ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Assessing urban community parks from an age-friendly perspective: a multi-criteria decision-making approach.
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.
- Urban parks as social infrastructure: behavioral pathways to social interaction in densifying cities.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- An Analytic Hierarchy Process-based case study on older adult-friendly community therapeutic landscape design.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
Introduction: With the acceleration of population ageing, community parks have become vital spaces for older adults' daily activities. The age-friendliness of their spatial environment directly impacts the well-being of the older adult population. Scientifically evaluating the age-friendliness of community parks and proposing optimization strategies is crucial to promoting the physical and mental well-being of the older adults and enhancing the quality of urban public services. Methods: This study established an evaluation index system for the age-friendliness of community parks through field surveys, literature review, expert screening, and statistical validation. User perception data were collected via questionnaires, and a combination of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Entropy Weight Method was used to determine weights from both subjective and objective perspectives. Subsequently, the TOPSIS model was employed to conduct a comprehensive assessment of three typical community parks in Beijing. Results: The results indicate that path accessibility, ageing of leisure facilities, social space design, cultural, educational and recreational functions, and physical environment security are the most influential factors affecting the age-friendliness of community parks, with the highest weights. In contrast, intelligent service facilities, seasonal adaptability services, and community activities organization are relatively less prioritized by older adults. The findings reveal that the core needs of older adults in community park usage are centered on four key aspects: accessibility, recreation, social interaction, and safety. Furthermore, a comparative analysis revealed significant differences in overall age-friendliness across the three case parks, with Wanshou Park performing the best, Nanguan Park ranking second, and Shuangxiu Park ranking lowest. Discussion: Based on these findings, strategies to enhance the age-friendliness of community parks were proposed. This study provides both theoretical support and practical reference for the scientific assessment and optimization of community park age-friendliness, offering important insights for the adaptation of urban public spaces to an aging society.
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.