Evaluating Visitor Usage and Safety Perception Experiences in National Forest Parks
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Site
2.2. The Conceptual Framework
2.3. Survey Instruments and Procedure
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Visitor Usage Patterns
3.1.1. Demographic Features
3.1.2. Visitor Patterns and Preferences in National Forest Parks
3.2. Perception of Forest Park Safety
4. Discussion
4.1. Preferences for Usage Patterns of Forest Parks
4.2. Factors Influencing Safety Perceptions in NFPs
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Moran, M.R.; Rodríguez, D.A.; Cotinez-O’Ryan, A.; Miranda, J.J. Park Use, Perceived Park Proximity, and Neighborhood Characteristics: Evidence from 11 Cities in Latin America. Cities 2020, 105, 102817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Veitch, J.; Ball, K.; Rivera, E.; Loh, V.; Deforche, B.; Best, K.; Timperio, A. What Entices Older Adults to Parks? Identification of Park Features That Encourage Park Visitation, Physical Activity, and Social Interaction. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2022, 217, 104254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Cheng, Y.; Mao, Y.; Cai, W.; Zhao, B. What Are the Factors Influencing Recreational Visits to National Forest Parks in China? Experiments Using Crowdsourced Geospatial Data. Urban For. Urban Green. 2022, 72, 127570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calleja, A.; Díaz-Balteiro, L.; Iglesias-Merchan, C.; Soliño, M. Acoustic and Economic Valuation of Soundscape: An Application to the ‘Retiro’ Urban Forest Park. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 27, 272–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, Y.-C.; Liu, W.-Y. Assessment of the Management Performance of a National Urban Forest Park in Taiwan. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 60, 127056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xing, Y.; Brimblecombe, P. Trees and Parks as “the Lungs of Cities”. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 48, 126552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, Y.; Piao, Y.; Pan, C.; Lee, D.; Zhao, B. Using Buffer Analysis to Determine Urban Park Cooling Intensity: Five Estimation Methods for Nanjing, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 868, 161463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, P.Y.; Samsudin, R. Effects of Spatial Scale on Assessment of Spatial Equity of Urban Park Provision. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 158, 139–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Safaie Ghamsary, E.; Karimimoshaver, M.; Akhavan, A.; Afzali Goruh, Z.; Aram, F.; Mosavi, A. Locating Pocket Parks: Assessing the Effects of Land Use and Accessibility on the Public Presence. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 2023, 18, 100253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chuang, I.-T.; Benita, F.; Tunçer, B. Effects of Urban Park Spatial Characteristics on Visitor Density and Diversity: A Geolocated Social Media Approach. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2022, 226, 104514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balai Kerishnan, P.; Maruthaveeran, S.; Maulan, S. Investigating the Usability Pattern and Constraints of Pocket Parks in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 50, 126647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Byrne, J.; Wolch, J. Nature, Race, and Parks: Past Research and Future Directions for Geographic Research. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2009, 33, 743–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jim, C.Y.; Chen, W.Y. Recreation–Amenity Use and Contingent Valuation of Urban Greenspaces in Guangzhou, China. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 75, 81–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huai, S.; Van de Voorde, T. Which Environmental Features Contribute to Positive and Negative Perceptions of Urban Parks? A Cross-Cultural Comparison Using Online Reviews and Natural Language Processing Methods. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2022, 218, 104307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, J.; Li, M.; Gu, Z. Audio-Visual Preferences for the Exercise-Oriented Population in Urban Forest Parks in China. Forests 2022, 13, 948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giles-Corti, B.; Broomhall, M.H.; Knuiman, M.; Collins, C.; Douglas, K.; Ng, K.; Lange, A.; Donovan, R.J. Increasing Walking. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2005, 28, 169–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jay, J.; Heykoop, F.; Hwang, L.; Courtepatte, A.; de Jong, J.; Kondo, M. Use of Smartphone Mobility Data to Analyze City Park Visits during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2022, 228, 104554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hui, L.-C.; Jim, C.-Y. Unraveling Visiting-Activity Patterns of Heterogeneous Communities for Urban-Park Planning and Design. Forests 2022, 13, 841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, J.; Chen, L.; Liu, T.; Wang, T.; Li, M.; Wu, Z. Multi-Sensory Experience and Preferences for Children in an Urban Forest Park: A Case Study of Maofeng Mountain Forest Park in Guangzhou, China. Forests 2022, 13, 1435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geng, D. (Christina); Innes, J.; Wu, W.; Wang, G. Impacts of COVID-19 Pandemic on Urban Park Visitation: A Global Analysis. J. For. Res. 2021, 32, 553–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, B.; Qi, X. Protest Response and Contingent Valuation of an Urban Forest Park in Fuzhou City, China. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 29, 68–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schröder, T.; Müller, V.; Preihs, M.; Borovička, J.; Gonzalez de Vega, R.; Kindness, A.; Feldmann, J. Fluorine Mass Balance Analysis in Wild Boar Organs from the Bohemian Forest National Park. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 922, 171187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Niziolek, D.; Harris, L.B.; Taylor, A.H. Forest Resilience and Post-Fire Conifer Regeneration in the Southern Cascades, Lassen Volcanic National Park California, USA. For. Ecol. Manag. 2024, 561, 121848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suqian Municipal People’s Government. Available online: https://www.suqian.gov.cn/ (accessed on 5 July 2024).
- Jiangsu Santai Mountain National Forest Park. Available online: http://jssantaishan.com/index1.aspx?lan=en (accessed on 5 July 2024).
- Forsyth, A.; Musacchio, L. Designing Small Parks: A Manual for Addressing Social and Ecological Concerns; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2005; ISBN 978-0-471-73680-6. [Google Scholar]
- Scheaffer, R.L.; III, W.M.; Ott, R.L.; Gerow, K.G. Elementary Survey Sampling; Cengage Learning: Boston, MA, USA, 2011; ISBN 978-0-8400-5361-9. [Google Scholar]
- Gibson, J.J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception: Classic Edition; Psychology Press: Hove, UK, 2014; ISBN 978-1-317-57938-0. [Google Scholar]
- Creswell, J.W. Research Design: Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches; Sage Publications, Inc: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1994; ISBN 978-0-8039-5254-6. [Google Scholar]
- Creswell, J.W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches; SAGE: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2014; ISBN 978-1-4522-2610-1. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Dai, C.; Maruthaveeran, S.; Shahidan, M.F.; Chu, Y. Usage of and Barriers to Green Spaces in Disadvantaged Neighborhoods: A Case Study in Shi Jiazhuang, Hebei Province, China. Forests 2023, 14, 435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iheanacho, O.N. Post-Occupancy Evaluation of Outdoor Spaces of Public Housing Eatates for Housing Satisfaction of Middle Income Residents in Enugu, Nigeria; University of Nigeria: Enugu, Nigeria, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Ayodeji, A.; Amole, O. Open Spaces and Wellbeing: The Impact of Outdoor Environments in Promoting Health. Cities Health 2022, 6, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, S.; Yung, E.H.K.; Jayantha, W.M.; Chan, E.H.W. Elderly’s Intention and Use Behavior of Urban Parks: Planned Behavior Perspective. Habitat Int. 2023, 134, 102780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, J.; Xu, C. Sina Microblog Sentiment in Beijing City Parks as Measure of Demand for Urban Green Space during the COVID-19. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 58, 126913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, X.; Gao, M.; Zhang, R.; Zhang, B. Quantifying Emotional Differences in Urban Green Spaces Extracted from Photos on Social Networking Sites: A Study of 34 Parks in Three Cities in Northern China. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 62, 127133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McIntire, R.K.; Halstead, T.; Dajee, D.; Buckley, M.; McGregor, K.; Larson, S. Disparities in Neighborhood Park Access among Adults in Philadelphia. Urban For. Urban Green. 2022, 78, 127790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cranz, G.; Young, C. The Role of Design in Inhibiting or Promoting Use of Common Open Space. J. Hous. Elder. 2006, 19, 71–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Göçer, Ö.; Göçer, K.; Başol, A.M.; Kıraç, M.F.; Özbil, A.; Bakovic, M.; Siddiqui, F.P.; Özcan, B. Introduction of a Spatio-Temporal Mapping Based POE Method for Outdoor Spaces: Suburban University Campus as a Case Study. Build. Environ. 2018, 145, 125–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yung, E.H.K.; Wang, S.; Chau, C. Thermal Perceptions of the Elderly, Use Patterns and Satisfaction with Open Space. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 185, 44–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, N.; Wang, E.; Yu, Y.; Duan, Z. Valuing Recreational Services of the National Forest Parks Using a Tourist Satisfaction Method. Forests 2021, 12, 1688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cronan, M.K.; Shinew, K.J.; Schneider, I.; Wilhelm Stanis, S.A.; Chavez, D. Physical Activity Patterns and Preferences Among Latinos in Different Types of Public Parks. J. Phys. Act. Health 2008, 5, 894–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wright Wendel, H.E.; Zarger, R.K.; Mihelcic, J.R. Accessibility and Usability: Green Space Preferences, Perceptions, and Barriers in a Rapidly Urbanizing City in Latin America. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 107, 272–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bai, J. Luodi·qibu: Shehuigongzuo Shijianyanjiu Anli [Down-to-Earth: Case Studies of Social Work Practice Research]. China J. Soc. Work. 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Ayala-Azcárraga, C.; Diaz, D.; Zambrano, L. Characteristics of Urban Parks and Their Relation to User Well-Being. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 189, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, M.; Cui, C.; Lin, L.; Di, S.; Zhao, Z.; Wang, Y. Residents’ Spatial Preference for Urban Forest Park Route during Physical Activities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bai, X.; Xie, Z.; Dewancker, B.J. Exploring the Factors Affecting User Satisfaction in Poverty Alleviation Relocation Housing for Minorities through Post-Occupancy Evaluation: A Case Study of Pu’er. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S. The Safety of Public Space: Urban Design Guidelines for Neighborhood Park Planning. J. Urban. Int. Res. Placemaking Urban Sustain. 2022, 15, 222–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maniruzzaman, K.M.; Alqahtany, A.; Abou-Korin, A.; Al-Shihri, F.S. An Analysis of Residents’ Satisfaction with Attributes of Urban Parks in Dammam City, Saudi Arabia. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2021, 12, 3365–3374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Global, T. China Ranks Third on Gallup’s Law & Order Index, Much Higher than US. Available online: https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1204960.shtml (accessed on 12 July 2024).
- Inc, G. 2021 Global Law and Order Report. Available online: https://www.gallup.com/analytics/357173/2021-law-order-report.aspx (accessed on 4 July 2024).
- Peschardt, K.; Schipperijn, J.; Stigsdotter, U. Use of Small Public Urban Green Spaces (SPUGS). Urban For. Urban Green. 2012, 11, 235–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tyrväinen, L.; Mäkinen, K.; Schipperijn, J. Tools for Mapping Social Values of Urban Woodlands and Other Green Areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 79, 5–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maruthaveeran, S. A Socio-Ecological Approach of Fear of Crime in Urban Green Spaces—A Case in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; Universiti Putra Malaysia: Selangor, Malaysia, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sreetheran, M.; Van Den Bosch, C.C.K. A Socio-Ecological Exploration of Fear of Crime in Urban Green Spaces—A Systematic Review. Urban For. Urban Green. 2014, 13, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van den Bogerd, N.; Elliott, L.R.; White, M.P.; Mishra, H.S.; Bell, S.; Porter, M.; Sydenham, Z.; Garrett, J.K.; Fleming, L.E. Urban Blue Space Renovation and Local Resident and Visitor Well-Being: A Case Study from Plymouth, UK. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2021, 215, 104232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yao, Y.; Xu, C.; Yin, H.; Shao, L.; Wang, R. More Visible Greenspace, Stronger Heart? Evidence from Ischaemic Heart Disease Emergency Department Visits by Middle-Aged and Older Adults in Hubei, China. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2022, 224, 104444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maruthaveeran Sreetheran Exploring the Urban Park Use, Preference and Behaviours among the Residents of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 25, 85–93. [CrossRef]
- Young, D.R.; Hong, B.D.; Lo, T.; Inzhakova, G.; Cohen, D.A.; Sidell, M.A. The Longitudinal Associations of Physical Activity, Time Spent Outdoors in Nature and Symptoms of Depression and Anxiety during COVID-19 Quarantine and Social Distancing in the United States. Prev. Med. 2022, 154, 106863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nath, T.K.; Zhe Han, S.S.; Lechner, A.M. Urban Green Space and Well-Being in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 36, 34–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamba, A.; Rahmat, R.; Ismail, A. Why Do People Use Their Cars: A Case Study In Malaysia. J. Soc. Sci. 2007, 3, 117–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanesi, G.; Chiarello, F. Residents and Urban Green Spaces: The Case of Bari. Urban For. Urban Green. 2006, 4, 125–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, Y.; Brindley, P.; Lange, E. The Influence of Socio-Demographic Factors on Preference and Park Usage in Guangzhou, China. Land 2022, 11, 1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, L.; Li, X.; Niu, N.; He, J. Uneven Impacts of COVID-19 on Residents’ Utilization of Urban Parks: A Case Study of Guangzhou, China. Appl. Geogr. 2023, 153, 102905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kaczynski, A.T.; Potwarka, L.R.; Smale, B.J.A.; Havitz, M.E. Association of Parkland Proximity with Neighborhood and Park-Based Physical Activity: Variations by Gender and Age. Leis. Sci. 2009, 31, 174–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lackey, K.J.; Kaczynski, A.T. Correspondence of Perceived vs. Objective Proximity to Parks and Their Relationship to Park-Based Physical Activity. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2009, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, H.; Ta, N.; Yu, B.; Wu, J. Are the Accessibility and Facility Environment of Parks Associated with Mental Health? A Comparative Analysis Based on Residential Areas and Workplaces. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2023, 237, 104807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Madge, C. Public Parks and the Geography of Fear. Tijdschr. Voor Econ. En Soc. Geogr. 1997, 88, 237–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buchel, S.; Frantzeskaki, N. Citizens’ Voice: A Case Study about Perceived Ecosystem Services by Urban Park Users in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 12, 169–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Özgüner, H. Cultural Differences in Attitudes towards Urban Parks and Green Spaces. Landsc. Res. 2011, 36, 599–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loukaitou-Sideris, A. Urban Form and Social Context: Cultural Differentiation in the Uses of Urban Parks. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 1995, 14, 89–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rigolon, A.; Browning, M.H.E.M.; Lee, K.; Shin, S. Access to Urban Green Space in Cities of the Global South: A Systematic Literature Review. Urban Sci. 2018, 2, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peters, K.B.M.; Elands, B.H.M.; Buijs, A.E. Social Interactions in Urban Parks: Stimulating Social Cohesion? Urban For. Urban Green. 2010, 9, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Staats, H.; Hartig, T. Alone or with a Friend: A Social Context for Psychological Restoration and Environmental Preferences. J. Environ. Psychol. 2004, 24, 199–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, R.; Zhang, C.-Q.; Lai, P.C.; Kwan, M.-P. Park and Neighbourhood Environmental Characteristics Associated with Park-Based Physical Activity among Children in a High-Density City. Urban For. Urban Green. 2022, 68, 127479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baran, P.K.; Tabrizian, P.; Zhai, Y.; Smith, J.W.; Floyd, M.F. An Exploratory Study of Perceived Safety in a Neighborhood Park Using Immersive Virtual Environments. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 35, 72–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scott, D.; Jackson, E.L. Factors That Limit and Strategies That Might Encourage People’s Use of Public Parks. J. Park Recreat. Adm. 1996, 14. [Google Scholar]
- Balai Kerishnan, P.; Maruthaveeran, S. Factors Contributing to the Usage of Pocket parks―A Review of the Evidence. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 58, 126985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Respondents | Number (n) | Percent (%) | |
---|---|---|---|
1. Gender | Male | 322 | 46.80 |
Female | 366 | 53.20 | |
2.Census register | Local household registration | 538 | 78.20 |
Non-local household registration | 150 | 21.80 | |
3.Educational level | Primary school and below | 3 | 0.44 |
Junior high school | 20 | 2.91 | |
High school/secondary | 60 | 8.72 | |
University | 503 | 73.11 | |
Postgraduate | 102 | 14.83 | |
4.Age group | 18–30 | 244 | 35.47 |
31–45 | 377 | 54.80 | |
46–55 | 44 | 6.40 | |
56–65 | 16 | 2.33 | |
>65 | 7 | 1.02 | |
5.Marital status | Single | 232 | 33.72 |
Married | 445 | 64.68 | |
Divorced | 11 | 1.60 | |
6.Occupation | Students | 26 | 7.69 |
Public sector | 122 | 36.09 | |
Private employee | 96 | 28.40 | |
Self-employed | 65 | 19.23 | |
Pensioner | 2 | 0.59 | |
Unemployed | 24 | 7.10 | |
7.Monthly income | <3000 Yuan | 58 | 17.16 |
3001–6000 Yuan | 109 | 32.25 | |
6001–10,000 Yuan | 103 | 30.47 | |
>10,000 Yuan | 68 | 20.12 |
Usability Pattern | Frequency (n) | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|
Frequency of urban forest park visits | ||
1–2 times/year | 439 | 63.81 |
1–2 times/month | 142 | 20.64 |
1–2 times/week | 45 | 6.54 |
3–4 times/week | 26 | 3.78 |
Never | 36 | 5.23 |
When do you prefer to come to this forest park? | ||
Weekdays | 41 | 5.96 |
Weekends | 171 | 24.85 |
Holidays | 243 | 35.32 |
Special events | 51 | 7.41 |
During spare time | 182 | 26.45 |
What time of the day do you prefer to visit this forest park? | ||
Morning | 303 | 44.04 |
Afternoon | 264 | 38.37 |
Evening | 101 | 14.68 |
Night | 20 | 2.91 |
Length of time spent | ||
<1 h | 62 | 9.01 |
1–2 h | 265 | 38.52 |
2–3 h | 241 | 35.03 |
3–4 h | 85 | 12.35 |
>4 h | 35 | 5.09 |
Mode of transportation | ||
on Foot | 81 | 11.77 |
Bicycle | 38 | 5.52 |
Electric bikes | 57 | 8.28 |
Motorcycle | 2 | 0.29 |
Car | 453 | 65.84 |
Public transport | 46 | 6.69 |
Others | 11 | 1.60 |
Travel time | ||
<10 min | 41 | 5.96 |
10–30 min | 356 | 51.74 |
30–60 min | 215 | 31.25 |
>1 h | 76 | 11.05 |
How far have you traveled to get here? | ||
<1 km | 28 | 4.07 |
1 km–2 km | 48 | 6.98 |
2 km–5 km | 102 | 14.83 |
5 km–10 km | 305 | 44.33 |
>10 km | 205 | 29.80 |
Visit with whom? | ||
Alone | 46 | 6.69 |
With family | 445 | 64.68 |
With friends | 181 | 26.31 |
With dog | 7 | 1.02 |
Others | 9 | 1.31 |
1. Frequency of the Forest Park Visit (%) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1–2 Times/Year | 1–2 Times/Month | 1–2 Times/Week | 3–4 Times/Week | Never | |||
1. Gender | |||||||
Male | 210(47.84) | 66(46.48) | 18(40.00) | 13(50.00) | 15(41.67) | ||
Female | 229(52.16) | 76(53.52) | 27(60.00) | 13(50.00) | 21(58.33) | ||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 1.519(0.823) | ||||||
0 cells (0.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 12.17. | |||||||
2. Census register | |||||||
Local household registration | 347(79.04) | 119(83.80) | 28(62.22) | 16(61.54) | 28(77.78) | ||
Non-local household Registration | 92(20.96) | 23(16.20) | 17(37.78) | 10(38.46) | 8(22.22) | ||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 13.773(0.008 **) | ||||||
0 cells (0.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.67. | |||||||
3. Educational level | |||||||
Primary school and below | 0(0.00) | 3(2.11) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | ||
Junior high school | 10(2.28) | 3(2.11) | 3(6.67) | 1(3.85) | 3(8.33) | ||
High school/secondary | 38(8.66) | 11(7.75) | 4(8.89) | 0(0.00) | 7(19.44) | ||
University | 323(73.58) | 104(73.24) | 31(68.89) | 22(84.62) | 23(63.89) | ||
Postgraduate | 68(15.49) | 21(14.79) | 7(15.56) | 3(11.54) | 3(8.33) | ||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 27.9(0.033 *) | ||||||
13 cells (52.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.11. | |||||||
4. Age group | |||||||
18–30 (years old) | 146(33.26) | 63(44.37) | 18(40.00) | 5(19.23) | 12(33.33) | ||
31–45 (years old) | 248(56.49) | 70(49.30) | 22(48.89) | 19(73.08) | 18(50.00) | ||
46–55 (years old) | 32(7.29) | 7(4.93) | 3(6.67) | 2(7.69) | 0(0.00) | ||
56–65 (years old) | 9(2.05) | 2(1.41) | 2(4.44) | 0(0.00) | 3(8.33) | ||
>65 (years old) | 4(0.91) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 3(8.33) | ||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 41.325(0.000 ***) | ||||||
12 cells (48.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.26. | |||||||
5. Marital status | |||||||
Single | 150(34.17) | 44(30.99) | 18(40.00) | 3(11.54) | 17(47.22) | ||
Married | 285(64.92) | 94(66.20) | 24(53.33) | 23(88.46) | 19(52.78) | ||
Divorced | 4(0.91) | 4(2.82) | 3(6.67) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | ||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 21.455(0.006 **) | ||||||
4 cells (26.7%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.42. | |||||||
6. Occupation | |||||||
Students | 29(6.61) | 12(8.45) | 6(13.33) | 0(0.00) | 8(22.22) | ||
Public sector | 154(35.08) | 14(9.86) | 5(11.11) | 6(23.08) | 1(2.78) | ||
Private employee | 139(31.66) | 67(47.18) | 11(24.44) | 10(38.46) | 14(38.89) | ||
Self-employed | 56(12.76) | 25(17.61) | 14(31.11) | 0(0.00) | 3(8.33) | ||
Pensioner | 13(2.96) | 2(1.41) | 4(8.89) | 0(0.00) | 3(8.33) | ||
Unemployed | 15(3.42) | 2(1.41) | 0(0.00) | 1(3.85) | 7(19.44) | ||
Others | 33(7.52) | 20(14.08) | 5(11.11) | 9(34.62) | 0(0.00) | ||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 140.998(0.000 ***) | ||||||
14 cells (40.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.83. | |||||||
7. Monthly income | |||||||
<3000 (yuan, RMB) | 82(18.68) | 15(10.56) | 10(22.22) | 2(7.69) | 13(36.11) | ||
3001–6000 (yuan, RMB) | 133(30.30) | 52(36.62) | 17(37.78) | 7(26.92) | 14(38.89) | ||
6001–10,000 (yuan, RMB) | 135(30.75) | 46(32.39) | 5(11.11) | 12(46.15) | 2(5.56) | ||
>10,000 (yuan, RMB) | 89(20.27) | 29(20.42) | 13(28.89) | 5(19.23) | 7(19.44) | ||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 32.639(0.001 ***) | ||||||
1 cell (5.0%) has an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.61. | |||||||
2. When do you prefer to come to the forest park? (%) | |||||||
Weekdays | Weekends | Holidays | Special events | During spare time | |||
1. Gender | |||||||
Male | 21(51.22) | 80(46.78) | 109(44.86) | 21(41.18) | 91(50.00) | ||
Female | 20(48.78) | 91(53.22) | 134(55.14) | 30(58.82) | 91(50.00) | ||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 2.087(0.72) | ||||||
0 cells (0.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 19.19. | |||||||
2. Census register | |||||||
Local household registration | 32(78.05) | 121(70.76) | 192(79.01) | 41(80.39) | 152(83.52) | ||
Non-local household Registration | 9(21.95) | 50(29.24) | 51(20.99) | 10(19.61) | 30(16.48) | ||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 8.807(0.066) | ||||||
0 cells (0.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8.94. | |||||||
3. Educational level | |||||||
Primary school and below | 3(7.32) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | ||
Junior high school | 2(4.88) | 4(2.34) | 6(2.47) | 2(3.92) | 6(3.30) | ||
High school/secondary | 4(9.76) | 10(5.85) | 19(7.82) | 2(3.92) | 25(13.74) | ||
University | 22(53.66) | 130(76.02) | 181(74.49) | 46(90.20) | 124(68.13) | ||
Postgraduate | 0(0.00) | 6(3.3) | 25(13.7) | 124(68.1) | 27(14.8) | ||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 70.4(0.000 ***) | ||||||
10 cells (40.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.18. | |||||||
4. Age group | |||||||
18–30 (years old) | 16(39.02) | 58(33.92) | 80(32.92) | 26(50.98) | 64(35.16) | ||
31–45 (years old) | 18(43.90) | 108(63.16) | 139(57.20) | 20(39.22) | 92(50.55) | ||
46–55 (years old) | 3(7.32) | 5(2.92) | 19(7.82) | 3(5.88) | 14(7.69) | ||
56–65 (years old) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 5(2.06) | 2(3.92) | 9(4.95) | ||
>65 (years old) | 4(9.76) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 3(1.65) | ||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 62.052(0.000 ***) | ||||||
11 cells (44.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.42. | |||||||
5. Marital status | |||||||
Single | 21(51.22) | 53(30.99) | 80(32.92) | 23(45.10) | 55(30.22) | ||
Married | 19(46.34) | 115(67.25) | 156(64.20) | 28(54.90) | 127(69.78) | ||
Divorced | 1(2.44) | 3(1.75) | 7(2.88) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | ||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 16.996(0.030 *) | ||||||
5 cells (33.3%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.66. | |||||||
6. Occupation | |||||||
Students | 11(26.83) | 8(4.68) | 17(7.00) | 2(3.92) | 17(9.34) | ||
Public sector | 8(19.51) | 47(27.49) | 88(36.21) | 12(23.53) | 25(13.74) | ||
Private employee | 7(17.07) | 81(47.37) | 68(27.98) | 22(43.14) | 63(34.62) | ||
Self-employed | 10(24.39) | 18(10.53) | 32(13.17) | 11(21.57) | 27(14.84) | ||
Pensioner | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 7(2.88) | 2(3.92) | 13(7.14) | ||
Unemployed | 2(4.88) | 3(1.75) | 5(2.06) | 1(1.96) | 14(7.69) | ||
others | 3(7.32) | 14(8.19) | 26(10.70) | 1(1.96) | 23(12.64) | ||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 99.367(0.000 ***) | ||||||
8 cells (22.9%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.31. | |||||||
7. Monthly income | |||||||
<3000 (yuan, RMB) | 17(41.46) | 15(8.77) | 45(18.52) | 9(17.65) | 36(19.78) | ||
3001–6000 (yuan, RMB) | 6(14.63) | 72(42.11) | 73(30.04) | 22(43.14) | 50(27.47) | ||
6001–10,000 (yuan, RMB) | 11(26.83) | 58(33.92) | 80(32.92) | 5(9.80) | 46(25.27) | ||
>10,000 (yuan, RMB) | 7(17.07) | 26(15.20) | 45(18.52) | 15(29.41) | 50(27.47) | ||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 53.119(0.000 ***) | ||||||
0 cells (0.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 7.27. | |||||||
3. What time of the day do you prefer to visit the forest Park?(%) | |||||||
Morning | Afternoon | Evening | Night | ||||
1. Gender | |||||||
Male | 144(47.52) | 127(48.11) | 38(37.62) | 13(65.00) | |||
Female | 159(52.48) | 137(51.89) | 63(62.38) | 7(35.00) | |||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 6.321(0.097) | ||||||
0 cells (0.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 9.36. | |||||||
2. Census register | |||||||
Local household registration | 250(82.51) | 202(76.52) | 71(70.30) | 15(75.00) | |||
Non-local household Registration | 53(17.49) | 62(23.48) | 30(29.70) | 5(25.00) | |||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 7.558(0.056) | ||||||
1 cell (12.5%) has an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.36. | |||||||
3. Educational level | |||||||
Primary school and below | 3(0.99) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | |||
Junior high school | 8(2.64) | 6(2.27) | 4(3.96) | 2(10.00) | |||
High school/secondary | 19(6.27) | 18(6.82) | 18(17.82) | 5(25.00) | |||
University | 213(70.30) | 219(82.95) | 62(61.39) | 9(45.00) | |||
Postgraduate | 60(19.80) | 21(7.95) | 17(16.83) | 4(20.00) | |||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 48.942(0.000 ***) | ||||||
8 cells (40.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.09. | |||||||
4. Age group | |||||||
18–30 (years old) | 77(25.41) | 124(46.97) | 35(34.65) | 8(40.00) | |||
31–45 (years old) | 190(62.71) | 122(46.21) | 56(55.45) | 9(45.00) | |||
46–55 (years old) | 18(5.94) | 16(6.06) | 10(9.90) | 0(0.00) | |||
56–65 (years old) | 14(4.62) | 2(0.76) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | |||
>65 (years old) | 4(1.32) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 3(15.00) | |||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 84.238(0.000 ***) | ||||||
7 cells (35.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.20. | |||||||
5. Marital status | |||||||
Single | 66(21.78) | 122(46.21) | 34(33.66) | 10(50.00) | |||
Married | 232(76.57) | 139(52.65) | 64(63.37) | 10(50.00) | |||
Divorced | 5(1.65) | 3(1.14) | 3(2.97) | 0(0.00) | |||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 41.68(0.000 ***) | ||||||
4 cells (33.3%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.32. | |||||||
6. Occupation | |||||||
Students | 21(6.93) | 21(7.95) | 7(6.93) | 6(30.00) | |||
Public sector | 79(26.07) | 61(23.11) | 32(31.68) | 8(40.00) | |||
Private employee | 101(33.33) | 105(39.77) | 34(33.66) | 1(5.00) | |||
Self-employed | 45(14.85) | 34(12.88) | 17(16.83) | 2(10.00) | |||
Pensioner | 14(4.62) | 4(1.52) | 4(3.96) | 0(0.00) | |||
Unemployed | 9(2.97) | 12(4.55) | 1(0.99) | 3(15.00) | |||
others | 34(11.22) | 27(10.23) | 6(5.94) | 0(0.00) | |||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 43.865(0.001 ***) | ||||||
7 cells (25.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.64. | |||||||
7. Monthly income | |||||||
<3000 (yuan, RMB) | 45(14.85) | 48(18.18) | 19(18.81) | 10(50.00) | |||
3001–6000 (yuan, RMB) | 82(27.06) | 97(36.74) | 39(38.61) | 5(25.00) | |||
6001–10,000 (yuan, RMB) | 110(36.30) | 59(22.35) | 31(30.69) | 0(0.00) | |||
>10,000 (yuan, RMB) | 66(21.78) | 60(22.73) | 12(11.88) | 5(25.00) | |||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 39.108(0.000 ***) | ||||||
2 cells (12.5%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.55. | |||||||
4. Length of time spent (%) | |||||||
<1 h | 1–2 h | 2–3 h | 3–4 h | >4 h | |||
1. Gender | |||||||
Male | 26(41.94) | 127(47.92) | 109(45.23) | 40(47.06) | 20(57.14) | ||
Female | 36(58.06) | 138(52.08) | 132(54.77) | 45(52.94) | 15(42.86) | ||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 2.469(0.65) | ||||||
0 cells (0.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 16.38. | |||||||
2. Census register | |||||||
Local household registration | 45(72.58) | 205(77.36) | 185(76.76) | 70(82.35) | 33(94.29) | ||
Non-local household Registration | 17(27.42) | 60(22.64) | 56(23.24) | 15(17.65) | 2(5.71) | ||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 7.722(0.102) | ||||||
0 cells (0.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 7.63. | |||||||
3. Educational level | |||||||
Primary school and below | 3(4.84) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | ||
Junior high school | 7(11.29) | 6(2.26) | 5(2.07) | 2(2.35) | 0(0.00) | ||
High school/secondary | 9(14.52) | 29(10.94) | 19(7.88) | 0(0.00) | 3(8.57) | ||
University | 35(56.45) | 203(76.60) | 174(72.20) | 67(78.82) | 24(68.57) | ||
Postgraduate | 8(12.90) | 27(10.19) | 43(17.84) | 16(18.82) | 8(22.86) | ||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 70.051(0.000 ***) | ||||||
9 cells (36.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.15. | |||||||
4. Age group | |||||||
18–30 (years old) | 27(43.55) | 117(44.15) | 74(30.71) | 19(22.35) | 7(20.00) | ||
31–45 (years old) | 31(50.00) | 127(47.92) | 138(57.26) | 56(65.88) | 25(71.43) | ||
46–55 (years old) | 0(0.00) | 15(5.66) | 22(9.13) | 7(8.24) | 0(0.00) | ||
56–65 (years old) | 0(0.00) | 6(2.26) | 7(2.90) | 3(3.53) | 0(0.00) | ||
>65 (years old) | 4(6.45) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 3(8.57) | ||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 77.752(0.000 ***) | ||||||
10 cells (40.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.36. | |||||||
5. Marital status | |||||||
Single | 32(51.61) | 96(36.23) | 74(30.71) | 20(23.53) | 10(28.57) | ||
Married | 30(48.39) | 166(62.64) | 162(67.22) | 65(76.47) | 22(62.86) | ||
Divorced | 0(0.00) | 3(1.13) | 5(2.07) | 0(0.00) | 3(8.57) | ||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 28.418(0.000 ***) | ||||||
5 cells (33.3%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.56. | |||||||
6. Occupation | |||||||
Students | 7(11.29) | 18(6.79) | 13(5.39) | 14(16.47) | 3(8.57) | ||
Public sector | 17(27.42) | 72(27.17) | 68(28.22) | 16(18.82) | 7(20.00) | ||
Private employee | 26(41.94) | 95(35.85) | 89(36.93) | 27(31.76) | 4(11.43) | ||
Self-employed | 3(4.84) | 36(13.58) | 33(13.69) | 15(17.65) | 11(31.43) | ||
Pensioner | 2(3.23) | 4(1.51) | 7(2.90) | 6(7.06) | 3(8.57) | ||
Unemployed | 7(11.29) | 9(3.40) | 6(2.49) | 1(1.18) | 2(5.71) | ||
others | 0(0.00) | 31(11.70) | 25(10.37) | 6(7.06) | 5(14.29) | ||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 63.541(0.000 ***) | ||||||
10 cells (28.6%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.12. | |||||||
7. Monthly income | |||||||
<3000 (yuan, RMB) | 25(40.32) | 41(15.47) | 36(14.94) | 20(23.53) | 0(0.00) | ||
3001–6000 (yuan, RMB) | 19(30.65) | 108(40.75) | 66(27.39) | 21(24.71) | 9(25.71) | ||
6001–10,000 (yuan, RMB) | 11(17.74) | 70(26.42) | 90(37.34) | 23(27.06) | 6(17.14) | ||
>10,000 (yuan, RMB) | 7(11.29) | 46(17.36) | 49(20.33) | 21(24.71) | 20(57.14) | ||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 75.14(0.000 ***) | ||||||
0 cells (0.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.21. | |||||||
5. Mode of transportation (%) | |||||||
on Foot | Bicycle | Electric bikes | Motorcycle | Car | Public transport | Others | |
1. Gender | |||||||
Male | 47(58.02) | 26(68.42) | 20(35.09) | 1(50.00) | 208(45.92) | 16(34.78) | 4(36.36) |
Female | 34(41.98) | 12(31.58) | 37(64.91) | 1(50.00) | 245(54.08) | 30(65.22) | 7(63.64) |
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 17.674(0.007 **) | ||||||
2 cells (14.3%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.94. | |||||||
2. Census register | |||||||
Local household registration | 53(65.43) | 26(68.42) | 26(45.61) | 2(100.00) | 393(86.75) | 30(65.22) | 8(72.73) |
Non-local household Registration | 28(34.57) | 12(31.58) | 31(54.39) | 0(0.00) | 60(13.25) | 16(34.78) | 3(27.27) |
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 70.122(0.000 ***) | ||||||
3 cells (21.4%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.44. | |||||||
3. Educational level | |||||||
Primary school and below | 0(0.00) | 3(7.89) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) |
Junior high school | 1(1.23) | 2(5.26) | 3(5.26) | 1(50.00) | 12(2.65) | 1(2.17) | 0(0.00) |
High school/secondary | 6(7.41) | 2(5.26) | 5(8.77) | 1(50.00) | 37(8.17) | 4(8.70) | 5(45.45) |
University | 56(69.14) | 26(68.42) | 29(50.88) | 0(0.00) | 357(78.81) | 32(69.57) | 3(27.27) |
Postgraduate | 18(22.22) | 5(13.16) | 20(35.09) | 0(0.00) | 47(10.38) | 9(19.57) | 3(27.27) |
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 129.341(0.000 ***) | ||||||
21 cells (60.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.01. | |||||||
4. Age group | |||||||
18–30 (years old) | 37(45.68) | 24(63.16) | 33(57.89) | 0(0.00) | 121(26.71) | 27(58.70) | 2(18.18) |
31–45 (years old) | 38(46.91) | 12(31.58) | 22(38.60) | 0(0.00) | 283(62.47) | 16(34.78) | 6(54.55) |
46–55 (years old) | 2(2.47) | 0(0.00) | 2(3.51) | 2(100.00) | 38(8.39) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) |
56–65 (years old) | 0(0.00) | 2(5.26) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 11(2.43) | 3(6.52) | 0(0.00) |
>65 (years old) | 4(4.94) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 3(27.27) |
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 194.066(0.000 ***) | ||||||
21 cells (60.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.02. | |||||||
5. Marital status | |||||||
Single | 46(56.79) | 20(52.63) | 39(68.42) | 0(0.00) | 85(18.76) | 37(80.43) | 5(45.45) |
Married | 35(43.21) | 16(42.11) | 18(31.58) | 1(50.00) | 361(79.69) | 8(17.39) | 6(54.55) |
Divorced | 0(0.00) | 2(5.26) | 0(0.00) | 1(50.00) | 7(1.55) | 1(2.17) | 0(0.00) |
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 183.442(0.000 ***) | ||||||
9 cells (42.9%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.03. | |||||||
6. Occupation | |||||||
Students | 15(18.52) | 6(15.79) | 13(22.81) | 0(0.00) | 14(3.09) | 4(8.70) | 3(27.27) |
Public sector | 27(33.33) | 8(21.05) | 15(26.32) | 0(0.00) | 125(27.59) | 5(10.87) | 0(0.00) |
Private employee | 25(30.86) | 16(42.11) | 16(28.07) | 2(100.00) | 156(34.44) | 23(50.00) | 3(27.27) |
Self-employed | 8(9.88) | 5(13.16) | 7(12.28) | 0(0.00) | 74(16.34) | 4(8.70) | 0(0.00) |
Pensioner | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 18(3.97) | 4(8.70) | 0(0.00) |
Unemployed | 3(3.70) | 0(0.00) | 2(3.51) | 0(0.00) | 11(2.43) | 6(13.04) | 3(27.27) |
others | 3(3.70) | 3(7.89) | 4(7.02) | 0(0.00) | 55(12.14) | 0(0.00) | 2(18.18) |
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 125.75(0.000 ***) | ||||||
27 cells (55.1%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.06. | |||||||
7. Monthly income | |||||||
<3000 (yuan, RMB) | 15(18.52) | 12(31.58) | 21(36.84) | 0(0.00) | 51(11.26) | 18(39.13) | 5(45.45) |
3001–6000 (yuan, RMB) | 29(35.80) | 14(36.84) | 25(43.86) | 1(50.00) | 141(31.13) | 13(28.26) | 0(0.00) |
6001–10,000 (yuan, RMB) | 23(28.40) | 4(10.53) | 10(17.54) | 1(50.00) | 150(33.11) | 11(23.91) | 1(9.09) |
>10,000 (yuan, RMB) | 14(17.28) | 8(21.05) | 1(1.75) | 0(0.00) | 111(24.50) | 4(8.70) | 5(45.45) |
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 82.824(0.000 ***) | ||||||
8 cells (28.6%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.35. | |||||||
6. Travel time from home to destination (%) | |||||||
<10 min | 10–30 min | 30–60 min | >1 h | ||||
1. Gender | |||||||
Male | 22(53.66) | 170(47.75) | 95(44.19) | 35(46.05) | |||
Female | 19(46.34) | 186(52.25) | 120(55.81) | 41(53.95) | |||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 1.512(0.68) | ||||||
0 cells (0.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 19.19. | |||||||
2. Census register | |||||||
Local household registration | 35(85.37) | 291(81.74) | 177(82.33) | 35(46.05) | |||
Non-local household Registration | 6(14.63) | 65(18.26) | 38(17.67) | 41(53.95) | |||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 52.069(0.000 ***) | ||||||
0 cells (0.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8.94. | |||||||
3. Educational level | |||||||
Primary school and below | 3(7.32) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | |||
Junior high school | 3(7.32) | 3(0.84) | 13(6.05) | 1(1.32) | |||
High school/secondary | 7(17.07) | 37(10.39) | 11(5.12) | 5(6.58) | |||
University | 21(51.22) | 276(77.53) | 162(75.35) | 44(57.89) | |||
Postgraduate | 7(17.07) | 40(11.24) | 29(13.49) | 26(34.21) | |||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 100.228(0.000 ***) | ||||||
7 cells (35.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.18. | |||||||
4. Age group | |||||||
18–30 (years old) | 17(41.46) | 106(29.78) | 84(39.07) | 37(48.68) | |||
31–45 (years old) | 20(48.78) | 220(61.80) | 106(49.30) | 31(40.79) | |||
46–55 (years old) | 0(0.00) | 22(6.18) | 17(7.91) | 5(6.58) | |||
56–65 (years old) | 0(0.00) | 8(2.25) | 8(3.72) | 0(0.00) | |||
>65 (years old) | 4(9.76) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 3(3.95) | |||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 66.504(0.000 ***) | ||||||
8 cells (40.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.42. | |||||||
5. Marital status | |||||||
Single | 14(34.15) | 103(28.93) | 73(33.95) | 42(55.26) | |||
Married | 27(65.85) | 248(69.66) | 138(64.19) | 32(42.11) | |||
Divorced | 0(0.00) | 5(1.40) | 4(1.86) | 2(2.63) | |||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 21.596(0.001 ***) | ||||||
3 cells (25.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.66. | |||||||
6. Occupation | |||||||
Students | 9(21.95) | 18(5.06) | 12(5.58) | 16(21.05) | |||
Public sector | 8(19.51) | 92(25.84) | 63(29.30) | 17(22.37) | |||
Private employee | 18(43.90) | 122(34.27) | 82(38.14) | 19(25.00) | |||
Self-employed | 3(7.32) | 48(13.48) | 32(14.88) | 15(19.74) | |||
Pensioner | 2(4.88) | 12(3.37) | 7(3.26) | 1(1.32) | |||
Unemployed | 1(2.44) | 12(3.37) | 6(2.79) | 6(7.89) | |||
others | 0(0.00) | 52(14.61) | 13(6.05) | 2(2.63) | |||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 65.795(0.000 ***) | ||||||
6 cells (21.4%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.31. | |||||||
7. Monthly income | |||||||
<3000 (yuan, RMB) | 17(41.46) | 37(10.39) | 46(21.40) | 22(28.95) | |||
3001–6000 (yuan, RMB) | 15(36.59) | 122(34.27) | 69(32.09) | 17(22.37) | |||
6001–10,000 (yuan, RMB) | 8(19.51) | 109(30.62) | 63(29.30) | 20(26.32) | |||
>10,000 (yuan, RMB) | 1(2.44) | 88(24.72) | 37(17.21) | 17(22.37) | |||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 46.312(0.000 ***) | ||||||
0 cells (0.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 7.27. | |||||||
7. How far have you traveled to get here? (%) | |||||||
<1 km | 1 km–2 km | 2 km–5 km | 5 km–10 km | >10 km | |||
1. Gender | |||||||
Male | 13(46.43) | 32(66.67) | 37(36.27) | 145(47.54) | 95(46.34) | ||
Female | 15(53.57) | 16(33.33) | 65(63.73) | 160(52.46) | 110(53.66) | ||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 1.509(0.813) | ||||||
0 cells (0.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 13.10. | |||||||
2. Census register | |||||||
Local household registration | 21(75.00) | 23(47.92) | 76(74.51) | 269(88.20) | 149(72.68) | ||
Non-local household Registration | 7(25.00) | 25(52.08) | 26(25.49) | 36(11.80) | 56(27.32) | ||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 48.341(0.000 ***) | ||||||
0 cells (0.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.10. | |||||||
3. Educational level | |||||||
Primary school and below | 0(0.00) | 3(6.25) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | ||
Junior high school | 5(17.86) | 2(4.17) | 1(0.98) | 7(2.30) | 5(2.44) | ||
High school/secondary | 4(14.29) | 1(2.08) | 8(7.84) | 29(9.51) | 18(8.78) | ||
University | 13(46.43) | 35(72.92) | 79(77.45) | 225(73.77) | 151(73.66) | ||
Postgraduate | 6(21.43) | 7(14.58) | 14(13.73) | 44(14.43) | 31(15.12) | ||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 71.337(0.000 ***) | ||||||
11 cells (44.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.12. | |||||||
4. Age group | |||||||
18–30 (years old) | 7(25.00) | 29(60.42) | 39(38.24) | 96(31.48) | 73(35.61) | ||
31–45 (years old) | 17(60.71) | 19(39.58) | 56(54.90) | 174(57.05) | 111(54.15) | ||
46–55 (years old) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 4(3.92) | 25(8.20) | 15(7.32) | ||
56–65 (years old) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 3(2.94) | 10(3.28) | 3(1.46) | ||
>65 (years old) | 4(14.29) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 3(1.46) | ||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 78.301(0.000 ***) | ||||||
11 cells (44.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.28. | |||||||
5. Marital status | |||||||
Single | 12(42.86) | 25(52.08) | 31(30.39) | 85(27.87) | 79(38.54) | ||
Married | 14(50.00) | 22(45.83) | 70(68.63) | 213(69.84) | 126(61.46) | ||
Divorced | 2(7.14) | 1(2.08) | 1(0.98) | 7(2.30) | 0(0.00) | ||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 25.631(0.001 ***) | ||||||
5 cells (33.3%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.45. | |||||||
6. Occupation | |||||||
Students | 6(21.43) | 12(25.00) | 11(10.78) | 14(4.59) | 12(5.85) | ||
Public sector | 8(28.57) | 12(25.00) | 24(23.53) | 84(27.54) | 52(25.37) | ||
Private employee | 11(39.29) | 12(25.00) | 39(38.24) | 108(35.41) | 71(34.63) | ||
Self-employed | 0(0.00) | 11(22.92) | 10(9.80) | 45(14.75) | 32(15.61) | ||
Pensioner | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 13(4.26) | 9(4.39) | ||
Unemployed | 3(10.71) | 1(2.08) | 0(0.00) | 6(1.97) | 15(7.32) | ||
Others | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 18(17.65) | 35(11.48) | 14(6.83) | ||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 83.242(0.000 ***) | ||||||
11 cells (31.4%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.90. | |||||||
7. Monthly income | |||||||
<3000 (yuan, RMB) | 10(35.71) | 15(31.25) | 15(14.71) | 41(13.44) | 41(20.00) | ||
3001–6000 (yuan, RMB) | 5(17.86) | 21(43.75) | 44(43.14) | 98(32.13) | 55(26.83) | ||
6001–10,000 (yuan, RMB) | 13(46.43) | 4(8.33) | 20(19.61) | 104(34.10) | 59(28.78) | ||
>10,000 (yuan, RMB) | 0(0.00) | 8(16.67) | 23(22.55) | 62(20.33) | 50(24.39) | ||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 47.15(0.000 ***) | ||||||
1 cell (5.0%) has an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.97. | |||||||
8. Visit with whom? (%) | |||||||
Alone | With family | With friends | With dog | Others | |||
1. Gender | |||||||
Male | 27(58.70) | 186(41.80) | 96(53.04) | 7(100.00) | 6(66.67) | ||
Female | 19(41.30) | 259(58.20) | 85(46.96) | 0(0.00) | 3(33.33) | ||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 19.3(0.001 ***) | ||||||
4 cells (40.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.28. | |||||||
2. Census register | |||||||
Local household registration | 31(67.39) | 393(88.31) | 102(56.35) | 6(85.71) | 6(66.67) | ||
Non-local household Registration | 15(32.61) | 52(11.69) | 79(43.65) | 1(14.29) | 3(33.33) | ||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 81.458(0.000 ***) | ||||||
2 cells (20.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.53. | |||||||
3. Educational level | |||||||
Primary school and below | 0(0.00) | 3(0.67) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | ||
Junior high school | 0(0.00) | 18(4.04) | 2(1.10) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | ||
High school/secondary | 7(15.22) | 42(9.44) | 6(3.31) | 0(0.00) | 5(55.56) | ||
University | 33(71.74) | 320(71.91) | 142(78.45) | 4(57.14) | 4(44.44) | ||
Postgraduate | 6(13.04) | 62(13.93) | 31(17.13) | 3(42.86) | 0(0.00) | ||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 47.337(0.000 ***) | ||||||
13 cells (52.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.03. | |||||||
4. Age group | |||||||
18–30 (years old) | 31(67.39) | 97(21.80) | 113(62.43) | 1(14.29) | 2(22.22) | ||
31–45 (years old) | 9(19.57) | 296(66.52) | 59(32.60) | 6(85.71) | 7(77.78) | ||
46–55 (years old) | 0(0.00) | 37(8.31) | 7(3.87) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | ||
56–65 (years old) | 2(4.35) | 12(2.70) | 2(1.10) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | ||
>65 (years old) | 4(8.70) | 3(0.67) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | ||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 155.158(0.000 ***) | ||||||
16 cells (64.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.07. | |||||||
5. Marital status | |||||||
Single | 40(86.96) | 58(13.03) | 133(73.48) | 1(14.29) | 0(0.00) | ||
Married | 6(13.04) | 383(86.07) | 41(22.65) | 6(85.71) | 9(100.00) | ||
Divorced | 0(0.00) | 4(0.90) | 7(3.87) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | ||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 294.066(0.000 ***) | ||||||
7 cells (46.7%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.11. | |||||||
6. Occupation | |||||||
Students | 7(15.22) | 17(3.82) | 31(17.13) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | ||
Public sector | 14(30.43) | 124(27.87) | 34(18.78) | 6(85.71) | 2(22.22) | ||
Private employee | 23(50.00) | 151(33.93) | 62(34.25) | 1(14.29) | 4(44.44) | ||
Self-employed | 2(4.35) | 67(15.06) | 29(16.02) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | ||
Pensioner | 0(0.00) | 20(4.49) | 2(1.10) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | ||
Unemployed | 0(0.00) | 10(2.25) | 12(6.63) | 0(0.00) | 3(33.33) | ||
Others | 0(0.00) | 56(12.58) | 11(6.08) | 0(0.00) | 0(0.00) | ||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 106.88(0.000 ***) | ||||||
18 cells (51.4%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.22. | |||||||
7. Monthly income | |||||||
<3000 (yuan, RMB) | 16(34.78) | 47(10.56) | 54(29.83) | 0(0.00) | 5(55.56) | ||
3001–6000 (yuan, RMB) | 18(39.13) | 140(31.46) | 64(35.36) | 1(14.29) | 0(0.00) | ||
6001–10,000 (yuan, RMB) | 9(19.57) | 145(32.58) | 43(23.76) | 3(42.86) | 0(0.00) | ||
>10,000 (yuan, RMB) | 3(6.52) | 113(25.39) | 20(11.05) | 3(42.86) | 4(44.44) | ||
Pearson’s χ2 (p) | 78.291(0.000 ***) | ||||||
8 cells (40.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.24. |
Do You Think the Forest Park Is Safe? | Frequency (n) | Percent (%) |
---|---|---|
Very safe | 254 | 36.92 |
Safe | 363 | 52.76 |
Not very safe | 42 | 6.10 |
Very Unsafe | 6 | 0.87 |
B | Std. Error | Sig. | Exp(B)(OR) | Lower | Upper | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Gender | ||||||
Male | −0.254 | 0.1794 | 0.157 | 0.776 | 0.546 | 1.102 |
Female | 0 a | 1 | ||||
2. Census register | ||||||
Local household registration | −0.181 | 0.2201 | 0.412 | 0.835 | 0.542 | 1.285 |
Non-local household registration | 0 a | 1 | ||||
3. Educational level | ||||||
Primary school and below | −2.407 | 1.1719 | 0.040 ** | 0.090 | 0.009 | 0.896 |
Junior high school | −0.187 | 0.5263 | 0.722 | 0.829 | 0.296 | 2.327 |
High school/secondary | 0.094 | 0.3755 | 0.802 | 1.099 | 0.526 | 2.294 |
University | −0.434 | 0.2536 | 0.087 * | 0.648 | 0.394 | 1.065 |
Postgraduate | 0 a | 1 | ||||
4. Age group | ||||||
18–30 | 3.303 | 0.8238 | 0.000 *** | 27.201 | 5.412 | 136.720 |
31–45 | 3.616 | 0.8395 | 0.000 *** | 37.175 | 7.172 | 192.679 |
46–55 | 4.016 | 0.9039 | 0.000 *** | 55.472 | 9.434 | 326.173 |
56–65 | 5.238 | 0.9869 | 0.000 *** | 188.270 | 27.208 | 1302.762 |
>65 | 0 a | 1 | ||||
5. Marital status | ||||||
Single | 1.725 | 0.7291 | 0.018 ** | 5.615 | 1.345 | 23.441 |
Married | 1.115 | 0.6981 | 0.110 | 3.050 | 0.776 | 11.983 |
Divorced | 0 a | 1 | ||||
6. Occupation | ||||||
Students | 0.361 | 0.4495 | 0.423 | 1.434 | 0.594 | 3.461 |
Public sector | −0.636 | 0.3042 | 0.037 | 0.530 | 0.292 | 0.961 |
Private employee | −0.831 | 0.2943 | 0.005 ** | 0.435 | 0.245 | 0.775 |
Self-employed | −0.482 | 0.3366 | 0.152 | 0.618 | 0.319 | 1.195 |
Pensioner | −0.513 | 0.4880 | 0.293 | 0.599 | 0.230 | 1.558 |
Unemployed | 1.029 | 0.5189 | 0.047 ** | 2.798 | 1.012 | 7.737 |
Others | 0 a | 1 | ||||
7. Monthly income | ||||||
<3000 Yuan | −0.620 | 0.3407 | 0.069 * | 0.538 | 0.276 | 1.049 |
3001–6000 Yuan | −0.161 | 0.2486 | 0.517 | 0.851 | 0.523 | 1.385 |
6001–10,000 Yuan | −0.579 | 0.2248 | 0.010 * | 0.560 | 0.361 | 0.871 |
>10,000 Yuan | 0 a | 1 |
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. |
© 2024 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
Zhao, J.; Aziz, F.A.; Song, M.; Zhang, H.; Ujang, N.; Xiao, Y.; Cheng, Z. Evaluating Visitor Usage and Safety Perception Experiences in National Forest Parks. Land 2024, 13, 1341. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13091341
Zhao J, Aziz FA, Song M, Zhang H, Ujang N, Xiao Y, Cheng Z. Evaluating Visitor Usage and Safety Perception Experiences in National Forest Parks. Land. 2024; 13(9):1341. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13091341
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhao, Jing, Faziawati Abdul Aziz, Menglin Song, Hui Zhang, Norsidah Ujang, Yi Xiao, and Ziyi Cheng. 2024. "Evaluating Visitor Usage and Safety Perception Experiences in National Forest Parks" Land 13, no. 9: 1341. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13091341