IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i16p10134-d889517.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of Self-Rated Health Status on Residents’ Social-Benefit Perceptions of Urban Green Space

Author

Listed:
  • Yuhong Tian

    (State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology, School of Natural Resources, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Fenghua Liu

    (State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology, School of Natural Resources, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Chi Yung Jim

    (Department of Social Sciences, Education University of Hong Kong, Tai Po, Hong Kong, China)

  • Tiantian Wang

    (School of Environment and Nature Resources, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, China)

  • Jingya Luan

    (State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology, School of Natural Resources, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Mengxuan Yan

    (State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology, School of Natural Resources, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)

Abstract

Urban green spaces (UGS) provide many social benefits and improves residents’ wellbeing. Studying residents’ perceptions of UGS’s social benefits and driving factors could promote public health and environmental justice. A questionnaire survey of 432 Beijing residents and statistical tests assessed the impacts of residents’ living environments and self-rated health status on UGS perceptions. The results showed: (1) perceptions of UGS’ physical health benefits were subdued, with an inclination towards other social benefits. Respondents more highly perceived accelerating patient recovery and reducing morbidity and mortality rates. Perceptions of bearing larger-head babies with higher weight were relatively low. For other social benefits, perceptions of improving the environment and life quality were higher, but reducing anger outbursts and resolving conflicts were lower. (2) Childhood living environments did not affect perceptions of social benefits, but current living environments did. Suburb residents understood reducing pain-relief medication demands and bearing larger-head babies better than city residents. City residents understood UGS’ investments considerable and sustained returns better than village residents. City residents agreed with accelerating patient recovery higher than village ones. (3) Respondents with “poor” self-rated health status had better perceptions of other social benefits. Those with “excellent” ratings did not fully understand UGS’ physical health benefits. “Poor” ratings understood improving a city’s image and making cities livable and sustainable better than “good” or “fair” ratings. “Excellent” ratings had less understanding of larger-head babies than “good” or “fair” ratings. The study could enhance appreciation of UGS’ social benefits to facilitate planning and management to meet residents’ expectations.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuhong Tian & Fenghua Liu & Chi Yung Jim & Tiantian Wang & Jingya Luan & Mengxuan Yan, 2022. "Effects of Self-Rated Health Status on Residents’ Social-Benefit Perceptions of Urban Green Space," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-19, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:16:p:10134-:d:889517
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/16/10134/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/16/10134/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ali, Md. Julfikar & Rahaman, Mohidur & Hossain, Sk. Iqbal, 2022. "Urban green spaces for elderly human health: A planning model for healthy city living," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    2. Mardelle Shepley & Naomi Sachs & Hessam Sadatsafavi & Christine Fournier & Kati Peditto, 2019. "The Impact of Green Space on Violent Crime in Urban Environments: An Evidence Synthesis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-19, December.
    3. United Nations UN, 2015. "Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development," Working Papers id:7559, eSocialSciences.
    4. Viniece Jennings & Omoshalewa Bamkole, 2019. "The Relationship between Social Cohesion and Urban Green Space: An Avenue for Health Promotion," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-14, February.
    5. Jones, Benjamin A. & Goodkind, Andrew L., 2019. "Urban afforestation and infant health: Evidence from MillionTreesNYC," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 26-44.
    6. Martin Dallimer & Zoe G. Davies & Katherine N. Irvine & Lorraine Maltby & Philip H. Warren & Kevin J. Gaston & Paul R. Armsworth, 2014. "What Personal and Environmental Factors Determine Frequency of Urban Greenspace Use?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-16, August.
    7. Alessandro Rigolon & Matthew H. E. M. Browning & Olivia McAnirlin & Hyunseo (Violet) Yoon, 2021. "Green Space and Health Equity: A Systematic Review on the Potential of Green Space to Reduce Health Disparities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-27, March.
    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. Tania Noël & Benoit Dardenne, 2022. "Relationships between Green Space Attendance, Perceived Crowdedness, Perceived Beauty and Prosocial Behavior in Time of Health Crisis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-18, June.
    2. J. C. Kitch & T. T. Nguyen & Q. C. Nguyen & Y. Hswen, 2023. "Changes in the relationship between Index of Concentration at the Extremes and U.S. urban greenspace: a longitudinal analysis from 2001–2019," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.
    3. Tianrong Xu & Nikmatul Adha Nordin & Ainoriza Mohd Aini, 2022. "Urban Green Space and Subjective Well-Being of Older People: A Systematic Literature Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-29, October.
    4. Yonatal Tefera & Veronica Soebarto & Courtney Bishop & John Kandulu & Carmel Williams, 2023. "A Scoping Review of Urban Planning Decision Support Tools and Processes That Account for the Health, Environment, and Economic Benefits of Trees and Greenspace," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 21(1), pages 1-28, December.
    5. Paulina Schiappacasse & Bernhard Müller & Le Thuy Linh, 2019. "Towards Responsible Aggregate Mining in Vietnam," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-15, August.
    6. Pina Puntillo, 2023. "Circular economy business models: Towards achieving sustainable development goals in the waste management sector—Empirical evidence and theoretical implications," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(2), pages 941-954, March.
    7. R. Ebrahimi & S. Choobchian & H. Farhadian & I. Goli & E. Farmandeh & H. Azadi, 2022. "Investigating the effect of vocational education and training on rural women’s empowerment," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    8. Bárbara Galleli & Elder Semprebon & Joyce Aparecida Ramos dos Santos & Noah Emanuel Brito Teles & Mateus Santos de Freitas-Martins & Raquel Teodoro da Silva Onevetch, 2021. "Institutional Pressures, Sustainable Development Goals and COVID-19: How Are Organisations Engaging?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-21, November.
    9. Sagarika Dey & Priyanka Devi, 2019. "Impact of TVET on Labour Market Outcomes and Women’s Empowerment in Rural Areas: A Case Study from Cachar District, Assam," Indian Journal of Human Development, , vol. 13(3), pages 357-371, December.
    10. Maria Sassi, 2020. "A SEM Approach to the Direct and Indirect Links between WaSH Services and Access to Food in Countries in Protracted Crises: The Case of Western Bahr-el-Ghazal State, South Sudan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-13, November.
    11. Olga Stepanova & Magdalena Romanov, 2021. "Urban Planning as a Strategy to Implement Social Sustainability Policy Goals? The Case of Temporary Housing for Immigrants in Gothenburg, Sweden," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, February.
    12. Michel, Hanno, 2020. "From local to global: The role of knowledge, transfer, and capacity building for successful energy transitions," Discussion Papers, Research Group Digital Mobility and Social Differentiation SP III 2020-603, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    13. Hervé Corvellec & Johan Hultman & Anne Jerneck & Susanne Arvidsson & Johan Ekroos & Niklas Wahlberg & Timothy W. Luke, 2021. "Resourcification: A non‐essentialist theory of resources for sustainable development," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(6), pages 1249-1256, November.
    14. Wilson Charles Wilson & Maja Slingerland & Frederick P. Baijukya & Hannah Zanten & Simon Oosting & Ken E. Giller, 2021. "Integrating the soybean-maize-chicken value chains to attain nutritious diets in Tanzania," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 13(6), pages 1595-1612, December.
    15. Jones, Lindsey & d'Errico, Marco, 2019. "Whose resilience matters? Like-for-like comparison of objective and subjective evaluations of resilience," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 1-1.
    16. Bin Xue & Bingsheng Liu & Tao Liang & Dong Zhao & Tao Wang & Xingbin Chen, 2022. "A heterogeneous decision criteria system evaluating sustainable infrastructure development: From the lens of multidisciplinary stakeholder engagement," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(4), pages 556-579, August.
    17. Sudheesh Ramapurath Chemmencheri, 2016. "Social Protection as a Human Right in South Asia," Indian Journal of Human Development, , vol. 10(2), pages 236-252, August.
    18. Ingrid Boas & Frank Biermann & Norichika Kanie, 2016. "Cross-sectoral strategies in global sustainability governance: towards a nexus approach," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 449-464, June.
    19. Joyeeta Gupta & Louis Lebel, 0. "Access and allocation in earth system governance: lessons learnt in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-18.
    20. Kinyondo, Abel Alfred & Ntegwa, Magashi Joseph & Masawe, Cresencia Apolinary, 2022. "Socioeconomic Inequality in Maternal Healthcare Services: The Case of Tanzania," African Journal of Economic Review, African Journal of Economic Review, vol. 10(1), January.

    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:19:y:2022:i:16:p:10134-:d:889517. 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.