Comparison of urban green space usage and preferences: A case study approach of China and the UK

IF 7.9 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY Landscape and Urban Planning Pub Date : 2024-05-23 DOI:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105112
Yueshan Ma , Paul G. Brindley , Eckart Lange
{"title":"Comparison of urban green space usage and preferences: A case study approach of China and the UK","authors":"Yueshan Ma ,&nbsp;Paul G. Brindley ,&nbsp;Eckart Lange","doi":"10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The literature identifies an important research gap regarding the variability in people’s needs and preferences for Urban Green Space (UGS) depending on sociodemographic and cultural backgrounds. Therefore, it is essential to understand the impact of these differences on UGS utilization preferences. However, there remains a lack of a comprehensive comparative research on this topic. This study compared the analysis of park usage and preferences from urban parks accessed on foot by analyzing and comparing the results of 2,360 online questionnaires from Guangzhou (China) with 7,159 responses from London (UK) using the Monitoring of Natural Environment Engagement (MENE) survey data. The results highlighted the importance of knowing which park usage and preferences were more likely to exhibit large variations/similarities based on different socio-demographic and cultural backgrounds. For example, one difference was in the UK older people were more likely to spend less time in parks, while in Guangzhou duration increased up to the age of 50 years before declining. One similarity indicated that park users in both countries tended to spend longer times in parks if they walked longer times accessing these parks. These findings have implications for distinguishing international planning and designing principles in various social cultural contexts.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54744,"journal":{"name":"Landscape and Urban Planning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204624001117/pdfft?md5=fa7bf25a440be611d13298fd10d96ede&pid=1-s2.0-S0169204624001117-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Landscape and Urban Planning","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204624001117","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The literature identifies an important research gap regarding the variability in people’s needs and preferences for Urban Green Space (UGS) depending on sociodemographic and cultural backgrounds. Therefore, it is essential to understand the impact of these differences on UGS utilization preferences. However, there remains a lack of a comprehensive comparative research on this topic. This study compared the analysis of park usage and preferences from urban parks accessed on foot by analyzing and comparing the results of 2,360 online questionnaires from Guangzhou (China) with 7,159 responses from London (UK) using the Monitoring of Natural Environment Engagement (MENE) survey data. The results highlighted the importance of knowing which park usage and preferences were more likely to exhibit large variations/similarities based on different socio-demographic and cultural backgrounds. For example, one difference was in the UK older people were more likely to spend less time in parks, while in Guangzhou duration increased up to the age of 50 years before declining. One similarity indicated that park users in both countries tended to spend longer times in parks if they walked longer times accessing these parks. These findings have implications for distinguishing international planning and designing principles in various social cultural contexts.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
城市绿地的使用和偏好比较:中英案例研究
文献指出了一个重要的研究空白,即人们对城市绿地(UGS)的需求和偏好因社会人口和文化背景的不同而存在差异。因此,了解这些差异对 UGS 使用偏好的影响至关重要。然而,目前仍缺乏这方面的综合性比较研究。本研究利用自然环境参与监测(MENE)调查数据,通过分析和比较中国广州的 2360 份在线问卷调查结果和英国伦敦的 7159 份问卷调查结果,对步行进入城市公园的公园使用情况和偏好进行了比较分析。调查结果显示,基于不同的社会人口和文化背景,了解哪些公园的使用情况和偏好更有可能表现出巨大的差异/相似性非常重要。例如,不同之处在于,在英国,老年人花在公园的时间更少,而在广州,花在公园的时间在 50 岁之前会增加,之后会减少。一个相似之处是,两国的公园使用者如果步行进入公园的时间较长,则在公园中停留的时间往往较长。这些发现对于在不同的社会文化背景下区分国际规划和设计原则具有重要意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Landscape and Urban Planning
Landscape and Urban Planning 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
15.20
自引率
6.60%
发文量
232
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Landscape and Urban Planning is an international journal that aims to enhance our understanding of landscapes and promote sustainable solutions for landscape change. The journal focuses on landscapes as complex social-ecological systems that encompass various spatial and temporal dimensions. These landscapes possess aesthetic, natural, and cultural qualities that are valued by individuals in different ways, leading to actions that alter the landscape. With increasing urbanization and the need for ecological and cultural sensitivity at various scales, a multidisciplinary approach is necessary to comprehend and align social and ecological values for landscape sustainability. The journal believes that combining landscape science with planning and design can yield positive outcomes for both people and nature.
期刊最新文献
Evidence of taxonomic but not functional diversity extinction debt in bird assemblages in an urban area in the Cerrado hotspot Are golf courses good or bad for birds: A synthetic review Comment on Functional landscape connectivity for a select few: Linkages do not consistently predict wildlife movement or occupancy. Autum R. Iverson, David Waetjen, Fraser Shilling A multi-value based approach to identify potential dark sky places in mainland China A review of methods for quantifying urban ecosystem services
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1