IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i12p5249-d1418686.html

Examining How Urban Public Spaces and Virtual Spaces Affect Public Opinion in Beijing, China

Author

Listed:
  • Lingfang Shao

    (School of Architecture, Southeast University, No. 2 Sipailou Road, Nanjing 210026, China)

  • Zhengxian Liu

    (School of Architecture, Southeast University, No. 2 Sipailou Road, Nanjing 210026, China)

  • Zijin Zhou

    (Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Phase 8 (Block Z), Hong Kong 999077, China)

Abstract

Urban public spaces significantly influence public perceptions and experiences. This study, conducted in Beijing, China, employs structural equation modeling (SEM) and Friedman testing to analyze key criteria—safety, attractiveness, facilities, activities, and social environment—that impact perceptions of both virtual and physical public spaces. The findings reveal that attractiveness is the most influential criterion, significantly shaping public opinion. Facilities and activities follow, highlighting the necessity for well-equipped amenities and engaging social activities. The social environment also plays a crucial role, emphasizing the need for spaces that foster social interactions. Safety, while important, is less influential compared to the other criteria. These results underscore the importance of aesthetic considerations, well-equipped amenities, and vibrant social environments in urban design. This study provides actionable insights for urban designers and planners, advocating for a balanced approach that prioritizes these criteria to enhance the quality of life in urban areas. By focusing on these aspects, urban planners can create more effective and satisfying public spaces that meet the diverse needs of the community, ensuring that both physical and virtual spaces contribute positively to urban living.

Suggested Citation

  • Lingfang Shao & Zhengxian Liu & Zijin Zhou, 2024. "Examining How Urban Public Spaces and Virtual Spaces Affect Public Opinion in Beijing, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-19, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:12:p:5249-:d:1418686
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/12/5249/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/12/5249/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Keunhyun Park, 2017. "Psychological park accessibility: a systematic literature review of perceptual components affecting park use," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(5), pages 508-520, July.
    2. John F. Forester, 1999. "The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262561220, December.
    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. E. Melanie DuPuis & Brian J. Gareau, 2008. "Neoliberal Knowledge: The Decline of Technocracy and the Weakening of the Montreal Protocol," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1212-1229, December.
    2. Makena Coffman & Karen Umemoto, 2010. "The triple-bottom-line: framing of trade-offs in sustainability planning practice," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 12(5), pages 597-610, October.
    3. te Brömmelstroet, Marco, 2017. "Towards a pragmatic research agenda for the PSS domain," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 77-83.
    4. Primmer, Eeva & Kyllonen, Simo, 2006. "Goals for public participation implied by sustainable development, and the preparatory process of the Finnish National Forest Programme," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(8), pages 838-853, November.
    5. Liz Barry, 2022. "Community science and the design of climate governance," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 171(3), pages 1-17, April.
    6. Caroline Brown & Jean-Paul Rodrigue & Peter Keenan & Cindy Regalado & Chris Perkins & Fulong Wu, 2012. "Review: Cohesion, Coherence, Cooperation: European Spatial Planning Coming of Age?, a Dictionary of Transport Analysis, Spatial Decision Support Systems, Geographic Information Science and Public Participation, Making Maps: A Visual Guide to Map Desi," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 39(2), pages 406-412, April.
    7. Crystal Legacy & Ryan van den Nouwelant, 2015. "Negotiating Strategic Planning's Transitional Spaces: The Case of ‘Guerrilla Governance’ in Infrastructure Planning," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(1), pages 209-226, January.
    8. Peter Dithan Ntale & Jude Ssempebwa & Badiru Musisi & Genza Gyaviira Musoke & Kimoga Joseph & C. B. Mugimu & Ngoma Muhammed & Joseph Ntayi, 2020. "Gaps in the structuring of organizations in the graduate employment context in Uganda," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
    9. repec:ags:ijag24:345027 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Patricia Molina Costa, 2014. "From plan to reality: Implementing a community vision in Jackson Square, Boston," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 293-310, September.
    11. Ratka ÄŒolić & Ä orÄ‘e Milić & Jasna Petrić & NataÅ¡a ÄŒolić, 2022. "Institutional capacity development within the national urban policy formation process – Participants’ views," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 40(1), pages 69-89, February.
    12. Jongwng Ju & Jaecheol Kim, 2023. "Applying the Delphi Approach to Incorporate Voiceless Stakeholders in Community Planning," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, October.
    13. Richard Apatewen Azerigyik & Michael Poku-Boansi & Justice Kuffour Owusu-Ansah, 2024. "Herders’ Haven or Farmers’ Foe? Exploring Multi-Stakeholder Perspectives on Grazing Reserves and Transhumance Corridors," World, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-24, July.
    14. Peter Wilshusen, 2009. "Social process as everyday practice: the micro politics of community-based conservation and development in southeastern Mexico," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(2), pages 137-162, May.
    15. David Brain, 2005. "From Good Neighborhoods to Sustainable Cities: Social Science and the Social Agenda of the New Urbanism," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 28(2), pages 217-238, April.
    16. Mickey Lauria & Mellone Long, 2017. "Planning Experience and Planners’ Ethics," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 83(2), pages 202-220, April.
    17. Kenneth M. Reardon, 2005. "Empowerment planning in East St. Louis, Illinois," City, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 85-100, April.
    18. Malene Freudendal-Pedersen & Sven Kesselring, 2016. "Mobilities, Futures & the City: repositioning discourses – changing perspectives – rethinking policies," Mobilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(4), pages 575-586, August.
    19. Gaber, John & Gaber, Sharon L., 2010. "Using face validity to recognize empirical community observations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 138-146, May.
    20. Shlomit Flint Ashery & Carl Steinitz, 2022. "Issue-Based Complexity: Digitally Supported Negotiation in Geodesign Linking Planning and Implementation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-19, July.
    21. Vanessa Watson, 2009. "Seeing from the South: Refocusing Urban Planning on the Globe’s Central Urban Issues," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 46(11), pages 2259-2275, October.

    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:16:y:2024:i:12:p:5249-:d:1418686. 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.