Spatiotemporal Influence of Urban Park Landscape Features on Visitor Behavior
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Site
2.2. Data Collection
2.3. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Interactions between Different Behavior Types
- The average duration of the behaviors were varied significantly among the parks studied (Figure 2), that transportation accounted for the shortest time, whereas exercise and recreation accounted for the longest duration. Spearman’s correlation analysis revealed that the ratio of behavior types could significantly influence each other. (Figure 3). Spearman correlation analysis at the upper-right of Figure 3, respectively tested the correlation between different types of visitor behaviors on weekdays, weekends and in total. Scatter plot at lower-left showed the observed ratio of behavior at each sampling plot. Box plots at the right edge and histograms at the bottom compare the ratios on different visiting dates. Transportation and strolling both caused significant negative effects on all other behaviors, with higher correlation coefficients on weekends than weekdays. A significant positive correlation was observed between the ratios of exercise and recreational behaviors. Surprisingly, there was no significant difference in the ratio of each behavior between weekdays and weekends, despite their stronger correlations on weekends.
3.2. Spatiotemporal Variation in Visitor’s Behavior
- The total number of visitors to these parks was double on weekends compared to weekdays (p < 0.001) (Figure 4); however, the Wilcoxon test indicated that there was no difference in the average duration (p = 0.345). In the pairwise comparisons of behavior types, there was no significant difference in the number of visitors who engaged in exercise and recreation between weekends and weekdays (pexercise = 0.647, precreation = 0.316) or the average duration (pexercise = 0.289, precreation = 0.238). For rest and strolling, the numbers on weekdays was significantly lower than that on weekends (prest = 0.002, pstroll < 0.001).
- The results from the ANOVA further demonstrated that both park identity and visiting date have significant impacts on visitor behavior (Table 4). The most attractive parks around West Lake, the Su Causeway, and Bai Causeway, as well as the park close to downtown on the east coast of the lake, had significantly higher visitor numbers and durations than the other parks. On weekends, the visiting status (numbers and duration) was better than that on weekdays in each park, especially in Leifeng Pagoda, where several Buddhist temples, iconic attractions, and food services are distributed (Figure 4). We also found that park identity and visiting date better explained the number of visitors engaging in transportation and strolling (R2transportation = 44.5%, R2stroll = 29.8%) than rest, recreation, and exercise (all R2 were less than 20%).
3.3. Effects of Landscape Features in Parks on Visitor Behavior
- A linear mixed model was applied to analyze the effects and contributions (Table 5) of landscape features in parks on visiting behavior, controlling for the interference from park identity and visiting data as random effects. The results indicated that visitor behaviors were driven by the quality of landscape features and visiting purposes.
- Landmarks, social space, and vegetation cover positively affected planned behaviors, such as exercise. The number of landmarks was the dominant factor, and all three features influenced the amount and duration of visitor exercises. However, social space was the most important feature for recreating visitors, followed by landmarks and seating facilities. Seating facilities and social spaces were the main landscape features accelerating rest, whereas recreational facilities inhibited it. Higher plant richness and waterfronts could improve the environmental quality for strolling; however, vegetation cover and the number of old trees had negative impacts. Largest vegetation, patch area, number of old trees, and social space had stronger negative effects on transportation than other behaviors. The landscape features affecting rest and recreation were relatively consistent but with slightly different contribution rates.
4. Discussion
4.1. Various Spatiotemporal Patterns across Behavior Types
- In urban parks, visitor behavior is interacted with each other [30]. Spearman’s correlation analysis revealed a significant negative correlation between transportation and other behaviors. Areas with more transportation were generally perceived by visitors as being exposed to higher traffic and its associated risks, resulting in a relatively low percentage of exercise and recreational activities in these areas. Additionally, there was a significant inverse correlation between strolling and other behaviors. This may be due to the fact that strolling requires relatively less space for activities and more natural landscapes, which contrasts with other behaviors. Several studies have affirmed that more attractive and aesthetic walking environments contribute to improving walking behavior, especially among the elderly [31,32,33]. A positive correlation between the proportion of visitors with exercise and recreation may be a result of the similar requirements for larger open spaces in these two activities. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in visitor behavior between weekdays and weekends, indicating that the interaction between various visitor behaviors are consistent regardless of the day of the week. This was consistent with the fact that behavior patterns of tourists at moderate and low densities do not vary and the utilization of space does not change significantly [34].
- Visitor numbers for recreational and sports activities were stable across different dates, indicating that these visitors constituted a confirmed group composed of local retired elders, who did not exhibit lifestyles that varied weekdays and weekends. West Lake Scenic Area was the most famous urban park and World Heritage in China. The purpose of most visitors is to be close to nature and enjoy the lake and mountain views. We found the space and facilities supporting recreation and sport were limited, and always occupied by the same groups of local elders. Thus, the extra young visitors on the weekend did not enhance the exercise and recreational activities. However, the number of visitors who engaged in rest and strolling on weekends was higher than on weekdays, which was owing to visitors either being employed or including children. ANOVA further demonstrated that park identity significantly affected all visiting behaviors. Reputation, accessibility, and service convenience were the main features driving park selection by visitors [35].
4.2. Roles of Landscape Features in Parks for Visitor’s Behavior
- As it is the largest urban park in China, massive numbers of domestic and international visitors arrived daily. Distinct landmarks provided a clear gathering point for these visitors to form a group. Thus, landmarks were the most important factor increasing planned behavior, which served as anchors in the visitor’s mental representation of the chaos and crowded physical environment [36].
- Vegetation cover and social space also determine the occurrence of planned behaviors. Vegetation cover had different effects on planned and unplanned behaviors. Higher vegetation cover provided shade and fresh air and improved exercise efficiency. However, it had a negative effect on strolling. The strollers preferred open spaces with diverse flowering shrubs and herbs, such as the parks of the Su Causeway and Bai Causeway. However, a high density of trees may increase fear of potential criminal risks due to obstruction of view [17], despite the potential for improved nature-based experiences and greater well-being benefits [37]. In addition, a larger social space provided more space for singers and dancers and easily gathered a certain audience with sufficient seating facilities. Thus, convenient seating facilities are positively associated with rest [4], which also increases the total number of visitors [3]. In contrast, noise from recreational and exercise activities had a negative impact on rest.
- Visitors may perform both negative and positive tasks in the same environment [38]. Visitors decided how they behaved by assessing the trade-off between the positive and negative effects of the same landscape features (Table 6) in these parks across the West Lake Scenic Area. The trade-off between naturality, aesthetics, accessibility, security, and disturbance drove the spatial distribution of these different behaviors in these parks. Considering the spatiotemporal patterns of visitors’ behaviors and field-based observations, we found that the visitors with planned behaviors were mostly local old residents near the parks, with strong spatial variation but less temporal variation. Sufficient social spaces and facilities were the dominant park features that supported these planned behaviors. The trade-off between park features strongly affected unplanned behaviors, especially the trade-off between safety and natural experience. The negative correlation between transportation and other behaviors also supported that safety was a dominant factor in deciding visitors’ behavior in the park. Unlike the Western tourists who preferred to sit on the grassland, more Chinese visitors selected seating facilities for rest. Planning the sitting space was important for resting visitors in parks. The trade-off between potential criminal risk and natural experience from the vegetation cover always determines the route selection of the strollers.
4.3. Suggestions for the Planning and Design of Public Parks
- Tourists’ landscape preference was deriving the preference values of different landscapes from their perceptions [39]. Visitors would select their behaviors based on the trade-off between benefits and risks from landscape features in urban parks. For example, reducing fences, shrubs, and terrain changes can effectively deal with public safety issues in park design [40]. This shows that the landscape features of a park can also induce or discourage certain behaviors by influencing users’ psychological perceptions. Bandura’s “tripartite reciprocal determinism” further states that tourists’ perceptions are shaped by and, in turn, shape their environment and behaviors [41]. Similarly, with the increasing number of people travelling, tourist behavior also has an increasing impact on the environment [42]; thus, research on visitors’ behavior plays an important role in the maintenance of the environment to some extent.
- Based on the results of this study, we propose strategies for urban park designers. First, the scientific configuration of landmarks is important for a large park, which can support visitors’ congregating activities. Furthermore, landmark-based wayfinding has enormous potential for application purposes, such as route guidance systems and signage [31], and a clear route guidance and signage system would lead visitors to a suitable space for specific behaviors. Second, designers should consider the dual utility of vegetation and design it more skillfully. The trails passing through dense forests would increase a single visitor’s fear of criminal activity. However, a visitor group prefers greenspaces that are more connected to nature. On the other hand, in terms of landscape ecology, visitors crossing dense forests may cause negative “edge effects” on internal biodiversity. Finally, more rational functional zoning is a way to reduce conflicts arising between different behaviors from blurred functional positioning [41]. In this study, we found synergies and trade-offs between different visitor behaviors. A suitable design of multifunctional parks should have clear zoning, open places, and necessary facilities for exercise and rest, and monitoring and alarm devices in densely vegetated areas. Designers should reconsider the results and how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies and working hypotheses. These findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible. Landscape features do not only influence visitors’ physical behavior but also their mental emotions [43].
- Therefore, future research should focus on the effects of landscape features on visitors’ physical and mental health from individual and public levels, and explore how to regulate and practice the trade-off of landscape features in park design.
- In addition, SOPARC is a fundamental and user-friendly tool to quantify park visitor behaviors and characteristics. Furthermore, SOPARC is a visual, observation-based, non-contact approach, which was not restricted by distance, and easily captured all the visitors without consent. However, SOPARC relies on the observer’s subjective judgment of visitor activities, which might introduce some errors. It also cannot capture the psychological and emotional characteristics of visitors. Although SOPARC can provide some quantified data, it cannot provide a deep understanding and insight into visitors’ perceptions and attitudes toward the park. Therefore, more appropriate methods need to be developed for visitor behavior research in the future.
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Bertram, C.; Rehdanz, K. The role of urban green space for human well-being. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 120, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McDonnell, M.J.; MacGregor-Fors, I. The ecological future of cities. Science 2016, 352, 936–938. [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]
- Dade, M.C.; Mitchell, M.; Brown, G.; Rhodes, J.R. The effects of urban greenspace characteristics and socio-demographics vary among cultural ecosystem services. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 49, 126641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Q.; Ullah, H.; Wan, W.; Peng, Z.; Hou, L.; Rizvi, S.S.; Haidery, S.A.; Qu, T.; Muzahid, A.A.M. Categorization of green spaces for a sustainable environment and smart city architecture by utilizing big data. Electronics 2020, 9, 1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halkos, G.; Leonti, A.; Sardianou, E. Activities, motivations and satisfaction of urban parks visitors: A structural equation modeling analysis. Econ. Anal. Policy 2021, 70, 502–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tu, X.; Huang, G.; Wu, J.; Guo, X. How do travel distance and park size influence urban park visits? Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 52, 126689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arifwidodo, S.D.; Chandrasiri, O. Association Between Park Characteristics and Park-Based Physical Activity Using Systematic Observation: Insights from Bangkok, Thailand. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- 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]
- Kim, W.G.; Li, J.; Ali, F. Age matters: How demographics influence visitor perception and attitude at the destination level. Int. J. Innov. Learn. 2017, 21, 149–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atauri, J.A.; Bravo-Utrera, M.; Ruiz, A. Visitors’ Landscape Preferences as a Tool for Management of Recreational Use in Natural Areas: A case study in Sierra de Guadarrama (Madrid, Spain). Landsc. Res. 2000, 25, 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yao, Q.; Shi, Y.; Li, H.; Wen, J.; Xi, J.; Wang, Q. Understanding the Tourists’ Spatio-Temporal Behavior Using Open GPS Trajectory Data: A Case Study of Yuanmingyuan Park (Beijing, China). Sustainability 2021, 13, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rutledge, A.J.; Stowell, C.R. The Social and Behaviorial Aspects of Perceived Safety: Applying a Social Ecology Model to Downtown Parks and Neighborhoods; LAP Lambert Academic Publishing: Saarbrucken, Germany, 2005; pp. 148–153. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, X.; Wu, B. Intra-attraction Tourist Spatial-Temporal Behaviour Patterns. Tour. Geogr. 2012, 14, 625–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kovacic, S.; Margarint, M.C.; Ionce, R.; Miljkovic, D. What are the Factors affecting Tourist Behavior based on the Perception of Risk? Romanian and Serbian Tourists’ Perspective in the Aftermath of the recent Floods and Wildfires in Greece. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Z.; Zhang, S.; Liu, X.; Kozak, M.; Wen, J. Seeing the invisible hand: Underlying effects of COVID-19 on tourists’ behavioral patterns. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2020, 18, 100502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hegetschweiler, K.T.; de Vries, S.; Arnberger, A.; Bell, S.; Brennan, M.; Siter, N.; Olafsson, A.S.; Voigt, A.; Hunziker, M. Linking demand and supply factors in identifying cultural ecosystem services of urban green infrastructures: A review of European studies. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 21, 48–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Taylor, J.; Czarnowski, K.; Sexton, N.; Flick, S. The importance of water to Rocky Mountain National Park visitors: An adaptation of visitor-employed photography to natural resource management. J. Appl. Recreat. Res. 1995, 20, 61–85. [Google Scholar]
- Arifwidodo, S.D.; Chandrasiri, O. The effects of park improvement on park use and park-based physical activity. J. Archit. Urban. 2021, 45, 73–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luhmann, M. Using big data to study subjective well-being. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 2017, 18, 28–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, C.; Zhang, X.; Zhou, M.; He, S.; Gan, M.; Yang, L.; Wang, K. Impacts of urbanization and landscape pattern on habitat quality using OLS and GWR models in Hangzhou, China. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 117, 106654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNESCO. West Lake Cultural Landscape of Hangzhou. Available online: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1334 (accessed on 14 February 2023).
- Hangzhou Bureau of Statistics. 2020 Hangzhou Statistical Yearbook. 2020. Available online: http://www.hzxh.gov.cn/art/2020/1/20/art_1229417930_3804647 (accessed on 20 January 2020).
- Smith, J.C. Historical Foundations of Cognitive Science; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1991; pp. 197–198. [Google Scholar]
- McKenzie, T.L.; Cohen, D.A.; Sehgal, A.; Williamson, S.; Golinelli, D. System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities (SOPARC): Reliability and feasibility measures. J. Phys. Act. Health 2006, 3, 208–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Evenson, K.R.; Williamson, S.; Han, B.; Mckenzie, T.L.; Cohen, D.A. United States’ neighborhood park use and physical activity over two years: The National Study of Neighborhood Parks. Prev. Med. 2019, 123, 117–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, C.; Zhang, J.; Sun, J.; Chen, M.; Yang, J. Public environmental facilities: Hygiene factors for tourists’ environmental behaviour. Environ. Sci. Policy 2020, 106, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le Pira, M.; Marcucci, E.; Gatta, V. Roman holiday: Tourist heterogeneous preferences for walking path elements. Res. Transp. Econ. 2021, 90, 101106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ward, P.; McKenzie, T.L.; Cohen, D.; Evenson, K.R.; Golinelli, D.; Hillier, A.; Lapham, S.C.; Williamson, S. Physical activity surveillance in parks using direct observation. Prev. Chronic Dis. 2014, 11, 130147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fragoso, L.; Paul, T.; Vadan, F.; Stanley, K.G.; Bell, S.; Osgood, N.D. Intrinsic dimensionality of human behavioral activity data. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0218966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nyunt, M.S.Z.; Shuvo, F.K.; Eng, J.Y.; Yap, K.B.; Scherer, S.; Hee, L.M.; Chan, S.P.; Ng, T.P. Objective and subjective measures of neighborhood environment (NE): Relationships with transportation physical activity among older persons. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2015, 12, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Paydar, M.; Fard, A.K. Walking Behavior of Older Adults in Temuco, Chile: The Contribution of the Built Environment and Socio-Demographic Factors. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 14625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsunoda, K.; Tsuji, T.; Kitano, N.; Mitsuishi, Y.; Yoon, J.-Y.; Yoon, J.; Okura, T. Associations of physical activity with neighborhood environments and transportation modes in older Japanese adults. Prev. Med. 2012, 55, 113–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Donaire, J.A.; Galí, N.; Gulisova, B. Tracking visitors in crowded spaces using zenith images: Drones and time-lapse. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2020, 35, 100680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azagew, S.; Worku, H. Socio-demographic and physical factors influencing access to urban parks in rapidly urbanizing cities of Ethiopia: The case of Addis Ababa. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2020, 31, 100322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balaban, C.Z.; Karimpur, H.; Röser, F.; Hamburger, K. Turn left where you felt unhappy: How affect influences landmark-based wayfinding. Cogn. Process. 2017, 18, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Dorwart, C.E.; Moore, R.L.; Leung, Y. Visitors’ Perceptions of a Trail Environment and Effects on Experiences: A Model for Nature-Based Recreation Experiences. Leis. Sci. 2010, 32, 33–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Zanten, B.T.; Verburg, P.H.; Scholte, S.S.K.; Tieskens, K.F. Using choice modeling to map aesthetic values at a landscape scale: Lessons from a Dutch case study. Ecol. Econ. 2016, 130, 221–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marcus, C.C.; Francis, C. People places: Design guidelines for urban open space. Am. Plan. Assoc. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 1994, 65, 456. [Google Scholar]
- Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social-Cognitive View by Albert Bandura Review by: Edwin A. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1987, 12, 169–171. [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Dai, J.; Dewancker, B.J.; Gao, W.; Liu, Z.; Zhou, Y. Impact of Situational Environmental Education on Tourist Behavior—A Case Study of Water Culture Ecological Park in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 11388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kong, L.; Liu, Z.; Pan, X.; Wang, Y.; Guo, X.; Wu, J. How do different types and landscape attributes of urban parks affect visitors’ positive emotions? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2022, 226, 104482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
No. | Park’s Name | Shape | Surrounding Environment | Description |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Gu Shan | Block | Mountain and lake | The largest island in the West Lake; is not only a scenic spot but also a place of cultural relics. |
2 | Bai Causeway | Ribbon | Lake on both sides | Built to commemorate the famous poet Bai Juyi, it is one of the ten scenic spots of West Lake and is named “Broken Bridge with Snow”. |
3 | First Park | Ribbon | Central Business District and lake | The green corridor of The West Lake Cultural Landscape, located on the eastern shore of West Lake, close to the CBD of Hangzhou. |
4 | Liulangwenying Park | Block | Recreation and Viewing Park | Formerly known as the Southern Song Dynasty Imperial Garden, which was named for the willow trees and warbler’s song. |
5 | Wu Mountain | Block | Mountain and lake | Located the southeast of West Lake and is a mountain park known for its ruins. |
6 | Leifeng Pagoda | Block | Pagoda and lake | One of the “Ten Views of West Lake” and one of the nine famous pagodas in China. Located on Sunset Mountain on the south shore of West Lake Scenic Area, with great scenery and best seen at sunset. |
7 | Flower View Fish Park | Block | Lake | Leisure and recreational park with flowers, a harbor, and fish as the main features. |
8 | MAO’s Home Port | Ribbon | Traditional residence and lake | Highlighting the landscape features of the harbor and waterfront residence, with beautiful and peaceful scenery. |
9 | Su Causeway | Ribbon | Lake on both sides | A wooded embankment running through the north and south scenic areas of West Lake, with willow trees planted on both sides and famous for its spring scenery |
10 | Quyuanfenghe Park | Block | Temple and lake | Located in the northwest corner of West Lake, with lotus flowers planted around the courtyard and many pavilions. |
Landscape Types | Landscape Features | Unit | Description |
---|---|---|---|
Natural landscape features | Plant richness | Species | Number of vascular plant species. |
Largest vegetated patch area | m2 | Area of largest vegetated patch. | |
Vegetation cover | % | Coverage of plant canopy. | |
Old trees | Number | Individual old and valuable trees. | |
Waterfront | — | Waterfront properties connected with the observation area of a waterbody, which were classified into none, small water bodies, large water bodies, and West Lake (the central and largest waterbody). | |
Artificial landscape features | Social space | Number | Large open space footprint for social services, such as pavilions, connecting corridors, and outdoor cafes. |
Seating facilities | Number | Seats, stone benches, and other seating facilities. | |
Recreational facilities | Number | Recreational facilities, sport facilities, and artistic sketches. | |
Public service facilities | Number | Huts, booths, or facilities that provide food, shopping, and public health services. | |
Landmark | Number | Monuments, status, steles, and fountains. |
Behavior Group | Behavior Type | Description |
---|---|---|
Planned behavior | Exercise | Physical exercise and sport activities, such as running, playing Kungfu, and dancing. |
Recreation | Social and recreational activities, such as singing, playing local opera, playing chess, and fishing. | |
Unplanned behavior | Rest | Take a rest without significant body movements, such as sitting, lying down, or chatting. |
Stroll | Enjoy the scenery and relax with slowly walking speed. | |
Other | Transportation | Quickly pass through the observation area by bicycle or bus. |
Behavior Type | Factor | Sum Square | F-Value | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Recreation | Park identity | 39,045 | 8.691 | <0.001 |
Visiting date | 345 | 0.69 | 0.407 | |
Residual | 152,249 | — | — | |
Exercise | Park identity | 3991 | 5.133 | <0.001 |
Visiting date | 266 | 3.081 | 0.080 | |
Residual | 26,345 | — | — | |
Rest | Park identity | 20,080 | 7.424 | <0.001 |
Visiting date | 2838 | 9.444 | 0.002 | |
Residual | 91,657 | — | — | |
Stroll | Park identity | 749,981 | 12.2 | <0.001 |
Visiting date | 133,415 | 19.53 | <0.001 | |
Residual | 2,083,170 | — | — | |
Transportation | Park identity | 1,316,067 | 23.91 | <0.001 |
Visiting date | 179,576 | 29.36 | <0.001 | |
Residual | 1,865,211 | — | — | |
Total | Park identity | 4,695,466 | 25.38 | <0.001 |
Visiting date | 769,436 | 37.43 | <0.001 | |
Residual | 6,269,852 | — | — |
Behavior Type | Factor | Estimated Coefficient | Sum Square | F-Value | p-Value |
Exercise | Vegetation cover | 1.15 | 369.22 | 4.80 | 0.029 |
Social space | 1.53 | 643.68 | 8.38 | 0.004 | |
Landmark | 2.31 | 1536.40 | 20.00 | <0.001 | |
Recreation | Seating facilities | 3.58 | 3669.30 | 8.30 | 0.004 |
Social space | 5.47 | 8434.90 | 19.08 | <0.001 | |
Landmark | 3.61 | 3744.40 | 8.47 | 0.004 | |
Rest | Seating facilities | 6.67 | 12,478.60 | 49.98 | <0.001 |
Social space | 3.47 | 3496.10 | 14.00 | <0.001 | |
Recreational facilities | −1.81 | 972.30 | 3.89 | 0.049 | |
Stroll | Plant richness | 14.47 | 49,683.00 | 7.75 | 0.006 |
Old tree | −9.46 | 25,610.00 | 4.00 | 0.046 | |
Vegetation cover | −1.48 | 59,460.00 | 9.28 | 0.002 | |
Waterfront | 17.22 | 53,206.00 | 8.30 | 0.004 | |
Transportation | Largest vegetation patch area | −9.82 | 26,954.00 | 4.54 | 0.034 |
Old tree | −9.03 | 23,243.00 | 3.92 | 0.049 | |
Social space | −9.94 | 28,651.00 | 4.83 | 0.029 |
Landscape Types | Park Features | Positive Effects | Negative Effects |
---|---|---|---|
Natural landscape features | Number of plant species | Colorful and natural experience | Aesthetic fatigue |
Largest vegetation patch area | Natural experience | Poor transportation | |
Vegetation cover | Shade and clean air | Mosquitoes and insecurity | |
Old and valuable trees | Historic | Space limitation for activities | |
Waterfront Conditions | Broader and beautiful view; Coolness | Mosquitoes and insecurity | |
Human landscape features | Social Space | Interactivity | Noisy |
Seating facilities | Rest | Space limitation | |
Recreational facilities | Recreation and exercise support | Noisy | |
Public Service Facilities | Convenient tours | Crowded and noisy | |
Landmark | Gathering points | Noisy and space limitation |
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. |
© 2023 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Hu, J.; Wu, J.; Sun, Y.; Zhao, X.; Hu, G. Spatiotemporal Influence of Urban Park Landscape Features on Visitor Behavior. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5248. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065248
Hu J, Wu J, Sun Y, Zhao X, Hu G. Spatiotemporal Influence of Urban Park Landscape Features on Visitor Behavior. Sustainability. 2023; 15(6):5248. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065248
Chicago/Turabian StyleHu, Jinli, Jueying Wu, Yangyang Sun, Xinyu Zhao, and Guang Hu. 2023. "Spatiotemporal Influence of Urban Park Landscape Features on Visitor Behavior" Sustainability 15, no. 6: 5248. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065248