Study of the Functions of Urban Parks: A Case Study of Novi Sad (Serbia)
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Urban Parks in Novi Sad
2.2. Questionnaire
3. Results
3.1. Year of Study, Park Functions, and Scores for Park Functions
3.2. Aesthetic Park Functions
3.3. Ecological Park Functions
3.4. Eductional Park Functions
3.5. Recreational Park Functions
3.6. Psyhological Park Functions
3.7. Economic Park Functions
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Frequency of Visit | {1} | {2} | {3} | {4} | {5} |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Once a month | |||||
2–3 times per month | 0.819713 | ||||
Once a week | 0.058547 | 0.089879 | |||
2–3 times per week | 0.981761 | 0.828555 | 0.048364 * | ||
Everyday | 0.027915 * | 0.041326 * | 0.484553 | 0.023843 * |
References
- Kothencz, L.; Lakatos, M.; Keresztes, D. Urban Park System Research in Hungary: A Case Study of Szombathely. Sustainability 2017, 9, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, G.; Kyttä, M.; Hager, T. An Evaluation of Participatory Mapping Methods to Assess Urban Park Benefits. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 178, 46–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiesura, A. The Role of Urban Parks for the Sustainable City. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 68, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moyle, B.D.; Weiler, B. Revisiting the Importance of Visitation: Public Perceptions of Park Benefits. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2016, 16, 380–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larson, L.R.; Jennings, V.; Cloutier, S. Public Parks and Wellbeing in Urban Areas of the United States. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0153211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Giedych, R.; Maksymiuk, J. Specific Features of Parks and Their Impact on Regulation and Cultural Ecosystem Services Provision in Warsaw, Poland. Sustainability 2017, 9, 792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, H.; Huang, X.; Wang, S.; Lu, J.; Li, Z.; Zhu, L. A Data-Driven Investigation on Park Visitation and Income Mixing of Visitors in New York City. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 2022, 50, 796–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guan, C.; Song, J.; Keith, M.; Akiyama, Y.; Shibasaki, R.; Sato, T. Delineating Urban Park Catchment Areas Using Mobile Phone Data: A Case Study of Tokyo. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2020, 81, 101474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jang, E.; Choi, H.B.; Kim, M. The Restorative Effects of Urban Parks on Stress Control Ability and Community Attachment. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nadzri, A.A.M.; Hussain, M.R.M.; Tukiman, I.; Zaini, M.A.A.M.; Shazalee, N.R. Physical and Psychological Health Benefits of Urban Park in Relation to Pandemic Crises. J. Soc. Sci. Humanit. 2023, 6, 16–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, J.; Luo, S.; Furuya, K.; Da-jiang, S. Urban Parks as Green Buffers during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srdjevic, B.; Srdjevic, Z.; Lakicevic, M. Urban Greening and Provisioning of Ecosystem Services within Hesitant Decision Making Framework. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 43, 126371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malik, A.; Zubair, M.; Manzoor, S.A. Valuing the Invaluable: Park Visitors’ Perceived Importance and Willingness to Pay for Urban Park Trees in Pakistan. Ecosphere 2021, 12, e3348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halkos, G.; Leonti, A.; Sardianou, E. Assessing the Preservation of Parks and Natural Protected Areas: A Review of Contingent Valuation Studies. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barradas, V.L.; Miranda, J.A.; Esperón-Rodríguez, M.; Ballinas, M. (Re)designing Urban Parks to Maximize Urban Heat Island Mitigation by Natural Means. Forests 2022, 13, 1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shafee, F.A.A.; Kamaruddin, S.M. The Effective Characteristics of an Urban Park through Visitors’ Perception. Case Study: KLCC Park. Built Environ. J. 2019, 16, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, H.; Li, F.; Lian-fang, X.; Han, B. The Impact of Socio-Demographic, Environmental, and Individual Factors on Urban Park Visitation in Beijing, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 163, S181–S188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCormack, G.R.; Rock, M.; Swanson, K.; Burton, L.; Massolo, A. Physical Activity Patterns in Urban Neighbourhood Parks: Insights from a Multiple Case Study. BMC Public Health 2014, 14, 962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lakicevic, M.; Srdjevic, B. An Approach to Developing the Multicriteria Optimal Forest Management Plan: The “Fruska Gora” National Park Case Study. Land 2022, 11, 1671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bosch, M.v.d.; Mudu, P.; Uscila, V.; Barrdahl, M.; Kulinkina, A.V.; Staatsen, B.; Egorov, A.I. Development of an Urban Green Space Indicator and the Public Health Rationale. Scand. J. Public Health 2015, 44, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Long, Y.; Shi, Q. Growth in Surrounding Consumer Amenities: The Economic Externality of Urban Parks. Growth Change 2021, 52, 1154–1171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nor, A.N.M.; Abdullah, S.A. Developing Urban Green Space Classification System Using Multi-Criteria: The Case of Kuala Lumpur City, Malaysia. J. Landsc. Ecol. 2019, 12, 16–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, G.; Zheng, J.; Zhang, J. Research on Sustainable Design of Urban Green Spaces. Adv. Soc. Sci. Educ. Humanit. Res. 2024, 490, 490–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, X.; Zhou, Y.; Sun, N. Study on the Evaluation of Urban Park Landscape Pattern Index and Its Driving Mechanisms in Nanchang City. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Błaszczyk, M.; Suchocka, M.; Wojnowska-Heciak, M.; Muszyńska, M. Quality of Urban Parks in the Perception of City Residents with Mobility Difficulties. PeerJ 2020, 8, e10570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, Y.; Zhang, J.; Wei, W.; Bing, Z. Effects of Urban Parks on Residents’ Expressed Happiness before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2021, 212, 104118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Enßle-Reinhardt, F.; Kabisch, N. Urban Green Spaces for the Social Interaction, Health, and Well-Being of Older People—An Integrated View of Urban Ecosystem Services and Socio-Environmental Justice. Environ. Sci. Policy 2020, 109, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muhlisin, M.; Iskandar, J.; Gunawan, B.; Cahyandito, M.F. Vegetation Diversity and Structure of Urban Parks in Cilegon City, Indonesia, and Local Residents’ Perception of Its Function. Biodiversitas J. Biol. Divers. 2021, 22, e220706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bratman, G.N.; Anderson, C.B.; Berman, M.G.; Cochran, B.; Vries, S.d.; Flanders, J.; Daily, G.C. Nature and Mental Health: An Ecosystem Service Perspective. Sci. Adv. 2019, 5, eaax0903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, R.; Wulff, H.; Duan, Y.; Wagner, P. Associations between the Physical Environment and Park-Based Physical Activity: A Systematic Review. J. Sport Health Sci. 2019, 8, 412–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seo, J.; Kim, J. Exploring the Influence of the Private Park on Spatial Equity in Urban Parks: A Case Study in Seoul, South Korea. Urban For. Urban Green. 2024, 104, 128663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krajter Ostoić, S.; van den Bosch, C.C.K.; Vuletić, D.; Stevanov, M.; Živojinović, I.; Mutabdžija-Bećirović, S.; Lazarević, J.; Stojanova, B.; Blagojević, D.; Stojanovska, M.; et al. Citizens’ Perception of and Satisfaction with Urban Forests and Green Space: Results from Selected Southeast European Cities. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 23, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ugolini, F.; Massetti, L.; Calaza-Martínez, P.; Cariñanos, P.; Dobbs, C.; Krajter Ostoić, S.; Marin, A.M.; Pearlmutter, D.; Saaroni, H.; Šaulienė, I.; et al. Understanding the Benefits of Public Urban Green Space: How Do Perceptions Vary between Professionals and Users? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2022, 228, 104575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lakicevic, M.; Srdjevic, Z.; Srdjevic, B.; Zlatic, M. Decision Making in Urban Forestry by Using Approval Voting and Multicriteria Approval Method (Case Study: Zvezdarska Forest, Belgrade, Serbia). Urban For. Urban Green. 2014, 13, 114–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruña-García, X.; Marey-Pérez, M. Participative Forest Planning: How to Obtain Knowledge. For. Syst. 2018, 27, e002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srdjevic, B.; Srdjevic, Z.; Reynolds, K.M.; Lakicevic, M.; Zdero, S. Using Analytic Hierarchy Process and Best–Worst Method in Group Evaluation of Urban Park Quality. Forests 2022, 13, 290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zavadskas, E.K.; Bausys, R.; Mazonaviciute, I. Safety Evaluation Methodology of Urban Public Parks by Multi-Criteria Decision Making. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 189, 372–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, S.; Song, H.; Li, X.; Luo, S. Urban Parks Quality Assessment Using Multi-Dimension Indicators in Chengdu, China. Land 2024, 13, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lakicevic, M.; Srdjevic, B. Multiplicative Version of Promethee Method in Assesment of Parks in Novi Sad. Zb. Matice Srp. Za Prir. Nauk. 2017, 132, 79–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Esmail, A.B.; Cortinovis, C.; Suleiman, L.; Albert, C.; Geneletti, D.; Mörtberg, U. Greening Cities through Urban Planning: A Literature Review on the Uptake of Concepts and Methods in Stockholm. Urban For. Urban Green. 2022, 72, 127584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- City of Novi Sad, City Administration for Environmental Protection, GIS of green areas. Available online: https://zelenilo.com/ (accessed on 23 January 2025).
- Orlović, S.; Mladenović, E.; Čukanović, J.; Ljubojević, M.; Lakićević, M.; Hiel, K.; Pavlović, L.; Vuksanović, V.; Bajić, L.; Kovač, M. Development of a Pilot Project for the Creation of a Database for the Greenery Inventory of the City of Novi Sad; City Administration for Environmental Protection, City of Novi Sad: Novi Sad, Serbia, 2023; pp. 1–81. [Google Scholar]
- Ninić, T.J.; Nešić, L.; Lazović, R.; Kurjakov, A. Futoški park as the preserved nature heritage. Cultural-historical and ecological-landscape values of Futoški Park in Novi Sad. Letop. Naučnih Rad. 2008, 32, 102–110. [Google Scholar]
- Vasiljević, Đ.A.; Vujičić, M.D.; Stankov, U.; Dragović, N. Visitor motivation and perceived value of periurban parks-Case study of Kamenica park, Serbia. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2023, 42, 100625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lakicevic, M.; Reynolds, K.M.; Orlovic, S.; Kolarov, R. Measuring Dendrofloristic Diversity in Urban Parks in Novi Sad (Serbia). Trees For. People 2022, 8, 100239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tomić, M.C.; Todorović, R.M.; Vračarić, M. University campus as a secondary city center—A case study of Novi Sad in Serbia. In Proceedings of the International conference on Contemporary Theory and Practice in Construction, No. 14, Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 13–14 June 2024. [Google Scholar]
- Lakićević, M.; Orlović, S. The diversity of dendroflora of the University Park in Novi Sad. Letop. Naučnih Rad. 2022, 46, 28–34. (In Serbian) [Google Scholar]
- Lakićević, M.; Dedović, N.; Marto, M.; Reynolds, K.M. Urban Parks in Novi Sad (Serbia)—Insights from Landscape Architecture Students. Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taber, K.S. The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. Res. Sci. Educ. 2018, 48, 1273–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cloud Software Group, Inc. Data Science Workbench, Version 14.1 2023. Available online: http://tibco.com (accessed on 1 November 2024).
- R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2022; Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 1 December 2024).
- Lakicevic, M.; Povak, N.; Reynolds, K.M. Introduction to R for Terrestrial Ecology; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kostić, S.; Levanič, T.; Orlović, S.; Matović, B.; Stojanović, D.B. Turkey Oak (Quercus cerris L.) is More Drought Tolerant and Better Reflects Climate Variations Compared to Pedunculate Oak (Quercus robur L.) in Lowland Mixed Forests in Northwestern Serbia: A Stable Carbon Isotope Ratio (δ13C) and Radial Growth Approach. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 142, 109242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Camisón, Á.; Sánchez Miguel, R.; Rodríguez, A.; Revilla, J.; Tardáguila, M.Á.; Hernández, D.; Lakicevic, M.; Jovellar, L.C.; Silla, F. Regeneration Dynamics of Quercus pyrenaica Willd. in the Central System (Spain). For. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 343, 42–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srdjevic, B.; Lakicevic, M.; Srdjevic, Z. Fuzzy AHP Assessment of Urban Parks Quality and Importance in Novi Sad City, Serbia. Forests 2023, 14, 1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, T.; Lu, J.; Shao, Y. Exploring the Impact of Visual and Aural Elements in Urban Parks on Human Behavior and Emotional Responses. Land 2024, 13, 1468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González, T.; Berger, P.; Sánchez, C.N.; Mahichi, F. Sustainability of Urban Parks: Applicable Methodological Framework for a Simple Assessment. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiu, N.; Ignatieva, M.; van den Bosch, C.K.; Chai, Y.; Wang, F.; Cui, T.; Yang, F. A socio-ecological perspective of urban green networks: The Stockholm case. Urban Ecosyst. 2017, 20, 729–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, M.-J. Ecological Design Strategies and Theory for Urban Parks in Seoul, 1990s–Present. Land 2021, 10, 1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Konijnendijk, C.C.; Annerstedt, M.; Nielsen, A.B.; Maruthaveeran, S. Benefits of Urban Parks—A Systematic Review. 2013. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Cecil-Konijnendijk-Van-Den-Bosch/publication/267330243_Benefits_of_Urban_Parks_A_systematic_review_-_A_Report_for_IFPRA/links/544b6bae0cf2bcc9b1d51ef5/Benefits-of-Urban-Parks-A-systematic-review-A-Report-for-IFPRA.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2024).
- Delgado-Serrano, M.M.; Melichová, K.; Mac Fadden, I.; Cruz-Piedrahita, C. Perception of Green Spaces’ Role in Enhancing Mental Health and Mental Well-Being in Small and Medium-Sized Cities. Land Use Policy 2024, 139, 107087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, J.; Kim, J. Economic Impacts of a Linear Urban Park on Local Businesses: The Case of Gyeongui Line Forest Park in Seoul. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 181, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferreira, F.; Vasconcelos, L.; Ferreira, J.C. Socio-Ecological and Economic Evaluation of Urban Parks—A Methodology Integrating and Articulating Diverse Components. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2022, 40, 100512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lakicevic, M.; Srdjevic, B.; Velichkov, I. Combining AHP and SMARTER in Forestry Decision Making. Balt. For. 2018, 24, 42–49. [Google Scholar]
- Li, F.; Guo, S.; Li, D.; Li, X.; Li, J.; Xie, S. A Multi-Criteria Spatial Approach for Mapping Urban Ecosystem Services Demand. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 112, 106119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Park Function | Mean Value * | Standard Deviation | Standard Error |
---|---|---|---|
Aesthetic | 3.485 ab | 0.586 | 0.071 |
Ecological | 3.588 a | 0.851 | 0.103 |
Educational | 2.897 c | 1.081 | 0.131 |
Recreational | 3.074 bc | 1.176 | 0.143 |
Psychological | 3.603 a | 0.849 | 0.103 |
Economic | 2.618 c | 0.881 | 0.107 |
Year of Study | Park Function | Mean Value | Standard Error | Confidence Interval |
---|---|---|---|---|
II | Aesthetic | 3.500 | 0.1454 | (3.2141, 3.7859) |
II | Ecological | 3.625 | 0.1454 | (3.3391, 3.9109) |
II | Educational | 2.950 | 0.1454 | (2.6641, 3.2359) |
II | Recreational | 3.300 | 0.1454 | (3.0141, 3.5859) |
II | Psychological | 3.750 | 0.1454 | (3.4641, 4.0359) |
II | Economic | 2.675 | 0.1454 | (2.3891, 2.9609) |
IV | Aesthetic | 3.464 | 0.1738 | (3.1226, 3.8059) |
IV | Ecological | 3.536 | 0.1738 | (3.1941, 3.8774) |
IV | Educational | 2.821 | 0.1738 | (2.4798, 3.1631) |
IV | Recreational | 2.750 | 0.1738 | (2.4083, 3.0917) |
IV | Psychological | 3.393 | 0.1738 | (3.0512, 3.7345) |
IV | Economic | 2.536 | 0.1738 | (2.1940, 2.8774) |
Park Function | Statistically Significant Differences in Ratings and Year of Study | p-Value |
---|---|---|
Recreational | II (3.300) i IV (2.750) | 0.0157 |
Frequency of Visit | Mean Value of Score (Aesthetic Function) | Standard Error | Confidence Interval |
---|---|---|---|
Once a month | 3.308 | 0.1556 | (2.9968, 3.6186) |
2–3 times per month | 3.357 | 0.1499 | (3.0575, 3.6567) |
Once a week | 3.706 | 0.1361 | (3.4340, 3.9778) |
2–3 times per week | 3.312 | 0.1402 | (3.0322, 3.5928) |
Everyday | 3.875 | 0.1983 | (3.4787, 4.2713) |
Length of Stay | Mean Value of Score (Aesthetic Function) | Standard Error | Confidence Interval |
---|---|---|---|
<10 min | 3.800 | 0.2640 | (3.2725, 4.3275) |
10–30 min | 3.522 | 0.1231 | (3.2758, 3.7677) |
30–60 min | 3.429 | 0.0998 | (3.2292, 3.6279) |
1–2 h | 3.400 | 0.2640 | (2.8725, 3.9275) |
Frequency of Visit | Length of Stay | Mean Value (Ecological Function) | Standard Error | Confidence Interval |
---|---|---|---|---|
2–3 times per month | 10–30 min | 4.250 | 0.4024 | (3.4426, 5.0574) |
1–2 h | 2.000 | 0.8047 | (0.3852, 3.6148) | |
Once a week | 10–30 min | 3.286 | 0.3042 | (2.6754, 3.8961) |
Everyday | 4.500 | 0.4024 | (3.6926, 5.3074) | |
Once a month | 1–2 h | 4.500 | 0.5690 | (3.3581, 5.6419) |
2–3 times per month | 2.000 | 0.8047 | (0.3852, 3.6148) |
Variable | n | Educational Function (Score) 1 | Confidence Interval |
---|---|---|---|
Frequency of park visit | |||
2–3 times per month | 14 | 2.594 ± 0.4177 a | (1.7557, 3.4319) |
Once a week | 17 | 3.095 ± 0.4046 a | (2.2833, 3.9072) |
2–3 times per week | 16 | 2.830 ± 0.3254 a | (2.1766, 3.4827) |
Everyday | 8 | 3.125 ± 0.3833 a | (2.3559, 3.8941) |
Length of stay in park | |||
Less than 10 min | 5 | 3.111 ± 0.5520 a | (2.0035, 4.2187) |
10–30 min | 23 | 2.877 ± 0.2351 a | (2.4053, 3.3490) |
30–60 min | 35 | 2.843 ± 0.1936 a | (2.4543, 3.2312) |
1–2 h | 5 | 2.500 ± 0.5110 a | (1.4746, 3.5255) |
Data set average | 68 | 2.897 ± 0.1311 | (0.9248, 1.3008) |
Frequency of Visit | Length of Stay | Mean Value (Recreational Function) | Standard Error | Confidence Interval |
---|---|---|---|---|
Once a week | 10–30 min | 4.000 | 0.4026 | (3.1921, 4.8079) |
30–60 min | 2.444 | 0.3551 | (1.7320, 3.1569) | |
Once a week | 10–30 min | 4.000 | 0.4026 | (3.1921, 4.8079) |
<10 min | 1.000 | 1.0652 | (−1.1375, 3.1375) | |
Once a month | 1–2 h | 4.500 | 0.7532 | (2.9886, 6.0114) |
30–60 min | 2.200 | 0.4764 | (1.2441, 3.1559) | |
Once a month | 1–2 h | 4.500 | 0.7532 | (2.9886, 6.0114) |
<10 min | 2.333 | 0.6150 | (1.0992, 3.5674) |
Frequency of Visit | Length of Stay | Mean Value (Psychological Function) | Standard Error | Confidence Interval |
---|---|---|---|---|
Once a week | 30–60 min | 3.556 | 0.2716 | (3.0107, 4.1005) |
<10 min | 1.000 | 0.8146 | (−0.6347, 2.6347) | |
Once a week | 10–30 min | 3.857 | 0.3079 | (3.2393, 4.4750) |
<10 min | 1.000 | 0.8146 | (−0.6347, 2.6347) | |
Once a month | 1–2 h | 4.500 | 0.5760 | (3.3441, 5.6559) |
30–60 min | 3.000 | 0.3643 | (2.2689, 3.7311) | |
Once a week | <10 min | 1.000 | 0.8146 | (−0.6347, 2.6347) |
Once a month | 3.333 | 0.4703 | (2.3895, 4.2771) | |
Once a week | <10 min | 1.000 | 0.8146 | (−0.6347, 2.6347) |
2–3 times per month | 4.000 | 0.8146 | (2.3653, 5.6347) |
Frequency of Visit | Mean Value of Score (Psychological Function) | Standard Error | Confidence Interval |
---|---|---|---|
Once a month | 3.462 | 0.2386 | (3.1119, 4.0310) |
2–3 times per month | 3.571 | 0.2300 | (3.1190,4.0238) |
Once a week | 3.529 | 0.2087 | (3.1124, 3.9464) |
2–3 times per week | 3.625 | 0.2151 | (3.1951, 4.0549) |
Everyday | 4.000 | 0.3042 | (3.3921, 4.6079) |
Length of Stay | Mean Value of Score (Psychological Function) | Standard Error | Confidence Interval |
---|---|---|---|
<10 min | 3.000 | 0.3744 | (2.2521, 3.7479) |
10–30 min | 3.826 | 0.1745 | (3.4774, 4.1748) |
30–60 min | 3.514 | 0.1415 | (3.2316, 3.7970) |
1–2 h | 3.800 | 0.3744 | (3.0521, 4.5479) |
Frequency of Visit | Mean Value of Score (Economic Function) | Standard Error | Confidence Interval |
---|---|---|---|
Once a month | 2.308 | 0.2446 | (1.8189, 2.7965) |
2–3 times per month | 2.786 | 0.2357 | (2.3147, 3.2568) |
Once a week | 2.647 | 0.2139 | (2.2196, 3.0745) |
2–3 times per week | 2.500 | 0.2205 | (2.0594, 2.9406) |
Everyday | 3.000 | 0.3118 | (2.3769, 3.6231) |
Length of Stay | Mean Value of Score (Economic Function) | Standard Error | Confidence Interval |
---|---|---|---|
<10 min | 2.200 | 0.3939 | (1.4131, 2.9869) |
10–30 min | 2.826 | 0.1837 | (2.4592, 3.1930) |
30–60 min | 2.514 | 0.1489 | (2.2169, 2.8117) |
1–2 h | 2.800 | 0.3939 | (2.0131, 3.5869) |
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
Lakićević, M.; Dedović, N.; Gazdić, M.; Reynolds, K.M. Study of the Functions of Urban Parks: A Case Study of Novi Sad (Serbia). Urban Sci. 2025, 9, 175. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci9050175
Lakićević M, Dedović N, Gazdić M, Reynolds KM. Study of the Functions of Urban Parks: A Case Study of Novi Sad (Serbia). Urban Science. 2025; 9(5):175. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci9050175
Chicago/Turabian StyleLakićević, Milena, Nebojša Dedović, Milan Gazdić, and Keith M. Reynolds. 2025. "Study of the Functions of Urban Parks: A Case Study of Novi Sad (Serbia)" Urban Science 9, no. 5: 175. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci9050175
APA StyleLakićević, M., Dedović, N., Gazdić, M., & Reynolds, K. M. (2025). Study of the Functions of Urban Parks: A Case Study of Novi Sad (Serbia). Urban Science, 9(5), 175. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci9050175