*3.3. Comparing Analysis*

Walking mode is chosen based on a 15-min threshold to compare the methods prior to and after the improvement. According to the statistical findings, significant differences between the maximum and minimum values of the G2SFCA and iG2SFCA are discovered by comparing the mean and standard deviation of the two methods reveals, which indicates that the distribution of park resources in the region is unbalanced. By comparing the mean and standard deviation of calculation results(Table 2), it is discovered that the mean value of iG2SFCA is less than that of G2SFCA. This is because the iG2SFCA considers the attractiveness of park type and the surrounding POI, and normalizes the number of POI (between 0–1), thus making the calculation result smaller.

**Table 2.** Comparison of accessibility calculation results.


Normalized spatial distribution of the two approaches is shown in Figure 3. In terms of spatial distribution, the two approaches produce outcomes with a similar distribution of high values. Both methods identify that Chanba Wetland Heritage Park, Xi'an Park around city, and Qujiang Pond Heritage Park have a high degree of spatial accessibility. However, there are some discrepancies between the two outcomes. The results of the traditional method are obviously divergent, being unable to reflect the internal accessibility differences. Calculation results of the improved method, on the other hand, are more evenly distributed and exhibit obvious transitions, which can better reflect the internal variations among regions and are more sensitive to high value identification. Such as Xingqing Palace Park and Olympic Park, the iG2SFCA takes the park level and surrounding POI into account and determines that these two parks are high accessibility areas, which is more accurate than the traditional method.

**Figure 3.** Comparison of spatial distribution of accessibility.
