Next Article in Journal
Experimental Study on the Mechanical Properties of Tectonic Coal Using Reconstituted Coal Specimens
Previous Article in Journal
Urban Stream Corridors and Forest Patches—The Connections: A Case Study of Bloomington, IN
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 10
10.3390/su15108065
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

From Landscapes to Bonds: Exploring the Influencing Mechanism of Community Parks on Social Integration

by
Jinwen Hu
,
Jun Ying
*,
Yiqi Zhang
,
Yamei Shen
and
Xiaohua Wu
School of Landscape Architecture, Zhejiang Agriculture and Forestry University, Hangzhou 311300, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(10), 8065; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108065
Submission received: 17 March 2023 / Revised: 20 April 2023 / Accepted: 11 May 2023 / Published: 16 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Urban and Rural Development)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The rapid increase in the number of migrants in China has resulted in a growing concern for social integration issues. This study aims to explore the methods and approaches of social integration using urban community parks as a carrier. Using community parks in Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China, as a case study, we utilized structural equation modeling to construct the influence mechanism of community parks on social integration, which provides theoretical support and a reference for the design of social integration-oriented urban community parks. Our research indicates that the affective effects generated by migrants and local residents in community parks are crucial for social integration, including landscape perception, place attachment, and destination loyalty. Among them, landscape perception does not directly affect social integration, it can have a significant impact through the mediation of destination loyalty and place attachment. Destination loyalty has a direct and positive relationship with social integration, and place attachment also has a direct and significant positive effect on social integration. The study suggests that community park design should prioritize enhancing the emotional experience of migrants and local residents in three aspects: sensory stimulation, experience, and atmosphere creation, to promote social integration. Additionally, community managers and related policies should jointly promote future construction efforts.

1. Introduction

In current phase of global urbanization, the successful integration of immigrants into host societies has emerged as a pressing concern for policymakers worldwide [1]. Inequality in life opportunities between immigrants and natives may result in numerous social problems—poverty, crime, education, even political conflict [2]. In response, some developed countries have begun to revisit and develop various approaches to the successful integration of immigrants in host countries, with North American countries emphasizing multicultural policies to support cultural diversity to help ethnocultural minorities participate fully and equitably in mainstream society [3], and European Union countries focusing on integration policies in education, employment, and health [4]. Unlike certain countries, China’s primary migrant group is the internal migrants who leave their hometowns for reasons such as development [5]. Despite the absence of racial, color barriers and the near absence of religious barriers, the integration of China’s internal migrants into mainstream urban society is more complex and potentially more challenging than that of international immigrants due to the strict household registration system and its attendant policy implications [6]. The rapid pace of industrialization and urbanization in China over the past few decades has resulted in a significant increase in the migrant population, which has grown to 385 million in 2021, comprising 27.3% of the overall population [7]. Internal migrants in China not only contribute significantly to the country’s economic and social development but also alleviate the tension between labor supply and demand. To protect migrants’ interests and promote their social integration, Chinese government has launched a new urbanization strategy. As part of this strategy, the government has emphasized the importance of achieving full urban integration of migrants, which has become a key policy in the pursuit of “people-oriented” urbanization [8]. Against the backdrop of this policy transformation, more scholarly and practical attention has been given to understanding the determinants and mechanisms that facilitate better integration of migrant populations into the urban society [9].
The social integration of Chinese migrants is a multidimensional process that encompasses economic, social, cultural and psychological dimensions. While current studies on social integration have primarily focus on economic integration within the household registration system, but there is a dearth of attention to the cultural integration and psychological identity of migrants. Studies in Western countries have shown that urban public space has an important impact on promoting social adaptation and psychological integration of migrants. Urban public spaces can provide places for social interaction, promote frequent social contacts and connections among people or neighborhoods, and enhance people’s sense of participation, which in turn brings them a sense of self-identity and well-being [10].
As the most integrated urban public space with daily life at large, urban community parks have garnered significant attention from scholars regarding their role in promoting social benefits such as neighborhood interaction and spiritual restoration. Current research on social integration in community parks mainly focuses on the influence of objective physical factors, such as green space environment and user behaviors on social integration, but lacks an analysis of the subjective affective factors that influence the relationship between users’ affective effects in community parks and social integration. Moreover, studies have mainly analyzed the impact on social integration from a single affective effect [11,12,13], without considering the interactions among interconnected and mutually constrained affective effects. To fill the knowledge gap, this study aims to develop an influence mechanism model that investigates the relationship between subjective affective factors and social integration generated by migrants and local residents in community parks, using structural equation modeling analysis with community parks in Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China as a case study. This article contributes to the discussion on the process of social integration in urban public spaces by expanding the current research on the impact of urban community parks on social integration. Further, this paper concentrates on the psychological aspects of social integration to gain a deeper understanding of the integration of migrants into urban society, we focus on two main research questions:
  • What are the factors of urban community parks that influence social integration?
  • How does urban community parks affect social integration through multiple factors?
This paper is structured as follows. Section 2 reviews previous research on social integration in urban green spaces and introduces our framework based on self- regulation of attitude theory. Section 3 explains the research design, including data and methods, and presents the results from the structural equation models. Section 4 discusses our findings from statistical analysis and summarizes the significance and limitations of the study. The final section concludes with strategies for the construction of urban community parks.

2. Theoretical Analysis and Hypotheses

2.1. Literature Review

2.1.1. Social Integration: A Subjective Process of Two-Way Interaction

Social integration is a process of interpenetration and fusion between different individuals, groups and cultures [14]. Scholars in the Western world have classified social integration into different forms, with Landecker [15] categorizing it into cultural, communicative, functional, and normative integration, and Esser [16] differentiating it into structural, cultural, interactive, and identity integration. These classifications primarily look into two dimensions: objective and subjective, which encompass economic, social, cultural, political, institutional, and psychological aspects. The subjective dimension plays a crucial role in achieving social integration, as emphasized by numerous scholars who have explored this area in depth. Wang and Fan [17] found that migrants who were socially and culturally adaptable and could speak the dialect of the host society were more likely to develop a psychological sense of belonging. Liu et al. [9] revealed that strong neighborhood cohesion enhances broader social integration. These studies considered both the social relations and willingness to integrate of migrants, as well as the inclusive attitudes of the mainstream group, indicating that social integration is a two-way process. Furthermore, the interaction between migrants and residents in neighborhoods is an significant reflection of social integration, with well-established migrant-resident ties being associated with social integration [18]. Lin et al. [19] suggest that living in a mixed community (with both migrants and local residents) and engaging in regular social activities in neighborhood may help migrants in achieving successful identity transition.
Several scholars have explored the impact of urban public spaces on social integration from an environmental perspective. Evidence from a study conducted in the Netherlands [20] revealed that urban parks can promote social integration by providing inclusive spaces for cross-cultural interaction, facilitating migrants’ integration in terms of cultural and social relationships. Through visual appreciation and recreational activities, both migrants and local residents are able to form an emotional connection with the public spaces [12], which enhances their psychological and sociocultural adaptation [21]. Moreover, research suggests that individuals’ subjective judgments about the physical environment and the affective effects may be a stronger determinant of social integration than the objective features of the environment [22]. Indeed, urban public spaces have the potential to serve as a platform for promoting social integration and fostering community cohesion.

2.1.2. Affective Effects of Individuals: Landscape Perception, Destination Loyalty and Place Attachment

The relationship between individuals and their environment is complex, shaped by sensory experiences and previous knowledge, and can have a significant impact on social integration. According to Grahn and Stigsdotter [23], individuals interact with environment to form perceptions, including those related to greenness, proximity, and safety, which are major perceptual predictors of social cohesion [24]. Research has suggested that higher green perceptions can increase social interactions among residents, as demonstrated by Sugiyama’s work [25], which found that residents in greener areas had increased social interactions. Similarly, Kingsley and Townsend [26] revealed that parents who brought their children to safe green environments had more free time and opportunities to socialize with others. However, Samsudin’s research [27] examined the effects of physical and perceived attributes of community green space on social capital and found that while perceived attributes of green space did promote higher levels of social capital than physical attributes, the effect of perceived greenness on social capital was not significant. These findings suggest that the relationship between the environment and social integration is nuanced and may be influenced by a variety of factors.
According to Hosany and Gilbert [28], people establish emotional responses such as revisit intentions and attachment to a place through perception, cognition, and practical experience. Such emotional responses play a critical role in shaping attitudes toward social integration. Positive sensory impressions and satisfaction with a destination can result in the willingness of individuals to revisit or recommend a destination to others [29,30,31], which is known as destination loyalty. In the context of community parks, destination loyalty is reflected in residents’ intention to revisit the park and the frequency of their visits, encompassing both attitudinal and behavioral loyalty. Higher frequency visits to urban parks are associated with higher perceptions of social cohesion [32], while infrequent visits may diminish the role of green environments as spaces for developing social interactions [33]. In addition, a strong association exists between place attachment and destination loyalty [34,35,36]. Place attachment refers to the emotional bond that individuals form with a landscape, which is considered a vital component in achieving psychological integration [37]. Place attachment is closely linked to social relationships and collective identity, and research indicates that it strengthens the sense of belonging to a city [19,38], thereby enhancing migrants’ emotional support and shaping settlement intentions [39]. Several studies have explored the relationship between place attachment and destination loyalty [40,41,42]. However, a study of eight parks from California found that destination loyalty can influence place attachment, whereas place attachment did not have a significant effect on destination loyalty. This study indicated that park proximity and accessibility can promote different relationships between attachment and loyalty, and that frequent and repeated use contributes to place attachment in an urban park study context.

2.2. Theoretical Hypothesis

Drawing on Bagozzi’s self-regulation of attitude theory [43]. we propose a model that links subjective affective factors to social integration. The theory suggests that individuals perceive and evaluate their experiences, and then stimulate corresponding emotions and further influence their attitudes and intentions, which ultimately manifests as a continuous process of “appraisal process-emotional reactions-coping responses”. In our model, landscape perception is considered as the appraisal variable, while destination loyalty and place attachment as the emotional reactions variables, and social integration is the behavioral response variable for both migrants and local residents. Based on this, we construct a social integration model with landscape perception, destination loyalty and place attachment as the driving factors (see Figure 1). Building on the previous review, we put forward the following hypotheses:
H1: 
Landscape perception is positively related to place attachment;
H2: 
Landscape perception is positively related to destination loyalty;
H3: 
Landscape perception is positively related to social integration;
H4: 
Destination loyalty is positively related to social integration;
H5: 
Place attachment is positively related to social integration;
H6: 
Destination loyalty is positively related to place attachment;
H7: 
Destination loyalty has a mediation effect between landscape perception and social integration;
H8: 
Place attachment has a mediation effect between landscape perception and social integration;
H9: 
Destination loyalty and place attachment have a chain mediation effect between landscape perception and social integration.

3. Data and Methodology

3.1. Questionnaire Design

The survey questionnaire comprises five sections, namely descriptive statistics, landscape perception, place attachment, destination loyalty, and social integration measures. The purpose of the study is to investigate the affective impact of migrants and local residents on social integration in urban community parks. The study defines social integration as the subjective level of psychological integration and socio-cultural adaptation, particularly in terms of the interactions among the entire neighborhood and the strength of community cohesion. To this end, the questionnaire targets both migrants and local residents, and the social integration measurement questions employ the well-established social cohesion scale [44] supplemented by other relevant studies [17,45]. The study focuses on three dimensions of landscape perception, including greenness, proximity, and safety perception, adopting measurement items from Grahn et.al. [23] and Edwin et.al. [46]. Additionally, the study utilizes established scales from the literature on place attachment and destination loyalty, which have been adapted to suit the specific context of the research [42,47,48,49,50]
The measurement items of all latent variables are shown in Table 1. Respondents are requested to rate their agreement with each statement on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 ‘completely disagree’ to 7 ‘completely agree’.

3.2. Study Area and Sample

The present survey was conducted between March and June 2022, in 50 community parks located in ten urban areas of Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China. Hangzhou has become a crucial benchmark for new first-tier cities in China due to its efforts to build a common wealthy city paradigm, attracting a substantial number of migrants. According to the data from the seventh census of China, the migrant population in Hangzhou accounts for 52.1% of the resident population. Moreover, Hangzhou has released an implementation plan for high-quality promotion of the pilot construction of Hangzhou’s future community, making it an exemplary city for exploring the impact mechanisms of community parks on the social integration of migrant populations.
The study utilized a multi-stage stratified sampling process to recruit survey respondents. Initially, community parks with various physical characteristics were screened based on different community types [51] in Hangzhou (see Figure 2). Then, community parks with complex community members and high migrant populations were prioritized, based on information provided by local government agencies. Finally, a total of 50 community parks were selected for the study (Figure 3).
To estimate structural equation models using the maximum likelihood method with continuous and normally distributed data, the researchers followed the N: q rule proposed by Jackson [52]. According to this rule, the minimum sample size required for a structural equation model is determined by the ratio of the number of samples to the parameters to be estimated in the model, with a recommended ratio of 20:1 [53]. In this study, the number of parameters to be estimated was 16, and therefore, the minimum sample size required was 320. The researchers distributed as many questionnaires as possible to each visitor in the park during the study of each community park, with at least seven questionnaires distributed. To ensure equal representation of migrants and local residents, respondents were asked to identify their residency status before answering the questionnaire. In total, 742 questionnaires were distributed, with 734 valid responses collected (399 from migrants and 335 from local residents). Table 2 presents the demographic characteristics of the survey sample.

3.3. Data Analysis

Given the complex and interrelated nature of the constructs and their measures, this study employed Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to analyze the data. SEM allows for the simultaneous assessment of multiple dependent variables in one model and takes into account the potential mediating effects between the variables [54]. Another advantage of SEM is that it enables the estimation of both direct and indirect effects of variables on outcomes, providing a more complete understanding of the relationships between variables [55]. The analytical software used for the study included SPSS 26.0 and AMOS 24.0.
Our analysis proceeded in four main steps. First, the measurement models were assessed for their reliability and validity through a confirmatory factor analysis. Secondly, the goodness-of-fit of the full structural model was tested. The next step conducted path analyses to examine the relationships between the constructs and the mediation effects of the structural model, Finally, test results were obtained for the model as a whole.

3.4. Results

3.4.1. Measurement Model

Table 3 presents the results of the reliability and validity analysis of the measurement models used in the study. To test the reliability of the questionnaire, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated for each scale. The results indicate that Cronbach’s alpha coefficients above 0.7, with all scales had acceptable levels of reliability [56]. Furthermore, the accuracy and validity of the factor analysis results were improved by evaluating the validity of the data through the use of the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test (KMO > 0.6)and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (p < 0.05), which ensured that the data met the assumptions of factor analysis [57]. The KMO values ranged from 0.787 to 0.825, and the Bartlett’s test was significance at p = 0.00, indicating good structural validity and suitability for factor analysis.
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using AMOS 24.0 to assess the relationship between factors (see Table 3). The combined reliability (CR) of the latent variables were above 0.7, and the average variance extracted (AVE) met the criteria of 0.5 or higher for all scales except for destination loyalty. However, it has been suggested that if the AVE is below 0.5 but the CR value is above 0.6, the structure still has sufficient convergent validity [58]. Therefore, the destination loyalty scale still meets the criteria for convergent validity. In summary, the results indicate that the measurement models have good reliability and validity, and the model has good convergent validity overall.

3.4.2. Structural Model Fit

In accordance with the recommendations of Iacobucci [59], several fit indices were used to evaluate the goodness-of-fit of the structural model. These indices included the Chi-Square test, comparative fit index (CFI), goodness of fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). A normed chi-square values (χ2/df) lower than three [53], and CFI, GFI > 0.95, AGFI > 0.90, RMSEA < 0.05 were indicative of a well-fitted model [60]. Our structural equation model was tested using these fit indices in AMOS 24.0, and the chi-square value (χ2/df) = 2.570, CFI = 0.978, GFI = 0.960, AGFI = 0.945, and RMSEA = 0.046. Overall, these results indicated a good model fit.

3.4.3. Hypothesis Testing Analysis

In order to test the hypotheses, the path coefficients of the model were assessed (Figure 4). All of the path hypothesis relationships held, except for the H3 that the p-value did not reach the significance level. Therefore, it was found that landscape perception did not have a direct effect on social integration.
To test the mediation effects of place attachment and destination loyalty on landscape perception and social integration, the Bootstrap method in AMOS 24.0 was used. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 4. From the results, it was observed that the confidence intervals for all three profile effects did not include 0, indicating that the indirect effect was significant. In addition, as the total profile effect value exceeded 1, it suggested a structural equation model with full mediation effect. The mediation effect of place attachment was found to be the strongest in path H7, followed by the chain mediation effect of destination loyalty and place attachment in path H9, and finally in path H8.

3.4.4. Results of Model Hypothesis

The results show that landscape perception lacks a direct impact on social integration; however, both place attachment and destination loyalty exhibit direct influence on social integration. Furthermore, landscape perception can significantly enhance social integration through the mediation of both place attachment and destination loyalty. Place attachment demonstrates a strong direct and positive relationship with social integration, while destination loyalty exhibits a weaker yet significant direct effect on social integration. Despite lacking a direct positive effect on social integration, landscape perception positively influences place attachment and destination loyalty, thereby mediating an effect on social integration through both constructs. Consequently, all eight hypotheses in this study are valid, except for hypothesis H3, which posits that landscape perception has a direct positive effect on social integration, as demonstrated in Table 5.

4. Discussion

In urban community parks, affective effects such as landscape perception, destination loyalty, and place attachment have varying degrees of influence on social integration for both migrants and local residents. The most direct and significant contributor to social integration is place attachment, which is consistent with previous studies [20,21] that have found that residents’ recreational activities in community parks can build fond memories and form a sense of attachment that strengthen the social ties and promote social integration. Destination loyalty also has a weak but significant positive relationship with social integration, as frequent visits provide more opportunities for interaction with others thus creating a positive intergroup atmosphere. More time in a regular community park, the number of acquaintances would be higher and more conducive to developing social relationships [33]. Furthermore, landscape perception does not directly and significantly influence social integration, but is mediated by destination loyalty and place attachment. This finding suggests that residents with higher landscape perceptions are more sensitive to their surroundings and may be overly concerned with the environment at the expense of socializing with others [13]. The chain mediation established in this study shows that landscape perception can lead to destination loyalty, which then leads to place attachment and ultimately promotes social integration. Individuals with higher landscape perception tend to form a more positive impression of community parks, leading to increased repeat visits and stronger emotional connections between individuals and the park. This repeated use of community parks is what ultimately fosters and strengthens place attachment, not the attachment itself [42], which in turn contributes to social integration and community cohesion.
These findings have implications for urban planning and management, as they suggest that creating attractive and meaningful community parks can foster a sense of place attachment and destination loyalty, which in turn can promote social integration and enhance the overall livability of urban environments.
The concept of social integration is multifaceted and continuously changing dynamic process, and as such, this study has several limitations. One such limitation is the lack of subdivision of community parks and respondents, which could have resulted in variations of social integration across different types of neighborhoods and migrant populations. Future studies could consider disaggregating data according to the type of neighborhood and migrant group to uncover more nuanced mechanisms that promote social integration. Another limitation is the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on residents’ use of community parks, which may have skewed the loyalty and interaction patterns of park visitors. Cross-sectional studies such as this one can only provide static patterns among variables, highlighting the need for future longitudinal tracking surveys using time-series tracking methods to explore the dynamic evolution patterns of variables. Lastly, the model could be improved by adding moderating variables such as gender to further enhance the path of community parks’ impact on social integration.

5. Conclusions and Enlightenment

This paper utilizes structural equation modeling to analyzes the impact of the affective effects of community parks on social integration of migrants and local residents through a questionnaire study in community parks in Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China. The study findings provide theoretical support for the construction of urban community parks to promote the social integration of migrants in the context of China’s “urbanization of people”, based on the subjective affective of the residents. Research reveals that: (1) Affective factors generated by migrants and local residents in community parks include landscape perception, destination loyalty, and place attachment, and they have different effects on social integration. (2) Among them, landscape perception cannot directly promote social integration, but place attachment and destination loyalty can directly promote social integration. (3) Landscape perception can influence social integration through the mediation of destination loyalty and place attachment.
Our empirical findings render several design and policy recommendations. First, an effective way to enhance the emotional experience of migrants and local residents cannot be achieved without high-quality design of the physical environment. Norman, the originator of Emotional Design, believes that there are three levels of emotional design, namely instinct, behavior, and reflection [61], so the design of community parks can be developed from three aspects: sensory stimulation, functional practicality and atmosphere creation. The natural features in urban parks contribute the most to emotional experience of residents [62], thus community parks should enhance the uniqueness and diversity of the natural landscape to stimulate people directly from the senses to create emotional effects. The potential for triggering emotional responses is greater when sites are rich in experiential attributes [28], and community parks can enhance the experience of residents by creating interactive design, including involving migrants and locals in the management and volunteering of community parks. In terms of atmosphere creation, parks rich in culture and history can promote the connection of local residents to the site and evoke the memories of migrants to their native city [12]. It should be encouraged that community parks preserve the distinctive culture and historical buildings of the community, establish an emotional bond with residents.
Second, community managers should pay more attention to the interaction between the migrants and local residents, and bring both sides together in community parks through community activities to create opportunities for frequent interactions between groups. At the same time, attention should be paid to the psychological condition of migrants to avoid the situation of reluctance to integrate. Finally, studies have shown that the social integration of migrants is lowest in communities with a large number of migrant populations, such as urban villages or migrant enclaves, due to the lack of good environmental facilities and places for migrants to interact with local residents. As the new normal urban construction gradually enters the stage of stock renewal, the government needs to pay attention to the construction of community parks in these areas to guarantee the fairness of green spaces for the migrant population. In conclusion, community parks are a valuable tool for promoting social integration and therefore, should be improved in terms of their design and management. However, the conclusion could benefit from some further elaboration to provide a more robust and nuanced perspective.

Author Contributions

J.H. was responsible for field research distributing questionnaires and processing and analyzing the data, completing the drafting of the thesis and revising the final version. J.Y. proposed the research proposition and decided on the final version of the thesis. Y.Z., Y.S. and X.W., guided and revised the thesis to different degrees respectively. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by The National Nature Science Fund of China (No. 51978626).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank you to the editors and all reviewers for their comments and suggestion. The authors also appreciate the people who patiently participated in the study and the great support from the Zhejiang Agriculture and Forestry University.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lin, S.; Wu, F.; Li, Z. Social integration of migrants across Chinese neighbourhoods. Geoforum 2020, 112, 118–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Solivetti, L.M. Immigration, Social Integration and Crime: A Cross-National Approach; Routledge-Cavendish: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  3. Safdar, S.; Chahar Mahali, S.; Scott, C. A critical review of multiculturalism and interculturalism as integration frameworks: The case of Canada. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 2023, 93, 101756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Gentin, S.; Pitknen, K.; Chondromatidou, A.M.; Prstholm, S.; Palsdottir, A.M. Nature-based integration of immigrants in Europe: A review. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 43, 126379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Du, H.; Li, S.-M.; Hao, P. ‘Anyway, you are an outsider’: Temporary migrants in urban China. Urban Stud. 2017, 55, 3185–3201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Liu, L.; Huang, Y.; Zhang, W. Residential segregation and perceptions of social integration in Shanghai, China. Urban Stud. 2018, 55, 1484–1503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. National Bureau of Statistics of the People’s Republic of China (NBSC). Statistical Bulletin of National Economic and Social Development in 2021. China Stat. 2022, 3, 9–26. [Google Scholar]
  8. Chen, M.; Liu, W.; Lu, D.; Chen, H.; Ye, C. Progress of China’s new-type urbanization construction since 2014: A preliminary assessment. Cities 2018, 78, 180–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Liu, Z. Supporting or dragging? Effects of neighbourhood social ties on social integration of rural-to-urban migrants in China. Hous. Stud. 2019, 34, 1404–1421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Liu, Y.; Zhang, F.; Liu, Y.; Li, Z.; Wu, F. The effect of neighbourhood social ties on migrants’ subjective wellbeing in Chinese cities. Habitat Int. 2017, 66, 86–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wu, F.; Logan, J. Do rural migrants ‘float’ in urban China? Neighbouring and neighbourhood sentiment in Beijing. Urban Stud. 2015, 53, 2973–2990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bazrafshan, M.; Tabrizi, A.M.; Bauer, N.; Kienast, F. Place attachment through interaction with urban parks: A cross-cultural study. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 61, 127103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Oh, R.R.Y.; Zhang, Y.; Nghiem, L.T.P.; Chang, C.-C.; Tan, C.L.Y.; Quazi, S.A.; Shanahan, D.F.; Lin, B.B.; Gaston, K.J.; Fuller, R.A.; et al. Connection to nature and time spent in gardens predicts social cohesion. Urban For. Urban Green. 2022, 74, 127655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Park, R.E.; Burgess, E.W. Introduction to the Science of Sociology; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1921. [Google Scholar]
  15. Landecker, W.S. Types of integration and their measurement. Am. J. Sociol. 1951, 56, 332–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hartmut, E. Soziologie: Spezielle Grundlagen; Campus-Verlag: Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  17. Wang, W.W.; Fan, C.C. Migrant Workers’ Integration in Urban China: Experiences in Employment, Social Adaptation, and Self-identity. Eurasian Geogr. Econ. 2012, 53, 731–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Yue, Z.; Li, S.; Jin, X.; Feldman, M.W. The Role of Social Networks in the Integration of Chinese Rural-Urban Migrants: A Migrant-Resident Tie Perspective. Urban Stud. 2013, 50, 1704–1723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lin, S.; Wu, F.; Liang, Q.; Li, Z.; Guo, Y. From hometown to the host city? Migrants’ identity transition in urban China. Cities 2022, 122, 103567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Peters, K.; Elands, B.; Buijs, A. Social interactions in urban parks: Stimulating social cohesion? Urban For. Urban Green. 2010, 9, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Stodolska, M.; Peters, K.; Horolets, A. Immigrants’ Adaptation and Interracial/Interethnic Interactions in Natural Environments. Leis. Sci. 2016, 39, 475–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. de Vries, S.; van Dillen, S.M.E.; Groenewegen, P.P.; Spreeuwenberg, P. Streetscape greenery and health: Stress, social cohesion and physical activity as mediators. Soc. Sci. Med. 2013, 94, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Grahn, P.; Stigsdotter, U.K. The relation between perceived sensory dimensions of urban green space and stress restoration. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 94, 264–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wan, C.; Shen, G.Q.; Choi, S. Underlying relationships between public urban green spaces and social cohesion: A systematic literature review. City Cult. Soc. 2021, 24, 100383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sugiyama, T.L.E.; Giles-Cortt, B.; Owen, N. 332 Associations of neighbourhood greenness with physical and mental health: Do walking and social factors explain the relationships? J. Sci. Med. Sport 2007, 10, 112. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kingsley, J.Y.; Townsend, M. ‘Dig In’ to Social Capital: Community Gardens as Mechanisms for Growing Urban Social Connectedness. Urban Policy Res. 2006, 24, 525–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Samsudin, R.; Yok, T.P.; Chua, V. Social capital formation in high density urban environments: Perceived attributes of neighborhood green space shape social capital more directly than physical ones. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2022, 227, 104527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hosany, S.; Gilbert, D. Measuring Tourists’ Emotional Experiences toward Hedonic Holiday Destinations. J. Travel Res. 2010, 49, 513–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lv, X.; Li, C.; McCabe, S. Expanding theory of tourists’ destination loyalty: The role of sensory impressions. Tour. Manag. 2020, 77, 104026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Yoon, Y.; Uysal, M. An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: A structural model. Tour. Manag. 2005, 26, 45–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kastenholz, E.; Cunha, D.; Eletxigerra, A.; Carvalho, M.; Silva, I. The Experience Economy in a Wine Destination&mdash;Analysing Visitor Reviews. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9308. [Google Scholar]
  32. Daniel, C.; Danielle, S.; Hannah, H.; Richard, F.; Karen, A.; Steven, H.; Kevin, G. Doses of Nearby Nature Simultaneously Associated with Multiple Health Benefits. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 172. [Google Scholar]
  33. Ka’zMierczak, A. The contribution of local parks to neighbourhood social ties. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 109, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Nursyamsiah, R.A.; Setiawan, R.P. Does place attachment act as a mediating variable that affects revisit intention toward a revitalized park? Alex. Eng. J. 2022, 64, 999–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Raana, S.B. A multifaceted study of place attachment and its influences on civic involvement and place loyalty in Baharestan new town, Iran. Cities 2020, 96, 102473. [Google Scholar]
  36. Liu, Y.; Hultman, M.; Eisingerich, A.B. How does brand loyalty interact with tourism destination? Exploring the effect of brand loyalty on place attachment. Ann. Tour. Res. 2020, 81, 102879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Vaske, J.J.; Kobrin, K.C. Place Attachment and Environmentally Responsible Behavior. J. Environ. Educ. 2001, 32, 16–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bazrafshan, M.; Spielhofer, R.; Wissen Hayek, U.; Kienast, F.; Grêt-Regamey, A. Greater place attachment to urban parks enhances relaxation: Examining affective and cognitive responses of locals and bi-cultural migrants to virtual park visits. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2023, 232, 104650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Toruńczyk-Ruiz, S.; Brunarska, Z. Through attachment to settlement: Social and psychological determinants of migrants’ intentions to stay. J. Ethn. Migr. Stud. 2020, 46, 3191–3209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Prayag, G.; Ryan, C. Antecedents of tourists’ loyalty to mauritius: The role and influence of destination image, place attachment, personal involvement, and satisfaction. J. Travel Res. 2012, 51, 342–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. López-Mosquera, N.; Sánchez, M. Direct and indirect effects of received benefits and place attachment in willingness to pay and loyalty in suburban natural areas. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 34, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Plunkett, D.; Fulthorp, K.; Paris, C.M. Examining the relationship between place attachment and behavioral loyalty in an urban park setting. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2019, 25, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bagozzi, R.P. The Self-Regulation of Attitudes, Intentions, and Behavior. Soc. Psychol. Q. 1992, 55, 178–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Sampson, R.J.; Raudenbush, S.W.; Earls, F. Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy. Science 1997, 277, 918–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Du, H.; Li, S.-M. Migrants, urban villages, and community sentiments: A case of Guangzhou, China. Asian Geogr. 2010, 27, 93–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Gómez, E.; Baur, J.W.R.; Hill, E.; Georgiev, S. Urban Parks and Psychological Sense of Community. J. Leis. Res. 2015, 47, 388–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lee, T.H.; Shen, Y.L. The influence of leisure involvement and place attachment on destination loyalty: Evidence from recreationists walking their dogs in urban parks. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 33, 76–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Williams, D.R.; Patterson, M.E.; Roggenbuck, J.W.; Watson, A.E. Beyond the Commodity Metaphor: Examining Emotional and Symbolic Attachment to Place. Leis. Sci. 1992, 14, 29–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Yuksel, A.; Yuksel, F.; Bilim, Y. Destination attachment: Effects on customer satisfaction and cognitive, affective and conative loyalty. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 274–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Boley, B.B.; Strzelecka, M.; Yeager, E.P.; Ribeiro, M.A.; Aleshinloye, K.D.; Woosnam, K.M.; Mimbs, B.P. Measuring Place Attachment with The Abbreviated Place Attachment Scale (APAS). J. Environ. Psychol. 2021, 74, 101577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Li, S.-M.; Zhu, Y.; Li, L. Neighborhood Type, Gatedness, and Residential Experiences in Chinese Cities: A Study of Guangzhou. Urban Geogr. 2012, 33, 237–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Jackson, D.L. Revisiting Sample Size and Number of Parameter Estimates: Some Support for the N: Q Hypothesis. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 2003, 10, 128–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 4th ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  54. Hair, J.; Black, W.; Babin, B.; Anderson, R. Multivarite Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Pearson: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  55. Gunzler, D.; Chen, T.; Wu, P.; Zhang, H. Introduction to mediation analysis with structural equation modeling. Shanghai Arch. Psychiatry 2013, 25, 390–394. [Google Scholar]
  56. Cortina, J.M. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J. Appl. Psychol. 1993, 78, 98–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Shrestha, N. Factor Analysis as a Tool for Survey Analysis. Am. J. Appl. Math. Stat. 2021, 9, 4–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Bagozzi, R.P. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: A Comment. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 375–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Iacobucci, D. Structural equations modeling: Fit Indices, sample size, and advanced topics. J. Consum. Psychol. 2010, 20, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Norman, D.A. Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  62. Zhang, R. Integrating ergonomics data and emotional scale to analyze people’s emotional attachment to different landscape features in the Wudaokou Urban Park. Front. Archit. Res. 2023, 12, 175–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 08065 g001 550
Figure 1. Hypothesis model of the relationships between landscape perception, destination loyalty, place attachment and social integration.
Figure 1. Hypothesis model of the relationships between landscape perception, destination loyalty, place attachment and social integration.
Sustainability 15 08065 g001
Sustainability 15 08065 g002 550
Figure 2. Images of some survey community parks in Hangzhou.
Figure 2. Images of some survey community parks in Hangzhou.
Sustainability 15 08065 g002
Sustainability 15 08065 g003 550
Figure 3. Locations of the survey community parks in Hangzhou.
Figure 3. Locations of the survey community parks in Hangzhou.
Sustainability 15 08065 g003
Sustainability 15 08065 g004 550
Figure 4. Full structural model results with standard regression weights. Note: ***, ** indicate that p-value at the significance level of 0.001 and 0.01 respectively.
Figure 4. Full structural model results with standard regression weights. Note: ***, ** indicate that p-value at the significance level of 0.001 and 0.01 respectively.
Sustainability 15 08065 g004
Table
Table 1. Measurement items of variables.
Table 1. Measurement items of variables.
ScaleItems
Landscape perception
(LP)		LP1: This community park has a nature quality
LP2: The green space in this community park is open and comfortable
LP3: Easy access to this community park
LP4: It is safe to walk in this community park
Place attachment
(PA)		PA1: I am very attached to this community park
PA2: This community park means a lot to me
PA3: I enjoy recreating at this community park more than any others
PA4: I have a lot of fond memories about this community park
Destination loyalty
(DL)		DL1: I love this community park more than other places
DL2: I consider here to be my first recreation choice
DL3: I almost take up my total leisure time in this community park
DL4: I intend to continue staying here and recommend others to here
Social integration
(SI)		SI1: People around here are willing to help their neighbors
SI2: Migrants and local residents of this community are closely connected
SI3: People in this neighborhood can be trusted
SI4: Migrants and local residents of this community share the same values
Table
Table 2. Sample demographic description.
Table 2. Sample demographic description.
CharacteristicDescriptionPercentage (%)CharacteristicDescriptionPercentage (%)
Migrantsyes54.4Career statusEmployed (including temporary work)57.9
no45.6Unemployed9.7
Age cohort≤181.5Retired15.7
18–2525.6Student16.7
26–3014.6Monthly income≤300027.1
31–4020.43001–500022.1
41–5014.25001–700023.1
51–6010.87001–900012.4
>6012.99001–11,0005.4
Education levelElementary school6.1≥11,0019.9
Junior high school13.4GenderMale50.4
High school or secondary technical school23.6Female49.6
College or university43.5
Master and above13.4
Table
Table 3. Validity and confirmatory factor analysis results.
Table 3. Validity and confirmatory factor analysis results.
VariableItemsCronbach’αKMOCRAVEStd.
Landscape perceptionLP10.8090.7880.8180.5340.835
LP20.792
LP30.653
LP40.619
Destination loyaltyDL10.7910.8250.7920.4890.656
DL20.661
DL30.715
DL40.759
Place attachment PA10.8760.7870.8800.6490.860
PA20.852
PA30.809
PA40.689
Social integrationSI10.8630.8070.8770.6490.887
SI20.899
SI30.837
SI40.548
Table
Table 4. Mediation effect analysis of model.
Table 4. Mediation effect analysis of model.
ParameterEstimateBias-Corrected 95% Confidence IntervalPercentile 95% Confidence Interval
LowerUpperPLowerUpperP
Path H70.1560.0580.2880.0020.0420.2640.005
Path H80.8010.5571.1730.0010.5491.1580.001
Path H90.1680.0530.2940.0080.0560.2960.007
Total indirect effect1.1240.8661.5070.0010.8591.4940.001
Table
Table 5. Model hypothesis results.
Table 5. Model hypothesis results.
Model HypothesisAccept/Reject
H1: Landscape perception is positively related to place attachmentAccept
H2: Landscape perception is positively related to destination loyaltyAccept
H3: Landscape perception is positively related to social integrationReject
H4: Destination loyalty is positively related to social integrationAccept
H5: Place attachment is positively related to social integrationAccept
H6: Destination loyalty is positively related to place attachmentAccept
H7: Destination loyalty has a mediation effect between landscape perception and social integrationAccept
H8: Place attachment has a mediation effect between landscape perception and social integrationAccept
H9: Destination loyalty and place attachment have a chain mediation effect between landscape perception and social integrationAccept
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hu, J.; Ying, J.; Zhang, Y.; Shen, Y.; Wu, X. From Landscapes to Bonds: Exploring the Influencing Mechanism of Community Parks on Social Integration. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8065. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108065

AMA Style

Hu J, Ying J, Zhang Y, Shen Y, Wu X. From Landscapes to Bonds: Exploring the Influencing Mechanism of Community Parks on Social Integration. Sustainability. 2023; 15(10):8065. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108065

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hu, Jinwen, Jun Ying, Yiqi Zhang, Yamei Shen, and Xiaohua Wu. 2023. "From Landscapes to Bonds: Exploring the Influencing Mechanism of Community Parks on Social Integration" Sustainability 15, no. 10: 8065. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108065

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop