IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v14y2025i5p983-d1648378.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Changing Trends in Utilization Preference of Urban Green Space and Heterogeneous Effects on Ecological Well-Being Pre- and Post-Pandemic in Beijing

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
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/5/983/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/5/983/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rogatka, Krzysztof & Starczewski, Tomasz & Kowalski, Mateusz, 2021. "Urban resilience in spatial planning of polish cities - True or false? Transformational perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    2. Mohamed Fomba & Zinash Delebo Osunde & Souleymane Sidi Traoré & Appollonia Okhimamhe & Janina Kleemann & Christine Fürst, 2024. "Urban Green Spaces in Bamako and Sikasso, Mali: Land Use Changes and Perceptions," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-20, January.
    3. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    4. Yuta Uchiyama & Ryo Kohsaka, 2020. "Access and Use of Green Areas during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Green Infrastructure Management in the “New Normal”," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-9, November.
    5. Ralf-Uwe Syrbe & Ina Neumann & Karsten Grunewald & Patrycia Brzoska & Jiři Louda & Birgit Kochan & Jan Macháč & Lenka Dubová & Petr Meyer & Jan Brabec & Olaf Bastian, 2021. "The Value of Urban Nature in Terms of Providing Ecosystem Services Related to Health and Well-Being: An Empirical Comparative Pilot Study of Cities in Germany and the Czech Republic," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-26, March.
    6. Dick, Jan & Turkelboom, Francis & Woods, Helen & Iniesta-Arandia, Irene & Primmer, Eeva & Saarela, Sanna-Riikka & Bezák, Peter & Mederly, Peter & Leone, Michael & Verheyden, Wim & Kelemen, Eszter & Ha, 2018. "Stakeholders’ perspectives on the operationalisation of the ecosystem service concept: Results from 27 case studies," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 552-565.
    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. 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).
    2. Yiwen Shao & Yao Sun & Zhiru Zheng, 2023. "How Do Comprehensive Territorial Plans Frame Resilience? A Content Analysis of Plans by Major Cities in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-19, May.
    3. Heinze, Alan & Bongers, Frans & Ramírez Marcial, Neptalí & García Barrios, Luis E. & Kuyper, Thomas W., 2022. "Farm diversity and fine scales matter in the assessment of ecosystem services and land use scenarios," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    4. Qiurong Xu & Ruipeng Li & Jia Yu & Pei Zhang, 2023. "Synergies and Trade-Offs among Different Ecosystem Services through the Analyses of Spatio-Temporal Changes in Beijing, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-13, May.
    5. Małgorzata Sztubecka & Alicja Maciejko & Marta Skiba, 2022. "The Landscape of the Spa Parks Creation through Components Influencing Environmental Perception Using Multi-Criteria Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-17, May.
    6. Kathryn Rodgman, Mary & Anguelovski, Isabelle & Pérez-del-Pulgar, Carmen & Shokry, Galia & Garcia-Lamarca, Melissa & Connolly, James J.T. & Baró, Francesc & Triguero-Mas, Margarita, 2024. "Perceived urban ecosystem services and disservices in gentrifying neighborhoods: Contrasting views between community members and state informants," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    7. repec:eee:ecoser:v:36:y:2019:i:c:p:- is not listed on IDEAS
    8. 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.
    9. 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).
    10. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    11. Keenan, Rodney J. & Pozza, Greg & Fitzsimons, James A., 2019. "Ecosystem services in environmental policy: Barriers and opportunities for increased adoption," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    12. Yuta Uchiyama & Ryo Kohsaka, 2022. "Visiting Peri-Urban Forestlands and Mountains during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Empirical Analysis on Effects of Land Use and Awareness of Visitors," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-14, July.
    13. Xuemao Zhang & Binggeng Xie & Junhan Li & Chuan Yuan, 2023. "Spatiotemporal Distribution and Driving Force Analysis of the Ecosystem Service Value in the Fujiang River Basin, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-16, February.
    14. Argyro Anna Kanelli & Margarita Kokkinaki & Marios-Dimitrios Sinvare & Chrisovalantis Malesios & Panayiotis G. Dimitrakopoulos & Olga-Ioanna Kalantzi, 2023. "Keep Calm and Go Out: Urban Nature Exposure, Mental Health, and Perceived Value during the COVID-19 Lockdown," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-20, May.
    15. Dick, Jan & Andrews, Chris & Orenstein, Daniel E. & Teff-Seker, Yael & Zulian, Grazia, 2022. "A mixed-methods approach to analyse recreational values and implications for management of protected areas: A case study of Cairngorms National Park, UK," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    16. Di Marino, Mina & Tiitu, Maija & Lapintie, Kimmo & Viinikka, Arto & Kopperoinen, Leena, 2019. "Integrating green infrastructure and ecosystem services in land use planning. Results from two Finnish case studies," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 643-656.
    17. Nápoles-Vértiz, Sonia & Caro-Borrero, Angela, 2024. "Conceptual diversity and application of ecosystem services and disservices: A systematic review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    18. Rogatka, Krzysztof & Kowalski, Mateusz & Starczewski, Tomasz, 2023. "Less important space? Spatial planning in small towns in Poland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    19. Barton, D.N. & Kelemen, E. & Dick, J. & Martin-Lopez, B. & Gómez-Baggethun, E. & Jacobs, S. & Hendriks, C.M.A. & Termansen, M. & García- Llorente, M. & Primmer, E. & Dunford, R. & Harrison, P.A. & Tur, 2018. "(Dis) integrated valuation – Assessing the information gaps in ecosystem service appraisals for governance support," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 529-541.
    20. Carolus, Johannes Friedrich & Hanley, Nick & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Pedersen, Søren Marcus, 2018. "A Bottom-up Approach to Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 282-295.
    21. Primmer, Eeva & Varumo, Liisa & Krause, Torsten & Orsi, Francesco & Geneletti, Davide & Brogaard, Sara & Aukes, Ewert & Ciolli, Marco & Grossmann, Carol & Hernández-Morcillo, Mónica & Kister, Jutta & , 2021. "Mapping Europe’s institutional landscape for forest ecosystem service provision, innovations and governance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(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: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.

    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.