IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i4p531-d1377094.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Neighbourhood Preference: An Evaluation of Environmental Features within Small-Scale Open Spaces

Author

Listed:
  • Shuyan Han

    (College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
    Fujian Province University Key Laboratory of Intelligent and Low-Carbon Building Technology, School of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361005, China)

  • Dexuan Song

    (College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China)

  • Feng Shi

    (Fujian Province University Key Laboratory of Intelligent and Low-Carbon Building Technology, School of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361005, China
    School of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361005, China)

  • Hu Du

    (School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Liverpool John Moores University, Cherie Booth Building, Byrom St., Liverpool L3 3AF, UK)

  • Yuhao Zhang

    (School of Architecture, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510006, China)

  • Mingjun Yang

    (School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shandong Jianzhu University, Jinan 250101, China)

Abstract

Well-designed urban public spaces often attract residents and play a critical role in improving people’s wellbeing. Many studies have examined the importance of one or a few environmental features in urban public spaces, such as the size of the space, greenery coverage, seating arrangements, recreational facilities, etc. However, there is a lack of systematic understanding regarding (1) which environmental features have a significant impact on the usage of urban public spaces and (2) how these features influence people’s environmental preferences. To answer these questions, this investigation adopts a two-fold analytical structure: (1) first, an expert inquiry was conducted to evaluate the environmental features, and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was applied to determine the weight of each influencing factor; then, (2) on-site measurements were conducted across 104 spaces, accompanied by structured interviews with users of the spaces, based on which a decision tree analysis was employed to elucidate the decision-making processes of residents regarding their outdoor activities. The main findings of this investigation are as follows: (1) the site size, internal pedestrian flow, sky view factor, green-vision rate, and seat–circumference ratio are primary indicators affecting outdoor space usage, which are used in the objective evaluation index; (2) advantage value intervals for the sky view factor, green-vision rate, and seat–circumference ratio variables were calculated, and these three factors were found to significantly outweigh site size and internal pedestrian flow in terms of their effect on spatial preference. The interaction between the green-vision rate and seat–circumference ratio can affect the environmental preferences of residents: spaces with more seats exhibit lower requirements for greenery, while spaces with fewer seats should prioritise trees and greenery. Based on this study, an index based on influencing factors is proposed, enabling a better understanding of the environmental features affecting the usage of space. This study also provides valuable insights for future neighbourhood design through investigating the environmental preferences of residents, as well as the importance of various spatial features and their associated advantage value intervals.

Suggested Citation

  • Shuyan Han & Dexuan Song & Feng Shi & Hu Du & Yuhao Zhang & Mingjun Yang, 2024. "Assessing Neighbourhood Preference: An Evaluation of Environmental Features within Small-Scale Open Spaces," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-24, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:4:p:531-:d:1377094
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/4/531/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/4/531/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. Kinga Kimic & Albert Fekete, 2022. "The Ratio of Biologically Vital Areas as a Measure of the Sustainability of Urban Parks Using the Example of Budapest, Hungary," Resources, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-16, May.
    3. Sinan He & Dingkai Chen & Xiaoqi Shang & Linwei Han & Longyu Shi, 2022. "Resident Satisfaction of Urban Green Spaces through the Lens of Landsenses Ecology," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-15, November.
    4. Myeong Chul Ko & Jeong Hee Lee, 2025. "Measuring the Psychological Benefits of Green Space Usage: Development and Validation of the Green Space Use Satisfaction Scale," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 177(2), pages 599-616, March.
    5. Yijun Zhang & Suzanne Mavoa & Jinfeng Zhao & Deborah Raphael & Melody Smith, 2020. "The Association between Green Space and Adolescents’ Mental Well-Being: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-26, September.
    6. Jake M. Robinson & Anna Jorgensen & Ross Cameron & Paul Brindley, 2020. "Let Nature Be Thy Medicine: A Socioecological Exploration of Green Prescribing in the UK," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-24, May.
    7. 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.
    8. Jongwook Tae & Daeyoung Jeong & Jinhyung Chon, 2022. "How Can Apartment-Complex Landscaping Space Improve Residents’ Psychological Well-Being?: The Case of the Capital Region in South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-15, August.
    9. Dagmara Stangierska & Iwona Kowalczuk & Ksenia Juszczak-Szelągowska & Katarzyna Widera & Weronika Ferenc, 2022. "Urban Environment, Green Urban Areas, and Life Quality of Citizens—The Case of Warsaw," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-15, September.
    10. Jong Cheol Shin & Mei-Po Kwan & Diana S. Grigsby-Toussaint, 2020. "Do Spatial Boundaries Matter for Exploring the Impact of Community Green Spaces on Health?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-17, October.
    11. Chensong Lin & Chenjie Jia & Baisen Wang & Shuhao Kang & Hongyu Chen & Di Li & Longfeng Wu, 2024. "Evaluating Policy Shifts on Perceived Greenspace Quality: Applying Regression Discontinuity During the COVID-19 Reopening Period," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-18, October.
    12. Liwei Huang & Zhengwang Wu & Ning Kang, 2025. "Study on the Correlation Between Perception and Utilization of Green Spaces in Residential Areas and Residents’ Self-Rated Health Under Different Vegetation Coverage Rates: A Case Study from the Centr," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-24, April.
    13. Liqing Zhang & Yue Wu, 2022. "Negative Associations between Quality of Urban Green Spaces and Health Expenditures in Downtown Shanghai," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-18, August.
    14. Elaine Hoffimann & Henrique Barros & Ana Isabel Ribeiro, 2017. "Socioeconomic Inequalities in Green Space Quality and Accessibility—Evidence from a Southern European City," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-16, August.
    15. 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.
    16. Shaoying Zhang & Mastura Adam & Norafida Ab Ghafar, 2024. "How Satisfaction Research Contributes to the Optimization of Urban Green Space Design—A Global Perspective Bibliometric Analysis from 2001 to 2024," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-32, November.
    17. Ziyi Li & Xiaolu Wu & Jing Wu & Huihui Liu, 2025. "The Influence of Urban Landscape Ecology on Emotional Well-Being: A Case Study of Downtown Beijing," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-27, March.
    18. Filiz Çelik & Emmanuel Babatunde Jaiyeoba, 2023. "The Contributions of the Green Areas in Residence Immediate Environment on Quality of Urban Life," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, December.
    19. Lin Qiao & Jingwei Zhuang & Xuan Zhang & Yang Su & Yiping Xia, 2021. "Assessing Emotional Responses to the Spatial Quality of Urban Green Spaces through Self-Report and Face Recognition Measures," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-22, August.
    20. Yuxiang Lan & Qunyue Liu, 2023. "The Restorative and Contingent Value of Biophilic Indoor Environments in Healthcare Settings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-15, July.

    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:4:p:531-:d:1377094. 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.