| Literature DB >> 31906286 |
Yuping Dong1,2, Helin Liu1,2, Tianming Zheng1,2.
Abstract
A high greenness level can enhance green space use and outdoor physical activity. However, rapid urbanization and high-density development have led to the loss or fragmentation of green space, especially urban public green space (PGS). With the aim of increasing the health benefits from PGS, some planners and researchers suggest connecting existing PGSs to encourage urban residents to use the PGS, and thus, to improve public health. Does this suggestion stand with robustness? By taking 42 sub-districts in the inner area of Wuhan as the study objects, this paper examines the correlation between the connectivity of PGS and its use. We also explore how the characteristics of PGS and the facilities/functions in the neighboring areas influence this relationship by using Location Based Service data (WeChat-Yichuxing data), point of interest (POI) data, and remote-sensing image, etc. Using Regression Analysis, we found that there is no high correlation between PGS use and its connectivity. The possible causes might be attributed to the fact that PGS use is profoundly influenced by multifaceted competing impact factors, and no one can stand dominantly. It is interesting to see that the density of companies is positively, but slightly, related to PGS use.Entities:
Keywords: Location Based Service data; Wuhan; connectivity of pubic green space; impact factors; pubic green space use
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31906286 PMCID: PMC6981519 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17010297
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Research framework.
Figure 2The study area and the 42 sub-districts in Wuhan.
The variables and the requisite data.
| Category | Variables | Description | Data Source | Type | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Special Data | Basic Data | ||||
| Independent variable | the connectivity of PGS in each sub-district | measured by IIC | GS distribution | sub-district distribution | numeric |
| Dependent variable | PGS use | measured by relative population density of PGS within each sub-district | Wechat-Yichuxing; GS distribution; residents within each sub-district | ||
| Impact factors |
| ||||
| the greenness of each sub-district | measured by mean NDVI | remote sensing image from Landsat8 (OLI_TIRS) on 23 July 2016 with 30m * 30 m | |||
| the quality of PGS | measured by RAS | ||||
| the availability of PGS | measured by PGSAPC | GS distribution; residents within each sub-district | |||
|
| |||||
| Facilities for living | measured by the density of residence | residence POI | |||
| measured by the density of LSF | LSF POI | ||||
| measured by the density of CF | CF POI | ||||
| measured by the density of SF | SF POI | ||||
| Facilities for working | measured by the density of company | company POI | |||
| Facilities for education | measured by the density of school | school POI | |||
| Facilities for entertainment | measured by the density of SLF | SLF POI | |||
Note: Integral Index of Connectivity = IIC; Public Green Space = PGS; Green Space = GS; Normalized Difference Vegetation Index = NDVI; Ratio of Arbor to Shrub = RAS; Public Green Space Area Per Capita = PGSAPC; Point of Interest = POI; Living Service Facilities = LSF; Catering Facilities = CF; Shopping Facilities = SF; Sport and Leisure Facilities = SLF.
Figure 3Analysis method.
Figure 4Distribution of PGS (with an area of more than 1ha).
Figure 5Distribution of IIC.
Figure 6Distribution of PGS use.
Descriptive statistics (before mean-subtraction).
| Variables | N | Range | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Std. Deviation | Variance | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statistic | Statistic | Statistic | Statistic | Statistic | Std. Error | Statistic | Statistic | |
| IIC | 42 | 0.194 | 0.000 | 0.195 | 0.029 | 0.007 | 0.042 | 0.002 |
| PGS use | 42 | 0.071 | 0.002 | 0.074 | 0.028 | 0.003 | 0.018 | 0.000 |
| NDVI | 42 | 0.780 | −0.213 | 0.567 | 0.267 | 0.026 | 0.166 | 0.028 |
| RAS | 42 | 1.201 | 0.000 | 1.201 | 0.363 | 0.037 | 0.238 | 0.057 |
| PGSAPC | 42 | 34.640 | 0.210 | 34.850 | 7.273 | 1.244 | 8.062 | 64.993 |
| density of CF | 42 | 5.538 | 0.118 | 5.656 | 1.276 | 0.152 | 0.985 | 0.970 |
| density of LSF | 42 | 1.931 | 0.039 | 1.970 | 0.501 | 0.058 | 0.374 | 0.140 |
| density of residence | 42 | 1.033 | 0.020 | 1.053 | 0.320 | 0.035 | 0.228 | 0.052 |
| density of SF | 42 | 2.155 | 0.066 | 2.221 | 0.668 | 0.068 | 0.440 | 0.193 |
| density of company | 42 | 5.607 | 0.106 | 5.713 | 1.067 | 0.167 | 1.081 | 1.169 |
| density of school | 42 | 0.576 | 0.008 | 0.583 | 0.103 | 0.016 | 0.102 | 0.010 |
| density of SLF | 42 | 0.972 | 0.013 | 0.985 | 0.330 | 0.033 | 0.214 | 0.046 |
| Valid N (listwise) | 42 | |||||||
Note: Integral Index of Connectivity = IIC; Public Green Space = PGS; Normalized Difference Vegetation Index = NDVI; Ratio of Arbor to Shrub abbr RAS; Public Green Space Area Per Capita = PGSAPC; Living Service Facilities = LSF; Catering Facilities = CF; Shopping Facilities = SF; Sport and Leisure Facilities = SLF.
Detailed analysis results of Model 1.
| Model Summary | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate | Durbin–Watson | Variables |
| 0.134 | 0.018 | −0.007 | 0.01827 | 2.027 | Y: PGS use; X: IIC |
|
| |||||
| Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
| Regression | 0.000 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.734 | 0.397 |
| Residual | 0.013 | 40 | 0.000 | ||
| Total | 0.014 | 41 | |||
|
| |||||
| Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | ||
| B | Std. Error | Beta | |||
| (Constant) | 0.000 | 0.003 | 0.000 | 1.000 | |
| IIC | −0.058 | 0.068 | −0.134 | −0.857 | 0.397 |
Note: X represents independent variable; Y represents dependent variable.
The details of Model 2 about the direct and indirect effect of IIC on PGS use.
| Variables | Direct effect of X on Y | Indirect effect(s) of X on Y | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X and Y | M | Effect | p | LLCI | ULCI | Effect | BootLLCI | BootULCI |
| X: IIC; Y: PGS use | PGSAPC | −0.026 | 0.733 | −0.176 | 0.125 | −0.032 | −0.100 | 0.105 |
| RAS | −0.058 | 0.405 | −0.197 | 0.081 | 0.000 | −0.036 | 0.029 | |
| NDVI | −0.055 | 0.422 | −0.191 | 0.082 | −0.003 | −0.043 | 0.021 | |
| density of CF | −0.061 | 0.365 | −0.196 | 0.074 | 0.003 | −0.026 | 0.043 | |
| density of LSF | −0.071 | 0.295 | −0.205 | 0.064 | 0.013 | −0.031 | 0.059 | |
| density of residence | −0.067 | 0.333 | −0.205 | 0.071 | 0.009 | −0.026 | 0.035 | |
| density of school | −0.060 | 0.379 | −0.198 | 0.077 | 0.003 | −0.014 | 0.027 | |
| density of SF | −0.059 | 0.387 | −0.195 | 0.077 | 0.001 | −0.033 | 0.024 | |
| density of SLF | −0.089 | 0.212 | −0.230 | 0.053 | 0.031 | −0.030 | 0.101 | |
| density of company | −0.121 | 0.070 | −0.252 | 0.011 | 0.063 | −0.046 | 0.206 | |
Note: (1) X represents independent variable; Y represents dependent variable; M represents mediators. (2) Integral Index of Connectivity = IIC; Public Green Space = PGS; Normalized Difference Vegetation Index = NDVI; Ratio of Arbor to Shrub = RAS; Public Green Space Area Per Capita = PGSAPC; Living Service Facilities = LSF; Catering Facilities = CF; Shopping Facilities = SF; Sport and Leisure Facilities = SLF. (3) Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in the output: 95.0000. (4) Number of bootstrap samples for percentile bootstrap confidence intervals: 5000.
Detailed analysis results of Model 2 (mediator: Density of company).
| OUTCOME VARIABLE: PGS Use | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model Summary | ||||||
| R | R−sq | MSE | F | df1 | df2 |
|
| 0.4536 | 0.2058 | 0.0003 | 5.0528 | 2 | 39 | 0.0112 * |
| Model | ||||||
| coeff | se | t | p | LLCI | ULCI | |
| constant | 0 | 0.0026 | 0 | 1 | −0.0052 | 0.0052 |
| IIC | −0.121 | 0.065 | −1.8617 | 0.0702 | −0.2524 | 0.0105 |
| density of company | 0.0077 | 0.0025 | 3.0365 | 0.0043 ** | 0.0026 | 0.0128 |
Note: (1) Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in the output: 95.0000. (2) ** means p value is no more than 0.01; * means p value is no more than 0.05.