Ecosystem Services and Public Perception of Green Infrastructure from the Perspective of Urban Parks: A Case Study of Luoyang City, China

Abstract

As one form of urban green infrastructure, city parks provide essential ecosystem services and serve as a vital link connecting citizens with natural ecosystems. The public, as the primary beneficiaries of urban park ecosystem services, plays a crucial role in guiding the improvement and development trends of urban park planning. Most existing studies assess the comprehensive value of green spaces from a macro scale, with few focusing on the cultural and regulatory ecosystem services of urban parks and public perception of these services at the park level. This study targets 11 typical urban parks in Luoyang City, collecting 771 samples through field mapping and surveys. It analyzes users’ socio-demographic characteristics, perception abilities, usage preferences, and service satisfaction, linking these subjective factors with objective elements of the park environment, such as fitness and recreational facilities. The results indicate that respondents with knowledge of ecosystem services are better able to evaluate and understand services such as air pollution reduction and noise reduction in parks, while those without such knowledge tend to focus more on services that they can intuitively perceive, such as biodiversity conservation and microclimate regulation. Additionally, the middle-income group exhibits a higher level of awareness of park ecosystem services, which depends on their active social participation. The findings of this study suggest that enhancing public understanding of ecosystem services through environmental education is key to improving the quality of urban ecosystems.

1. Introduction

As urbanization progresses rapidly, the excessive development of land resources leads to a reduction in urban green spaces and exacerbates the heat island effect, triggering numerous environmental issues, such as water scarcity, declining air quality, noise pollution, and a decrease in biodiversity [1] (Seto et al., 2012), all of which contribute to the deterioration of human living environments. The advancement of urbanization also intensifies social issues, such as housing shortages, traffic congestion, and social inequality [2] (Batty, 2013), leading to frequent occurrences of both environmental and social problems. Moreover, the construction of urban buildings and various infrastructures often overlooks the protection of ecosystems, resulting in impaired ecosystem service functions and posing significant challenges to the sustainable development of cities [3,4,5] (Twohig-Bennett et al., 2018; Venkataramanan et al., 2019; Tzoulas et al., 2007). Green infrastructure, proposed as a solution for sustainable development, has received widespread attention and application. It enhances urban ecosystem functions and service capabilities by integrating natural and semi-natural systems, thereby improving the quality of human habitats [6] (Benedict et al., 2012). The ecosystem services provided by green infrastructure are crucial for urban sustainable development and public welfare, including regulatory services (such as climate regulation and water purification), supporting services (such as biodiversity protection), provisioning services (such as the supply of food and raw materials), and cultural services (such as recreational and aesthetic values) [3,4,5]. As a form of urban-scale green infrastructure, the vegetation and water bodies in parks absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen, improving urban air quality [7] (Nowak et al., 2006), while urban parks also provide spaces for exercise, relaxation, and social interaction, enhancing the quality of life and well-being of residents [8] (Chiesura, 2004). Studies have confirmed that urban parks, as a vital component of urban green infrastructure, mainly impact humans through regulatory and cultural services, reflected in improved health (both mental and physical) and social relationships [9](Reyes-Riveros, 2021).

Public perception is a key factor in assessing the effectiveness of green infrastructure and enhancing the utilization rate of ecosystem services. Through public participation and the solicitation of opinions, it is possible to better understand residents’ needs and expectations for urban parks, thus allowing for scientific planning and management [10] (Campbell-Arvai, 2019). Research on public perception often employs structured questionnaires to measure users’ self-reported behaviors and values, examining their perceptions and preferences for urban green spaces [11] (Sophie and Niki, 2015). Existing studies on urban park ecosystem services often focus on the cultural services of ecosystems [11,12,13] (M Stępniewska, 2021; Dai et al., 2019; J Langemeyer et al., 2015), explore the ecosystem service functions and public perception capabilities of specific types of parks [14,15] (Zhou et al., 2020; Baur et al., 2016), or conduct comparative studies across different cities and regions to explore regional differences in public perception and common factors influencing public views on green infrastructure [16] (Swapa et al., 2017), lacking comprehensive case analyses that integrate the overall service benefits of urban parks and public feedback. This study focuses on urban parks in Luoyang, China, analyzing park environmental factors (such as fitness facilities, seating facilities, architectural aesthetics, and transportation convenience) and park users’ socio-demographic characteristics, perception abilities, and usage preferences, and exploring the correlations between them. This study has four main objectives: (1) to analyze the impact of park environmental factors on users’ perceptions; (2) to explore residents’ perception abilities and usage preferences for urban parks; (3) to investigate the impact of park ratings on residents’ perception of the park ecosystem service capabilities; (4) to provide recommendations for the construction and optimization of park green spaces and green infrastructure services in Luoyang based on the analysis results.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Green Infrastructure

Of a widely cited definition of green infrastructure is “a network of interconnected green spaces that conserves the values and functions of natural ecosystems and provides associated benefits to humans” [17] (Benedict et al., 2002). As an effective means of coordinating environmental, social, and economic development, it has become one of the important strategies for achieving sustainable development [18] (Ahern, 2011). Green infrastructure plays a significant role in adapting to climate change [19] (Gill et al., 2007), including improving rainwater management capabilities [20] (Pappalardo et al., 2017), mitigating the heat island effect [21] (Saaroni et al., 2018), and maintaining biodiversity. For example, green roofs, bioretention systems, and permeable pavements reduce pollutant loads and decrease stormwater runoff while improving water quality through infiltration, retention, storage, and purification [4]; vegetation cools and humidifies through transpiration and shading, thereby lowering surface and air temperatures and increasing air humidity [22] (Norton et al., 2015); plant communities provide habitat and food for wildlife [23] (Filazzola et al., 2019). In terms of social and cultural aspects, green infrastructure can improve the built environment, provide opportunities for close contact with nature, enhance landscape aesthetics, promote social equity, and thereby improve social welfare and human health [24] (Coutts and Hahn, 2015). Additionally, by enhancing environmental quality, green infrastructure can bring effective economic benefits to surrounding areas, promoting regional economic prosperity and sustainable development, thereby attracting tourists, consumers, and investors [25] (De-Miguel-Molina et al., 2019).

The concept of “green infrastructure” originated in the mid-1990s. In 1994, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other environmental organizations began advocating for addressing stormwater management issues through natural systems, termed “green infrastructure”. As societal development needs evolved, this concept gradually expanded into broader urban planning and ecological conservation fields, emphasizing the provision of environmental services through the use of natural systems and ecological processes to replace or supplement traditional “gray infrastructure” (such as drainage pipes and sewage treatment plants) to achieve more sustainable urban development. The academic community has extensively discussed green infrastructure, with research focus and core values continuously evolving. A bibliometric analysis using the CiteSpace tool on the “Green Infrastructure” theme from the Web of Science database examined research topics from a keyword perspective, and a visual knowledge map analyzed the background, trends, and hotspots of green infrastructure research (

Table 1. Research progress of green infrastructure.

Period	Background	Keywords	Research Focus
1995–2008	The research in its initial stage was mainly concentrated in the fields of “Environmental Science” and “Urban Studies”	“Green Infrastructure” “Gray Infrastructure”	The refinement and extension of the single branch led to the development of research themes on green infrastructure and stormwater management
2009–2012	A series of problems brought by rapid urbanization have bottlenecked urban sustainable development	“Sustainable Development” “Low Impact Development” “Stormwater Management”	The concept of “sustainable development” inherent in green infrastructure has been given significant social value
2013–2014	The concept of green infrastructure has gradually attracted attention in the field of “landscape architecture”	“Permeable Pavement” “Bioretention” “Water-Sensitive Urban Design”	Integration of green infrastructure and engineering measures in stormwater management within park design
2015–2019	Research focused on geography, geology, and physical geography	“Urban Green Infrastructure” “Restoration” “Green Roofs”	Vertical greening and green buildings within urban areas have become emerging hotspots
2020–2024	The EU and various countries have established goals to achieve carbon neutrality	“Carbon Emissions” “Carbon Footprint” “Nature-Based Solutions”	The carbon sequestration and emission reduction benefits of green infrastructure have gained attention

, Figure 1).

2.2. Ecosystem Service

“Ecosystem services” refer to a series of conditions and processes provided by natural ecosystems and their species to sustain human life, which are the benefits that humans directly or indirectly obtain from ecosystems. The “Millennium Ecosystem Assessment” report released in 2005 is considered a milestone in ecosystem services research, detailing how ecosystem services extract information from a wide range of natural and social sciences to link social–ecological relationships. The classification of ecosystem services outlined in this report has become the basis for all subsequent ecosystem services research [26] (Carpenter et al., 2009). The “Millennium Ecosystem Assessment” categorizes ecosystem services into four main types: provisioning services, regulating services, cultural services, and supporting services [27] (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Provisioning services include tangible resources directly provided to humans, such as food, water, and timber; regulating services include benefits indirectly provided through ecological processes, like climate regulation and water purification; cultural services involve non-material benefits, such as aesthetics, recreation, and education; supporting services are fundamental to the maintenance of the other three types of services, such as soil formation and nutrient cycling [28,29] (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2016; de Groot et al., 2010).

Quantifying ecosystem services originates from the assessment processes of natural resources and the environment. Globally, methods used to assess ecosystem services are diverse, covering quantitative and qualitative approaches, and scale from local to global, primarily including ecological models, economic assessments, and social surveys [30] (Fisher et al., 2009). Ecological models quantify the supply and spatial distribution of ecosystem services by simulating ecological processes and functions (Bagstad et al., 2013). Economic assessments estimate the economic value of ecosystem services using methods like market pricing, replacement cost, and willingness to pay [29] (de Groot et al., 2012). Social surveys gather public perceptions and preferences of ecosystem services through questionnaires and interviews, providing a social perspective for assessments [31,32] (Raymond et al., 2009; Martín-López et al., 2012). Costanza and colleagues (1997) [33] first quantified the global value of ecosystem services using economic assessment methods, laying the groundwork for the economic evaluation of ecosystem services and prompting a multitude of subsequent research studies. At regional and local scales, ecosystem service assessments typically integrate specific ecological and social contexts. For example, a study in the UK revealed public perceptions and preferences toward ecosystem services by surveying public awareness of bee pollination services [34] (Breeze et al., 2015). However, research on public perception remains underdeveloped and requires more empirical evidence to reveal the perceptions and preferences of different social demographic groups toward ecosystem services, providing a scientific basis for policy making [32,35] (Berbés-Blázquez, 2012; Martín-López et al., 2012). This study combines social surveys and ecological assessments to evaluate ecosystem services based on public evaluations of park environmental factors, making the assessment of ecosystem services more aligned with actual needs.

2.3. Public Perception

Research on ecosystem service perception on a global scale primarily focuses on two aspects: different regions and various population characteristics. Research across different geographic and cultural backgrounds has revealed varied perceptions and evaluation methods of urban green infrastructure. In Malaysia, Mansor et al. (2008) [36] studied the impact of green infrastructure on community well-being and found that green spaces significantly contribute to social interactions and community cohesion. A study in the United States highlighted the critical role of urban parks in physical activities and public health [37] (Bedimo-Rung et al., 2005). Haase et al. (2019) [38] conducted a cross-city comparison in Europe and found that accessibility, maintenance, and safety are key determinants of public satisfaction with urban green spaces. Derkzen et al. (2017) [39] found that in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, public awareness and support for green infrastructure as a climate adaptation strategy are influenced by the recreational and aesthetic benefits of the facilities. People’s perceptions of quality and value are shaped by expert and planner definitions but are also influenced by sociodemographic factors such as age, gender, income, and education level [40,41] (Fagerholm et al., 2012; Plieninger et al., 2013). For example, age can significantly influence individuals’ perceptions of ecosystem services. A study by Moutouama et al. (2019) shows that, compared to adults and the elderly, younger individuals are less likely to perceive supporting services due to their lower participation in agricultural activities [42]. Gender is also an important factor influencing the perception of ecosystem services. Yang et al. (2018) found that women tend to be more concerned about the safety and accessibility of green spaces while men place greater emphasis on their recreational functions [43]. Furthermore, economic status and social inequality have a significant impact on the public’s perception and utilization of ecosystem services. In Santiago, Chile, different social groups have significant differences in perceptions and uses of urban green spaces; low-income groups have less access to green spaces and thus perceive fewer benefits [44] (Barrera et al., 2016). Basu and Nagendra (2021) further noted that in Hyderabad, India, economic factors significantly influence public perception, with low-income groups facing adverse effects on both mental and physical health due to a lack of access to green spaces [45]. Educational level also plays a crucial role in public perception of ecosystem services. Gómez-Baggethun et al. (2010) found that individuals with higher education levels typically have a more in-depth understanding of ecosystem services and are more attentive to their economic value and environmental importance [46]. Attitudes and values manifest through value–attitude or attitude–behavior links [47] (Balram and Dragićević, 2005) and can be quantitatively studied using structured questionnaire methods [48] (Jim and Chen, 2006a).

A keyword literature search in the Web of Science database on themes “Green Infrastructure”, “Ecosystem Services”, and “Public Perception” visualized (Figure 2) reveals that the existing literature mostly focuses on macro assessments, with limited attention to specific urban parks and their unique contributions. The cultural and regulatory services provided by urban parks are not fully explored, particularly lacking research from the perspectives of public perception and social demographic differences. Localized studies of different urban parks and user characteristics and needs can address this gap and, based on research findings, suggest improvements to enhance public awareness of green infrastructure and ecosystem services, thus strengthening their environmental protection awareness and actions [49] (Lovell et al., 2014), thereby forming a virtuous cycle of sustainable urban ecosystem development and public satisfaction.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Area

This study focuses on the urban area of Luoyang City. Situated at the heart of Central Plains, Luoyang boasts a superior geographical location and diverse natural environments, enabling its parks to provide rich ecosystem services. As a former capital of thirteen dynasties, it also possesses abundant historical and cultural resources. Thus, urban parks in Luoyang are not only popular public recreational spots but also unique spaces that blend cultural heritage with natural ecology [50]. Researching the ecosystem service capabilities and public perception of Luoyang’s urban parks not only provides a scientific basis for the local management and maintenance of parks but also offers references for green space planning in other cities. To cover the entire Luoyang city and ensure the integrity of its green infrastructure, this study selected 11 representative urban parks from different administrative districts and various types and levels (Figure 3,

Table 2. The information and characteristics of the parks.

Park	Location	Key Features	Major Services	Adjacent Areas
Xingluo Lake Park	Luolong District	Large water bodies and wetlands, important for urban climate regulation and biodiversity.	Climate regulation, biodiversity protection	Core or emerging development areas
Luopu Park	Xigong District	Built along a river, important for recreation, exercise, and water purification.	Recreation, exercise, ecological water purification	Core or emerging development areas
Wangcheng Park	Xigong District	Rich in historical and cultural heritage, natural landscapes, attracts many visitors.	Cultural and recreational	Core or emerging development areas
Wenbo Sports Park	Luolong District	Adjacent to Luoyang Museum and Sports Center, offers cultural and sports functions.	Cultural display, sports	Core or emerging development areas
Xiyuan Park	Jianxi District	Classical park with over 800 species of plants, combines ancient and modern garden styles.	Education, recreation	Medium-density residential areas
Peony Park	Jianxi District	Famous for Luoyang’s symbolic peony, hosts spring flower exhibitions.	Cultural and ecological	Medium-density residential areas
Nancun Park	Jianxi District	Tranquil environment, well landscaped, provides ideal leisure space for local residents.	Recreation	Medium-density residential areas
Xichun Park	Hui District	Small area, compact layout, important for daily leisure of residents.	Recreation	Surrounding community
Wanlong Road East Park	Hui District	Small area, compact layout, important for daily leisure of residents.	Recreation	Surrounding community
Sports Park	Old Town District	Fully equipped, meets diverse sporting needs of residents.	Sports	Surrounding community
Chanhe Peony Garden	Hui District	Along Chanhe river, themed on peony, provides unique cultural and aesthetic experiences, especially in spring.	Cultural, aesthetic	Surrounding community

). These include Xichun Garden, Wanlong Road East Garden, Chanhe Peony Garden, Peony Park, Xiyuan Park, Nan Cun Garden, Sports Park, Xingluo Lake Park, Wenbo Sports Park, and Wangcheng Park. Uniquely, in the analysis of some key data, we developed a systematic classification method tailored to the scale and characteristics of parks in Luoyang City. We categorized the 11 parks under study based on their size and service scope into city-level, regional-level, and cluster-level groups. After detailed analysis and discussion, Xingluo Lake Park (37.89 ha, Luolong District), Luopu Park (31.04 ha, Xigong District), Wangcheng Park (34.01 ha, Xigong District), and Wenbo Sports Park (46.44 ha, Luolong District) were defined as city-level parks. Xiyuan Park (7.83 ha, Jianxi District), Peony Park (8.40 ha, Jianxi District), and Nancun Park (8.64 ha, Jianxi District) were classified as regional-level parks. Xichun Park (1.03 ha, Hui District), Wanlong Road East Park (2.60 ha, Hui District), Sports Park (4.24 ha, Old City District), and Chenhe Peony Garden (2.58 ha, Hui District) were designated as cluster-level parks. This research focuses on how a deep understanding of the public’s perception of green spaces can enhance the planning and management of urban green infrastructure and ecosystem services, further examining the role of green infrastructure in enhancing ecosystem service values, fostering community integration, and improving resident welfare.

3.2. Data Collection

We conducted a survey on the usage data of 11 typical urban parks in Luoyang City. This study builds upon the limited research in this field by [51,52] and appropriately expands and adjusts according to the existing research gaps. The questions were predominantly closed-ended with predefined options. Our questionnaire design focused on three main sub-themes: perception of ecosystem services of urban parks, satisfaction with park usage, and awareness of green infrastructure in parks.

3.2.1. Sampling Method

This study employed a random intercept sampling method. Within the selected subjects, 3 to 5 observation points were established at crowded locations (entrances, plazas, etc.) based on factors such as the size and location of the parks (Table S1). Surveys were conducted among park visitors during different periods (weekdays and weekends, mornings and afternoons). The random intercept sampling method allows researchers to intercept visitors at various times and locations within the park, ensuring the randomness and diversity of the sample. Before the formal survey, we conducted a preliminary survey in Luoyang City with 12 participants, featuring a balanced distribution across gender, age, educational background, and income, including three tourists. The purpose of the preliminary survey was to test the logical flow and comprehensibility of the questionnaire, ensuring the clarity of the questions. Based on the feedback from respondents, we revised the wording of the questionnaire to make it more straightforward and accessible. For instance, for the specialized term ‘ecosystem services’, we rephrased the question to ‘Have you ever learned about the ecological benefits (services) provided by the park?’ Additionally, we categorized all questions by theme (Supplementary Materials Table S7) to enhance respondents’ interest and understanding. Throughout this adjustment process, we made no manual interventions and did not use leading language, merely optimizing the wording of the questionnaire to reduce ambiguity.

3.2.2. Data Collection Process

The survey was conducted during the summer of 2024, and a total of 777 questionnaires were collected, with 771 being valid samples. The questionnaire covered various aspects such as the respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics (e.g., age, gender, educational level, monthly income), perceptions of park ecosystem services, satisfaction with park use, park usage patterns, and awareness of green infrastructure. Specific questions included the following:

• Perception of Park Ecosystem Services: Using a Likert five-point scale to assess respondents’ perceptions of park ecosystem services (such as air purification, water retention, landscape aesthetics).
• Satisfaction with Park Use: Gathering information on respondents’ satisfaction with park facilities, environmental quality, and management and maintenance.
• Park Usage Patterns: Collecting data on respondents’ frequency of park visits, duration of stay, mode of transportation, and factors attracting them to the park.

During the questionnaire design and data collection process, this study strictly adhered to relevant ethical and moral standards (the research was approved by the university’s ethics review committee; see Supplementary Materials Table S8). All participants filled out an informed consent form before completing the questionnaire (see Supplementary Materials Table S9). Moreover, all collected data were processed anonymously to ensure the security and privacy of participant information.

3.3. Analysis Methods

During the data analysis process, we employed multiple statistical analysis methods.

The questionnaire used a Likert five-point scale to measure the perception of park ecosystem services, ranging from “very unimportant/very dissatisfied” (coded as 1) to “very important/very satisfied” (coded as 5). In terms of ecosystem service perception, we constructed a Luoyang-specific ecosystem service framework for the parks of Luoyang to deeply explore and quantify the functions of different ecosystems and their contributions to human well-being. This framework has been widely applied in fields such as ecology and environmental science, demonstrating significant value in revealing the values and functions of ecosystems.

Data preprocessing and analysis were conducted using Microsoft Excel 2021 and IBM SPSS Statistics 26 software. To ensure the representativeness and scientific validity of the sample, we used the Chi-square test to compare the sample distribution with the demographic characteristics of Luoyang’s population. The nonparametric tests in this study aimed to explore the correlations between different factors related to park usage in Luoyang and the perception of park ecosystem services. To verify the demographic universality of the questionnaire sample, the sample was subjected to overall demographic characteristic value weighting (Table S2), and the correlation analysis was also tested for demographic weighting (Table S3). The results showed that there was no significant difference between the weighted and unweighted analysis results.

Additionally, methods such as one-way ANOVA analysis and multiple regression models were used to further study the interactions between different factors and their impact on the perception of ecosystem services provided by parks.

4. Results

4.1. Green Infrastructure Awareness

This survey was conducted among 771 visitors to target parks in Luoyang City (Table S4). The majority of the respondents were residents living near the parks in Luoyang City (65.2%), with the remainder being visitors from other areas. As urban land prices and population densities rise, residents face increasingly constrained choices in housing space [53]. In China, many cities, due to rapid urbanization, experience the situation where urban housing areas are generally small and costly [54]. Consequently, parks serve as crucial service resources for residents, not only as key places of rest but also as attractions for a large number of people from other areas.

Special statistics were gathered about the travel habits of the visitors to the parks (Table S5). Notably, most visitors (71.2%) reported visiting the parks at least once a week. Of those visiting weekly, 78.5% cited physical exercise as the main attraction. This indicates the parks’ strong appeal to the local community, possibly due to their convenience, comfort, or the recreational facilities provided. Frequent visits were also associated with a lifestyle focused on health. Regarding transportation choices, 78.2% of participants (n = 603) opted for green travel methods (walking/bicycling/electric, scooters/public transportation). In terms of park accessibility, 88.9% of participants spend less than 1 h getting to the park, and 61.4% can reach the park in less than 20 min.

In terms of public awareness of parks as green infrastructure (

Table 3. Public perception of green infrastructure.

Category	Belongs (%)	Does Not Belong (%)	Unfamiliar (%)	Very Useless (%)	Not Very Useful (%)	Average (%)	Quite Useful (%)	Very Useful (%)	No Impact (%)	Slight Impact (%)	Impact (%)	Great Impact (%)
Whether Parks Belong to Green Infrastructure	41.4	22.7	35.9	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Water Environment Regulation	-	-	-	13.2	15.4	29.2	37.4	4.8	-	-	-	-
Urban Construction	-	-	-	13.7	15.2	22.6	38.9	9.6	-	-	-	-
Adverse Impact	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	35.9	33.6	15.4	15

), about 41.4% of respondents recognized parks as part of the green infrastructure, while 22.7% disagreed, and 35.9% were unaware. The role of parks in regulating water environments was widely acknowledged by the public (over 70%). When asked about urban construction, nearly half of the respondents (48.5% combined) believed that parks play a useful to very useful role in urban construction, emphasizing the parks’ contributions to enhancing urban living quality and beautifying the urban environment. However, half of the respondents also noted some negative impacts of parks, possibly due to noise, waste disposal, and ecological disturbances within the parks.

Among all respondents, more than half (66%) were unaware of the ecosystem service benefits provided by the parks (Figure 4). A chi-square test was conducted on this group to explore whether age and educational level were statistically associated with the level of awareness about the benefits provided by parks (

Table 4. Impact of demographic characteristics on awareness of park benefits.

Analysis Variable	x2	df	p-Value (Two-Sided)	Minimum Expected Count
Age (1)	11.464	4	0.022	40.9
Education (2)	21.524	3	0.000	44.68
Average Income (3)	26.701	4	0.000	33.34
Likelihood Ratio (1)	11.287	4	0.024	-
Linear Association (1)	6.024	1	0.014	-
Likelihood Ratio (2)	22.307	3	0.000	-
Linear Association (2)	17.996	1	0.000	-
Likelihood Ratio (3)	27.158	4	0.000	-
Linear Association (3)	6.688	1	0.010	-

). The results showed a significant correlation between awareness of park benefits and both income and educational levels (p < 0.001), but not with age (p = 0.22). It should be noted that the education level refers to the highest degree of education that a person has received. Specifically, individuals with higher education levels (graduate degrees) were below expectations in terms of awareness, which may suggest that, in this survey, those with higher education did not have as much specific knowledge as expected. Conversely, those with lower educational levels performed above expectations in terms of awareness. This pattern was also reflected in the lack of awareness, but in the opposite direction. Regarding income, those in the middle-income bracket (3000–8000 RMB/month) especially were more likely to be knowledgeable, while those at lower- and higher-income levels had lower awareness of the benefits of parks.

• We assessed the public’s awareness of the relationship between green infrastructure (GI) and our country’s sponge city initiative (low-impact development model). The regulatory function of park GI in managing water environments can enhance the urban park green spaces’ ability to absorb, store, and buffer rainwater, providing vital support for building sponge cities with natural storage, infiltration, and purification capabilities. The survey questions regarding the perception of parks’ water environment regulation included: 1. How do you rate the soil’s ability in the park to absorb rainwater? 2. How effective do you think the grass is at filtering pollutants from rainwater? 3. What is your perception of the runoff interception ability of shrubbery and ground cover? 4. How effective are the tree canopies at mitigating the impact of rainwater? 5. Are there any water treatment facilities in the park, and can you identify them?
• When formulating the question, “How necessary do you think green infrastructure is for urban development?”, we primarily focused on surveying the public’s perception of GI’s role in enhancing urban ecological efficiency, beautifying the city, and improving residents’ quality of life.

4.2. Park Ecosystem Services and Satisfaction Trends

To better assess and reflect the role of Luoyang City parks in providing ecosystem services, this study, referencing the research by Dennis and James (2016) and Oteros-Rozas et al. (2014) [55,56], and based on field surveys of 11 parks in Luoyang City, established an ecosystem services assessment framework comprising nine functional categories (

Table 5. Establishing an ecosystem services framework.

Social Welfare					Personal Welfare
Protection of Flora and Fauna and Their Habitats	Reduction in Air Pollution	Noise Reduction	Rainwater Retention	Microclimate Regulation	Improvement of Physical Health	Improvement of Mental Health	Environmental Education	Landscape Aesthetics
Provide biodiversity hotspots	Absorb carbon dioxide	Isolate urban noise	Prevent flood disasters	Mitigate urban heat island effect	Promote outdoor activities	Stress relief and relaxation	Enhance ecological awareness	Enhance visual experience
Protect endangered species	Filter suspended particles	Provide quiet resting spaces	Promote groundwater replenishment	Regulate humidity and temperature	Provide natural trails and fitness facilities	Provide a getaway from urban bustle	Provide on-site learning opportunities	Provide places for viewing and photography
Maintain ecological balance	Reduce greenhouse gases	Reduce traffic noise impact	Control runoff and erosion	Provide shaded areas	Improve residents’ physical vitality	Enhance psychological resilience	Promote sustainable living	Promote community harmony and sense of belonging

). This framework integrates ecological and socio-cultural assessment methods, aiming to explore public attitudes and perceptions of ecosystem services.

4.2.1. Park Ecosystem Services

The extent to which respondents were aware of different park ecosystem services prior to the survey influenced the importance that they placed on these services (

Table 6. Importance of park ecosystem services to respondents.

Ecosystem Service	City-Level		Regional-Level		Cluster-Level
	Frequency of Responses		Frequency of Responses		Frequency of Responses
	Unaware Respondents	Aware Respondents	Unaware Respondents	Aware Respondents	Unaware Respondents	Aware Respondents
Protection of Flora and Fauna	54 (13.5)	94 (11.9)	5 (4.7)	8 (4.1)	146 (12.3)	8 (11.4)
Reduction in Air Pollution	53 (13.3)	102 (13.0)	14 (13.2)	42 (21.7)	138 (11.6)	10 (14.3)
Noise Reduction	49 (12.3)	93 (11.8)	13 (12.3)	40 (20.6)	148 (12.5)	5 (7.1)
Rainwater Retention	27 (6.8)	74 (9.4)	11 (10.4)	9 (4.6)	122 (10.3)	6 (8.6)
Microclimate Regulation	53 (13.3)	80 (10.2)	10 (9.4)	19 (9.8)	116 (9.8)	7 (10.0)
Improvement of Physical Health	70 (17.5)	83 (10.5)	23 (21.7)	21 (10.8)	116 (9.8)	10 (14.3)
Improvement of Mental Health	40 (10.0)	86 (10.9)	13 (12.3)	23 (11.8)	131 (11.1)	10 (14.3)
Environmental Education	12 (3.0)	79 (10.0)	7 (6.6)	16 (8.3)	131 (11.1)	6 (8.6)
Landscape Aesthetics	41 (10.3)	97 (12.3)	10 (9.4)	16 (8.3)	136 (11.5)	8 (11.4)

, Figure 5). In city-level parks, respondents who were already familiar with the services generally had an even emphasis on various services, with the highest priority given to reducing air pollution, at a frequency of 13%. The lowest priority was given to rainwater retention, yet it still reached a frequency of 9.4%. Respondents without prior knowledge rated improving physical health highly, at 17.5%. In regional-level parks, informed respondents placed the highest importance on reducing air pollution (21.7%) and noise reduction (20.6%), significantly higher than other services. Uninformed respondents also highly valued improvements in physical health, at a frequency of 21.7%. In cluster-level parks, both informed and uninformed respondents showed a relatively even emphasis on all nine ecosystem services, with frequencies ranging from a high of 14.3% to a low of 7.1%. Overall, respondents who were already knowledgeable about the services placed greater importance on services such as reducing air pollution and noise, accounting for 14.6% and 13.1%, respectively. Those who were not previously aware of the services gave higher ratings to rainwater retention (12.0%) and environmental education (12.2%).

4.2.2. Park Satisfaction Survey

We also conducted a survey on park user satisfaction (

Table 7. Analysis of park usage satisfaction.

Indicator	Mean	Standard Deviation	Variance
Number of Parking Facilities	2.96	1.239	1.535
Convenience of Transportation	3.27	1.217	1.48
Aesthetic Appeal of Buildings	3.2	1.253	1.571
Cleanliness and Comfort	3.25	1.216	1.479
Greenery and Comfort	3.27	1.172	1.375
Pathway Design	3.21	1.206	1.456
Facility Maintenance	3.13	1.258	1.582
More Cultural Activities	3.15	1.226	1.503
More Subspaces	3.03	1.203	1.447
Number of Seating Facilities	2.93	1.257	1.581
Night Lighting	2.95	1.198	1.436
Number of Fitness Facilities	2.99	1.229	1.51

). Satisfaction scores ranged from a low of 2.93 for the number of seating facilities to a high of 3.27 for ease of transportation and the sense of green comfort, indicating that the parks generally received above-average ratings. Further analysis of the satisfaction scores revealed several potential areas for improvement. Firstly, the ease of transportation (average = 3.27) and the sense of green comfort provided by the parks (average = 3.27) received the highest satisfaction ratings, suggesting that these aspects are key to enhancing visitor experiences. The relatively low variability in responses for these attributes indicates a general consensus among park users regarding these aspects. The lowest satisfaction scores were for the number of parking facilities (average = 2.96) and seating facilities (average = 2.93), reflecting high variability in responses (standard deviation > 1.2, variance > 1.5) for these areas, which significantly impact overall visitor satisfaction and should be primary targets for improvement. The satisfaction ratings for facility maintenance and architectural beauty were also lower (averages of 3.13 and 3.20, respectively), with facility maintenance showing the highest variance (variance = 1.582), suggesting that improvements in these areas could significantly enhance user experience.

4.3. Differences in Public Perception of Park Ecosystem Services

4.3.1. Impact of Sociodemographic Characteristics on the Perception of Negative Factors in Parks

Negative factors in parks typically refer to threats that can impact the ecological environment and the user experience. For example, frightening animals is generally seen as a consequence of human activities like tourist traffic and noise, which can disturb wildlife habitats, leading animals to alter their behaviors, migrate, or experience reduced reproductive success, thus disrupting ecological balance and biodiversity. Trampling plants occurs when visitors wander off paths or do not follow designated trails, stepping on plants and compacting the soil, which affects plant growth and ecosystem health and increases erosion risk. This study reveals that sociodemographic characteristics such as age, gender, and education level significantly affect citizens’ perception of urban park ecosystem services. Younger participants and those with higher education levels show greater sensitivity to the regulatory and cultural services provided by parks (

Table 8. Impact of socio-demographic characteristics on perception of negative factors.

Variable Pair	Pearson Chi-Square Value	Degrees of Freedom	Significance Level (Two-Sided)	Result
Trampling Vegetation ×Monthly Income	14.913	4	0.005	Significant
Trampling Vegetation × Residence Place	50.195	1	0.000	Significant
Scaring Animals × Education Level	9.506	3	0.023	Significant
Scaring Animals × Monthly Income	14.519	4	0.006	Significant
Scaring Animals × Residence Place	12.153	1	0.000	Significant
Disturbing Ecology × Age	14.261	4	0.007	Significant
Disturbing Ecology × Education Level	12.171	3	0.007	Significant
Littering × Age	16.232	4	0.003	Significant
Littering × Monthly Income	14.179	4	0.007	Significant
Air Pollution × Education Level	15.543	3	0.001	Significant
Air Pollution × Monthly Income	12.28	4	0.015	Significant
Air Pollution × Residence Place	35.74	1	0.000	Significant

). There is a significant correlation between average monthly income and the perception of issues such as trampling vegetation, scaring animals, littering, and air pollution, indicating significant perceptual differences among different income groups. Educational levels also show significant differences in the perception of scaring animals, disturbing ecosystems, and air pollution, which may reflect the environmental awareness and behavioral patterns of people from different educational backgrounds. Age factors show significant differences in the perception of ecosystem disturbance and littering, indicating varying sensitivities to these issues among different age groups. Differences in place of residence (local versus non-local) also show significant variations in the perception of trampling plants, scaring animals, and air pollution, indicating that the identity of respondents (local residents versus tourists) can influence citizens’ perception of the ecological environment to some extent. This may be due to environmental dependency and different interactions with the park.

These analyses suggest that park managers need to consider visitors’ sociodemographic characteristics, such as income, education, and age, when formulating park management strategies and educational activities. This approach will more effectively address the negative impacts within the parks and enhance the overall user experience of the parks.

4.3.2. Impact of Park Grading on Public Perception of Ecosystem Services

In our study, we classified the 11 parks based on their size and service range into city-level, regional-level, and cluster-level categories. After analysis and discussion, Xingluo Lake Park, Luopu Park, Wangcheng Park, and Wenbo Sports Park were defined as city-level; Xi Yuan Park, Peony Park, and Nan Cun Park as regional-level; and Xichun Garden, Wanlong Road East Garden, Sports Park, and Chanhe Peony Garden as cluster-level.

Using analysis of variance (ANOVA), we analyzed the differences in ecosystem services provided by parks of different grades (

Table 9. Respondents’ scores on ecosystem services of parks of different grades.

Variable Pair	Sum of Squares Between Groups	Degrees of Freedom	Mean Square	F Value	Significance Level (Two-Sided)	Result
Protection of Flora and Fauna	52.347	2	26.173	17.485	0.000	Significant
Reduction in Air Pollution	14.727	2	7.364	5.111	0.006	Significant
Noise Reduction	9.976	2	4.988	3.342	0.036	Significant
Rainwater Retention	30.034	2	15.017	10.689	0.000	Significant
Microclimate Regulation	13.959	2	6.979	4.586	0.010	Significant
Improvement of Physical Health	28.715	2	14.357	8.703	0.000	Significant
Improvement of Mental Health	1.981	2	0.991	0.568	0.567	Not Significant
Environmental Education	6.759	2	3.380	2.218	0.109	Not Significant
Aesthetic Experience	19.907	2	9.953	6.151	0.002	Significant

). The results revealed that the perception of ecosystem service projects is significantly influenced by the park grade. Services such as wildlife and habitat protection, stormwater retention, and improving physical health have a strong impact on user satisfaction across different park levels (p < 0.001), highlighting their importance in park management and design. Services such as air pollution reduction, noise reduction, microclimate regulation, and aesthetic experiences also showed significant impacts. However, the improvements in mental health and the role of environmental education did not reach statistical significance in the perception differences among parks of different grades (p > 0.05).

4.3.3. Impact of Sociodemographic Characteristics on the Perception of Park Ecosystem Services

To understand the impact of different sociodemographic characteristics on the perception of park ecosystem services, we conducted a Spearman correlation analysis (Figure 6, Table S6). The results show a significant negative correlation between place of residence and the perception of rainwater retention services in the ecosystem (p < 0.05). This indicates that tourists, compared to local residents, tend to give higher ratings to the aspect of rainwater retention. The correlation coefficients related to age showed that there is a significant correlation between age and the perception of several park services, including the protection of flora and fauna and habitats, reduction in air pollution, noise reduction, improvement of physical health, mental health, environmental education, and aesthetic experiences (p < 0.01). There is a significant correlation between educational levels and the perception of park services, indicating that individuals with higher educational levels have a more positive perception of park services, especially in areas such as protecting wildlife and habitats, reducing air pollution, environmental education, and improving physical and mental health. The correlation between average monthly income and the perception of park services is more complex, showing a degree of correlation (p < 0.05), particularly in services related to improving physical health, mental health, and environmental education.

To further explore the relationship between age, educational level, and average monthly income and the perception of park ecosystem services, we performed multiple logistic regression analysis on the ecosystem services with significant correlations (protection of flora and fauna, reduction in air pollution, and noise reduction) in relation to sociodemographic characteristics (

Table 10. Ordinal logistic regression analysis on the significant influencing factors.

Ecosystem Services	Category	Variable	B	Wald	p-Value	Exp (B)	95% Confidence Interval for Exp (B)
Protection of Flora and Fauna	Low	Intercept	−1.185	4.099	0.043	-	-
		Monthly Income (>10k)	1.55	10.965	0.001	4.71	1.882–11.786
	Medium	Age (55+)	0.888	4.299	0.038	2.43	1.050–5.627
		Monthly Income (5k–10k)	1.975	19	0	7.208	2.965–17.518
	High	Age (55+)	1.259	9.327	0.002	3.522	1.570–7.901
		Monthly Income (5k–10k)	1.136	7.077	0.008	3.113	1.348–7.186
	Very Low	Intercept	−0.699	1.455	0.228	-	-
		Education (Low)	1.11	5.059	0.024	3.033	1.153–7.976
Reduction in Air Pollution	Low	Intercept	−0.825	2.186	0.139	-	-
		Education (Low)	0.984	4.632	0.031	2.676	1.092–6.558
		Monthly Income (5k–10k)	1.589	9.093	0.003	4.901	1.744–13.768
	Medium	Monthly Income (5k–10k)	1.915	14.151	0	6.787	2.502–18.408
		Monthly Income (10k+)	1.846	17.717	0	6.336	2.682–14.967
	High	Intercept	−1.41	7.145	0.008	-	-
		Age (18–24)	0.952	4.87	0.027	2.59	1.112–6.031
		Monthly Income (5k–10k)	2.279	21.798	0	9.77	3.753–25.435
		Monthly Income (10k+)	2.22	27.356	0	9.207	4.007–21.156
Noise Reduction	Low	Intercept	−1.185	4.099	0.043	-	-
		Monthly Income (5k–10k)	1.55	10.965	0.001	4.71	1.882–11.786
		Monthly Income (10k+)	1.193	5.914	0.015	3.296	1.260–8.620
	Medium	Age (55+)	0.888	4.299	0.038	2.43	1.050–5.627
		Education (Low)	−1.184	8.535	0.003	0.306	0.138–0.677
		Monthly Income (5k–10k)	1.975	19	0	7.208	2.965–17.518
		Monthly Income (10k+)	2.052	18.782	0	7.787	3.078–19.700
	High	Age (55+)	1.259	9.327	0.002	3.522	1.570–7.901
		Monthly Income (5k–10k)	1.136	7.077	0.008	3.113	1.348–7.186
		Monthly Income (10k+)	1.599	13.932	0	4.95	2.137–11.465

). The results indicate that age, educational level, and income level significantly influence respondents’ perceptions of the importance of reducing air pollution. For the protection of flora, fauna, and habitats, the age group of 51 to 60 years old shows a significant positive impact in the medium- and high-perception categories (B values of 0.888 and 1.259, respectively, p < 0.05). Respondents with a monthly income of less than RMB 2000 also exhibit a significant positive correlation in the ‘slight’ and ‘moderate’ perception levels (B values of 1.55 and 1.975, respectively, p < 0.001). Regarding the reduction in air pollution, the less educated group (junior high school and below) shows a significant effect in the low-perception category (B of 0.984, p < 0.05). Additionally, respondents with a monthly income of RMB 2000 to 3000 have a significantly higher concern for reducing air pollution in the ‘moderate’ and ‘relatively large’ categories (B values of 1.915 and 2.279, respectively, p < 0.001). Respondents earning between RMB 3000 and 5000 also show significantly higher concern in the ‘moderate’ and ‘relatively large’ categories for air pollution reduction (B values of 1.846 and 2.220, respectively, p < 0.001), highlighting the high sensitivity of the lower educational and middle-income groups toward measures to improve air quality. Regarding noise pollution reduction, the low-income group (monthly income below RMB 2000) shows a significant positive correlation in the ‘slight’ and ‘moderate’ perception categories (B values of 1.55 and 1.975, respectively, p < 0.001). The age group of 51 to 60 years has a significant impact in the medium- and high-perception categories (B values of 0.888 and 1.259, respectively, p < 0.05).

5. Discussion

Based on the analysis, the majority of respondents in the parks are local residents, indicating that the parks serve as an important green infrastructure for recreational and leisure purposes for the residents. At the same time, these parks also attract visitors from other regions, reflecting the strong appeal of urban parks in Luoyang to tourists.

5.1. Sociodemographic Background and Public Preferences

The results of this study first reveal a phenomenon: whether the public possesses prior knowledge of park ecosystem services or not affects their preferences for these services. Respondents with knowledge of ecosystem services rated services such as reducing air pollution, noise reduction, improving physical health and mental health, and landscape aesthetics more highly. These findings are consistent with those of Sari et al. (2023) [57], who indicated that public awareness of park services enhances their appreciation of these services for physical and mental health benefits. The level of knowledge of respondents directly affects their ratings of services that are not immediately perceptible.

Conversely, respondents without background knowledge showed high regard for services such as wildlife and habitat protection, stormwater retention, microclimate regulation, and environmental education, reflecting their sensitive intuitive perception of these services. Wilson and Willette (2022) [58] support this viewpoint, noting that the public highly values the cooling environments and microclimate regulation provided by urban green spaces during hot periods, based primarily on their direct experiences. Lute (2016) [59] further confirmed this finding, noting that the public without environmental education often values the ecological protection functions of parks based on intuitive understanding. Thus, improving public awareness of park ecosystem services is essential. Educational activities can help the public to understand the importance of natural resources and the role that they play in protecting nature. Wu and Li et al. (2022) [60] found in their study that residents’ positive perceptions of ecosystem services and their negative perceptions of disservices had both direct and indirect significant impacts on their behavioral intentions. This finding emphasizes the importance of educational activities in enhancing public understanding of the value of ecosystem services and, through park interpretation and local environmental education [61] (Mallette et al., 2024), it is possible to enhance their appreciation and support for these services, thereby promoting the sustainable use and renewal protection of parks. Public understanding and awareness of ecosystem services can directly influence their behaviors, further encouraging their participation in environmental protection and sustainable activities [62] (Song et al., 2023). For example, once the public recognizes the value of park ecosystem services, such as improving air quality and preserving biodiversity, they are more likely to support and engage in activities that protect these resources. The benefits of this approach are clearly mutual: not only does it enhance public environmental awareness and strengthen their connection with nature, but it also garners more support from the public for park managers to implement sustainable management measures in the future.

5.2. Park Environmental Factors and Satisfaction Evaluation

Maintaining and optimizing the supply of park infrastructure directly enhances visitor satisfaction and the frequency of park usage.

As shown in the analysis results, the ease of access to parks and the sense of green comfort received the highest satisfaction ratings, consistent with the research of Cohen et al. (2013) [63], which emphasized that the accessibility of parks is a key factor in attracting visitors and improving health outcomes. Wu et al. (2022) [64] also demonstrated that natural conditions, such as terrain, significantly influence rural residents’ perceptions of ecosystem services, particularly revealing notable differences between mountainous and plain areas. These findings suggest that by improving park infrastructure and ensuring better accessibility, it is indeed possible to increase the frequency and satisfaction of visitors; that is, the convenience of the park and the aesthetic quality of the natural environment play key roles in enhancing overall public satisfaction. This further illustrates that good transportation links and beautiful natural environments not only enhance the attractiveness of parks but also play a crucial role in improving public overall satisfaction with parks.

Our study also pointed out that the insufficient number of seating and parking facilities could lead to lower park satisfaction ratings, a finding supported by the research of Li, Fu, Gao, et al. (2023) [65], which indicated that the layout and number of internal facilities (such as seating) and external facilities (such as parking lots) significantly impact public satisfaction. Additionally, we found significant variations in the needs and expectations of different visitors for these facilities, indicating that park planning and design should focus more on differentiated infrastructure supply and design based on diverse group needs. Furthermore, Ujjwal and Bandyopadhyaya (2021) [66] found that the quality of facility conditions (such as seating and shading) directly affects residents’ satisfaction with the overall environment, underscoring that the quality of infrastructure is key to enhancing park satisfaction. Additionally, we noted low satisfaction and high variance regarding the maintenance and aesthetic quality of buildings, echoing the findings of Braubach et al. (2017) [67] and Giles-Corti et al. (2005) [68]. These findings emphasize that good park maintenance levels not only enhance the aesthetics of parks but can also promote resident activity participation and healthy behaviors. Although parks are widely regarded as having a positive impact on the urban environment, this study also reveals some potential adverse effects, such as ecological disturbances and negative impacts on urban aesthetics, possibly stemming from poor park management or design flaws, as highlighted by Barbosa et al. (2007) [69]. For instance, most respondents, when asked if they had seen warning signs at park ponds or rainwater wetlands, reported seeing no such precautionary information, which corroborates this viewpoint.

While initial planning and construction are crucial for parks, maintaining high standards of park maintenance is another key factor in enhancing public satisfaction after parks are put into use. Investing in the beauty and maintenance of parks can not only increase usage rates but also enhance residents’ overall satisfaction with the urban environment.

5.3. The Influence of Park Hierarchy on Public Perception of Ecosystem Services

As highlighted in the previous results (Section 4.3.2), significant differences in the evaluation of various ecosystem service projects exist among parks of different hierarchical levels.

Firstly, regarding the relationship between park size and ecosystem services, multiple studies have shown that larger parks perform better in providing microclimate regulation and biodiversity protection. For example, a study conducted in Bordeaux, France, found that larger urban parks offered more diverse and significant ecosystem services, including better wildlife habitats and more effective rainwater management [57] (Sari et al., 2023). These findings are consistent with our results defining Xingluo Lake Park, Luopu Park, Wangcheng Park, and Wenbo Sports Park as urban-level parks, which, due to their larger areas and broader service scopes, provide notably effective ecosystem services. Additionally, the impact of ecosystem services on user satisfaction varies across different park levels. As previously revealed, services such as habitat protection, rainwater retention, and improvement of physical health have significant impacts on user satisfaction. Similar conclusions were validated in a study on urban parks in Colombia, emphasizing the crucial role that these services play in enhancing user experience and satisfaction [70] (Velandia, F.A. et al., 2023). Our study also confirms that urban-level parks perform significantly better in these aspects compared to regional- and group-level parks, further supporting this viewpoint. Although services like reducing air pollution, reducing noise, and microclimate regulation also show significant impacts, their higher p-values suggest that their effects are comparatively less pronounced. This may be due to these services being less immediately noticeable in daily experiences compared to direct biodiversity protection and physical health improvements [71] (Khan and Jhariya et al., 2022). Despite the value of services like improving mental health and environmental education, their direct impact on overall user satisfaction may be less evident or influenced by socio-economic and environmental factors [72] (Furst, Bagheri, and Salvador-Carulla et al., 2020). We hypothesize two potential reasons that might influence the significance observed in our study: On one hand, due to the variability in the sample and park characteristics, differences among various levels of parks in terms of visitor demographics, natural environmental quality, available facilities, and services are not significantly pronounced [57,73]. These factors show little variation across different park levels, which might make it difficult to observe significant statistical differences; on the other hand, we believe it relates to baseline knowledge levels [74,75] (Braun et al., 2019; Baierl et al., 2022). If study participants already possess a high level of environmental education knowledge at the start of the study, it might be challenging to see further significant improvements in psychological health through environmental education interventions.

5.4. The Influence of Demographic Characteristics on Public Perception of Ecosystem Services

Finally, significant differences in the perception of park ecosystem services exist among groups with different demographic characteristics, with education level and income being key influencing factors.

Our study reveals a trend contrary to traditional views, where higher-educated groups have lower-than-expected knowledge in specific environmental areas whereas lower-educated groups exhibit the opposite. This finding partially contradicts Jones and Dunlap’s (1992) [76] research, which posited that higher-educated individuals typically demonstrate stronger environmental awareness. However, Jones and Dunlap also noted that the influence of education on environmental awareness may vary over time, which might explain why the performance of higher-educated groups in the current study did not meet expectations. Research by Mack et al. (2024) [77] further supports this, showing that highly educated individuals have less knowledge about certain ecosystem services (such as cultural services) whereas lower-educated individuals perform better in some cases. The lower-than-expected environmental knowledge among higher-educated groups in our study may be related to differences in the education system. For example, if the education system for higher-educated individuals focuses more on specialized skills rather than broad environmental education, this may explain the lower-than-expected environmental knowledge. Franzen and Meyer (2010) [78] also highlight the generally positive correlation between education level and environmental awareness, although this relationship may vary across different countries and cultural contexts. Furthermore, Liu et al. (2022) [79] suggest that education level has a significant impact on understanding and utilizing ecosystem services, with exceptions depending on local ecosystem types and services, which supports our finding that higher-educated groups may have less-than-expected environmental knowledge in some aspects.

Regarding the impact of income on environmental knowledge, our study finds that middle-income groups (3000–8000 RMB/month) have significantly better environmental knowledge compared to both low-income and high-income groups, aligning with research by Espinoza and Alcaraz (2024) [80]. This group demonstrates higher awareness and behavioral involvement in reducing air pollution and conserving natural resources. This suggests that higher-income groups may be more proactive in environmental behaviors rather than just possessing knowledge. Chowdhury and Behera (2020) [81] also show that middle-income individuals perform better in understanding and utilizing ecosystem services compared to low-income and high-income groups, supporting our findings. Additionally, the lower environmental knowledge among low-income and high-income groups may relate to their daily exposure to and perception of environmental issues. Middle-income groups, due to their living environments and social interactions, may have more frequent access to environmental information, leading to better performance in environmental knowledge [82] (Oluc and Can et al., 2024). Analysis suggests that social media activity could be an indirect factor providing rich environmental knowledge and interaction opportunities for middle-income groups [83] (Cheng and Damme et al., 2022). The middle-income group, with their higher environmental awareness and economic capabilities, has a significant impact on the maintenance and management of parks. Their involvement goes beyond merely using and enjoying the services provided by the parks: it also includes active participation in resource management and conservation measures, thus promoting the sustainable use of park resources [84](Wagley et al., 2020). This participation helps to enhance the resilience and long-term development of parks, ensuring that the needs of different economic groups are fairly met.

Finally, differences in place of residence (local residents versus tourists) also play an important role. Interestingly, there are significant differences between local residents and tourists in terms of protecting flora and fauna and habitats, rainwater retention, and environmental education. Zhang et al. (2020) [85], in their study of Qianjiangyuan National Park in China, also found significant differences in the perception of ecosystem services between tourists and residents. Tourists tend to focus more on the park’s cultural heritage value, educational value, aesthetic value, and the experience of ecological tourism. Residents, on the other hand, are more concerned about the educational value of these services and their practical benefits for daily life, which aligns with our study results. Zhao et al. explored the differences in perception of the cultural ecosystem services in Wuyishan City between tourists and residents, and the results also show that tourists place more emphasis on short-term cultural experiences and aesthetic values [86]. This may be because tourists seek short-term, diverse experiences, and they tend to evaluate those services that can directly enhance their travel experience. Residents’ focus, however, tends to lean toward long-term and sustained benefits, such as the continuous provision of ecosystem services and their direct impact on quality of life. The evaluation of these services is greatly influenced by temporal and spatial reasons, while services like reducing air pollution, improving mental health, and enhancing physical health depend more on personal knowledge or cognition. Clearly, there is a consensus between tourists and local residents in these respects.

6. Conclusions

6.1. Summary and Reflection

In the process of rapid urbanization, it is crucial to effectively enhance the ecosystem services of urban parks and public awareness thereof. This study, through an empirical analysis of urban parks in Luoyang City, examines the socio-demographic characteristics of park users and their perceptual abilities, usage preferences, and service satisfaction and explores the relationship between these factors and the public’s awareness of park ecosystem services.

Overall, first, the respondents’ prior knowledge significantly influenced their evaluation of park ecosystem services. Respondents knowledgeable about the benefits of ecosystem services rated higher in terms of reducing air pollution, noise reduction, improving physical health, enhancing mental health, and landscape aesthetics. In contrast, those without prior knowledge tended to directly experience the environment through their physical senses, giving higher ratings to perceptibly immediate services and overlooking the importance of the ecological benefits at a spiritual level. Secondly, the accessibility and green comfort of the parks played a key role in enhancing user satisfaction. It is highlighted that the accessibility of parks is crucial in attracting visitors and improving health outcomes. Park planning and design should not only focus on the distribution of infrastructure but also on the quality of facilities. For instance, the number of seats and the satisfaction ratings of parking facilities are areas that park officials may need to pay particular attention to. Additionally, ecosystem services that protect flora and fauna and their habitats, retain rainwater, and improve physical health have a strong impact on user satisfaction. These services are especially notable in city-level parks, such as Xingluo Lake Park, Luopu Park, Wangcheng Park, and Wenbo Sports Park, providing superior wildlife habitats and rainwater management functions. This indicates that high-quality parks can significantly enhance the sustainability of cities and the quality of life for residents, while the provision of ecosystem services in medium- and low-grade parks urgently needs attention and improvement. Lastly, the analysis of perceived demographic differences reveals that the environmental knowledge of the middle-income group is superior to other income layers. By contrast, both high- and low-income groups show less engagement in environmental knowledge and participatory activities. Targeted ecological education programs can effectively boost the enthusiasm of high- and low-income groups in environmental knowledge and participation. For instance, high-end, personalized experiences such as ecological tourism and environmental project investments could be designed for the high-income group while free or low-cost environmental education programs could be offered to the low-income group, utilizing platforms like community centers, schools, and public libraries to conduct environmental talks, workshops, and field trips.

This study makes three main contributions. Firstly, given the large number of parks under study, we propose a systematic classification method for urban parks (city level, regional level, cluster level). This method’s practicality lies in allowing researchers to conduct tiered analyses based on the characteristics of the parks (different functions, areas, service scopes, etc.). This classification not only helps to systematically assess the role of each level of park in ecosystem services but also aids city planners and managers in developing specific maintenance and optimization strategies tailored to the characteristics and needs of different levels of parks. Secondly, we focus on the significant impact of the extent of environmental education on the evaluation of park ecosystem services and the critical importance of ecological protection and restoration. The widespread dissemination of environmental education helps to enhance public awareness and respect for the ecological value of parks, thereby influencing their behavioral patterns, such as reducing waste production and participating in ecological protection activities. Case studies or field surveys can be used to specifically analyze the effectiveness of different educational strategies and how these strategies impact the public’s environmental behavior and the efficacy of the park’s ecosystem services. Lastly, we reveal the significant contribution of the middle-income group among park users to the awareness of ecosystem services. The active participation and higher level of environmental knowledge of the middle-income group provide a reference for improving park maintenance and management. Addressing the needs and equity of different economic levels is key to sustaining park maintenance.

6.2. Limitations and Future Prospects

Firstly, the respondents in this study were primarily residents living near the parks, which may limit the generalizability of the findings as they reflect the views of a specific area or demographic. Secondly, while the study provided data on public perceptions and satisfaction with park functions, it lacked in-depth analysis of individual features, such as subspaces and parking facilities. Third, there was no detailed analysis or discussion on the intensity of park usage (citizens’ usage time and frequency, park opening hours, etc.) and the attitudes of different respondent groups. For example, a longer experience and higher usage frequency may lead to different perceptions among citizens, and classifying respondents based on different characteristics might also significantly affect the results. Future research could collect more detailed data to more comprehensively understand the specific reasons behind different functional satisfaction levels. Additionally, researchers should consider the impact of different cultural backgrounds or community characteristics on park use and satisfaction.

This study conducted a systematic analysis of the public perception of ecosystem services in urban parks in Luoyang City using quantitative data, revealing the usage patterns and preferences of residents. However, while quantitative data provide macro-level trends and correlation analyses, they struggle to capture the nuanced feelings and diverse opinions of the public. Qualitative data, on the other hand, can further enrich and deepen the discussion of research findings. This not only offers a robust explanation for the quantitative results but also reveals potential issues or new insights that quantitative analysis may fail to capture. For instance, some residents’ dissatisfaction with park usage may not solely relate to facilities but be closely linked to deeper factors, such as cultural habits and community interactions, which are difficult to fully capture through quantitative research. In future studies, qualitative data can be incorporated to complement and elucidate quantitative findings, deepening the understanding of the public’s perception and needs concerning green infrastructure, thereby providing more comprehensive support for urban green space planning.