Urban Parks Valued by Residents on Social Media: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Dongfang Ma
,
Shaojie Zhang
,
Tieqiao Xiao
,
Taotao Shui

With the rise of the Internet, more and more people are recording and sharing their recreational experiences through social media platforms, which generates a large amount of real and effective data. Therefore, the use of big data technology to obtain information about people’s perceptions of park recreation offers the possibility for assessing environmental perceptions more comprehensively and objectively.

  • city
  • social media
  • downtown parks
  • environmental perception

1. Introduction

During the 14th Five-Year Plan period, China’s socio-economic development aimed to promote high-quality development, which required continuous improvement in urban governance, focusing on the needs of the people and their well-being [1]. As the level of social development continues to rise, residents’ desires for both material and spiritual fulfilment, acquisition, and happiness are steadily increasing [2]. Especially in fast-paced developed cities, the pressures have intensified, and residents are plagued by psychological problems, such as depression, anxiety, and stress [3]. Therefore, parks are important for the well-being of residents and the sustainability of cities since they improve residents’ living environment and quality of life [4]. Many studies have shown that parks can effectively reduce the risk of anxiety and depression [5][6][7][8][9], reduce the probability of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases [10], and increase creativity, physical vigour, and positive emotions [11].
Therefore, considering residents’ needs as an important indicator, optimising residents’ recreational experience and improving residents’ satisfaction and frequency of use are necessary to build people-centred urban parks.
Perceptions of the urban park environment are usually used to evaluate residents’ experiences and feelings during their visits to parks [12][13]. Currently, most domestic and foreign studies on residents’ perceptions of recreation in urban parks have been conducted based on two perspectives. One focuses on the psychological “perception” itself to try to improve the residents’ physiological and psychological satisfaction indicators in park environments through interviews, virtual environment simulation, eye-tracking technology, and psycho-electrical signals [14][15][16][17]. The second perspective is to focus on the “perceived results” [18], using the evaluation of the users as the focus of the study and analysing the advantages and limitations of the planning, design, and operation of the park. This information can then be used in promoting a good experience for residents during park recreation through the implementation of effective improvements in the physical space.
With the rise of the Internet, more and more people are recording and sharing their recreational experiences through social media platforms, which generates a large amount of real and effective data. Therefore, the use of big data technology to obtain information about people’s perceptions of park recreation offers the possibility for assessing environmental perceptions more comprehensively and objectively. Huang et al. [19] found that the frequency of “location words” on social media is usually related to users’ evaluation of the location’s attractions, services, and relevance to daily life. Then, Wan et al. [20] analysed social media data to investigate users’ preferences and values toward urban parks, and they obtained important information for developing social marketing strategies. Moreover, Kong et al. [21] used social media data and sentiment analysis to quantify and compare the positive emotions of visitors to different types of urban parks and to make recommendations for park planning and management. Additionally, Bubalo et al. [22] assessed the perceived value and quality of existing urban parks in Rotterdam, Netherlands, from the perspective of urban park users by analysing the textual content on social media. Lastly, Park et al. [23] used image recognition technology to extract data from photos on social media platforms to analyse people’s recreational experiences in urban parks. Thus, social media analytics is becoming a key source of data analysis in urban planning and design, providing a direct, convenient, and efficient means of data collection.

2. Environmental Perception of Urban Parks

Recently, many Chinese cities have prioritized economic development, resulting in the reduction in urban green spaces, destruction of the ecological environment, and epidemics of infectious diseases [24]. Therefore, the Chinese government has paid more attention to the construction of urban parks in urban planning to maintain the stability of the natural environment and the social system of cities and to promote their sustainable development [25]. Urban parks are places that fulfil the need for residents to have access to nature in their daily lives. They not only improve people’s physical and mental health [26] and enhance social cohesion [27][28], but also provide considerable ecological and economic value to local communities [29][30]. Building high-quality parks is therefore a priority for people’s well-being [31][32]. Since frequent visits to parks by residents are required for them to obtain these benefits, urban park builders and managers need to understand people’s perceptions of and preferences for urban parks to ensure that they maximize their value to the public [33]. However, people’s perceptions of urban parks are often subjective, vague, and intangible, and quantifying residents’ perceptions of and preferences for urban parks is challenging. Consequently, environmental perceptions are less commonly considered in current park planning and management than other measures [34][35]. To obtain a more direct and accurate picture of residents’ perceptions of urban parks, research needs to be conducted from both positive and negative perspectives. Unfortunately, negative perceptions of urban parks have often been neglected in current research [36][37]. Urban park environments can also provide disadvantages such as physical hazards (e.g., lack of protection against waters and poisonous plants and animals) and lack of accessibility (e.g., inaccessibility and lack of infrastructure), which may cause strong negative feelings among park visitors. Therefore, this study considered both the positive and negative perceptions of residents with equal importance.
A series of studies have shown that the main factors affecting visits to urban parks include park landscape features, accessibility, and surrounding environment features [38][39][40][41][42]. Therefore, in terms of residents’ perceptions of the environment in urban parks, the landscape factors [43][44][45][46] in parks have been extensively covered by researchers. These landscape factors affect the emotional attitudes and behavioural activities of visitors and residents in urban parks. For example, landscape factors, such as plants, water bodies, and buildings, are closely related to the environmental perception of urban parks [47][48][49][50]. Moreover, the visiting frequency for landscape factors can provide further insight into people’s preferences. For example, landscape environments with water tend to be visited more frequently, and thus more urban parks have been including water features. Therefore, understanding what affects the environmental perception of urban parks and to what extent it influences people’s perceptions is necessary to assist urban decisionmakers and city builders in their policy-making.

3. Using Social Media Analysis to Study Urban Parks

Traditional evaluation studies of urban parks have focused on field surveys, i.e., questionnaires, interviews, and observations, to assess the benefits of park applications [51][52][53]. This type of research, which clearly and easily verifies the identity of the participants, has certain shortcomings as the data that are collected are limited by the researcher’s cognitive scope. The questions that are set by the researcher can lead the respondents, and the respondents may conceal their true perceptions due to the lack of anonymity. Another unavoidable drawback is that the data collection of traditional research methods is based on the peer-to-peer form, which is difficult to obtain, inefficient, and laborious. These limitations affect the generalizability and accuracy of the research results to a certain extent.
With the development of network technology, Web 2.0 provides a new way for the public to participate in urban development. Web 2.0 is a collection of technologies in which users create content, interact with other users, and share information [54]. People can share their views, opinions, ideas, and experiences on social media platforms [55]. Since social media data are characterized by the storage of large amounts of rich content and the rapid dissemination of information [56], there are many opportunities for researchers and policymakers to use these data to understand public life and opinions [57]. For instance, Zhang et al. [58] proposed a model of the process of the co-creation of tourism experiences through travellers’ journeys by utilizing people’s excursion experiences that were posted online. Then, Hausmann et al. [59] obtained visitors’ preferences for biotypes through photos of parks that were posted on social media platforms. Additionally, Wang et al. [60] identified and analysed the content that was posted by users on social media platforms to address the regeneration of urban parks.
Unlike typical surveys with targeted questions, social media data are often “loose”, “noisy”, and “dispersed” [61], and the data can be used to revisit the opinions on parks over time and re-examine the understanding of urban parks [60][62][63]. For example, in park design, monumental and iconic facilities are often at the centre of the landscape, yet according to social media data, architectural and man-made elements in parks are not strongly valued by visitors [64][65]. Furthermore, Wan et al. [20] collected and analysed Instagram-generated data and found that natural elements were more associated with well-being than with aesthetic experience. Then, Liang et al. [66] found that during the holidays, the density of visits to Shanghai’s urban parks was significantly higher and more concentrated in the city centre rather than in the parks on the outskirts of the city. As the most-developed city in China, Shanghai’s park use patterns provide some reference projections for other rapidly developing first- and second-tier cities in China. Thus, a large amount of online evaluation data can identify people’s uses and experiences of urban parks and help managers to clearly plan strategies and tactics from all perspectives [67].

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su151813771

References

  1. State Council of the People’s Republic of China. Proposal of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on the Formulation of the Fourteenth Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development and the Vision for the 2035 Period; People’s Daily; State Council of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2020.
  2. Li, J. A New Era Path to Modernized Urban Governance. China Soc. Sci. Dly. 2020, I, 1–2.
  3. David, V.; Sandro, G. Urbanization, urbanicity, and health. J. Urban Health Bull. N. Y. Acad. Med. 2002, 79, S1–S12.
  4. Tu, X.; Huang, G.; Wu, J. Review of the relationship between urban greenspace accessibility and human well-being. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2019, 39, 421–431.
  5. Liu, Q.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, Y.; Huang, Q.; Lan, S. Tourists’ environmental preferences, perceived restoration and perceived health at Fuzhou National Forest Park. Resour. Sci. 2018, 40, 381–391.
  6. Zhang, R.; Zhang, C.Q.; Rhodes, R.E. The pathways linking objectively-measured greenspace exposure and mental health: A systematic review of observational studies. Environ. Res. 2021, 198, 10.
  7. Pun, V.C.; Manjourides, J.; Suh, H.H. Association of neighborhood greenness with self-perceived stress, depression and anxiety symptoms in older U.S adults. Environ. Health 2018, 17, 11.
  8. Liu, Y.; Wang, R.Y.; Xiao, Y.; Huang, B.S.; Chen, H.S.; Li, Z.G. Exploring the linkage between greenness exposure and depression among Chinese people: Mediating roles of physical activity, stress and social cohesion and moderating role of urbanicity. Health Place 2019, 58, 8.
  9. Choi, K.A.; Rezaei, M. Assessing the Correlation between Neighborhood Green Areas and the Perceived Mental Health of Residents in Metropolitan Areas. Iran J. Public Health 2022, 51, 2027–2033.
  10. Abdonas, T.; Regina, G.; Dalia, L.; Audrius, D.; Regina, R.; Migle, B.; Jone, V.; Gailute, B.; Ricardas, R.; Vilija, M.; et al. Accessibility and use of urban green spaces, and cardiovascular health: Findings from a Kaunas cohort study. Environ. Health A Glob. Access Sci. Source 2014, 13, 20.
  11. Tan, S.; Yang, C.; Li, L.; Zhang, L. Park Environment Influences on Health Restoration Review. Chin. Landsc. Archit. 2020, 36, 53–58.
  12. Soubry, B.; Sherren, K.; Thornton, T.F. Are we taking farmers seriously? A review of the literature on farmer perceptions and climate change, 2007–2018. J. Rural. Stud. 2020, 74, 210–222.
  13. Krüger, E.L.; Costa, T.F.M. Interferences of urban form on human thermal perception. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 653, 1067–1076.
  14. Zhao, X.; Qiu, X.; Xu, J.; Hou, Y. Review of Research Methods for Green Spatial Behavioral Activities and Environmental Cognition. Landsc. Archit. 2020, 27, 56–62.
  15. Jorgensen, A.; Hitchmough, J.; Calvert, T. Woodland spaces and edges: Their impact on perception of safety and preference. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2002, 60, 135–150.
  16. Rodiek, S.D.; Fried, J.T. Access to the outdoors: Using photographic comparison to assess preferences of assisted living residents. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 73, 184–199.
  17. Sullivan, W.C.; Lovell, S.T. Improving the visual quality of commercial development at the rural–urban fringe. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 77, 152–166.
  18. Ye, L.; Jiang, L.; Han, G. Research on User Perception Evaluation of Urban Parks Based on Text Sentiment Analysis: Taking 36 Parks In Chongqing as an Example. J. Hum. Settl. West China 2022, 37, 147–154.
  19. Huang, J.; Obracht-Prondzynska, H.; Kamrowska-Zaluska, D.; Sun, Y.; Li, L. The image of the City on social media: A comparative study using “Big Data” and “Small Data” methods in the Tri-City Region in Poland. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2021, 206, 103977.
  20. Wan, C.; Shen, G.Q.; Choi, S. Eliciting users’ preferences and values in urban parks: Evidence from analyzing social media data from Hong Kong. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 62, 127172.
  21. Kong, L.Q.; Liu, Z.F.; Pan, X.H.; Wang, Y.H.; Guo, X.; Wu, J.G. How do different types and landscape attributes of urban parks affect visitors? positive emotions? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2022, 226, 104482.
  22. Bubalo, M.; Zanten, B.T.V.; Verburg, P.H. Crowdsourcing geo-information on landscape perceptions and preferences: A review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 184, 101–111.
  23. Park, S.B.; Kim, J.; Lee, Y.K.; Ok, C.M. Visualizing theme park visitors’ emotions using social media analytics and geospatial analytics. Tour. Manag. 2020, 80, 104127.
  24. Zhang, Y.J.; Zhang, T.Z.; Zeng, Y.X.; Yu, C.; Zheng, S.Q. The rising and heterogeneous demand for urban green space by Chinese urban residents: Evidence from Beijing. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 313, 127781.
  25. Zheng, S. Environmental Sustainability in Urban China. In Chinese Cities in the 21st Century; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 255–275.
  26. Hand, K.L.; Freeman, C.; Seddon, P.J.; Recio, M.R.; Stein, A.; Van Heezik, Y. The importance of urban gardens in supporting children’s biophilia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 274–279.
  27. Plunz, R.A.; Zhou, Y.; Vintimilla, M.I.C.; Mckeown, K.; Yu, T.; Uguccioni, L.; Sutto, M.P. Twitter sentiment in New York City parks as measure of well-being. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 189, 235–246.
  28. Sullivan, W.C.; Kuo, F.E.; Depooter, S.F. The Fruit of Urban Nature: Vital Neighborhood Spaces. Environ. Behav. 2004, 36, 678–700.
  29. Crompton, J. Parks and Economic Development: PAS Report 502; American Planning Association: Chicago, IL, USA, 2001.
  30. Votsis, A. Planning for green infrastructure: The spatial effects of parks, forests, and fields on Helsinki’s apartment prices. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 132, 279–289.
  31. United Nations. Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Civ. Eng. Mag. S. Afr. Inst. Civ. Eng. 2015, 24, 1–35.
  32. World Health Organization. Global Action Plan on Physical Activity 2018–2030: More ACTIVE People for a Healthier World; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
  33. 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.
  34. Ostoić, S.K.; van den Bosch, C.C.K.; Vuletić, D.; Stevanov, M.; Živojinović, I.; Mutabdžija-Bećirović, S.; Lazarević, J.; Stojanova, B.; Blagojević, D.; Stojanovska, M.; et al. Citizens’ perception of and satisfaction with urban forests and green space: Results from selected Southeast European cities. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 23, 93–103.
  35. Tratalos, J.A.; Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M.; Fish, R.; Church, A. Cultural ecosystem services in the UK: Lessons on designing indicators to inform management and policy. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 61, 63–73.
  36. 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.
  37. Döhren, P.V.; Haase, D. Ecosystem disservices research: A review of the state of the art with a focus on cities. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 52, 490–497.
  38. Li, F.Z.; Li, F.Y.; Li, S.J.; Long, Y. Deciphering the recreational use of urban parks: Experiments using multi-source big data for all Chinese cities. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 701, 14.
  39. Liu, Y.; Lu, A.Q.; Yang, W.; Tian, Z.S. Investigating factors influencing park visit flows and duration using mobile phone signaling data. Urban For. Urban Green. 2023, 85, 14.
  40. 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.
  41. Koohsari, M.J.; Mavoa, S.; Villanueva, K.; Sugiyama, T.; Badland, H.; Kaczynski, A.T.; Owen, N.; Giles-Corti, B. Public open space, physical activity, urban design and public health: Concepts, methods and research agenda. Health Place 2015, 33, 75–82.
  42. Kaczynski, A.T.; Besenyi, G.M.; Stanis, S.A.W.; Koohsari, M.J.; Oestman, K.B.; Bergstrom, R.; Potwarka, L.R.; Reis, R.S. Are park proximity and park features related to park use and park-based physical activity among adults? Variations by multiple socio-demographic characteristics. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2014, 11, 146.
  43. Kaplan, R.; Kaplan, S.; Brown, T. Environmental Preference: A Comparison of Four Domains of Predictors. Environ. Behav. 1989, 21, 509–530.
  44. Korpela, K.M. Evidence for Rapid Affective Evaluation of Environmental Scenes. Environ. Behav. 2002, 34, 634–650.
  45. Calvin, W.; Qiping, S.G.; Stella, C. Effects of physical and psychological factors on users’attitudes, use patterns, and perceived benefits toward urban parks. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 51, 126691.
  46. Alex, Y.H.L.; Jim, C.Y. Citizen attitude and expectation towards greenspace provision in compact urban milieu. Land Use Policy 2011, 29, 577–586.
  47. CPSTF. Physical Activity: Built Environment Approaches Combining Transportation System Interventions with Land Use and Environmental Design. In The Community Guide; 2016; Available online: https://www.thecommunityguide.org/media/pdf/PA-Built-Environments.pdf (accessed on 6 August 2023).
  48. Breda, J.J. Transforming public spaces to promote physical activity—A key contributor to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals in Europe. Eur. J. Public Health 2018, 28, 599.
  49. Kaźmierczak, A. The contribution of local parks to neighbourhood social ties. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 109, 31–44.
  50. Sang, Å.O.; Knez, I.; Gunnarsson, B.; Hedblom, M. The effects of naturalness, gender, and age on how urban green space is perceived and used. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 18, 268–276.
  51. Moy, P.; Murphy, J. Problems and Prospects in Survey Research. J. Mass Commun. Q. 2016, 93, 16–37.
  52. Ewing, R. Using a Visual Preference Survey in Transit Design. Public Work. Manag. Policy 2001, 5, 270–280.
  53. Hooman, F.A. Public places urban spaces: The dimensions of urban design. J. Urban Des. 2022, 27, 605–607.
  54. Kaplan, A.M.; Haenlein, M. Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Bus. Horiz. 2009, 53, 59–68.
  55. Boyd, D.M.; Ellison, N.B. Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 2008, 13, 210–230.
  56. Holsapple, C.W.; Hsiao, S.-H.S.; Pakath, R. Business Social Media Analytics: Definition, Benefits, and Challenges. In Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS) 2014, Savannah, GA, USA, 7–9 August 2014.
  57. Kaplan, S. The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 1995, 15, 169–182.
  58. Zhang, T. Co-creating tourism experiences through a traveler’s journey: A perspective article. Tour. Rev. 2020, 75, 56–60.
  59. Hausmann, A.; Toivonen, T.; Slotow, R.; Tenkanen, H.; Moilanen, A.; Heikinheimo, V.; Di Minin, E. Social Media Data Can Be Used to Understand Tourists’ Preferences for Nature-Based Experiences in Protected Areas. Conserv. Lett. 2018, 11, e12343.
  60. Wang, Z.; Jie, H.; Fu, H.; Wang, L.; Jiang, H.; Ding, L.-Y.; Chen, Y. A social-media-based improvement index for urban renewal. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 137, 108775.
  61. Dobson, A.S. Postfeminist Digital Cultures: Femininity, Social Media, and Self-Representation; Palgrave Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
  62. Wang, Z.; Fu, H.; Jian, Y.; Qureshi, S.; Jie, H.; Wang, L. On the comparative use of social media data and survey data in prioritizing ecosystem services for cost-effective governance. Ecosyst. Serv. 2022, 56, 101446.
  63. Kim, K.-J. Welfare Activation Strategy for a Urban Park Users. J. Korea Contents Assoc. 2012, 12, 195–204.
  64. Ives, C.D.; Oke, C.; Hehir, A.; Gordon, A.; Wang, Y.; Bekessy, S.A. Capturing residents’ values for urban green space: Mapping, analysis and guidance for practice. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 161, 32–43.
  65. Siya, C.; Ziling, H.; Haochen, P.; Shuaiqing, W.; Xiaoyu, G. Comparative Study of Park Evaluation Based on Text Analysis of Social Media: A Case Study of 50 Popular Parks in Beijing. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12741.
  66. Liang, H.L.; Zhang, Q.P. Temporal and spatial assessment of urban park visits from multiple social media data sets: A case study of Shanghai, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 297, 126682.
  67. Sim, J.; Miller, P.; Swarup, S. Tweeting the High Line Life: A Social Media Lens on Urban Green Spaces. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8895.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback