ArticleLandscape ecology2026
Adapting a systematic conservation planning tool for supporting accessible and diverse urban greenspace recreation.
Article in Landscape ecology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Context: Urban greenspaces are increasingly recognized for their multifunctionality-the capacity to provide diverse ecological and social benefits. Yet, planning strategies often focus on greenspace availability and accessibility, overlooking the functional and structural diversity within and among urban greenspaces. Traditional hotspot-based approaches typically prioritize areas with high richness, while overlooking rare and unique features that, despite their low abundance, may be critical to overall multifunctionality. Objective: With a focus on park amenities, this study explored the unique capabilities of Systematic Conservation Planning (SCP) for evaluating the diversity and complementarity of recreational opportunities in a region-wide urban park system. We further integrated mobility considerations to offer a more nuanced approach to greenspace monitoring. We asked: How do different measures of accessibility and mobility shape selection of park portfolios? Methods: As a proof-of-concept, we adapted a SCP approach, often used in biodiversity conservation, to identify greenspace portfolios in the City of Surrey, BC, Canada, a region with detailed mapping of diverse park amenities. Two contrasting scales of accessibility (neighborhood blocks vs. pixel-based) were used as constraints, and then evaluated under varying mobility (i.e. travel distance) assumptions. Results: We found finer scale (i.e. pixel-based) accessibility measures captured portfolios with a greater proportion of urban park amenities (80-100%) compared to block-level measures (1-67%), and also selected more spatially aggregated portfolios across the city. Irreplaceability patterns-indicating the parks most critical for diverse recreational amenities-varied depending on how accessibility was quantified. Lastly, more neighbourhoods were included in park portfolios as mobility (travel) distance increased, but this growth was non-linear. Conclusion: Our work demonstrates SCP's potential as a valuable tool for planning and evaluating urban greenspace recreational opportunities. It offers a proof-of-concept for applying spatial prioritization in urban contexts, and can be feasibly expanded to include many additional aspects of park multi-functionality. Use of finer-scale measures of accessibility (as a cost constraint), and different mobility (i.e. travel distance) assumptions, further enhanced the selection of park portfolios that can provide diverse recreational opportunities. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10980-026-02311-4.
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.