*3.3. The Evaluation of the Community Greenway*

The residents' evaluation of the community greenway included three parts, which were the residents' evaluation of the current status of different factors of the community greenway, the impact level of the community greenway on the residents' daily life and the importance level of the community greenway construction factors. The total reliability of the questionnaire was 0.797, which was relatively high.



*Land* **2019** , *8*, 188 The Evaluation of the Current Community Greenway and Its Impact on the Residents' Everyday Life

From Table 5, we can see accessibility scored the highest (4.19) in the status quo evaluation, and most people expressed satisfaction with the accessibility of the greenway (88%). The most dissatisfying factors was service facilities (2.97), and 76% of residents chose 'generally' or 'dissatisfied'. "There are no benches to sit and no shelter for rain. You know, the elderly need benches" "I think there is a need for public toilets here, otherwise it is very inconvenient to come here for exercise." "The lights are too dark at night, I can't see the rubbish on the road, and I would not take my kids here." Residents were relatively satisfied with other aspects. The results were 3.83 for the connection with the urban living facilities, 3.58 for the traffic environment, 3.33 for the type and amounts of the activity space. The overall satisfaction was 3.65, and 55% of residents expressed 'satisfied' with the community greenway. From the evaluation of various factors and the overall satisfaction of community greenways (Table 6), there is a positive correlation between the type and quantity of activity space and overall satisfaction (β = 0.443, 95% C.I. = −0.222–0.631, *p* = 0.000).

**Table 5.** The current status of the community greenway and its impact on the residents' daily life by mean and the proportion of "very satisfied" and "satisfied".


**Table 6.** Multivariate regression analysis on the relationship between the evaluation of current status of the construction factors and the overall satisfaction of the community greenway.


\*\*\* *p* < 0.001.

The results of Table 5 indicate that the community greenway has significantly improved transportation (3.78) and leisure activities (3.66), and the results show that the community greenway increases the chance of interacting with neighbors (3.26) and family (3.31). The business activities in the greenway were a minority, but they also improved the lives of community residents to a certain extent (2.92). Through multiple regression analysis (Table 7), the construction status of some aspects of the greenway were related to the improvement of the daily life. When the greenway was connected to the surrounding market, shopping malls or parks, the greenway had more obvious improvement for

daily transportation (β = 0.504, 95% C.I. = 0.411–0.862). Service facilities were associated with more neighborhood interactions (β = 0.332, 95% CI = −0.096–0.631) and family interactions (β = 0.391, 95% CI = 0.186–0.761), while the community greenway traffic environment had a negative correlation with family interactions (β = −0.257, 95% CI = −0.654–0.073).


**Table 7.** Multivariate regression analysis on the relationship between the evaluation of current status of the construction factors and the impact level of the community greenway on the daily life.

\* *p* < 0.05, \*\* *p* < 0.01, \*\*\* *p* < 0.001.
