*4.2. The Service of Community Greenways: Everydayness and Public Nature*

The functions of a greenway have a lot to do with its location [29,32]. As a type of urban greenways near the residential area and even deep into the community space, community greenways are closely related to the everyday life of residents. The "everydayness" aspect is reflected in that community greenways mainly serve nearby neighborhood and residents tend to travel shorter distance, resulting a high-frequency use of the space. From the result of the study, we can infer that at least 90% of the users are from the surrounding communities within 1 mile. This result is consistent with a study of Denmark which showed that 84.7% of the users lived within 1000 m of green spaces [48], and the study of Turkey showing that 79.8% of the users live within 1000 m of the greenway [13]. Compared with "local trails", the data means community greenways have a smaller serving area, which shows that for nearby residents, community greenways tend to be the best choice for outdoor recreation [29]. For the frequency of use, more than half of the participants (59.6%) use 7 or more community greenways a week, consistent to Akpinar's result include that 55.4% of the users use the greenway daily [13]. Compared to a study of greenways in Shenzhen, which results that 41.5% of the users come from a distance within 1000 m and only 32.9% of the users use the greenway daily [9], community greenways promote more frequent use and activate the urban greenway network. "Public nature" is reflected in

that the community greenway carries public activity, including the necessary activities (commuting, walking dogs, etc.), optional activities (enjoying the scenery, relaxing, fishing, reading, running, cycling, walking) etc.) and social activities (be with family members or neighbors, etc.) (Figure 5). In previous studies, demographic variables like gender, age, income, education level could be constraints of the use patterns of greenways [13,24]. The results of this study showed that in community greenways, users of different groups of people did not have much difference in demography information, although specific groups chose activities with their own preferences. That is to say, in general, community residents can enjoy the community greenway equally. The reason could be that as community greenways mainly serve the surrounding residential areas, residents don't differ much in social class. Another reason is that, in developing countries, all residents could freely visit and share the public spaces [9]. That is to say, community greenways promote social equity, especially in developing countries. On the other hand, community greenways also enrich the meaning of "everydayness" and "public nature" by holding everyday activities. For example, the residents use the fence in the greenway to dry clothes, or to take the furniture out to form a space gathering with neighborhood. These private activities interpret the "everydayness" from the perspective of everyday life, while the business activities in the corner add functions for leisure space, expanding the meaning of 'public nature' of community greenways. Above are the self-organized tactics of residents, showing the creativity in the community greenway, making up for the designer's strategy for the public space [37]. This shows the community greenways are closely related to the everyday life of the residents. The community greenway should not be simply regarded as leisure space, or many potential functions would be neglected.
