Residents’ Preference for Urban Green Space Types and Their Ecological-Social Services in China

Abstract

With accelerated urbanization and rapid expansion of the urban population, there is an increasing demand among urban residents for urban green spaces (UGS) and the ecosystem services (ES) they provide. The existing research mostly focuses on the spatial pattern of UGS types and ES provided by different UGS but ignores that residents’ preferences for UGS types and their ecological and social services should also be incorporated into the spatial planning decision-making of UGS. A web-based questionnaire was distributed randomly in urban areas of China and 1050 valid samples were collected in this study. Descriptive statistical analysis methods, structural equation modeling, and Pearson correlation were used to parse the residents’ preference for both UGS types, ecological–social services, and the relevant impact factors. The results showed that: (1) the strongest preference of residents for UGS and their ecological and social services are the attached green space, “beautifying the city”, and “physical and mental relaxation”, respectively; (2) the leading factors for residents’ access to UGS are “age” and “sufficient time”, except for attached green space. The most significant effect on both ecological and social services is the “season” factor. Further, “social gathering” and “exercise” are the services most and least likely to be affected. (3) Future planning of UGS should reinforce construction of attached green space and improve the aesthetics-related ES they provide. Construction of park green space and plaza green space should be enhanced to deal with the aging trend in society. Further, maintaining the existing construction of attached green space and building regional green space are crucial to the sustainability of UGS and its ecological–social services.

1. Introduction

Rapid urbanization in China has led to a transition from land-centered urbanization to people-centered urbanization, which has resulted in a growing concern for the natural environment by urban residents [1,2]. As an artificial environment to connect with nature, urban green spaces (UGS) have played an increasingly prominent role in the recent two decades around the world [3,4]. Naturally, UGS have attracted the attention of many researchers. Among all the research, it is clear that residents’ preference for UGS is one of the most studied fields for people-centered urbanization to study the relationship between residents with different characteristics and UGS [5]. For example, preferences towards aesthetics, health care, and biodiversity conservation that UGS can provide have all been widely studied [6,7]. These preference types are closely related to the variety of goods and services that natural ecosystems provide to humans [8]. Recently, the concept of ecosystem services (ES) has played an increasingly widespread role as a bridge in studying the interactions between society and ecosystems [9]. Meanwhile, quantitative research on urban ES has been growing, and UGS have become a critical research subject of these studies [10,11,12]. Therefore, the ES provided by UGS have been generating increasing attention from researchers and relevant management agencies recently in China [13], and residents’ preference for ES is pyramidally regarded as a key reference factor for future urban planning [14,15,16]. However, the classification of ES provided by UGS is still a challenge to be resolved [17]. Although the ES of UGS were usually classified by the Common International Classification for Ecosystem Services (CICES), their limitations are obvious in terms of cultural services and their framework [17]. Further, the universally accepted classification of ES proposed by MEA is not suitable for UGS and studies involving residents’ preferences [8] because the differences among provisioning, regulating, and cultural services are difficult for non-professional respondents to understand and should be more detailed in UGS application scenarios. To some extent, previous studies have ignored the classification of residents’ preferences for different ES, resulting in a lacking perception of the specific role of ES in UGS [18]. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a more concise and clear classification to study residents’ preference for ES in UGS.

Specifically, the services of UGS for urban residents’ preferences can be classified into two main aspects: ecological services and social services [19,20]. First, UGS can provide ecological services, such as climate regulation, biodiversity conservation, beautifying the city, etc. [21,22,23]. Further, UGS can provide social services, including maintaining mental health, maintaining physical health, offering a place for natural education and aesthetic appreciation, etc. [24,25,26,27]. Therefore, based on UGS characteristics, CICES, and existing studies, it is reasonable for our research to divide ES delivered by UGS into ecological services and social services [21,28]. In addition to the classification gaps of ES in UGS, comprehensive studies of various types of UGS are also always ignored. UGS can be divided into five categories, including park green space, plaza green space, attached green space, regional green space, and protected green space [29,30]. However, most current studies have only focused on a single type of UGS, such as park green space [31,32], plaza green space [33], attached green space [34], and few studies have integrated multiple types of UGS into their research [18]. Additionally, the data collected in previous studies on residents’ preference for UGS were mainly from mobile tracking, online reviews, questionnaires, etc. These data sources are influenced by a variety of factors. For instance, mobile tracking data are biased across economic gradients as people with higher incomes often use more mobile-tracking-related software [35]; online reviews may not be representative of all types of user groups [36]. Overall, data source combined with web-based questionnaire is the most extensively applied data source by far in current studies [37,38].

Overall, a web-based questionnaire research framework using descriptive statistical analysis methods, structural equation modeling (SEM), and such quantitative methods was adopted to study urban residents’ preference for various green space types and their ecological–social services in the urban regions of China. The objectives of this study are: (1) quantify the residents’ preference for UGS types; (2) explore the residents’ preference for ecological and social services provided by UGS; (3) discuss the impact factors influencing residents’ preference for UGS types and their ecological–social services. Based on the results, suggestions for future urban planning decisions under different preferences of residents for UGS and their ecological–social services are put forward.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. The Framework for Analyzing Residents’ Preference for UGS and Ecological–Social Services

To explore residents’ preference for UGS and their ecological and social services, this study systematically classified the factors influencing residents’ selection of the different types of UGS and ES, and effective suggestions for future policymaking were also proposed (Figure 1). UGS are separated into five types according to national standards and their functions. They include park green space, plaza green space, attached green space, regional green space, and protected green space, respectively. Distinctions of different UGS types were made to facilitate the respondents’ understanding in this study: the main difference between a park and plaza green space is that the plaza green space is mainly covered by impervious surfaces. The attached green space is affiliated with various types of urban construction land. Regional green space is outside the urban construction land and usually gathers in the suburbs. Protected green space is an independent green space type that is designed to meet the city’s requirements for health, isolation, security, and ecological protection. Thus, it is unavailable to residents and the questionnaire did not mention this green space type [29].

In addition, the ES provided by UGS is divided into ecological and social services in this framework. Ecological services are those UGS objectively brings to the residents, including climate regulation, noise pollution reduction, biodiversity conservation, obtaining flora and fauna, beautifying the city, and natural disaster mitigation. The social services are those residents experience subjectively, including outdoor recreation (focus on going outdoors), exercise, physical and mental relaxation, spending time with family (mainly the elderly and children), walking the dog, social gathering (emphasis on interaction with people in the same community), natural education, and aesthetic appreciation.

In our framework, the socio-demographic factors and environmental factors influencing residents’ preference for UGS were covered in ten items: COVID-19, accessibility, reachability, income, season, weather, age, physical condition, sufficient time, and staying with your child. The difference between accessibility and reachability is that accessibility stressed the ease of entry (e.g., entrance fees, reservations required, etc.) and reachability refers to the difficulty of transportation (e.g., rugged roads, long distances, etc.). Given the above-collected information, the questionnaire was used to obtain the driving factors of residents entering different kinds of UGS except for the protected green space, their demands for different green space types, and their preference for different social and ecological services. Based on the questionnaire data analysis, the gap of unclear classification of services in previous studies was filled.

2.2. Questionnaire Development and Data Collection

Based on the study framework and study objects, the questionnaire (Appendix A) consists of respondents’ demographic information, impact factors on UGS, preference for different UGS types, perception of ecological and social services provided by UGS, and willingness to protect UGS. After the questionnaire design was completed, a small range of pre-survey was carried out, and 20 questionnaires were obtained. Then, adjustments were made based on the opinions of the 20 respondents. Finally, the questionnaire was randomly selected throughout China. Due to the COVID-19 prevention and control in China, it is not possible to collect questionnaires offline. Therefore, the final version of the questionnaire was distributed online, powered by a widely used professional online questionnaire survey platform in China (www.wjx.cn, accessed on 1 March 2022) from 9 to 18 March 2022, and 1050 valid questionnaires were attained.

2.3. Sample Representation

The scale of this study is specific to the district and county scale to ensure the respondents were all from urban regions. The survey included 31 of 34 provincial administrative regions, 168 municipal administrations, as well as 379 district-level administrative units in China, except for Tibet, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. The sample covers an age range of all age groups. The age distribution conforms to a normal distribution, and the number of male respondents is a bit smaller than that of female respondents (

Table 1. Demographic information of respondents in the questionnaire (n = 1050).

Demographic Information	Type	Frequency
Age	Under 18	19
	18–24	452
	25–39	413
	40–59	149
	Over or equal to 60	17
Gender	Male	381
	Female	669
Marital status	Married	392
	Unmarried	658
Have children or not	Yes	392
	No	658
The highest degree currently enrolled	Primary School and below	1
	Junior High School	12
	Senior High school/Technical school	62
	College degree	56
	Bachelor’s degree	501
	Master’s degree and above	418
Monthly disposable income (RMB)	Less than 500	64
	500–1499	214
	1500–1999	222
	2000–3499	150
	3500–6999	194
	Above or equal to 7000	206

). Nearly 60% of the respondents were married. Over 20% of the respondents indicated that they had children who cannot move alone and needed to be accompanied to the UGS. Among the respondents, nearly 50% have a bachelor’s degree, and nearly 40% of respondents have a master’s degree or doctoral degree. A generally high level of education can help respondents understand the questionnaire better [39]. According to the standard of residents’ disposable income in the China Statistical Yearbook, residents with a monthly disposable income of no more than CNY 2000 are defined as low-income, while those with a monthly disposable income of more than CNY 2000 are defined as high-income. The number of high-income respondents is nearly equal to that of the low-income group.

2.4. Statistical Analysis and Test Methods

The reliability of the questionnaire was tested by the internal consistency coefficient Cronbach’s α. Cronbach’s α is formulated as follows:

$$\mathsf{\alpha }=\frac{K}{K-1}\left(1-\frac{\sum S_i^2}{S_x^2}\right)$$

(1)

where α is the reliability coefficient, K is the number of test questionnaires, $S_i^2$ is variation in scores for all subjects on the questionnaire, $S_x^2$ is the variance of the total score obtained by all subjects. If Cronbach’s α is greater than 0.8, it indicates good reliability of the questionnaire [40]. The Cronbach’s α value is 0.857 in this study; hence, the results of the questionnaire are capable of further analysis.

Descriptive statistical analysis methods, including mean value, standard error of the mean, median, plural, standard deviation, and variance, were used to explore the residents’ preferences for UGS types and the preference of residents for ES [18]. SEM was employed to clarify the correlation between the actual frequency and impact factors [41]. Additionally, the Pearson correlation coefficient and significance tests were applied to analyze the relationship between impact factors and ecological–social services; corresponding to the questionnaire is the relationship between the importance of various ES considered by residents and the factors affecting residents regarding UGS [18].

3. Results

3.1. Urban Residents’ Preference for Green Space Types

In this study, the ideal frequency of visits was employed to represent residents’ preferences for different types of UGS, and the actual frequency of visits was used to reflect the real situation of visiting UGS. The difference between the ideal and actual frequency indicated reaching residents’ preference for UGS. Residents’ preference for park green space is similar to plaza green space. To be specific, the ideal frequency of respondents going to park green space and plaza green space was mainly “1–3 times per week”, and the actual frequency of park and plaza green space was “less than once a month” (

Table 2. The actual frequency and ideal frequency that respondents go to the four types of urban green spaces. Ratings are as the illustration shows.

The Actual Frequency of Urban Green Space
	Park Green Space	Plaza Green Space	Attached Green Space	Regional Green Space
Mean value	2.51	2.57	3.54	2.11
Standard error of the mean	0.042	0.044	0.051	0.041
Median	2	2	4	2
Plural	1	1	4	1
Standard deviation	1.351	1.422	1.652	1.339
Variance	1.825	2.022	2.728	1.794
The ideal frequency of urban green space
Mean value	3.88	3.55	4.22	2.88
Standard error of the mean	0.04	0.041	0.046	0.038
Median	4	4	4	3
Plural	4	4	6	2
Standard deviation	1.282	1.318	1.483	1.246
Variance	1.643	1.737	2.199	1.551

Note: 1—less than once a month; 2—once a month; 3—once every two weeks; 4—1–3 times per week; 5—4–6 times per week; 6—every day.

).

In terms of attached green space, the actual frequency and the ideal frequency are the highest among all types of UGS. The ideal frequency of attached green space was mostly “everyday”, while the actual frequency was “1–3 times per week” (Table 2). It demonstrates that attached green space was the type of UGS most strongly preferred by residents. As for the ideal distance residents expected from the attached green space, the option of “within 300 m” was up to 52.9% (Figure 2A), which was much higher than any other type of UGS. It demonstrated that urban residents have the strongest preference for attached green space as attached green space is closest to residents and the actual distance “within 300 m” accounted for 38.6% (Figure 2B). Consequently, it was the most convenient UGS type for residents to enter (Figure 2C). The Pearson correlation coefficient between the actual frequency and level of convenience was 0.495 (p < 0.01).

The ideal frequency of respondents going to a regional green space was mostly “once a month”, and the actual frequency of regional green space was “less than once a month” (Table 2). The actual frequency of four UGS types is less than the ideal frequency, indicating that residents’ demand for UGS was not being met. Among them, attached green space is most preferred by residents.

3.2. Residents’ Preference for Ecological and Social Services

The most preferred ecological service by urban residents was beautifying the city, with 42.9% of the respondents considering it “very important” and more than 41.2% “important” (Figure 3A). The preference for beautifying the city has been growing with the increasing income and education level of residents. Due to the current deteriorating climate, severe environment, and prominently serious noise pollution in cities, 41.2%, 40.2%, 38.1%, and 37.1% of residents regarded climate regulation, noise pollution reduction, natural disaster mitigation, and biodiversity conservation as “important”, respectively [42,43,44]. The preference for obtaining flora and fauna by residents was not obvious, and the importance of this service is most chosen “general” by residents.

The most preferred social service by urban residents was physical and mental relaxation. The questionnaire showed that 43.3% of respondents considered physical and mental relaxation as “very important” (Figure 3B), much higher than any other social services. The percentages of outdoor recreation, exercise, spending time with family, natural education, and aesthetic appreciation considered “important” are 44.1%, 42.3%, 43.1%, 42.7%, and 46.3%, respectively. Among the five social services, aesthetic appreciation was most preferred by residents. Based on the preferences for ecological services, aesthetics-related ES of UGS are the most desired ES by residents. At social gatherings, less than 40% of residents consider them “important”, and 33.6% of respondents rated the importance of walking the dog as “general”.

The services that residents most want to contribute are close to the services they most strongly preferred. Among the ecological services, the services that residents are most and least willing to contribute are beautifying the city and obtaining flora and fauna. Further, 855 and 162 respondents are willing to do so, respectively (Figure 4). For social services, the services that residents are most and least willing to contribute are physical and mental relaxation and walking the dog: 872 and 372 respondents are willing to do so, respectively. According to the survey, up to 97.2% of the residents are willing to take different actions to protect UGS. The most popular behaviors to protect UGS among residents were providing time (participating in voluntary work) and conducting advocacy or activities.

3.3. The Factors Influencing Residents’ Preference

Residents’ preferences for UGS types and ecological–social services were influenced by plenty of factors. It was shown that “season” has the greatest impact on services (

Table 3. Factors affecting the ecological and social services. Orange means no correlation, green means correlation, and, the darker the green, the greater the correlation. *, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01.

	COVID-19	Accessibility	Reachability	Income	Season	Weather	Age	Physical Condition	Sufficient Time	Staying with Your Child
Climate regulation	0.072 *	0.094 **	0.137 **	−0.019	0.105 **	0.156 **	−0.037	0.045	0.098 **	0.019
Noise pollution reduction	0.061 *	0.080 **	0.126 **	0.025	0.087 **	0.135 **	−0.049	0.003	0.093 **	0.008
Biodiversity conservation	0.078 *	0.049	0.119 **	0.009	0.100 **	0.148 **	−0.022	0.017	0.078 *	0.018
Obtaining flora and fauna	−0.006	0.06	−0.003	0.177 **	0.071 *	−0.058	0.180 **	0.076 *	−0.072 *	0.111 **
Beautifying the city	0.092 **	0.063 *	0.105 **	−0.033	0.094 **	0.159 **	−0.017	0.03	0.141 **	0.055
Natural disaster mitigation	0.095 **	−0.018	0.062 *	0.062 *	0.117 **	0.079 **	−0.008	0.01	0.037	0.009
Outdoor recreation	0.061 *	0.064 *	0.116 **	−0.053	0.106 **	0.185 **	−0.047	0.027	0.129 **	0.056
Exercise	0.025	0.051	0.077 *	−0.02	0.091 **	0.155 **	−0.031	0.031	0.125 **	0.041
Physical and mental relaxation	0.055	0.065 *	0.101 **	−0.058	0.063 *	0.162 **	−0.098 **	−0.01	0.144 **	0.007
Spending time with family	0.042	0.041	0.101 **	−0.028	0.114 **	0.154 **	−0.037	−0.015	0.075 *	0.079 *
Walking the dog	0.001	0.070 *	0.084 **	0.124 **	0.112 **	0.054	0.092 **	0.077 *	0.065 *	0.022
Social gathering	0.058	0.06	0.074 *	0.105 **	0.138 **	0.111 **	0.082 **	0.072 *	0.094 **	0.082 **
Natural education	0.067 *	0.043	0.109 **	0.061 *	0.153 **	0.135 **	0.067 *	0.065 *	0.111 **	0.134 **
Aesthetic appreciation	0.070 *	0.052	0.089 **	0.051	0.114 **	0.132 **	0.004	0.052	0.140 **	0.065 *

), followed by “weather”, “reachability”, and “sufficient time”. The other driven factors had no striking impact on services. “Social gathering” was a highly susceptible service among the ES of UGS. Conversely, the service least likely to be impacted is “exercise”.

Significant discrepancies existed among the factors that affect residents’ access to different types of UGS. As the SEM showed, park green space was influenced by five factors (Figure 5). The two most influential factors of these were “age” and “sufficient time” (p < 0.001), followed by “reachability” (p < 0.01). In contrast, the least impact factors were “season” and “accompany children” (p < 0.05). Residents’ access to plaza green space was affected by four factors. Among the most influential were “age” and “sufficient time” (p < 0.001), followed by “weather” (p < 0.01) and “season” (p < 0.05). The least factors influencing residents’ visits to attached green spaces were “income” (p < 0.001) and “physical condition” (p < 0.05), and residents’ access to regional green space was affected by five factors. The greatest impact factors were “weather”, “age”, and “sufficient time” (p < 0.001). Next were “season” (p < 0.01) and “accompany children” (p < 0.05). Residents’ access to attached green space was least likely to be affected among the four types of UGS, which illustrated that residents’ preference for attached green space was not easily influenced. The two factors that most influence residents’ preference for UGS were “age” and “sufficient time”.

“Age” is one of the most important factors in residents’ preference for UGS because it significantly affects (p < 0.001) three green space types. For park and plaza green space, the most selected options of the actual and ideal frequency among urban residents are “less than once a month” and “1–3 times per week” basically for all ages (Figure 6). For regional green space, people aged 25–59 have the same preference, while a small difference was shown between those aged 18–24. Attached green space had the highest actual frequency and ideal frequency. For the 40–59 group, the frequency was “1–3 times per week”. As age decreased, the actual frequency of the 25–39 group was “1–3 times per week”, while the ideal frequency was “everyday”. The actual frequency of the 18–24 group to attached green space was lower than the ideal frequency. In conclusion, the type of green space most affected by “age” was attached green space, followed by regional green space, which essentially had no impact on park green space and plaza green space.

4. Discussion

4.1. The Difference in Residents’ Preference for UGS and Their Social–Ecological Services

Due to the great heterogeneity of UGS between regions, researchers pay different attention to their types. For example, research in Lithuania divided green space types into urban parks, urban gardens, urban green squares, and urban greeneries [18]; a study of twelve American cities divided green space types into parks, playgrounds, golf courses, country clubs, zoos, and cemeteries [45]. Most UGS types including the classification we use are divided on the basis of function and area, proving that the results of our study can be disseminated worldwide. Among the green space types, as protected green spaces are mostly located in dangerous areas (i.e., railroads, expressways) and are difficult for residents to approach [46], the questionnaire in this study did not take the protected green spaces into account. However, the essential role of protected green spaces in protecting the personal safety of residents cannot be ignored. In the event of the COVID-19 pandemic, the sanitary isolation functions of protected green spaces have been performing a prominent role [47,48]. Therefore, adequate attention should be paid to protected green space in future studies, especially in the post-COVID-19 epidemic era.

Of the four green space types mentioned in the survey, attached green space, which is the closest and most convenient to residents according to the result, was most preferred by urban residents. Therefore, attached green space is the type that future green space planning and construction should focus on. Beautifying the city and aesthetic appreciation are considered important ecological services and social services by the residents. The findings revealed that aesthetics-related ES are most preferred by urban residents among the ES provided by UGS. Similar results were also confirmed by Bo Chen in Hangzhou and P. James in Europe [49,50]. Consequently, the aesthetic value of UGS should be paid more attention to meet the demands of residents in future UGS planning. Enhancing the diversity of landscapes in UGS has been considered to be an effective way to promote the aesthetics of UGS [51], such as increasing plant diversity and water bodies cleaning, which are shown to increase residents’ satisfaction with the aesthetics of UGS [6].

In terms of residents’ preference for social services, physical and mental relaxation was favored by inhabitants the most. The results also verified the fact that UGS can be beneficial to the physical and mental health of residents [52,53]. During the period of COVID-19, people’s mental health has been greatly affected, and the positive role of UGS in people’s mental health cannot be ignored [54,55]. The preferred outdoor recreation and exercise services elucidate the importance of fitness equipment in UGS. Further, it is also worth noting residents’ preference for natural education. This shows that residents’ concern about the educational function of nature is on the rise [56]. Residents’ attention to climate regulation, noise pollution reduction, natural disaster mitigation, and biodiversity conservation can also support this view. Then, sites and facilities related to nature also need to be addressed in current and future UGS planning. The results also showed that the services residents most want to contribute are close to the services they most strongly preferred. Therefore, policymakers should fully utilize the initiative of residents and get them involved in the daily maintenance of UGS.

4.2. Influencing Factors of Residents’ Preference for UGS

One of the largest influencing factors of residents’ preference for UGS is “age”. Therefore, it is of great significance to adjust the management of UGS according to the age of residents based on China’s population aging phenomenon. Preference for UGS in the 40–59 age group should be emphasized in future UGS planning as this group is aging in the following decade. With the increasing aging of China’s population, socio-environmental justice for the elderly is being taken into much more consideration in UGS planning and construction [57]. Meanwhile, the findings of this study showed that the existing UGS are incapable to meet the demands of the over or equal to 60 and 40–59 age groups. The parks and plazas are not built-in sufficient numbers and are not evenly distributed [58]. The attached green space in the city is available to satisfy the needs of the aged 40–59 group. Although urban residents aged 40–59 do not have a high demand for regional green space, their demands are still unmet. In conclusion, great effort should be made to build park and plaza green space to better meet the needs of the elderly in the present and future. Moreover, it is necessary to construct regional green space, and the existing level of construction of attached green space ought to be maintained. In addition, facilities for the elderly in UGS are also indispensable; for example, the green belt setting between roads and the sidewalk cannot only green the urban space but also help improve road safety for pedestrians, especially elderly pedestrians [46]. In a nutshell, there is much work to be completed in planning and construction of UGS by policymakers and implementers.

Another major influencing factor of residents’ preference for UGS is “sufficient time”. China’s large population leads to a variety of stresses, especially in cities, including housing pressure and work pressure, so there is not sufficient time to travel to distant UGS in time after work [59]. The results also demonstrated that attached green space is the least susceptible type of UGS. Despite this, “income” has a significant impact on residents’ access to attached green space (Figure 5). Income status directly affects construction of attached green spaces in the vicinity of residential areas [34,60]. The income-driven disparity also suffers from a deeper lack of environmental justice and unequally distributed UGS [61,62]. Most of the attached green space is private and accessible to residents of the community. This phenomenon is particularly conspicuous during the COVID-19 pandemic period, which is not conducive to environmental justice [35,63]. Moreover, the interests of low-income groups and marginalized groups in future UGS planning, especially regarding attached green spaces, are to be a concern [64]. Methodologies improving the environmental justice of UGS proposed by scholars could offer a reference [65]. For example, non-governmental organizations play a huge role in achieving environmental justice, and this fact has been proven in California [58]. In addition to age, another factor that has less of an effect on attached green space is “physical condition”, and it only affects attached green space. The reason may be that residents in poor physical condition may be more likely to choose the attached green space that is closest to their home for activities, while the other three types farther away are not included in the activity range [66].

Finally, although the impact factor of COVID-19 on people’s preferences has not been as dramatic as we thought, its influence cannot be ignored. The results showed that there was no significant correlation between COVID-19 and residents’ preference for different types of UGS. This is probably because of the particularity of the sampling time. During the period when the questionnaire was collected, the COVID-19 pandemic was not serious in China, and there was no large-scale lockdown policy that would affect residents’ access to UGS [67]. The COVID-19 epidemic and related lockdown policies have a huge impact on people’s travel [68]. However, studies have found that residents prefer to go to UGS rather than recreational places and workplaces during the COVID-19 pandemic [69,70]. The impact of COVID-19 on residents’ travel to UGS depends on the intensity of the lockdown. Therefore, it is still crucial to strengthen construction of UGS during the COVID-19 pandemic [69].

4.3. Prospects and Future Research

Limitations exist in this research. First, the questionnaire had shortcomings at the collection stage. For instance, the sample was not evenly distributed, with significantly more female respondents than male respondents. Due to COVID-19, the questionnaire was distributed online. Although imbalance in online distribution was avoided as much as possible, there were still some limitations, such as the problem of spatial and age groups disequilibrium. Although such deviations are inevitable in questionnaires and ES studies [39], we expect to improve them in future studies.

Second, it was found that the understanding of the specific ecological and social services provided by UGS among respondents is not comprehensive, resulting in a high degree of similarity in some questionnaire results. Therefore, efforts should be made to disseminate knowledge and applications related to UGS and services to the public, helping residents to better understand the meaning of UGS. The popularization of ES is important to help residents better understand the meaning of UGS. In addition, due to the differentiation of environmental factors in different regions and different scales, there will be spatial differences in residents’ preferences for UGS types and their ES [71]. Spatialized preferences and social values can be evaluated in combination with models such as SolVES in further study, and a comparative study of different scales is also indispensable [72,73]. Additionally, it is also an important research direction in the future to use a variety of statistical analysis methods to study the preferences reflected by data samples from different angles and to use more refined scales to study the interior of UGS.

5. Conclusions

This paper constructed a framework to study urban residents’ preferences and driver factors for both considering the UGS types and their ecological–social services by using a web-based questionnaire. It effectively compensated for the lack of a classification of ES in UGS and UGS definitions. The results indicate that attached green space is most preferred by residents, and the two factors, income and physical condition, had an impact on entering attached green space for the residents. Park green space and regional green space are influenced by five factors, while plaza green space is affected by four factors. Age and sufficient time are the two factors that have the strongest impact on residents’ access to UGS. The most preferred ecological service and social services are beautifying the city and physical and mental relaxation, respectively. The services influenced by factors are less pronounced than the UGS types influenced by factors. “Season” has the most significant impact on ecological–social services.

Practical and useful policy recommendations are also proposed for future UGS planning and construction based on our study to contribute to offering a better living environment for urban residents. Building attached green space and enhancing UGS’ aesthetics-related ES are crucial in further actions. Additionally, as age is one of the most influential factors in residents’ visits to UGS, the demands of the elderly for UGS should be given priority. For the aging population, building more park green spaces and plaza green spaces is of vital importance. In addition to maintaining existing attached green spaces, it is also necessary to promote construction of regional green space. Future studies should continue to strengthen the spatial multi-scale UGS research and increase the average distribution of questionnaire samples as much as possible.