Author
Listed:
- Huimin Gan
(School of Economics and Management, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)
- Ji Feng
(State Key Laboratory of Environmental Criteria and Risk Assessment, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing 100012, China)
- Shuo Lei
(State Environmental Protection Key Laboratory of Regional Ecological Process and Functions Assessment, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing 100012, China)
- Shaohua Wu
(School of Economics and Management, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)
- Yali Wen
(School of Economics and Management, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)
Abstract
Major public health events pose a huge challenge to the sustainable improvement of city dwellers’ ecological well-being, hindering the achievement of urban ecological construction goals. In the context of resilient city and all-aged friendly city construction, age factor is given special consideration in urban green space management to meet the heterogeneous demands and preferences of city dwellers for urban ecological benefit. However, young, middle-age and elderly city dwellers’ utilization of urban green spaces during different periods of pandemic are poorly known. Meanwhile, insufficient discussion on the differences in ecological well-being contributions of different types of urban green spaces has led to difficulties in effectively connecting urban green space management planning with the city dwellers’ demands for ecological well-being. To help fill this gap, this study utilizes field study data on urban ecological construction and urban landscape and greening in Beijing from 2019 to 2023 to analyze the evolution and differences in utilization behaviors of urban green space among different age group city dwellers. Furthermore, this study applies the ordinary least square regression model (OLS) to explore the differences in the impact of various types of urban green space on the ecological well-being of city dwellers. The results revealed significant age effects in the utilization of urban green space during 2019–2023. It outlines the increased time spent in urban green space by younger city dwellers. In addition, the results demonstrated that the utilization behavior of park green space has a significant positive impact on the ecological well-being level of city dwellers, and the impact of utilization behavior on the ecological well-being level of city dwellers varies depending on the type of green space. Compared with community green space, the impact of park green space utilization behavior on the ecological well-being level of city dwellers is more significant. The conclusion from the main urban area of this Beijing case study contributes to the international discussion on urban green space management and urban green resilience governance in metropolitan areas worldwide as they add additional insights on the change and difference in the utilization behavior of urban green spaces, particularly looking at elderly, middle-aged and young city dwellers as well as the importance of a timely response to the heterogeneity preference of city dwellers’ ecological well-being demand.
Suggested Citation
Huimin Gan & Ji Feng & Shuo Lei & Shaohua Wu & Yali Wen, 2025.
"Changing Trends in Utilization Preference of Urban Green Space and Heterogeneous Effects on Ecological Well-Being Pre- and Post-Pandemic in Beijing,"
Land, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-16, May.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jlands:v:14:y:2025:i:5:p:983-:d:1648378
Download full text from publisher
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:14:y:2025:i:5:p:983-:d:1648378. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.