IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i3p1466-d736287.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Influence Mechanisms of Community Sports Parks to Enhance Social Interaction: A Bayesian Belief Network Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Yawen Sun

    (Faculty of Architecture & Urban Planning, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400030, China)

  • Shaohua Tan

    (Faculty of Architecture & Urban Planning, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400030, China
    Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education of Construction and New Technology in Mountainous Town, Chongqing 400030, China)

  • Qixiao He

    (College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Chongqing Jiaotong University, Chongqing 400074, China)

  • Jize Shen

    (Faculty of Architecture & Urban Planning, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400030, China)

Abstract

Urban green spaces provide multiple ecosystem services to improve human health and well-being. Cultural ecosystem services (CES) are recognized as the most important services for urban residents through the key of social interaction. Researchers commonly acknowledge the function of community sports parks to enhance social interaction. Nevertheless, existing studies generally do not pay enough attention to the influence mechanisms of community sports parks and social interaction, especially the different types of spaces in community sports parks, which could be due to the complex feature of social interaction. This paper selects three community sports parks in Chongqing as the case study, uses BBN to identify the influence mechanisms of three common types of spaces (fitness equipment space, path space, and sports court space) in community sports parks and social interaction, aiming to explore how community sports parks enhance social interaction. The results indicated that sports court space such as basketball court and badminton court enhanced social interaction best; however, the spaces farther away from the park entrances were generally less effective in enhancing interaction. All these three types of sports spaces showed the influence mechanism of “Spatial Factors-Activity Type-Social Interaction”, while differences existed in the specific spatial influencing factors. The findings highlight that based on the BBN obtained in this study, the threshold range of spatial factors could be adjusted to enhance the effect of community sports parks on social interaction.

Suggested Citation

  • Yawen Sun & Shaohua Tan & Qixiao He & Jize Shen, 2022. "Influence Mechanisms of Community Sports Parks to Enhance Social Interaction: A Bayesian Belief Network Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-22, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:3:p:1466-:d:736287
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/3/1466/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/3/1466/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lauritzen, Steffen L., 1995. "The EM algorithm for graphical association models with missing data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 191-201, February.
    2. Eric Bonsang & Arthur Soest, 2012. "Satisfaction with Social Contacts of Older Europeans," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 105(2), pages 273-292, January.
    3. Costanza, Robert & d'Arge, Ralph & de Groot, Rudolf & Farber, Stephen & Grasso, Monica & Hannon, Bruce & Limburg, Karin & Naeem, Shahid & O'Neill, Robert V. & Paruelo, Jose, 1998. "The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 3-15, April.
    4. Costanza, Robert & de Groot, Rudolf & Braat, Leon & Kubiszewski, Ida & Fioramonti, Lorenzo & Sutton, Paul & Farber, Steve & Grasso, Monica, 2017. "Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 1-16.
    5. Larson, Lincoln R. & Keith, Samuel J. & Fernandez, Mariela & Hallo, Jeffrey C. & Shafer, C. Scott & Jennings, Viniece, 2016. "Ecosystem services and urban greenways: What's the public's perspective?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 111-116.
    6. Dickinson, Dawn C. & Hobbs, Richard J., 2017. "Cultural ecosystem services: Characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 179-194.
    7. Andersson, Erik & Tengö, Maria & McPhearson, Timon & Kremer, Peleg, 2015. "Cultural ecosystem services as a gateway for improving urban sustainability," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 165-168.
    8. Anna Petit-Boix & Defne Apul, 2018. "From Cascade to Bottom-Up Ecosystem Services Model: How Does Social Cohesion Emerge from Urban Agriculture?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-13, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Karolina Dudzic-Gyurkovich, 2023. "Study of Centrality Measures in the Network of Green Spaces in the City of Krakow," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-30, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bolaños-Valencia, Ingrid & Villegas-Palacio, Clara & López-Gómez, Connie Paola & Berrouet, Lina & Ruiz, Aura, 2019. "Social perception of risk in socio-ecological systems. A qualitative and quantitative analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Li-Pei Peng & Wei-Ming Wang, 2020. "Hybrid Decision-Making Evaluation for Future Scenarios of Cultural Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-20, August.
    3. Tandarić, Neven & Ives, Christopher D. & Watkins, Charles, 2022. "From city in the park to “greenery in plant pots”: The influence of socialist and post-socialist planning on opportunities for cultural ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    4. van der Hoff, Richard & Nascimento, Nathália & Fabrício-Neto, Ailton & Jaramillo-Giraldo, Carolina & Ambrosio, Geanderson & Arieira, Julia & Afonso Nobre, Carlos & Rajão, Raoni, 2022. "Policy-oriented ecosystem services research on tropical forests in South America: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    5. Dai, Xuhuan & Li, Bo & Zheng, Hua & Yang, Yanzheng & Yang, Zihan & Peng, Chenchen, 2023. "Can sedentarization decrease the dependence of pastoral livelihoods on ecosystem services?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    6. Chen, Haojie & Costanza, Robert & Kubiszewski, Ida, 2022. "Legitimacy and limitations of valuing the oxygen production of ecosystems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    7. Yunrui Yang & Jiaying Zhang & Yi’na Hu, 2024. "Land Use Intensity Alters Ecosystem Service Supply and Demand as Well as Their Interaction: A Spatial Zoning Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-15, August.
    8. Chen, Yu & Liu, Gengyuan & Yan, Ningyu & Yang, Qing & Gao, He & Su, Liya & Santagata, Remo, 2023. "Comprehensive evaluation of urban greenspace ecological values marketability through the spatial relationship between housing price and ecosystem services," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 484(C).
    9. Muluberhan Biedemariam & Emiru Birhane & Biadgilgn Demissie & Tewodros Tadesse & Girmay Gebresamuel & Solomon Habtu, 2022. "Ecosystem Service Values as Related to Land Use and Land Cover Changes in Ethiopia: A Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-21, December.
    10. Abramowicz Dawid & Stępniewska Małgorzata, 2020. "Public Investment Policy as a Driver of Changes in the Ecosystem Services Delivery by an Urban Green Infrastructure," Quaestiones Geographicae, Sciendo, vol. 39(1), pages 5-18, March.
    11. Ferrer, Luciana Maria & Rodriguez, Daniel Andrés & Forti, Maria Cristina & Carriello, Felix, 2021. "The anthropocene landscape and ecosystem services in the closure of sand mining: Paraíba do Sul River basin – Brazil," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    12. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    13. Márquez, Laura Andreina Matos & Rezende, Eva Caroline Nunes & Machado, Karine Borges & Nascimento, Emilly Layne Martins do & Castro, Joana D'arc Bardella & Nabout, João Carlos, 2023. "Trends in valuation approaches for cultural ecosystem services: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    14. Ivo Horák & Petr Marada, 2022. "Economic Evaluation of the Selected Ecologically Significant Element in Agriculture," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 70(4-5), pages 295-306.
    15. Takashi Hayashi & Daisuke Kunii & Masayuki Sato, 2021. "A Practice in Valuation of Ecosystem Services for Local Policymakers: Inclusion of Local-Specific and Demand-Side Factors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-17, October.
    16. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    17. Zhicheng Zhang & Hongjuan Zhang & Juan Feng & Yirong Wang & Kang Liu, 2021. "Evaluation of Social Values for Ecosystem Services in Urban Riverfront Space Based on the SolVES Model: A Case Study of the Fenghe River, Xi’an, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-26, March.
    18. Jiang, Wei & Wu, Tong & Fu, Bojie, 2021. "The value of ecosystem services in China: A systematic review for twenty years," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    19. Chen, Haojie & Costanza, Robert, 2024. "Valuation and management of desert ecosystems and their services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    20. Nápoles-Vértiz, Sonia & Caro-Borrero, Angela, 2024. "Conceptual diversity and application of ecosystem services and disservices: A systematic review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:3:p:1466-:d:736287. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.