ArticleLandscape ecology2023
Effects of the spatial patterns of urban parks on public satisfaction: evidence from Shanghai, China.
Article in Landscape ecology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing perception and equity of cultural ecosystem services in urban parks using social media data.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Users' experiences of park accessibility and attractiveness based on online review analytics.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- How do cultural ecosystem services affect visitor emotions? Evidence from social media data in Shanghai urban parks.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Older adults' demands for sports parks: a Kano model study based on sports parks in Shandong Province of China.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- The influence of community park characteristics on satisfaction in Guangzhou: Moderating and mediating effects analysis.Heliyon · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Context: Urban parks need to meet the growing demand for activities vital to residents' well-being and urban development. A holistic understanding of public satisfaction with urban parks is a prerequisite for improving management. Objective: The spatial patterns and composition of urban parks vary greatly, and the objective of this study is to comprehensively investigate public satisfaction with urban parks and the impact of their structure. Methods: With the metropolis of Shanghai, China, as an example, we employed 111,814 social media data sets for 50 urban park sites to quantify public satisfaction via the long short-term memory model. We analyzed the internal, boundary and external dimensions of spatial patterns and described the internal landscape patterns from the perspectives of size, heterogeneity, aggregation, shape, diversity and landscape elements. Moreover, we used all-subset regression and hierarchical partitioning to quantify the relationship and mechanism of action between spatial patterns and public satisfaction. Results: The results indicate that the mean value of public satisfaction with urban parks was 0.716 (ranging from 0 to 1), which is generally positive or neutral. Satisfaction was influenced by the internal, boundary, and external spatial patterns of urban parks. The independent contribution rates of external transportation facility density (51.49%) and internal edge density (48.51%) to satisfaction. Conclusions: We highlight the roles of spatial patterns, especially the degree of external transportation convenience and the edge density of urban parks at the landscape level. The findings provide guidance and recommendations for the planning and design of public satisfaction-oriented urban parks. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10980-023-01615-z.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.