打印

作者

Xingyue Tu;Ganlin Huang;Jianguo Wu;Xuan Guo

来源

URBAN FORESTRY & URBAN GREENING,Vol.52,Issue1,Article 126689

语言

英文

关键字

Green space;Public open space;Park accessibility;Park use;Recreation;Service catchment area

作者单位

Center for Human-Environment System Sustainability (CHESS), State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology (ESPRE), Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100875, China;School of Natural Resources, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, No 19 Xinjiekouwai Road, Beijing, 100875, China;School of Life Sciences and School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA;Center for Human-Environment System Sustainability (CHESS), State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology (ESPRE), Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100875, China;School of Natural Resources, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, No 19 Xinjiekouwai Road, Beijing, 100875, China;School of Life Sciences and School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA

摘要

Urban parks are of great importance for residents’ health and well-being. As two main factors influencing park visits, distance to parks and park size have been studied and adopted in practice such as park planning and guidelines. This study aims to examine how travel distance and park size associated with park visits and how these effects may vary across different types of park visits in Beijing, China. We conducted a city-wide survey in 78 neighborhoods, and interviewed 7362 residents on their park visit behaviors. Constraint line analysis, Pearson correlation analysis, and significant differences analysis were employed. We found that travel distance had an exponential limiting effect on park visits. The maximum park visits dropped exponentially as the travel distance to parks increased. No such effect was observed for park size. Visitors to nearby, medium-distance, and distant parks varied significantly in terms of park visit frequency, travel mode, time spent in parks, and activity. Their destination parks also differed in size, vegetation cover and whether water body is present. Furthermore, we identified four cut-off points (1, 2, 5, and 10 km) based on the constraint line functions as the accessible and maximum travel distance regarding different travel modes and visit frequencies of park visits. Our findings provided empirical evidence on the association among travel distance, park size and visits, which have important implications for future park studies and planning.