IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i8p4632-d792036.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparative Study of Urban Park Preferences in China and The Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Pauline van den Berg

    (Urban Systems and Real Estate Unit, Department of the Built Environment, Eindhoven University of Technology, 5612 AZ Eindhoven, The Netherlands)

  • Minou Weijs-Perrée

    (Urban Systems and Real Estate Unit, Department of the Built Environment, Eindhoven University of Technology, 5612 AZ Eindhoven, The Netherlands)

  • Gamze Dane

    (Urban Systems and Real Estate Unit, Department of the Built Environment, Eindhoven University of Technology, 5612 AZ Eindhoven, The Netherlands)

  • Esther van Vliet

    (Urban Systems and Real Estate Unit, Department of the Built Environment, Eindhoven University of Technology, 5612 AZ Eindhoven, The Netherlands)

  • Hui Liu

    (Key Laboratory of Regional Sustainable Development Modeling, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
    College of Resources and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Siao Sun

    (Key Laboratory of Regional Sustainable Development Modeling, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
    College of Resources and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Aloys Borgers

    (Urban Systems and Real Estate Unit, Department of the Built Environment, Eindhoven University of Technology, 5612 AZ Eindhoven, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Urban parks play an important role in tackling several urban challenges such as air pollution, urban heat, physical inactivity, social isolation, and stress. In order to fully seize the benefits of urban parks, it is important that they are attractive for various groups of residents. While several studies have investigated residents’ preferences for urban park attributes, most of them have focused on a single geographical context. This study aimed to investigate differences in park preferences, specifically between Dutch and Chinese park users. We collected data in the Netherlands and China using an online stated choice experiment with videos of virtual parks. The data were analyzed with a random parameter mixed logit model to identify differences in preferences for park attributes between Chinese and Dutch citizens, controlling for personal characteristics. Although the results showed a general preference for parks with many trees, several differences were found between the Dutch and Chinese respondents. These differences concerned vegetation (composition of trees and flowers), the presence of benches and play facilities, and could probably be explained by differences in park use, values of nature, and landscape preferences. The findings of this study can be used as design guidelines by urban planners and landscape designers to design attractive and inclusive parks for different target groups.

Suggested Citation

  • Pauline van den Berg & Minou Weijs-Perrée & Gamze Dane & Esther van Vliet & Hui Liu & Siao Sun & Aloys Borgers, 2022. "A Comparative Study of Urban Park Preferences in China and The Netherlands," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-16, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:8:p:4632-:d:792036
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/8/4632/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/8/4632/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bertram, Christine & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "The role of urban green space for human well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 139-152.
    2. Prince Adjei & Frank Agyei, 2015. "Biodiversity, environmental health and human well-being: analysis of linkages and pathways," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 1085-1102, October.
    3. Craig Bullock, 2008. "Valuing Urban Green Space: Hypothetical Alternatives and the Status Quo," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(1), pages 15-35.
    4. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923, October.
    5. Borgers, Aloys & Vosters, Cindy, 2011. "Assessing preferences for mega shopping centres: A conjoint measurement approach," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 322-332.
    6. Minou Weijs-Perrée & Gamze Dane & Pauline van den Berg & Machiel van Dorst, 2019. "A Multi-Level Path Analysis of the Relationships between the Momentary Experience Characteristics, Satisfaction with Urban Public Spaces, and Momentary- and Long-Term Subjective Wellbeing," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-19, September.
    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. Wenhai Zhang & Jiang Xin, 2023. "Green Spaces and the Spontaneous Renewal of Historic Neighborhoods: A Case Study of Beijing’s Dashilar Community," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-27, December.
    2. Deyi Kong & Zujian Chen & Cheng Li & Xinhui Fei, 2022. "Investigating the Usage Patterns of Park Visitors and Their Driving Factors to Improve Urban Community Parks in China: Taking Jinan City as an Example," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-20, November.
    3. Shengnan Li & Baohang Hui & Cai Jin & Xuehan Liu & Fan Xu & Chong Su & Tan Li, 2022. "Considering Farmers’ Heterogeneity to Payment Ecosystem Services Participation: A Choice Experiment and Agent-Based Model Analysis in Xin’an River Basin, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-19, June.

    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. Marianne Lefebvre & Pauline Laille & Masha Maslianskaia-Pautrel, 2020. "Individual preferences regarding pesticide-free management of green-spaces: a discret choice experiment with French citizens," Working Papers 2020.02, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    2. Esther van Vliet & Gamze Dane & Minou Weijs-Perrée & Eveline van Leeuwen & Mayke van Dinter & Pauline van den Berg & Aloys Borgers & Kynthia Chamilothori, 2020. "The Influence of Urban Park Attributes on User Preferences: Evaluation of Virtual Parks in an Online Stated-Choice Experiment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-20, December.
    3. Soto, José R. & Escobedo, Francisco J. & Khachatryan, Hayk & Adams, Damian C., 2018. "Consumer demand for urban forest ecosystem services and disservices: Examining trade-offs using choice experiments and best-worst scaling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 31-39.
    4. Pauline Laille & Marianne Lefebvre & Masha Maslianskaia-Pautrel, 2020. "Individual preferences regarding pesticide-free management of green-spaces: a discret choice experiment with French citizens," Working Papers hal-02867639, HAL.
    5. Marianne Lefebvre & Masha Maslianskaia Pautrel & Pauline Laille, 2018. "Public preferences for pesticide-free urban green spaces: a socio-economic survey [Acceptation du "Zéro-pesticides" dans les espaces publics : Étude socio-économique]," Working Papers hal-02519184, HAL.
    6. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    7. Sant'Anna, Ana Claudia & Bergtold, Jason & Shanoyan, Aleksan & Caldas, Marcellus & Granco, Gabriel, 2021. "Deal or No Deal? Analysis of Bioenergy Feedstock Contract Choice with Multiple Opt-out Options and Contract Attribute Substitutability," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315289, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Boyce, Christopher & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick, 2019. "Personality and economic choices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-100.
    9. Giovanna Piracci & Emilia Lamonaca & Fabio Gaetano Santeramo & Fabio Boncinelli & Leonardo Casini, 2024. "On the willingness to pay for food sustainability labelling: A meta‐analysis," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 55(2), pages 329-345, March.
    10. Ratcliffe, Julie & Huynh, Elisabeth & Chen, Gang & Stevens, Katherine & Swait, Joffre & Brazier, John & Sawyer, Michael & Roberts, Rachel & Flynn, Terry, 2016. "Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: Using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 48-59.
    11. An, Wookhyun & Alarcón, Silverio, 2021. "Rural tourism preferences in Spain: Best-worst choices," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    12. Qian, Lixian & Grisolía, Jose M. & Soopramanien, Didier, 2019. "The impact of service and government-policy attributes on consumer preferences for electric vehicles in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 70-84.
    13. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.
    14. Feucht, Yvonne & Zander, Katrin, 2017. "Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Climate-Friendly Food in European Countries," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276930, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    15. Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Bas Donkers & Jorien Veldwijk & Marcel F. Jonker & Sylvia Buis & Jan Huisman & Patrick Bindels, 2021. "What Factors Influence Non-Participation Most in Colorectal Cancer Screening? A Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(2), pages 269-281, March.
    16. Jaewoong Yun, 2023. "Strategies for Improving the Sustainability of Fare-Free Policy for the Elderly through Preferences by Travel Modes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-14, October.
    17. Matthew Dennis & David Barlow & Gina Cavan & Penny A. Cook & Anna Gilchrist & John Handley & Philip James & Jessica Thompson & Konstantinos Tzoulas & C. Philip Wheater & Sarah Lindley, 2018. "Mapping Urban Green Infrastructure: A Novel Landscape-Based Approach to Incorporating Land Use and Land Cover in the Mapping of Human-Dominated Systems," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-25, January.
    18. de Jong, Gerard & Kouwenhoven, Marco & Ruijs, Kim & van Houwe, Pieter & Borremans, Dana, 2016. "A time-period choice model for road freight transport in Flanders based on stated preference data," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 20-31.
    19. Padilla, Armando Ortuño & Blanco, Jairo Casares, 2020. "Shopping centre clusters: Competition or synergies? The case of the region of murcia (Spain)," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    20. Hui, Ling Chui & Jim, C.Y., 2022. "Urban-greenery demands are affected by perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices, and socio-demographic and environmental-cultural factors," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(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:8:p:4632-:d:792036. 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.