Next Article in Journal
Landslide Recognition Based on Machine Learning Considering Terrain Feature Fusion
Previous Article in Journal
Spatial and Temporal Dynamics in Vegetation Greenness and Its Response to Climate Change in the Tarim River Basin, China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJGI
Volume 13
Issue 9
10.3390/ijgi13090305
ijgi-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Investigating Resident–Tourist Sharing of Urban Public Recreation Space and Its Influencing Factors

by
Yanan Tang
1,
Lin Li
2,
Yilin Gan
1 and
Shuangyu Xie
1,*
1
School of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079, China
2
College of Tourism and Service Management, Nankai University, Tianjin 300350, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2024, 13(9), 305; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi13090305
Submission received: 29 July 2024 / Revised: 18 August 2024 / Accepted: 22 August 2024 / Published: 26 August 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Urban public recreation space (UPRS) is an integral part of the urban public space system. With the rise of urban tourism, these areas have evolved into important spaces for leisure and entertainment, serving both residents and tourists. However, the extent to which these spaces are shared by the two groups remains unclear. This study quantified the level of UPRS equally shared by residents and tourists in Wuhan, China, using geotagged check-in data from 74 UPRS. We evaluated and compared the resident–tourist sharing degree across various types of UPRS and explored its influencing factors using multiple linear regression (MLR). The results indicated the following: (1) The sharing degree was at a moderate level and it varied significantly across different types of UPRS. (2) Characteristic streets had the highest sharing degree, followed by cultural spaces, urban parks, and tourist scenic spots. (3) The number of nearby tourist attractions, road density, and number of transport stops positively affected sharing degree. These findings suggest that the combination layout of UPRS with other tourist attractions and enhanced accessibility can effectively improve the shared usage of UPRS.

1. Introduction

In recent years, with the emergence of new urban tourism [1], tourists have gradually been integrated into residents’ daily recreational spaces [2], while growing numbers of residents are exploring their own cities as tourist destinations [3]. This phenomenon has been blurring the traditional boundaries between leisure spaces and tourism spaces [4]. Residents and tourists are increasingly sharing the same urban spaces and facilities [5], especially urban public recreation space (UPRS). UPRS is public space specifically designed and built for recreational purposes [6]. These spaces are typically located in urban or suburban areas and contain open spaces, buildings, and facilities that visitors can freely enter and enjoy a variety of recreational functions, such as entertainment, relaxation, shopping, sightseeing, social interaction, exercise, and tourism [7]. As a public space, UPRS possesses the attributes of ‘free’ and ‘sharing’, meaning that it is open, unrestricted, and gratis [8], and is accessible to both residents and outsiders [6]. Initially, UPRS primarily served as a habitual recreational activity place for residents [9]. Consequently, some scholars mainly emphasized the equal rights of urban residents to access public recreational facilities [10], while overlooking the fact that UPRS has gradually evolved into the urban tourist attraction, serving as a shared space for residents and tourists. Given this transformation, ensuring the equitable sharing of UPRS by both residents and tourists should become be the focus of current urban planning.
For individuals, the shared space offers tourists and residents an opportunity to interact and foster deeper connections with each other [11]. For destinations, space shared by diverse visitors is beneficial for increasing place vitality [12] and contributes to sustainable urban management [13]. However, in reality, not all UPRS are able to achieve space sharing. On the one hand, during the initial stages of space construction, many UPRS tend to primarily cater to either residents or tourists, which not only impedes realization of shared usage of UPRS but also contradicts the inclusive principle that public space should be shared equally among diverse groups [14,15]. On the other hand, the potential recreational conflicts between the two groups may deter certain users from visiting UPRS, thus reducing the possibility of shared usage of UPRS. As a result, this intensifies spatial isolation, exclusion, and inequitable UPRS usage and recreational experience for certain groups [16]. Such circumstances are not conducive to fostering a positive and harmonious society [17]. In this context, investigating resident–tourist sharing of UPRS and exploring its influencing factors are important practical concerns for urban planning, which can mitigate the undesired consequences associated with unshared usage of UPRS, achieve mutually beneficial outcomes for residents and tourists [18], and promote equitable access to public space.
Despite the urgency of addressing the issue of shared usage of UPRS, current research that investigates UPRS (e.g., urban park) predominantly focuses on discussing the space visitation and its driving factors, including effects of space attributes, surrounding attributes, transport, and location on the numbers of visitors [19,20] and comparing the specific use behaviors and perceptions of space among different visitor groups [21]. Furthermore, existing studies primarily focused on visitor counts [17], paying little attention to the shared usage of UPRS by different visitor groups. Only a small number of studies noticed the importance of shared usage of UPRS and explored it from the perspective of the diversity of space visitors. Generally, visitor diversity is defined as the mix of visitors who access a given area [22] and identified by visitors’ socioeconomic characteristics (ethnicity, age, gender, etc.) [17]. While visitor diversity can indeed indicate space inclusivity, it falls short in assessing the fairness of space usage based on the varying numbers of different visitor groups. In addition, this concept is mainly used to measure the diversity of resident visitors by age, income level, family situation, and neighborhoods [17,22] rather than exploring shared usage of UPRS by residents and tourists. Recently, another relevant study has explored the spatial association between the recreational activities of tourists and residents during the same period [4]. They ignore that the sharing of UPRS actually also includes the situation when residents and tourists visit the same space at different times [23]. It is evident that previous studies have involved the shared usage of UPRS, but these results can not accurately reflect the equal usage of space by different groups, that is, whether the number distribution of visitors from different groups is balanced. Here, we focus on resident–tourist sharing of UPRS and use the ratio of two groups as an indicator to measure the extent to which UPRS is shared equally.
Moreover, there are various types of UPRS [7], including not only urban parks, recreational business districts, and green spaces but also emerging space types such as libraries and museums [9]. While prior research indicates that resident–tourist sharing varies in different types of space or urban settings [4,24], little is known about which type of UPRS is shared better. From the practical perspective, identifying which type of UPRS is more effectively shared is an important issue. This informs decisions on which type of UPRS should have improved access or be promoted for tourists and residents to visit as a way of enhancing space shared usage.
The main purpose of this study is to provide quantitative insights into assessing resident–tourist sharing of UPRS and explore its influencing factors. To achieve this purpose, we chose the central urban area of Wuhan as our research site and used Python to obtain Weibo check-in data of residents and tourists, respectively, taking the ratio of check-in numbers of the two groups as a proxy variable to quantitatively measure the shared usage of UPRS by residents and tourists. The specific objectives are to (1) quantify resident–tourist sharing degree and compare their differences among various types of UPRS, and (2) analyze and identify the influencing factors on the resident–tourist sharing degree through multiple linear regression. Our findings are expected to provide meaningful empirical evidence for effective UPRS planning and management.
This study consists of the following sections. The first section introduces the practical and academic background as well as the main objectives of the research. The second section proposes an analysis framework based on a literature review. The third section describes the methodology for this study, including study area, data collection, variables, and statistical methods. The fourth section presents the results of the resident–tourist sharing degree evaluation and its influencing factors. The fifth section discusses and explains the main research results. Finally, this study summarizes the main findings, contributions, and practical implications for urban planning.

2. Literature Review and Analysis Framework

2.1. Space Sharing Degree and Resident–Tourist Sharing Degree

Space sharing degree refers to the extent to which activity space is shared by different groups, which is employed to analyze the presence of activity space segregation and isolation [25,26]. Existing studies have pointed out that contact and gathering among individuals in open and shared spaces can effectively enhance the vitality of space [27,28]. Shared usage of space can be achieved through spatial co-presence and common activities among different groups; it does not equate to actual interaction, but rather provides potential for inter-group contact [29,30,31]. Resident–tourist sharing is a typical phenomenon of shared usage of space in the tourism context, where tourists inevitably share space with residents in tourist destinations.
Drawing on the relevant studies of space sharing degree, we propose the resident–tourist sharing degree to explore the extent to which UPRS is equally shared by the two groups. A high resident–tourist sharing degree indicates that the space can equally accommodate the both groups, whereas a low resident–tourist sharing degree suggests that the UPRS mainly attracts one group.

2.2. Potential Impact Factors

The foundation of shared usage of space is that the space can be visited by different groups. Therefore, the achievement of resident–tourist sharing of UPRS relies on the factors that attract both groups. A serious of studies have confirmed that space attributes, spatial accessibility, surrounding environment feature and location were related with space visits [19,32,33,34,35,36,37]. However, it is unknown whether these factors play similar roles in predicting shared usage of UPRS by residents and tourists. Drawing on previous studies, we identified independent variables from four facets including space attributes, accessibility, surrounding attributes, and location, investigating their influence on shared usage of UPRS (Figure 1).

2.2.1. UPRS Attributes

Space attributes, such as size, entrance fee, maintenance and management, safety, and facilities, were found to be correlated with UPRS visits and visitor diversity [17,21,33,38]. Particularly in terms of urban parks, large parks in closer proximity to residential areas generally attract more visitors [39]. In addition, electronic word of mouth is one of the key factors influencing tourism decision-making [40], indicating its potential to impact tourists’ space choices. Researchers have observed a positive correlation between positive evaluations and UPRS’s capacity to attract visitors [35]. Overall, residents and tourists are more likely to visit UPRS with supportive space attributes and high online evaluation. Considering the common attributes of different types of UPRS, we only selected space size and online review to represent UPRS attributes and hypothesized that they might exert a positive impact on resident–tourist sharing degree.

2.2.2. Accessibility

Variables including road density, number of nearby bus and metro stops, and distance are used to assess accessibility of space [19,20,32]. Accessibility has been widely reported as one of the major factors in shaping space utilization, and proximity to public transportation such as bus and metro stations was found to significantly promote UPRS visits [37,41]. Shared usage of UPRS by residents and tourists is likely to be correlated with spatial accessibility, because good accessibility enables people to visit UPRS easily [37]. Existing research showed that both road density and convenient transportation are important factors affecting the decision of not only local residents but also tourists from all over the country [19]. The reason is that a good transportation system could make it easy for residents and tourists to access UPRS, reducing their time costs. Therefore, we chose road density and number of nearby bus stops and metro stops to estimate accessibility, which might be associated with resident–tourist sharing degree.

2.2.3. Surrounding Attributes

Surrounding attributes are usually composed of population density, building density, services, and facilities [19,32,37,38,42]. In particular, surrounding services and facilities (e.g., restaurants, wholesalers, recreational facilities) could significantly promote UPRS visits and usage [36,37], and even play a dominant role among all factors [19]. Surrounding attributes may also affect shared usage of UPRS by residents and tourists because a variety of surrounding additional functions are of interest to and are used by both groups [24]. For example, the availability of surrounding service and facilities greatly attract incidental visits to UPRS by supporting their recreational activities and enhancing their travel experiences [19,35]. So, we chose three variables: the number of nearby shopping spots, tourist attractions, and hotels as surrounding environment factors that might positively influence resident–tourist sharing degree.

2.2.4. Location

Distance to the urban center is used to present the location of UPRS. Some studies have highlighted its significance as a factor that affects space visits [19,20]. In well-known tourist cities, the urban center area is often a well-developed area with infrastructure of a high quality [24]. To some extent, proximity to the urban center represents the availability of diverse and abundant facility services (e.g., commercial and transportation facilities), which can meet visitors’ multiple needs. That is, UPRS that is closer to the city center is more likely to attract both residents and tourists. Hence, we predicted that there was a negative relationship between the distance to the urban center and the resident–tourist sharing degree.

3. Methodology

3.1. Study Area and UPRS Type Classification

3.1.1. Study Area

Wuhan, a megacity located in the middle reaches of the Yangtze River, is the capital of Hubei Province and a central city in the central region of China. At the end of 2021, Wuhan had a permanent resident population of 13.65 million and received 271.51 million tourists [43], indicating that it is a popular city as well as tourist destination. In recent years, Wuhan’s government has placed a growing emphasis on providing open public cultural facilities free of charge and actively promoted public cultural services and tourism services to serve both residents and tourists, aiming to create an excellent environment for living and travel. In this study, the central urban area of Wuhan is selected as the study area, which covers an area of 919.15 km2. In 2021, about 6.98 million permanent residents lived there, constituting over half of the city’s total population. Additionally, UPRS are mainly concentrated in central Wuhan. It is necessary to investigate how UPRS are shared by residents and tourists in this context.
Public open space is supposed to be open with free access to all [14]. Notably, recreational spaces that require an entrance fee may exclude certain groups due to economic constraints. Thus, we mainly focused on non-profit recreation spaces. Under this premise, we finally selected 138 representative UPRS open to residents and tourists free of charge as the case study objects, drawing from the classification of UPRS by Wu et al. (2003) [7] in conjunction with spatial location and a list of recreational space published by the Department of Culture and Tourism of Hubei Province. The selected UPRS encompassed a diverse range of features and functions, including urban parks, cultural spaces, characteristic streets, and tourist scenic spots (Figure 2).

3.1.2. UPRS Type Classification

The UPRS in Wuhan are classified into four categories according to their primary functions [7]: (1) urban park (n = 44), (2) tourist scenic spot (n = 5), (3) cultural space (n = 11), and (4) characteristic street (n = 14) (Table 1 and Figure 3). Previous studies have pointed out that residents and tourists have different preferences for recreational space [4]. Residents have a preference for entertainment and leisure attractions, whereas tourists lean towards famous sightseeing and tourist recreation attractions [40]. We assumed that the main users attracted by different types of UPRS vary, which might affect resident–tourist sharing degree.
Figure 2 shows the spatial distribution of various types of UPRS within the study area. The distribution pattern of UPRS exhibited a concentration in the urban center and dispersion in the periphery. Among the 74 UPRS, urban parks were the most prevalent type and were evenly distributed across the majority of the study area, followed by characteristic streets, cultural spaces and tourist scenic spots, and the last three types were mainly located on both sides of the Yangtze River.

3.2. Data Collection and Analysis

This study was divided into three steps: data collection, sharing degree evaluation, and statistical analysis (Figure 4).

3.2.1. Data Collection

The datasets of this study consist of two types of data: (1) social media data, including online review and check-in data—the former is adopted to characterize UPRS attributes, while the latter is used to calculate the resident–tourist sharing degree; (2) spatial data, including space size, road network, and points of interest (POIs) surrounding UPRS, which are required for correlation analysis.
The sources of the above data vary. The data of online review was obtained from dianping.com, a popular website providing users’ review information (e.g., score, text, image). Check-in data from Weibo of UPRS in the main urban region of Wuhan was mined using Python to calculate the resident–tourist sharing degree. Weibo is the largest social media platform in China with more than 586 million monthly active users in 2022. Previous research has demonstrated the effectiveness of social media data in measuring UPRS visits [20,35,44,45]. The data collected covers a one-year time period, spanning from November 2021 to November 2022, which includes users’ basic information (e.g., users’ hometown, gender), check-in information (e.g., check-in location, check-in time, longitude, latitude), and Weibo text. Initially, we collected 27,884 check-in records; then, we excluded recreation points with a low overall check-in count, retaining 24,189 check-in records covering 74 UPRS. We also carefully filtered the data obtained according to the picture and text content posted by the users to ensure that only check-in data for residents and visitors’ recreational activities was retained. We distinguished residents and tourists based on their hometown information, obtaining 11,150 check-in data for tourists and 13,039 for residents.
The spatial data was for 2022. UPRS sizes were calculated using polygon shape files obtained from Google Earth imagery. The datasets of road networks, transport stops, shopping spots, tourist attractions, and hotels was derived from Gaode Map (https://lbs.amap.com/, accessed on 12 September 2023) and then was calculated based on buffer analysis in ArcGIS 10.2.

3.2.2. Variables

Dependent variable. Based on the dissimilarity index that is commonly used to quantify patterns of population distributions and spatial relationships [18], we calculated the resident–tourist sharing degree of UPRS using the ratio of check-in data for residents and tourists. This can reflect both the inclusiveness and the level of balanced distribution of space visitor groups. The closer the ratio is to 1, the higher the resident–tourist sharing degree of UPRS.
Independent variables. We selected eight independent variables that may affect resident–tourist sharing degree of UPRS, including: (1) two variables—UPRS size and online review—to describe the UPRS attributes; (2) two variables—road density and the number of nearby transport stops—to estimate the UPRS accessibility; (3) three variables—the number of shopping spots, tourist attractions and hotels—to describe the UPRS surrounding environmental facilities; (4) the distance to the urban center—to describe the UPRS location (Table 2).

3.2.3. Statistical Analysis

Based on sharing degree calculation, we firstly compared the differences in resident–tourist sharing degree among the four types of UPRS. The Kruskal–Wallis test is a nonparametric statistical test that assesses whether or not there is a statistically significant difference among the medians of three or more independent sampled groups, and this method does not require samples to adhere to a normal distribution [46,47]. If the result of Kruskal–Wallis test is statistically significant, it is appropriate to conduct Dunn’s test to determine exactly which groups are different [48]. Thus, we applied the Kruskal–Wallis test to examine variations in sharing degree among different types of UPRS and conducted a Dunn’s test for pairwise multiple comparisons.
Spearman’s correlation coefficient is a nonparametric rank statistic proposed as a measure of the strength of the association between two variables [49]. Therefore, we employed Spearman’s correlation to assess the strength and direction of the relationship between resident–tourist sharing degree and their potential influencing factors. Additionally, we employed multiple linear regression (MLP) to investigate how these variables influence sharing degree and assess their respective significance in predicting sharing degree. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 23.0.

4. Results

The descriptive statistics of the resident–tourist sharing degree and influencing factor variables are presented in Table 3. The resident–tourist sharing degree averaged 0.52, suggesting a medium level of shared usage in Wuhan. The space size varied greatly (SD = 1,018,350.06), whereas the online review exhibited minimal variations (SD = 0.30). The UPRS generally had sufficient surrounding facilities, as evidenced by the high mean values of shopping spots (mean = 70.81) and hotels (mean = 70.04). The difference in the distance to the urban center was significantly different among UPRS (SD = 4465.78).

4.1. Inequality in the Distribution of Resident–Tourist Sharing Degree

The resident–tourist sharing degree ranged from 0.13 to 0.98, with a mean of 0.52. Most of the UPRS’ (n = 47) sharing degrees were concentrated in 0.3 to 0.6, while 41 UPRS’ resident–tourist sharing degrees were less than average, and only 33 UPRS’ sharing degrees were higher than the average. These results reveal that most UPRS are not well shared by tourists and residents with one group predominantly occupying them. However, there were 10 UPRS (13.5% of the total) with a sharing degree more than 0.8, indicating a nearly equal number of tourists and residents utilizing these areas.
The resident–tourist sharing degree of UPRS varied greatly in spatial distribution (Figure 5). The resident–tourist sharing degree showed a declining trend from the center towards the periphery. In particular, UPRS located near lakes and rivers exhibited higher levels of resident–tourist sharing, such as Jianghan Road Pedestrian Street, Hankou River Beach Park, Chu River and Han Street, and Shahu Park. The high-sharing UPRS were mainly distributed in the urban center, particularly along both sides of the Yangtze River. Conversely, the low-sharing UPRS tended to be situated on the periphery of the city, especially in the northwestern region.

4.2. Differences in Resident–Tourist Sharing Degree among Four Types of UPRS

The resident–tourist sharing degree of UPRS displayed significant variability across different types (Figure 6), as indicated by unequal medians among various types of UPRS (p < 0.05). Characteristic streets had the highest sharing degree, followed by the cultural spaces, then the urban parks, while the tourist scenic spots had the lowest degree of sharing. Dunn’s test showed that the sharing degree for characteristic streets was higher significantly than urban parks (p < 0.01). However, there were no statistically significant differences among the remaining types.

4.3. Effects of Influencing Factors on Resident–Tourist Sharing Degree

Table 4 displays the outcomes of Spearman’s correlation analysis between sharing degree and the chosen predictor variables. The sharing degree showed a significant correlation with six variables: Dis2UC, road density, the number of nearby shopping spots, transport stops, tourist attractions, and hotels. However, there was no correlation between sharing degree and UPRS attributes, suggesting that the hypothesis that UPRS attributes might affect resident–tourist sharing degree was rejected.
The regression model results are presented in Table 5. The VIF values for all factors influencing sharing degrees were less than 5, with a mean VIF of 2.47, which meant the multicollinearity among the predictor factors was small and weak. The R2 was 0.689, and the adjusted R2 was 0.650, indicating that the explanation rate of various influencing factors on sharing degree of UPRS exceeded 50%.
The results revealed that three variables significantly affected resident–tourist sharing degree (Table 5), including two UPRS accessibility variables (road density and nearby N_stops) and the nearby N_tourist attractions. Among these three variables, the nearby N_stops had the strongest influence on the sharing degree, followed by road density, and then tourist attractions. The number of tourist attractions was positively related to resident–tourist sharing degree, which implied that UPRS located in proximity to tourist attractions was more likely to attract both tourists and residents. Likewise, the road density and the number of transport stops also exhibited a positive association with the sharing degree, suggesting that enhanced accessibility through road infrastructure and transportation facilities can contribute to higher shared usage. In contrast, no strong evidence was found to suggest that UPRS attributes had a significant influence on sharing degree, nor did the Dis2UC, N_shopping spots or N_hotels.
Figure 7 shows the spatial distribution of three independent variables with high regression coefficients (Road density, N_Stops, N_Tourist attractions). The spatial distribution of these three variables and sharing degree exhibited a certain level of consistency. Furthermore, for UPRS located near the urban center, their high sharing degrees were closely associated with Road density, N_Stops, N_Tourist attractions. Meanwhile, for UPRS situated near lakes, the sharing degrees were more significantly correlated with N_Tourist attractions. For instance, certain UPRS in East Lake are situated at a distance from the urban center with inconvenient surrounding traffic; however, they have stunning natural scenery and abundant recreational facilities around. Therefore, N_Tourist attractions may have a greater impact on their sharing degrees.

5. Discussion

In this study, we quantitatively assessed and compared the resident–tourist sharing degree across various types of UPRS. Furthermore, we examined the impact of different factors on shared usage of UPRS. The findings from this study offer valuable insights into the shared utilization of UPRS by residents and tourists. The approach proposed here holds promise for application in other cities to evaluate shared usage of space.

5.1. Reasons for Variation in Resident–Tourist Sharing Degrees among Different Types of UPRS

Our findings show that characteristic streets have higher resident–tourist sharing degree than other UPRS types. Several reasons can explain this outcome. Firstly, one previous study pointed out that the attractiveness of recreational areas mainly drives from three aspects: the inherent recreational value, the popularity of recreational areas, and the information obtained by visitors [50]. Characteristic streets fulfill the above conditions, which contributes to their high resident–tourist sharing degree. The recreational value of characteristic streets is reflected in their locality, as most of them constitute important parts of the city’s memory [51,52], serving as carriers of local culture and spirit. These streets attract tourists interested in local culture, while also engaging residents in revisiting city’s multicultural pasts, affording them the space to act like tourists in their own city [53]. Similarly, in Europe, such streets are likewise considered to be the most distinctive and historic areas and are gathering places for residents and tourists [52,54]. Additionally, the characteristic streets in this study have gained wide attention on social media platforms. This attention enhances the popularity of these streets, increases the accessibility of useful information to potential visitors, and attracts more residents and tourists. Furthermore, interaction and connection with residents on social media platforms increases tourists’ willingness to share the same space with residents. Secondly, spatial analysis reveals that these characteristic streets are primarily located near urban or commercial centers, indicating a geographic advantage that aligns with tourists’ accommodation preferences and local residents’ daily activities. This geographic accessibility enhances the potential for them to be visited by residents and tourists. Finally, the diversity of commercial activities and service function in these characteristic streets allows them to cater to the multiple needs of both tourists and residents.
The two types of UPRS with lower resident–tourist sharing degrees are urban parks and tourist scenic spots. However, this result does not mean that these spaces do not have the possibility of being shared by residents and tourists. We found that although most urban parks’ main users were residents, the visit number of residents and tourists was almost equal in several urban parks, such as Hankou River Beach Park. On the one hand, these urban parks are close to the urban center and tourist attractions, with convenient transportation; on the other hand, they have unique landscape [20]. This finding suggests that the sharing degree of urban parks can be improved by increasing their accessibility and the attractiveness of the landscape. After all, urban parks are spaces where tourists can deeply participate in experiencing a city’s unique cultural life and leisure [13].
However, the low resident–tourist sharing degree of tourist scenic spots may be related to the high tourist flow in Wuhan all year round. To some extent, tourists have practically appropriated some areas, pushing indigenous residents out of them [55,56]. In consideration of potential resource competition and conflict with tourists, residents are likely to reduce their visits to tourist scenic spots. According to the transactional model of stress and coping [57], recreationists may decide to visit entirely different settings to avoid crowded spaces [58,59]. One surprising finding was that one tourist scenic spot exhibited a high resident–tourist sharing degree. The reason for this is that in addition to the geographical advantages, the designer has integrated a modern aesthetic and complex commercial format into this industrial relic building, making it a new landmark of cultural innovation sought after by young people. Therefore, although the resident–tourist sharing degree varies among different types of UPRS at this stage, each type of UPRS has the opportunity to be shared by the two groups through interventions.

5.2. Factors Influencing Resident–Tourist Sharing Degree

Among three environment attribute variables, only the number of nearby tourist attractions exhibited a significant impact on resident–tourist sharing degree of UPRS in the regression model. These results imply that UPRS situated near tourist attractions possesses a greater potential to attract both tourists and residents. We infer that this result may be attributed to the correlation between resource density and attraction [60], as UPRS situated near other attractions offers visitors more options. The analysis tends to suggest that city planners and managers should attach importance to the spatial agglomeration effect of UPRS and make them more attractive to both residents and tourists by promoting the combination of different UPRS types within geographical space.
In terms of accessibility, both road density and the number of nearby transport stops (e.g., metro and bus stops) were significantly and positively associated with resident–tourist sharing degree. These results indicate that UPRS with convenient transportation conditions tends to exhibit a higher resident–tourist sharing degree. However, this finding is inconsistent with a previous study on factors influencing urban park visits [37], which found that accessibility was not a limitation. The disparity lies in the fact that their study primarily investigated the factors that influenced residents’ visits to urban parks. Residents tend to choose parks closer to their home; therefore, they are less dependent on public transportation. However, the UPRS selected in our study serve not only residents but also tourists from all over the country, so convenient transportation played an important role in visitor’s choices. This finding also implies that there may be differences in the factors that affect space visits and shared usage.
Contrary to prior expectations, several variables showed no significant effects on resident–tourist sharing degree. Our analysis revealed no correlation between the online review and resident–tourist sharing degree, which is consistent with existing studies [40]. This may be attributed to the limited variation in online evaluation scores across UPRS. The findings showed that space size could not increase resident–tourist sharing degree either, contradicting existing studies on recreational space visits [19,32,33]. The inconsistent results indicate that the association between space size and resident–tourist sharing degree may be more complex than initially hypothesized. As mentioned above, previous studies primarily chose the same space type, urban parks, as the research subject, where space size may affect user’s access choices within the context of similar spatial functions. However, our study extended its scope to include characteristic streets, cultural spaces, and tourist scenic spots, in addition to urban parks. When compared to the distinctive functions or other characteristics of various UPRS, it is plausible that space size may not affect the visiting choice of residents and tourists. This explains why space size had no significant effect on the sharing degree when analyzing multiple types of UPRS. Similar findings in previous studies suggested that visitors may tend to underestimate the importance of park size particularly when urban parks serve as tourist attractions or are classified as higher-level parks [35].
In Spearman’s correlation analysis, the distance to the urban center, and the number of nearby shopping spots and hotels had impacts on the resident–tourist sharing degree. In particular, the distance to the urban center demonstrated a negative correlation with resident–tourist sharing degree, indicating that UPRS located near the urban center were more likely to be shared effectively. This observation is consistent with previous research [19,20,36]. As integral components of the surrounding facilities, both the number of nearby shopping spots and hotels were the other two factors significantly influencing resident–tourist sharing degree. However, in the context of multiple linear regression analysis (Table 5), these three variables showed no correlation with resident–tourist sharing degree.

5.3. Limitations and Future Research

This study assessed the resident–tourist sharing degree of UPRS using Weibo check-in data. This approach represents a low-cost and effective way of obtaining volunteered geographic information, but often lacks behavioral information for children and the elderly. In addition, due to platform restrictions and data ethics, detailed demographic information about check-in users was not available, making it challenging to discern variations in sharing degrees among other groups. Furthermore, the majority of Weibo check-in records were found to be concentrated in well-known UPRS, with a few UPRS lacking check-in records, thus limiting the scope of research.
In the future, further research could incorporate other similar social media platforms or big data resources such as mobile phone signaling [42] to jointly assess the resident–tourist sharing degree of UPRS using multi-source geographic data. Moreover, a similar approach could be used to evaluate the shared use of UPRS among different demographic groups to identify advantageous groups in space usage, such as genders (male and female), ages (young and old), incomes (high and low), etc., if this demographic information could be obtained from social media platform. Although the ratio of residents and tourists serves as a straightforward indicator for quantifying the sharing degree of UPRS, for further research, combining it with other dimensions like sharing quality could comprehensively assess the shared usage of space. In addition, over-tourism is becoming a problem in many places. Excessive numbers of tourists may exacerbate congestion in some areas and affect residents’ recreational rights. As the long-term “city user”, residents’ perception of the shared usage of UPRS is worth exploring in the future.

6. Conclusions

Measuring the resident–tourist sharing degree of UPRS and investigating its influencing factors are important for solving spatial isolation and promoting equitable spatial utilization for diverse groups. Drawing on the existing studies that focus on investigating public recreation space visits, we further estimated the extent to which the UPRS is equally shared by tourists and residents using the geotagged check-in ratio of the two group as a proxy for the sharing degree. Compared with traditional survey methods, this study provides an effective approach to measure the resident–tourist sharing degree, which might help to assess the shared usage of space rapidly and accurately. The approach could offer valuable insights into the level of UPRS shared usage. Similarly, it is possible to identify poorly shared UPRS and provide guidelines for improvements.
Furthermore, we identified the types of UPRS that are popular with both residents and tourists. This research provides empirical evidence supporting the space sharing value of characteristic streets, suggesting that urban planners and managers should prioritize this type of UPRS in the process of creating a shared city for tourists and residents. However, there are different levels of space exclusion in urban parks and tourist scenic spots, that is, they predominantly serve residents or tourists. The observation suggests that policy makers and designers should take effective interventions to make such spaces more inclusive and attractive. For instance, urban parks primarily appropriated by residents can provide opportunities for tourists to engage with residents through showcasing local culture and authentic lifestyle [18]. In particular, the well-known regional urban park should give priority to attributes that attract residents and tourists from different areas or counties.
We also identified several key factors significantly affecting the resident–tourist sharing degree of UPRS, including road density, the quantity of transport stops, and the presence of nearby tourist attractions. These findings indicate that UPRS with high accessibility and nearby tourist attractions tend to be shared better. In particular, the number of nearby transport stops had the strongest effect on resident–tourist sharing degree. So, we recommend that improving the accessibility of UPRS by increasing transport convenience represents an effective measure for encouraging shared usage of UPRS by tourists and residents.
Recreation, as one of the four functions of a city, is an inherent social phenomenon of the city. The UPRS serves as a significant representation for assessing a city’s social civilization. Due to its “free” and “sharing” nature, UPRS plays a crucial role in realizing the recreational rights of diverse groups. However, there are few empirical studies on the equitable shared usage of UPRS. With a clear understanding of the concept of UPRS and the emergence of new types of UPRS, it is essential for future studies to explore issues such as sharing quality, conflicts, and well-being of UPRS from a justice perspective. This will help promote the development of more inclusive urban spaces. In terms of research methods, in addition to traditional approaches, introducing social media big data from various sources such as UGC data (generated by users), device data (by devices), and transaction data (by operations) can lead to more accurate and comprehensive evaluations of shared utilization of UPRS.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Yanan Tang, Lin Li and Shuangyu Xie; methodology, Yanan Tang, Yilin Gan and Shuangyu Xie; software, Yanan Tang; validation, Yanan Tang and Lin Li; formal analysis, Yanan Tang; investigation, Yanan Tang; resources, Yanan Tang; data curation, Yanan Tang and Lin Li; writing—original draft preparation, Yanan Tang; writing—review and editing, Yanan Tang, Lin Li and Shuangyu Xie; visualization, Yanan Tang, Lin Li and Yilin Gan; supervision, Shuangyu Xie; project administration, Yanan Tang; funding acquisition, Shuangyu Xie. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Humanities and Social Science Fund of Ministry of Education of China, grant number 19YJA840018.

Data Availability Statement

Data that support the findings are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Duignan, M.; Pappalepore, I. How do Olympic cities strategically leverage new urban tourism? Evidence from Tokyo. Tour. Geogr. 2021, 25, 425–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Gravari-Barbas, M.; Jacquot, S.; Cominelli, F. New cultures of urban tourism. Int. J. Tour. Cities 2019, 5, 301–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hoogendoorn, G.; Hammett, D.J. Resident tourists and the local ‘other’. Tour. Geogr. 2021, 23, 1021–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zheng, J.; Hu, M.; Qi, J.; Han, B.; Wang, H.; Xu, F. The spatial association between residents’ leisure activities and tourism activities using Colocation Pattern Measures: A case study of Nanjing. China. Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2023, 12, 223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ashworth, G.; Page, S.J. Urban tourism research: Recent progress and current paradoxes. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zysk, E.; Zalewska, K. The voice of society in designing public recreational spaces (PRS) in an urban environment. Econ. Environ. 2024, 88, 715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wu, B.; Dong, L.; Tang, Z. A study on categories an attributes of public urban recreation space. Chin. Landsc. Archit. 2003, 19, 48–50. [Google Scholar]
  8. Carmona, M. Principles for public space design, planning to do better. Urban Des. Int. 2019, 24, 47–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yu, L.; Liu, J.; Tao, L.; Zhu, H. Research progress of urban public recreational space in China. Acta Geogr. Sin. 2018, 73, 1923–1941. [Google Scholar]
  10. Yang, Y.; Li, Q. Distribution pattern and its formation mechanism of public recreational space based on POI data: A case study of the main urban area of Changsha city. Mod. Urban Res. 2021, 28, 91–97. [Google Scholar]
  11. Song, R. China’s Tourism Development and Analysis Forecast from 2021 to 2022; Social Sciences Academic Press: Beijing, China, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  12. Montgomery, J. Making a city: Urbanity, vitality and urban design. J. Urban Des. 1998, 3, 93–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Song, H.; Shim, C. Comparing resident and tourist perceptions of an urban park: A latent profile analysis of perceived place value. J. Sustain. Tour. 2021, 29, 1180–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Jian, I.Y.; Luo, J.; Chan, E.H. Spatial justice in public open space planning: Accessibility and inclusivity. Habitat Int. 2020, 97, 102122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Li, J.; Dang, A.; Song, Y. Defining the ideal public space: A perspective from the publicness. J. Urban Manag. 2020, 11, 479–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhou, Z.; Lin, G. Research on the theory of inclusive design for urban park resisting design exclusion. Landsc. Archit. 2021, 28, 36–41. [Google Scholar]
  17. Chuang, I.T.; Benita, F.; Tuncer, 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]
  18. Li, D.; Zhou, X.; Wang, M. Analyzing and visualizing the spatial interactions between tourists and locals: A Flickr study in ten US cities. Cities 2018, 74, 249–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Fan, Z.; Duan, J.; Lu, Y.; Lan, W. A geographical detector study on factors influencing urban park use in Nanjing, China. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 59, 126996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhang, S.; Zhou, W. Recreational visits to urban parks and factors affecting park visits: Evidence from geotagged social media data. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 180, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Su, M.M.; Wall, G. Exploring the shared use of World Heritage Sites: Residents and domestic tourists’ use and perceptions of the Summer Palace in Beijing. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2016, 21, 905–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Raymond, C.M.; Gottwald, S.; Kuoppa, J.; Kyttä, M. Integrating multiple elements of environmental justice into urban blue space planning using public participation geographic information systems. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 153, 198–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Liao, Z.; Zhang, B.; Wu, Z. A study in characteristics of host-gust activities on the ancient city of Chaozhou. Hum. Geogr. 2020, 35, 151–160. [Google Scholar]
  24. Su, X.; Spierings, B.; Hooimeijer, P. Different urban settings affect multi-dimensional tourist-resident interactions. Tour. Geogr. 2022, 24, 815–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ta, N.; Shen, Y. Activity space-based segregation among neighbors and its influencing factors: An analysis based on shared activity spaces in suburban Shanghai. Acta Geogr. Sin. 2020, 75, 849–859. [Google Scholar]
  26. Browning, C.R.; Calder, C.A.; Krivo, L.J.; Smith, A.L.; Boettner, B. Socioeconomic segregation of activity spaces in urban neighborhoods: Does shared residence mean shared routines? Russell Sage Found. J. Soc. Sci. 2017, 3, 210–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wu, J.; Ta, N.; Song, Y.; Lin, J.; Chai, Y. Urban form breeds neighborhood vibrancy: A case study using a GPS-based activity survey in suburban Beijing. Cities 2018, 74, 100–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gehl, J. The residential street environment. Built Environ. 1980, 6, 51–61. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23286085 (accessed on 2 December 2023).
  29. Ta, N.; Lin, S. Potential public contact measurement for neighborhood shared activity space studies. Hum. Geogr. 2022, 37, 64–71+182. [Google Scholar]
  30. Browning, C.R.; Soller, B. Moving beyond neighborhood: Activity spaces and ecological networks as contexts for youth development. Cityscape 2014, 16, 165–196. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26326862 (accessed on 25 July 2024).
  31. Browning, C.R.; Calder, C.A.; Soller, B.; Jackson, A.L.; Dirlam, J. Ecological networks and neighborhood social organization. Am. J. Sociol. 2017, 122, 1939–1988. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26545960 (accessed on 25 July 2024). [CrossRef]
  32. Donahue, M.L.; Keeler, B.; Wood, S.A.; Fisher, D.M.; Hamstead, Z.A.; McPhearson, T. Using social media to understand drivers of urban park visitation in the Twin Cities, MN. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 175, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gu, X.; Li, Q.; Chand, S. Factors influencing residents’ access to and use of country parks in Shanghai, China. Cities 2020, 97, 102501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Tu, X.; Huang, G.; Wu, J.; Guo, X. How do travel distance and park size influence urban park visits? Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 52, 126689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Huai, S.; Liu, S.; Zheng, T.; Van de Voorde, T. Are social media data and survey data consistent in measuring park visitation, park satisfaction, and their influencing factors? A case study in Shanghai. Urban For. Urban Green. 2023, 81, 127869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Liu, Y.; Lu, A.; Yang, W.; Tian, Z. Investigating factors influencing park visit flows and duration using mobile phone signaling data. Urban For. Urban Green. 2023, 85, 127952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lyu, F.; Zhang, L. Using multi-source big data to understand the factors affecting urban park use in Wuhan. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 43, 126367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Li, F.; Li, F.; Li, S.; Long, Y. Deciphering the recreational use of urban parks: Experiments using multi-source big data for all Chinese cities. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 701, 134896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Giles-Corti, B.; Broomhall, M.H.; Knuiman, M.; Collins, C.; Douglas, K.; Ng, K.; Lange, A.; Donovan, R.J. Increasing walking: How important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space? Am. J. Prev. Med. 2005, 28, 169–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lai, S.; Tang, X.; Zhu, M. A study of the EWOM influence on tourist destination choice. Manag. Rev. 2011, 23, 68–75. [Google Scholar]
  41. Chen, Y.; Liu, X.; Gao, W.; Wang, R.Y.; Li, Y.; Tu, W. Emerging social media data on measuring urban park use. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 31, 130–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Guo, S.; Yang, G.; Pei, T.; Ma, T.; Song, C.; Shu, H.; Du, Y.; Zhou, C. Analysis of factors affecting urban park service area in Beijing: Perspectives from multi-source geographic data. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 181, 103–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wuhan Municipal Statistics Bureau. 2022 Wuhan Statistics Yearbook; China Statistics Press: Beijing, China, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  44. Liu, Z.; Dai, Z.; Lou, J.; Liu, S. Temporal and spatial characteristics of urban recreation behavior based on digital footprints: A case study of Shanghai. World Reg. Stud. 2019, 28, 95–105. [Google Scholar]
  45. Tenkanen, H.; Di Minin, E.; Heikinheimo, V.; Hausmann, A.; Herbst, M.; Kajala, L.; Toivonen, T. Instagram, Flickr, or Twitter: Assessing the usability of social media data for visitor monitoring in protected areas. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 17615. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/instagram-flickr-twitter-assessing-usability/docview/1983426842/se-2?accountid=11523 (accessed on 23 November 2023). [CrossRef]
  46. Kruskal, W.H.; Wallis, W.A. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1952, 47, 583–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. McKight, P.E.; Najab, J. Kruskal-wallis test. In The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Dunn, O.J. Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics 1964, 6, 241–252. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1266041 (accessed on 25 July 2024). [CrossRef]
  49. Hauke, J.; Kossowski, T. Comparison of values of Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlation coefficients on the same sets of data. Quaest. Geogr. 2011, 30, 87–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wu, C. Recreation utility and distribution behavior of outdoor recreation of citizens. J. Tongji Univ. 1999, 27, 718–722. [Google Scholar]
  51. Wang, D.; Niu, Y.; Lu, L.; Qian, J. Tourism spatial organization of historical streets—A postmodern perspective: The examples of Pingjiang Road and Shantang Street, Suzhou, China. Tour. Manag. 2015, 48, 370–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Skotis, A.; Livas, C. A data-driven analysis of experience in urban historic districts. Ann. Tour. Res. Empir. Insights 2022, 3, 100052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rugkhapan, N.T.; Tribe, J. Linear tourism, multiculturalism, creative district: The case of Charoenkrung creative district in Thailand. Ann. Tour. Res. 2023, 102, 103626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Yubero, C.; Condeço-Melhorado, A.M.; García-Hernández, M.; Fontes, A.C. Comparing spatial and content analysis of residents and tourists using Geotagged Social Media Data. The Historic Neighbourhood of Alfama (Lisbon), a case study. Rev. Investig. Turísticas 2021, 22, 95–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kotus, J.; Rzeszewski, M.; Ewertowski, W. Tourists in the spatial structures of a big Polish city: Development of an uncontrolled patchwork or concentric spheres? Tour. Manag. 2015, 50, 98–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Panayiotopoulos, A.; Pisano, C. Overtourism dystopias and socialist utopias: Towards an urban armature for Dubrovnik. Tour. Plan. Dev. 2019, 16, 393–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Miller, T.A.; McCool, S.F. Coping with stress in outdoor recreational settings: An application of Transactional Stress Theory. Leis. Sci. 2003, 25, 257–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Su, X.; Spierings, B.; Dijst, M.; Tong, Z. Analysing trends in the spatio-temporal behaviour patterns of mainland Chinese tourists and residents in Hong Kong based on Weibo data. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 23, 1542–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Johnson, A.K.; Dawson, C.P. An exploratory study of the complexities of coping behavior in Adirondack wilderness. Leis. Sci. 2004, 26, 281–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Jing, F.; Sun, H.; Yuan, C. Spatial structure analysis of tourism resource attraction in Chengdu. Resour. Sci. 2017, 39, 303–313. [Google Scholar]
Ijgi 13 00305 g001
Figure 1. Analysis framework of factors that affect resident–tourist sharing degree (Source: created by the author).
Figure 1. Analysis framework of factors that affect resident–tourist sharing degree (Source: created by the author).
Ijgi 13 00305 g001
Ijgi 13 00305 g002
Figure 2. The distribution of UPRS within the study area. (a) Location of central urban area, Wuhan, China. (b) Four types of UPRS.
Figure 2. The distribution of UPRS within the study area. (a) Location of central urban area, Wuhan, China. (b) Four types of UPRS.
Ijgi 13 00305 g002
Ijgi 13 00305 g003
Figure 3. Four types of UPRS (Source: photos taken by author). (a) Urban parks. (b) Tourist scenic spots. (c) Cultural spaces. (d) Characteristic streets.
Figure 3. Four types of UPRS (Source: photos taken by author). (a) Urban parks. (b) Tourist scenic spots. (c) Cultural spaces. (d) Characteristic streets.
Ijgi 13 00305 g003
Ijgi 13 00305 g004
Figure 4. Research flow chart.
Figure 4. Research flow chart.
Ijgi 13 00305 g004
Ijgi 13 00305 g005
Figure 5. Distribution of resident–tourist sharing degree of UPRS.
Figure 5. Distribution of resident–tourist sharing degree of UPRS.
Ijgi 13 00305 g005
Ijgi 13 00305 g006
Figure 6. Boxplot of resident–tourist sharing degree of different types of UPRS.
Figure 6. Boxplot of resident–tourist sharing degree of different types of UPRS.
Ijgi 13 00305 g006
Ijgi 13 00305 g007
Figure 7. Distribution of resident–tourist sharing degree of UPRS and tree independent variables. (a) Road density. (b) N_Stops. (c) N_Tourist attractions. (d) Resident–tourist sharing degree of UPRS.
Figure 7. Distribution of resident–tourist sharing degree of UPRS and tree independent variables. (a) Road density. (b) N_Stops. (c) N_Tourist attractions. (d) Resident–tourist sharing degree of UPRS.
Ijgi 13 00305 g007
Table 1. UPRS types and descriptions.
Table 1. UPRS types and descriptions.
UPRS Type (N = 74)Description
Urban park (n = 44)Urban parks are public spaces that have certain recreation and service facilities.
Tourist scenic spot (n = 5)Tourist scenic spots refer to places to carry out tourist activities, with tourism service facilities.
Cultural space (n = 11)Cultural spaces include museums, art galleries and science museums.
Characteristic street (n = 14)Characteristic streets are distinguished by unique, historical, or thematic features, offering a combination of cultural, leisure, and recreational activities.
Table 2. Descriptions of independent variables.
Table 2. Descriptions of independent variables.
VariablesDescription
UPRS attributes
Space sizeThe area size of each UPRS
Online reviewOnline evaluation of each UPRS
Accessibility
Road densityRoad density within a 500 m buffer zone
N_StopsNumber of transport stops within a 500 m buffer zone
Surrounding attributes
N_Shopping spotsNumber of shopping spots within a 500 m buffer zone
N_Tourist attractionsNumber of tourist attractions within a 500 m buffer zone
N_HotelsNumber of hotels within a 500 m buffer zone
Location
Dis2UCDistance from each UPRS centroids to the urban center
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for resident–tourist sharing degree and independent variables.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for resident–tourist sharing degree and independent variables.
VariablesUnitMinimumMaximumMeanSD
Dependent Variable
Resident–tourist sharing degree%0.130.980.520.21
Independent Variables
UPRS attributes
Space sizem23391.436,237,222421,790.911,018,350.06
Online reviewscore3.74.94.680.30
Accessibility
Road densitynumber0.024.690.590.85
N_Stopsnumber10365112.7282.45
Surrounding attributes
N_Shopping spotsnumber228870.8153.55
N_Tourist attractionsnumber029128.9545.31
N_Hotelsnumber037970.0480.59
Location
Dis2UCm406.3322,318.025949.164465.78
Note: SD = standard deviation.
Table 4. Spearman’s correlations between resident–tourist sharing degree of UPRS and independent variables.
Table 4. Spearman’s correlations between resident–tourist sharing degree of UPRS and independent variables.
Space SizeOnline ReviewDis2UCRoad DensityN_StopsN_Shopping SpotsN_Tourist AttractionsN_Hotels
Sharing degree−0.1750.164−0.541 **0.321 **0.685 **0.660 **0.630 **0.728 **
** Coefficient is significant at the 0.01 level.
Table 5. Results from multiple linear regressions of independent variables and resident–tourist sharing degree of UPRS.
Table 5. Results from multiple linear regressions of independent variables and resident–tourist sharing degree of UPRS.
VariableCoefficientStandardized CoefficientVIF
Space size−2.308 × 10−8−0.1131.844
Online review0.0320.0461.199
Dis2UC−2.425 × 10−6−0.0522.216
Road density0.0640.262 **2.000
N_Stops0.0010.452 **4.891
N_Shopping spots0.0000.0893.499
N_Tourist attractions0.0010.231 **1.224
N_Hotels0.0000.1552.893
R20.689
Adjusted R20.650
Mean VIF 2.471
** Coefficient is significant at the 0.01 level.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tang, Y.; Li, L.; Gan, Y.; Xie, S. Investigating Resident–Tourist Sharing of Urban Public Recreation Space and Its Influencing Factors. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2024, 13, 305. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi13090305

AMA Style

Tang Y, Li L, Gan Y, Xie S. Investigating Resident–Tourist Sharing of Urban Public Recreation Space and Its Influencing Factors. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information. 2024; 13(9):305. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi13090305

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tang, Yanan, Lin Li, Yilin Gan, and Shuangyu Xie. 2024. "Investigating Resident–Tourist Sharing of Urban Public Recreation Space and Its Influencing Factors" ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 13, no. 9: 305. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi13090305

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop