ArticleScientific reports2025
Users' experiences of park accessibility and attractiveness based on online review analytics.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using social media data to improve specific urban park activities: the case of park camping.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Urban sustainability in the global south.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Urban governance to support adaptable solutions for conversion of residual street spaces into social spaces.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Understanding public experiences of urban parks is crucial for their sustainable and effective management. While traditional surveys demand substantial resources, social media data present a cost-effective approach to capturing people's perceptions. This study utilizes Google reviews to examine users' sentiments regarding Cairo's urban parks. Using topic modeling, we identified four key themes: quality and maintenance, family and activities, costs and affordability, and natural environment. Sentiment analysis revealed that 79.8% of reviews expressed positive sentiments, while 8.1% were negative. Statistical analysis indicated that: (1) safety and commercialization-related factors like food and ticket prices significantly influence park accessibility; and (2) park attractiveness is strongly associated with the park's cultural (e.g., aesthetic experiences, leisure and entertainment opportunities) and regulatory features (e.g., cleanliness, quietness). An in-depth content analysis validated these findings and added nuanced interpretation. These findings demonstrated that online reviews can serve as a valuable indicator of park accessibility and attractiveness, thereby fostering more informed park management decisions. However, we also acknowledge their limitations, such as potential bias towards more tech-savvy users and the lack of detailed demographic information. Therefore, future research should combine social media data with traditional qualitative methods to capture the broader socio-cultural dynamics influencing park use.
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.