Associated Elements	Built Environment Characteristics	Indicators	References
Network attributes	The internal network structure of greenways themselves	Greenway network internal connectivity	Greenway continuity.	[53,107]
		Greenway internal movement barriers	Terrain complexity; Path length.	[66,103]
	Linkages between greenways and urban facilities	Accessibility to nearby parks and green spaces	Accessibility of park green spaces.	[15,36,67]
	Linkages between greenways and ecological networks	Connectivity between greenways and ecological networks	Centrality within ecological networks; Coupling with ecological corridors; Proximity to linear corridors; Connectivity with various natural patches.	[13,32,55,88,104,111]
Place-based attributes	Landscape resources	Uniqueness of landscape elements	Types of unique landscape elements.	[22,34,54,104,105,109,110]
		Scale of landscape elements	Scale of natural resource elements underlying greenways.	[13,55,88]
	Natural perception elements	Natural perceptual trigger elements	Wildlife; Water bodies; Flowering plants; Vegetation; Majestic ancient trees; Distinctive landforms; Fruits; Unanticipated natural phenomena; Topographic variation; Dynamic scenery; Seasonal natural landscapes; Sequential landscape vistas; Interactive landscapes; Natural light and shadow, and subtle natural details; Hazardous natural elements.	[12,41,46,53,66,67,82,89,96,97,105,106,112]
		Richness of natural perceptual elements	Vegetation diversity; Plant layers; Chromatic diversity; Biodiversity; Landscape element diversity.	[36,41,53,66,67,74,96,106,109,112,113]
		Greenway vegetation spatial patterns	Visual openness; Arboreal height; Dense vegetation; Landscape fragmentation indices; Greenway tortuosity; Sky openness; Three-dimensional green volume; Canopy density; Vegetation coverage rate; Green visibility index; Blue visibility index.	[31,36,41,46,53,66,67,74,89,96,99,106,107,108,109,112]
		Environmental authenticity	Low artificial interference; High naturalness; Pristine natural features; Freedom from urban noise; Biomimetic design; Landscape ecological adaptation; Authenticity-focused design.	[19,41,53,66,96,105,106,107,109]
	Supporting facilities	Basic service facilities	Trails; Signage clarity; Trash bins; Rain shelter facilities; Guardrails; Surveillance; Barrier-free facilities; Benches; Lighting facilities; Restrooms.	[41,46,53,54,72,81,89,102,103,105,106]
		Natural observation facilities	Ecological facilities; Nature education signs.	[12,72]
	Residents’ activities within greenways	Pedestrian flow	Crowd density.	[53,66,105,107,114]
		Community environmental co-creation	Community environmental co-creation.	[22]
		Nature-based activities and nature education	Nature-based activities; Nature education.	[44,53,81,110]
		Others’ environmental behaviors	Others’ environmental behaviors.	[45,97,105]
	Operational maintenance	Facility maintenance and vegetation care	Clear water quality; Vegetation pruning and care; Facility repair.	[44,46,67,97,102,103,105]

Table 8. Built environment characteristics influencing users’ alignment with nature.

Greenway Attributes	Associated Elements	Built Environment Characteristics	Indicators	References
Network attributes	The internal network structure of greenways themselves	Greenway network internal connectivity	Greenway continuity.	[53,107]
		Greenway internal movement barriers	Terrain complexity; Path length.	[66,103]
	Linkages between greenways and urban facilities	Accessibility to nearby parks and green spaces	Accessibility of park green spaces.	[15,36,67]
	Linkages between greenways and ecological networks	Connectivity between greenways and ecological networks	Centrality within ecological networks; Coupling with ecological corridors; Proximity to linear corridors; Connectivity with various natural patches.	[13,32,55,88,104,111]
Place-based attributes	Landscape resources	Uniqueness of landscape elements	Types of unique landscape elements.	[22,34,54,104,105,109,110]
		Scale of landscape elements	Scale of natural resource elements underlying greenways.	[13,55,88]
	Natural perception elements	Natural perceptual trigger elements	Wildlife; Water bodies; Flowering plants; Vegetation; Majestic ancient trees; Distinctive landforms; Fruits; Unanticipated natural phenomena; Topographic variation; Dynamic scenery; Seasonal natural landscapes; Sequential landscape vistas; Interactive landscapes; Natural light and shadow, and subtle natural details; Hazardous natural elements.	[12,41,46,53,66,67,82,89,96,97,105,106,112]
		Richness of natural perceptual elements	Vegetation diversity; Plant layers; Chromatic diversity; Biodiversity; Landscape element diversity.	[36,41,53,66,67,74,96,106,109,112,113]
		Greenway vegetation spatial patterns	Visual openness; Arboreal height; Dense vegetation; Landscape fragmentation indices; Greenway tortuosity; Sky openness; Three-dimensional green volume; Canopy density; Vegetation coverage rate; Green visibility index; Blue visibility index.	[31,36,41,46,53,66,67,74,89,96,99,106,107,108,109,112]
		Environmental authenticity	Low artificial interference; High naturalness; Pristine natural features; Freedom from urban noise; Biomimetic design; Landscape ecological adaptation; Authenticity-focused design.	[19,41,53,66,96,105,106,107,109]
	Supporting facilities	Basic service facilities	Trails; Signage clarity; Trash bins; Rain shelter facilities; Guardrails; Surveillance; Barrier-free facilities; Benches; Lighting facilities; Restrooms.	[41,46,53,54,72,81,89,102,103,105,106]
		Natural observation facilities	Ecological facilities; Nature education signs.	[12,72]
	Residents’ activities within greenways	Pedestrian flow	Crowd density.	[53,66,105,107,114]
		Community environmental co-creation	Community environmental co-creation.	[22]
		Nature-based activities and nature education	Nature-based activities; Nature education.	[44,53,81,110]
		Others’ environmental behaviors	Others’ environmental behaviors.	[45,97,105]
	Operational maintenance	Facility maintenance and vegetation care	Clear water quality; Vegetation pruning and care; Facility repair.	[44,46,67,97,102,103,105]

Although several environmental indicators appear consistently across different levels of pro-nature behaviors, their influence mechanisms vary substantially with behavioral depth. Water bodies attract visitation through riparian scenery, pleasant scents, and improved microclimate conditions; support daily use by providing comfortable sensory atmospheres that sustain commuting and recreation; and at the deepest level, foster multisensory immersion and meditative restoration through flowing sound and tactile interaction. Vegetation coverage and canopy closure increase visual appeal and perceived greenness that attract visitation, maintain thermal comfort and perceived safety that reinforce usage habits, and ultimately encourage ecological intimacy and awe through multi-layered structures and immersive greenery. Terrain complexity and path length reduce general accessibility and limit daily slow-traffic activities, but appeal to adventure-oriented visitors, and enhance wilderness perception and flow experiences that strengthen human–nature connection. Visitor or pedestrian density reflects environmental vitality that motivates initial participation, moderates perceived safety and comfort for routine use, and balances solitude and connection to optimize immersive nature experiences. Facility maintenance and vegetation care enhance safety and aesthetic quality that promote visitation, ensure satisfaction and place attachment for everyday users, and at the alignment stage cultivate ecological stewardship and environmentally responsible behaviors. Entrance fees and commercial facilities enhance recreational attractiveness for occasional visitors but may discourage frequent use among local residents. Community interactions and environmental co-creation intensify neighborhood ties and social participation during habitual use, while evolving into shared ecological practices such as greening, tree care, and clean-up activities that embody collective alignment with nature.

4. Discussion

Based on a systematic analysis of the relationship between urban greenways and residents’ pro-nature behaviors, this study found that residents’ pro-nature behavior is jointly influenced by the network attributes and place-based attributes of greenways. Specifically, network attributes encompass connectivity with urban construction elements, connectivity with transportation networks, and connectivity with ecological networks. Place-based attributes include internal facility support, management and maintenance, social factors, and quality of natural habitats. This demonstrates that the coupled urban-greenway–ecological network attributes, together with the composite place-based attributes that integrate human-centered supports and natural habitats, synergistically foster stable and enduring emotional connections between residents and nature, thereby encouraging pro-nature behaviors. This suggests that urban greenway planning and design should emphasize two key effects: the activation effect of greenway network connectivity and the supportive, nurturing effects of place-based attributes that foster human–nature symbiotic adaptation, both of which promote pro-nature behaviors.

The findings of this review enhance our understanding of how greenway network–place attributes promote pro-nature behaviors and provide a theoretical foundation for pro-nature-oriented greenway planning and design.

4.1. Activation Effect of Urban-Greenway–Ecological Network Coupling

The greenway network connects urban infrastructure networks and integrates with ecological networks, attracting people to access and use greenways frequently while enabling more wildlife to inhabit, move through, and settle within these corridors. Urban residents gain opportunities to encounter wild flora and fauna along greenways, thereby enhancing their nature contact and deepening their experiential engagement with natural environments (Figure 9).

The distribution of urban facilities adjacent to greenways and their connectivity with pedestrian/cycling networks are crucial for fostering residents’ visitation behavior and daily usage habits of greenways. This aligns with existing research confirming that accessibility and network connectivity are primary predictors of greenway use frequency, as proximity to entry points and integration with urban infrastructure significantly increase routine engagement [36]. During utility-oriented slow-mobility trips, greenways enhance residents’ nature exposure through green visual stimuli. However, in gray built environments, greenways primarily serve slow mobility while exhibiting limited natural quality, low intensity of human–nature interaction, and constrained restorative benefits. This limitation is corroborated by studies documenting that greenways embedded in high-density urban areas often lack ecological richness and fail to support sustained nature immersion, thereby diminishing restorative outcomes [36]. Such contexts functionally prioritize transportation, reflecting their role as physical activity corridors rather than spaces for deep ecological engagement.

The coupling of greenways with ecological networks facilitates wildlife movement and habitation within greenway corridors, thereby enriching natural elements and strengthening native ecological characteristics. This ecological connectivity fosters residents’ pro-nature behaviors by inducing immersive nature experiences, positive interactions with biodiversity, and profound connections with natural environments. However, this kind of greenway often remains disconnected from urban built environments and geographically distant from residents’ daily lives. Ecotourism research indicates that while profound nature experiences can foster localized environmental responsibility and related behaviors, they often fail to establish stable emotional connections between urban residents and nature or sustain consistent pro-environmental behaviors [115,116].

Greenways that connect with urban facilities and ensure high accessibility, while integrating natural ecological elements, are more likely to foster long-term pro-nature behaviors. This dual connectivity facilitates residents’ travel while enabling wildlife movement within them, thereby promoting daily nature contact and fostering various pro-nature behaviors, including visitation, usage habits, and alignment with nature. This pattern is in line with prior studies, where routine greenway exposure generates behavioral spillovers such as environmental stewardship behaviors and sustained nature-connected actions across diverse socio-demographic contexts [46].

The connectivity between greenways and park green spaces serves as a critical factor in promoting diverse pro-nature behaviors. This observation aligns with established socio-ecological research designating greenways as ‘multiple objective, open space corridors’ that simultaneously fulfill transportation needs and perform ecological functions [36,80]. This is because such connectivity simultaneously fulfills residents’ mobility needs—serving as an essential corridor for walking or cycling to parks—while providing more immediate access to nature for recreation. At the same time, greenways connect ecological patches and restore fragmented natural systems, thereby facilitating wildlife movement. In turn, the resultant spontaneous human–wildlife encounters extend beyond prior findings focused solely on recreational or transportation benefits [19,43]. They cultivate immersive experiences, positive interactions with biodiversity, and deeper emotional connections with ecosystems.

The Shenzhen Greenway Network exemplifies the activation effect of urban-greenway–ecological network coupling. By connecting parks, waterfronts, and ecological reserves such as Lianhua Mountain and Shenzhen Bay Mangrove Nature Reserve, it links urban transit routes with biodiverse habitats. Residents encountering nature during daily travel and observing plants and wildlife transform mobility into restorative and environmentally oriented engagement. This integration of transport and ecology enhances accessibility and fosters sustained pro-nature behaviors.

4.2. Anchoring and Enrichment Effect of Composite Place-Based Attributes

Greenway spaces require not only human-centered supports—such as services, facilities, and social factors—but also abundant natural features and pristine environments. This dual integration encourages more residents to access greenways frequently, anchoring pleasant and low-interference interactions with nature in daily life, and thereby helping them establish deep emotional and spiritual connections with the natural world (Figure 10).

Human-centered supports in greenways align with residents’ daily routines, effectively encouraging their use for non-nature-oriented purposes—such as casual visits and regular daily activities. This corroborates research identifying greenways as integrated public spaces that “shorten the distance between public space and residents’ life” and foster high-frequency use through proximity and accessibility [23]. Meanwhile, operational services enhance the appeal of greenways by creating unexpected, memorable recreational experiences, serving as a key attraction factor. Abundant, engaging, and daily-life-oriented facilities—designed to meet residents’ diverse needs and habits—can foster inclusive, vibrant, and culturally rich atmospheres. However, the literature consistently critiques inadequate service facilities (e.g., benches, interpretive signage) as a constraint on social connectivity [23], highlighting a gap this study addresses through its focus on human-centered supports. This not only enhances residents’ functional reliance on and sense of belonging to greenways but also supports prolonged stays and frequent use of greenways. Consistent with Chi and Lin (2019), such facilities are vital for transforming greenways into “everyday public spaces” that serve as extensions of home environments [23]. Neighborhood interactions and community activities in greenways foster residents’ interpersonal connections and social participation, boosting their familiarity with greenways and sense of relaxation, while helping the community accumulate collective memories and emotional resonance. Positive word-of-mouth further strengthens residents’ recognition of greenways’ value and their familiarity with these spaces, solidifying group consensus and promoting high-frequency usage in daily life.

Larger-scale landscape resource elements indicate superior baseline natural conditions, which can encourage residents to visit greenways and foster profound nature experiences. This aligns with environmental psychology research confirming that environments perceived as more pristine or biodiverse elicit stronger restorative outcomes, including transcendent connections with nature [2,66]. Exposure to richer natural elements and higher-quality natural environments helps residents feel a sense of escape and engage in immersive nature experiences. Such pure, impactful nature experiences exhibit duality: on the positive side, abundant natural elements in pristine environments can provide immersive nature experiences, foster transcendent understanding of nature, and immediately strengthen residents’ awe of and identification with nature. These findings extend literature on “achievement-oriented” wildlife encounters, where natural abundance enables meaningful self-realization and emotional bonding [32]. On the negative side, pristine environments without human-centered support struggle to meet residents’ needs. They fail to guide constructive human–nature interactions, thus triggering negative perceptions such as disorientation, unease, and alienation from nature. This contrasts with studies prioritizing “tranquility–comfort balance”—wherein perceived sensory isolation requires compensatory infrastructure to mitigate unease in untamed settings [66].

The integration of authentic natural environments, combined with the social benefits of nature-based activities and education, can transform passive encounters with unfamiliar natural elements into interactive, comprehensible, and meaningful nature experiences. This anchors multisensory engagement among residents, enriching positive emotions such as appreciation for and affinity with nature. The interpretations of ecological knowledge and values help convert people’s intuitive perceptions of nature into rational environmental awareness and environmentally responsible behaviors. However, research indicates that such impactful nature experiences tend to diminish gradually over time [35,116].

Stable and profound nature-connected emotions require continuous interactions between people and greenway spaces, which in turn accumulate positive perceptual experiences of engaging with nature. This aligns with research confirming that experiential contact with green infrastructure fosters familiarity and connection through diverse stimuli [12,104]. This positive connection highlights the need for greenways to provide not only abundant natural elements and high-quality ecological environments but also facilities supporting residents’ mobility needs. This finding reinforces previous studies identifying facility adequacy (e.g., benches, signage) as critical for sustaining user engagement and social connectivity, resolving literature-acknowledged constraints [12,23,36,72]. While these facilities guide and regulate human–nature interactions, other greenway users’ environmental protection behaviors can exert positive influences. Rich, distinctive natural perceptual elements promote residents’ immersive nature experiences and diverse modes of interacting with nature. Through sustained urban life experiences, residents develop stable affection for nature, a sense of life identity, and environmental stewardship awareness. Greenways’ basic service facilities and management systems enhance safety, comfort, inclusivity, and human-centered atmospheres, thereby encouraging frequent and prolonged use for residents. Nature observation facilities enable residents to actively engage in high-quality interactions with nature, immersing them in focused, awe-inspiring, symbiotic experiences that foster understanding of species behaviors and ecosystem integrity. Others’ environmental behaviors serve as symbols of spatial order, shaping civilized and orderly place atmospheres, while guiding individuals’ environmentally responsible behaviors through social demonstration.

A well-known example of anchoring and enrichment effects is New York’s High Line Park. Transformed from an elevated rail line, it combines seating, viewing decks, and art installations with native meadow and woodland plantings. The accessible paths invite residents and visitors to linger and socialize, turning routine walks into multisensory nature experiences. Its balance of social vibrancy and restorative greenery shows how place-based attributes anchor repeat visits and enrich pro-nature behaviors in dense urban environments.

4.3. Nurturing Effect Through Sustained Human–Nature Interaction

Within the urban-nature dimension, the network and place-based attributes of greenways synergistically facilitate encounters between residents and nature, anchor patterns of human–nature interaction, and thereby cultivate and nurture enduring emotional bonds that guide pro-nature behaviors. In fact, this cultivation and nurturing effect on pro-nature behavior is not limited to any specific type of behavior. Instead, it arises from urban residents’ long-term immersion in environments that support human–nature coexistence, cultivating both emotional attachment to nature and ecological cognition, which are subsequently expressed through a wide range of pro-nature behaviors, thereby generating a profound biophilic effect.

Within the urban built environment, greenways connect to urban networks and are supported by abundant facilities, services, and an orderly, friendly social atmosphere. These attributes align with evidence that appealing amenities attract usage and promote high-density urban development around green corridors [19,65,75]. These attributes attract residents to greenways and support or guide their pro-nature behaviors. When urban facilities adjacent to greenways are abundant and the connectivity between greenways, urban road systems, and slow-traffic networks is high, residents gain convenient access to nearby urban services and resources—thereby increasing the attractiveness of greenways and their utilization for daily travel. Rich facilities, human-centered services, and a lively yet orderly social atmosphere within greenways encourage long-term and high-frequency use in daily life. Such conditions guide residents to engage intentionally and in an orderly manner with the limited natural elements embedded in the built environment, thereby enhancing their sense of belonging to and identification with the greenway as a meaningful place. Notably, an orderly social atmosphere fosters pro-nature behaviors—a finding that marks an advance beyond prior studies documenting tensions between accessibility and ecological integrity in linear green spaces [16,55].

When greenways are coupled with ecological networks, they contain abundant natural elements and exhibit environmental authenticity, attracting diverse species to move through and inhabit the corridors. This enhances residents’ opportunities to encounter biodiversity, activating multiple patterns of human–nature interaction and cultivating immersive nature experiences. The finding aligns with documented pathways for transcendent connections through wildlife experiences [32,46]. These encounters cultivate immersive nature experiences by engaging multisensory pathways that foster cognitive and affective bonds with ecosystems, as observed in biodiversity-rich corridors [31,46]. Positive nature experiences evoke residents’ affection for, awe of, and identification with nature, nurturing their sense of connectedness to nature and promoting more profound pro-nature behaviors. However, wilderness environments lacking human-centered supports may diminish residents’ feelings of safety and comfort, leading to negative perceptions of nature and psychological distance from it.

The synergy between the network and place-based attributes of greenways dissolves the alienation between the urban and the natural, facilitating encounters between residents and nature, anchoring modes of human–nature interaction, and nurturing enduring affective bonds that foster pro-nature behaviors (Figure 11). The network attributes of greenways allow residents to access greenways and encounter wildlife that moves through and inhabits these corridors. Meanwhile, their place-based attributes respond to residents’ fundamental needs—guiding and structuring safe, orderly human–nature interactions in everyday life—and fostering rich, agentic, and immersive experiences that nurture emotional bonds and a sense of human–nature symbiosis. Through the synergistic interplay of these two sets of attributes, greenways enable residents to engage in repeated and profound pro-nature behaviors in long-term urban daily life, shaping deep, stable emotional connections to nature and a sense of belonging to nature.

In Singapore’s Park Connector Network (PCN), continuous green corridors link residential neighborhoods with major parks and waterfronts. Residents frequently use these linear greenways for walking or cycling commutes, encountering native vegetation and animals along the route. Such daily micro-contacts with nature transform routine mobility into experiential engagement, increasing visit frequency and length of stay.

Although spatial attributes were the primary focus of this review, socio-demographic and cultural contexts also shape residents’ pro-nature behaviors and their sense of nature connectedness. The synthesis of selected studies indicates that age, gender, educational background, and income level influence the frequency and type of greenway use, partially determining preferences for daily use versus recreational activities. Cultural values further mediate motivational patterns. In contexts characterized by strong interpersonal connectedness, pro-nature behaviors are often activated and sustained through social bonding and community-based environmental stewardship, whereas individual-oriented contexts favor personal restoration and sensory immersion experiences. Cross-cultural variations also affect perceptions of environmental aesthetics and attitudes toward pro-nature behaviors. Future research could integrate these socio-cultural dimensions with spatial models to enrich the interpretive framework of human–nature interactions in greenway environments.

5. Limitations and Future Recommendations

Database limitations. Although this study interprets the role of greenways in promoting residents’ pro-nature behaviors from the perspectives of landscape design and urban planning, the reliance on only two databases—Web of Science and Scopus—poses certain limitations. Nevertheless, the exclusion of other repositories (e.g., Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, or institutional collections) may result in omission of gray literature or region-specific studies. Future studies should conduct more comprehensive literature searches across multiple databases, including those related to environmental engineering, tourism studies, and other relevant fields, to ensure a more exhaustive review of the existing literature.

Uncertainty of causal relationships. Most findings synthesized in this review primarily reveal correlational rather than causal relationships. Future research should strive to achieve a broader and more nuanced understanding of the causal mechanisms linking greenway-related factors and residents’ pro-nature behaviors. Particular attention is needed to examine how the network–place attributes of greenways exert cumulative effects on nature connectedness and pro-nature behaviors over the course of long-term urban living and to uncover the underlying mechanisms driving these effects.

Insufficient discussion of non-spatial influencing factors. This study mainly focuses on the mechanisms through which the network–place attributes of urban greenways influence residents’ pro-nature behaviors, while other potential determinants have not been sufficiently addressed. In particular, alignment with nature is influenced by a combination of individual and social factors. Although this study has touched upon certain social aspects (e.g., the influence of others’ environmental behaviors, community environmental co-creation, and neighborhood interactions), future research should further explore how non-spatial factors shape residents’ pro-nature behaviors and their interaction mechanisms with spatial environments.

Methodological innovation and future approaches. Future research should develop more rigorous and applicable methods to quantify links between spatial characteristics and residents’ behaviors. Integrating multi-source spatial and behavioral datasets, which combine spatial metrics (e.g., accessibility, morphology, vegetation) with behavioral indicators (e.g., mobility patterns, activity duration, sentiment), through spatial analysis and integrated spatial–behavioral data analytics techniques such as mobile sensing, computer vision, and participatory mapping will enhance analytical precision and transferability. Furthermore, the proposed network–place framework could be applied to location-based case studies, for example, in Shenzhen’s Greenway Network and Singapore’s Park Connector Network, to quantitatively evaluate how network–place attributes influence residents’ pro-nature behaviors and nature connectedness. Future research could also operationalize this framework through a pro-nature behavior-oriented indicator system for spatial evaluation, incorporating measurable metrics such as accessibility, ecological connectivity, and the quality of place-based attributes.

6. Conclusions

In highly urbanized contexts where access to natural environments is limited, greenways are crucial infrastructures that sustain residents’ biophilic needs and promote physical and mental well-being. They serve as essential spatial interfaces for residents to access and experience nature. However, existing studies mainly focus on residents’ spatial behavior patterns under health-and-well-being paradigms, while current behavioral perspectives and typologies remain insufficient to determine whether greenways truly facilitate an intrinsic human–nature connection. The underlying mechanisms through which greenways promote pro-nature behaviors and foster human–nature connectedness remain underexplored.

To understand the effects of greenways on pro-nature behaviors within the built environment, this study, for the first time, establishes a conceptual framework of gradient pro-nature behaviors based on the theory of connectedness with nature. Furthermore, this study systematically reviews the elements, characteristics, and mechanisms by which greenways, defined by their network and place-based attributes, promote residents’ pro-nature behaviors.

Our findings indicate that residents’ visitation, usage habits, and alignment with nature are all influenced by both the network connectivity and the internal place-based attributes of greenways. Factors related to network connectivity include the greenway’s own connectivity, its linkage with urban traffic and facility networks, and its coupling with ecological networks. Place-based attributes involve the quality of natural habitats, internal facilities, management and operation, and social context. Visitation and usage habits are more strongly influenced by the connectivity between greenways and built environment elements, as well as the internal facilities and management factors, whereas alignment with nature shows greater dependence on both greenway–ecological network connectivity and the quality of natural habitats.

We further argue that the network attributes of greenways encompass both urban and ecological connectivity. These network attributes attract people to enter and frequently use greenways, while simultaneously allowing greater biodiversity to flow through and inhabit them. Urban residents thus have increased opportunities to encounter wildlife, enhancing both their exposure to and immersive experience of nature. The place-based attributes of greenways include human-centered supports—such as internal facilities, management and operational factors, and social atmosphere—together with natural habitats composed of diverse natural elements and environmental authenticity. Such attributes anchor residents to engage with nature through low-impact and restorative interactions, fostering emotional attachment and cognitive connectedness with nature. Under the dual dimensions of urban and nature, the synergy between network and place-based attributes facilitates encounters between humans and nature, anchors interaction patterns, and cultivates stable and enduring emotional connections that guide pro-nature behavior.

Building on the identified network–place effect of greenways in promoting residents’ pro-nature behaviors, this study proposes an ideal greenway model and corresponding planning and design strategies. An ideal greenway should integrate an urban-greenway–ecological network and embody place-based attributes that combine human-centered supports with natural habitats. In highly urbanized environments, greenways benefit from strong connectivity to urban facilities and traffic networks, as well as comprehensive service amenities. Key planning strategies should focus on restoring ecological connectivity within the built environment, creating opportunities for nature encounters, and providing natural-interaction facilities and localized programs that promote structured and diverse forms of pro-nature engagement. Specifically, greenways should enhance connectivity with parks and other natural patches, align with ecological corridors, and restore broken links to promote species movement and improve internal habitat quality. Preserving native ecological characteristics and enhancing indigenous vegetation are essential to maintaining natural authenticity. Within greenways, interactive facilities together with community co-creation and greening activities, can foster daily interactions with nature and nurture long-term, stable emotional connectedness. In Singapore, the PCN links major parks, residential areas, and transit hubs through continuous green corridors integrating native vegetation and ecological connectivity. Complemented by national initiatives such as Community in Bloom and One Million Trees, it fosters community co-creation and neighborhood greening, engaging citizens directly in planting and stewardship to strengthen collective ownership and pro-nature behaviors.

For greenways embedded in pristine natural environments, their advantages stem from tight integration with ecological networks and superior natural baseline conditions. Consequently, the key planning focus lies in balancing residents’ biophilia usage needs of greenways with ecological conservation. This can be achieved through strict functional zoning and the provision of basic facilities (e.g., trails, seating, lighting, signage) to improve safety and comfort. Additionally, greenways should incorporate high-quality ecological interpretation and participatory programs that transform affective experiences into cognitive understanding of environmental processes. Low-impact design and management—by employing materials, colors, and forms that harmonize with the local natural context—effectively minimizes ecological disturbance while reinforcing residents’ immersive engagement with natural environments. Effective management of pedestrian flow and the promotion of environmentally responsible behaviors are also essential for minimizing ecological impacts. In Portland, the Willamette River Greenway features continuous riverfront trails and carefully zoned recreation areas, providing safe and comfortable spaces for walking and biking while maintaining habitat continuity along restored riparian zones. Similarly, in Copenhagen, the Green Wedges system integrates conservation areas and recreational paths, with management policies emphasizing minimal lighting, permeable surfaces, and seasonal access control to protect native species and wetlands.

The findings of this study offer valuable insights for greenway planners, designers, and policymakers, enhancing the capacity of greenways to foster pro-nature behaviors while promoting residents’ health and well-being. As research on this topic progresses, greenway planning and design that prioritizes nature connectedness in urban areas will be instrumental in shaping healthier, more livable, and sustainable urban settlements.