IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i9p1341-d1462996.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating Visitor Usage and Safety Perception Experiences in National Forest Parks

Author

Listed:
  • Jing Zhao

    (Faculty of Design and Architecture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia)

  • Faziawati Abdul Aziz

    (Faculty of Design and Architecture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia)

  • Menglin Song

    (Department of Architecture, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, China)

  • Hui Zhang

    (Faculty of Design and Architecture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia)

  • Norsidah Ujang

    (Faculty of Design and Architecture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia)

  • Yi Xiao

    (College of Public Administration, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China)

  • Ziyi Cheng

    (Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK)

Abstract

Various physical and environmental factors affect the recreational experience in national forest parks. Understanding visitors’ preferences regarding these factors is significant for promoting the physical and mental health and well-being of urban residents. This study aims to quantify residents’ usage patterns and safety perceptions of national forest parks. It focuses particularly on Santai Mountain National Forest Park in Jiangsu, China, and conducted a semi-structured questionnaire survey with 688 participants. The statistical software IBM SPSS Statistics 24 was used for data analysis. A descriptive quantitative analysis was conducted on the respondents’ demographic information. Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and an ordinal logistic regression model were employed to analyze the survey data. The survey results show that most visitors go to the forest park only once or twice a year, usually on weekends, holidays, and during leisure time rather than on workdays. Because the national forest park is located in the suburbs, the journey is long, and most visitors choose to drive there. Additionally, the majority of visitors go to the forest park with family and friends. Because the park is well managed and has complete safety facilities, most visitors feel safe in the national forest park.

Suggested Citation

  • Jing Zhao & Faziawati Abdul Aziz & Menglin Song & Hui Zhang & Norsidah Ujang & Yi Xiao & Ziyi Cheng, 2024. "Evaluating Visitor Usage and Safety Perception Experiences in National Forest Parks," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-25, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:9:p:1341-:d:1462996
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/9/1341/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/9/1341/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Buchel, Sophie & Frantzeskaki, Niki, 2015. "Citizens’ voice: A case study about perceived ecosystem services by urban park users in Rotterdam, the Netherlands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 169-177.
    2. Mengmeng Cai & Chuyun Cui & Lin Lin & Shuyi Di & Zheng Zhao & Yanbin Wang, 2021. "Residents’ Spatial Preference for Urban Forest Park Route during Physical Activities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-19, November.
    3. Sungduck Lee, 2022. "The safety of public space: urban design guidelines for neighborhood park planning," Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 222-240, 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. Estefania Basurto-Cedeno & Lori Penington-Gray & Xavier Basurto, 2025. "Developing a Comprehensive Index for Beaches to Enhance Sustainability and Visitor Experience Through Holistic Monitoring," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-24, March.

    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. Busch, Christin & Specht, Kathrin & Inostroza, Luis & Falke, Matthias & Zepp, Harald, 2024. "Disentangling cultural ecosystem services co-production in urban green spaces through social media reviews," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    2. Buckwell, Andrew & Fleming, Christopher & Muurmans, Maggie & Smart, James & Mackey, Brendan, 2020. "Revealing the dominant discourses of stakeholders towards natural resource management in Port Resolution, Vanuatu, using Q-method," 2020 Conference (64th), February 12-14, 2020, Perth, Western Australia 305231, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    3. Veerkamp, Clara J. & Schipper, Aafke M. & Hedlund, Katarina & Lazarova, Tanya & Nordin, Amanda & Hanson, Helena I., 2021. "A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    4. Arturo Sanchez-Porras & María Guadalupe Tenorio-Arvide & Ricardo Darío Peña-Moreno & María Laura Sampedro-Rosas & Sonia Emilia Silva-Gómez, 2018. "Evaluation of the Potential Change to the Ecosystem Service Provision Due to Industrialization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, September.
    5. Amy Phillips & Ahmed Z. Khan & Frank Canters, 2021. "Use-Related and Socio-Demographic Variations in Urban Green Space Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-22, March.
    6. Amy Phillips & Ahmed Z. Khan & Frank Canters, 2021. "Use-related and socio-demographic variations in urban green space preferences," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/326192, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    7. Dou, Yuehan & Zhen, Lin & De Groot, Rudolf & Du, Bingzhen & Yu, Xiubo, 2017. "Assessing the importance of cultural ecosystem services in urban areas of Beijing municipality," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 79-90.
    8. Sy, Mariam Maki & Rey-Valette, Hélène & Simier, Monique & Pasqualini, Vanina & Figuières, Charles & De Wit, Rutger, 2018. "Identifying Consensus on Coastal Lagoons Ecosystem Services and Conservation Priorities for an Effective Decision Making: A Q Approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 1-13.
    9. Weixuan Wei & Yiqi Wang & Qi Yan & Guanpeng Liu & Nannan Dong, 2024. "Assessing Buffer Gradient Synergies: Comparing Objective and Subjective Evaluations of Urban Park Ecosystem Services in Century Park, Shanghai," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-33, November.
    10. Potschin-Young, M. & Haines-Young, R. & Görg, C. & Heink, U. & Jax, K. & Schleyer, C., 2018. "Understanding the role of conceptual frameworks: Reading the ecosystem service cascade," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 428-440.
    11. Stępniewska, Małgorzata, 2021. "The capacity of urban parks for providing regulating and cultural ecosystem services versus their social perception," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    12. Yuanting Yang & Wei Duan, 2024. "An Interpretation of Landscape Preferences Based on Geographic and Social Media Data to Understand Different Cultural Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-23, January.
    13. Shimei Li & Xueyan Zeng & Xiaoguang Zhang & Jiancheng Jiang & Furong Wang & Tianci Zhang & Jiacheng Zhang, 2024. "Spatial Justice of Urban Park Green Space under Multiple Travel Modes and at Multiple Scales: A Case Study of Qingdao City Center, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-13, February.
    14. Halkos, George & Leonti, Aikaterini & Sardianou, Eleni, 2021. "Activities, motivations and satisfaction of urban parks visitors: A structural equation modeling analysis," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 502-513.
    15. Winkler, Klara J. & Nicholas, Kimberly A., 2016. "More than wine: Cultural ecosystem services in vineyard landscapes in England and California," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 86-98.
    16. Patrycia Brzoska & Aiga Spāģe, 2020. "From City- to Site-Dimension: Assessing the Urban Ecosystem Services of Different Types of Green Infrastructure," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-18, May.
    17. Giachino, Chiara & Bollani, Luigi & Truant, Elisa & Bonadonna, Alessandro, 2022. "Urban area and nature-based solution: Is this an attractive solution for Generation Z?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    18. Wang, Zhifang & Fu, Hongpeng & Jian, Yuqing & Qureshi, Salman & Jie, Hua & Wang, Lu, 2022. "On the comparative use of social media data and survey data in prioritizing ecosystem services for cost-effective governance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    19. Dominika Dymek & Agnieszka Wilkaniec & Leszek Bednorz & Magdalena Szczepańska, 2021. "Significance of Allotment Gardens in Urban Green Space Systems and Their Classification for Spatial Planning Purposes: A Case Study of Poznań, Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-14, October.
    20. Kim, Ilkwon & Lee, Jae-hyuck & Kwon, Hyuksoo, 2021. "Participatory ecosystem service assessment to enhance environmental decision-making in a border city of South Korea," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:9:p:1341-:d:1462996. 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.