IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i7p3337-d523065.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Performance Assessment Indicators for Comparing Recreational Services of Urban Parks

Author

Listed:
  • Yang Yang

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, School of Architecture, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510641, China)

  • Zhifang Wang

    (College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China)

  • Guangsi Lin

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, School of Architecture, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510641, China
    State Key Laboratory of Subtropical Building Science, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510641, China
    Guangzhou Municipal Key Laboratory of Landscape Architecture, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510641, China)

Abstract

Parks can offer varied services to human well-being, including recreational services (RS); however, there is insufficient understanding of park differences concerning the actual performance of their varied RS. To fill this gap, this study aimed to develop a set of performance indicators as a tool for comparing the functional efficacy of RS among different parks. The indicators covered three aspects of RS: recreational usage of various physical activities, their recreational satisfaction level and the collective performance rating. These indicators were applied in a case study of four parks in Guangzhou, China, based upon on-site observation and a questionnaire survey. The functional difference of these indicators was compared and the collective indicator was found to be able to effectively capture different efficacies of urban parks in supporting varied RS. Results show all the parks were far from reaching the maximum performance of designed RS, so it is worthy of consideration by urban managers to further improve their RS efficacy. In addition, the overall spatial design and configuration were inferred to be essential for improving the RS efficacy of urban parks, but not park size nor ornamental vegetation. The findings offered valuable evidence for the optimal spatial design and management of urban parks.

Suggested Citation

  • Yang Yang & Zhifang Wang & Guangsi Lin, 2021. "Performance Assessment Indicators for Comparing Recreational Services of Urban Parks," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-21, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:7:p:3337-:d:523065
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/7/3337/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/7/3337/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sugiyama, T. & Francis, J. & Middleton, N.J. & Owen, N. & Giles-CortI, B., 2010. "Associations between recreational walking and attractiveness, size, and proximity of neighborhood open spaces," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 100(9), pages 1752-1757.
    2. Bik C. Chow & Thomas L. McKenzie & Cindy H. P. Sit, 2016. "Public Parks in Hong Kong: Characteristics of Physical Activity Areas and Their Users," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-16, June.
    3. Xinxin Wang & Chengzhao Wu, 2020. "An Observational Study of Park Attributes and Physical Activity in Neighborhood Parks of Shanghai, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-16, March.
    4. Bo Yang & Shujuan Li & Chris Binder, 2016. "A research frontier in landscape architecture: landscape performance and assessment of social benefits," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(3), pages 314-329, April.
    5. Kaczynski, A.T. & Potwarka, L.R. & Saelens P, B.E., 2008. "Association of park size, distance, and features with physical activity in neighborhood parks," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 98(8), pages 1451-1456.
    6. Fariba Bahriny & Simon Bell, 2020. "Patterns of Urban Park Use and Their Relationship to Factors of Quality: A Case Study of Tehran, Iran," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-33, February.
    7. Sugiyama, T. & Gunn, L.D. & Christian, H. & Francis, J. & Foster, S. & Hooper, P. & Owen, N. & Giles-Corti, B., 2015. "Quality of public open spaces and recreational walking," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 105(12), pages 2490-2495.
    8. Chongxian Chen & Weijing Luo & Haiwei Li & Danting Zhang & Ning Kang & Xiaohao Yang & Yu Xia, 2020. "Impact of Perception of Green Space for Health Promotion on Willingness to Use Parks and Actual Use among Young Urban Residents," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-21, August.
    9. Sarah A. Costigan & Jenny Veitch & David Crawford & Alison Carver & Anna Timperio, 2017. "A Cross-Sectional Investigation of the Importance of Park Features for Promoting Regular Physical Activity in Parks," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-10, November.
    10. Kulczyk, Sylwia & Woźniak, Edyta & Derek, Marta, 2018. "Landscape, facilities and visitors: An integrated model of recreational ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 491-501.
    11. Mike Rogerson & Valerie F. Gladwell & Daniel J. Gallagher & Jo L. Barton, 2016. "Influences of Green Outdoors versus Indoors Environmental Settings on Psychological and Social Outcomes of Controlled Exercise," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-16, March.
    12. Fischer, L.K. & Honold, J. & Botzat, A. & Brinkmeyer, D. & Cvejić, R. & Delshammar, T. & Elands, B. & Haase, D. & Kabisch, N. & Karle, S.J. & Lafortezza, R. & Nastran, M. & Nielsen, A.B. & van der Ja, 2018. "Recreational ecosystem services in European cities: Sociocultural and geographical contexts matter for park use," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 455-467.
    13. Yang Zhang & Agnes E. Van den Berg & Terry Van Dijk & Gerd Weitkamp, 2017. "Quality over Quantity: Contribution of Urban Green Space to Neighborhood Satisfaction," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-10, May.
    14. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    15. Bingqin Yu & Shengquan Che & Changkun Xie & Shu Tian, 2018. "Understanding Shanghai Residents’ Perception of Leisure Impact and Experience Satisfaction of Urban Community Parks: An Integrated and IPA Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chang Luo & Xiangyi Li, 2021. "Assessment of Ecosystem Service Supply, Demand, and Balance of Urban Green Spaces in a Typical Mountainous City: A Case Study on Chongqing, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(20), pages 1-17, October.

    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. Xiaohu Zhang & Scott Melbourne & Chinmoy Sarkar & Alain Chiaradia & Chris Webster, 2020. "Effects of green space on walking: Does size, shape and density matter?," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 57(16), pages 3402-3420, December.
    2. Claudia Fongar & Geir Aamodt & Thomas B. Randrup & Ingjerd Solfjeld, 2019. "Does Perceived Green Space Quality Matter? Linking Norwegian Adult Perspectives on Perceived Quality to Motivation and Frequency of Visits," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-16, July.
    3. Xinxin Wang & Chengzhao Wu, 2020. "An Observational Study of Park Attributes and Physical Activity in Neighborhood Parks of Shanghai, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-16, March.
    4. Jieyuan Zhu & Huiting Lu & Tianchen Zheng & Yuejing Rong & Chenxing Wang & Wen Zhang & Yan Yan & Lina Tang, 2020. "Vitality of Urban Parks and Its Influencing Factors from the Perspective of Recreational Service Supply, Demand, and Spatial Links," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-17, March.
    5. Agnieszka Jaszczak & Ewelina Pochodyła & Katarina Kristianova & Natalia Małkowska & Jan K. Kazak, 2021. "Redefinition of Park Design Criteria as a Result of Analysis of Well-Being and Soundscape: The Case Study of the Kortowo Park (Poland)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-22, March.
    6. Phi-Yen Nguyen & Thomas Astell-Burt & Hania Rahimi-Ardabili & Xiaoqi Feng, 2021. "Green Space Quality and Health: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-38, October.
    7. Brzoska, P. & Grunewald, K. & Bastian, O., 2021. "A multi-criteria analytical method to assess ecosystem services at urban site level, exemplified by two German city districts," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    8. Razieh Zandieh & Javier Martinez & Johannes Flacke, 2019. "Older Adults’ Outdoor Walking and Inequalities in Neighbourhood Green Spaces Characteristics," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-18, November.
    9. Sigit D. Arifwidodo & Orana Chandrasiri & Niramon Rasri & Wipada Sirawarong & Panitat Rattanawichit & Natsiporn Sangyuan, 2022. "Association between Park Visitation and Physical Activity among Adults in Bangkok, Thailand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-11, October.
    10. Meryem Hayir-Kanat & Jürgen Breuste, 2020. "Outdoor Recreation Participation in Istanbul, Turkey: An Investigation of Frequency, Length, Travel Time and Activities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-23, January.
    11. Abdullah Addas & Ahmad Maghrabi, 2020. "A Proposed Planning Concept for Public Open Space Provision in Saudi Arabia: A Study of Three Saudi Cities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-36, August.
    12. Eduardo Quieroti Rodrigues & Leandro Martin Totaro Garcia & Evelyn Helena Corgosinho Ribeiro & Ligia Vizeu Barrozo & Regina Tomie Ivata Bernal & Douglas Roque Andrade & João Paulo dos Anjos Souza Barb, 2022. "Use of an Elevated Avenue for Leisure-Time Physical Activity by Adults from Downtown São Paulo, Brazil," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-15, May.
    13. Chompoonut Kongphunphin & Manat Srivanit, 2021. "A Multi-Dimensional Clustering Applied to Classify the Typology of Urban Public Parks in Bangkok Metropolitan Area, Thailand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-18, October.
    14. Jörg Priess & Luis Valença Pinto & Ieva Misiune & Julia Palliwoda, 2021. "Ecosystem Service Use and the Motivations for Use in Central Parks in Three European Cities," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15, February.
    15. Yaqi Du & Rong Zhao, 2022. "Research on the Development of Urban Parks Based on the Perception of Tourists: A Case Study of Taihu Park in Beijing," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-18, April.
    16. Daams, Michiel N. & Sijtsma, Frans J. & Veneri, Paolo, 2019. "Mixed monetary and non-monetary valuation of attractive urban green space: A case study using Amsterdam house prices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    17. Kinga Kimic & Paulina Polko, 2022. "The Use of Urban Parks by Older Adults in the Context of Perceived Security," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-20, March.
    18. Yunwon Choi & Heeyeun Yoon, 2020. "Do the Walkability and Urban Leisure Amenities of Neighborhoods Affect the Body Mass Index of Individuals? Based on a Case Study in Seoul, South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-20, March.
    19. Grzyb, Tomasz & Kulczyk, Sylwia & Derek, Marta & Woźniak, Edyta, 2021. "Using social media to assess recreation across urban green spaces in times of abrupt change," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    20. Chanuki Illushka Seresinhe & Helen Susannah Moat & Tobias Preis, 2018. "Quantifying scenic areas using crowdsourced data," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 45(3), pages 567-582, May.

    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:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:7:p:3337-:d:523065. 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.