Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35318604›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2022

Exploring the pattern of use and accessibility of urban green spaces: evidence from a coastal desert megacity in Saudi Arabia.

Abdullah Addas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Abdullah AddasLandscape Architecture Department, Faculty of Architecture and Planning, King Abdulaziz University, P.O. Box 80210, Jedd+10ah, 21589, Saudi Arabia. aaddas@kau.edu.sa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3674-758X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Urban green spaces (UGSs) provide various ecosystem services (ESs) that directly and indirectly enhance people's well-being. However, in the Saudi context, the assessment role of UGSs (such as urban parks and gardens) and their use and accessibility has remained unexplored. This study aims to assess the use and accessibility of five urban parks in the Jeddah megacity of Saudi Arabia from diversified perspectives. Data were collected through a primary survey and questionnaire method using a social preference approach (SPA). Correlation analysis and factor analysis were performed to assess the relationship between activities and services (benefits) provided by urban parks and to examine their most significant benefits. A Kruskal-Wallis (K-S test) test was performed to determine significant differences in the perceived valuations of park benefits. A benefit dominancy index (BDI) was also developed to determine which urban parks provide the most benefit. The findings of the study showed that (i) the urban parks were mostly used for spending time with relatives (partners) and friends, followed by mental refreshment and relaxation, physical activity, and spending time with children; (ii) there are substantial seasonal variations in park visits in the Jeddah megacity; (iii) socio-demographic attributes largely affect the use of urban parks; and (iv) there are also substantial discrepancies between importance and performance related to urban management strategies. Thus, the findings of this study show that city planners and policy makers must focus on the enhancement of UGSs for the well-being of urban citizens.

Indexed as

EcosystemParks, RecreationalChildCitiesExerciseHumansSaudi ArabiaClimate changeEcosystem servicesJeddah megacitySocial relationUrban green spacesUrban parks

Identifiers

PMID35318604
PMCPMC8940514

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.