Impact of Perception of Green Space for Health Promotion on Willingness to Use Parks and Actual Use among Young Urban Residents
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework
2.1. Perceived Benefit and Willingness to Use toward Green Space
2.2. Factors Affecting Park Use
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Study Design and Participants
3.2. Survey Instrument
3.2.1. Dependent Variables
3.2.2. Independent Variables
3.3. Statistical Analyses
4. Results
4.1. Reliability and Validity Analysis
4.2. Descriptive Statistics
4.3. Correlation Analyses
4.4. Predictors of the Willingness to Use Parks to Promote Health
4.5. Predictors of Park Use Behavior
5. Discussion
5.1. Effects of Perception on Park Use Willingness and Behavior
5.2. Implications for Practice
5.3. Limitations and Future Research
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Moore, M.; Gould, P.; Keary, B.S. Global urbanization and impact on health. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2003, 206, 269–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- He, J.; Klag, M.J.; Whelton, P.K.; Chen, J.-Y.; Mo, J.-P.; Qian, M.-C.; Mo, P.-S.; He, G.-Q. Migration, Blood Pressure Pattern, and Hypertension: The Yi Migrant Study. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1991, 134, 1085–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Goryakin, Y.; Rocco, L.; Suhrcke, M. The contribution of urbanization to non-communicable diseases: Evidence from 173 countries from 1980 to 2008. Econ. Hum. Biol. 2017, 26, 151–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Flegal, K.M. Prevalence and Trends in Obesity Among US Adults, 1999–2008. JAMA 2010, 303, 235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Prince, M.; Patel, V.; Saxena, S.; Maj, M.; Maselko, J.; Phillips, M.R.; Rahman, A. No health without mental health. Lancet 2007, 370, 859–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hulsegge, G.; Picavet, H.S.J.; Blokstra, A.; Nooyens, A.C.J.; Spijkerman, A.M.W.; Van Der Schouw, Y.T.; Smit, H.A.; Verschuren, W.M. Today’s adult generations are less healthy than their predecessors: Generation shifts in metabolic risk factors: The Doetinchem Cohort Study. Eur. J. Prev. Cardiol. 2014, 21, 1134–1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gong, P.; Liang, S.; Carlton, E.J.; Jiang, Q.; Wu, J.; Wang, L.; Remais, J.V. Urbanisation and health in China. Lancet 2012, 379, 843–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, S.M.; Borawski, E.A.; Cuttler, L.; Ievers-Landis, C.E.; Love, T.E. IMPACT: A multi-level family and school intervention targeting obesity in urban youth. Contemp. Clin. Trials 2013, 36, 574–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Arango, C.; Díaz-Caneja, C.M.; McGorry, P.D.; Rapoport, J.; Sommer, I.E.; Vorstman, J.A.; McDaid, D.; Marín, O.; Serrano-Drozdowskyj, E.; Freedman, R.; et al. Preventive strategies for mental health. Lancet Psychiatry 2018, 5, 591–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Draper, C.E.E.; Bosire, E.; Prioreschi, A.; Ware, L.J.J.; Cohen, E.; Lye, S.J.J.; Norris, S.A.A. Urban young women’s preferences for intervention strategies to promote physical and mental health preconception: A Healthy Life Trajectories Initiative (HeLTI). Prev. Med. Rep. 2019, 14, 100846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- James, P.; Tzoulas, K.; Adams, M.D.; Barber, A.; Box, J.; Breuste, J.; Elmqvist, T.; Frith, M.; Gordon, C.; Greening, K.L.; et al. Towards an integrated understanding of green space in the European built environment. Urban For. Urban Green. 2009, 8, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pretty, J.; Peacock, J.; Sellens, M.; Griffin, M. The mental and physical health outcomes of green exercise. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 2005, 15, 319–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Irvine, K.N.; Warber, S.L. Greening healthcare: Practicing as if the natural environment really mattered. Altern. Ther. Health Med. 2002, 8, 76–83. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Hartig, T.; Mitchell, R.; De Vries, S.; Frumkin, H. Nature and Health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2014, 35, 207–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Twohig-Bennett, C.; Jones, A. The health benefits of the great outdoors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of greenspace exposure and health outcomes. Environ. Res. 2018, 166, 628–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Astell-Burt, T.; Feng, X.; Kolt, G.S. Is Neighborhood Green Space Associated With a Lower Risk of Type 2 Diabetes? Evidence From 267,072 Australians. Diabetes Care 2014, 37, 197–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McEachan, R.R.C.; Prady, S.L.; Smith, G.; Fairley, L.; Cabieses, B.; Gidlow, C.; Wright, J.; Dadvand, P.; Van Gent, D.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J. The association between green space and depressive symptoms in pregnant women: Moderating roles of socioeconomic status and physical activity. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2016, 70, 253–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gascon, M.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Martínez, D.; Dadvand, P.; Forns, J.; Plasència, A.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; Mas, M.T.; Martínez, D.; Dadvand, P.; et al. Mental Health Benefits of Long-Term Exposure to Residential Green and Blue Spaces: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 4354–4379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kaplan, S. The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 1995, 15, 169–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maas, J.; Van Dillen, S.M.E.; Verheij, R.A.; Groenewegen, P.P. Social contacts as a possible mechanism behind the relation between green space and health. Health Place 2009, 15, 586–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ruijsbroek, A.; Mohnen, S.M.; Droomers, M.; Kruize, H.; Gidlow, C.; Gražulevičiene, R.; Andrusaityte, S.; Maas, J.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; Triguero-Mas, M.; et al. Neighbourhood green space, social environment and mental health: An examination in four European cities. Int. J. Public Health 2017, 62, 657–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Rigolon, A. Parks and young people: An environmental justice study of park proximity, acreage, and quality in Denver, Colorado. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 165, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Floyd, M.F.; Bocarro, J.N.; Smith, W.R.; Baran, P.K.; Moore, R.C.; Cosco, N.G.; Edwards, M.B.; Suau, L.J.; Fang, K. Park-Based Physical Activity Among Children and Adolescents. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2011, 41, 258–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lindberg, M.; Schipperijn, J. Active use of urban park facilities – Expectations versus reality. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 909–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veitch, J.; Carver, A.; Abbott, G.; Giles-Corti, B.; Timperio, A.; Salmon, J. How active are people in metropolitan parks? An observational study of park visitation in Australia. BMC Public Health 2015, 15, 610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Karsten, L. It all used to be better? Different generations on continuity and change in urban children’s daily use of space. Child. Geogr. 2005, 3, 275–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, M.; Tan, Y.; Liu, Q.; Ren, Y.; Kawachi, I.; Li, L.; Lv, J. Association between perceived urban built environment attributes and leisure-time physical activity among adults in Hangzhou, China. Prev. Med. 2014, 66, 60–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Özgüner, H. Cultural differences in attitudes towards urban parks and green spaces. Landsc. Res. 2011, 36, 599–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ho, C.H.; Sasidharan, V.; Elmendorf, W.; Willits, F.K.; Graefe, A.; Godbey, G. Gender and ethnic variations in urban park preferences, visitation, and perceived benefits. J. Leis. Res. 2005, 37, 281–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sasidharan, V.; And, F.W.; Godbey, G. Cultural differences in urban recreation patterns: An examination of park usage and activity participation across six population subgroups. Manag. Leis. 2005, 10, 19–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaczynski, A.T.; Potwarka, L.R.; Smale, B.J.A.; Havitz, M.E. Association of Parkland Proximity with Neighborhood and Park-based Physical Activity: Variations by Gender and Age. Leis. Sci. 2009, 31, 174–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhai, Y.; Baran, P.K. Do configurational attributes matter in context of urban parks? Park pathway configurational attributes and senior walking. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 148, 188–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhai, Y.; Baran, P.K. Urban park pathway design characteristics and senior walking behavior. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 21, 60–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, W.; Yang, J.; Ma, L.; Huang, C. Factors affecting the use of urban green spaces for physical activities: Views of young urban residents in Beijing. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 851–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, H.; Li, F.; Xu, L.; Han, B. The impact of socio-demographic, environmental, and individual factors on urban park visitation in Beijing, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 163, S181–S188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, H.; Li, F.; Li, J.; Zhang, Y. The relationships between urban parks, residents’ physical activity, and mental health benefits: A case study from Beijing, China. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 190, 223–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. Behavioral interventions: Design and evaluation guided by the theory of planned behavior. In Social Psychology and Evaluation; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 74–100. [Google Scholar]
- Luo, J.; Qu, Z.; Rockett, I.; Zhang, X. Employment status and self-rated health in north-western China. Public Health 2010, 124, 174–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, T.; Rockett, I.R.H.; Lv, Q.; Cottrell, R.R. Stress Status and Related Characteristics among Urban Residents: A Six-Province Capital Cities Study in China. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e30521. [Google Scholar]
- Audrey, S.; Batista-Ferrer, H. Healthy urban environments for children and young people: A systematic review of intervention studies. Health Place 2015, 36, 97–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- The CPC Central Committee and the State Council. Medium and long term Youth Development Plan (2016–2025). Available online: http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2017-04/13/content_5185555.htm#1 (accessed on 10 March 2020).
- Yen, Y.; Wang, Z.; Shi, Y.; Xu, F.; Soeung, B.; Sohail, M.T.; Rubakula, G.; Juma, S.A. The predictors of the behavioral intention to the use of urban green spaces: The perspectives of young residents in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Habitat Int. 2017, 64, 98–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I.; Driver, B.L. Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior to Leisure Choice. J. Leis. Res. 1992, 24, 207–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wan, C.; Shen, G.Q.; Choi, S. The moderating effect of subjective norm in predicting intention to use urban green spaces: A study of Hong Kong. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 37, 288–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Tan, P.Y. Demand for parks and perceived accessibility as key determinants of urban park use behavior. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 44, 126420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fongar; Aamodt; Randrup; Solfjeld Does Perceived Green Space Quality Matter? Linking Norwegian Adult Perspectives on Perceived Quality to Motivation and Frequency of Visits. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2327. [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chen, B.; Bao, Z.; Zhu, Z. Assessing the willingness of the public to pay to conserve urban green space: The hangzhou city, China, case. J. Environ. Health 2006, 69, 28–30. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, X.; Ni, Z.; Wang, Y.; Chen, S.; Xia, B. Public perception and preferences of small urban green infrastructures: A case study in Guangzhou, China. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 53, 126700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Irvine, K.; Warber, S.; Devine-Wright, P.; Gaston, K. Understanding Urban Green Space as a Health Resource: A Qualitative Comparison of Visit Motivation and Derived Effects among Park Users in Sheffield, UK. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10, 417–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nordh, H.; Alalouch, C.; Hartig, T. Assessing restorative components of small urban parks using conjoint methodology. Urban For. Urban Green. 2011, 10, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Voigt, A.; Kabisch, N.; Wurster, D.; Haase, D.; Breuste, J. Structural Diversity: A Multi-dimensional Approach to Assess Recreational Services in Urban Parks. Ambio 2014, 43, 480–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shanahan, D.F.; Lin, B.B.; Gaston, K.J.; Bush, R.; Fuller, R.A. What is the role of trees and remnant vegetation in attracting people to urban parks? Landsc. Ecol. 2015, 30, 153–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Geissler, G.L.; Rucks, C.T. The overall theme park experience: A visitor satisfaction tracking study. J. Vacat. Mark. 2011, 17, 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sullivan, W.C.; Kuo, F.E.; Depooter, S.F. The Fruit of Urban Nature. Environ. Behav. 2004, 36, 678–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moran, M.; Van Cauwenberg, J.; Hercky-Linnewiel, R.; Cerin, E.; Deforche, B.; Plaut, P. Understanding the relationships between the physical environment and physical activity in older adults: A systematic review of qualitative studies. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2014, 11, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Sreetheran, M.; Van den Bosch, C.C.K. A socio-ecological exploration of fear of crime in urban green spaces—A systematic review. Urban For. Urban Green. 2014, 13, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, D.; Brown, G.; Liu, Y. The physical and non-physical factors that influence perceived access to urban parks. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 133, 53–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdul Malek, N.; Nashar, A. Do Duration of Stay and Park Visitation Matter? An Evaluation of Park Distance. Plan. MALAYSIA 2020, 18, 84–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rung, A.L.; Mowen, A.J.; Broyles, S.T.; Gustat, J. The Role of Park Conditions and Features on Park Visitation and Physical Activity. J. Phys. Act. Heal. 2011, 8, S178–S187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cohen, D.A.; Han, B.; Nagel, C.J.; Harnik, P.; McKenzie, T.L.; Evenson, K.R.; Marsh, T.; Williamson, S.; Vaughan, C.; Katta, S. The First National Study of Neighborhood Parks. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2016, 51, 419–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cohen, D.A.; McKenzie, T.L.; Sehgal, A.; Williamson, S.; Golinelli, D.; Lurie, N. Contribution of Public Parks to Physical Activity. Am. J. Public Health 2007, 97, 509–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iwarsson, S.; Ståhl, A. Accessibility, usability and universal designE—positioning and definition of concepts describing person-environment relationships. Disabil. Rehabil. 2003, 25, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Coombes, E.; Jones, A.P.; Hillsdon, M. The relationship of physical activity and overweight to objectively measured green space accessibility and use. Soc. Sci. Med. 2010, 70, 816–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kaczynski, A.T.; Potwarka, L.R.; Saelens, B.E. Association of Park Size, Distance, and Features With Physical Activity in Neighborhood Parks. Am. J. Public Health 2008, 98, 1451–1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Baran, P.K.; Smith, W.R.; Moore, R.C.; Floyd, M.F.; Bocarro, J.N.; Cosco, N.G.; Danninger, T.M. Park Use Among Youth and Adults: Examination of Individual, Social, and Urban Form Factors. Environ. Behav. 2014, 46, 768–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- White, M.; Smith, A.; Humphryes, K.; Pahl, S.; Snelling, D.; Depledge, M. Blue space: The importance of water for preference, affect, and restorativeness ratings of natural and built scenes. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 482–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ode Sang, Å.; Knez, I.; Gunnarsson, B.; Hedblom, M. The effects of naturalness, gender, and age on how urban green space is perceived and used. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 18, 268–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCormack, G.R.; Rock, M.; Toohey, A.M.; Hignell, D. Characteristics of urban parks associated with park use and physical activity: A review of qualitative research. Health Place 2010, 16, 712–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Hecke, L.; Verhoeven, H.; Clarys, P.; Van Dyck, D.; Van de Weghe, N.; Baert, T.; Deforche, B.; Van Cauwenberg, J. Factors related with public open space use among adolescents: A study using GPS and accelerometers. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2018, 17, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ries, A.V.; Voorhees, C.C.; Roche, K.M.; Gittelsohn, J.; Yan, A.F.; Astone, N.M. A Quantitative Examination of Park Characteristics Related to Park Use and Physical Activity Among Urban Youth. J. Adolesc. Heal. 2009, 45, S64–S70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, B.B.; Fuller, R.A.; Bush, R.; Gaston, K.J.; Shanahan, D.F. Opportunity or orientation? Who uses urban parks and why. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e87422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, D.; Brown, G.; Liu, Y.; Mateo-Babiano, I. A comparison of perceived and geographic access to predict urban park use. Cities 2015, 42, 85–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wan, C.; Shen, G.Q. Encouraging the use of urban green space: The mediating role of attitude, perceived usefulness and perceived behavioural control. Habitat Int. 2015, 50, 130–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuo, F.E.; Sullivan, W.C.; Coley, R.L.; Brunson, L. Fertile Ground for Community: Inner-City Neighborhood Common Spaces. Am. J. Community Psychol. 1998, 26, 823–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCormack, G.R.; Cerin, E.; Leslie, E.; Du Toit, L.; Owen, N. Objective Versus Perceived Walking Distances to Destinations. Environ. Behav. 2008, 40, 401–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beijing Municipal Bureau of Statistics. Beijing Statistical Yearbook 2019. Available online: http://nj.tjj.beijing.gov.cn/nj/main/2019-tjnj/zk/indexch.htm (accessed on 10 March 2020).
- Beijing Municipal Bureau of Landscape and Forestry. Urban greening resources in Beijing in 2018. Available online: http://yllhj.beijing.gov.cn/zwgk/tjxx/201904/t20190404_531241.html (accessed on 10 March 2020).
- Beijing Municipal Administration Center of Parks. Park Enquiries throughout the City. Available online: http://www.bjmacp.gov.cn/qsgycx.ASPX (accessed on 16 January 2015).
- Xi’an Bureau of Statistics. Xi’an 2018 Statistical Communique on National Economic and Social Development. Available online: http://tjj.xa.gov.cn/tjsj/tjgb/gmjjhshfzgb/5d7fc5b1f99d651bbeb377a7.html (accessed on 10 March 2020).
- Guangzhou Bureau of Statistics. Guangzhou Statistical Yearbook 2019. Available online: http://210.72.4.58/portal/queryInfo/statisticsYearbook/index (accessed on 10 March 2020).
- Andresen, W. Evaluating an asset-based effort to attract and retain young people. Community Dev. 2012, 43, 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- China Internet Network Information Center. The 45th China Statistical Report on Internet Development. Available online: http://www.cac.gov.cn/2020-04/27/c_1589535470378587.htm (accessed on 10 March 2020).
- Organization., W.H. Basic Documents: Forty-Ninth Edition (Including Amendments Adopted up to 31 May 2019). Available online: https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/pdf_files/BD_49th-en.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2020).
- Wallston, B.S.; Alagna, S.W.; DeVellis, B.M.; DeVellis, R.F. Social support and physical health. Heal. Psychol. 1983, 2, 367–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huber, M.; André Knottnerus, J.; Green, L.; Van Der Horst, H.; Jadad, A.R.; Kromhout, D.; Leonard, B.; Lorig, K.; Loureiro, M.I.; Van Der, M.; et al. How should we define health? BMJ 2011, 343, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, L.; Zhou, S.; Kwan, M.-P. A comparative analysis of the impacts of objective versus subjective neighborhood environment on physical, mental, and social health. Health Place 2019, 59, 102170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Health Organization. Mental Health: New Understanding, New Hope. JAMA 2001, 286, 2391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veitch, J.; Salmon, J.; Deforche, B.; Ghekiere, A.; Van Cauwenberg, J.; Bangay, S.; Timperio, A. Park attributes that encourage park visitation among adolescents: A conjoint analysis. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 161, 52–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yigitcanlar, T.; Kamruzzaman, M.; Teimouri, R.; Degirmenci, K.; Alanjagh, F.A. Association between park visits and mental health in a developing country context: The case of Tabriz, Iran. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 199, 103805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stewart, O.T.; Moudon, A.V.; Littman, A.J.; Seto, E.; Saelens, B.E. The Association Between Park Facilities and Duration of Physical Activity During Active Park Visits. J. Urban Heal. 2018, 95, 869–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, S.; Zhou, W. Recreational visits to urban parks and factors affecting park visits: Evidence from geotagged social media data. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 180, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grilli, G.; Mohan, G.; Curtis, J. Public park attributes, park visits, and associated health status. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 199, 103814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wan, C.; Shen, G.Q.; Choi, S.; Calvin Wan, Geoffrey Qiping Shen, S. C. Effects of physical and psychological factors on users’ attitudes, use patterns, and perceived benefits toward urban parks. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 51, 126691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberts, H.; Kellar, I.; Conner, M.; Gidlow, C.; Kelly, B.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.; McEachan, R. Associations between park features, park satisfaction and park use in a multi-ethnic deprived urban area. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 46, 126485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- O’brien, R.M. A Caution Regarding Rules of Thumb for Variance Inflation Factors. Qual. Quant. 2007, 41, 673–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1988, 16, 74–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Fallon, W.M.; Cooley, W.W.; Lohnes, P.R. Multivariate Data Analysis. Technometrics 1973, 15, 648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, W. Does Gender Influence Online Survey Participation? A Record-Linkage Analysis of University Faculty Online Survey Response Behavior. Online Submiss. 2008, 501717, 21. [Google Scholar]
- Richardson, E.A.; Mitchell, R. Gender differences in relationships between urban green space and health in the United Kingdom. Soc. Sci. Med. 2010, 71, 568–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- LARRIMORE, J. Does a Higher Income Have Positive Health Effects? Using the Earned Income Tax Credit to Explore the Income-Health Gradient. Milbank Q. 2011, 89, 694–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Byrne, J.; Wolch, J. Nature, race, and parks: Past research and future directions for geographic research. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2009, 33, 743–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mowen, A.J.; Confer, J.J. The Relationship between Perceptions, Distance, and Socio-demographic Characteristics upon Public Use of an Urban Park “In-Fill. ” J. Park Recreat. Admi. 2003, 21, 58–74. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, G.; Rhodes, J.; Dade, M. An evaluation of participatory mapping methods to assess urban park benefits. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 178, 18–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lyu, F.; Zhang, L. Using multi-source big data to understand the factors affecting urban park use in Wuhan. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 43, 126367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schipperijn, J.; Stigsdotter, U.K.; Randrup, T.B.; Troelsen, J. Influences on the use of urban green space—A case study in Odense, Denmark. Urban For. Urban Green. 2010, 9, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giles-Corti, B.; Broomhall, M.H.; Knuiman, M.; Collins, C.; Douglas, K.; Ng, K.; Lange, A.; Donovan, R.J. Increasing walking: How important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space? Am. J. Prev. Med. 2005, 28, 169–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, D.A.; Marsh, T.; Williamson, S.; Derose, K.P.; Martinez, H.; Setodji, C.; McKenzie, T.L. Parks and physical activity: Why are some parks used more than others? Prev. Med. 2010, 50, S9–S12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schipperijn, J.; Bentsen, P.; Troelsen, J.; Toftager, M.; Stigsdotter, U.K. Associations between physical activity and characteristics of urban green space. Urban For. Urban Green. 2013, 12, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gubbels, J.S.; Kremers, S.P.J.; Droomers, M.; Hoefnagels, C.; Stronks, K.; Hosman, C.; De Vries, S. The impact of greenery on physical activity and mental health of adolescent and adult residents of deprived neighborhoods: A longitudinal study. Health Place 2016, 40, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Negami, H.R.; Mazumder, R.; Reardon, M.; Ellard, C.G. Field analysis of psychological effects of urban design: A case study in Vancouver. Cities Health 2018, 2, 106–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lo, S.M.; Yiu, C.Y.; Lo, A. An analysis of attributes affecting urban open space design and their environmental implications. Manag. Environ. Qual. An Int. J. 2003, 14, 604–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schinasi, L.H.; Benmarhnia, T.; De Roos, A.J. Modification of the association between high ambient temperature and health by urban microclimate indicators: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ. Res. 2018, 161, 168–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- De Bell, S.; Graham, H.; Jarvis, S.; White, P. The importance of nature in mediating social and psychological benefits associated with visits to freshwater blue space. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 167, 118–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, T.; Liu, J.; Li, H. Restorative Effects of Multi-Sensory Perception in Urban Green Space: A Case Study of Urban Park in Guangzhou, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Veitch, J.; Salmon, J.; Parker, K.; Bangay, S.; Deforche, B.; Timperio, A. Adolescents’ ratings of features of parks that encourage park visitation and physical activity. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2016, 13, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Payne, L.L.; Mowen, A.J.; Orsega-Smith, E. An Examination of Park Preferences and Behaviors Among Urban Residents: The Role of Residential Location, Race, and Age. Leis. Sci. 2002, 24, 181–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, W.Y.; Jim, C.Y. Cost–benefit analysis of the leisure value of urban greening in the new Chinese city of Zhuhai. Cities 2008, 25, 298–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Y.; Qi, J.; Yang, Y.; Wen, X. The contribution of lifestyle factors to depressive symptoms: A cross-sectional study in Chinese college students. Psychiatry Res. 2016, 245, 243–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Damon, W.; Lerner, R.M. Child and Adolescent Development: An Advanced Course; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008; Volume 19, ISBN 9780470176573. [Google Scholar]
- Biernacka, M.; Kronenberg, J. Urban Green Space Availability, Accessibility and Attractiveness, and the Delivery of Ecosystem Services. Cities Environ. 2019, 12, 5. [Google Scholar]
- Opić, S.; Đuranović, M. Leisure Time of Young Due to Some Socio-demographic Characteristics. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 159, 546–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schipperijn, J.; Ekholm, O.; Stigsdotter, U.K.; Toftager, M.; Bentsen, P.; Kamper-Jørgensen, F.; Randrup, T.B. Factors influencing the use of green space: Results from a Danish national representative survey. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 95, 130–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dan, Z. The Study on America’s Sports Parks; Soochow University: Suzhou, China, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Veitch, J.; Christian, H.; Carver, A.; Salmon, J. Physical activity benefits from taking your dog to the park. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 185, 173–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Hecke, L.; Ghekiere, A.; Van Cauwenberg, J.; Veitch, J.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Van Dyck, D.; Clarys, P.; Van De Weghe, N.; Deforche, B. Park characteristics preferred for adolescent park visitation and physical activity: A choice-based conjoint analysis using manipulated photographs. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 178, 144–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, A.; Czepkiewicz, M.; Kronenberg, J. Eliciting non-monetary values of formal and informal urban green spaces using public participation GIS. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 160, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plane, J.; Klodawsky, F. Neighbourhood amenities and health: Examining the significance of a local park. Soc. Sci. Med. 2013, 99, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veitch, J.; Carver, A.; Hume, C.; Crawford, D.; Timperio, A.; Ball, K.; Salmon, J. Are independent mobility and territorial range associated with park visitation among youth? Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2014, 11, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hagger, M.S.; Chatzisarantis, N.; Biddle, S.J.H. The influence of self-efficacy and past behaviour on the physical activity intentions of young people. J. Sports Sci. 2001, 19, 711–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ward Thompson, C.; Roe, J.; Aspinall, P.; Mitchell, R.; Clow, A.; Miller, D. More green space is linked to less stress in deprived communities: Evidence from salivary cortisol patterns. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 105, 221–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Variable | Items | Loading Value | Cronbach’s α | CR | AVE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Green space attributes | Access | 0.801 | 0.829 | 0.829 | 0.618 |
Type | 0.773 | ||||
Size | 0.785 | ||||
Landscape characteristics | Plants | 0.826 | 0.902 | 0.904 | 0.703 |
Water | 0.826 | ||||
Sensory features | 0.872 | ||||
Microclimate Environments | 0.828 | ||||
Facilities | Rest facilities | 0.677 | 0.756 | 0.781 | 0.645 |
Amenity facilities | 0.912 |
Characteristics | Number | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|
Age | ||
18–25 | 687 | 60.5 |
26–30 | 231 | 20.4 |
31–35 | 217 | 19.1 |
Gender | ||
Male | 364 | 32.1 |
Female | 771 | 67.9 |
Education level | ||
High school or below | 51 | 4.5 |
Bachelor’s degree | 753 | 66.3 |
Master’s degree | 282 | 24.8 |
Doctorate | 49 | 4.3 |
Income | ||
<1000 | 381 | 33.6 |
1000–2000 | 117 | 10.3 |
2000–3000 | 86 | 7.6 |
3000–5000 | 168 | 14.8 |
5000–10,000 | 224 | 19.7 |
10,000–20,000 | 118 | 10.4 |
>20,000 | 41 | 3.6 |
City | ||
Beijing | 390 | 34.4 |
Xi’an | 327 | 28.8 |
Guangzhou | 418 | 36.8 |
Residence location | ||
Central city | 701 | 61.8 |
Suburban districts | 390 | 34.4 |
Others | 44 | 3.9 |
Item | Mean | Standard Deviation |
---|---|---|
Dependent variables: Park use willingness and behavior | ||
Willingness to use parks to promote health | ||
Physical health | 4.04 | 0.97 |
Mental health | 4.42 | 0.87 |
Social health | 4.00 | 0.99 |
Park use behavior | ||
Frequency of park visits | 3.42 | 1.37 |
Duration of park visits | 2.23 | 0.82 |
Independent variables: Perception of green space components for health promotion | ||
Green space attributes | ||
Access | 4.26 | 0.90 |
Type | 4.13 | 0.98 |
Size | 4.11 | 0.96 |
Landscape characteristics | ||
Plants | 4.19 | 0.93 |
Water | 4.15 | 0.95 |
Sensory features | 4.28 | 0.83 |
Microclimate environments | 4.26 | 0.89 |
Facilities | ||
Rest facilities | 3.84 | 1.07 |
Amenity facilities | 4.07 | 0.90 |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. AGE | – | |||||||||||||||||||
2. GEN | −0.196 ** | – | ||||||||||||||||||
3. EDU | 0.147 ** | −0.078 ** | – | |||||||||||||||||
4. INC | 0.661 ** | −0.251 ** | 0.078 ** | – | ||||||||||||||||
5. CIT | 0.124 ** | −0.022 | −0.253 ** | 0.087 ** | – | |||||||||||||||
6. RES | −0.094 ** | 0.020 | 0.000 | −0.093 ** | −0.036 | – | ||||||||||||||
7. ACC | 0.109 ** | 0.043 | 0.081 ** | 0.073 * | 0.006 | −0.063 * | – | |||||||||||||
8. TYP | 0.080 ** | 0.007 | 0.015 | 0.081 ** | 0.116 ** | −0.053 | 0.540 ** | – | ||||||||||||
9. SIZ | 0.153 ** | 0.009 | 0.087 ** | 0.134 ** | 0.060 * | −0.019 | 0.586 ** | 0.559 ** | – | |||||||||||
10. PLA | 0.065 * | 0.077 ** | 0.128 ** | 0.040 | −0.004 | −0.012 | 0.480 ** | 0.494 ** | 0.501 ** | – | ||||||||||
11. WAT | 0.012 | 0.030 | 0.073 * | 0.004 | 0.030 | −0.025 | 0.470 ** | 0.499 ** | 0.462 ** | 0.675 ** | – | |||||||||
12. SEN | 0.035 | 0.057 | 0.054 | 0.030 | −0.015 | −0.028 | 0.493 ** | 0.447 ** | 0.440 ** | 0.619 ** | 0.623 ** | – | ||||||||
13. MIC | 0.085 ** | 0.034 | 0.072 * | 0.100 ** | 0.012 | −0.029 | 0.483 ** | 0.463 ** | 0.470 ** | 0.582 ** | 0.564 ** | 0.676 ** | – | |||||||
14. RES | 0.097 ** | 0.035 | 0.015 | 0.061 * | 0.049 | −0.034 | 0.327 ** | 0.391 ** | 0.381 ** | 0.422 ** | 0.462 ** | 0.441 ** | 0.449 ** | – | ||||||
15. AME | 0.009 | 0.071 * | −0.047 | 0.006 | 0.052 | −0.049 | 0.454 ** | 0.507 ** | 0.403 ** | 0.527 ** | 0.580 ** | 0.579 ** | 0.560 ** | 0.602 ** | – | |||||
16. PHY | 0.084 ** | −0.019 | 0.028 | 0.051 | 0.027 | −0.035 | 0.538 ** | 0.465 ** | 0.513 ** | 0.405 ** | 0.410 ** | 0.438 ** | 0.433 ** | 0.352 ** | 0.434 ** | – | ||||
17. MEN | 0.083 ** | 0.024 | 0.106 ** | 0.043 | −0.032 | −0.009 | 0.531 ** | 0.454 ** | 0.508 ** | 0.484 ** | 0.440 ** | 0.486 ** | 0.465 ** | 0.307 ** | 0.371 ** | 0.567 ** | – | |||
18. SOC | 0.107 ** | −0.042 | 0.060 * | 0.090 ** | 0.023 | −0.010 | 0.489 ** | 0.490 ** | 0.475 ** | 0.428 ** | 0.441 ** | 0.385 ** | 0.406 ** | 0.354 ** | 0.398 ** | 0.576 ** | 0.544 ** | – | ||
19. FRE | 0.052 | −0.050 | −0.005 | 0.013 | 0.047 | −0.027 | 0.152 ** | 0.114 ** | 0.130 ** | 0.139 ** | 0.109 ** | 0.138 ** | 0.142 ** | 0.123 ** | 0.161 ** | 0.198 ** | 0.137 ** | 0.145 ** | – | |
20. DUR | 0.090 ** | −0.027 | 0.017 | 0.099 ** | −0.007 | −0.024 | 0.045 | 0.069 * | 0.068 * | 0.113 ** | 0.077 ** | 0.115 ** | 0.060 * | 0.081 ** | 0.086 ** | 0.039 | 0.092 ** | 0.071 * | 0.062 * | – |
Variable | Model 1 (Physical Health) | Model 2 (Mental Health) | Model 3 (Social Health) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coefficients | VIF | Coefficients | VIF | Coefficients | VIF | ||
Demographic variables | Age | 0.033 | 1.096 | 0.028 | 1.096 | 0.039 | 1.096 |
Gender | −0.058 * | 1.078 | −0.012 | 1.078 | −0.064 * | 1.078 | |
Education level | −0.035 | 1.794 | 0.029 | 1.794 | −0.008 | 1.794 | |
Income | −0.053 | 1.815 | −0.061 * | 1.815 | −0.013 | 1.815 | |
Green space attributes | Access | 0.289 ** | 2.215 | 0.301 ** | 2.215 | 0.229 ** | 2.215 |
Type | 0.109 ** | 2.081 | 0.098 ** | 2.081 | 0.151 ** | 2.081 | |
Size | 0.179 ** | 2.158 | 0.172 ** | 2.158 | 0.151 ** | 2.158 | |
Landscape characteristics | Plants | 0.011 | 2.8 55 | 0.130 ** | 2.855 | 0.060 | 2.855 |
Water | −0.017 | 2.859 | 0.029 | 2.859 | 0.174 ** | 2.859 | |
Sensory features | 0.129 ** | 3.387 | 0.136 ** | 3.387 | −0.053 | 3.387 | |
Microclimate environments | 0.019 | 2.851 | 0.107 ** | 2.851 | 0.043 | 2.851 | |
Facilities | Rest facilities | 0.039 | 1.706 | −0.020 | 1.706 | 0.038 | 1.706 |
Amenity facilities | 0.079 * | 2.830 | −0.045 | 2.830 | 0.012 | 2.830 | |
R2 | 0.464 | 0.578 | 0.426 | ||||
Adjusted R2 | 0.458 | 0.573 | 0.419 | ||||
F-statistic | 74.596 ** | 118.272 ** | 64.024 ** |
Variable | Model 4 (Frequency of Park Visits) | Model 5 (Duration of Park Visits) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coefficients | VIF | Coefficients | VIF | ||
Demographic variables | Age | 0.099 * | 1.096 | −0.053 | 1.093 |
Gender | −0.067 * | 1.078 | 0.039 | 1.077 | |
Education level | −0.042 | 1.794 | 0.045 | 1.788 | |
Income | −0.058 | 1.815 | −0.033 | 1.814 | |
Green space attributes | Access | 0.097 * | 2.215 | ||
Type | −0.060 | 2.081 | −0.018 | 1.995 | |
Size | 0.035 | 2.158 | 0.026 | 1.953 | |
Landscape characteristics | Plants | 0.043 | 2.855 | −0.102 * | 2.855 |
Water | −0.044 | 2.859 | 0.064 | 2.857 | |
Sensory features | −0.002 | 3.387 | −0.077 | 3.288 | |
Microclimate environments | 0.052 | 2.851 | 0.120 * | 2.845 | |
Facilities | Rest facilities | 0.015 | 1.706 | −0.035 | 1.699 |
Amenity facilities | 0.075 | 2.830 | 0.030 | 2.790 | |
R2 | 0.040 | 0.025 | |||
Adjusted R2 | 0.029 | 0.015 | |||
F-statistic | 3.599 ** | 2.428 ** |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Chen, C.; Luo, W.; Li, H.; Zhang, D.; Kang, N.; Yang, X.; Xia, Y. Impact of Perception of Green Space for Health Promotion on Willingness to Use Parks and Actual Use among Young Urban Residents. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5560. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17155560
Chen C, Luo W, Li H, Zhang D, Kang N, Yang X, Xia Y. Impact of Perception of Green Space for Health Promotion on Willingness to Use Parks and Actual Use among Young Urban Residents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(15):5560. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17155560
Chicago/Turabian StyleChen, Chongxian, Weijing Luo, Haiwei Li, Danting Zhang, Ning Kang, Xiaohao Yang, and Yu Xia. 2020. "Impact of Perception of Green Space for Health Promotion on Willingness to Use Parks and Actual Use among Young Urban Residents" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 15: 5560. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17155560
APA StyleChen, C., Luo, W., Li, H., Zhang, D., Kang, N., Yang, X., & Xia, Y. (2020). Impact of Perception of Green Space for Health Promotion on Willingness to Use Parks and Actual Use among Young Urban Residents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(15), 5560. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17155560