IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i8p1219-d878420.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Influence of Socio-Demographic Factors on Preference and Park Usage in Guangzhou, China

Author

Listed:
  • Yueshan Ma

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK)

  • Paul Brindley

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK)

  • Eckart Lange

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK)

Abstract

Urban green space (UGS) provides a range of services to visitors and is particularly important for recreation and well-being. There are a number of approaches to research visitor accessibility, but implications for demographic differences of users are typically ignored. In order to more precisely model usage of UGS regarding visitor preference, this study used Guangzhou (China) as a case study, concentrating on residents’ visitation to parks and their factors across different groups (for example, by gender, education level, age and visiting frequency). Online questionnaires from 2360 adults were collected on visiting preferences, such as traveling time, visiting frequency, visit duration within parks, visiting reasons and barriers. Results indicate that women were less likely than men to undertake longer walking trips to access parks (over 40 min). Elderly people tended to have longer visit durations, and lower-educated people tended to have shorter visiting times (particularly less than 15 min) in parks. Visit duration in parks had a positive association with walking time and a negative association with visiting frequency. Furthermore, the proportion of people visiting parks to relieve stress declined with increasing age. Infrequent park users (visiting parks less than once a month) rarely visited to gain inspiration or to socialize with strangers. Barriers to use of parks were correlated with socio-demographic factors, highlighting that older people identified poor quality of parks and long walking times as critical barriers. This study provides evidence that there is no one-size-fits-all modeling approach for UGS usage; instead, it demonstrates the importance of considering the socio-demographic characteristics of users.

Suggested Citation

  • Yueshan Ma & Paul Brindley & Eckart Lange, 2022. "The Influence of Socio-Demographic Factors on Preference and Park Usage in Guangzhou, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-15, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:8:p:1219-:d:878420
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/8/1219/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/8/1219/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zhanqiang Zhu & Wei Lang & Xiaofang Tao & Jiali Feng & Kai Liu, 2019. "Exploring the Quality of Urban Green Spaces Based on Urban Neighborhood Green Index—A Case Study of Guangzhou City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-17, October.
    2. Tahar Ledraa & Abdulaziz Aldegheishem, 2022. "What Matters Most for Neighborhood Greenspace Usability and Satisfaction in Riyadh: Size or Distance to Home?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-13, May.
    3. Langford, Ian H. & Bateman, Ian J., 1996. "Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 265-267, December.
    4. Ghimire, Ramesh & Ferreira, Susana & Green, Gary T. & Poudyal, Neelam C. & Cordell, H. Ken & Thapa, Janani R., 2017. "Green Space and Adult Obesity in the United States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 201-212.
    5. Wu, Wenjie & Dong, Guanpeng & SUN, Yeran & Yun, Yanwen, 2020. "Contextualized effects of Park access and usage on residential satisfaction: A spatial approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    6. Peng Zhan & Guang Hu & Ruilian Han & Yu Kang, 2021. "Factors Influencing the Visitation and Revisitation of Urban Parks: A Case Study from Hangzhou, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-12, September.
    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. Ma, Yueshan & Brindley, Paul & Wang, Rui & Lange, Eckart, 2025. "Discrepancies between perceived accessibility and spatial accessibility modelling: A case study of urban parks in Guangzhou, China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).

    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. Kai Zhang & Dong Yan, 2023. "Exploring Indoor and Outdoor Residential Factors of High-Density Communities for Promoting the Housing Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-18, March.
    2. Ma, Yueshan & Brindley, Paul & Wang, Rui & Lange, Eckart, 2025. "Discrepancies between perceived accessibility and spatial accessibility modelling: A case study of urban parks in Guangzhou, China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    3. Medin, Hege & Nyborg, Karine & Bateman, Ian, 2001. "The assumption of equal marginal utility of income: how much does it matter?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 397-411, March.
    4. Catherine Heyes & Anthony Heyes, 1999. "Willingness to Pay Versus Willingness to Travel: Assessing the Recreational Benefits from Dartmoor National Park," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(1), pages 124-139, January.
    5. S Georgiou & I H Langford & I J Bateman & R K Turner, 1998. "Determinants of Individuals' Willingness to Pay for Perceived Reductions in Environmental Health Risks: A Case Study of Bathing Water Quality," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 30(4), pages 577-594, April.
    6. Ian Langford & Ian Bateman & Hugh Langford, 1996. "A multilevel modelling approach to triple-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(3), pages 197-211, April.
    7. Lucinio Júdez & de Rosario Andrés & Carlos Pérez Hugalde & Elvira Urzainqui & Miguel Ibáñez, 1998. "Évaluation contingente de l’usage récréatif d’une réserve naturelle humide," Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 48, pages 37-60.
    8. Voltaire, Louinord & Donfouet, Hermann Pythagore Pierre & Pirrone, Claudio & Larzillière, Agathe, 2017. "Respondent Uncertainty and Ordering Effect on Willingness to Pay for Salt Marsh Conservation in the Brest Roadstead (France)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 47-55.
    9. José Miguel Sánchez U., 2013. "Contingent valuation and choice experiments applied to the Sierra Nevada National Park in Venezuela," Economía, Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales (IIES). Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales. Universidad de Los Andes. Mérida, Venezuela, vol. 38(35), pages 57-100, January-J.
    10. Carola Braun & Katrin Rehdanz & Ulrich Schmidt, 2016. "Validity of Willingness to Pay Measures under Preference Uncertainty," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, April.
    11. Ian Langford* & Areti Kontogianni & Mihalis Skourtos & Stavros Georgiou & Ian Bateman, 1998. "Multivariate Mixed Models for Open-Ended Contingent Valuation Data: Willingness To Pay For Conservation of Monk Seals," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(4), pages 443-456, December.
    12. Wang, Ruoyu & Cao, Mengqiu & Yao, Yao & Wu, Wenjie, 2022. "The inequalities of different dimensions of visible street urban green space provision: A machine learning approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    13. Sujitra Vassanadumrongdee & Shunji Matsuoka & Hiroaki Shirakawa, 2004. "Meta-analysis of contingent valuation studies on air pollution-related morbidity risks," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 6(1), pages 11-47, March.
    14. Wiser, Ryan H., 2007. "Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: A comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 419-432, May.
    15. Kniebes, Carola & Rehdanz, Katrin & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2014. "Validity of WTP measures under preference uncertainty," Kiel Working Papers 1972, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    16. Akcura, Elcin, 2015. "Mandatory versus voluntary payment for green electricity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 84-94.
    17. Christian A. Vossler & Timothy N. Cason & James J. Murphy & Paul J. Ferraro & Todd L. Cherry & George Loewenstein & Peter Martinsson & Jason F. Shogren & Leaf van Boven & Daan van Soest, 2024. "The impact of experiments on environmental policy and natural resource management," Working Papers 2024-05, University of Tennessee, Department of Economics.
    18. Yao-Jen Fan & Shuo-Fang Liu & Ding-Bang Luh & Pei-Shan Teng, 2021. "Corporate Sustainability: Impact Factors on Organizational Innovation in the Industrial Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-24, February.
    19. Andreia Teixeira & Ronaldo Gabriel & José Martinho & Irene Oliveira & Mário Santos & Graça Pinto & Helena Moreira, 2023. "Distance to Natural Environments, Physical Activity, Sleep, and Body Composition in Women: An Exploratory Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-20, February.
    20. Wei, Di & Wang, Yuan & Jiang, Yuxiao & Guan, Xueqing & Lu, Yi, 2024. "Deciphering the effect of user-generated content on park visitation: A comparative study of nine Chinese cities in the Pearl River Delta," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).

    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:8:p:1219-:d:878420. 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.