Rethinking planning for urban parks: accessibility, use and behaviour

Abstract

Public parks and green spaces are important health promoting facilities for urban dwellers, which can bring about improved health outcomes, diminished racial tensions and reduced public stress. Access to urban parks and green spaces is purported to be associated with the development of social capital, increased community wellbeing and inclusive neighbourhoods. It is within this context that recent decades have witnessed increasing efforts in measuring and modelling park accessibility in cities.Previous studies, however, found significant inconsistency between subjectively (perceived) and objectively (geographic) measured accessibility, indicating the need to examine existing conceptualisation of park accessibility, especially at the individual perceptual level.The accessibility concept has been developed as a multi-dimensional construct that requires a more adequate understanding about its influential factors and dimensions. Existing measures of accessibility have been limited to the concept's physical and temporal dimensions, leaving other relevant factors such as social conditions and personal constraints, including perceptions, largely unexplored. This research argues for the relevance of socio-personal factors to realistically assess accessibility to urban public parks. There is also a need to clarify how accessibility influences an individual's decision-making process that ultimately leads to human behaviour of park use or nonuse, as psychological study of behavioural intentions to use parks has rarely been investigated.Following a correlational research design and cross-sectional validation approach, this research was proposed to fill these knowledge gaps.The research involved both processes of model development and model validation. Two models were proposed in this study: an expanded theory of planned behavioural (TPB) model and an integrated model of park accessibility. The first model aims to identify the role of park accessibility in influencing individual behavioural intentions towards park use and non-use. The model was developed based on the theory of planned behaviour, with three additional variables included (i.e., perceived park accessibility, geographic proximity, and past use) to compare their relative importance in influencing park use intentions. The second model was proposed based on the critical literature review of the accessibility concept. The model consists of five dimensions, including both physical and socio-personal variables that were identified as being associated with urban park access and use.Both models were empirically tested using questionnaire survey data collected from two cities of different socio-cultural settings: Brisbane (Australia) and Zhongshan (China). Within each city, iii sampling was carefully designed to represent residents of different socioeconomic backgrounds with an aim of modelling the differences between population groups. Data were analysed quantitatively using statistical methods and spatial analytical techniques. Key findings from this study incl...

Quality of urban parks in the perception of city residents with mobility difficulties

“…Urban parks play a key role in determining the quality of life of city dwellers, performing natural, economic, aesthetic, social, and health functions ( Humpel, 2002 ; Bedimo-Rung, Mowen & Cohen, 2005 ; Byrne & Wolch, 2009 ; Ulrich & Addoms, 1981 ; Wolch, Byrne & Newell, 2014 ). The presence of open spaces (especially neighbourhood parks) can combat many urban diseases, relieve public stress and help build welcoming and inclusive neighbourhoods ( Bedimo-Rung, Mowen & Cohen, 2005 ; Wolch, Byrne & Newell, 2014 ; Wang, 2015 ). Proximity to green spaces and high visit frequency is associated with a perceived mental well-being improvement and better physical health condition ( Romagosa, 2018 ; Houlden et al, 2019 ; Liu et al, 2019 ; Martin et al, 2020 ).…”

“…Many studies suggest that higher accessibility leads to higher park use ( Scott & Jackson ; McCormack et al, 2010 ; Zhang & Zhou, 2018 ) and that proximity to parks and other urban green spaces (availability) increases people’s willingness to visit them ( Bedimo-Rung, Mowen & Cohen, 2005 ; Byrne & Wolch, 2009 ; Giles-Corti et al, 2005 ; Reyes, Páez & Morency, 2014 ; Liang, Chen & Zhang, 2017 ; Wüstemann, Kalisch & Kolbe, 2017 ; Feng et al, 2019 ). However, some studies proved that accessibility and availability might not influence people’s preferences and frequency of visits ( Hillsdon et al, 2006 ; Payne, 2002 ), indicating other factors, such as time ( Lin et al, 2014 ) and people’s approach to nature to be the most important for park use ( Wang, 2015 ; Lin et al, 2014 ). According to Wang, conventional urban open space planning that relies on objective indices such as area and number of parks per capita to measure people’s access to urban parks does not contain all contributing to the general perception of the accessibility factors.…”

“…According to Wang, conventional urban open space planning that relies on objective indices such as area and number of parks per capita to measure people’s access to urban parks does not contain all contributing to the general perception of the accessibility factors. The accessibility concept and decision-making processes seem to be more complicated ( Wang, 2015 ).…”

Table 1: Sociodemographic characteristics of 103 participants of the survey.

“…Many studies suggest that higher accessibility leads to higher park use (Scott & Jackson;McCormack et al, 2010;Zhang & Zhou, 2018) and that proximity to parks and other urban green spaces (availability) increases people's willingness to visit them (Bedimo-Rung, Mowen & Cohen, 2005;Byrne & Wolch, 2009;Reyes, Páez & Morency, 2014;Liang, Chen & Zhang, 2017;Wüstemann, Kalisch & Kolbe, 2017;Feng et al, 2019). However, some studies proved that accessibility and availability might not influence people's preferences and frequency of visits (Hillsdon et al, 2006;Payne, 2002), indicating other factors, such as time (Lin et al, 2014) and people's approach to nature to be the most important for park use (Wang, 2015;Lin et al, 2014). According to Wang, conventional urban open space planning that relies on objective indices such as area and number of parks per capita to measure people's access to urban parks does not contain all contributing to the general perception of the accessibility factors.…”

Supplemental Information 2: Survey in English.

“…Urban parks play a key role in determining the quality of life of city dwellers, performing natural, economic, aesthetic, social, and health functions (Humpel, 2002;Bedimo-Rung, Mowen & Cohen, 2005;Byrne & Wolch, 2009;Ulrich & Addoms, 1981;Wolch, Byrne & Newell, 2014). The presence of open spaces (especially neighbourhood parks) can combat many urban diseases, relieve public stress and help build welcoming and inclusive neighbourhoods (Bedimo-Rung, Mowen & Cohen, 2005;Wolch, Byrne & Newell, 2014;Wang, 2015). Proximity to green spaces and high visit frequency is associated with a perceived mental well-being improvement and better physical health condition (Romagosa, 2018;Houlden et al, 2019;Liu et al, 2019;Martin et al, 2020).…”