IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i10p1849-d947898.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research on the Satisfaction of Beijing Waterfront Green Space Landscape Based on Social Media Data

Author

Listed:
  • Siya Cheng

    (School of Landscape Architecture, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Zheran Zhai

    (School of Landscape Architecture, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Wenzhuo Sun

    (School of Landscape Architecture, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Yuan Wang

    (School of Landscape Architecture, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Rui Yu

    (School of Landscape Architecture, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Xiaoyu Ge

    (School of Landscape Architecture, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

Abstract

Urban blue–green space is essential to the normal functioning of the urban landscape ecosystem, and it is also a significant metric for assessing the quality of urban human settlements. In China’s territorial space planning, the overall planning strategy’s implementation depends on constructing the blue–green space network in the urbanized construction area. This paper used 85 typical riverside parks in Beijing’s blue–green space as the research object, collecting and analyzing multiple social media user data. It explored the main factors that influenced people’s satisfaction with the landscape design and sensory perception of urban waterfront green space from the perspectives of parks beside different river systems, parks of different types, and parks in different districts. The distinction between urban waterfront green space evaluation was further discussed through variance analysis. The research revealed the following findings: (1) by comparing the total number of park reviews in different seasons, it could be observed that tourists evidently preferred the spring landscape, and the winter landscape construction of waterfront green space needs to be improved. (2) By comparing the review stars of different parks, it could be observed that tourists appreciated parks with multiple functions, excellent recreation facilities, complete management services and parks close to the city center. Functions and services became important influencing factors for park evaluation. (3) There was room for improvement in water ecology in the river landscapes of parks adjacent to various river systems, and people paid more attention to the level of service facilities. (4) According to different categories of parks, people’s demand for service facilities, activity organization, cultural displays and other aspects was different. (5) Among parks in different districts, people preferred the distinctive animal and plant landscapes and recreational activities of parks in districts on the outskirts of the city. According to the conclusions, suggestions were made for optimizing and improving Beijing’s waterfront green space, providing managers with technical support and a basis for decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Siya Cheng & Zheran Zhai & Wenzhuo Sun & Yuan Wang & Rui Yu & Xiaoyu Ge, 2022. "Research on the Satisfaction of Beijing Waterfront Green Space Landscape Based on Social Media Data," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-25, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:10:p:1849-:d:947898
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/10/1849/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/10/1849/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pei Lin & Lili Chen & Zeshun Luo, 2022. "Analysis of Tourism Experience in Haizhu National Wetland Park Based on Web Text," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-16, March.
    2. Bin Xu & Qingxia Shi & Yaping Zhang, 2022. "Evaluation of the Health Promotion Capabilities of Greenway Trails: A Case Study in Hangzhou, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-21, April.
    3. Chen, Pin-Zheng & Liu, Wan-Yu, 2019. "Assessing management performance of the national forest park using impact range-performance analysis and impact-asymmetry analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 121-138.
    4. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    5. Min Gong & Mengyu Ren & Qin Dai & Xiaoyu Luo, 2019. "Aging-Suitability of Urban Waterfront Open Spaces in Gongchen Bridge Section of the Grand Canal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-19, November.
    6. Do, Yuno, 2019. "Valuating aesthetic benefits of cultural ecosystem services using conservation culturomics," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 1-1.
    7. Amirafshar Vaeztavakoli & Azadeh Lak & Tan Yigitcanlar, 2018. "Blue and Green Spaces as Therapeutic Landscapes: Health Effects of Urban Water Canal Areas of Isfahan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-20, November.
    8. Wang, Zhifang & Fu, Hongpeng & Jian, Yuqing & Qureshi, Salman & Jie, Hua & Wang, Lu, 2022. "On the comparative use of social media data and survey data in prioritizing ecosystem services for cost-effective governance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    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. Yirong Luo & Zhisen Lin, 2023. "Spatial Accessibility Analysis and Optimization Simulation of Urban Riverfront Space Based on Space Syntax and POIs: A Case Study of Songxi County, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-20, October.
    2. Jishu Huang & Yun Wang, 2023. "Research on Social Service Effectiveness Evaluation for Urban Blue Spaces—A Case Study of the Huangpu River Core Section in Shanghai," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-26, July.
    3. Chenming Zhang & Bei He & Wei Li & Chunyang Guo, 2023. "Spatial Distribution and Accessibility Evaluation of National Water Parks in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-17, July.
    4. Üzümcüoğlu Doğa & Polay Mukaddes, 2024. "User Perceptions on the Urban Waterfront Development in the Kyrenia Ancient Harbour, including the Creative Individuals," European Journal of Tourism, Hospitality and Recreation, Sciendo, vol. 14(1), pages 35-54.
    5. Xiaojia Liu & Xi Chen & Yan Huang & Weihong Wang & Mingkan Zhang & Yang Jin, 2023. "Landscape Aesthetic Value of Waterfront Green Space Based on Space–Psychology–Behavior Dimension: A Case Study along Qiantang River (Hangzhou Section)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-22, February.

    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. Tingting Ding & Wenzhuo Sun & Yuan Wang & Rui Yu & Xiaoyu Ge, 2022. "Comparative Evaluation of Mountain Landscapes in Beijing Based on Social Media Data," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-30, October.
    2. Siya Cheng & Ziling Huang & Haochen Pan & Shuaiqing Wang & Xiaoyu Ge, 2022. "Comparative Study of Park Evaluation Based on Text Analysis of Social Media: A Case Study of 50 Popular Parks in Beijing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-34, October.
    3. Goran Krsnik & Sonia Reyes-Paecke & Keith M. Reynolds & Jordi Garcia-Gonzalo & José Ramón González Olabarria, 2023. "Assessing Relativeness in the Provision of Urban Ecosystem Services: Better Comparison Methods for Improved Well-Being," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, May.
    4. Gaodi Xie & Wenhui Chen & Shuyan Cao & Chunxia Lu & Yu Xiao & Changshun Zhang & Na Li & Shuo Wang, 2014. "The Outward Extension of an Ecological Footprint in City Expansion: The Case of Beijing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-16, December.
    5. P. Hlaváčková & D. Šafařík, 2016. "Quantification of the utility value of the recreational function of forests from the aspect of valuation practice," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(8), pages 345-356.
    6. Alexander V. Rusanov, 2019. "Dacha dwellers and gardeners: garden plots and second homes in Europe and Russia," Population and Economics, ARPHA Platform, vol. 3(1), pages 107-124, April.
    7. Yanlong Guo & Jiaying Yu & Han Zhang & Zuoqing Jiang, 2022. "A Study on Cultural Context Perception in Huizhou Cultural and Ecological Reserve Based on Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-20, December.
    8. 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).
    9. Monika Kopecká & Daniel Szatmári & Konštantín Rosina, 2017. "Analysis of Urban Green Spaces Based on Sentinel-2A: Case Studies from Slovakia," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-17, April.
    10. Veerkamp, Clara J. & Schipper, Aafke M. & Hedlund, Katarina & Lazarova, Tanya & Nordin, Amanda & Hanson, Helena I., 2021. "A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    11. Ahmet Tolunay & Çağlar Başsüllü, 2015. "Willingness to Pay for Carbon Sequestration and Co-Benefits of Forests in Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-27, March.
    12. Vasileios A. Tzanakakis & Andrea G. Capodaglio & Andreas N. Angelakis, 2023. "Insights into Global Water Reuse Opportunities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-30, August.
    13. Massoni, Emma Soy & Barton, David N. & Rusch, Graciela M. & Gundersen, Vegard, 2018. "Bigger, more diverse and better? Mapping structural diversity and its recreational value in urban green spaces," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 502-516.
    14. Somajita Paul & Harini Nagendra, 2017. "Factors Influencing Perceptions and Use of Urban Nature: Surveys of Park Visitors in Delhi," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-23, April.
    15. Bo Yang & Ming-Han Li & Shujuan Li, 2013. "Design-with-Nature for Multifunctional Landscapes: Environmental Benefits and Social Barriers in Community Development," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, October.
    16. Dennis, Matthew & James, Philip, 2017. "Ecosystem services of collectively managed urban gardens: Exploring factors affecting synergies and trade-offs at the site level," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 17-26.
    17. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    18. Donatella Valente & María Victoria Marinelli & Erica Maria Lovello & Cosimo Gaspare Giannuzzi & Irene Petrosillo, 2022. "Fostering the Resiliency of Urban Landscape through the Sustainable Spatial Planning of Green Spaces," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-13, March.
    19. Vahid Amini Parsa & Esmail Salehi & Ahmad Reza Yavari & Peter M van Bodegom, 2019. "An improved method for assessing mismatches between supply and demand in urban regulating ecosystem services: A case study in Tabriz, Iran," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-22, August.
    20. Aevermann Tim & Schmude Jürgen, 2015. "Quantification and monetary valuation of urban ecosystem services in Munich, Germany," ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography, De Gruyter, vol. 59(3), pages 188-200, December.

    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:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:10:p:1849-:d:947898. 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.