ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Can pocket parks be compared to community parks in the restoration effect of physical and mental health for young adults? A comparative experiment in high-density urban Green spaces.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the restorative environment of pocket parks in old urban districts of Chinese cities in the context of healthy aging.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Restorative effects of small urban parks: a multi-method study using eye-tracking and psychophysiological measures in Fuzhou, China.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Urban intensification limits the availability of green space, leading to the rise of pocket parks as a strategy approach to urban greening. Unlike conventional community parks, pocket parks are smaller in scale and function, necessitating further investigation into their capacity to support psychophysiological restoration. Specifically, understanding which landscape elements within pocket parks most effectively facilitate recovery in young adults is essential to determining whether these spaces can achieve restorative outcomes comparable to those of larger community parks. Methods: This study examines the restorative efficacy of pocket parks by comparing two pocket parks and two community parks in Nanjing, each representing distinct typologies-one prioritizing vegetation and the other prioritizing artificial environments, including hardscape activity zones. Eighty participants (aged 18-28) were randomly assigned to different park types, where their psychological and physiological responses were assessed using standardized surveys and biometric measurements. Results: The findings indicate that, despite their smaller size, well-designed pocket parks with diverse landscape features significantly enhance users' psychological relaxation and emotional well-being, achieving restorative effects comparable to those of community parks. Notably, this research highlights the critical role of hardscape activity areas in promoting restoration among young adults, an overlooked aspect of park design. Discussion: These results underscore the imperative of prioritizing "quality" in park design and renovations, advocating for integrating diverse landscape elements within limited spaces to optimize holistic recovery in urban environments.
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.