Residents’ Preference for Urban Green Space Types and Their Ecological-Social Services in China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Material and Methods
2.1. The Framework for Analyzing Residents’ Preference for UGS and Ecological–Social Services
2.2. Questionnaire Development and Data Collection
2.3. Sample Representation
2.4. Statistical Analysis and Test Methods
3. Results
3.1. Urban Residents’ Preference for Green Space Types
3.2. Residents’ Preference for Ecological and Social Services
3.3. The Factors Influencing Residents’ Preference
4. Discussion
4.1. The Difference in Residents’ Preference for UGS and Their Social–Ecological Services
4.2. Influencing Factors of Residents’ Preference for UGS
4.3. Prospects and Future Research
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
- Male
- Female
- Married
- Unmarried
- Yes
- No
- Professionals (such as teachers, accountants, lawyers, architects, medical professionals, journalists, etc.)
- Service workers
- Freelancers
- Workers
- Company employees
- Institutions, civil servants, government employees
- Full-time students
- Businessmen, employers, small businessmen, self-employed
- Farmers, fishermen, herdsmen, etc.
- Unemployed, unemployed
- Other _________________
- Primary School and below
- Junior High School
- Senior High school/Technical school
- College degree
- Bachelor’s degree
- Master’s degree and above
- Is a permanent resident of your current place of residence
- Admitted talent
- Relatives
- Have a relatively stable occupation or source of living (including job transfer, study, graduate employment, etc.)
- Residents with legal fixed residence
- Other _________________
- Less than 500 RMB
- 500–1499 RMB
- 1500–1999RMB
- 2000–3499 RMB
- 3500–6999 RMB
- More than 7000 RMB
- Basically no impact Little impact Average impact High impact Very high impact
- COVID-19 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Accessibility (e.g., entrance fees, reservations required, etc.) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Reachability (e.g., rugged roads, long distances, etc.) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Income ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Season ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Weather ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Age ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Physical condition ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Sufficient time ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Staying with your child ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Please read the description and answer the following questions:
- Park green space:
- Park green space is open to the public, with leisure and recreation as the main function and both ecological and social functions. It includes various comprehensive parks, amusement parks, zoos, and other special parks.
- Within 300 m 300 m–2000 m 2 km–5 km 5 km–10 km Over 10 km
- Actual distance ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Ideal distance ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Very inconvenient Inconvenient General Convenient Very convenient
- Level of convenience ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Less than once a month Once a month Once every two weeks 1–3 times per week 4–6 times per week Everyday
- Actual frequency ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Ideal frequency ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Completely unsatisfiable Mostly unsatisfiable Basically satisfied Mostly satisfied Completely satisfied
- Ecological demands ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Social demands ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Plaza green space:
- An urban public activity site with the functions of recreation, memorial, assembly, and shelter. The main difference with the park green space is that it is mainly impervious surface.
- Within 300 m 300 m–2000 m 2 km–5 km 5 km–10 km Over 10 km
- Actual distance ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Ideal distance ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Very inconvenient Inconvenient General Convenient Very convenient
- Level of convenience ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Less than once a month Once a month Once every two weeks 1–3 times per week 4–6 times per week Everyday
- Actual frequency ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Ideal frequency ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Completely unsatisfiable Mostly unsatisfiable Basically satisfied Mostly satisfied Completely satisfied
- Ecological demands ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Social demands ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Attached green space within a subdivision or work unit:
- The attached green space is attached to various types of urban construction land. Including residential land (green space in subdivisions, green space in schools), etc.
- Within 300 m 300 m–2000 m 2 km–5 km 5 km–10 km Over 10 km
- Actual distance ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Ideal distance ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Very inconvenient Inconvenient General Convenient Very convenient
- Level of convenience ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Less than once a month Once a month Once every two weeks 1–3 times per week 4–6 times per week Everyday
- Actual frequency ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Ideal frequency ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Completely unsatisfiable Mostly unsatisfiable Basically satisfied Mostly satisfied Completely satisfied
- Ecological demands ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Social demands ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Large-scale regional green space:
- Located outside the urban construction land (usually on the outskirts of the city) with urban and rural ecological environment and natural resources and cultural resources protection production and other functions of the green space. For example, scenic spots, forest parks, wetland parks, etc.
- Within 300 m 300 m–2000 m 2 km–5 km 5 km–10 km Over 10 km
- Actual distance ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Ideal distance ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Very inconvenient Inconvenient General Convenient Very convenient
- Level of convenience ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Less than once a month Once a month Once every two weeks 1–3 times per week 4–6 times per week Everyday
- Actual frequency ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Ideal frequency ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Completely unsatisfiable Mostly unsatisfiable Basically satisfied Mostly satisfied Completely satisfied
- Ecological demands ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Social demands ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Very unimportant Unimportant General Important Very important
- Climate regulation ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Noise pollution reduction ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Biodiversity conservation ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Obtaining flora and fauna ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Beautifying the city ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Natural disaster mitigation ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Very unimportant Unimportant General Important Very important
- Outdoor recreation ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Exercise ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Relaxation ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Spending time with family ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Pet Skating ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Social gathering ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Natural education ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Aesthetic appreciation ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
- Yes
- No (Please skip to question 33)
- Financial donation
- Additional taxation
- Provide time (participate in voluntary work)
- Conduct advocacy or activities
- Other _________________*
- Climate regulation
- Noise pollution reduction
- Biodiversity conservation
- Obtaining flora and fauna
- Beautifying the city
- Natural disaster mitigation
- Outdoor recreation
- Exercise
- Relaxation
- Spending time with family
- Pet Skating
- Social gathering
- Natural education
- Aesthetic appreciation
- [ ]
- Park green space
- [ ]
- Plaza green space
- [ ]
- Attached green space within a subdivision or work unit
- [ ]
- Large-scale regional green space
References
- Chen, M.; Liu, W.; Tao, X. Evolution and assessment on China’s urbanization 1960–2010: Under-urbanization or over-urbanization? Habitat Int. 2013, 38, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, M.; Liu, W.; Lu, D. Challenges and the way forward in China’s new-type urbanization. Land Use Policy 2016, 55, 334–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrus, G.; Scopelliti, M.; Lafortezza, R.; Colangelo, G.; Ferrini, F.; Salbitano, F.; Agrimi, M.; Portoghesi, L.; Semenzato, P.; Sanesi, G. Go greener, feel better? The positive effects of biodiversity on the well-being of individuals visiting urban and peri-urban green areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 134, 221–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- White, M.P.; Alcock, I.; Grellier, J.; Wheeler, B.W.; Hartig, T.; Warber, S.L.; Bone, A.; Depledge, M.H.; Fleming, L.E. Spending at least 120 minutes a week in nature is associated with good health and wellbeing. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 7730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sadeghi, A.R.; Jangjoo, S. Women’s preferences and urban space: Relationship between built environment and women’s presence in urban public spaces in Iran. Cities 2022, 126, 103694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, R.; Zhao, J.; Meitner, M.J.; Hu, Y.; Xu, X. Characteristics of urban green spaces in relation to aesthetic preference and stress recovery. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 41, 6–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teixeira, C.P.; Fernandes, C.O.; Ryan, R.; Ahern, J. Attitudes and preferences towards plants in urban green spaces: Implications for the design and management of Novel Urban Ecosystems. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 314, 115103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Peng, L.; Zhang, L.; Li, X.; Wang, Z.; Wang, H.; Jiao, L. Spatial expansion effects on urban ecosystem services supply-demand mismatching in Guanzhong Plain Urban Agglomeration of China. J. Geogr. Sci. 2022, 32, 806–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cortinovis, C.; Geneletti, D. Ecosystem services in urban plans: What is there, and what is still needed for better decisions. Land Use Policy 2018, 70, 298–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veerkamp, C.J.; Schipper, A.M.; Hedlund, K.; Lazarova, T.; Nordin, A.; Hanson, H.I. A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure. Ecosyst. Serv. 2021, 52, 101367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, O.Y.; Russo, A. Assessing the contribution of urban green spaces in green infrastructure strategy planning for urban ecosystem conditions and services. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 68, 102772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Zhang, L.; O’Connor, P.J.; Yan, J.; Wang, B.; Liu, D.L.; Wang, P.; Wang, Z.; Wan, L.; Li, Y. Ecosystem Services under Climate Change Impact Water Infrastructure in a Highly Forested Basin. Water 2020, 12, 2825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burkhard, B.; Kroll, F.; Nedkov, S.; Müller, F. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 21, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolff, S.; Schulp, C.J.E.; Verburg, P.H. Mapping ecosystem services demand: A review of current research and future perspectives. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 55, 159–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uehara, T.; Hidaka, T.; Tsuge, T.; Sakurai, R.; Cordier, M. An adaptive social-ecological system management matrix for guiding ecosystem service improvements. Ecosyst. Serv. 2021, 50, 101312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischer, L.K.; Honold, J.; Botzat, A.; Brinkmeyer, D.; Cvejić, R.; Delshammar, T.; Elands, B.; Haase, D.; Kabisch, N.; Karle, S.J.; et al. Recreational ecosystem services in European cities: Sociocultural and geographical contexts matter for park use. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 31, 455–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Misiune, I.; Julian, J.P.; Veteikis, D. Pull and push factors for use of urban green spaces and priorities for their ecosystem services: Case study of Vilnius, Lithuania. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 58, 126899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Chen, S.; Yao, S.M. New Thought of the Research on the Function of Green Space in Urban Planning. Geogr. Geo-Inf. Sci. 2004, 20, 99–103. [Google Scholar]
- Gui, K.P.; Xu, J.G.; Zhang, X. Optimization of urban green space spatial arrangement based on supply-demand analysis: A case study in Nanjing City, China. J. Appl. Ecol. 2013, 24, 1215–1223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lepczyk, C.A.; Aronson, M.F.J.; Evans, K.L.; Goddard, M.A.; Lerman, S.B.; MacIvor, J.S. Biodiversity in the City: Fundamental Questions for Understanding the Ecology of Urban Green Spaces for Biodiversity Conservation. BioScience 2017, 67, 799–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, X.; Lei, S.; Feng, J.; Wen, Y.L. Assessing the value of cultural ecosystem services in urban green space of Beijing. J. Arid Land Resour. Environ. 2019, 33, 33–39. [Google Scholar]
- Jaung, W.; Carrasco, L.R.; Shaikh, S.F.E.A.; Tan, P.Y.; Richards, D.R. Temperature and air pollution reductions by urban green spaces are highly valued in a tropical city-state. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 55, 126827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richardson, E.A.; Pearce, J.; Mitchell, R.; Kingham, S. Role of physical activity in the relationship between urban green space and health. Public Health 2013, 127, 318–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Wolsink, M. ‘Sustainable City’ requires ‘recognition’—The example of environmental education under pressure from the compact city. Land Use Policy 2016, 52, 174–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dang, H.; Li, J. The integration of urban streetscapes provides the possibility to fully quantify the ecological landscape of urban green spaces: A case study of Xi’an city. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 133, 108388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ha, J.; Kim, H.J.; With, K.A. Urban green space alone is not enough: A landscape analysis linking the spatial distribution of urban green space to mental health in the city of Chicago. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2022, 218, 104309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahn, J.J.; Kim, Y.; Lucio, J.; Corley, E.A.; Bentley, M. Green spaces and heterogeneous social groups in the U.S. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 49, 126637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Urban Green Space Classification Standards. Available online: www.mohurd.gov.cn (accessed on 1 March 2022).
- Urban Green Space Planning Standards. Available online: www.mohurd.gov.cn (accessed on 1 March 2022).
- Cho, D.-c.; Shin, D.B. Development of general purpose model for park and green space management system in South Korea. Spat. Inf. Res. 2017, 25, 593–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pearsall, H.; Eller, J.K. Locating the green space paradox: A study of gentrification and public green space accessibility in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 195, 103708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliveira, I.F.; Lion, M.B.; Cardoso, M.Z. A plaza too far: High contrast in butterfly biodiversity patterns between plazas and an urban reserve in Brazil. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 180, 207–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, J.; Bao, Y.J.; Jin, C.; Li, X.M.; Li, Y.H. The Impact of Urban Green Space Accessibility on House Prices in Dalian City. Sci. Geogr. Sin. 2018, 38, 1952–1960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venter, Z.S.; Barton, D.N.; Gundersen, V.; Figari, H.; Nowell, M. Urban nature in a time of crisis: Recreational use of green space increases during the COVID-19 outbreak in Oslo, Norway. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020, 15, 104075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huai, S.; Van de Voorde, T. Which environmental features contribute to positive and negative perceptions of urban parks? A cross-cultural comparison using online reviews and Natural Language Processing methods. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2022, 218, 104307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hou, Y.; Qu, Y.; Zhao, Z.; Shen, J.; Wen, Y. Residents’ Spatial Image Perception of Urban Green Space through Cognitive Mapping: The Case of Beijing, China. Forests 2021, 12, 1614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, P.; Han, L.; Mei, R. An Impact Asymmetry Analysis of Small Urban Green Space Attributes to Enhance Visitor Satisfaction. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 2922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, K.; Tang, X.; Zhao, Y.; Huang, B.; Huang, L.; Liu, M.; Luo, E.; Li, Y.; Jiang, T.; Zhang, L.; et al. Differing perceptions of the youth and the elderly regarding cultural ecosystem services in urban parks: An exploration of the tour experience. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 821, 153388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Gu, Z.L.; Mei, H. Tourist Attraction Customer Satisfaction Index Model. Acta Geogr. Sin. 2005, 60, 807–816. [Google Scholar]
- Li, H.; Browning, M.; Cao, Y.; Zhang, G. From Childhood Residential Green space to Adult Mental Wellbeing: A Pathway Analysis among Chinese Adults. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kabisch, N.; Haase, D. Green spaces of European cities revisited for 1990–2006. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 110, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castán Broto, V.; Robin, E. Climate urbanism as critical urban theory. Urban Geogr. 2020, 42, 715–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, M.; Khan, Z.; Anser, M.K.; Jabeen, G. Do rural-urban migration and industrial agglomeration mitigate the environmental degradation across China’s regional development levels? Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 679–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jimenez, M.P.; Wellenius, G.A.; James, P.; Subramanian, S.V.; Buka, S.; Eaton, C.; Gilman, S.E.; Loucks, E.B. Associations of types of green space across the life-course with blood pressure and body mass index. Environ. Res. 2020, 185, 109411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lv, M.; Wang, N.; Yao, S.; Wu, J.; Fang, L. Towards Healthy Aging: Influence of the Built Environment on Elderly Pedestrian Safety at the Micro-Level. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 9534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Okech, E.A.; Nyadera, I.N. Urban green spaces in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic: Reflections from Nairobi, Kenya. GeoJournal 2022, 87, 4931–4945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Johnson, T.F.; Hordley, L.A.; Greenwell, M.P.; Evans, L.C. Associations between COVID-19 transmission rates, park use, and landscape structure. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 789, 148123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chen, B.; Adimo, O.A.; Bao, Z. Assessment of aesthetic quality and multiple functions of urban green space from the users’ perspective: The case of Hangzhou Flower Garden, China. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 93, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- James, P.; Tzoulas, K.; Adams, M.D.; Barber, A.; Box, J.; Breuste, J.; Elmqvist, T.; Frith, M.; Gordon, C.; Greening, K.L.; et al. Towards an integrated understanding of green space in the European built environment. Urban For. Urban Green. 2009, 8, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, B.; Hauer, R.J.; Xu, C. Effects of Design Proportion and Distribution of Color in Urban and Suburban Green Space Planning to Visual Aesthetics Quality. Forests 2020, 11, 278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Qiao, Y.; Chen, Z.; Chen, Y.; Zheng, T. Deciphering the Link Between Mental Health and Green Space in Shenzhen, China: The Mediating Impact of Residents’ Satisfaction. Front. Public Health 2021, 9, 561809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, J.; Wang, F.; Chen, L.; Zhang, W. Perceived urban green and residents’ health in Beijing. SSM Popul. Health 2021, 14, 100790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faisal, R.A.; Jobe, M.C.; Ahmed, O.; Sharker, T. Mental Health Status, Anxiety, and Depression Levels of Bangladeshi University Students during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Ment. Health Addict. 2022, 20, 1500–1515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pouso, S.; Borja, A.; Fleming, L.E.; Gomez-Baggethun, E.; White, M.P.; Uyarra, M.C. Contact with blue-green spaces during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown beneficial for mental health. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 756, 143984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Perez-Lopez, R.; Eugenio-Gozalbo, M.; Edgerton, E.; Aragones, J.I. Editorial: Sustainable and Environmentally Concerned Citizens: Garden-Based Learning to Promote the Importance of Physical, Natural, and Social Resources. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 703057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Enssle, F.; Kabisch, N. Urban green spaces for the social interaction, health and well-being of older people—An integrated view of urban ecosystem services and socio-environmental justice. Environ. Sci. Policy 2020, 109, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rigolon, A.; Gibson, S. The role of non-governmental organizations in achieving environmental justice for green and blue spaces. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2021, 205, 103970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhan, D.; Kwan, M.-P.; Zhang, W.; Chen, L.; Dang, Y. The impact of housing pressure on subjective well-being in urban China. Habitat Int. 2022, 127, 102639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, X.; Zhang, X.; Wang, H.; Zhi, X.; Huang, J. Assessing Green Space Potential Accessibility through Urban Artificial Building Data in Nanjing, China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolch, J.R.; Byrne, J.; Newell, J.P. Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 125, 234–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Venter, Z.S.; Shackleton, C.M.; Van Staden, F.; Selomane, O.; Masterson, V.A. Green Apartheid: Urban green infrastructure remains unequally distributed across income and race geographies in South Africa. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 203, 103889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pipitone, J.M.; Jović, S. Urban green equity and COVID-19: Effects on park use and sense of belonging in New York City. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 65, 127338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calderón-Argelich, A.; Benetti, S.; Anguelovski, I.; Connolly, J.J.T.; Langemeyer, J.; Baró, F. Tracing and building up environmental justice considerations in the urban ecosystem service literature: A systematic review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2021, 214, 104130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, Y.-Y.; Hawken, S.; Sepasgozar, S.; Lin, Z.-H. Beyond the Backyard: GIS Analysis of Public Green Space Accessibility in Australian Metropolitan Areas. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.; Dai, X.; Wu, J.; Wu, X.; Nie, X. Influence of urban green open space on residents’ physical activity in China. BMC Public Health 2019, 19, 1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Burnett, H.; Olsen, J.R.; Nicholls, N.; Mitchell, R. Change in time spent visiting and experiences of green space following restrictions on movement during the COVID-19 pandemic: A nationally representative cross-sectional study of UK adults. BMJ Open 2021, 11, e044067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xi, J.; Liu, X.; Wang, J.; Yao, L.; Zhou, C. A Systematic Review of COVID-19 Geographical Research: Machine Learning and Bibliometric Approach. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 2022, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venter, Z.S.; Barton, D.N.; Gundersen, V.; Figari, H.; Nowell, M.S. Back to nature: Norwegians sustain increased recreational use of urban green space months after the COVID-19 outbreak. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2021, 214, 104175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhai, W.; Liu, M.; Peng, Z.-R. Social distancing and inequality in the United States amid COVID-19 outbreak. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 2020, 53, 3–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, L.; Zheng, Y.; Ma, S. Links of urban green space on environmental satisfaction: A spatial and temporarily varying approach. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sherrouse, B.C.; Semmens, D.J.; Ancona, Z.H. Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES): Open-source spatial modeling of cultural services. Environ. Model. Softw. 2022, 148, 105259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Tan, P.Y. Associations between Urban Green Spaces and Health are Dependent on the Analytical Scale and How Urban Green Spaces are Measured. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
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 |
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 |
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 * |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhao, W.; Zhang, L.; Li, X.; Peng, L.; Wang, P.; Wang, Z.; Jiao, L.; Wang, H. Residents’ Preference for Urban Green Space Types and Their Ecological-Social Services in China. Land 2022, 11, 2239. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11122239
Zhao W, Zhang L, Li X, Peng L, Wang P, Wang Z, Jiao L, Wang H. Residents’ Preference for Urban Green Space Types and Their Ecological-Social Services in China. Land. 2022; 11(12):2239. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11122239
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhao, Wudong, Liwei Zhang, Xupu Li, Lixian Peng, Pengtao Wang, Zhuangzhuang Wang, Lei Jiao, and Hao Wang. 2022. "Residents’ Preference for Urban Green Space Types and Their Ecological-Social Services in China" Land 11, no. 12: 2239. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11122239