IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i6p2514-d336021.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Regional Differences and Influential Factors of Open Public Space in Chinese Cities Based on Big Earth Data

Author

Listed:
  • Penglong Wang

    (Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Yanyan Ma

    (College of Geography and Environment Science, Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou 730070, China)

  • Xueyan Zhao

    (College of Geography and Environment Science, Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou 730070, China)

  • Bao Wang

    (Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China)

  • Jianghao Wang

    (State Key Laboratory of Resources and Environmental Information System, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China)

  • Feng Gao

    (Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China)

Abstract

Urban open public spaces that provide multiple services for residents are essential for improving life quality and urban ecosystem function and promoting healthy development, the safety of human settlements and the sustainable development of urban cities. Based on Sustainable Development Goal 11.7 of the United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda, this study combines the big earth data with the Theil index, a coefficient of variation and Exploratory Spatial Data Analysis (ESDA) to analyze the regional differences and spatial distribution of urban open public space in 2015 for China, and uses the geographical detector to identify key factors that affect the distribution of open public spaces. The results show that (1) open public space scales in provincial-level cities have an ‘East–Central–West’ low-lying land pattern in spatial distribution, where the eastern region has a relatively larger open public space scale. (2) In the prefecture-level cities, the open public space scale increases with an increase in city size and economic development level, and the differences in urban open public space reduce with an increase in city size and increase with a decrease in the economic development level. (3) Factors including economic development level, residents’ living standards, the urbanization level and the population size have sound explanatory powers in varying degrees on the scale of open public spaces; interactions between these factors have improved the explanatory power of the scale of urban open public space.

Suggested Citation

  • Penglong Wang & Yanyan Ma & Xueyan Zhao & Bao Wang & Jianghao Wang & Feng Gao, 2020. "Regional Differences and Influential Factors of Open Public Space in Chinese Cities Based on Big Earth Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-16, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:6:p:2514-:d:336021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/6/2514/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/6/2514/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christopher Ambrey & Christopher Fleming, 2014. "Public Greenspace and Life Satisfaction in Urban Australia," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 51(6), pages 1290-1321, May.
    2. Bertram, Christine & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "The role of urban green space for human well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 139-152.
    3. Fariba Bahriny & Simon Bell, 2020. "Patterns of Urban Park Use and Their Relationship to Factors of Quality: A Case Study of Tehran, Iran," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-33, February.
    4. Ana Andries & Stephen Morse & Richard J. Murphy & Jim Lynch & Emma R. Woolliams, 2019. "Seeing Sustainability from Space: Using Earth Observation Data to Populate the UN Sustainable Development Goal Indicators," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-20, September.
    5. Peihao Song & Gunwoo Kim & Audrey Mayer & Ruizhen He & Guohang Tian, 2020. "Assessing the Ecosystem Services of Various Types of Urban Green Spaces Based on i-Tree Eco," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-16, February.
    6. Kahn, Matthew E & Matsusaka, John G, 1997. "Demand for Environmental Goods: Evidence from Voting Patterns on California Initiatives," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 40(1), pages 137-173, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Tiziana Laureti, 2014. "Life satisfaction and environmental conditions in Italy: a pseudo-panel approach," Discussion Papers 2014/192, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    2. de Vries, S.P. & Garcia Alvarez, G. & Botzen, W.J.W. & Bockarjova, M., 2023. "Valuing urban nature through life satisfaction: The consistency of GIS and survey indicators of nature," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    3. Ben Ma & Tiantian Zhou & Shuo Lei & Yali Wen & Theint Theint Htun, 2019. "Effects of urban green spaces on residents’ well-being," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(6), pages 2793-2809, December.
    4. Jones, Benjamin A., 2021. "Planting urban trees to improve quality of life? The life satisfaction impacts of urban afforestation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    5. Andrés Vargas & Paola Roldán, 2018. "Not too close, not too far: urban parks and subjective well-being in the city of Barranquilla, Colombia," Lecturas de Economía, Universidad de Antioquia, Departamento de Economía, issue 88, pages 183-205, Enero - J.
    6. Marina Bravi & Marta Bottero & Federico Dell’Anna, 2024. "An Application of the Life Satisfaction Approach (LSA) to Value the Land Consumption and Ecosystem Services," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(1), pages 2988-3013, March.
    7. Charlotte Wendelboe-Nelson & Sarah Kelly & Marion Kennedy & John W. Cherrie, 2019. "A Scoping Review Mapping Research on Green Space and Associated Mental Health Benefits," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-49, June.
    8. Brown, Zachary S. & Oueslati, Walid & Silva, Jérôme, 2016. "Links between urban structure and life satisfaction in a cross-section of OECD metro areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 112-121.
    9. Magdalena Gyurkovich & Joanna Kołata & Marta Pieczara & Piotr Zierke, 2024. "Assessment of the Greenery Content in Suburban Multi-Family Housing Models in Poland: A Case Study of the Poznań Metropolitan Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-31, April.
    10. Vargas, Andrés & Roldán, Paola, 2018. "Ni muy cerca ni muy lejos: parques urbanos y bienestar subjetivo en la ciudad de Barranquilla, Colombia," Revista Lecturas de Economía, Universidad de Antioquia, CIE, issue 88, pages 183-205, January.
    11. Matthew J. Holian & Matthew E. Kahn, 2014. "Household Demand for Low Carbon Public Policies: Evidence from California," NBER Working Papers 19965, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. 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.
    13. Stefano Carattini & Andrea Baranzini & Philippe Thalmann & Frédéric Varone & Frank Vöhringer, 2017. "Green Taxes in a Post-Paris World: Are Millions of Nays Inevitable?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(1), pages 97-128, September.
    14. 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).
    15. Fredriksson, Per G. & List, John A. & Millimet, Daniel L., 2003. "Bureaucratic corruption, environmental policy and inbound US FDI: theory and evidence," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(7-8), pages 1407-1430, August.
    16. Theresa Kotulla & Jon Martin Denstadli & Are Oust & Elisabeth Beusker, 2019. "What Does It Take to Make the Compact City Liveable for Wider Groups? Identifying Key Neighbourhood and Dwelling Features," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-18, June.
    17. Adanu, Kwami & Hoehn, John P. & Norris, Patricia & Iglesias, Emma, 2012. "Voter decisions on eminent domain and police power reforms," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 187-194.
    18. Heiko Rüger & Stefanie Hoherz & Norbert F. Schneider & Herbert Fliege & Maria M. Bellinger & Brenton M. Wiernik, 2023. "The Effects of Urban Living Conditions on Subjective Well-Being: The Case of German Foreign Service Employees," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 18(4), pages 1939-1963, August.
    19. Frank A. Sloan & Justin G. Trogdon, 2004. "Litigation and the Political Clout of the Tobacco Companies: Cigarette Taxes, Prices, and the Master Settlement Agreement," School of Economics and Public Policy Working Papers 2004-04, University of Adelaide, School of Economics and Public Policy.
    20. Bertram, Christine & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "The role of urban green space for human well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 139-152.

    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:12:y:2020:i:6:p:2514-:d:336021. 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.