IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i11p6443-d569689.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Elderly Suitability of Park Recreational Space Layout Based on Visual Landscape Evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Weiyi Yu

    (School of Mathematics and Computer Science, Shangrao Normal University, Shangrao 334001, China)

  • Hong Hu

    (School of Mathematics and Computer Science, Shangrao Normal University, Shangrao 334001, China)

  • Bindong Sun

    (Research Center for China Administrative Division, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200241, China
    School of Urban and Regional Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200241, China)

Abstract

Urban parks are critical for sustainable urban development. They are of theoretical and practical significance for analyzing the visual landscape of recreational spaces from the perspective of the elderly. This analysis can be used for exploring new methods for optimizing recreational space layouts to improve the physical and mental health of the elderly in parks, thus realizing the sustainable development of urban society. Taking Ziyang Park in Shangrao Central District of Jiangxi Province, China, as an example, starting from the visual characteristics of the elderly, this study quantitatively calculated the landscape viewability, total view ratio , and water view ratio for the elderly in each recreational space using Python Scripting for ArcGIS. We briefly express the elderly suitability of the visual landscape for each recreational space through a weighted synthesis of the calculation results. Our findings show that, in Ziyang Park, the elderly suitability of the visual landscape for recreational spaces is not only low overall, but also gradually decreases from the interior to the exterior of this park. Moreover, this spatial distribution may be caused by the location of zoning, surface elevation, and road slopes, as well as the individual characteristics of each recreational space. Finally, we discuss the requirements of the elderly for some geographical factors, along with the feasibility of using ArcGIS 3-D analysis to optimize the layout of the park recreational space, with the aim of providing a new research perspective and an effective reference method for designing layouts of such spaces that are favorable for the elderly to better guarantee the sustainable development of urban society.

Suggested Citation

  • Weiyi Yu & Hong Hu & Bindong Sun, 2021. "Elderly Suitability of Park Recreational Space Layout Based on Visual Landscape Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-17, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:11:p:6443-:d:569689
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/11/6443/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/11/6443/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Agimass, Fitalew & Lundhede, Thomas & Panduro, Toke Emil & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "The choice of forest site for recreation: A revealed preference analysis using spatial data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 445-454.
    2. Yang Zhai & Kankan Li & Jianjun Liu, 2018. "A Conceptual Guideline to Age-Friendly Outdoor Space Development in China: How Do Chinese Seniors Use the Urban Comprehensive Park? A Focus on Time, Place, and Activities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-13, October.
    3. Abildtrup, Jens & Garcia, Serge & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Stenger, Anne, 2013. "Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 67-77.
    4. Min Gong & Mengyu Ren & Qin Dai & Xiaoyu Luo, 2019. "Aging-Suitability of Urban Waterfront Open Spaces in Gongchen Bridge Section of the Grand Canal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-19, November.
    5. Weiyi Yu & Bindong Sun & Hong Hu, 2019. "Sustainable Development Research on the Spatial Differences in the Elderly Suitability of Shanghai Urban Parks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-19, November.
    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. Emilia Janeczko & Jan Banaś & Małgorzata Woźnicka & Krzysztof Janeczko & Stanisław Zięba & Katarzyna Utnik-Banaś & Aleksandra Banaś, 2025. "What Kind of Recreational Infrastructure Encourages Forest Visits the Most? A Case Study of Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-24, April.
    2. Ögçe, Hüseyin & Sarı, Elif Nur & Kaya, Meltem Erdem, 2024. "Assessing the visual landscape of Istanbul Bosphorus: Exploring the role of vegetation and built environment characteristics," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    3. Yiwen Zhang & Haizhi Luo & Jiami Xie & Xiangzhao Meng & Changdong Ye, 2023. "The Influence and Prediction of Built Environment on the Subjective Well-Being of the Elderly Based on Random Forest: Evidence from Guangzhou, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-16, October.

    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. Heejeong Yun & Dongjin Kang & Youngeun Kang, 2022. "Outdoor recreation planning and management considering FROS and carrying capacities: a case study of forest wetland in Yeongam-gum, South Korea," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 502-526, January.
    2. Ciesielski, Mariusz & Stereńczak, Krzysztof, 2021. "Using Flickr data and selected environmental characteristics to analyse the temporal and spatial distribution of activities in forest areas," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    3. Serge Garcia & Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu, 2017. "Selected papers from the 2015 Workshop on Non-market Valuation (WONV) in Nancy," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(3), pages 145-148, December.
    4. 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).
    5. Boncinelli, Fabio & Riccioli, Francesco & Marone, Enrico, 2015. "Do forests help to keep my body mass index low?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 11-17.
    6. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Bartczak, Anna & Giergiczny, Marek & Navrud, Stale & Żylicz, Tomasz, 2014. "Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-12.
    7. Agimass, Fitalew & Lundhede, Thomas & Panduro, Toke Emil & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "The choice of forest site for recreation: A revealed preference analysis using spatial data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 445-454.
    8. Peeter Vassiljev & Simon Bell, 2023. "While Experiencing a Forest Trail, Variation in Landscape Is Just as Important as Content: A Virtual Reality Experiment of Cross-Country Skiing in Estonia," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-19, February.
    9. Cécile Hérivaux & Philippe Le Coent, 2021. "Introducing Nature into Cities or Preserving Existing Peri-Urban Ecosystems? Analysis of Preferences in a Rapidly Urbanizing Catchment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-34, January.
    10. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro & Ruiz-Gauna, Itziar & Campos, Pablo, 2016. "Testing convergent validity in choice experiments: Application to public recreation in Spanish stone pine and cork oak forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 130-148.
    11. Wenbin Luo & Mingming Su, 2018. "A Spatial-Temporal Analysis of Urban Parkland Expansion in China and Practical Implications to Enhance Urban Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, December.
    12. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2015. "Multifunctional recreation and nouveau heritage values in plantation forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 131-151.
    13. Murphy, Martin & Cullen, Paula & O'Donoghue, Cathal & Ryan, Mary & Ní Dhubháin, Áine, 2024. "A natural experiment: Assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic upon forest recreation use and preferences in Ireland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    14. Yonko Dodev & Miglena Zhiyanski & Maria Glushkova & Bilyana Borisova & Lidiya Semerdzhieva & Ivo Ihtimanski & Stelian Dimitrov & Stoyan Nedkov & Mariyana Nikolova & Won-Sop Shin, 2021. "An Integrated Approach to Assess the Potential of Forest Areas for Therapy Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-30, December.
    15. Allen Blackman & Sahan T. M. Dissanayake & Adan L. Martinez-Cruz & Leonardo Corral & Maja Schling, 2024. "The Benefits of Titling Indigenous Communities in the Peruvian Amazon: A Stated Preference Approach," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 100(2), pages 333-352.
    16. Li, Liqing & Ando, Amy W., 2020. "Early Exposure to Nature and Willingness-To-Pay for Conservation," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304235, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Wiktor Budziński & Danny Campbell & Marek Giergiczny & Nick Hanley, 2017. "Spatial Heterogeneity of Willingness to Pay for Forest Management," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 705-727, November.
    18. Artell, Janne & Ahtiainen, Heini & Pouta, Eija, 2019. "Distance decay and regional statistics in international benefit transfer," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    19. Tuffery, Laetitia, 2017. "The recreational services value of the nearby periurban forest versus the regional forest environment," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 33-41.
    20. Daniel A. Brent & Katie Lorah, 2017. "The Geography of Civic Crowdfunding: Implications for Social Inequality and Donor-Project Dynamics," Departmental Working Papers 2017-09, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University.

    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:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:11:p:6443-:d:569689. 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.