ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Assessing the restorative environment of pocket parks in old urban districts of Chinese cities in the context of healthy aging.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In the context of healthy aging, pocket parks in old urban districts function as small-scale green open spaces that are easily accessible in older adults' daily lives. However, their restorative environmental characteristics and appropriate assessment methods remain insufficiently examined. Methods: This study focused on three representative pocket parks in the old urban districts of Maanshan, China, and developed an evaluation framework tailored to older adults' everyday use contexts under the theoretical lens of restorative environments. An integrated approach combining the Fuzzy Delphi Method, the Analytic Hierarchy Process, and Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation was applied. Results: The evaluation system comprised five dimensions and 25 indicators. Among the five dimensions, safety received the highest weight, followed by comfort and mobility, whereas richness and attractiveness had lower weights. The three pocket parks showed different levels of restorative-supportive performance, with Zhenqu Pocket Park obtaining the highest comprehensive score, followed by Kangle Pocket Park and Zhumeng Pocket Park. Weight sensitivity analysis showed that this ranking remained stable across all perturbation scenarios. In addition, the indicator-level non-parametric comparison confirmed significant differences in the score profiles of the three parks. Despite these differences, all three parks shared a similar structural pattern, characterized by relatively strong safety performance but insufficient richness and attractiveness. Conclusion: The findings indicate that improving the restorative quality of pocket parks in old urban districts should not rely solely on increasing greenery or facilities, but should instead emphasize the coordinated enhancement of safety, walkability, comfort, richness, and experiential attractiveness. This study provides empirical evidence for restorative environment assessment and practical support for the development of age-friendly pocket parks.
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.