IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i5p564-d1380737.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Importance–Performance Analysis to Reveal Priorities for Multifunctional Landscape Optimization in Urban Parks

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaomin Xiao

    (Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Qiaoru Ye

    (Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Xiaobin Dong

    (Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)

Abstract

In the context of urban renewal, residents have presented elevated expectations for the quality of urban parks, necessitating the optimization of parks’ multifunctional landscapes. Transforming residents’ preferences for landscape services into a prioritized index for multifunctional landscape renewal poses a significant challenge. This study addresses this research gap by integrating importance–performance analysis (IPA) with residents’ perception evaluations of landscape services. We establish an index system to evaluate perceptions of urban park landscape services. By employing the importance–performance analysis framework, we identify landscape service types that exhibit high importance but low satisfaction levels, thereby establishing priorities for multifunctional landscape renewal. Using Guangzhou’s urban parks as a case study, our findings reveal variations in users’ demands for different landscape services and differences in demand among various user groups for similar services. Users assign utmost importance to safety services while expressing the highest satisfaction with physical and mental health or microclimate regulation services. Significant disparities exist between middle-aged/elderly groups and young people regarding perceptions of social interaction, waste disposal, and sense of belonging services. Our results demonstrate that IPA analysis can elucidate priorities for multifunctional landscape renewal, facilitate public participation in improving urban park landscapes, and provide decision-making support for optimizing these landscapes.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaomin Xiao & Qiaoru Ye & Xiaobin Dong, 2024. "Using Importance–Performance Analysis to Reveal Priorities for Multifunctional Landscape Optimization in Urban Parks," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-26, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:5:p:564-:d:1380737
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/5/564/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/5/564/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Claudia Canedoli & Craig Bullock & Marcus J. Collier & Deirdre Joyce & Emilio Padoa-Schioppa, 2017. "Public Participatory Mapping of Cultural Ecosystem Services: Citizen Perception and Park Management in the Parco Nord of Milan (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-27, May.
    2. Abalo, Javier & Varela, Jesus & Manzano, Vicente, 2007. "Importance values for Importance-Performance Analysis: A formula for spreading out values derived from preference rankings," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 115-121, February.
    3. Julie Brunner & Paul Cozens, 2013. "'Where Have All the Trees Gone?' Urban Consolidation and the Demise of Urban Vegetation: A Case Study from Western Australia," Planning Practice & Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(2), pages 231-255, April.
    4. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wenjia Zhou & Jun Cai & Kai Chen, 2022. "Connecting Recreational Service to Visitor’s Well-Being: A Case Study in Qianjiangyuan National Park," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-17, September.
    2. Denise Boehnke & Alice Krehl & Kai Mörmann & Rebekka Volk & Thomas Lützkendorf & Elias Naber & Ronja Becker & Stefan Norra, 2022. "Mapping Urban Green and Its Ecosystem Services at Microscale—A Methodological Approach for Climate Adaptation and Biodiversity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-26, July.
    3. Wai Soe Zin & Aya Suzuki & Kelvin S.-H. Peh & Alexandros Gasparatos, 2019. "Economic Value of Cultural Ecosystem Services from Recreation in Popa Mountain National Park, Myanmar: A Comparison of Two Rapid Valuation Techniques," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    4. Goran Krsnik & Sonia Reyes-Paecke & Keith M. Reynolds & Jordi Garcia-Gonzalo & José Ramón González Olabarria, 2023. "Assessing Relativeness in the Provision of Urban Ecosystem Services: Better Comparison Methods for Improved Well-Being," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, May.
    5. Julian Bolleter, 2016. "On the verge: re-thinking street reserves in relation to suburban densification," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(2), pages 195-212, April.
    6. Gaodi Xie & Wenhui Chen & Shuyan Cao & Chunxia Lu & Yu Xiao & Changshun Zhang & Na Li & Shuo Wang, 2014. "The Outward Extension of an Ecological Footprint in City Expansion: The Case of Beijing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-16, December.
    7. P. Hlaváčková & D. Šafařík, 2016. "Quantification of the utility value of the recreational function of forests from the aspect of valuation practice," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(8), pages 345-356.
    8. Alexander V. Rusanov, 2019. "Dacha dwellers and gardeners: garden plots and second homes in Europe and Russia," Population and Economics, ARPHA Platform, vol. 3(1), pages 107-124, April.
    9. Hui, Ling Chui & Jim, C.Y., 2022. "Urban-greenery demands are affected by perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices, and socio-demographic and environmental-cultural factors," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    10. Monika Kopecká & Daniel Szatmári & Konštantín Rosina, 2017. "Analysis of Urban Green Spaces Based on Sentinel-2A: Case Studies from Slovakia," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-17, April.
    11. Veerkamp, Clara J. & Schipper, Aafke M. & Hedlund, Katarina & Lazarova, Tanya & Nordin, Amanda & Hanson, Helena I., 2021. "A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    12. Sung-Shun Weng & Yang Liu & Yen-Ching Chuang, 2019. "Reform of Chinese Universities in the Context of Sustainable Development: Teacher Evaluation and Improvement Based on Hybrid Multiple Criteria Decision-Making Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-23, October.
    13. Ahmet Tolunay & Çağlar Başsüllü, 2015. "Willingness to Pay for Carbon Sequestration and Co-Benefits of Forests in Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-27, March.
    14. Vasileios A. Tzanakakis & Andrea G. Capodaglio & Andreas N. Angelakis, 2023. "Insights into Global Water Reuse Opportunities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-30, August.
    15. Massoni, Emma Soy & Barton, David N. & Rusch, Graciela M. & Gundersen, Vegard, 2018. "Bigger, more diverse and better? Mapping structural diversity and its recreational value in urban green spaces," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 502-516.
    16. Somajita Paul & Harini Nagendra, 2017. "Factors Influencing Perceptions and Use of Urban Nature: Surveys of Park Visitors in Delhi," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-23, April.
    17. Michele Preziosi & Alessia Acampora & Maria Claudia Lucchetti & Roberto Merli, 2022. "Delighting Hotel Guests with Sustainability: Revamping Importance-Performance Analysis in the Light of the Three-Factor Theory of Customer Satisfaction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-20, March.
    18. Agung Dwi Sutrisno & Yun-Ju Chen & I Wayan Koko Suryawan & Chun-Hung Lee, 2023. "Building a Community’s Adaptive Capacity for Post-Mining Plans Based on Important Performance Analysis: Case Study from Indonesia," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-21, June.
    19. Loc, Ho Huu & Park, Edward & Thu, Tran Ngoc & Diep, Nguyen Thi Hong & Can, Nguyen Trong, 2021. "An enhanced analytical framework of participatory GIS for ecosystem services assessment applied to a Ramsar wetland site in the Vietnam Mekong Delta," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    20. Bo Yang & Ming-Han Li & Shujuan Li, 2013. "Design-with-Nature for Multifunctional Landscapes: Environmental Benefits and Social Barriers in Community Development," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:5:p:564-:d:1380737. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.