IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i7p4036-d530492.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding Visitors at an Urban Park by Profiling of Destination Attributes

Author

Listed:
  • Jonghyun Baek

    (HEA Co., Ltd., Seoul 06725, Korea)

  • Yeeun Kim

    (School of Environmental Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Dankook University, Cheonan 31116, Korea)

  • Hyun Kim

    (School of Environmental Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Dankook University, Cheonan 31116, Korea)

  • Hwasung Song

    (Department of Urban Management, Suwon Research Institute, Suwon 16829, Korea)

Abstract

A park has a variety of attributes, providing beautiful natural scenery and a place to rest as well as a cultural space in which performances and events are held. This study aimed to examine the various destination attributes that a place has, specifically, the resources of an urban park, by profiling visitors according to these destination attributes. The study setting, Gwanggyo Lake Park (GLP), is located in Suwon City and is in the limelight as an eco-friendly leisure and tourism destination in South Korea. As a result of profiling 595 visitors through an application of Latent Profile Analysis (LPA), three types of profiles were obtained: “Relaxation Leisure Seekers (RLS),” “Nature Environment Seekers (NES),” and “Ecological Experience Seekers (EES).” There were differences by type in visiting patterns, environmental propensity, distance from residence, and income. The results allow a better understanding of the various attributes of the park as an ecological tourism destination by visitor profile and profile-specific characteristics. Due to COVID-19, more people are visiting parks, which are natural outdoor spaces. This study provides implications for both theoretical and practical aspects of natural resource management in that it profiles visitors by highlighting parks as both leisure and tourism destinations.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonghyun Baek & Yeeun Kim & Hyun Kim & Hwasung Song, 2021. "Understanding Visitors at an Urban Park by Profiling of Destination Attributes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-15, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:7:p:4036-:d:530492
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/7/4036/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/7/4036/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chan, Kai M.A. & Satterfield, Terre & Goldstein, Joshua, 2012. "Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 8-18.
    2. Kaczynski, A.T. & Potwarka, L.R. & Saelens P, B.E., 2008. "Association of park size, distance, and features with physical activity in neighborhood parks," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 98(8), pages 1451-1456.
    3. Andersson, Erik & Tengö, Maria & McPhearson, Timon & Kremer, Peleg, 2015. "Cultural ecosystem services as a gateway for improving urban sustainability," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 165-168.
    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. Yaqi Du & Rong Zhao, 2022. "Research on the Development of Urban Parks Based on the Perception of Tourists: A Case Study of Taihu Park in Beijing," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-18, April.

    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. Tandarić, Neven & Ives, Christopher D. & Watkins, Charles, 2022. "From city in the park to “greenery in plant pots”: The influence of socialist and post-socialist planning on opportunities for cultural ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    2. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    3. Claudia Canedoli & Craig Bullock & Marcus J. Collier & Deirdre Joyce & Emilio Padoa-Schioppa, 2017. "Public Participatory Mapping of Cultural Ecosystem Services: Citizen Perception and Park Management in the Parco Nord of Milan (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-27, May.
    4. Gugulica, Madalina & Burghardt, Dirk, 2023. "Mapping indicators of cultural ecosystem services use in urban green spaces based on text classification of geosocial media data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    5. Riechers, Maraja & Barkmann, Jan & Tscharntke, Teja, 2016. "Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services from urban green," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 33-39.
    6. 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).
    7. Bordt, Michael, 2018. "Discourses in Ecosystem Accounting: A Survey of the Expert Community," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 82-99.
    8. Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Rosalind & Christie, Michael & Cooper, Nigel & Hockley, Neal & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fazey, Ioan & O’Brien, Liz & Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Ravenscroft, Neil & Raymond, Chr, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    9. Xiaohu Zhang & Scott Melbourne & Chinmoy Sarkar & Alain Chiaradia & Chris Webster, 2020. "Effects of green space on walking: Does size, shape and density matter?," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 57(16), pages 3402-3420, December.
    10. Julian A. Reed & Rachel M. Ballard & Michael Hill & David Berrigan, 2020. "Identification of Effective Programs to Improve Access to and Use of Trails among Youth from Under-Resourced Communities: A Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-33, October.
    11. 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.
    12. Klasen, Stephan & Meyer, Katrin M. & Dislich, Claudia & Euler, Michael & Faust, Heiko & Gatto, Marcel & Hettig, Elisabeth & Melati, Dian N. & Jaya, I. Nengah Surati & Otten, Fenna & Pérez-Cruzado, Cés, 2016. "Economic and ecological trade-offs of agricultural specialization at different spatial scales," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 111-120.
    13. Hattam, Caroline & Broszeit, Stefanie & Langmead, Olivia & Praptiwi, Radisti A. & Ching Lim, Voon & Creencia, Lota A. & Duc Hau, Tran & Maharja, Carya & Wulandari, Prawesti & Mitra Setia, Tatang & Sug, 2021. "A matrix approach to tropical marine ecosystem service assessments in South east Asia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    14. Kaiser, Nina N. & Ghermandi, Andrea & Feld, Christian K. & Hershkovitz, Yaron & Palt, Martin & Stoll, Stefan, 2021. "Societal benefits of river restoration – Implications from social media analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    15. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.
    16. Florian V Eppink & Matthew Winden & Will C C Wright & Suzie Greenhalgh, 2016. "Non-Market Values in a Cost-Benefit World: Evidence from a Choice Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-12, October.
    17. Palola, Pirta & Bailey, Richard & Wedding, Lisa, 2022. "A novel framework to operationalise value-pluralism in environmental valuation: Environmental value functions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    18. Cooper, Nigel & Brady, Emily & Steen, Helen & Bryce, Rosalind, 2016. "Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 218-229.
    19. Bryce, Rosalind & Irvine, Katherine N. & Church, Andrew & Fish, Robert & Ranger, Sue & Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 258-269.
    20. Michael Lechner & Paul Downward, 2017. "Heterogeneous sports participation and labour market outcomes in England," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(4), pages 335-348, January.

    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:7:p:4036-:d:530492. 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.