A Study on the Public Perception of Sports Spaces Under Urban Overpasses from the Perspective of Age Differences
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Research Object
2.2. Research Methods
2.2.1. Establishment of an Evaluation System
2.2.2. Data Collection Method
2.2.3. Importance–Satisfaction Analysis (ISA)
3. Results
3.1. Spatial Usage and Differences Among User Groups
3.2. Importance–Satisfaction Evaluation and Differences in Perception of Lowline Park Elements Across Age Groups
3.2.1. Overall Importance–Satisfaction Analysis of Users
3.2.2. Importance–Satisfaction Evaluation for the Children’s Group
3.2.3. Importance–Satisfaction Evaluation for the Youth Group
3.2.4. Importance–Satisfaction Evaluation for the Middle-Aged Group
3.2.5. Importance–Satisfaction Evaluation for the Elderly Group
3.2.6. Comparative Analysis of Importance–Satisfaction Evaluations Across Age Groups
3.3. Usage Needs and Differences Across Age Groups
4. Discussion
4.1. Analysis of the Reasons for Perceptual Differences Among the Four Groups
4.2. Optimization Strategies for Under-Bridge Parks Based on Age-Specific Needs
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Beijing Municipal Commission of Planning and Natural Resources. Design Guidelines for Space Utilization Under Bridges in Beijing; Beijing Municipal Commission of Planning and Natural Resources: Beijing, China, 2022.
- People’s Publishing House. The 14th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development of the People’s Republic of China and the Long-Range Objectives Through the Year 2035; People’s Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2021; ISBN 978-7-01-023255-3. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, S.; Wang, J.; Zhao, D.; Rong, J. Research on Under-Bridge and Its Public Demand Evaluation in Mega City Based on Multi-Source Data: A Case Study of Beijing. J. Hum. Settl. West. China 2023, 38, 87–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaki, S.H.; Haggag, A.G.; Selim, A.M. Novel Criteria for Sustainable Use of Urban Spaces under Bridges in Cities by Applying DEMATEL Technique. Int. J. Urban Sustain. Dev. 2023, 15, 299–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adams, A.K.; Harvey, H.; Brown, D. Constructs of Health and Environment Inform Child Obesity Prevention in American Indian Communities. Obesity 2008, 16, 311–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lak, A.; Amiri, N.; Aghamolaei, R. Urban Elevated Highways in Residential Districts: New Developed Elevated Highways from Residents’ Perspectives. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2022, 148, 05022006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarhan, Y.; Elfouly, H. Constructing an Analytical-Based Model for User Satisfaction towards under-Bridge Spaces within the Egyptian Urban Fabric. Civ. Eng. Arch. 2023, 11, 948–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nunma, P.; Kanki, K. Playing under the Flyover in Bangkok from the Children’s Point of View. J. Asian Arch. Build. Eng. 2021, 21, 865–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, X. Research on Subjective Evaluation Methods of the Built Environment; Southeast University Press: Nanjing, China, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Li, Q. A Study on the Properties of Public Space with the Orientation of Social Cohesion in Residential Area: Two Cases of Chuangzhifang and Caoyangyicun in Shanghai. Urban. Plan. Forum 2014, 04, 88–97. [Google Scholar]
- Cheng, X.; Liu, Z.; Wang, X. Effects of Neighborhood-Scale Public Spaces on Social Cohesion in the Context of Home-Work Separation: The Case of Beijing. Urban. Dev. Stud. 2019, 26, 28–36, 45. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, G.; Lin, Y. Research on Comprehensive Assessment of Public Space in Huangpu River Waterfront Area. City Plan. Rev. 2020, 44, 62–73. [Google Scholar]
- Yan, S.; Zheng, X. Promotes Physical and Mental Health: The Impact of Community Public Space on Social Cohesion. Urban Dev. Stud. 2021, 28, 117–124. [Google Scholar]
- Abdulmunem, S.A.; Shok, M.E.; Al-Hussaini, Z.I.H.; Alkinani, A.S. Multigenerational Urban Design: Creating Urban Spaces That Support Active Aging and Intergenerational Interaction. Planning 2024, 19, 3737–3747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhong, S.; Lee, C.; Foster, M.J.; Bian, J. Intergenerational Communities: A Systematic Literature Review of Intergenerational Interactions and Older Adults’ Health-Related Outcomes. Soc. Sci. Med. 2020, 264, 113374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pazit, L.; Bronwyn, L.; Dreher, S.; Sze-Ee, S.; Dow, B.; Batchelor, F.; Hill, K.D. Multigenerational Spaces: The Usage and Activities of Different Age Groups within Six Community Parks in Victoria, Australia. J. Public Health 2024, 46, 403–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veitch, J.; Salmon, J.; Ball, K. Children’s Active Free Play in Local Neighborhoods: A Behavioral Mapping Study. Health Educ. Res. 2008, 23, 870–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sundevall, E.P.; Jansson, M. Inclusive Parks across Ages: Multifunction and Urban Open Space Management for Children, Adolescents, and the Elderly. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 9357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindberg, M.; Schipperijn, J. Active Use of Urban Park Facilities–Expectations versus Reality. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 909–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veitch, J.; Bagley, S.; Ball, K.; Salmon, J. Where Do Children Usually Play? A Qualitative Study of Parents’ Perceptions of Influences on Children’s Active Free-Play. Health Place 2006, 12, 383–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reichert, F.F.; Barros, A.J.D.; Domingues, M.R.; Hallal, P.C. The Role of Perceived Personal Barriers to Engagement in Leisure-Time Physical Activity. Am. J. Public Health 2007, 97, 515–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tucker, P.; Gilliland, J.; Irwin, J.D. Splashpads, Swings, and Shade: Parents’ Preferences for Neighbourhood Parks. Can. J. Public Health 2007, 98, 198–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nordström, M. Children’s Views on Child-Friendly Environments in Different Geographical, Cultural and Social Neighbourhoods. Urban Stud. 2010, 47, 514–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mak, B.K.L.; Jim, C.Y. Linking Park Users’ Socio-Demographic Characteristics and Visit-Related Preferences to Improve Urban Parks. Cities 2019, 92, 97–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jessica, F.; Thea, F.; Heather, M.; Sims-Gould, J. Therapeutic Landscapes and Wellbeing in Later Life: Impacts of Blue and Green Spaces for Older Adults. Health Place 2015, 34, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bath, P.A.; Deeg, D. Social Engagement and Health Outcomes among Older People: Introduction to a Special Section. Eur. J. Ageing 2005, 2, 24–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vaughan, M.; Lavalley, M.P.; Alheresh, R.; Keysor, J.J. Which Features of the Environment Impact Community Participation of Older Adults? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Aging Health 2016, 28, 957–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clarke, P.; Gallagher, N.A. Optimizing Mobility in Later Life: The Role of the Urban Built Environment for Older Adults Aging in Place. J. Urban Health 2013, 90, 997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hemingway, A.; Jack, E. Reducing Social Isolation and Promoting Well Being in Older People. Qual. Ageing Older Adults 2013, 14, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Day, R. Local Environments and Older People’s Health: Dimensions from a Comparative Qualitative Study in Scotland. Health Place 2008, 14, 299–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, S.; Xia, X.; Wu, W.; Zhou, J. Research on the Leisure Environment of Resettlement Community from the Perspective of Age Difference—A Case of Ningbo Jiuqu Community. Urban. Archit. 2021, 18, 59–63. [Google Scholar]
- Wong, K.K. Urban Park Visiting Habits and Leisure Activities of Residents in Hong Kong, China. Manag. Leis. 2009, 14, 125–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhai, Y.; Wu, C. Identification of Major Factors Influencing Overall Satisfaction in Urban Parks—Analysis Based on Users from Different Age Groups. Landsc. Archit. 2021, 28, 57–62. [Google Scholar]
- Li, X. Inclusive Design: Public Space Renewal Strategy for the Targets of Community for All Ages. Urban Dev. Stud. 2019, 27, 27–31. [Google Scholar]
- Moore, A.; Lynch, H. Accessibility and Usability of Playground Environments for Children under 12: A Scoping Review. Scand. J. Occup. Ther. 2015, 22, 331–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rivera, E.; Timperio, A.; Loh, V.H.Y.; Deforche, B.; Veitch, J. Critical Factors Influencing Adolescents’ Active and Social Park Use: A Qualitative Study Using Walk-along Interviews. Urban For. Urban Green 2021, 58, 126948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liao, Y. Research on Integrated Planning Path of Community Public Service Facilities from the Perspective of Intergenerational Integration; Shenzhen University: Shenzhen, China, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Maslow, A.; Lewis, K.J. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs; Salenger Incorporated: New York, NY, USA, 1987; Volume 14.17. [Google Scholar]
- Yao, Y. Evaluation of Chinese Cities’ Walkability. Urban Transp. China 2019, 17, 85–88, 126. [Google Scholar]
- Gehl, J. Livet Mellem Husene, Udeaktiviteter Og Udemiljøer; China Architecture & Building Press: Beijing, China, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Rancière, J. The Aesthetic Dimension: Aesthetics, Politics, Knowledge. Crit. Inq. 2009, 36, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, Y. Research on the Evaluation of Outdoor Activity Spaces for Community Children from a Health Perspective; Qingdao University of Technology: Qingdao, China, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, G. Research on Micro Renewal Strategy of Public Space in Wuhan Old Residential Area Based on Resilience Evaluation; Huazhong Agricultural University: Wuhan, China, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, H.; Jiang, D. Evaluation System Research on Vitality of Urban Public Space. J. Railw. Sci. Eng. 2012, 9, 56–60. [Google Scholar]
- Zou, X. Research on the Construction and Optimal Design of the Aging Evaluation System of Community Parks; Chengdu University of Technology: Chengdu, China, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Dou, Y. Research on Sustainable Aging-Friendly Renewal Methods for Public Spaces in Existing Residential Areas. Master’s Thesis, Southeast University, Nanjing, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Lamola, A.A.; Yamane, T. Sensitized Photodimerization of Thymine in DNA. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1967, 58, 443–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martilla, J.; James, J. Importance-Performance Analysis. J. Mark. 1977, 41, 77–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buchan, D.S.; Ollis, S.; Thomas, N.E.; Baker, J.S. Physical Activity Behaviour: An Overview of Current and Emergent Theoretical Practices. J. Obes. 2012, 2012, 546459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, T. Sense of Security: Its Educational Implication and Implementation. Educ. Res. 2016, 37, 50–56, 77. [Google Scholar]
- van Kamp, I.; Davies, H. Noise and Health in Vulnerable Groups: A Review. Noise Health 2013, 15, 153–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Huang, Z.; Yang, L. Discussion on The Application of the Design of Environmental Colour in the Children Activity Area. J. Henan For. Sci. Technol. 2010, 30, 21–23+33. [Google Scholar]
- Li, X.; Tan, S.; Dai, Y. Research on Urban Public Space and Planning Strategy for Promoting the Communication Between People. Archit. Cult. 2017, 06, 230–231. [Google Scholar]
- Cabello-Manrique, D.; Lorente, J.A.; Padial-Ruz, R.; Puga-González, E. Play Badminton Forever: A Systematic Review of Health Benefits. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 9077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pugliese, J.; Tinsley, B. Parental Socialization of Child and Adolescent Physical Activity: A Meta-Analysis. J. Fam. Psychol. 2007, 21, 331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaw, S.M.; Dawson, D. Purposive Leisure: Examining Parental Discourses on Family Activities. Leis. Sci. 2001, 23, 37–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Head, D.; Isom, M. Age Effects on Wayfinding and Route Learning Skills. Behav. Brain Res. 2010, 209, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veitch, J.; Salmon, J.; Crawford, D.; Abbott, G.; Giles-Corti, B.; Carver, A.; Timperio, A. The REVAMP Natural Experiment Study: The Impact of a Play-Scape Installation on Park Visitation and Park-Based Physical Activity. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2018, 15, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kavanagh, J.J.; Barrett, R.S.; Morrison, S. Age-Related Differences in Head and Trunk Coordination during Walking. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2005, 24, 574–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Imms, F.J.; Edholm, O.G. Studies of Gait and Mobility in the Elderly. Age Ageing 1981, 10, 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wright, R.E. Aging, Divided Attention, and Processing Capacity. J. Gerontol. 1981, 36, 605–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nicholson, N.R. A Review of Social Isolation: An Important but Underassessed Condition in Older Adults. J. Prim. Prev. 2012, 33, 137–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Townsend, B.G.; Chen, J.T.H.; Wuthrich, V.M. Barriers and Facilitators to Social Participation in Older Adults: A Systematic Literature Review. Clin. Gerontol. 2021, 44, 359–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fardanesh, A.; Zeraatkish, Y. An Investigation on the Promenade Value of Javanmardan Park in Tehran, Using Contingent Valuation Method (CVM). Int. Bus. Manag. 2016, 10, 1639–1641. [Google Scholar]
- Membrebe, Z.O.; Santos, A.J.G.; Valeroso, J.C.C.; Ancheta, A.A. Urban Forest Park as Eco-Space for Liveable City: Arroceros Forest Park, Manila, Philippines. Int. J. Real Estate Stud. 2017, 11, 23–34. [Google Scholar]
Criterion Level | Indicator Level | Perception of Indicator Level |
---|---|---|
Accessibility | 1. Convenience of Crossing Roads to Access the Park [42] | The convenience for pedestrians crossing roads from surrounding streets to access the park, including the availability of sufficient safety features for crossing (e.g., crosswalks, traffic lights) and whether the design of crossing paths is reasonable (e.g., appropriate timing of traffic lights, adequate distance, location, and number of crosswalks). |
2. Convenience of Entrance Locations [43] | Whether the geographical distribution of park entrances is reasonable, positioned in high-traffic or easily accessible areas to allow for convenient and quick entry and exit. | |
3. Number of Park Entrances [43] | Whether the total number of park entrances is sufficient to minimize detours, allowing visitors to choose the nearest entrance based on their location or preference. | |
4. Visual Recognition of Park Entrances [43,44] | Whether entrances have clear signage or directional markers that allow pedestrians to easily identify entrance locations, ensuring they can smoothly find their way into the park. | |
5. Connectivity Between Different Functional Areas within the Park [43,45] | The ease of moving between different functional areas within the park, including whether there are convenient pathways and adequate signage that enable people to navigate smoothly between zones. | |
6. Number of Nearby Bus Stops [44] | Whether there is a sufficient number of nearby bus stops to ensure high connectivity between the park and public transportation, making it easy for visitors without private vehicles to reach and leave the park by bus. | |
7. Location Distribution of Nearby Bus Stops [44] | Whether the locations of bus stops are reasonably distributed in relation to the park entrances. Conveniently located stops can provide easy connections for park visitors, allowing them to quickly walk to the park entrance after disembarking, thus enhancing the park’s accessibility for public transportation users. | |
Safety | 8. Security Management in the Park [45] | Whether there are adequate security personnel, patrol frequency, and monitoring measures in place to ensure visitor safety in the park, and if current management practices effectively prevent criminal activity. |
9. Safety of Surrounding Traffic for Pedestrians and Non-Motorized Vehicles [45] | Condition of surrounding roads, including vehicle speed, traffic volume, signage, pedestrian crossings (traffic lights, crosswalks), and designated pathways for pedestrians and non-motorized vehicles to avoid conflicts with motor vehicles. | |
10. Lighting Conditions in the Park [44,45] | Adequacy and brightness of lighting installations (especially at night), ensuring visitors can clearly see paths to avoid safety issues from insufficient lighting or glare; assessment of areas lacking lighting or where lighting is overly bright. | |
11. Condition of Sports Facilities [44] | Maintenance and usability of sports facilities in the park (e.g., tables and courts); whether they are in good condition, conveniently accessible, and adequately maintained to reduce accident risks for users. | |
12. Safety of Internal Facilities [42,44] | Design, structural stability, and regular maintenance of internal facilities, such as benches, railings, and children’s play equipment, with warning signs around damaged items to prevent injuries due to facility failure. | |
13. Overall Safety of Internal Park Areas [42,44] | General safety conditions of different areas within the park, including pathway smoothness, anti-slip treatment, absence of hazardous terrain, and clear surfaces free from debris or trash that could cause visitors to slip or fall. | |
Comfort | 14. Sound Environment in the Park [44] | Whether there is noise in the park that disturbs visitors’ activities. |
15. Air Quality in the Park [44] | Whether the air quality in the park is good, free from unpleasant odors or pollution, ensuring a healthy and comfortable experience for visitors. | |
16. Distribution of Activity Areas [46] | Whether the placement of various activity areas is reasonable, such as quiet areas being separated from lively ones, and whether the layout is convenient for visitors to find desired areas without interference. Presence of clear signage or landmarks. | |
17. Number of Activity Areas [46] | Whether the number of activity areas is sufficient to meet the needs of visitors of different ages and interests, providing enough space for people to enjoy activities without overcrowding. | |
18. Size of Activity Areas [46] | Whether the size of activity areas is spacious enough to accommodate the expected number of users, avoiding overcrowding and ensuring comfort. | |
19. Accessibility Facilities [45,46] | Availability and adequacy of accessibility facilities, such as ramps at entrances, clear signage for accessible paths, tactile paving, non-slip pathways, accessible seating, handrails, accessible restrooms, and activity facilities for those with mobility limitations (e.g., wheelchair users and the elderly). | |
20. Placement of Garbage Bins and Seating [46] | Whether garbage bins and seating are sufficient, well located, well maintained, easily accessible, and do not obstruct walking paths or other activities, helping maintain cleanliness and provide resting areas. | |
21. Placement of Bookstores and Restrooms [45,46] | Ease of locating bookstores and restrooms within the park, with adequate capacity, good maintenance, and convenient access without interfering with other activity areas. | |
Aesthetics | 22. Aesthetic Quality of Plant Landscape Design [45] | Whether the arrangement of plants in the park is visually appealing and well maintained, including the variety of plant species, seasonal color changes, layering, and overall harmony of plant layouts. |
23. Aesthetic Quality of Pathway Paving [45] | Whether the park’s ground surfaces are attractive; whether the paving materials, patterns, and color combinations of park pathways harmonize with the environment, creating a visually appealing appearance. | |
24. Aesthetic Quality of Color Coordination in the Park [42,45] | Whether the color coordination of the overall park landscape is harmonious and pleasing, including the colors of the ground, walls, fences, bridge pillars, lighting, plants, facilities, and decorations, enhancing the visitors’ visual experience. | |
25. Aesthetic Quality of Landscape Features and Structures [42,45] | Whether the appearance of sculptures, lighting fixtures, seating, and other structures in the park is attractive and well-coordinated with the surroundings, including the design aesthetics of landscape elements (e.g., sculptures and water features). | |
Cultural Relevance | 26. Reflection of Jinan’s Historical and Cultural Characteristics in the Park [44] | Whether the design and layout of the park incorporate elements of Jinan’s history and cultural identity, including traditional architectural styles, statues of historical figures, cultural symbols, and local plants. This also includes decorative items related to historical and cultural characteristics, such as sculptures, slogans, and murals, and whether cultural events are held within the park. |
Population Category | Age Group | Characteristics |
---|---|---|
Children and adolescents | 5–18 years * | This group is in a stage of physical growth, developing cognitive abilities, and learning foundational knowledge. Most individuals in this group are students and have not yet entered society independently. |
Youth | 19–35 years | This group is in the stage of learning professional skills, building social connections, and integrating into society. Most individuals in this stage complete the transition from family roles to social roles. |
Middle-aged | 36–60 years | This group is in the stage of building families and advancing careers. Most individuals carry responsibilities for both family and society at this stage, and they pay attention to the education of their children and the care of their parents. |
Elderly | 60 years and above | This group experiences a decline in physiological functions. Most individuals in this stage focus less on career development and are more involved in family and social activities. |
Survey Period | Duration | Survey Type | Number of Participants | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Children | Youth | Middle-Aged | Elderly | Total | ||||
First Survey (Pre-survey) | October 2022 | 4 days | Interview | / | / | / | / | 50 |
Second Survey (Pre-survey) | November 2022 | 6 days | Questionnaire | 16 | 19 | 11 | 6 | 52 |
Interview | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 20 | |||
Third Survey (Formal Survey) | March–April 2023 | 9 days | Questionnaire | 38 | 37 | 17 | 17 | 109 |
Time | Users | Activities | Location |
---|---|---|---|
Before 8:00 | Elderly | Morning exercise | gateball courts, performance plaza |
8:00–12:00 | Elderly | Diabolo, gateball, ping pong, musical performance | gateball courts, performance plaza, ping pong court |
Children | Basketball, reading, skateboarding, games | street basketball court, 24 h urban library, skate park, gateball courts | |
12:00–15:00 | Youth | Basketball, football, badminton, skateboarding, reading | street basketball court, multi-sport court, skate park, 24 h urban library |
Children | Basketball, football, badminton, skateboarding, reading, games | street basketball court, multi-sport court, skate park, 24 h urban library, gateball courts | |
15:00–20:00 | Elderly | Diabolo, gateball, ping pong, musical performance | gateball courts, performance plaza, ping pong court |
Youth | Basketball, football, badminton, skateboarding, reading | street basketball court, multi-sport court, skate park, 24 h urban library | |
Children | Basketball, football, badminton, skateboarding, reading, games | street basketball court, multi-sport court, skate park, 24 h urban library, gateball courts | |
After 20:00 | Elderly | Square dancing, shuttlecock kicking | gateball courts |
Middle-aged | Running, square dancing, fitness | gateball courts | |
Youth | Running, street dance, fitness, reading | gateball courts, 24 h urban library | |
Children | Games | gateball courts |
Category of User Groups | Difference Between Importance and Satisfaction Scores for Primary Indicators | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Accessibility | Safety | Comfort | Aesthetics | Cultural Relevance | |
Overall | / | 0.27 | 0.29 | / | 0.08 |
Children | / | 0.18 | 0.23 | / | |
Youth | 0.02 | 0.24 | 0.34 | / | 0.42 |
Middle-aged | / | 0.51 | 0.39 | / | 0.35 |
Elderly | / | 0.24 | 0.24 | / | 0.01 |
Criteria Level | Indicator Level | Category of User Groups | Inconsistency between Importance and Satisfaction | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Children | Youth | Middle-Aged | Elderly | |||
Accessibility | 1. Convenience of crossing the road to access the park | I | II | III | II | Important—Children; Not important—Youth, Middle-aged, Elderly Satisfied—Children, Youth, Elderly; Not satisfied—Middle-aged |
2. Convenience of the location of park entrances | I | IV * | I | IV | Important—All; Satisfied—Children, Middle-aged; Not satisfied—Youth, Elderly | |
3. Number of park entrances | II | II | II | III | / | |
4. Visibility of park entrances | III | IV | II | III | Important—Youth; Not important—Children, Middle-aged, Elderly Satisfied—Middle-aged; Not satisfied—Children, Youth, Elderly | |
5. Ease of moving between different areas within the park | II | III | II | III | / | |
6. Number of nearby public transportation stops | II | II | II | II | / | |
7. Location of nearby public transportation stops | III | II | II | II | / | |
Safety | 8. Security management of the park | II | II | I | I | Important—Middle-aged, Elderly; Not important—Children, Youth Satisfied—All |
9. Safety of pedestrians and non-motorized vehicles in the surrounding traffic environment | III | I | IV | I | Important—Youth, Middle-aged, Elderly; Not important—Children Satisfied—Youth, Elderly; Not satisfied—Children, Middle-aged | |
10. Lighting conditions in the park | IV | I | IV | I | Important—All; Satisfied—Youth, Elderly; Not satisfied—Children, Middle-aged | |
11. Current usage of sports tables and courts in the park | III | I | I | IV | Important—Youth, Middle-aged, Elderly; Not important—Children Satisfied—Youth, Middle-aged; Not satisfied—Elderly, Children | |
12. Safety of internal park facilities | IV | I | I | I | Important—All Satisfied—Youth, Middle-aged, Elderly; Not satisfied—Children | |
13. Safety of internal park areas | I | IV | I | I | Important—All; Satisfied—Children, Middle-aged, Elderly; Not satisfied—Youth | |
Comfort | 14. Noise levels in the park environment (whether there is noise disturbance) | IV | III | III | III | Important—Children; Not important—Youth, Middle-aged, Elderly Not satisfied—All |
15. Air quality in the park environment | I | IV | IV | IV | Important—All; Satisfied—Children; Not satisfied—Youth, Middle-aged, Elderly | |
16. Location of activity areas within the park | I | II | II | II | Important—Children; Not important—Youth, Middle-aged, Elderly Satisfied—All | |
17. Number of activity areas in the park | I | IV | IV | I | Important—All; Satisfied—Children, Elderly; Not satisfied—Youth, Middle-aged | |
18. Size of activity areas in the park | II | IV | IV | III | Important—Youth, Middle-aged; Not important—Children, Elderly Satisfied—Children; Not satisfied—Youth, Middle-aged, Elderly | |
19. Availability of accessible facilities in the park (friendliness towards people with limited mobility) | III | I | I | IV | Important—Youth, Middle-aged, Elderly; Not important—Children Satisfied—Youth, Middle-aged; Not satisfied—Children, Elderly | |
20. Arrangement of trash bins, seating, and other facilities in the park | I | I | II | I | Important—Children, Youth, Elderly; Not important—Middle-aged Satisfied—All | |
21. Arrangement of the book bar and restrooms in the park | IV | IV | IV | IV | Important—All; Not satisfied—All | |
Aesthetics | 22. Aesthetic quality of the park’s plant landscape arrangement | III | II | II | II | / |
23. Aesthetic quality of the park’s pavement design | I | II | II | II | Important—Children, Not important—Youth, Middle-aged, Elderly; Satisfied—All | |
24. Aesthetic quality of the park’s landscape color combinations | II | II | III | II | / | |
25. Aesthetic quality of landscape features, structures, and other facilities in the park | II | III | II | III | / | |
Cultural Relevance | 26. Reflection of Jinan’s historical culture and urban characteristics in the park | II | I | III | III | Important—Youth; Not important—Children, Middle-aged, Elderly Satisfied—Children, Youth; Not satisfied—Middle-aged, Elderly |
Age Group | Age | Gender | Suggestions for Lowline Park |
---|---|---|---|
Children | 7 | Male | In summer, it’s hot; hope there are more areas for children to play and run, and also a playground. |
5 | Female | Hope there are more places for children to play to attract more children to come, as there are no friends in the park now. | |
11 | Female | Hope there are more places for children to play. | |
5 | Male | Hope a shop will open. | |
11 | Female | Turn on the lights earlier in winter. | |
Youth | 20 | Female | Turn on the lights earlier. |
22 | Male | Turn on the lights earlier. | |
22 | Male |
| |
31 | Female | Mop more frequently; there is a lot of dust, and the ground is very slippery. | |
34 | Male | Issue with charging fees. | |
Middle-aged | 54 | Male | Issue with charging fees. |
47 | Female |
| |
39 | Male | Increase wind-blocking resting areas. | |
37 | Male | Expand the area of the basketball court. | |
52 | Female | Add wind-blocking facilities. | |
Elderly | 64 | Female |
|
69 | Male | Add wind-blocking facilities to courts for light sports like badminton and table tennis. | |
62 | Male |
| |
65 | Female | Noise is high; should increase tall, dense trees on the park edges near roads to reduce noise and decrease traffic distraction for those exercising. | |
64 | Male | Road paving should be more vibrant and colorful, suitable for children. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 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
Wen, Z.; Luo, X.; Wang, X.; Liu, H. A Study on the Public Perception of Sports Spaces Under Urban Overpasses from the Perspective of Age Differences. Land 2025, 14, 293. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14020293
Wen Z, Luo X, Wang X, Liu H. A Study on the Public Perception of Sports Spaces Under Urban Overpasses from the Perspective of Age Differences. Land. 2025; 14(2):293. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14020293
Chicago/Turabian StyleWen, Ziyi, Xiangming Luo, Xin Wang, and Haoran Liu. 2025. "A Study on the Public Perception of Sports Spaces Under Urban Overpasses from the Perspective of Age Differences" Land 14, no. 2: 293. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14020293
APA StyleWen, Z., Luo, X., Wang, X., & Liu, H. (2025). A Study on the Public Perception of Sports Spaces Under Urban Overpasses from the Perspective of Age Differences. Land, 14(2), 293. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14020293