Exploring the Development of Community Parks in Urban–Rural Fringe Areas in China: Expert and Policy Perspectives on Sustainable Design and Strategy Planning

Abstract

Rapid urban expansion has led to an increasing number of people relocating to Urban–Rural Fringe Areas (URFAs) in China, with related development placing pressure on ecosystems in these locations. Community parks (CPs) are a key category of urban public park (UPPs) in Chinese planning and play a vital role in improving residents’ quality of life and enhancing regional environment, whilst also promoting sustainable urban development. Consequently, CPs are considered by many to be integral components of “communities” in Chinese cities. Drawing on documentary analysis and field research, this paper explores the socio-economic and ecological values associated with CP investments in URFAs in China. It assesses governmental policies and expert perspectives concerning CPs’ development in URFAs and analyses the factors influencing their planning and delivery. The research highlights how policy and stakeholders’ viewpoints impact the development of sustainable green space in URFAs. To enhance the construction of multi-functional CPs in URFAs, we propose a series of characteristics that need to be considered in future developments, including stakeholder engagement, resident needs, and park design. These insights offer an evidence-based reference for decision-makers, aiming to better meet the requirements of residents and support the development of urban sustainability.

1. Introduction

Since the initiation of the “Reform and Opening Up” policy in 1978, China has experienced rapid urbanisation. According to the National Bureau of Statistics of China, by the end of 2023, China’s urban population was estimated to be 932 million, over 5 times the number recorded in 1978 [1]. The corresponding development has led to significant urban expansion. As Liu et al. reported, over the past five decades, the built-up area of 75 typical cities in China, including 4 municipalities, 28 provincial capitals, 2 special administrative regions, and 41 cities, has increased from 3606.26 km² to 30,521.13 km² [2]. This expansion has not only led to geographical transformations, such as reshaping urban spatial structures, but has also had a profound impact on the social, economic, cultural, and political understandings of place [3].

Similar patterns of urban expansion have also occurred globally. Since the mid-20th country, urbanisation has accelerated worldwide, with the global urban population rising from 33.6% in 1960 to 56.2% in 2020 and projected to exceed 68% by 2050 [4,5]. Urbanisation has been most significant in developing countries, with nations including Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, and Mexico expanding rapidly [6]. As urban populations have grown, many cities have expanded their urban footprint to meet the requirements of their continuously growing population, which lead to the emergence of a large number of Urban–Rural Fringe Areas (URFAs) [7]. China has witnessed significant urban expansion and thus lends itself to further examination. URFAs can be regarded as newly developed zones located between urban and rural regions, characterised by mixed land use patterns and transitional development patterns [7]. These areas are dynamic and continuously evolving, with their functions and perceptions being reshaped by ongoing infrastructure construction, impacting the development of both their social structures and economies [8,9]. Moreover, many studies, such as those of Ewing and Hamidi, have shown that URFAs are a driving force of contemporary urban development in China [10]. This is particularly the case in rapidly growing regions, e.g., Guangzhou, where they play a critical role in supporting urban sustainability. Simultaneously, rapid growth in Tier 1 cities has meant that, spatially, URFAs are now important centres of development [11].

The ongoing process of urbanisation in URFAs increases the pressure placed on ecosystems, reducing their ability to function effectively. Although these transitional spaces promote economic development and provide the physical space to deliver housing, in doing so, they have also compromised the quality of the natural environment, negatively impacting ecological functionality, biodiversity, and the regulation of climatic systems [7]. Indeed, green spaces (GS) have been sacrificed for the construction of grey infrastructure, e.g., highways [12]. The substantial reduction in environmental resources also significantly impacts the quality of place within URFAs [13]. Despite these impacts, China has undergone significant urbanisation, with the urbanisation rate increasing from 17.9% in 1978 to 66.2% in 2023, and it is expected to reach 75–80% by 2035 [1,14]. Government operating at national and local scales however continue to focus on urban development to meet economic growth needs at the expense of environmental protection. Consequently, rethinking the way in which GS is positioned within urban planning policy and practice is essential to maintaining greener, more liveable, and sustainable urban environments.

As a vital component of GS, community parks (CPs) represent a form of GS easily accessible and integrated into residents’ daily lives. They serve a crucial role in linking the overarching aims of urban planning and everyday urban experience, playing a key role in enhancing liveability, facilitating social interaction, and supporting ecological resilience [15,16]. Despite growing attention to the construction and function of GS in both policy and academic discourse in China in recent years, the specific planning of CPs, particularly within URFAs, remains underexplored. Existing research, e.g., that of He and Liu, mainly focuses on large-scale comprehensive parks in urban centre areas or ecological GS planning improvement, such as wetlands in urban areas [17,18], while CPs in transitional zones are marginalised in the broader discourse of urban GS planning; there remains limited evidence on how and why CPs are developed. In the context of ongoing urbanisation, exploring the construction and development of CPs in URFAs holds significant social and environmental implications. URFA constructions are associated with intensified pressures, such as rapid population growth, shifting land use demands, and diverse development objectives, which contribute to the competition between GS and built infrastructure allocations. The development of CPs in these areas not only entails a substantial reconfiguration of land resources but also directly shapes the quality of residents’ everyday environments. Understanding how CPs in URFAs are planned is therefore essential to unpacking the delivery of GS in URFAs and offers critical insights for advancing sustainable urban development.

To examine these issues, the following paper focuses on the development of CPs in URFAs in China, expanding debates focussed on GS by shifting attention away from high-density urban centres toward more localised planning approaches that are responsive to residents’ requirements. The aim of this study is to investigate how multi-level policy frameworks and diverse stakeholder interests influence the planning and implementation of CPs in urban contexts in China. To achieve this, the research addresses three key questions: (1) How are CPs currently planned and delivered in URFAs in China? (2) What roles do national and local policy frameworks play in sharing CP constructions? (3) How do stakeholder perspectives, such as academics’ perceptions, influence project outcomes? Using Wuhan as a case study, the research employs a combination of political document analysis and an expert interview approach to examine the interplay between policy intentions and practical implementation in the delivery of CPs. Through this analysis, the paper examines the opportunities and limitations of current policy frameworks in shaping the development of CPs in URFAs and assesses the role of stakeholder engagement in the implementation of CP projects. The findings offer new insights into the challenges of delivering CPs in URFAs and can inform future strategies for enhancing GS planning in rapidly urbanising Chinese cities.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Planning in China

The Chinese urban planning system has played a significant role in guiding urban development, including the planning of URFAs and GS. Since the implementation of the “Reform and Opening-up” policy in 1978, the Chinese urban planning system has experienced repeated restructurings to accommodate and support the needs of rapid urban economic growth [19]. To effectively manage development projects planned by various city governments, the State Council and the Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development (MOHURD) established a statutory planning framework along with a series of planning laws, policies, and regulations [20]. The “City Planning Law”, enacted in 1989, established the legal status of urban planning for the first time in China, emphasising the inclusion of both “overall planning”1 and “detailed planning”2, and granting certain planning powers such as land use planning and regional design to city authorities [19]. Although planning power has been partially transferred from central to local government, decision-making must align with national planning strategies and be master-planned according to the requirements of the “City Planning Law” [21].

In the 21st century, urban planning in China has been subject to significant changes in structure, political authority, and focus. For example, in 2008, the Ministry of Land and Resources formulated the “Urban and Rural Planning Law” to coordinate urban and rural development [22]. However, by 2010, with the introduction of the “Main Functional Area Plan”, the focus shifted to creating strategic functional zoning based on the primary functions of regions, such as economic development, agricultural production, and ecological conservation, with the aim of promoting more sustainable and balanced growth across different regions [23]. Additionally, in 2014, the central government approved the establishment of nine “national new districts,” each with its unique planning strategy, further promoting diverse spatial development [21].

These changes have significantly impacted the development of URFAs, which can be regarded as emerging development zones integrating urban and rural characteristics and exhibiting distinctive geographical and social characteristics [9]. In the backdrop of rapid urbanisation, the focus of urban development has gradually shifted from urban cores to URFAs. Since 1978, these areas have transitioned from being agriculture-dominated to industrial development, followed by a rise of the tertiary sector, including land use functions such as technology development zones and universities. Moreover, with the rise of the middle class, URFAs have increasingly attracted middle-income groups due to lower housing prices and higher quality living environments [24,25]. Population growth is in turn stimulating infrastructure development in these areas [26]. The continuous changes to land use functions in URFAs indicate that these regions are no longer considered “empty fields” but have evolved into multifaceted hubs of economic activity in China [8].

2.2. Ecological Pressure and Sustainable Development in URFAs in China

Rapid urbanisation has placed increasing pressure on ecosystems as URFA expansion has encroached upon formerly rural areas, leading to the conversion of GS into urban areas. Consequently, there has been a reduction in both the scale and diversity of ecosystems in URFAs, resulting in the degradation of the quality and functionality of the physical environment [27,28]. Recognising the challenges arising from urbanisation, such as habitat degradation, the Chinese government has gradually acknowledged the importance of developing sustainable spaces within related policies, e.g., Sponge City and Forest City mandates [29,30].

Influenced by planning methodologies adopted in Europe and North America during the 1980s, academic experts and government officials in China have increasingly recognised the significance of GS and their contributions to urban development [31,32]. To achieve sustainable urban development, the Chinese government has initiated a series of “Green Space Sustainable Investment Models,” including the development of “National Garden Cities”, “Liveability Cities”, “Eco-Cities”, and “Sponge cities” [30,33]. These models not only represent diverse approaches to green urban development but also reflect an evolving understanding of the role and function of GS in different historical periods. For example, the “National Garden City” model was proposed in 1992 and primarily focused on increasing urban green coverage and enhancing landscape aesthetics, while the latest “Sponge City” concept, introduced in 2016, emphasises the ecological functionality of green infrastructure in terms of stormwater management and environmental restoration. As urban challenges have become more complex, these investment models have increasingly changed to incorporate multidimensional objectives, including ecological performance, social well-being, and spatial equity, which has laid a practical foundation for subsequent legal regulations and policy development [34].

Furthermore, a series of laws and regulations, such as the 1992 “Urban Greening Regulations” and the 1993 “Urban Green Space Planning and Construction Index Management Measures,” have strengthened GS protection. GS planning has continued to evolve, though, with the introduction of regulations and concepts such as the “Ecological Civilisation Construction Concept” in 2013 and the “Urban Green Space Classification Standards” in 2022. These developments emphasise the central role of GS in urban development [30,35].

Given the top-down and administratively led planning framework visible in China, national urban development strategies influence the construction of cities, including URFAs. Simultaneously, the integration of GS in URFAs is not only a reflection of local planning efforts but also impacted by national policies to support the achievement of city construction objectives.

2.3. The Value and Challenges of CPs in URFAs

As a key category of urban public parks (UPPs) in Chinese planning, community parks (CPs) play a crucial role in enhancing residents’ quality of life and promoting urban sustainability [16,36]. Compared to other types of park, CPs are located closer to residential areas, providing direct access to urban nature [37,38]. These benefits are particularly important for residents with reduced mobility and cognitive functions [39]. Moreover, CPs not only provide residents with accessible GS that encourage physical activities, fostering social connections and improving mental and physical health [40,41], but also contribute to enhancing environmental quality, alleviating the urban heat island effect, and providing climatic benefits to cities [42]. Additionally, the maintenance of high-quality CPs closely relates to increases in property values, reflecting their economic significance [37]. Consequently, the development of CPs promotes multiple societal, ecological, and economic benefits, playing a crucial role in achieving sustainable “community” development.

To support the expansion of CPs in URFAs, the Chinese government enacted a policy stipulating that the construction of new communities must include the provision of CPs to meet residents’ needs, enhance local biodiversity, and support liveability [36]. Although the quantity of CPs has increased as a result, many CPs in URFAs are considered to be of poor quality, lack basic infrastructure, e.g., toilets, and offer user-unfriendly designs, which affects residents’ satisfaction [43,44,45]. These challenges reflect the difficulties that local governments encounter in implementing national policies, particularly in planning and designing schemes in URFAs. Additional local conditions, the degree of stakeholder involvement, and sociocultural and economic aspects of development all need to be considered.

To promote sustainable urban development, it is essential to explore the impact of these factors on CP development in URFAs to better understand how they influence planning and construction. By analysing these factors, this paper identifies the specific need and constraints faced by local government in the delivery of CPs in URFAs. To do this, a case study of Wuhan is presented to examine the barriers to effective CP delivery in URFAs.

3. Methods

Wuhan, the capital city of Hubei Province, was selected to explore the development of CPs in URFAs. It occupies approximately 8494 km²; 812 km² is classified as being built-up [46]. Wuhan consists of 13 districts—6 suburban and 7 in the urban core [47]. Rapid urban growth post-1978 has positioned Wuhan as one of the largest metropolitan areas in China. It is home to over 13 million residents, with a population density of 1438/km² [48]. Wuhan is classified as a Tier 1 city [22]. Moreover, from 2000 to 2020, Wuhan’s spatial footprint expanded from 209.99 km² to 812.39 km², a growth rate of 387% [46], representing a key example of rural conversion into urban growth zones in China [47]. Ongoing expansion and densification have led to an increased prominence being placed on the strategic planning of urban green infrastructure.

Planning CPs in URFAs is considered a critical element of this process, helping to address the balance between development and ecology/liveability within URFAs [49,50]. However, no official figure for the number of parks in Wuhan is available; data suggests that in 2022, the city had between 106 and 145 major urban parks that covered approximately 332 km², giving a per capita figure of 14.49 m² per person [51]. The city has over 800 spaces classified as parks, yet an accurate number of CP is not recorded. Moreover, according to the national planning directives introduced in 2000 requiring the integration of GS into residential communities, a significant number of CPs have been newly constructed or renovated in Wuhan over the past two decades [36]. Despite this increase, planning and investment priorities have remained concentrated on large urban parks and ecological corridors, leaving CPs relatively marginal within the broader green infrastructure agenda. This marginalisation is further reinforced by the limited political and financial support CPs receive, as their public welfare benefits are less immediately visible or monetizable compared to major infrastructure or real estate projects [34]. To examine the development of CPs in URFAs in Wuhan, this study employed a dual-method approach: document analysis and expert interviews. These methods were strategically integrated as document analysis identified key issues, opportunities, and challenges in CP development, which subsequently informed the structure and focus of the expert interviews. Expert interviews were selected over resident interviews to ensure analytical depth, as experts possess the professional knowledge necessary to reflect on the efficacy of planning mechanisms, policy execution, and institutional dynamics beyond user-level experiences. This combined approach enabled the assessment of CP development from both a policy and practical perspective, contrasting policy objectives with actual CP implementation.

3.1. Document Analysis

The first phase of the study involved documentary analysis, aiming to evaluate the use and reporting of policy structure and construction processes in the development of CPs in URFAs. Although this process was qualitative, it employed a systematic and structured approach to ensure the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the selected documents. The objective of the document analysis was to assess government commitment to prioritising CP development in Wuhan and to identify key themes that would guide the subsequent expert interviews.

The selection process focussed on identifying relevant policies, regulations, and guidelines concerning urban and GS planning in Wuhan, and specifically in URFAs. This was performed via a keyword search using the terms/phrases “urban planning,” “urban-rural fringe,” “green space regulation,” and “community parks” to filter relevant documents. An additional set of criteria were used to select documents. These were as follows:

• Authority: All documents originated from official government channels to ensure authenticity and reliability.
• Accessibility: Only electronically available documents were used to ensure transparency and replicability.
• Timeliness: Documents published post-2010 were prioritised to align with the current policy context.
• Diversity: A wide range of documents—including government policies, planning regulations, and regional reports—were considered to provide a comprehensive perspective.
• Relevance: Selected documents had to reflect the strategic direction of CP development in Wuhan’s urban areas, facilitating discussions on both planning strategies and implementation mechanisms.

Based on these principles, documents were selected from the “Wuhan Municipal People’s Government” website, a local branch of the Central People’s Government, which provides authoritative and credible policy documents, alongside a wide range of policy information, ensuring comprehensive coverage of research issues. It also provides real-time updates on policy/development changes that assist the tracking of CP-related thinking, aiding the research process. A total of 2473 documents were identified in the initial search during the document screening process. An initial screening of all documents was performed, focusing on the titles and introductions. After excluding duplicates, a second screening focused on content, excluded files primarily concerned with central urban areas, rural districts, or non-GS aspects of URFAs. Ultimately, 22 documents were selected for the documentary analysis in this study (

Table 1. List of documents analysed for the development of CPs in URFAs in Wuhan.

Classification	Serial Number	Document Name	Date Published	Department	Key Themes/Ideas
Strategic documents on territorial spatial planning—city scale	1	Wuhan City Master Plan (2010–2020)	2010	Wuhan Municipal People’s Government	To achieve coordinated urban and rural development. To develop a liveable city.
	2	The “14th Five-Year Plan” for Wuhan’s territorial space	2022	Wuhan Municipal People’s Government	To integrate the development of urban–rural areas. To enhance the ecological system, promoting ecological priority and green development.
	3	Master Plan of Wuhan Territorial Space (2021–2035)	2021	Wuhan Natural Resources Planning Bureau	To promote regional coordinated development. To prioritise ecological protection.
	4	The 14th Five-Year Plan for Promoting urban and rural development along the Yangtze River Economic Belt	2020	Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development	Integrated development of urban and rural areas. To improve urban and rural landscapes and guide the formation of green lifestyles.
	5	The “14th Five-Year Plan” for Ecological and Environmental Protection of Wuhan	2022	Wuhan Municipal People’s Government	To improve urban ecological quality and build a beautiful and liveable city.
	6	Planning outline of Wuhan City to building a National Ecological Civilization Construction Demonstration City	2021	Wuhan Municipal People’s Government	To achieve an urban and rural environment that is suitable for living, working, travelling, and studying.
Strategic documents on territorial spatial planning—regional scale	7	Jiangxia District Urban Management Development “14th Five-Year Plan”	2021	Wuhan City Administration and Law Enforcement Bureau of Jiangxia District	To create beautiful and clean environments in URFAs.
	8	Notice from the Jiangxia District People’s Government Office on Issuing the Implementation Plan for Further Improving Urban Energy Level and Urban Quality in Jiangxia District	2021	Wuhan Jiangxia District People’s Government	To improve the environment in URFAs. Focus on developing special planning for district scale GS systems and improve the five-level park system.
	9	The “14th Five-Year Plan” for National Economic and Social Development in Qingshan District, Wuhan City and the Outline of Long-term Goals for 2035	2021	Development and Reform Commission of Qingshan Disctrict	To build various parks and promote the transformation of Qingshan from a “park in the district” to a “district in a park”.
	10	Notice of the Qingshan District People’s Government on Issuing the “Qingshan District (Wuhan Chemical Industry Zone) Establishment of a National Ecological Civilization Construction Demonstration Zone (2021–2025)”	2022	Wuhan Qingshan District People’s Government	Ecological protection strategies and the region’s ecological environment management mechanism. Green urbanisation and ecological city construction.
	11	Notice of the Huangpi District People’s Government on Issuing the Work Plan for the “14th Five-Year Plan” of Huangpi District	2020	Wuhan Huangpi District People’s Government	Integrated development of urban and rural areas, rural revitalisation, infrastructure construction, development of social well-being, improvement in people’s livelihood.
	12	Notice of the Huangpi District People’s Government on Issuing the “Implementation Plan for the Establishment of a National Ecological Garden City in Huangpi District”	2023	Wuhan Huangpi District People’s Government	To expand urban GS and create an ecological and liveable park city.
Planning regulations	13	“Wuhan Urban and Rural Planning Regulations”	2019	General Office of the Standing Committee of Wuhan Municipal People’s Congress	To improve urban ecological liveability and sustainable development.
	14	“Wuhan Urban Greening Regulations”	2021	Wuhan Municipal People’s Government	To protect and improve the ecological environment.
	15	“Wuhan Urban Park Management Regulations”	2022	Wuhan Municipal People’s Government	To improve the city’s image.
	16	“Code for Planning and Design of Urban Residential Areas”	2018	Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China	To improve the liveability of living environment in residential areas.
Annual work programme notices	17	Notice from the General Office of the Wuhan Municipal People’s Government on the issuance of the target, task, and responsibility decomposition plan for the 2023 Municipal Government Work Report	2023	General Office of Wuhan Municipal People’s Government	To focus on promoting green transformation and accelerating the construction of a world-famous waterfront ecological city. To increase green open space. To continuously improve urban quality.
	18	Notice of the Wuhan Municipal People’s Government on Issuing Wuhan’s 2023 Greening Work Plan	2023	Wuhan Municipal People’s Government	To increase greenery and improve quality, striving to become a national ecological garden city. Focus on GS planning in a more effective way.
	19	Notice of the Wuhan Municipal People’s Government on Issuing the Work Plan for Creating a National Ecological Garden City in Wuhan (2022–2023)	2022	Wuhan Municipal People’s Government	To build a city of thousands of gardens and create an ecological and liveable park city. To improve the level of management.
CPPCC proposal response documents	20	Reply to Proposal No. 20180561 of the Second Session of the Thirteenth CPPCC National Committee	2018	Wuhan Municipal Landscape Gardens and Forestry Bureau	CP planning and layout. CP design and management. To improve CP functions and culture.
	21	Reply to Recommendation No. 20210306 of the Sixth Session of the 14th Municipal People’s Congress	2021	Wuhan Municipal Landscape Gardens and Forestry Bureau	To build an entire park system. To reserve space for future park construction during the urban planning process.
	22	Reply to Proposal No. 20230232 of the Second Session of the 14th CPPCC National Committee	2023	Wuhan Municipal Landscape Gardens and Forestry Bureau	To compile the “Wuhan City Park System Construction and Development Plan” and build an urban and rural park system, including natural, country, urban, CPs, and pocket parks.

): 1 national-level park guidance document and 21 documents focussed on GS/environmental planning in Wuhan. Documents at both a national and local scale were not included, as they did not meet the criteria for analysis noted above.

The 22 documents were categorised into four main types: territorial spatial plans, planning guidelines and regulations, annual work programme notices, and Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) proposal response reports. Each category plays a different role within China’s urban GS governance system. Territorial spatial plans provide a long-term vision for land use and spatial organisation, outlining goals such as land allocation, park distribution, and GS ratios. Planning guidelines and regulations set technical standards for the location, scale, and ecological targets of community parks. Annual work programme notices outline short-term government priorities, budgets, and implementation targets, directly influencing the pace and feasibility of CP delivery. Furthermore, CPPCC proposal responses reflect the government’s political engagement with urban environmental issues raised by citizens and professionals, offering insights into institutional priorities and sensitivities. This classification helps clarify the relative legal status, operational utility, and political influence of each type of document. It provides a clearer analytical foundation for understanding how policies affect the development of CPs in URFAs and enables a more structured assessment of institutional complexity across multiple scales of planning.

A directed and thorough manual assessment approach was employed in the documentary analysis to firstly highlight, and subsequently analyse the use of CP and URFA terminology to examine each document’s use and framing of these criteria. This method enabled a more nuanced interpretation of the documents, going beyond explicit references to CPs in URFAs, to uncover key themes and ideas, as well as the political intentions and ambiguities embedded in policy language [52]. Each document utilised context analysis based on four core analytical dimensions identified through the literature review: overarching policy themes, the conceptualisation of CPs, functional descriptions, and delivery mechanisms for CP delivery. This analysis also highlighted keywords related to critical themes, opportunities and barriers in CP development. The process enabled an in-depth understanding of CP concepts, functions, and development objectives embedded within each document. Particular attention was given to the situating of key statements within each document, e.g., whether they were in strategic sections or technical appendices, the clarity of language, e.g., prescriptive versus abstract articulation, and the degree of consensus or lack of discussion regarding CP design issues. This approach enabled the extraction of both explicit references and latent signals in policy discourses related to CP planning in URFAs, revealing underlying drivers and limitations. Compared to automated coding tools such as NVivo, manual analysis offered a more sensitive and contextually interpretation of the political and spatial dynamics shaping CP policies. This not only elicited policy intentions but also laid a critical foundation for subsequent expert interviews that further examined gaps between planning ideals and implementation realities.

3.2. Expert Interviews

Building on the findings from document analysis, 17 semi-structured expert interviews were conducted between March and June 2023. The participants included academics and practitioners specialising in urban and landscape planning, all with involvement in CP development in URFAs in Wuhan. Interviewees were engaged via a snowballing process of networking but were all knowledgeable about the factors that influenced the planning of CPs in Wuhan. Additional experts were approached but declined the opportunity to be interviewed. The interviewees were divided into two groups: (a) scholars focused on urban and landscape planning and environmental design (A1–A9) and (b) practitioners involved in CP development in URFAs (P1-P8) (

Table 2. List of information on interviewees.

Classification	Code	Focus	Organisation
Academics	A1	Landscape Design, Planning, Environmental Design, Ecological Design	Wuhan Institute of Technology
	A2	Landscape Design, Environmental Design, Landscape House Design, Rural Revitalisation	Hubei University of Technology
	A3	Environmental Design, Urban Public Park, Urban Infrastructure, Smart City, Interactive Design	Huazhong University of Science and Technology
	A4	Ecological Design, Planning, Sustainable Development, Rural Revitalisation	Wuhan Institute of Technology
	A5	Environmental Design, Urban Renewal, Beautiful Countryside Construction	Wuhan University of Science and Technology
	A6	Urban and Rural Planning, Park Renovation, Tourism Planning, Landscape Design	Hubei University
	A7	Urban Renewal, Conservation and Reuse of Industrial Heritage	China University of Geosciences
	A8	Environmental Design, Interior Design, Landscape Design	Wuhan University
	A9	Environmental Design	Wuhan University of Technology
Practitioners	P1	Urban and Rural Planning, Territorial Spatial Planning, Town Planning	Huazhong University of Science and Technology Institute of Architecture and Urban Planning and Design research institute
	P2	Landscape Design	CEWED Group Limited Company
	P3	Landscape Design, Planning	The Forestry Prospect and Design Institute of Hubei Province
	P4	Landscape Design, Ecological Design, Urban Public Park, Green Corridor Construction	The Forestry Prospect and Design Institute of Hubei Province
	P5	Landscape Design	Wuhan Institute of Landscape Architecture Planning
	P6	Landscape Design	Wuhan Institute of Landscape Architecture Planning
	P7	Urban Public Park, Landscape Design, Public Space Design	Wuhan Institute of Landscape Architecture Planning

). These experts discussed the functions, development processes, and influencing factors of CPs in URFAs from various perspectives. Face-to-face interviews were conducted on-site to facilitate the observation of participants’ non-verbal cues, such as facial expressions and body language, which are essential for enhancing the depth and reliability of qualitative data. Each interview lasted between 30 and 60 min. With informed consent from all participants, the interviews were audio-recorded using a university-issued device. Transcriptions were completed manually. Following transcription, all audio files were securely transferred to an institutionally managed storage system and subsequently deleted from the original device to ensure data protection. Anonymised transcripts were used for analysis, and no personal or identifying data was shared beyond the research team, in accordance with institutional ethical guidelines.

The interviews were structured around the key themes identified in the document analysis, particularly those related to the functions, opportunities, and challenges in CP development. This ensured that both policy and practice perspectives were examined. The interviews focused on four main aspects:

(a)

The concept and functions of CPs in URFAs.

(b)

Factors influencing the development and construction of CPs in URFAs.

(c)

Elements/aspects that should be considered in the planning and design process of CPs in URFAs.

(d)

Prospects regarding the future development of CPs in URFAs.

The thematic structure identified through the policy and literature analysis (a–d) was used to inform the design of the semi-structured expert interviews. This ensured that interviews were strategically targeted at clarifying and expanding on themes that were underdeveloped or ambiguous in policy documents. During the interviews, attention was paid to the tone and emphasis used by interviewers, e.g., whether responses were directive, critical, or speculative, to enhance interpretive depth. A manual coding approach grouped expert responses under the four main themes above, enabling the systematic identification of recurring concerns, gaps, and inconsistencies with stated policy objectives. Comparative analysis with policy findings revealed significant discrepancies between planning intentions and on-the-ground implementation. These differences highlighted divergent perspectives between policies and experts’ experiences, as well as contextual and institutional factors ignored in the documents. The expert interviews thus served a dual function: validating key thematic areas and exposing policy–practice disconnects that were not evident in documentary sources alone.

4. Results

4.1. Documentary Analysis: Multi-Scalar Policy Framework for CP Planning in URFAs

The documentary analysis identified five key categories distinguished according to a combination of scalar, regulatory, and delivery issues. The five most frequently used categories were (1) strategic documents on territorial spatial planning (city scale); (2) strategic documents on territorial spatial planning (regional scale); (3) planning regulations; (4) annual work programme notices; and (5) CPPCC proposal response documents (see Table 1). It is noticeable that, between the national and local scales, the specificity of construction goals and implementation approaches to urban GS planning varies—being more strategic at the national and deliverable at the local—leading to the various approaches to CP delivery in URFAs.

The examination of strategic documents on territorial spatial planning (city scale) identified the consistent promotion of urban–rural development and sustainability themes within all documents, highlighting the mainstreaming of these issues. However, variation exists in the specific goals of each document regarding the development of parks and community infrastructure. For example, Document 1 emphasises enhancing the green configuration of residential areas to create liveable places, while Document 5 focuses on the concepts of green living, i.e., sustainable behaviour. Such diversity illustrates both a lack of consensus for a unified developmental agenda but also highlights the need to meet a diverse range of socio-economic and ecological aspects. This is included in the delivery of CPs in URFAs, but the framing of CPs within these debates differs.

Similar diversity was also evident in strategic documents on territorial spatial planning (city scale). Although regional-level documents presented a more distinct and specific direction for the planning and development of CPs in URFAs, differences existed in the priorities afforded to nature each planning document. For instance, Document 8 advocates for the construction of ecological garden cities and a five-tier park system (pocket, community, comprehensive, country, and natural parks) to enhance environmental quality. However, Document 10 focuses on the ecological, social, and economic benefits of GS to regional growth. Despite policy at both the urban and regional levels calling for the integration of green infrastructure in all aspects of planning, there remain significant differences in the specific implementation paths and development focuses.

Planning regulations are more focused and offer detailed construction standards and implementation strategies for green infrastructure development. Document 13 emphasises the ecological value of GS and proposes specific GI schemes for construction in URFAs, whilst Document 14 outlines requirements for public GS in residential areas. Despite variations in the presentation of specific implementation measures, there is a shared attention afforded to the enhancement of quality within green infrastructure planning and design across the documents.

Annual work programme notices constitute a critical classification of documents considered within this review. These documents demonstrate political priorities, funding allocation, and resource distribution, directly influencing the implementation of CP projects in URFAs. Reviewing the work plan documents for Wuhan illustrates how each outlines specific construction goals (including specific quantities for park construction and GS ratios) and design requirements, e.g., optimising the allocation of plants and the provision of recreational facilities for GS, but continues to incorporate a diverse range of construction priorities. Document 17 promotes GS construction in communities and outlines planning requirements for locating parks, while Document 19 emphasises optimising GS configuration to support the development of high-quality green areas. Based on the differences in development objectives, the delivery outcomes of GS construction lack a singular coherence in focus and lead to continued diversity in delivery.

CPPCC proposal response documents are used to engage stakeholders in CP initiatives in URFAs, with a particular focus on meeting the requirements set out in high-level policy. Analysis of these documents enhances understanding of whether the government has incorporated stakeholder suggestions regarding the development of CPs in URFAs, and the degree to which they are aligned with meeting construction mandates. An emphasis on the importance of the development of CPs in URFAs was identified, underscoring the significance placed on parks in urban development. Despite the diverse construction goals for GS outlined in each document, they all illustrate support for the creation of liveable urban environments. Nevertheless, there are notable limitations within these response documents. For example, while park management is mentioned, the documents lack a detailed discussion on the maintenance of non-municipal parks. In addition, questions remain about whether the government has sufficient resources to support the management of municipal parks, and if so, how they will implement specific strategies to achieve high-quality and multi-functional parks.

The examination of the 22 policy documents related to CPs in URFAs shows that an overarching emphasis has been placed on ecological considerations, sustainable development principles, and the use of planning structures to develop high-quality GS in URFAs. Simultaneously, the diversity in functional understandings, strategies, and construction objectives for CPs in URFAs exhibits variations in their perceived value and a lack of standardised approaches to construction. Furthermore, the documentary analysis identified a series of issues linked to project delivery and management. Document 18, outlines quality and management requirements for park construction and advocates for improved precision in garden/greening management. However, the document critically lacks a detailed explanation of the corresponding measures needed to deliver effective park management. Similarly, Documents 19 and 22 highlight the need for enhanced park maintenance but do not include details on associated management strategies.

The review of policy documents also reveals that the construction of CPs in URFAs is increasingly integrated into policy discussions via increased discussion in documents published more recently, demonstrating growing recognition of their importance by policy level. Nevertheless, there remains a need for more comprehensive evidence to be developed to support innovative construction, funding and management methods to deliver CPs. Based on the document analysis, it can be argued that the current recognition of CP value is not sufficient to support different planning and development organisations in effectively utilising these spaces. For instance, Document 1 emphasises social well-being enhanced through the construction of CPs, while Document 8 focusses on the ecological benefits. Additionally, Document 10 highlights the social, ecological, and economic benefits of GS, including CPs in URFAs. This disparity in value recognition leads to diverse construction directions, hindering the formulation of unified planning and design principles for CPs in URFAs.

To foster political support for this process and to subsequently become a mainstreamed in planning processes, additional effort is needed at all scales of policy formation to facilitate increased support for CP delivery if they are to meet local needs. The analysis highlights that urban development goals are a critical component in this helping to shape CP construction in URFAs and involves aspects such as park size, function, design, and delivery. Simultaneously, these documents also emphasise the importance of framing sustainable development principles and the creation of liveable cities as key delivery principles. This indicates a balancing of development needs within a progressive and coordinated planning framework to integrate CP construction in URFAs. Additionally, recommendations, e.g., those outlined in Document 21, advocate for establishing expert support systems to transition CP construction towards greater consideration of residents’ requirements and sustainable development. By incorporating stakeholder requirements, this approach aims to support effective CP development in URFAs, contributing to the sustainable development of both regional and urban environments.

4.2. Expert Insights: Perspective on CP Development and Design in URFAs

Academics and practitioners consistently highlighted the diverse social, ecological, and economic benefits of CPs, demonstrating a consensus that CPs have a significant influence on the delivery of liveable places. A1, A6, and P7 highlighted CPs’ social value as recreational spaces, fostering community interaction, improving health, and mitigating potential social issues such as high crime rates. Simultaneously, A2, A3, and A8 emphasised the ecological benefits of CPs, noting their contribution to air quality enhancement, urban flood prevention, and climate regulation. Furthermore, A8 pointed out their economic advantages, such as enhancing real estate values by creating high-quality liveable environments. Nevertheless, interviewees also stated that political action (or inaction) significantly influences CP construction in China. A2 viewed CP development as a means of achieving political objectives, such as enhancing city branding and achieving central government goals. A5 though claimed that CPs are different from city parks (where the prestige associated with development is most commonly located), which often focus on aesthetic enhancement, as the construction of CPs prioritises residents’ needs, offering spaces for relaxation and community activities. Although experts mentioned multiple functions of CPs, the specific value attributed to these spaces is diverse. These perspectives also indicate the varied expectations surrounding CP delivery, reflecting a level of uncertainty that potentially challenges the creation of consensus on their value in practice.

The interviews revealed not only contrasting perspectives on what functions should underpin the development of CPs but also on the factors influencing their construction. Interviewees A4, P1, P3, and P4 highlighted that urban master planning policies directly impact the planning of CP, with policies covering detailed land use regulations and strict control measures to ensure CP construction aligns with urban development goals. Simultaneously, the pursuit of political achievement by government and the maximisation of regional economic growth were identified as crucial factors influencing investment in CPs in URFAs. Academics A1, P3, and P4 stated that during CP development, governments prioritise specific political objectives such as increasing urban GS (total %) and meeting distance-based standards (e.g., from Wuhan’s local planning regulations, GS within a 300 m radius of residential areas and gardens within a 500 m radius), as these goals are linked with government performance evaluation and effectively incentivise the construction of CPs. Furthermore, planners P2 and P4 underscored the significant impact of economic factors on CP construction. P1 noted that the economic condition of a location determines the level of investment it can attract, thereby influencing the quality and quantity of CPs. P2 and P4 note that local government leadership and financial situation affect the pace of infrastructure development. Moreover, as CP construction is a public welfare project fully funded by the government, funding is strictly controlled. Even if external investment is attracted, it primarily facilitates construction, with the government ultimately responsible for management. Therefore, the government’s financial condition directly influences the design and construction of CPs.

Experts emphasised the substantial influence of economic factors within policy supporting CP development. This perspective appears to conflict with the view that engaging residents and other stakeholders in the planning of CPs in URFAs is the most critical aspect of development. Simultaneously, many experts, e.g., A2, claimed that resident and expert opinions have limited influence, as decision-makers maintain ultimate control over CP project delivery. P2’s response partially counters this by stating that residents’ opinions are considered, but the significance of these inputs on decision-making remains unclear. P2 mentioned that members of the community committee participate in discussions on CP design schemes, as these individuals have dual roles:

• Representatives of the community;
• Collecting residents’ suggestions and feedback.

Therefore, via this route, resident suggestions can be incorporated into the CP planning process, with designs being adjusted accordingly. Additionally, CP plans are publicly accessible via government websites, allowing residents to provide feedback that can lead to further modifications. However, P2 noted that although resident needs are technically considered, there is uncertainty concerning the extent to which this takes place in practice. Furthermore, P4 pointed out that the Chinese planning system inherently limits opportunities for resident participation in CP planning due to the presence of top-down governance structures. P4 highlighted additional factors, such as the level of education and residents’ willingness to engage, influencing participation in the planning process. Nevertheless, A8 and P4 emphasised that the realisation of government focus on long-term social development needs to align with community requirements to be effective. It is therefore essential to incorporate residents’ needs and expert opinions into the planning and construction of CPs. Ignoring these aspects can lead to CP delivery focusing on achieving quantitative standards over park quality and to the inability to effectively meet residents’ requirements.

Interviewees also noted the factors that should be considered in the planning of CPs. A1 summarised four key aspects: understanding the local situation, including policy and cultural backgrounds; designing CPs based on the gathered information; adapting to local ecological conditions; and enhancing park functions to meet residents’ needs. From a design perspective, A2, A3, and P3 suggested that park design should combine with landscape-led principles, considering regional climate and ecological conditions and selecting plants suitable for growing in the local area. P5 highlighted the importance of integrating soft landscapes (e.g., plants) and hard landscapes (e.g., paths) in park design, and that attention should be paid to the density and arrangement of vegetation to create open spaces for residents to interact with nature. Furthermore, P2 and P7 emphasised the principle of “people-oriented” design, stating that the building of parks should ultimately aim to serve people. However, A8 offered a more nuanced perspective, suggesting that while resident feedback is important, it should be selectively integrated to ensure alignment with broader economic and social goals. Ultimately, a comprehensive consideration of socio-economic, political, and ecological goals is necessary to guide CPs towards multifunctionality and long-term sustainability rather than a continued concentration on a singular aspect of development.

Expert interviews thus reveal the complexity of CP development in URFAs that are shaped by many aspects, particularly political, economic, and governance factors. While perspectives on stakeholder involvement and design priorities vary, there is agreement that improvements can be made to enhance the quality and functionality of these public spaces. By synthesising insights from various perspectives and adopting a multidimensional approach to design, CPs can better serve community needs, promote environmental sustainability, and contribute to the overall well-being of urban areas.

5. Discussion

The construction of CPs in URFAs in China is subject to the influence of various political, policy-related, and economic priorities. However, despite this variation, the academics and practitioners engaged in this research on CPs expressed positive attitudes towards their future development. This optimism reflects a growing recognition of the significance of CP construction in URFAs in urban policy across a hierarchy of spatial scales. A gradual shift in government attitudes towards a promotion of CP construction can be observed in the planning documentation used to structure investment in Wuhan [53], although interviewee A4 highlights a lack of historical emphasis placed on CP construction. Nevertheless, improvements in people’s living standards, rising demand for public GS, and growing awareness of liveability issues are increasingly recognising the critical role of environmental management and the positive impact of CP construction on residents’ quality of life. This shift is also evident in policy documents focussed on Wuhan, which have mainstreamed the role and perceived importance of CPs in URFAs development.

Previous studies, such as that of Ding et al. [54], noted that urban GS development received less attention than built/grey infrastructure during China’s urbanisation process, which was largely driven by economic imperatives and underinvestment in nature. Findings from documentary analysis and expert interviews in this paper support this view, highlighting that current policy discourse and GS construction still place a significant emphasis on achieving urban development goals than on providing detailed guidance for park design and management. However, the documentary analysis also demonstrates a shift in attitudes towards integrating greater GS development in contemporary policy. As national government, i.e., the Code for Planning and Design of Residential Areas, recognises the value of green infrastructure, local authorities are responding by placing an additional focus on urban GS [53], suggesting a promising future for CP projects.

Nevertheless, challenges remain in CP development in URFAs despite policy support and expert recognition. This paper reveals that CP development in Wuhan is influenced by multiple factors, including economically focused policies, urban development objectives, and stakeholder requirements. Similar viewpoints, particularly those highlighting the role of government and economic considerations in CP development, are noted across the literature. This is supported by Wu, who points out the critical role of political will in the development of CPs in URFAs [21]; local governments frequently prioritise overarching urban development goals, such as economic growth and infrastructure construction, ignoring or marginalising the development of GS, for example. Zhou and Wang illustrate this in Kunming City, arguing that due to rapid urbanisation, the planning of urban GS was significantly influenced by local economic development priorities [32]. Although many GS in URFAs were developed to advance construction projects, the quality of GS development is negatively affected by limited budgets. Similarly, Li et al. reported that in Beijing, despite the establishment of an ecologically oriented green planning strategy, economic and political factors often influenced project decisions, thereby impacting the contribution of GS in meeting actual ecological needs [55].

This is not unique to China, with Mell advocating that government should enhance financial investment in green infrastructure and encourage the participation of private capital and communities to support the construction of GS in the UK [52], whilst discussions of inequitable access to high-quality parks hold a significant place in GS debates in North America, Europe, and Asia [56,57,58,59]. However, whilst parks and GS discussions in Western countries are reported as both public and private assets, as P2 explained, the construction of CPs in URFAs in China is regarded as a public welfare project. Even with the involvement of and support from other sources, e.g., private companies, the construction and design of CPs remain subject to financial considerations related to government budgets and their responsibility for subsequent management and maintenance costs.

Another key finding of this paper is the variation in CP development strategies driven by different urban development priorities. Wuhan’s strategic land use planning policies require that GS construction and development meet the standard of “300 m to green, and 500 m to a park”, facilitating the widespread establishment of CPs, including pocket parks. However, in Guangzhou, the urban development plan aims to build 300 CPs and 1500 pocket parks by 2025 to reach an urban green coverage rate of 43.6%, with at least 17.5 m² of park/GS per capita [60]. Although these metrics are effective for measuring and monitoring GS planning, they also reflect the diversity in local GS construction. Therefore, despite being based on a common planning framework, the specific implementation process varies due to different urban construction goals and strategies, leading to diverse outcomes in GS planning, including CPs in URFAs.

Additionally, planners report that the development of CPs in URFAs is influenced by varying perceptions of GS value and stakeholder demands. Combining Wuhan’s development context with experts’ analysis of the value and development of CPs in URFAs demonstrates a level of consensus in the framing of CPs whilst also showing a continued diversity in actions. Similar findings appear in the literature; for instance, Belmeziti et al. discuss the diverse functions of CPs in France [61], while in their global analysis, Schipperijn et al. claim that CPs contribute to improved individual health [62]. Moreover, Maas et al. emphasise that these spaces facilitate social interaction, thereby enhancing community cohesion in the Netherlands [40]. These perspectives not only highlight the multifunctional value of CPs in URFAs but also indicate differing priorities and directions in their construction, highlighting the need for the development of a comprehensive approach that considers ecological, social, and economic requirements during the planning and implementation stages [50,63].

However, the findings in this paper show that local government faces the challenge of balancing urban development objectives with the delivery of high-quality CPs. This observation aligns with results from previous research, e.g., that of Guo and Mell in China, who reported that the quantitative targets for GS construction often compromise the provision of accessible or functional parks [34]. We therefore suggest that an overemphasis has been placed on urban goals, including achieving quantitative standards for green coverage and park numbers, which may lead to inadequate functionality or accessibility. Similar findings are reflected with the ongoing discussions of the Accessible Nature Greenspace Standard and 6-acre standards in the UK [64], the Trust for Public Land Park score in the USA [65], and the Urban Greening Guidelines in India [66], where quantitative distance/size targets that often are not reflective of local spatial form are set. A continued overemphasis on quantitative metrics at the expense of quality may lead to inadequacies in the functionality or accessibility of GS in actual use. Although this study does not engage in a broader debate on indicators, it argues that more attention should be given to quality and not quantity within park construction. Therefore, this study argues that local governments need to balance quantitative goals with quality provision to ensure the effective construction of urban GS.

Given the constraints of the existing planning system in China, experts proposed options to shape the future construction of high-quality CPs. For instance, incorporating residents’ suggestions or adopting “people-centric” approaches to design is recommended. Boland and Zhu [67] support this view, stating that as key stakeholders, the ideas and needs of community committees and residents should significantly influence CP development. For instance, Shanghai has actively promoted resident participation in the governance and maintenance of communities by establishing collaborative/resident feedback platforms, achieving significant results [68]. This practice provides a valuable point of reference for Wuhan, demonstrating the potential of strengthening residents’ roles to improve park management efficiency. Community committees can thus play an essential role in the planning and management of CPs, and residents’ participation and feedback should be used to shape the use and maintenance of parks. Planning processes that ignore residents’ needs therefore often fail to achieve sustainable development [69]. The case study of Wuhan presented here therefore emphasises the significance of incorporating expert and resident suggestions into the planning and implementation stages of CP construction. Understanding and considering their needs help promote the construction of CPs to further meet actual social demands, thereby bridging the gap between urban development goals and delivery.

Building on this, there are growing calls—both in Wuhan and the broader Chinese planning discourse—for structural reforms that promote a more inclusive and participatory approach to GS planning in Urban–Rural Fringe Areas (URFAs). This entails a shift away from predominantly top-down, technocratic planning models toward frameworks that facilitate meaningful engagement with local communities throughout the design and decision-making processes. These perspectives align with international debates on participatory planning, notably Arnstein’s seminal critique of tokenism, which underscores the limitations of superficial forms of public consultation [70]. Wang & Chan explored such links in their analysis of urban greening in Hong Kong to assess how greater participation could facilitate more effective decision-making in planning [71]. For participation to be genuinely effective, it must extend beyond information dissemination and enable communities to influence planning outcomes through structured, transparent, and accountable feedback mechanisms. Nevertheless, implementing such reforms in the Chinese context presents considerable challenges. The planning system remains embedded within a centralised bureaucratic framework, where institutional change tends to be gradual and requires coordination across multiple tiers of government [72,73]. Consequently, replicating collaborative planning models observed in Europe or North America may not be practicable [74]. Despite these constraints, there is increasing recognition of the importance of adopting more multi-dimensional approaches that incorporate residents’ perspectives as integral to delivering high-quality urban and ecological outcomes [75].

However, to achieve this step change in planning praxis remains complex. Although the evidence presented in this paper suggests potential options for the more effective planning of CPs in URFAs, the findings are subject to limitations that should be acknowledged to contextualise their applicability and scope. First, this research focuses on the development of CPs in URFAs in Wuhan. While the findings may not be fully applicable to all cities in China due to the diversity of economic, political, and spatial contexts (yet applied within the same planning and governance structure), the case study of Wuhan offers valuable insights for other Chinese cities, particularly Tier I cities and supercities experiencing rapid urbanisation. In terms of its methodology, the documentary analysis is limited to publications and policy documents available up until December 2023. Although this temporal boundary provides a clear timeframe for analysis, it may have excluded recent developments or emerging trends that could further enrich the findings. Nevertheless, the selected documents adhered to the criteria outlined in the Section 3, ensuring that the data analysis aligned with the research objectives. Additionally, qualitative interviews were prioritised to gain in-depth insights into how CP in URFAs were being developed in Wuhan, which may raise concerns about the representativeness of the data. While the interviewees were key leaders in the development of CPs within Wuhan’s URFA, their perspectives, though insightful, do not encompass the full range of stakeholder views. However, experts were specifically selected for their professional and institutional knowledge, which allowed for a deeper understanding of the regulatory, technical, and political processes shaping CP development—insights that may not be accessible through interviews with residents. This strategic choice facilitated a more analytically robust examination of the findings aligned with the study’s policy and planning-oriented focus. Nonetheless, this approach inevitably limits the empirical capture of everyday lived experiences or public expectations. Future research would benefit from expanding the sample to include a broader variety of stakeholders, including community residents, to better capture the social outcomes and implications of CP development.

In summary, the top-down planning system, ambiguities in policy implementation, diversity in expert perceptions, and insufficient consideration of residents’ suggestions affect the development and quality of CPs in URFAs. Zhao highlights that CP design should consider local conditions and prioritise multi-stakeholder participation, especially the opinions of community residents, to enhance the usage and maintenance of CPs [72]. This study supports Zhao’s viewpoint, emphasising the importance of involving different stakeholders in the planning and design of CPs. Residents’ suggestions promote multifunctionality within the development of CPs, while experts play a crucial role in integrating and balancing regional and urban goals with residents’ needs, providing professional knowledge to ensure effective construction. Moreover, this study highlights that collaborative participation among stakeholders fosters a platform for cooperation, which supports the exchange of ideas related to the development of CPs in URFAs, promoting more effective design and management. Additionally, local government should strengthen regulation promoting CP quality, balancing urban development goals with the construction of multifunctional CPs. The nuance between policy concepts and practical application therefore remains a key challenge in the development of CPs.

6. Conclusions

This paper identifies the opportunities and challenges influencing the development of CPs in URFAs in Wuhan. Through documentary analysis and expert interviews, the impacts of policies, the achievement of urban development goals, political willingness, and financial issues on the construction of GS are explored. The findings indicate that the planning and design of Chinese cities largely depend on policy guidance and the realisation of urban development objectives, which support the effective application of strategies to plan and manage urban GS systematically. National policy thus holds a significant influence on local construction. Simultaneously, the demands of city-scale stakeholders are crucial factors affecting the quality of CPs in URFAs. These findings highlight the importance for local governments in China to balance political goals with the provision of multi-functional parks. Consequently, it is essential to adopt a comprehensive approach that integrates expert knowledge to foster more reflective planning and construction processes, supporting the multi-functional and sustainable development of these parks. Nevertheless, this paper identifies that barriers to effective delivery remain, suggesting that an overarching shift in the construction of GS in decision-making may be required. Moving away from only focusing on achieving urban construction goals to an approach that integrates higher-quality design and socio-ecological functionality through interactions among stakeholders, including government officials, planners, communities, and landscape professionals, is therefore proposed. This shift will help overcome existing implementation obstacles and enhance the value of CPs in URFAs, promote the health of urban ecosystems, and support sustainable development for locals and cities. Urban sustainability thus represents a key direction, emphasising the need for long-term considerations of people, nature, and economy in the effective planning of urban GS [76]. As an essential component of urban GS, CPs in URFAs serve as a method of delivering multifunctional landscape management that has the potential to enhance social welfare, protect the ecological environment, and promote sustainable urban development. Therefore, a critical review of their planning and development is significant, as it facilitates the formulation of scientific and effective planning and management strategies to maximise their impact and promote the sustainable construction of cities.