IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i12p2239-d997801.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Residents’ Preference for Urban Green Space Types and Their Ecological-Social Services in China

Author

Listed:
  • Wudong Zhao

    (Department of Geography, School of Geography and Tourism, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an 710119, China)

  • Liwei Zhang

    (Department of Geography, School of Geography and Tourism, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an 710119, China
    Department of Geography, School of Geography and Tourism, Xinjiang Normal University, Urumqi 830054, China)

  • Xupu Li

    (Department of Geography, School of Geography and Tourism, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an 710119, China)

  • Lixian Peng

    (Department of Geography, School of Geography and Tourism, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an 710119, China)

  • Pengtao Wang

    (School of Tourism &Research Institute of Human Geography, Xi’an International Studies University, Xi’an 710128, China)

  • Zhuangzhuang Wang

    (State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China)

  • Lei Jiao

    (Department of Geography, School of Geography and Tourism, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an 710119, China)

  • Hao Wang

    (Department of Geography, School of Geography and Tourism, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an 710119, China)

Abstract

With accelerated urbanization and rapid expansion of the urban population, there is an increasing demand among urban residents for urban green spaces (UGS) and the ecosystem services (ES) they provide. The existing research mostly focuses on the spatial pattern of UGS types and ES provided by different UGS but ignores that residents’ preferences for UGS types and their ecological and social services should also be incorporated into the spatial planning decision-making of UGS. A web-based questionnaire was distributed randomly in urban areas of China and 1050 valid samples were collected in this study. Descriptive statistical analysis methods, structural equation modeling, and Pearson correlation were used to parse the residents’ preference for both UGS types, ecological–social services, and the relevant impact factors. The results showed that: (1) the strongest preference of residents for UGS and their ecological and social services are the attached green space, “beautifying the city”, and “physical and mental relaxation”, respectively; (2) the leading factors for residents’ access to UGS are “age” and “sufficient time”, except for attached green space. The most significant effect on both ecological and social services is the “season” factor. Further, “social gathering” and “exercise” are the services most and least likely to be affected. (3) Future planning of UGS should reinforce construction of attached green space and improve the aesthetics-related ES they provide. Construction of park green space and plaza green space should be enhanced to deal with the aging trend in society. Further, maintaining the existing construction of attached green space and building regional green space are crucial to the sustainability of UGS and its ecological–social services.

Suggested Citation

  • Wudong Zhao & Liwei Zhang & Xupu Li & Lixian Peng & Pengtao Wang & Zhuangzhuang Wang & Lei Jiao & Hao Wang, 2022. "Residents’ Preference for Urban Green Space Types and Their Ecological-Social Services in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-20, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:12:p:2239-:d:997801
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/12/2239/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/12/2239/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yi-Ya Hsu & Scott Hawken & Samad Sepasgozar & Zih-Hong Lin, 2022. "Beyond the Backyard: GIS Analysis of Public Green Space Accessibility in Australian Metropolitan Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-25, April.
    2. Muhan Lv & Ningcheng Wang & Shenjun Yao & Jianping Wu & Lei Fang, 2021. "Towards Healthy Aging: Influence of the Built Environment on Elderly Pedestrian Safety at the Micro-Level," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-14, September.
    3. Pengwei Wang & Lirong Han & Rong Mei, 2022. "An Impact Asymmetry Analysis of Small Urban Green Space Attributes to Enhance Visitor Satisfaction," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-15, March.
    4. Liqing Zhang & Puay Yok Tan, 2019. "Associations between Urban Green Spaces and Health are Dependent on the Analytical Scale and How Urban Green Spaces are Measured," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-18, February.
    5. Cortinovis, Chiara & Geneletti, Davide, 2018. "Ecosystem services in urban plans: What is there, and what is still needed for better decisions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 298-312.
    6. Venter, Zander & Barton, David & gundersen, vegard & Figari, Helene & Nowell, Megan, 2020. "Urban nature in a time of crisis: recreational use of green space increases during the COVID-19 outbreak in Oslo, Norway," SocArXiv kbdum, Center for Open Science.
    7. Uehara, Takuro & Hidaka, Takeshi & Tsuge, Takahiro & Sakurai, Ryo & Cordier, Mateo, 2021. "An adaptive social-ecological system management matrix for guiding ecosystem service improvements," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    8. Xindong Du & Xiaoke Zhang & Huan Wang & Xiaojuan Zhi & Jianyuan Huang, 2020. "Assessing Green Space Potential Accessibility through Urban Artificial Building Data in Nanjing, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-11, November.
    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. Mariana Cernicova-Buca & Vasile Gherheș & Ciprian Obrad, 2023. "Residents’ Satisfaction with Green Spaces and Daily Life in Small Urban Settings: Romanian Perspectives," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-19, March.
    2. Ryohei Ogawa & Ye Zhang & Vouchlay Theng & Zhongyu Guo & Manna Wang & Chihiro Yoshimura, 2023. "Capacity Assessment of Urban Green Space for Mitigating Combined Sewer Overflows in the Tokyo Metropolitan Area," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, April.
    3. Jaewon Han & Sugie Lee, 2023. "Verification of Immersive Virtual Reality as a Streetscape Evaluation Method in Urban Residential Areas," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-16, January.

    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. 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).
    2. Xiaoran Huang & Pixin Gong & Marcus White, 2022. "Study on Spatial Distribution Equilibrium of Elderly Care Facilities in Downtown Shanghai," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-17, June.
    3. Bruno Marques & Jacqueline McIntosh & Chitrakala Muthuveerappan & Krzysztof Herman, 2022. "The Importance of Outdoor Spaces during the COVID-19 Lockdown in Aotearoa—New Zealand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-17, June.
    4. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2022. "Divergent or convergent? Prioritization and spatial representation of ecosystem services as perceived by conservation professionals and local leaders," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    5. Tandarić, Neven & Ives, Christopher D. & Watkins, Charles, 2022. "From city in the park to “greenery in plant pots”: The influence of socialist and post-socialist planning on opportunities for cultural ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    6. 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).
    7. Miroshnyk, N.V. & Likhanov, A.F. & Grabovska, T.O. & Teslenko, I.K. & Roubík, H., 2022. "Green infrastructure and relationship with urbanization – Importance and necessity of integrated governance," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    8. Adams, Clare & Frantzeskaki, Niki & Moglia, Magnus, 2023. "Mainstreaming nature-based solutions in cities: A systematic literature review and a proposal for facilitating urban transitions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    9. Chiara Cortinovis & Grazia Zulian & Davide Geneletti, 2018. "Assessing Nature-Based Recreation to Support Urban Green Infrastructure Planning in Trento (Italy)," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-20, September.
    10. González-García, Alberto & Palomo, Ignacio & González, José A. & López, César A. & Montes, Carlos, 2020. "Quantifying spatial supply-demand mismatches in ecosystem services provides insights for land-use planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    11. Luyang Chen & Lingbo Liu & Hao Wu & Zhenghong Peng & Zhihao Sun, 2022. "Change of Residents’ Attitudes and Behaviors toward Urban Green Space Pre- and Post- COVID-19 Pandemic," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-16, July.
    12. Zihe Wang & Gege Yan & Siyuan Wang, 2022. "Fairness Evaluation of Landscape Justice in Urban Park Green Space: A Case Study of the Daxing Part of Yizhuang New Town, Beijing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-18, December.
    13. Carolina Mayen Huerta & Ariane Utomo, 2022. "Barriers Affecting Women’s Access to Urban Green Spaces during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, April.
    14. Mingxin Liu & Chenxi Chen & Jiaqi Yan, 2023. "Identifying Park Spatial Characteristics That Encourage Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity among Park Visitors," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-22, March.
    15. LU, Yi & Zhao, Jianting & Wu, Xueying & Lo, Siu Ming, 2020. "Escaping to nature in pandemic: a natural experiment of COVID-19 in Asian cities," SocArXiv rq8sn, Center for Open Science.
    16. Antonio Ledda & Marta Kubacka & Giovanna Calia & Sylwia Bródka & Vittorio Serra & Andrea De Montis, 2023. "Italy vs. Poland: A Comparative Analysis of Regional Planning System Attitudes toward Adaptation to Climate Changes and Green Infrastructures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-18, January.
    17. Emad B. Dawwas & Karen Dyson, 2021. "COVID-19 Changed Human-Nature Interactions across Green Space Types: Evidence of Change in Multiple Types of Activities from the West Bank, Palestine," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-21, December.
    18. Amer Habibullah & Nawaf Alhajaj & Ahmad Fallatah, 2022. "One-Kilometer Walking Limit during COVID-19: Evaluating Accessibility to Residential Public Open Spaces in a Major Saudi City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-16, October.
    19. Menzori, Ivan Damasco & Sousa, Isabel Cristina Nunes de & Gonçalves, Luciana Márcia, 2021. "Urban growth management and territorial governance approaches: A master plans conformance analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    20. Fatemeh Mohammadyari & Ardavan Zarandian & Mir Mehrdad Mirsanjari & Jurate Suziedelyte Visockiene & Egle Tumeliene, 2023. "Modelling Impact of Urban Expansion on Ecosystem Services: A Scenario-Based Approach in a Mixed Natural/Urbanised Landscape," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-24, 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:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:12:p:2239-:d:997801. 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.