Assessing the Supply and Demand for Cultural Ecosystem Services in Urban Green Space Based on Actual Service Utility to Support Sustainable Urban Development

Abstract

Cultural ecosystem services (CESs) play a critical role in urban residents’ well-being, yet conventional evaluations rely heavily on green-space area and overlook how facility quality and basic services influence the delivery of actual cultural benefits. To address this methodological gap, this study develops a three-tier evaluation framework—service potential, actual supply capacity, and actual service utility—to quantify multistage attenuation in CES provision across 95 parks in seven central districts of Shenyang, China. The framework integrates 114 quantitative and qualitative indicators from field surveys, national facility standards, and perception-based assessments, enabling a scientifically robust and replicable assessment of how cultural benefits are transformed from ecological structure to human experience. Results reveal that single-index, area-based assessments substantially overestimate CES supply: district-level supply–demand ratios drop from 66 to 195% to only 11–55% once quality and basic services are incorporated. Comprehensive and special parks retain the highest CES potential, whereas community and linear parks undergo significant losses due to aging facilities, insufficient maintenance, and inadequate infrastructure. Education and cultural services exhibit the most severe shortages, with deficits reaching 59–84%, underscoring structural limitations in learning-oriented spaces. By distinguishing structural (quantity), functional (quality), and experiential (basic service) constraints, the framework provides clear diagnostic guidance for targeted planning and management. Its multistage structure also reflects broader principles of sustainable urban development: improving CES requires not only expanding ecological elements but also enhancing service quality, strengthening infrastructure, and promoting equitable access to cultural benefits. The framework’s generalizability makes it applicable to high-density cities worldwide facing land scarcity and green-space inequality, supporting efforts aligned with SDG 11 to build inclusive, resilient, and culturally vibrant urban environments.

1. Introduction

Ecosystem services are “the benefits that people get from the ecosystem” [1], which are divided into four categories: provisioning, supporting, regulating, and cultural services. Over the past 20 years, and especially over the past decade, ecosystem services have become a recognized decision-making tool for various ecological and social issues [2], while also being an important part of supporting the achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [3]. Cultural ecosystem services (CES) are a type of ecosystem service that differs from the other three types; CES refer to the non-material benefits that humans obtain from ecosystems [1], and an interrelated relationship exists among the different service types. CESs play an important role in the mental and physical well-being of urban residents [4,5]. CES may even be the most important ecosystem service for city dwellers [6,7].

As urban populations increase, the current provision of urban green spaces is no longer adequate to meet residents’ needs. However, the total green space in most cities, particularly in central urban areas, remains relatively fixed. Given the impracticality of expanding the physical area allotted to green space, addressing how to enhance the capacity of existing green spaces to provide CES has become an urgent issue. We contend that evaluating the CES supply capacity of a city’s green spaces hinges not only on the size of the green space but also on the quantity and quality of elements capable of delivering CES [8]. Nevertheless, many studies still focus primarily on green space area or configuration [9], while only a few consider facility-based or qualitative factors [10,11].

A few scholars have noticed the importance of facility quality and included it in their evaluation. For example, they have considered the quantity, type, and quality of entertainment facilities when evaluating entertainment services [5,12]. Yan and Tao [13] examined the safety of facilities, parking convenience, and the guidance system when evaluating the service quality of the CES. There are also reports on the quality of the natural landscape [14] or child- [15] and elder-friendly [16,17,18] activity spaces and facilities, but generally such studies are not systematic quality assessments. Rather, they tend to be partial considerations mixed in with the indicators of quantity or quantity used as a representation of quality [15]. Some relatively systematic green space quality assessment tools have also been developed, including the urban green space quality assessment tool (RECITAL) [19], public open space quality assessment tool (POST) [20], community green space tool (NGST) [21], and natural environment scoring tool (NEST) [22], but they have not been adapted as the basis for CES evaluation.

Beyond material elements, basic service facilities such as guide systems, lighting, parking, and restrooms indirectly enhance visitors’ cultural experiences. Guide systems reduce anxiety for unfamiliar users [23], nighttime lighting improves safety and visual appeal [24], parking facilities influence visitation frequency [25], and restrooms improve comfort and public health [26]. These facilities, although not direct CES elements, reduce the physical and emotional “cost” of access, thereby increasing visitors’ capacity to appreciate cultural and aesthetic benefits [27,28]. Improved infrastructure enhances perception and demand, enabling users to allocate more attention to CES rather than logistical constraints. However, the quality and adequacy of both CES-related and basic service elements remain largely overlooked, which leads to an underestimation of perceived CES value.

It is therefore crucial to develop a unified framework capable of integrating multiple CES types, as well as their quantity and quality dimensions, within a coherent evaluation system. Such a framework should incorporate comprehensive quality indicators for landscape and service elements, link ecosystem supply with human perception, and consider the flow of ecosystem services from nature to people [29,30,31]. By bridging these links, CES research can better reveal the intricate relationships between ecosystems and human well-being and provide scientific support for sustainable urban ecological planning [32].

Building on these gaps, this study develops a three-tier CES evaluation framework that connects service potential, actual supply capacity, and actual service utility within urban green spaces. This framework systematically integrates the quantity and quality dimensions of CES elements and basic service facilities, emphasizing the role of infrastructure and environmental quality in shaping cultural experiences. It provides a replicable and operational structure for assessing CES provision efficiency at the urban scale.

This study hypothesizes that the capacity of urban green spaces to provide CES is jointly determined by both the quantity and quality of landscape and service elements, that basic service quality indirectly influences CES perception by enhancing accessibility, comfort, and safety, and that the integration of quantitative and qualitative indicators offers a more accurate and comprehensive reflection of actual service utility than traditional single-index approaches.

Accordingly, the objectives of this study are to:

(1) Construct a comprehensive and operational CES evaluation framework for urban parks;

(2) Quantify the spatial differentiation of CES supply and demand using multi-source data;

(3) Identify optimization directions for improving CES efficiency and equity to support sustainable urban development.

Ultimately, this research contributes to sustainable city planning by providing a replicable, data-driven approach that links ecological structure, human perception, and social well-being, offering practical insights for optimizing urban green space management and design.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Constructing the Assessment Framework

The green space CES evaluation framework (Figure 1) essentially integrates both area-based assessment methods and comprehensive quality evaluation. In this framework, we believe that the amount of CES people obtain from green spaces is influenced by two factors: the actual CES provided by green spaces and people’s current state of acceptance. Assessment of the quantity and quality of CES elements represents the actual CES provided by green spaces, while the assessment of the quantity and quality of basic service elements determines acceptance status. By combining these two dimensions through a weighting process, the framework derives the actual CES service utility, representing the effective cultural benefits perceived by visitors. This three-tier structure—comprising service potential (SP), actual supply capacity (ASC), and actual service utility (ASU) forms the operational basis of the CES evaluation framework used in this study.

2.2. Indicator Selection and System Construction

The indicator system for evaluating Cultural Ecosystem Services (CESs) in urban green spaces was developed following the definition of CES in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and a synthesis of existing CES evaluation frameworks [33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42] based on universality, operability, and relevance to urban parks. CES in this study are classified into five service categories: sports and fitness, leisure and recreation, visual and aesthetic enjoyment, education and cultural experience, and spiritual and psychological benefits.

Each CES category includes two dimensions of indicators: quantity indicators, which describe the presence and abundance of CES-related elements such as courts, fitness equipment, play facilities, water features, horticultural landscapes, cultural displays, and quiet spaces; and quality indicators, which assess whether these elements meet functional requirements in terms of design compliance, safety, maintenance condition, cleanliness, and usability. These indicators were selected from previous studies and public facility standards (Appendix A 

Table A1. Indicator classification systems of existing research cases.

Service Type	Evaluation Criteria	Case
Entertainment	Area of recreational land	[36]
	Recreational land area per unit	[37]
	Accessibility of the entertainment area	[38]
	Area of fishable waters, length of walking and cycling paths for tourists	[35]
	Number, type, and quality of entertainment facilities	[39]
	Per capita green space area	[40]
	Abundance of amusement facilities	[14]
	Number of recreational activities
	Parent–child experience
	Parking facilities, convenience of parking
	Guidance facilities
	Location of entrances and exits
	Topography and landforms	[42]
	Resource distribution
	Service facilities
	Place function
	Tourism carrying capacity	[43]
	Unique natural resources (whales, dolphins, pinnipeds, and otters in public and private reserves)
	Length of stay	[41]
	Consumption level
Spiritual	Viewing range of natural landscapes	[39]
	Opportunity to enjoy tranquility
	Degree of visibility of green vegetation
	Diversity of vegetation types
	Sense of safety
	Sense of free space
	Inspiration for music and art, belief in God
	Presence of trash, waste, animal droppings, overall view and scenery, presence of vegetation and trees, presence of water bodies, facility design, openness
	Scenic attractiveness	[14]
	Scenic interest
	Scenic appeal
	Scenic guidance, whether the landscape can accurately guide
	Greenery coverage
	Number and variety of green plants
	Form of mountains and rivers	[42]
	Vegetation landscape
	Natural mechanisms
	Architectural style
	Photo capture points can be uploaded to panoramic views
Popular Science Education Services	Scientific knowledge from thematic activities, acquisition of scientific knowledge	[43]
	Entertainment of thematic activities
	Participability of thematic activities
	Species observation
Sports Services	Fitness facilities, number of fitness facilities meets demand	[14]
	Greenways
	Facility safety
	Horseback riding, cycling, off-road
Social Relationship Services	Rain shelters
	Benches, pavilions, bathrooms
	Facilitates social activities
Cultural Perception Services (Religious Beliefs, Cultural Heritage, Spirituality, History, Sense of Place)	Historical events	[42]
	Local traditions
	Cultural relics
	Interpretation system
	Archeological sites	[43]
	Ancestral land
	Sculptures	[44]
	Architecture

) [13,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44], while items that were redundant or irrelevant to local contexts were removed to ensure general applicability.

Basic service facilities—including lighting, signage, restrooms, and parking—are treated as an independent category, as they influence accessibility, comfort, and the continuity of CES delivery but do not directly provide cultural services. As with CES elements, basic services elements contain both quantity and quality indicators but are evaluated separately to maintain conceptual clarity.

The resulting system comprises 26 CES quantity indicators, 68 CES quality indicators, 4 basic service quantity indicators, and 16 basic service quality indicators (Appendix A 

Table A2. Evaluate indexes.

Type of Service	Elements	Quantity Assessment Indicators	Quality Assessment Indicators	Methods
Sports and Fitness	Activity fields (playgrounds, soccer fields, basketball courts, table tennis courts, etc.)	0: without 1: just one 2: Two or more	(1) Whether it meets the design specification standards (2) Facility accessibility (field of view accessibility, barrier-free) (3) Facility space independence (4) Facility safety (whether it meets safety specifications and standards) (5) The degree of maintenance of the facility (whether there are negative factors such as damage, lack of function, and graffiti) (6) Facility participation (facility opening hours, free of charge) (7) Whether the facilities are complete	Field investigation (according to different facilities compared with relevant norms)
	Sports and fitness facilities (street fitness equipment)	0: without 1: just one 2: Two or more
	Facilities for running and hiking	0: without 1: have
	Water sports and activities	0: without 1: just one 2: Two or more
	Children’s play facilities	0: without 1: just one 2: Two or more
Leisure and entertainment	Catering, restaurants, Concession stand	0: without 1: just one 2: Two or more	(1) Whether the service carrying capacity can meet the public demand in the green space (2) Satisfaction degree of service quality	Field investigation and Questionnaire survey
	Stage	0: without 1: have	(1) Whether the stage volume can meet the needs of the public in the green space (2) Whether the stage has spatial independence (3) Stage maintenance (whether there are negative factors such as damage, function loss, security risks, graffiti Posting) (4) whether the stage is in harmony with the surrounding landscape	Field investigation and Target group visit
	Activity places for the elderly (chess and card, Tai Chi)	0: without 1: just one 2: Two or more	(1) Whether the facilities are perfect (2) The maintenance of the facilities (whether there are negative factors such as damage, function loss, security risks, graffiti Posting)	Field investigation and Target group visit
	Walking conditions	0: without 1: have	(1) The independence of the walking route (to avoid the mixing of people and vehicles) (2) Multi-level and multi-path walking routes (3) Continuity of walking flow lines (loop, barrier-free)	Satellite map, Field investigation
	Potential multifunctional space	0: without 1: just one 2: Two or more	The degree of fit between the potential multi-functional space and the specific activity	Field investigation
	Service center	0: without 1: have	(1) Whether the operation hours, duration and functions of the service center meet the needs (2) Service quality of service center (can be obtained through questionnaire survey)	Field investigation and Questionnaire survey
Visual and aesthetic	Water Features	0: without 1: just one 2: Two or more	(1) Water feature quality (clear, odor-free) (2) Whether the surrounding environment is in harmony with the water landscape (landscape style, volume) (3) Water feature service duration (artificial water feature (fountain, drop, etc.): opening time and duration, natural water feature: dry season, frost period) accounts for 50% of the annual business hours	Field investigation, Related research
	Topographic landscape	0: without 1: have	(1) Whether the micro-terrain landscape conforms to the rule of formal beauty (2) The maintenance level of microtopographic landscape (whether the pavement is damaged, whether the grass is in good condition, etc.)	Field investigation, Human viewing Angle framing, Satellite plan
	Plant landscape	0: without 1: have	(1) Whether the vegetation coverage is greater than 70% (2) Vegetation continuity (plant landscape design and form are coherent, not abrupt) (3) Vegetation skyline (the connection and relief level with the vista and urban skyline) (4) Plant collocation (visual balance, line of sight guidance, matching form in line with formal beauty rule) (5) plant diversity (6) Plant color (seasonal appearance, rich and complementary colors) (7) Plant maintenance (plant pruning, Whether the plant has problems such as poor growth, disease, etc.)	Field investigation, Human viewing Angle framing, Satellite plan
	Public art (sculpture, landscape architecture)	0: without 1: just one 2: Two or more	(1) Whether it conforms to the audience’s aesthetic tendencies (2) the level of public art expression (location (whether it is used for a spot scene or a space line of sight); Whether the ratio between volume and viewing distance is reasonable) (3) Maintenance degree (whether there are negative factors such as damage and graffiti)	Field investigation and Questionnaire survey
	Decorative lighting	0: without 1: have	(1) Decorative lighting opening time (days) (2) Maintenance level of decorative lighting (whether there are negative factors such as damage and lack of functionality) (3) Whether it is harmonious with the surrounding environment (whether there are exposed wires affecting the surrounding landscape effect, whether the lighting facilities are slightly abrupt with the surrounding scenery during the day) (4) safety (whether it can be contacted, whether there are leakage problems, etc.)	Field investigation, and Target population visit
	views	0: without 1: just one 2: Two or more	(1) Accessibility of viewing spots (distance, accessibility) (2) Scenic spot quality (whether it conforms to the beauty in form rule) (3) Whether the scenery changes (with the season, weather and other factors)	Field investigation and Related research
Culture, Science and Education	Public art (sculpture, landscape architecture)	0: without 1: just one 2: Two or more	(1) Density of public art (2) View of public art appreciation (volume and viewing distance) (3) Maintenance degree (whether there are negative factors such as damage and graffiti)	Satellite map, Field investigation, Questionnaire survey
	Cultural sites (cultural sites, historical sites, etc.)	0: without 1: just one 2: Two or more	(1) The degree of preservation of the site (2) the repair level of the site (3) Whether there is site landscape design (4) Participation (whether it is possible to get up close and open for free)	Field investigation, Questionnaire survey
	Historical events	0: without 1: have	(1) The degree of fame of the historical event (whether the public is familiar with it or has a little understanding of it) (2) completeness of the event (whether the event is missing information, such as some characters, sometimes unknowable, etc.) (3) the authenticity of the event (whether there are historical records)	Field investigation (relevant investigation of the uncertain historical content involved, to determine its authenticity)
	Science and education content (animal and plant education, history education, culture education)	0: without 1: have	(1) Whether the content of science and education is comprehensive (whether some fields have not been covered) (2) The degree of participation in science and education services (whether relevant science and education activities have been organized) (3) Participation of science and education content (whether it is free and open, and whether it can be contacted at close range)	Field investigation and Target group visit
spiritual and psychology	Religious cultural content	0: without 1: have	(1) Whether the religious type is consistent with the regional audience where the green space is located (2) There is no religious conflict when multiple religions coexist in the green space (3) whether there is interference with non-religious believers	Field investigation and Questionnaire survey
	Sense of Security	0: without 1: just one 2: Two or more	(1) Whether closed-circuit monitoring is installed (2) Whether there are security personnel (3) Whether there are blind spots in sight (4) Whether there is functional lighting at night	Field investigation and Questionnaire survey
	Spatial change (volume, landscape elements, etc.)	0: without 1: just one 2: Two or more	(1) Whether the spatial changes are obvious (2) Whether the spatial characteristics are clear	Satellite map, Field investigation
	Natural perception (Underwoods, waterfront, grassland, etc.)	0: without 1: just one 2: Two or more	(1) Whether the perceptual elements are prominent (the proportion of the same type of elements (visual elements and non-visual elements) is more than 70%) (2) Quality of perceived elements (landscape quality, element quality)	Field investigation
	Social places	0: without 1: have	(1) Level of maintenance (whether the facilities in the venue are adequate, no Is there damage, lack of function, whether there are negative factors such as graffiti?	Field investigation
Green space infrastructure	Lighting	0: without 1: have	(1) Whether the functional lighting distribution is reasonable (night activity requirements) (2) Whether the brightness of functional lighting meets the standards (3) Whether functional lighting affects other landscape elements (4) Whether the functional lighting facilities are harmonious with the surrounding landscape	Field investigation, (according to the nature of different sites and different specifications of lighting facilities query lighting specifications)
	Signage system	0: without 1: have	(1) Identify whether the information conveyed by the system is clear and clear (2) Whether the design style of the sign system is coordinated with the green space style (3) Whether the sign system is in harmony with other landscape elements and does not interfere with each other	Field investigation and Questionnaire survey
	Parking Lot	0: without 1: have	(1) Whether the number of parking Spaces in the parking lot can meet the needs of the public in the green space (2) Maintenance level (whether there are negative factors such as pavement damage, lack of functions, and graffiti) (3) Whether the parking lot has a clear and standardized parking space plan (4) Whether the flow line of the parking lot is clear and consistent (5) Whether the parking lot guidance system is clear	Field investigation and Questionnaire survey
	Public toilet	0: No public restrooms 1: There is a public bathroom 2: There are two or more public toilets	(1) Whether the public toilet is clean (no obvious odor, no dirt) (2) The maintenance level of public toilets (whether there is damage, whether there is lack of function, whether there are negative factors such as graffiti posted) (3) Whether the bathroom is free (4) Whether the bathroom is fully functional (whether it includes hand washing pool, mother and baby room and other functions)	Field investigation

), forming a comprehensive and operational structure for assessing CES supply in urban parks.

2.3. Assessing and Calculating the Actual Service Utility of Green Space CES

The calculation of the actual service utility of CES for green spaces can be divided into three steps (Figure 2), which assess: service potential, actual supply capacity, and actual service utility. These have a progressive relationship, with their outcomes reflecting the supply ceiling and actual supply capacity, as well as the actual service utility conveyed to visitors. Their results have, however, different meanings.

• Supply potential: This indicates the upper limit of CES supply in green spaces. It is derived based on the quantity of CES elements present in the green spaces. The result represents whether the CES supply quantity in green spaces is sufficient.
• Actual supply capacity: This represents the actual CES supply capacity. It is obtained by conducting a quality assessment and weighting each CES supply element on the basis of the supply potential.
• Actual service utility: This represents the actual CES supply efficiency that green spaces can provide to people. It is obtained by weighting the actual supply capacity of CES and the actual supply capacity of the basic services.

2.3.1. Service Potential

SP is derived solely from the quantity of CES elements. Each element is assigned a score (0, 0.6, or 1) (

Table 1. Quantity assessment score criteria.

Assessment Criteria	Score
The element does not exist.	0
The element which exists but does not meet the use quantity or volume.	0.6
The element which exists and meets the use quantity or volume, respectively.	1

), and the SP of each CES category is calculated as the mean score of all corresponding elements.

$$CE{S}_{potential}={\displaystyle \frac{(y_{v1}+y_{v2}+\dots y_{vn})}{n}}$$

(1)

where CES_potential represents the service potential of each type of CES; y_v represents the quantity evaluation score of each CES element involved in the service (Table 1); and n represents the number of CES element types involved in the service.

2.3.2. Actual Supply Capacity

ASC incorporates quality evaluation. For each CES element, quality is assessed across multiple criteria (design compliance, safety, maintenance, accessibility, usage condition). The quality score is the average of all criteria (Formula (2)), and ASC is obtained by weighting quality scores with SP (Formula (3)).

$$S_v={\displaystyle \frac{(q_{v1}+q_{v2}+\dots q_{vm})}{m}}$$

(2)

$$CE{S}_{actsupply}={\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^n{y}_j\frac{{\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^m{S}_{vij}}}{m}}}{n}}$$

(3)

where CES_actsupply represents the actual supply capacity of a certain CES; S_v represents the quality assessment score of a CES element; q represents the score of each indicator in the quality assessment; m represents the number of quality assessment indexes for an element; j represents the classification of quality indexes; and i represents the classification of elements.

2.3.3. Actual Service Utility

ASU combines the ASC of CES and the ASC of basic services. Basic-service potential and quality are evaluated using the same procedures as CES elements. ASU reflects the final effective cultural benefits delivered to park users.

$$CE{S}_{asu}=CE{S}_{actsupply}\times B{S}_{actsupply}$$

(4)

where CES_asu indicates the actual service utility for the CES; BS_actsupply represents the actual supply capacity of a certain basic service.

2.4. Assessing CES Supply and Demand in Urban Green Spaces

CES demand was approximated using the per capita green space standard of 20 m² recommended by the United Nations [45]. CES supply and demand were calculated under both the ASU-based framework and a traditional single-index (area-based) approach to enable comparison.

2.4.1. Calculating CES Supply and Demand Based on Actual Service Utility

$$ES{S}_{ces}={\displaystyle \frac{(CE{S}_{asu1}+CE{S}_{asu2}+\dots CE{S}_{asun})}{n}}\times are{a}_{district}$$

(5)

$$ES{D}_{ces}=are{a}_{per}\left[m^2\right]\times po{p}_{district}\times 1$$

(6)

where ESS_ces denotes the CES supply, and ESD_ces denotes the demand for CES. CES_asu denotes the actual service utility of the CES. The area_per denotes per capita green space. pop_district and area_district denote the population and green space area, respectively, of each district. The 1 denotes an ideal service utility.

2.4.2. Calculating CES Supply and Demand Based on a Single Index

$$ES{S}_{ces}=are{a}_{district}$$

(7)

$$ES{D}_{ces}=are{a}_{per}\times po{p}_{district}$$

(8)

where ESS_ces denotes the CES supply, and ESD_ces denotes the demand for CES. area_per denotes per capita green space. pop_district and area_district denote the population and green space area of each district, respectively.

2.5. Impact of the Evaluation Framework on the Results

The framework evaluates how each stage—SP, ASC, and ASU—modifies CES performance. By comparing results between successive stages, the degree of attenuation or improvement can be quantified, revealing whether shortages stem primarily from element quantity, element quality, or basic services.

$$Effec{t}_{quantity}=1-CE{S}_{potential}$$

(9)

$$Effec{t}_{quality}={\displaystyle \frac{CE{S}_{potential}-CE{S}_{actsupply}}{CE{S}_{potential}}}$$

(10)

$$Effec{t}_{BS}={\displaystyle \frac{CE{S}_{catsupply}-CE{S}_{asu}}{CE{S}_{actsupply}}}$$

(11)

where Effect_quantity, Effect_quality, and Effect_BS denote the effects from the quantity assessment of elements, the quality assessment of elements, and the assessment of basic services, respectively, on the assessment results of the previous step in the three assessment links of supply potential, actual supply capacity, and actual service utility. The numeral 1 represents the ideal service utility of the CES supply without any weighting.

2.6. Selection of Sample Sites

Shenyang City, located in the southern part of Northeast China and central Liaoning Province, covers 12,860 km² and has a permanent population of approximately 9.2 million. As the capital of Liaoning and the core city of the Shenyang Metropolitan Area, Shenyang serves as a regional center of politics, economy, culture, and transportation. It is also recognized as a National Environmental Protection Model City, National Forest City, and National Garden City, making it representative of northern Chinese urban systems. Like many global metropolitan regions, Shenyang experiences substantial mismatches between ecosystem service supply and demand across its urban districts [44]. According to the 2021 Statistical Yearbook, the city includes 144 parks of various types. Seven central districts—Yuhong (YH), Huanggu (HG), Dadong (DD), Tiexi (TX), Heping (HP), Shenhe (SH), and Hunnan (HN)—constitute the core study area. A total of 95 parks capable of providing multiple CES were selected for evaluation (Figure 3).

2.7. Data Collection and Treatment

Data collection integrated field surveys, multi-source spatial data, and subjective perception information to accurately represent CES conditions in urban parks. Field surveys served as the primary source for evaluating the quantity and quality of CES elements and basic service facilities. Two trained teams conducted parallel assessments using standardized criteria, with any inconsistencies resolved through re-inspection to minimize observer bias. Human-perspective observations recorded visibility, accessibility, and environmental ambience. Subjective perception indicators—such as safety, comfort, and aesthetic satisfaction—were collected through questionnaires. Approximately 950 valid responses (around 10 per park) were obtained using a 5-point Likert scale. Mean values were incorporated directly as qualitative indicators instead of being used as correction coefficients for ASU, ensuring consistency within the evaluation structure. The full questionnaire can be found in the Supplementary File.

Spatial datasets included ESA 10 m Land Cover products and 100 m WorldPop population data corrected using the Seventh National Census. All spatial data were projected to WGS 1984 UTM Zone 51N and resampled to 10 m resolution. Spatial analysis procedures—including clipping, masking, and zonal statistics—were performed in ArcGIS 10.8 and R (terra v1.7–55).

All quantitative and qualitative indicators were normalized to a 0–1 scale using the min–max method to ensure comparability. Because indicators were numerous and complementary, equal weighting was adopted to avoid subjective bias and maintain structural transparency. Cross-validation between field survey results and remote sensing outputs was conducted. Values exceeding three standard deviations (>3σ) were reviewed through field photographs, survey notes, and official facility descriptions to ensure data reliability.

3. Results

3.1. Actual Service Utility of Different Park Types

3.1.1. Results of Supply Potential

The CES supply potential of different park types shows clear gradients across service categories (

Table 2. CES’s supply potential of the four types of parks.

Types of Parks	Statistical Type	Sports Fitness	Recreation	Visual Aesthetics	Culture and Education	Psychological
comprehensive parks	Average	0.61	0.53	0.84	0.31	0.80
	SD	0.03	0.04	0.04	0.05	0.05
special Parks	Average	0.48	0.45	0.74	0.40	0.75
	SD	0.08	0.04	0.05	0.09	0.02
Community Park	Averages	0.46	0.42	0.60	0.31	0.69
	SD	0.05	0.04	0.05	0.07	0.02
Linear Park	Averages	0.42	0.37	0.69	0.21	0.65
	SD	0.06	0.04	0.06	0.02	0.04

SD: Standard Deviation.

; Figure 4). Comprehensive parks exhibit the highest overall potential, with mean scores of 0.61 for sports and fitness, 0.53 for recreation, 0.84 for visual aesthetics, 0.31 for culture and education, and 0.80 for psychological services. Special parks rank second, with aesthetic (0.74) and psychological (0.75) potential close to those of comprehensive parks, but lower values for sports (0.48) and recreation (0.45). Community parks display moderate potential, with scores of 0.46 (sports), 0.42 (recreation), 0.60 (aesthetics), 0.31 (culture and education), and 0.69 (psychological). Linear parks have the lowest potential overall, with values of 0.42, 0.37, 0.69, 0.21, and 0.65, respectively, and particularly weak performance in cultural–educational services. The relatively small within-type standard deviations (e.g., SD = 0.03–0.08 for most indicators) indicate that parks of the same type tend to share similar CES configurations, while systematic differences among types reflect their distinct design objectives and spatial structures.

3.1.2. Results of Actual Supply Capacity

When element quality is taken into account, the actual supply capacity of CES decreases for all park types, and the stratification among types becomes more apparent (

Table 3. CES’s actual supply capacity of the four types of parks.

Types of Parks	Statistical Type	Sports Fitness	Recreation	Visual Aesthetics	Culture and Education	Psychological
Comprehensive Park	Average	0.49	0.41	0.74	0.28	0.68
	SD	0.03	0.03	0.03	0.06	0.01
Special Park	Average	0.37	0.33	0.64	0.31	0.64
	SD	0.06	0.02	0.04	0.05	0.03
Community Park	Averages	0.36	0.36	0.49	0.24	0.51
	SD	0.04	0.03	0.07	0.05	0.03
Linear Park	Averages	0.34	0.28	0.55	0.16	0.48
	SD	0.04	0.03	0.06	0.01	0.03

SD: Standard Deviation.

; Figure 5). Comprehensive parks still maintain the highest capacity, with mean scores of 0.49 for sports, 0.41 for recreation, 0.74 for aesthetics, 0.28 for culture and education, and 0.68 for psychological services. Special parks follow with 0.37, 0.33, 0.64, 0.31, and 0.64, respectively, indicating that their designed landscapes and thematic features are supported by relatively good maintenance. Community parks show lower capacities of 0.36 (sports), 0.36 (recreation), 0.49 (aesthetics), 0.24 (culture and education), and 0.51 (psychological), while linear parks perform weakest, at 0.34, 0.28, 0.55, 0.16, and 0.48, respectively. Compared with the potential stage, aesthetic and psychological services in community and linear parks experience notable reductions, suggesting that quality deficiencies and incomplete facilities substantially constrain their effective CES supply.

3.1.3. Results of Actual Service Utility

After further incorporating basic service conditions, the actual service utility of CES declines again, revealing the extent to which infrastructure and supporting services limit residents’ ability to access and enjoy CES (

Table 4. CES’s actual service utility of the four types of parks.

Types of Parks	Statistical Type	Sports Fitness	Recreation	Visual Aesthetics	Culture and Education	Psychological
Comprehensive Park	Average	0.38	0.34	0.58	0.22	0.52
	SD	0.03	0.03	0.05	0.05	0.02
Special Park	Average	0.29	0.24	0.47	0.25	0.46
	SD	0.05	0.02	0.06	0.05	0.05
Community Park	Averages	0.22	0.21	0.30	0.15	0.30
	SD	0.04	0.03	0.06	0.03	0.04
Linear Park	Averages	0.19	0.16	0.30	0.09	0.27
	SD	0.02	0.02	0.04	0.01	0.02

SD: Standard Deviation.

; Figure 6). Comprehensive parks retain the highest utility, with mean values of 0.38 for sports, 0.34 for recreation, 0.58 for visual aesthetics, 0.22 for culture and education, and 0.52 for psychological services, indicating that their lighting, signage, rest areas, and other basic services generally support the realization of cultural benefits. Special parks show intermediate utility (0.29, 0.24, 0.47, 0.25, and 0.46), with aesthetic and psychological services remaining relatively strong but lower scores for sports and recreation. Community parks fall to 0.22 (sports), 0.21 (recreation), 0.30 (aesthetics), 0.15 (culture and education), and 0.30 (psychological), while linear parks exhibit the lowest utilities at 0.19, 0.16, 0.30, 0.09, and 0.27, respectively. The comparison across stages indicates that linear and community parks are most affected by quality and basic service constraints, whereas comprehensive parks show the strongest resilience across the entire evaluation chain.

3.2. CES’s Supply and Demand in Shenyang

3.2.1. Assessment Based on a Single Index

Based on the single-indicator assessment using green space area as the sole measure, notable differences emerge among the seven districts of Shenyang (Figure 7;

Table 5. CES’s supply, demand, and supply–demand ratio based on a single indicator.

	DD	HG	HN	HP	SH	TX	YH
CES Supply (km2)	21.1	17.7	11.5	13.4	26.8	8.9	16.7
CES Demand (km2)	11.1	14.2	7.2	12.4	13.7	13.5	12.7
CES Supply–Demand Ratio	190%	125%	160%	108%	195%	66%	131%

). CES supply varies from a maximum of 26.8 km² in SH to a minimum of 8.9 km² in TX, reflecting the uneven spatial distribution of large green spaces. CES demand ranges from 7.2 km² in HN to 14.2 km² in HG, showing that population density strongly affects the estimated need for services. The resulting supply–demand ratios reveal clear inequality among districts. SH and DD exhibit the highest ratios (195% and 190%), suggesting substantial surplus capacity (Figure 8). In contrast, TX shows a severe deficit (66%), indicating insufficient green space relative to its population.

Moderately balanced districts include Heping (HP) at 108%, and Yuhong (YH) at 131%, reflecting an approximately matched relationship between area-based supply and estimated demand. Meanwhile, HG and HN remain slightly below optimal levels (75% and 98%). Overall, the single-index approach highlights inequality in green space allocation, yet it lacks the capacity to reveal how facility condition, service quality, and infrastructure influence actual CES performance.

3.2.2. Assessment Based on the Actual Service Utility Evaluation Framework

When CES supply is evaluated through the full actual service utility framework, district-level differences become more evident because the framework incorporates quantity, quality, and basic service support (Figure 9;

Table 6. CES supply–demand ratios of all districts of Shenyang under the different steps of the actual service utility evaluation framework.

	Municipal District	Sport	Recreation	Aesthetic	Education and Culture	Psychological	Average Value
Service potential (quantity)	DD	86%	92%	151%	64%	134%	105%
	HP	73%	64%	91%	52%	88%	73%
	HG	82%	62%	120%	35%	118%	84%
	HN	52%	50%	80%	41%	77%	60%
	SH	80%	70%	130%	46%	135%	92%
	TX	30%	30%	28%	11%	48%	29%
	YH	72%	49%	89%	34%	99%	68%
Actual supply capacity (quality)	DD	73%	67%	123%	50%	103%	83%
	HP	57%	51%	70%	36%	72%	57%
	HG	68%	52%	106%	32%	95%	71%
	HN	38%	40%	74%	35%	66%	51%
	SH	65%	54%	112%	40%	104%	75%
	TX	20%	26%	19%	6%	32%	20%
	YH	57%	44%	75%	30%	77%	57%
Actual service utility (basic service)	DD	48%	46%	79%	35%	65%	55%
	HP	37%	34%	48%	27%	49%	39%
	HG	47%	33%	70%	20%	62%	47%
	HN	28%	28%	52%	26%	45%	36%
	SH	45%	37%	73%	27%	68%	50%
	TX	12%	13%	12%	4%	16%	11%
	YH	37%	28%	47%	18%	47%	35%

). At the service-potential stage, SH and DD retain relatively high ratios (92 and 105%), while TX remains the lowest (29%). After integrating quality factors, scores decline notably—DD decreases from 105% to 83%, and SH drops from 92% to 75%, indicating that aging or poorly maintained facilities lower actual supply capacity.

The final stage—actual service utility—shows further reduction due to insufficient basic services. TX declines dramatically from 29% (SP) and 22% (ASC) to only 11%, the lowest among all districts, largely due to deficiencies in lighting, signage, restrooms, and seating. HN and HG also drop to 36% and 47%, respectively. In comparison, DD and SH retain comparatively higher levels (55% and 50%), demonstrating stronger infrastructure support and more complete facility systems. These results clearly show that districts with similar green space areas (e.g., HP and DD) can differ greatly in CES perception due to differences in quality and basic service provision.

3.3. Impact of the Framework on the Evaluation Results

3.3.1. CES Supply Capacity Assessment

According to the weighted impact ratios (

Table 7. CES supply capacity for each type of park affected by different steps in the actual service utility evaluation framework.

Park Type	Potential Assessment						Actual Supply Capacity						Actual Supply Utility
	Sport and Fitness	Recreation	Aesthetic	Education and Culture	Psychological	Effect *	Sport and Fitness	Recreation	Aesthetic	Education and Culture	Psychological	Effect *	Sport and Fitness	Recreation	Aesthetic	Education and Culture	Psychological	Effect *
Comprehensive park	0.61	0.53	0.84	0.31	0.8	38%	0.49	0.41	0.74	0.28	0.68	16%	0.38	0.34	0.58	0.22	0.52	21%
Special class park	0.48	0.45	0.74	0.4	0.75	44%	0.37	0.33	0.64	0.31	0.64	20%	0.29	0.24	0.47	0.25	0.46	26%
Community park	0.46	0.42	0.6	0.31	0.69	50%	0.36	0.36	0.49	0.24	0.51	21%	0.22	0.21	0.3	0.15	0.3	40%
Linear park	0.42	0.37	0.69	0.21	0.65	53%	0.34	0.28	0.55	0.16	0.48	22%	0.19	0.16	0.3	0.09	0.27	44%

* Effect: The impact of the new weighting on the results of the upper step assessment.

), it can be observed that the parks least affected by quality assessments are comprehensive parks (16%) and specialized parks (20%), followed by community parks (21%) and linear parks (22%). Regarding the impact of basic services, comprehensive parks and specialized parks are least affected, with ratios of 21% and 26%, respectively, followed by community parks and linear parks, with ratios of 40% and 44%, respectively.

Overall, the results reveal distinct bottleneck types:

Comprehensive and Special parks are primarily limited by quantity (38% and 44%) rather than quality or basic services.

Community parks are primarily constrained by the combined effects of quantity (50%) and basic services (40%).

Linear parks face the most severe multi-stage attenuation (53% → 22% → 44%), making them the most vulnerable park type under the full evaluation framework.

These patterns confirm that the three-tier framework effectively distinguishes structural (quantity), functional (quality), and experiential (basic service) limitations, enabling targeted strategies for different park types.

3.3.2. CES Supply and Demand Assessment

Among the seven municipal districts, the CES supply was most affected by element quantity in TX and SH, with ratios of 56% and 53%, respectively. The CES supply in the other five districts was influenced by elements with ratios above 40%. The quality of CES elements has the greatest impact on TX at 30%, followed by HG at 22%, and the remaining districts ranged from 15% to 20%. The impacts of basic services on CES supply are most significant in TX and YH, accounting for 44% and 38%, respectively. The influences of basic services on CES supply in the remaining four municipal districts ranged from 30% to 35% (

Table 8. CES supply–demand ratio of each district affected by different steps in the actual service utility evaluation framework.

	Municipal District	Sport	Recreation	Aesthetic	Education and Culture	Psychological	Average Value
Service potential (quantity)	DD	55%	51%	21%	67%	30%	45%
	HP	41%	49%	27%	59%	30%	41%
	HG	49%	61%	25%	78%	27%	48%
	HN	52%	53%	26%	62%	29%	44%
	SH	59%	64%	33%	76%	31%	53%
	TX	55%	54%	58%	84%	28%	56%
	YH	45%	63%	32%	74%	25%	48%
Actual supply capacity (quality)	DD	15%	27%	18%	21%	23%	21%
	HP	23%	20%	23%	30%	17%	22%
	HG	17%	17%	12%	9%	19%	16%
	HN	27%	21%	7%	13%	15%	16%
	SH	19%	23%	14%	14%	23%	19%
	TX	32%	15%	32%	46%	33%	30%
	YH	21%	9%	15%	10%	22%	17%
Actual service utility (basic service)	DD	34%	31%	36%	30%	36%	34%
	HP	35%	34%	32%	26%	32%	32%
	HG	31%	36%	34%	37%	34%	34%
	HN	27%	29%	30%	28%	31%	30%
	SH	31%	31%	35%	33%	35%	33%
	TX	40%	48%	37%	31%	49%	44%
	YH	36%	37%	37%	39%	39%	38%

).

In general, the types and quantity of landscape elements that can provide CES have the greatest impact on the CES supply, while when evaluating the service potential of the quantity of CES elements, aesthetic service is the least affected. According to the overall supply–demand ratio results for the seven districts (Table 6), visual aesthetic service generally has the highest supply–demand ratio in each district. Education and cultural services are significantly affected in the service potential assessment. The quantity of CES elements affected education and cultural services in TX at 84%, and in HG, SH, and TX at approximately 75%. Even the lowest ratio, found in HG, is 59%. This underscores that there is a serious shortage of elements for education and cultural services. Increasing the CES elements and facilities related to this CES type could be effective in elevating the overall CES level.

Based on the above results, we identified three main findings. First, comprehensive parks and specialized parks exhibit significantly higher CES supply potential than community and linear parks, yet quality deficiencies in elements and basic services reduce the actual utility by 30–44%. Second, the new framework reveals that the CES supply–demand ratios across the administrative districts (11–55%) are markedly lower than results from traditional area-based assessments (66–195%), which highlights the presence of a significant mismatch in supply and demand. Third, education and cultural services are most severely affected by a shortage of elements (deficit rates of 59–84%), while basic service quality exerts the greatest influence on the utility of linear parks (contribution rate: 44%).

4. Discussion

4.1. Actual CES Service Utility Evaluation Results in Different Park Types

Different types of parks exhibit markedly different cultural ecosystem service (CES) profiles due to variations in spatial scale, landscape composition, functional configuration, and facility conditions. The results of this study show that comprehensive parks consistently deliver the highest levels of CES across all service dimensions. Their performance reflects the combined effect of diverse vegetation structures, multifunctional spaces, and relatively mature recreational and cultural facilities. Similar patterns have been observed in comparative studies from Central Europe and East Asia, where large, multifunctional parks tend to accommodate a wider spectrum of cultural and recreational activities and attract more diverse user groups [46]. Special parks demonstrate particularly strong performance in education and cultural services owing to their thematic design, curated spatial arrangements, and the presence of interpretive installations. Such design-driven cultural benefits have also been documented in thematic parks and heritage-oriented green spaces, where curated experiences substantially strengthen cultural attachment and learning-oriented engagement [47].

In contrast, community parks, despite their limited size, play an important role in meeting residents’ daily recreational and psychological needs. Their proximity and accessibility contribute to high visit frequency, making them especially valuable for stress relief, short-duration activities, and neighborhood-level social interaction. These patterns are consistent with a growing body of research showing that accessible local green spaces substantially enhance daily well-being and foster social cohesion within residential communities [48]. Linear parks, however, exhibit the lowest CES levels overall. Their narrow spatial configuration and constrained facilities limit opportunities for extended stays, cultural experiences, and interpretive activities. Although linear parks often provide strong aesthetic value and route-based recreation, their limited infrastructure restricts their potential to support cultural learning or social events. This finding aligns with previous research showing that greenways and corridor parks, while effective for mobility and visual experience, seldom deliver the depth of cultural engagement found in broader park typologies [49].

In summary, the performance of different park types illustrates how CES delivery depends not only on ecological factors but also on spatial form, functional structure, and the intentional design of cultural and interpretive amenities. Understanding these differences is essential for refining park-specific planning strategies and optimizing cultural benefits across the urban green-space system.

4.2. Urban Green Space: Supply and Demand Results

The spatial heterogeneity of CES performance observed across Shenyang’s districts reflects bigger structural differences in urban form, socio-ecological conditions, and public-service provision. Rather than merely indicating variation in green space quantity, the disparities uncovered in this study highlight the multidimensional nature of CES delivery, in which physical elements, facility quality, and basic infrastructure interact to shape residents’ cultural and psychological experiences. This aligns with a growing body of literature emphasizing that CES are co-produced by ecological structures and built-environment conditions rather than ecological assets alone [50,51].

A key insight from the evaluation framework is that quantity deficits are only the first layer of limitation. Although commonly used in traditional CES assessments, quantity-only indicators overlook functional degradation, aesthetic deterioration, and usability constraints. The strong attenuation revealed in the quality and basic-service stages confirms earlier criticisms that area-based proxies systematically overestimate CES benefits [52,53]. The findings also support research showing that residents’ interactions with green spaces depend heavily on facility integrity, maintenance, and environmental safety, all of which influence restorative experiences and psychological satisfaction [54,55].

The strong influence of basic services—such as lighting, signage, parking, and restrooms—further demonstrates that CES are inseparable from everyday spatial practices and accessibility conditions. Infrastructure deficiencies reduce not only the actual utility of cultural services but also the willingness of residents to visit parks, thereby amplifying socio-spatial inequalities [56].

Importantly, the district-specific bottlenecks identified in this study indicate that CES inequities are not uniform in origin. Some districts are constrained by insufficient CES elements, while others are limited by degraded quality or service shortages. This finding suggests that generic greening strategies are unlikely to be effective; instead, CES enhancement requires tailored interventions, such as targeted facility renewal, service upgrades, or structural reconfiguration, depending on local conditions. From a sustainability perspective, incorporating multidimensional CES assessments into planning can promote more equitable access to cultural benefits, enhance urban resilience, and directly support SDG 11 by fostering inclusive, healthy, and culturally vibrant cities.

4.3. Actual Service Utility Evaluation Framework for CES

Cultural ecosystem services (CES) differ from provisioning and regulating services in that they rely heavily on the interaction between ecological structures, built facilities, and human perception. The present study contributes to the theoretical understanding of CES by framing its delivery as a multi-stage process consisting of service potential, actual supply capacity, and realized service utility. This structure makes visible a series of attenuation processes that typically remain obscured in conventional evaluations that rely primarily on green-space area or vegetation metrics.

The multi-stage logic aligns with contemporary perspectives that view CES as outcomes of co-production between ecological environments and social–institutional systems [57,58]. Unlike studies that primarily focus on demand preferences [59,60,61,62], the assessment framework based on actual service utility provides an in-depth evaluation from the supply side. Our results show that the translation from potential to utility is strongly conditioned by the quality of service-related elements—such as interpretive facilities, recreational infrastructure, and landscape maintenance—rather than by ecological resources alone. Such findings reinforce the argument that cultural experiences are enabled by a combination of ecological affordances and institutional or infrastructural support, a trend increasingly observed in CES studies from Europe, East Asia, and North America [63,64].

One of the most important implications concerns the pivotal role of basic service facilities—such as lighting, sanitation, seating, accessibility, and signage—as mediators of CES realization [46]. Previous empirical research has shown that such facilities shape visitors’ sense of comfort, safety, and engagement, thereby affecting whether potential cultural benefits can be transformed into meaningful experiences [63,64]. Under conditions marked by heat, rainfall, or high visitor density, basic infrastructure becomes even more critical [64,65]. Our findings reinforce this by showing that districts with limited basic services, such as TX and YH, experience substantial losses in realized utility regardless of their underlying ecological or spatial conditions.

The framework also clarifies how structural constraints and functional deficiencies interact. Some districts, particularly those with limited land availability or fragmented green-space distribution, face structural shortages that restrict cultural service capacity from the outset. In such cases, adding micro-green spaces, rooftop green areas, or pocket-park interventions may be necessary. Conversely, in districts where service quality, maintenance, or facility age are the primary limiting factors, targeted upgrades can yield substantial improvements. Examples include renewing interpretive signage, improving pathway lighting, expanding cultural programming, or enhancing accessibility for elderly and disabled users.

The results further demonstrate that cultural and educational services are the most sensitive to design and programming inputs. Their deficits, observed across multiple districts, signal the need for more intentional creation of learning-oriented spaces. Overall, the framework shifts CES assessment from abstract description toward an actionable, diagnostic-to-intervention model. By clearly identifying where cultural benefits weaken in the service chain and which components exert the strongest influence on service realization, the framework provides a robust foundation for evidence-based planning, enabling cities to optimize cultural benefits in an equitable and sustainable manner.

4.4. Advantages and Limitations of the Framework

The three-tiered evaluation framework demonstrates significant applicability in urban green space management. Its primary strength lies in precisely diagnosing the root causes of imbalances in supply and demand, which is particularly valuable in high-density urban renewal zones and aging district renovations (e.g., HP and TX). It effectively exposes the illusion of sufficient green space perpetuated by traditional area-based metrics by quantifying structural shortages—exemplified by Shenyang’s districts showing 108–195% area surplus yet only 11–55% actual utility. The framework further dissects three critical attenuation layers: quantity gaps (e.g., 59–84% deficit in science/education facilities), quality defects (e.g., facility aging and safety non-compliance), and basic service failures (e.g., substantial utility loss in linear parks due to missing restrooms and signage). This granular diagnosis enables differentiated planning decisions for cities with limited budgets. By attributing deficiencies to specific layers (e.g., prioritizing quantity supplementation in TX versus quality upgrades in HP), the framework also offers multi-scale compatibility: at the micro level (single parks), it identifies facility-specific shortcomings; at the meso level (districts), it reveals regional imbalances; and at the macro level (the whole city), it informs system-wide standards and prioritization in green space planning.

At the same time, several operational constraints require attention. High implementation costs stem from assessing a large number of quality indicators for CES and basic services. The current weighting system assumes equal importance across CES elements, overlooking user preferences (e.g., older adults favoring recreation versus younger groups prioritizing sports). Integrating demand-side data (e.g., surveys or mobile phone location data) and spatial heterogeneity (e.g., placing greater emphasis on aesthetic services in commercial zones) would enhance accuracy. Cross-cultural applicability is also challenged by China-centric indicators, such as classical garden elements (mountain–water–plant–architecture compositions) and national standards [66]. Adopting a modular design—allowing substitution with local tools like POST in Western contexts—and flexible metrics (e.g., replacing specific religious content with culturally relevant spiritual spaces) could broaden the framework’s applicability across different cultural and institutional environments.

5. Conclusions

Because CESs are ultimately directed toward a human audience, it is crucial to understand the process through which CES elements are linked to people. Evaluating key stages in this process allows for the quantification of losses in service quantity during transmission, enabling a more accurate assessment of the actual services received and a realistic determination of CES provision in urban areas. The assessment results have been validated against the observed conditions in Shenyang’s parks.

Building on these findings, the results of this study also echo several persistent challenges in current CES evaluation practices. First, an overemphasis on quantity while neglecting quality and functionality has led to incomplete and sometimes misleading assessments. Second, quality-related factors are often treated in isolation, lacking a unified and quantifiable framework capable of capturing their combined influence on CES outcomes. Third, the indirect mechanisms—through which infrastructure and environmental quality shape CES perception—remain insufficiently modeled or quantified. Recognizing these methodological gaps further highlights the necessity of a more integrated and operational CES evaluation framework.

This study established a three-tiered evaluation framework integrating quantity, quality, and basic services. The first step involves a comprehensive assessment of supply and demand. In addition to the original quantity indicators, our system includes quality and basic service indicators, ensuring a more comprehensive and realistic assessment of supply and demand. The second step is a professional quality evaluation. The quality assessments for each element adhere to industrial standards and employ diverse evaluation tools, reducing the influence of subjective factors and enhancing the professionalism of the results. The third step is the analysis of three evaluation components. By dissecting the quantity, quality, and basic service components in the evaluation process, we can compare results at different stages of the weighting calculation, identify the stage that exerts the strongest impact on supply and demand, and highlight key issues requiring improvement.

By deconstructing the service delivery chain, this framework exposes hidden attenuation layers—specifically, quality defects and basic service deficiencies—that remain undetectable in traditional area-based assessments. The core value of the framework lies in transforming the abstract goal of improving CES into a quantifiable pathway for action: supplementing quantity, enhancing quality, and strengthening basic services. It thus provides a precise map for navigating the renewal and optimization of urban green spaces in high-density cities, ensuring that improvements target not only quantity but also quality and basic service facilities. In addition, this multi-stage and multi-dimensional structure aligns with key principles of urban sustainability, particularly long-term ecological resilience, equitable access to cultural benefits, and efficient resource allocation. Strengthening the quantity–quality–service continuum supports sustainable green-space governance by promoting balanced development, reducing environmental inequities, and ensuring that cultural ecosystem benefits can be maintained and transmitted across generations.