IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i4p1067-d139457.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding Shanghai Residents’ Perception of Leisure Impact and Experience Satisfaction of Urban Community Parks: An Integrated and IPA Method

Author

Listed:
  • Bingqin Yu

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, School of Design, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China)

  • Shengquan Che

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, School of Design, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China)

  • Changkun Xie

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, School of Design, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China)

  • Shu Tian

    (Shanghai Songjiang Industrial Investment Co., Ltd., Shanghai 201613, China)

Abstract

This exploratory study employed an integrated methodological approach to examine the relationship among several factors for residents in Shanghai when it came to the use of urban park spaces. The study was conducted using two sample groups of 1200 residents each, and around three community parks that contained a variety of recreation-related impacts. Open-ended and closed-ended questionnaires and correspondence analysis were used to reflect residents’ basic attitudes, recreational perception, and satisfaction evaluation by Importance Performance Analysis (IPA) method, and mirrored preferences for future development of community parks. The results suggest that for residents, high levels of satisfaction with landscape and environment were advantages, but recreation space and facility were critical for the perception of the community parks. In comparison, management was found to be an opportunity factor to improve leisure satisfaction. The findings emphasized landscape, environment, space, facility, and management as elements that enhance recreational perception and avoid passive interference.

Suggested Citation

  • Bingqin Yu & Shengquan Che & Changkun Xie & Shu Tian, 2018. "Understanding Shanghai Residents’ Perception of Leisure Impact and Experience Satisfaction of Urban Community Parks: An Integrated and IPA Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:4:p:1067-:d:139457
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/4/1067/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/4/1067/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Young-Chang Lee & Keun-Ho Kim, 2015. "Attitudes of Citizens towards Urban Parks and Green Spaces for Urban Sustainability: The Case of Gyeongsan City, Republic of Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(7), pages 1-15, June.
    2. Bertram, Christine & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "Preferences for cultural urban ecosystem services: Comparing attitudes, perception, and use," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 187-199.
    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. 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.
    2. Xuefang Zou & Sumaira Kayani & Jin Wang & Muhammad Imran & María Luisa Zagalaz Sánchez & Lara Sánchez Amador Jesús & Haroona Qurban, 2019. "A Study on the Relationship between Urban Residents’ Perception of Recreational Sports and Their Participation in Recreational Sports: Based on Gender Differences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-14, October.
    3. Susan (Sixue) Jia, 2018. "Leisure Motivation and Satisfaction: A Text Mining of Yoga Centres, Yoga Consumers, and Their Interactions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-17, November.
    4. Jovana Brankov & Ana Milanović Pešić & Dragana Milijašević Joksimović & Milan M. Radovanović & Marko D. Petrović, 2020. "Water Quality Estimation and Population’s Attitudes: A Multi-Disciplinary Perspective of Environmental Implications in Tara National Park (Serbia)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-18, December.
    5. Yang Yang & Zhifang Wang & Guangsi Lin, 2021. "Performance Assessment Indicators for Comparing Recreational Services of Urban Parks," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-21, March.
    6. Arghadeep Bose & Debanjan Basak & Subham Roy & Indrajit Roy Chowdhury & Hazem Ghassan Abdo & Mohammed Aldagheiri & Hussein Almohamad, 2023. "Evaluation of Urban Sustainability through Perceived Importance, Performance, Satisfaction and Loyalty: An Integrated IPA–SEM-Based Modelling Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-22, June.
    7. Yaqi Du & Rong Zhao, 2022. "Research on the Development of Urban Parks Based on the Perception of Tourists: A Case Study of Taihu Park in Beijing," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-18, April.
    8. Say-Wah Lee & Chuen-Wah Seow & Ke Xue, 2021. "Residents’ Sustainable City Evaluation, Satisfaction and Loyalty: Integrating Importance-Performance Analysis and Structural Equation Modelling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-14, June.
    9. Libang Ma & Xinglong Che & Junhui Zhang & Fang Fang & Meimei Chen, 2019. "Rural Poverty Identification and Comprehensive Poverty Assessment Based on Quality-of-Life: The Case of Gansu Province (China)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-18, August.
    10. Tong Zou & Yikun Su & Yaowu Wang, 2018. "Examining Relationships between Social Capital, Emotion Experience and Life Satisfaction for Sustainable Community," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-16, July.
    11. Jackie Parker & Greg D. Simpson, 2018. "Visitor Satisfaction with a Public Green Infrastructure and Urban Nature Space in Perth, Western Australia," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-17, December.

    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. 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).
    2. Jaloliddin Rustamov & Zahiriddin Rustamov & Nazar Zaki, 2023. "Green Space Quality Analysis Using Machine Learning Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-25, May.
    3. Philip Stessens & Frank Canters & Marijke Huysmans & Ahmed Z. Khan, 2020. "Urban green space qualities: An integrated approach towards GIS-based assessment reflecting user perception," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/298795, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    4. Agnieszka Mandziuk & Dagmara Stangierska & Beata Fornal-Pieniak & Jerzy Gębski & Barbara Żarska & Marta Kiraga, 2022. "Preferences of Young Adults concerning the Pocket Parks with Water Reservoirs in the Aspect of Willingness to Pay (WTP) in Warsaw City, Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-13, April.
    5. Amy Phillips & Dimitra Plastara & Ahmed Z. Khan & Frank Canters, 2023. "Integrating public perceptions of proximity and quality in the modelling of urban green space access," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/371425, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    6. Ruixue Liu & Jing Xiao, 2020. "Factors Affecting Users’ Satisfaction with Urban Parks through Online Comments Data: Evidence from Shenzhen, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-22, December.
    7. Davide Marino & Giampiero Mazzocchi & Davide Pellegrino & Veridiana Barucci, 2022. "Integrated Multi-Level Assessment of Ecosystem Services (ES): The Case of the Casal del Marmo Agricultural Park Area in Rome (Italy)," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-15, November.
    8. Amy Phillips & Ahmed Z. Khan & Frank Canters, 2021. "Use-Related and Socio-Demographic Variations in Urban Green Space Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-22, March.
    9. Kaiwen Su & Jie Ren & Chuyun Cui & Yilei Hou & Yali Wen, 2022. "Do Value Orientations and Beliefs Play a Positive Role in Shaping Personal Norms for Urban Green Space Conservation?," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-15, February.
    10. Karimi, Azadeh & Yazdandad, Hossein & Fagerholm, Nora, 2020. "Evaluating social perceptions of ecosystem services, biodiversity, and land management: Trade-offs, synergies and implications for landscape planning and management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    11. Amy Phillips & Ahmed Z. Khan & Frank Canters, 2021. "Use-related and socio-demographic variations in urban green space preferences," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/326192, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    12. Kukulska-Kozieł, Anita & Noszczyk, Tomasz & Gorzelany, Julia & Młocek, Wojciech, 2024. "Greenery in times of crisis: Accessibility, residents' travel preferences and the impact of travel time," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    13. 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.
    14. Ramos, Alya & Jujnovsky, Julieta & Almeida-Leñero, Lucía, 2018. "The relevance of stakeholders’ perceptions of ecosystem services in a rural-urban watershed in Mexico City," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 85-95.
    15. Julia Bronnmann & Veronika Liebelt & Fabian Marder & Jasper Meya & Martin Quaas, 2023. "The Value of Naturalness of Urban Green Spaces: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 99(4), pages 528-542.
    16. Jörg Priess & Luis Valença Pinto & Ieva Misiune & Julia Palliwoda, 2021. "Ecosystem Service Use and the Motivations for Use in Central Parks in Three European Cities," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15, February.
    17. Stessens, Philip & Canters, Frank & Huysmans, Marijke & Khan, Ahmed Z., 2020. "Urban green space qualities: An integrated approach towards GIS-based assessment reflecting user perception," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    18. 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.
    19. Kathryn Rodgman, Mary & Anguelovski, Isabelle & Pérez-del-Pulgar, Carmen & Shokry, Galia & Garcia-Lamarca, Melissa & Connolly, James J.T. & Baró, Francesc & Triguero-Mas, Margarita, 2024. "Perceived urban ecosystem services and disservices in gentrifying neighborhoods: Contrasting views between community members and state informants," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    20. Tomasz Bajwoluk & Piotr Langer, 2023. "The Pocket Park and Its Impact on the Quality of Urban Space on the Local and Supralocal Scale—Case Study of Krakow, Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-15, March.

    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:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:4:p:1067-:d:139457. 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.