ArticlePloS one2025
Spatial vitality variation in community parks and their influencing factors.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A more detailed park prescription: How does landscape support human health behavior?Frontiers in public health · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Community parks are the primary locations for urban residents to engage in nature, exercise, and establish social contact. This study used System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities (SOPARC) to conduct field surveys of three typical community parks in Hangzhou, focusing on analyzing the differences in subspace vitality within community parks. First, we classified park spaces into four types: courts, lawns, fitness grounds, and pavilions. We selected 11 variables to assess the landscape features of the subspaces; then, visitor density, activity richness, activity evenness, and time stability were selected to quantify the vitality characteristics of the four space types. Finally, a mixed linear model was used to explore the relationship between landscape features and different types of spatial vitality and to select the key influencing factors affecting spatial vitality. The study found that (1) the vitality of different types of spaces in community parks differed significantly, showing three types of vitality. Among them, high activity richness and evenness, low visitor density and time stability were observed in courts and lawns. However, fitness grounds showed the opposite vitality pattern. Pavilions exhibited exceptionally high visitor density but low activity richness, activity evenness, and time stability. (2) The key influences affecting subspace vitality mainly include hydrophilicity and accessibility and exhibit enhancing or inhibiting effects on different types of spaces. The study found water-friendliness positively contributed to visitor density, activity richness, and time stability in all types of subspaces. Sports facilities increased visitor density and time stability on courts, lawns, and fitness grounds but reduced their activity evenness. Accessibility had an enhancing effect on activity richness but an inhibiting effect on the activity evenness of pavilions. We suggest that community parks be made more vibrant by adding natural elements to the space, installing multifunctional and compact facilities, and subdividing spatial functions.
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.