| Literature DB >> 35886347 |
Jing Zhao1, Linshen Wang1, Qing Ye2, Qiang Zhao3, Shutong Wei1.
Abstract
Following rapid urban development, higher demands are now being placed on urban open spaces in China, and the relationship between environmental elements and respondents' behaviors in open spaces has become a common concern for researchers. Current research using geographic information systems has yielded macroscopic portraits of the behavioral trends and outcomes of research subjects, but evaluating their actual needs is complex. This paper proposes a new method to analyze the relationship between open spaces and respondents' behaviors from a detailed perspective. Direct gradient analysis was employed with stratified sampling to select sample points in open spaces. Environment quality, ancillary facilities, and canal culture were selected as subjective evaluation factors. The greatest advantage of the proposed procedure is that it produces a ranking diagram, which compensates for the shortcomings of research methods that cannot directly express the actual needs related to respondents' behaviors. From a case study in Jining, China, a location's environmental quality and ancillary facilities were found to have the greatest influence on the behaviors of those using open spaces. Finally, strategies for improving environmental quality in open spaces are proposed.Entities:
Keywords: GIS; direct gradient analysis; environmental elements; open space; respondents’ behavior
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35886347 PMCID: PMC9316188 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19148494
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Study area and sample point distribution map for Jining urban space perception survey.
Classification and definition of subjective factors evaluating urban spaces in Jining.
| Major Category | Subcategory | Definition | Rating Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental quality | Safety | Security situation and disaster-prevention facilities. | Very unsatisfied = 1 point |
| Cleanliness | Clean and without pollution or noise. | ||
| Beauty | Buildings and landscapes are pleasing to the eye. | ||
| Convenience | Places are easily accessible. | ||
| Ancillary facilities | Leisure facilities | Public chairs, pavilions, fitness equipment, tree shades, drinking-water systems, etc. | |
| Catering facilities | Convenience stores, restaurants, pubs, etc. | ||
| Entertainment facilities | Chess and card rooms, ballrooms, karaoke televisions, swimming pools, etc. | ||
| Tourist facilities | Hotels, health resorts, parking lots, etc. | ||
| Canal culture | Canal landscape conservation | Scenic features of the canal are preserved. | |
| Canal cultural atmosphere | Jining’s unique canal cultural connotations, including folk culture and artistic forms. | No perception at all = 1 point |
Types of behaviors and specific values of point-of-interest (POI) kernel-density analyses of 12 sample points in Jining’s open spaces.
| Sample Point | Types of Behaviors at 12 Sample Points (%) | Specific Values of POI Kernel-Density Analyses of 12 Sample Points (per km2) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical | Cultural | Meeting | Parent–Child | Sightseeing | Passing | Other | Catering | Entertainment | Tourism | ||
| 1 | Wanda Plaza | 13.33 | 6.67 | 20.00 | 13.33 | 23.33 | 6.67 | 16.67 | 889.44 | 87.24 | 1550.40 |
| 2 | Yunhe Mall | 63.33 | 6.67 | 10.00 | 6.67 | 0.00 | 13.33 | 0.00 | 742.76 | 18.56 | 863.69 |
| 3 | Huanbiquan Road | 3.33 | 10.00 | 20.00 | 13.33 | 0.00 | 40.00 | 13.33 | 137.15 | 10.10 | 433.94 |
| 4 | People’s Park | 44.83 | 6.90 | 13.79 | 13.79 | 10.34 | 0.00 | 10.34 | 409.18 | 20.90 | 296.05 |
| 5 | Nanchi Park | 36.67 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 33.33 | 23.33 | 0.00 | 6.67 | 78.79 | 5.39 | 243.42 |
| 6 | Guanghe Park | 66.67 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 26.67 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 6.67 | 314.69 | 6.02 | 469.85 |
| 7 | Xianying green space | 70.97 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 9.68 | 16.13 | 3.23 | 0.00 | 159.61 | 7.80 | 409.64 |
| 8 | Tieta Temple | 6.67 | 10.00 | 23.33 | 20.00 | 0.00 | 10.00 | 30.00 | 388.62 | 19.86 | 405.27 |
| 9 | Yunhe Shengshi | 13.33 | 6.67 | 26.67 | 20.00 | 3.33 | 23.33 | 6.67 | 321.26 | 12.84 | 809.70 |
| 10 | Kuaihuolin riverside green space | 43.33 | 6.67 | 0.00 | 10.00 | 0.00 | 6.67 | 33.33 | 173.97 | 6.06 | 560.37 |
| 11 | Huijingyuan | 16.67 | 0.00 | 6.67 | 20.00 | 0.00 | 43.33 | 13.33 | 141.63 | 3.24 | 277.69 |
| 12 | Guiheyuan | 16.67 | 6.67 | 13.33 | 10.00 | 6.67 | 20.00 | 26.67 | 209.96 | 13.89 | 685.02 |
Figure 2Basic information on respondents to Jining open-space questionnaire survey.
Figure 3Redundancy analysis (RDA) ordination diagram of Jining respondents’ behaviors and environmental factors at 12 sample points.
Degree of satisfaction with various factors at 12 sample points of urban open spaces in Jining (%).
| Sample Point | Safety | Cleanliness | Beauty | Convenience | Leisure | Catering | Entertainment | Tourism | Canal | Canal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wanda Plaza | 90.00 | 96.67 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 80.00 | 96.67 | 93.33 | 76.67 | 96.67 | 86.67 |
| Yunhe Mall | 93.33 | 93.33 | 83.33 | 86.67 | 93.33 | 90.00 | 46.67 | 56.67 | 100.00 | 76.67 |
| Huanbiquan Road | 70.00 | 80.00 | 73.33 | 90.00 | 66.67 | 46.67 | 33.33 | 36.67 | 83.33 | 86.67 |
| People’s Park | 93.10 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 89.66 | 86.21 | 79.31 | 41.38 | 58.62 | 89.66 | 96.55 |
| Nanchi Park | 93.33 | 96.67 | 96.67 | 86.67 | 63.33 | 16.67 | 36.67 | 36.67 | 56.67 | 46.67 |
| Guanghe Park | 96.67 | 100.00 | 80.00 | 73.33 | 60.00 | 46.67 | 56.67 | 16.67 | 96.67 | 50.00 |
| Xianying green space | 100.00 | 96.77 | 90.32 | 93.33 | 38.71 | 3.23 | 3.23 | 19.35 | 93.55 | 93.55 |
| Tieta Temple | 100.00 | 83.33 | 70.00 | 100.00 | 30.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 20.00 | 83.33 | 100.00 |
| Yunhe Shengshi | 96.67 | 93.33 | 83.33 | 80.00 | 90.00 | 73.33 | 60.00 | 33.33 | 83.33 | 66.67 |
| Kuaihuolin riverside green space | 90.00 | 96.67 | 86.67 | 70.00 | 56.67 | 20.00 | 13.33 | 30.00 | 83.33 | 73.33 |
| Huijingyuan | 83.33 | 90.00 | 80.00 | 73.33 | 80.00 | 70.00 | 33.33 | 20.00 | 43.33 | 70.00 |
| Guiheyuan | 93.33 | 96.67 | 80.00 | 76.67 | 63.33 | 46.67 | 33.33 | 36.67 | 63.33 | 63.33 |
Notes: The degree of satisfaction was calculated as the percentage of respondents (out of the total respondents at the sample point) who rated the factor at 4 points or higher on a five-point Likert satisfaction-rating scale, where 1 represented “very unsatisfied” and 5 represented “very satisfied”. Thus, respondents’ behaviors were not closely linked to the stratification or hierarchy of sample points. The environmental composition of the sample points—in other words, a location’s environmental quality and ancillary facilities—was the most influential factor affecting respondents’ behaviors.
Figure 4(a) Walking accessibility analysis of 12 sample points. (b) Comparison of areas of 12 sample points according to 5-, 10-, and 15-minute walking accessibility.
Correlation between convenience satisfaction and 5-, 10-, and 15-minute walking-accessible areas.
| Convenience Satisfaction | 5 min. | 10 min. | 15 min. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Convenience | Pearson Correlation | 1 | 0.446 | 0.816 ** | 0.402 |
| Significance (two-tailed) | 0.146 | 0.001 | 0.195 | ||
| 5 min. | Pearson Correlation | 0.446 | 1 | 0.666 * | 0.411 |
| Significance (two-tailed) | 0.146 | 0.018 | 0.185 | ||
| 10 min. | Pearson Correlation | 0.816 ** | 0.666 * | 1 | 0.722 ** |
| Significance (two-tailed) | 0.001 | 0.018 | 0.008 | ||
| 15 min. | Pearson Correlation | 0.402 | 0.411 | 0.722 ** | 1 |
| Significance (two-tailed) | 0.195 | 0.185 | 0.008 | ||
| 12 | |||||
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
Figure 5POI analysis of catering, entertainment, and tourism facilities: (a) POI analysis of catering facilities; (b) POI analysis of entertainment facilities; (c) POI analysis of tourism facilities.
Correlation between facilities kernel density and facilities satisfaction.
| Catering Facilities | Kernel Density | Satisfaction | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kernel density | Pearson Correlation | 1 | 0.650 * |
| Significance (two-tailed) | 0.022 | ||
| N | 12 | 12 | |
| Satisfaction | Pearson Correlation | 0.650 * | 1 |
| Significance (two-tailed) | 0.022 | ||
| N | 12 | 12 | |
|
|
|
| |
| Kernel density | Pearson Correlation | 1 | 0.656 * |
| Significance (two-tailed) | 0.020 | ||
| N | 12 | 12 | |
| Satisfaction | Pearson Correlation | 0.656 * | 1 |
| Significance (two-tailed) | 0.020 | ||
| N | 12 | 12 | |
|
|
|
| |
| Kernel density | Pearson Correlation | 1 | 0.681 * |
| Significance (two-tailed) | 0.015 | ||
| N | 12 | 12 | |
| Satisfaction | Pearson Correlation | 0.681 * | 1 |
| Significance (two-tailed) | 0.015 | ||
| N | 12 | 12 | |
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).