| Literature DB >> 35457311 |
Wen Wu1, Kewei Ding1.
Abstract
In this study, we evaluated the supply quality of parks and green spaces within the Third Ring Road area in Shenyang city by combining a landscape pattern index analysis with a principal component analysis. Moreover, a network analysis based on the ArcGIS platform was used to measure the accessibility of parks and green spaces. The research results showed that the overall supply quality of parks and green spaces (-9.55) must be improved. The supply quality levels of the four analyzed park types could be ranked as follows: garden parks (118.00) > community parks (73.67) > comprehensive parks (-16.64) > specific parks (-32.17). Among the analyzed recreation parks, the accessibility of daily recreation parks was poor, while the overall service efficiency of weekly recreation parks was better, except in a few regions. These research results can provide suggestions for future green space planning in Shenyang city. In addition, from the perspective of landscape patterns, studying the service quality of parks and green spaces can provide new ideas for further research on accessibility.Entities:
Keywords: landscape pattern index; network analysis; service capacity; urban green space accessibility
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35457311 PMCID: PMC9031746 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19084443
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1(a) The distribution of urban parks within the Third Ring Road of Shenyang; (b) the road network within the Third Ring Road of Shenyang; (c) the population density distribution within the Third Ring Road of Shenyang.
The quality of urban parks within the Third Ring Road of Shenyang.
| Class | Number | Area (Hectare) | Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| Comprehensive parks | 30 | 1224.56 | 57.4 |
| Special parks | 15 | 647.62 | 30.4 |
| Community parks | 64 | 224.41 | 10.5 |
| Garden parks | 61 | 35.60 | 1.7 |
Figure 2The network analysis diagram.
The calculation results of landscape pattern indexes.
| Class | PD | LPI | LSI | AREA_AM | SHAPE_MN | DIVISION | MESH | SPLIT | AI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comprehensive parks | 1.50 | 13.93 | 9.54 | 118.16 | 1.73 | 0.96 | 67.52 | 31.40 | 97.54 |
| Special parks | 0.56 | 15.53 | 4.91 | 199.47 | 1.58 | 0.97 | 61.16 | 34.67 | 98.46 |
| Community parks | 3.48 | 0.68 | 10.69 | 6.15 | 1.30 | 0.99 | 0.64 | 3282.30 | 93.44 |
| Garden parks | 2.49 | 0.12 | 7.71 | 0.95 | 1.05 | 1.00 | 0.01 | 130,688.89 | 88.60 |
| Overall parks | 7.07 | 15.53 | 14.04 | 148.19 | 1.34 | 0.93 | 148.19 | 14.31 | 97.16 |
The evaluation scores of various parks.
| Class | First Principal Component | Second Principal Component | Comprehensive Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Comprehensive parks | −0.1198 | −0.3306 | −16.64 |
| Special parks | −0.1820 | −0.7465 | −32.17 |
| Community parks | 1.1222 | 0.1815 | 73.67 |
| Garden parks | 1.8475 | 0.1824 | 118.00 |
| Overall parks | −0.5727 | 0.9019 | −9.55 |
Figure 3The regions with accessible urban parks under three travel modes.
Figure 4The service efficiency levels of urban parks under three travel modes.
Figure 5The accessible regions of parks associated with different recreation types.
Figure 6The service efficiency levels of parks associated with different recreation types.