Urban green space (UGS) could contribute to sustainable urban development. Studying residents’ perception of UGS ecological benefits could provide the empirical basis to improve UGS management and quality of life. Based on the questionnaire surveys of 432 residents in Beijing, assisted by non-parametric statistical tests, this paper assessed the relationships between residents’ living environments and self-rated health status and their impacts on residents’ perceptions of UGS ecological benefits. We paid attention to residents’ perceptions of UGS’s notable thermal environmental benefits under the climate-change backdrop. The results showed that: (1) Residents were inclined to perceive direct UGS ecological benefits better than the indirect types; (2) Residents growing up in the city had better self-rated health status than those growing up in the suburb and the village; and residents growing up in the suburb had a better understanding of the cooling benefits of green walls; (3) Residents currently dwelling in the city had a better understanding of UGS benefits, including shading, cooling by green roofs, mitigating the heat island effect and enhancing urban biodiversity, than those dwelling in the village; and (4) Residents with “very good” self-rated health status had a significantly better understanding of UGS benefits regarding shading, providing varied colors and habitats, storing carbon, purifying air, and collecting rainwater.

No abstract

Urban green spaces (UGS) provide many social benefits and improves residents’ wellbeing. Studying residents’ perceptions of UGS’s social benefits and driving factors could promote public health and environmental justice. A questionnaire survey of 432 Beijing residents and statistical tests assessed the impacts of residents’ living environments and self-rated health status on UGS perceptions. The results showed: (1) perceptions of UGS’ physical health benefits were subdued, with an inclination towards other social benefits. Respondents more highly perceived accelerating patient recovery and reducing morbidity and mortality rates. Perceptions of bearing larger-head babies with higher weight were relatively low. For other social benefits, perceptions of improving the environment and life quality were higher, but reducing anger outbursts and resolving conflicts were lower. (2) Childhood living environments did not affect perceptions of social benefits, but current living environments did. Suburb residents understood reducing pain-relief medication demands and bearing larger-head babies better than city residents. City residents understood UGS’ investments considerable and sustained returns better than village residents. City residents agreed with accelerating patient recovery higher than village ones. (3) Respondents with “poor” self-rated health status had better perceptions of other social benefits. Those with “excellent” ratings did not fully understand UGS’ physical health benefits. “Poor” ratings understood improving a city’s image and making cities livable and sustainable better than “good” or “fair” ratings. “Excellent” ratings had less understanding of larger-head babies than “good” or “fair” ratings. The study could enhance appreciation of UGS’ social benefits to facilitate planning and management to meet residents’ expectations.