land

Article
Assessing Inequality in Urban Green Spaces with Consideration
for Physical Activity Promotion: Utilizing Spatial Analysis
Techniques Supported by Multisource Data
Yunjing Hou, Yiming Liu, Yuxin Wu and Lei Wang *

College of Landscape Architecture, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin 150040, China;

[email protected] (Y.H.); [email protected] (Y.L.); [email protected] (Y.W.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Urban green spaces (UGSs) play a significant role in promoting public health by facilitating
outdoor activities, but issues of spatial and socioeconomic inequality within UGSs have drawn
increasing attention. However, current methods for assessing UGS inequality still face challenges
such as data acquisition difficulties and low identification accuracy. Taking Harbin as a case study,
this research employs various advanced technologies, including Python data scraping, drone imagery
collection, and Amap API, to gather a diverse range of data on UGSs, including photos, high-
resolution images, and AOI boundaries. Firstly, elements related to physical activity within UGSs
are integrated into a supply adjustment index (SAI), based on which UGSs are classified into three
categories. Then, a supply–demand improved two-step floating catchment area (SD2SFCA) method
is employed to more accurately measure the accessibility of these three types of UGSs. Finally,
using multiple linear regression analysis and Mann–Whitney U tests, socioeconomic inequalities in
UGS accessibility are explored. The results indicate that (1) significant differentiation exists in the
types of UGS services available in various urban areas, with a severe lack of small-scale, low-supply
UGSs; (2) accessibility of all types of UGSs is significantly positively associated with housing prices,
Citation: Hou, Y.; Liu, Y.; Wu, Y.;
Wang, L. Assessing Inequality in
with higher-priced areas demonstrating notably higher accessibility compared to lower-priced ones;
Urban Green Spaces with (3) children may be at a disadvantage in accessing UGSs with medium-supply levels. Future planning
Consideration for Physical Activity efforts need to enhance attention to vulnerable groups. This study underscores the importance of
Promotion: Utilizing Spatial Analysis considering different types of UGSs in inequality assessments and proposes a method that could
Techniques Supported by Multisource serve as a valuable tool for accurately assessing UGS inequality.
Data. Land 2024, 13, 626. https://
doi.org/10.3390/land13050626 Keywords: urban green spaces; physical activity promotion; inequality; multiple data sources;
Academic Editors: Xiwei Shen,
improved 2SFCA method
Yang Song, Niall Kirkwood,
Mary Padua, Bo Zhang and
Rosalea Monacella
1. Introduction
Received: 6 April 2024
Revised: 1 May 2024
Rapid urbanization in China has brought various challenges to public health, despite
Accepted: 4 May 2024
improving people’s living standards. For instance, high urbanization rates may lead to a
Published: 7 May 2024
decrease in residents’ physical activity levels, indirectly contributing to the onset of various
chronic diseases [1]. Urban green spaces (UGSs) serve as primary spaces for residents’
outdoor physical activities, facilitating such activities through the provision of facilities and
natural environments [2]. Therefore, ensuring that all residents have convenient access to
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. UGSs is of paramount importance for comprehensively safeguarding their right to health.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Numerous studies have shown that there is inequality in the distribution of UGSs in
This article is an open access article urban areas. Research on this inequality primarily focuses on two dimensions: spatial and
distributed under the terms and social. Spatial inequality of UGSs mainly refers to the mismatch between the distribution
conditions of the Creative Commons of UGSs in cities and the population [3,4]. Studies conducted in different countries and
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// cities have revealed diverse spatial inequality patterns and causes [3,5–8]. Contradictions
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
between construction costs and local finances are one of the main reasons for spatial
4.0/).

Land 2024, 13, 626. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13050626 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land

Land 2024, 13, 626 2 of 17

inequality [9]. On the one hand, due to limited urban land resources for UGSs and profit-
driven land allocation policies, UGS construction often lags behind other land uses such as
commercial and residential areas [10]. Considering land prices, UGSs are often forced to be
constructed in low-cost but sparsely populated suburbs [11], resulting in spatial mismatch
with the population. On the other hand, local governments may view UGS construction as
an important means to attract investment and achieve economic growth in urban planning,
potentially leading to an uneven distribution of UGSs across different urban areas and
further exacerbating issues such as gentrification [4,12,13]. From this perspective, how
to optimize the spatial layout of UGSs at a low cost and high efficiency is an important
challenge in addressing spatial inequality in UGSs.
The unreasonable distribution of UGSs may further result in unequal distribution
among different social groups, namely, the socioeconomic inequality of UGSs [3,14]. Nu-
merous studies have shown that there is inequality in access to UGSs among different
income groups [12], races [14,15], and occupations [16]. Much of the research has focused on
income-based UGS inequality, with lower-income groups often having fewer opportunities
to access UGSs [7,12]. Particularly in developing countries like China, UGSs significantly
influence housing prices in communities, making it difficult for lower-income groups to
afford high-quality living environments and thus excluding them. Additionally, there is
growing attention toward UGS inequality among different age groups. Due to physical
limitations, children and the elderly are more vulnerable to environmental threats [17]. On
one hand, issues like obesity, anxiety, and depression pose potential threats to children’s
mental and physical health, which could be mitigated by access to UGSs [18,19]. On the
other hand, with urban areas facing an increasingly aging population, the elderly become
an important user group of UGSs [20]. Access to UGSs is crucial for reducing the incidence
of certain diseases and enhancing the well-being of the elderly [20,21].
In order to propose reasonable planning strategies, comprehensive assessments of
inequality need to be conducted based on multiple spatial data sources using various
models and analysis techniques. Recent studies have begun to utilize more advanced
technologies to facilitate data acquisition and enhance the accuracy of results. Firstly,
Python scripting proves to be a useful tool for efficiently gathering large volumes of data
in a short time and has been widely employed in UGS-related research. For example, Liu
et al. [22] conducted a cross-cultural comparison of UGS perceived quality using social
media data collected through Python. Similarly, Zhang et al. [22] employed Python-based
image data collection to assess UGS quality and measure accessibility. Secondly, real-time
navigation and route planning have become valuable tools for obtaining accurate travel
time data. For instance, Zhang et al. [23] utilized web service APIs from the Amap open
platform to collect and analyze travel time data using Python scripts. Chen et al. [7]
developed a method for measuring accessibility based on the Amap API, enabling a more
precise assessment of UGS accessibility in Shanghai. Furthermore, unmanned aerial vehicle
(UAV) observation technology has been employed in studies such as vegetation surveys
and green roof observations [24,25], demonstrating significant potential for obtaining
high-resolution images to accurately identify UGS structures.
Regarding assessment methods, the spatial inequality of UGSs is typically charac-
terized using accessibility, which measures the opportunity for residents to access public
service facilities. The two-step floating catchment area (2SFCA) method [26,27] is a com-
monly used accessibility measurement model, considering both facility supply and demand
size as well as travel distance costs, and has been widely applied in recent research. Schol-
ars have proposed several improved models to enhance the accuracy of results, including
measurements of distance attenuation effects [3], improvements to fixed catchment ar-
eas [28,29], and enhancements to fixed transportation modes [30,31]. Additionally, other
scholars have taken into account the competitive effects among multiple facilities. Prior to
the 2SFCA method, they introduced the calculation of selection weights, resulting in the
3SFCA method [32]. Furthermore, Luo [33] considered the service capacity of facilities and
 Land 2024, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 18

Land 2024, 13, 626 3 of 17

in the 3SFCA method [32]. Furthermore, Luo [33] considered the service capacity of facil-
ities and distance costs. They introduced the Huff model [34] to further optimize the cal-
culation costs.
distance method of selection
They introduced weights,
the Huffresulting
modelin[34]the to
H2SFCA
furthermethod.
optimize the calculation
While considerable progress has been
method of selection weights, resulting in the H2SFCA method. made in studying the inequality of UGSs, there
are still
Whilesome shortcomings
considerable in existing
progress research.
has been made Firstly, there is limited
in studying researchoffocusing
the inequality UGSs,
on the
there areassessment
still someof accessibility to
shortcomings in different types of UGSs.
existing research. Firstly,Inthere
fact, UGSs, based
is limited on dif-
research
ferences on
focusing in internal structure,
the assessment have varying
of accessibility to construction
different types costs and may
of UGSs. provide
In fact, UGSs, differen-
based
tiated
on service functions.
differences in internalAstructure,
precise assessment
have varying of accessibility
construction to costs
different
and types of UGSs
may provide
can help to identify
differentiated servicethe types of A
functions. services
preciselacking in different
assessment areas, thereby
of accessibility achieving
to different types low-
of
cost and high-efficiency layout optimization. Secondly, existing
UGSs can help to identify the types of services lacking in different areas, thereby achieving2SFCA models still have
several shortcomings:
low-cost and high-efficiency (1) thelayout
measurement of UGSSecondly,
optimization. supply scale only 2SFCA
existing uses area as a meas-
models still
ure, without
have considering the
several shortcomings: (1)internal structural elements
the measurement of UGSs,
of UGS supply which
scale onlymay useslead
areato asin-a
accurate measurements
measure, without considering of accessibility;
the internal (2) existing
structural 3SFCA
elementsand H2SFCA
of UGSs, models
which may also over-
lead
look
to the impact
inaccurate of UGS structural
measurements elements
of accessibility; on the 3SFCA
(2) existing calculation of resident
and H2SFCA selection
models also
weights; the
overlook (3) the
impactuse ofof distance measurement
UGS structural elements ignores
on thethe travel speed
calculation of residents
of resident when
selection
using different
weights; (3) the modes of transportation;
use of distance measurement (4) typically,
ignores thethe travel
centroid of a of
speed UGS is usedwhen
residents as the
supply
using point, ignoring
different modes ofthe distance between
transportation; the centroid
(4) typically, of a larger-scale
the centroid of a UGS isUGS usedandas the its
entrance.
supply Finally,
point, ignoringtherethe is limited
distanceresearch
between onthe
thecentroid
associationof a between
larger-scaleaccessibility
UGS andand its
urban spatial
entrance. structure
Finally, there factors
is limited [8]. research
More in-depthon theresearch
associationis needed
between to explain the causes
accessibility and
of accessibility
urban from multiple
spatial structure factors perspectives.
[8]. More in-depth research is needed to explain the causes
To address
of accessibility these
from shortcomings,
multiple this study first obtained basic data using advanced
perspectives.
technologies such as Python scripting,
To address these shortcomings, UAV imagery
this study acquisition,
first obtained andusing
basic data the Amap
advanced API.
Then, the 2SFCA model was improved from both supply and demand aspects, and spatial
technologies such as Python scripting, UAV imagery acquisition, and the Amap API. Then,
and2SFCA
the socioeconomic
model was inequalities
improvedof different
from types ofand
both supply UGSs were assessed
demand aspects, andseparately
spatial (Fig-
and
ure 1). In conclusion,
socioeconomic inequalitiesthis ofstudy aims types
different to provide
of UGSs feasible solutionsseparately
were assessed for mitigating
(FigureUGS1). Inin-
equality at a low cost and high efficiency through more accurate assessment methods of
conclusion, this study aims to provide feasible solutions for mitigating UGS inequality at a
low cost and
UGS inequality. high efficiency through more accurate assessment methods of UGS inequality.

Figure1.1.Research
Figure Researchframework
frameworkdiagram.
diagram.

2.2.Materials
Materialsand
andMethods
Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.1. Study Area
Harbin, located in northeastern China, is a significant large-scale industrial city in the
Harbin, located in northeastern China, is a significant large-scale industrial city in the
country. This study selected the main urban area of Harbin as the research area (Figure 2).
country. This study selected the main urban area of Harbin as the research area (Figure
There are several reasons for this selection. Firstly, compared to surrounding areas, the
2). There are several reasons for this selection. Firstly, compared to surrounding areas, the
main urban area has relatively complete urban planning and construction. It concentrates a
main urban area has relatively complete urban planning and construction. It concentrates
significant number of UGS resources in the region with a high population density, making
it highly meaningful for studying UGS accessibility. Second, existing UGSs in this area
Land 2024, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 18

Land 2024, 13, 626

a significant number of UGS resources in the region with a high population density, 4mak- of 17

ing it highly meaningful for studying UGS accessibility. Second, existing UGSs in this area
exhibit significant differences in scale and internal structure, aligning with the objectives
exhibit significant differences in scale and internal structure, aligning with the objectives of
of our study.
our study.

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Study
Study area.
area.

2.2.
2.2. Data
Data Sources
Sources and
and Processing
Processing
2.2.1. UGS Boundary and Entrance Data
2.2.1. UGS Boundary and Entrance Data
UGS boundary and entrance data were obtained from the Amap Open Platform
UGS boundary and entrance data were obtained from the Amap Open Platform
(https://lbs.amap.com/, accessed on 2 April 2023). UGSs selected for this study met the
(https://lbs.amap.com/, accessed on 2 April 2023). UGSs selected for this study met the
following criteria: (1) had a certain area of hard surface available for activities, (2) had
following criteria: (1) had a certain area of hard surface available for activities, (2) had any
any type of vegetation, and (3) were free and open to the public. A total of 133 UGS areas
type of vegetation, and (3) were free and open to the public. A total of 133 UGS areas were
were identified within the study area, including parks, greenways, and some greened plaza
identified within the study area, including parks, greenways, and some greened plaza
areas. We developed a Python program to collect the AOI boundary data of UGSs based on
areas.
the AmapWe Open
developed a Python
Platform API. program to collect the AOI boundary data of UGSs based
on the
High-resolution satellite API.
Amap Open Platform images of Harbin city were obtained from LocaSpaceViewer
(LSV)High-resolution satellite
(using Google Maps 2022images ofand
edition) Harbin
usedcity
as awere
baseobtained
map. Thefrom LocaSpaceViewer
entrances of each UGS
were manually extracted on the ArcGIS platform. This was carried out because largerofUGSs
(LSV) (using Google Maps 2022 edition) and used as a base map. The entrances each
UGS were manually extracted on the ArcGIS platform. This was carried out because
may have multiple entrances, and the distances between these entrances and the centroid larger
UGSs
can be may have multiple
considerable. This entrances,
approach and the distances
improves between
the accuracy these entrances
of travel and the
time calculations.
centroid can be considerable. This approach improves the accuracy of travel
For UGSs without clearly defined entrances (such as squares), the centroid was used time calcula-
as a
tions. For UGSs without
representative supply point.clearly defined entrances (such as squares), the centroid was used
as a representative supply point.
2.2.2. Web Photos and High-Resolution Aerial Imagery of UGSs
2.2.2.Web
Webphotos
Photoswere
and sourced
High-Resolution
from BaiduAerial Imagery
Images of UGSs
and Dianping.com, accessed on 22 June
2023.Web photosprogram
A Python were sourced fromtoBaidu
was used batchImages
collect and
UGSDianping.com, accessed
photos, totaling on 22 June
5425 images. For
2023. corner
street A Python program
parks, was used
waterfront greento batch and
spaces, collect UGS
other photos,
areas totaling
without image5425 images.
sources, For
images
streetobtained
were corner parks, waterfront
from Baidu Streetgreen
View.spaces, and other areas without image sources, im-
agesImagery
were obtained fromobtained
data were Baidu Street
from View.
high-resolution images captured by unmanned
aerialImagery
vehiclesdata were obtained from high-resolution
(UAVs) in June 2023. After images captured
the UAVs autonomously flew by
andunmanned
captured
aerial vehicles (UAVs) in June 2023. After the UAVs autonomously flew and captured
images according to programmed routes, the images were manually stitched im-
together.
agesresulting
The accordingimage
to programmed
data will beroutes,
used totheassess
imagesthewere manually
types stitchedof
and quantities together. The
plants and
resulting
water imagewithin
features data will
eachbeUGS.
usedIntocompliance
assess the types
with and quantities
China’s Interim of Measures
plants andforwater
the
features within of
Administration each UGS. In compliance
Unmanned withflight
Aerial Vehicles, China’s Interim
permits wereMeasures for the
not obtained forAdmin-
certain
residential, commercial, and industrial areas within the main urban area. For UGSs in these
areas, manual identification and assessment were conducted based on Google satellite
imagery and street view maps.
Land 2024, 13, 626 5 of 17

2.2.3. Population Data

Block-level analysis units were used in this study instead of administrative districts,
facilitating the exploration of micro-level distribution patterns of UGS accessibility and
more accurately identifying underserved areas. Basic population data were derived from
the 7th National Population Census data (street-level) from 2020. Housing estate data for
Harbin City (as of April 2023) were obtained from the Anjuke website (https://www.anjuke.
com/, accessed on 6 April 2023) using Python. Utilizing housing estate data as auxiliary
information, the population data at the subdistrict level were spatialized to the block
units based on the proportion of total households within blocks to the total households
within subdistricts.

2.2.4. Road Network and Travel Time Data

Road network data were sourced from the OpenStreetMap (OSM) platform. Walk-
ing was selected as the mode of travel in this study, as it is the most common mode of
transportation for residents. Walking time was used instead of walking distance to more
accurately reflect the real impedance between supply points and demand points. The Amap
Web Service provides a routing API that offers walking, public transportation, driving
query, and distance calculation interfaces in HTTP format. This method provides optional
routes and travel times based on real-time traffic conditions, road networks, and modes of
transportation [7]. Leveraging this functionality, walking time data from the starting point
(block centroid) to the destination (UGS entrance) were obtained.

2.3. A UGS Supply Adjustment Index (SAI) Considering Physical Activity Promotion Function
2.3.1. Evaluation Framework of SAI
This study primarily considered the physical activity promotion function of UGSs
and utilized a supply adjustment index (SAI) to adjust the calculation process of supply
size. The evaluation index was derived from summarizing various urban green space
quality evaluation tools [22,35–38] and previous literature on UGS impact on physical
activity (Table 1). It mainly includes three indicator dimensions: facilities [2,39,40], natural
environment [41,42], and safety [43,44], as well as nine assessment indicators such as
walking trails, physical activity facilities, and recreational facilities. Among these, footpaths
and sports facilities are essential prerequisites for promoting physical activity [2,39], while
an adequate provision of leisure facilities, vegetation, and water features can indirectly
attract residents to engage in physical activity within UGSs [2]. Additionally, sufficient
safety conditions are an effective guarantee for physical activity [2,45].

Table 1. Evaluation indicator system of SAI based on multiple data sources.

Dimension Element Description Scoring Method

Walkways Pathways for slow walking in the park Existence score
Facility Conditions Sports facilities Fitness areas, dance squares, basketball courts, etc. Category count
Leisure facilities Cafes, pergolas, umbrella seats, etc. Category count
Vegetation Lawns, dense forests, sparse forests, tree arrays, etc. Category count
Natural Conditions
Water features Fountains, streams, artificial lakes, etc. Category count
Barrier-free facilities Ramps, tactile paving, etc. Existence score
Lighting facilities Ground lights, street lights, etc. Existence score
Safety Conditions
Traffic Separation of pedestrians and vehicles Existence score
Security measures Surveillance cameras, security personnel, etc. Existence score
Total Score \ \ Sum of all scores

For each indicator, two scoring methods were adopted: existence score (1 point if the
content exists, 0 points otherwise) and category count (1–3 points if 1–3 types exist, 4 points
if 4 or more types exist, and 0 points otherwise). Three staff members simultaneously
observed UGS photos and evaluated and scored them based on the evaluation indicators.
Land 2024, 13, 626 6 of 17

For each indicator of each UGS, the average score of all staff members’ scores was taken as
the final score for that indicator. After scoring, the scores of indicators in each dimension
were summed to obtain the total quality score for each park. The ratio of the total quality
score of each UGS to the total score of all indicators was used as the final SAI.

2.3.2. Classification of UGSs Based on SAI

Based on the SAI, this study categorizes UGSs into three types to reflect the supply
level of elements related to physical activities within UGSs. (1) Low-supply park (LSP;
q ≤ 0.3): these UGS provide fewer types of services and are mainly used for residents’
daily activities nearby. They have advantages such as low construction costs, flexible site
selection, and convenient use. (2) Medium-supply park (MSP; 0.3 < q ≤ 0.6): these green
spaces can offer more diverse functions, such as basketball courts, children’s play facilities,
fitness areas, etc., to meet the needs of different age and interest groups. They have higher
construction and maintenance costs and can serve a larger range of resident activities.
(3) High-supply park (HSP; q > 0.6): these green spaces have the richest functions and
facilities. In addition to basic leisure functions, they may also include larger-scale activity
spaces, such as large sports fields. They have the highest construction and maintenance
costs and may attract a larger range of residents for activities.
It is important to emphasize that the three types of UGSs have different construction
costs and focus on functions. However, this does not mean that UGSs providing fewer
services are inferior to other UGSs. In fact, it is unrealistic to demand that all UGSs provide
rich services in a city with limited resources. The key is to ensure a reasonable spatial
distribution of various types of UGSs. At this level, measuring the accessibility of the three
types of UGSs separately can help to more accurately identify the types of services lacking
in each neighborhood, thereby achieving higher transformation benefits with lower costs
as much as possible.

2.4. The Supply–Demand Improved 2SFCA (SD2SFCA) Method Considering Physical

Activity Promotion
2.4.1. Improvement of Supply Scale
The traditional 2SFCA model uses area to represent the supply scale, which overlooks
the internal components of UGSs and may result in inaccurate measurements of accessibility.
In this study, the calculation method of the supply scale was adjusted based on the SAI of
the UGS. The formula is as follows:

S jA = S j ∗ q j

where S jA is the comprehensive supply scale of UGS j, S j is the total area of j, and q j is the
supply adjustment index of j.

2.4.2. Improvement of Demand Scale

The traditional 2SFCA model uses population count to represent demand magnitude.
Critics argue that this overlooks the competitive interaction between multiple facilities [32],
as residents may only choose a facility that they find more satisfactory. When a resident’s
demand has been met by a particular facility, it should be subtracted from the overall
demand. Accordingly, Wan et al. [32] introduced the calculation of choice weights before
the 2SFCA method, resulting in the 3SFCA method. Luo [33] considered the service
capacity of facilities and distance costs, introducing the Huff model [34] to further optimize
the calculation of choice weights, resulting in the H2SFCA method. This method has
been shown to reduce overestimation of accessibility and improve result accuracy [46,47].
However, these improvements still do not consider the influence of internal compositional
elements of facility points. Therefore, this study introduces the proposed SAI into the Huff
model to measure residents’ choice weights for supply points. Additionally, the model in
this study uses travel time based on road networks instead of traditional travel distance,
Land 2024, 13, 626 7 of 17

aiding in a more accurate estimation of travel costs. The formula for calculating choice
weights is as follows:
S jA tij G tij , t0


Probi =  
∑k∈{tkj ≤t0 } S jA tij G tkj , t0
tij 2

1 1

 e− 2 ×( t0 ) −e− 2

G tij , t0 = − 1 , tij ≤ t0
 1− e 2
0, tij > t0


where Probi is the probability of resident point i choosing park j, tij is the
travel time from i
to j, t0 is the time threshold for the specified search range, and G tij , t0 is the Gaussian
decay function, with other parameters having the same meanings as above.
Next, centered at each supply point, the total population demand within the catchment
area is calculated, so the supply–demand ratio of j is

S jA
Rj =  
∑k∈{tkj ≤t0 } Probi G tkj , t0 Dk

where R j is the ratio of the facility scale at supply point j to the population served within
the search radius (t0 ) and Dk represents the demand scale at demand point k, represented
by the total population of k, with other parameters having the same meanings as above.
Finally, for each demand point i, search all supply points j within the time threshold
range t0 of i, summing R j for each demand point, and adjusting the summation process
using the selection probability and Gaussian function, resulting in the accessibility Ai at
point i:
∑ Probi G tij , t0 R j


Ai =
j∈{tij ≤t0 }

2.4.3. Improvement on Fixed Travel Time Threshold

Drawing upon previous research, residents may be willing to spend more time trav-
eling to UGSs that offer additional services [28,47]. Conversely, for UGSs with fewer
amenities, residents may incur shorter time costs. Therefore, a variable time threshold was
used instead of the traditional fixed time threshold. The walking time thresholds for LSPs,
MSPs, and HSPs were set to 10 min, 20 min, and 30 min, respectively, to more accurately
reflect residents’ travel behavior preferences.

2.5. Association between Block Characteristics and UGS Accessibility

After analyzing the spatial differences in accessibility, we further aimed to identify the
specific associations between different block characteristics and UGS accessibility. Drawing
on previous research [6,48,49], this study selects eight variables from three dimensions of
block characteristics: population age structure, socioeconomic status, and built environment
features (Table 2).
The selection of these variables is driven by three reasons. Firstly, we consider the
proportion of elderly and adolescent populations in blocks to observe whether they face
UGS inequality, as they are often considered high-demand groups for UGSs. Secondly, we
examine the association between block socioeconomic status and accessibility using average
housing prices. Thirdly, block population density, building density, and green space ratio
represent land use characteristics, while the age of construction of blocks primarily reflects
their relative age, and the distance to the city center reflects block location conditions. These
built environment variables can to some extent reflect the level of urban development and
may further influence UGS accessibility.
Initially, a multiple linear regression model was established, with the eight block
characteristic factors as independent variables and the accessibility of various types of UGSs
as the dependent variable, to examine potential influencing factors on accessibility from
Land 2024, 13, 626 8 of 17

a global perspective. Subsequently, a focused analysis was conducted on the association

between accessibility and socioeconomic status. Housing prices were divided into four
levels (low, medium-low, medium-high, and high) based on quartiles, and the accessibility
of UGSs and median values of block characteristic variables for each price level were
calculated. The Mann–Whitney U test was then employed to compare the accessibility of
UGSs at different price levels pairwise. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS 21.0 and
Geoda 1.14.0 software.

Table 2. Potential influencing factors of accessibility.

Indicator Variable Explanation

Proportion of old people (%) Proportion of population aged 65 and above within each block
Age
Proportion of children (%) Proportion of population aged 16 and below within each block
Socioeconomic
Housing price Average housing price within each block
status
Population density Total population quantity divided by block area
Built Building density Building footprint area divided by block area
environment Greenery rate Total green space area within block divided by block area
features Block age (year) Median construction year of residential areas within each block
Distance to the city center Euclidean distance from block centroid to regional center

3. Results
3.1. Classification Results of UGS Based on SAI
Table 3 and Figure 3 present the classification results and spatial distribution of the
133 UGS within the area, respectively. Overall, UGS distribution is dense in the western
part of the city, with a variety of types, while UGSs in the south and east are relatively
sparse. MSPs are the most numerous, accounting for 48.87% of the total, concentrated in
the northeast. LSPs have the fewest numbers, accounting for 24.06%, mostly distributed in
Land 2024, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW the west and central areas. HSPs are concentrated in the west, followed
9 of by
18 the southeast.

Table 3. Calculation results of SAI and classification results statistics.

Table 3. Calculation results of SAI and classification results statistics.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Sum Std. Devitation
N Minimum Maximum Mean Sum Std. Devitation
LSP 32 0.14 0.29 0.25 8.00 0.04
LSP 32 0.14 0.29 0.25 8.00 0.04
MSP 65 0.33 0.52 0.41 26.67 0.07
MSP 65 0.33 0.52 0.41 26.67 0.07
HSP 36 0.67 0.90 0.70 25.19 0.09
HSP 36 0.67 0.90 0.70 25.19 0.09

Figure
Figure 3. 3. Spatial
Spatial distribution
distribution of threeoftypes
three
of types
UGSs. of UGSs.

3.2. Measurement Results of UGS Accessibility

3.2.1. Differences in Accessibility of Three Types of UGSs
Figure 4 illustrates the accessibility of overall UGSs (OP) as well as the accessibility
results for three different types of UGSs. For the overall UGSs, high accessibility values
are concentrated in the western, riverside, southeastern, and eastern areas within the sec-
 Land 2024, 13, 626 9 of 17
Land 2024, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18

3.2. Measurement Results of UGS Accessibility

Table
3.2.1.4.Differences
Descriptive statistics of UGS accessibility.
in Accessibility of Three Types of UGSs
Figure 4 illustrates the accessibility Standard
of overall UGSs (OP) as
Serviced well as the
Serviced accessibility
Serviced Pop-
Min
results for Max
three different Mean Median
types of UGSs. Devitation
For the overall UGSs, high accessibility values are
Blocks Area/km2 ulation
concentrated in the western, riverside, southeastern, and eastern areas within the second
LSP 0.00 20.50 0.11 0.00 1.04 127 12.14 390,967
ring road of the city. Accessibility is generally lower in the southern and central parts of the
MSP 0.00 98.05 1.60 0.18 4.82 674 95.52 2,553,738
city. Although these areas have a small number of UGS resources, their overall area and
HSP facilities
internal 0.00 193.44 5.25 to1.33
are insufficient 13.01
match the 795
higher population 110.42
demands. 2,965,519 is
Accessibility
OP in0.00
poorest 193.44outskirts,
the eastern 6.96 where
2.37 obtaining
15.43 any services
940 is nearly
136.74 impossible.
3,611,683

Figure 4. Spatial distribution of accessibility to three types of UGSs.

Figure 4. Spatial distribution of accessibility to three types of UGSs.
When considering the accessibility of the three types of UGSs separately, the results
3.2.2.
show Classification
that only aboutof Areas
11.72% with Inadequate
of blocks Services
can reach LSPs (Table 4), mainly distributed in the
Basedand
western on central
the results ofofaccessibility
parts the city. Theassessments,
proportion of further
blocksclassification of areas
served by MSPs with
is 62.18%,
inadequate servicesgenerally
with accessibility was conducted. Firstly,
decreasing froman theoverall
suburbs classification
toward thewas conducted,
central as
urban areas,
shown in Figure 5a.
with high values concentrated in the western, riverside, and northeastern parts of the city.
HSPsClass
canI:serve
Represents
73.34% blocks with
of blocks. no access
Their to anydistribution
accessibility services, accounting for approxi-
is more dispersed, with
mately 13.28%concentrated
high values of the total. They
in theare mainlyriverside
western, distributed in eastern,
areas, the central,
andeastern, and south-
southeastern parts.
ern suburban areas.that the number and distribution of LSPs within the region are severely
It is evident
Class II: Represents
unreasonable, blocks with
and a significant access
portion to only
of the high one
valuesclass
in of UGS accessibility
overall service, withlargely
rela-
tively
dependlowon accessibility, accounting
HSPs. However, the for approximately
number of HSPs is19.93%
limited of and
the total. They are mainly
not sufficient to serve
distributed
a wider rangein theofsouthern
blocks. region. These
If only the blocks
overall have relatively
accessibility limited
of UGSs access to UGS
is evaluated, clas-be
it will
ses, whichtomay
difficult create
identify thesignificant service
specific types pressure
of services and
that may truly
blocks not meet
lack. residents’ diverse
usage preferences. Subclassification of class II results is shown in Figure 5b. Most blocks
in the south can only access HSPs with limited opportunities, and a very small number of
blocks can only access LSPs. In contrast, a few blocks in the east, central, and north can
only access MSPs.
Land 2024, 13, 626 10 of 17

Table 4. Descriptive statistics of UGS accessibility.

Standard Serviced Serviced Serviced

Min Max Mean Median
Devitation Blocks Area/km2 Population
Land 2024,
LSP 13, x FOR0.00
PEER REVIEW
20.50 0.11 0.00 1.04 127 12.14 11 of 18
390,967
MSP 0.00 98.05 1.60 0.18 4.82 674 95.52 2,553,738
HSP 0.00 193.44 5.25 1.33 13.01 795 110.42 2,965,519
OP 0.00 193.44 6.96 2.37 15.43 940 136.74 3,611,683
Class III: Represents blocks with access to two or more classes of UGS services, but
with relatively low accessibility. This is mainly due to the limited number of UGS classes,
3.2.2. Classification of Areas with Inadequate Services
and the overall supply scale does not match the higher population demand. This class
Based
accounts foronapproximately
the results of accessibility
6.83% of theassessments, furtherdistributed
total and is mainly classification
in of
theareas with
southern
inadequate services was conducted.
and northeastern parts of the city. Firstly, an overall classification was conducted, as
shown in Figure 5a.

Figure 5.
Figure 5. Classification
Classificationof ofareas
areaswith
withinadequate
inadequateservices.
services.(a)(a) The
The overall
overall classification
classification of of under-
underserved
served(b)
areas; areas; (b) Further
Further classification
classification of ClassofII.Class II.

3.3. Association between UGS

Class I: Represents blocksAccessibility and Block
with no access to anyCharacteristics
services, accounting for approximately
13.28% of the total. They are mainly distributed in the central, eastern, and southern
3.3.1. Potential Influencing Factors of UGS Accessibility
suburban areas.
Table II:
Class 5 shows that the
Represents variance
blocks inflation
with access factor
to only (VIF)
one classfor
ofeach
UGSexplanatory
service, withvariable
relativelyis
less than
low 7.5, indicating
accessibility, the absence
accounting of multicollinearity
for approximately 19.93% of between variables.
the total. For mainly
They are overall
UGS accessibility, the proportion of elderly population, housing
distributed in the southern region. These blocks have relatively limited access to UGS prices, block greenery
rate, and
classes, distance
which maytocreate
the city center are
significant significantly
service pressurepositively
and may not associated with accessibil-
meet residents’ diverse
ity, while block population density and construction year are significantly
usage preferences. Subclassification of class II results is shown in Figure 5b. Most negatively
blocksas-
in
sociated
the southwith
can accessibility.
only access HSPs with limited opportunities, and a very small number of
blocksWhen considering
can only different
access LSPs. quality levels
In contrast, a fewofblocks
UGSs,in housing
the east,prices and and
central, distance tocan
north the
city center
only access have
MSPs.stable positive associations with all quality levels of UGSs. The block
greenery
Classrate
III: has a significant
Represents blocks positive association
with access to twowith HSPclasses
or more accessibility.
of UGSBlock age and
services, but
population density have weak negative associations with MSP and HSP
with relatively low accessibility. This is mainly due to the limited number of UGS classes, accessibility. The
proportion
and of elderly
the overall supply population
scale doeshas nota significant positivepopulation
match the higher associationdemand.
with MSPThisandclass
HSP
accessibility,
accounts while the proportion
for approximately 6.83% ofofthe children population
total and is mainlyhas a weak negative
distributed association
in the southern and
only with MSPs.
northeastern partsThe block
of the city.greenery rate has a significant positive association with HSP
accessibility.
3.3. Association between UGS Accessibility and Block Characteristics
Table Potential
3.3.1. 5. MultipleInfluencing
linear regression
Factorsresults.
of UGS Accessibility
Table 5 shows that the variance inflation factorStandardized
(VIF) for eachCoefficient
explanatory variable is
Independent
less Variables
than 7.5, indicating VIF of multicollinearity between variables. For overall UGS
the absence
OP LSP MSP HSP
Proportion of old people 1.352 0.124 *** −0.031 0.150 *** 0.094 **
Proportion of children 1.257 −0.057 −0.019 −0.066 * −0.042
Housing price 1.409 0.378 *** 0.089 * 0.399 *** 0.294 ***
Population density 1.224 −0.113 *** −0.007 −0.083 ** −0.103 ***
Building density 1.470 0.010 −0.059 −0.015 0.022
Land 2024, 13, 626 11 of 17

accessibility, the proportion of elderly population, housing prices, block greenery rate, and
distance to the city center are significantly positively associated with accessibility, while
block population density and construction year are significantly negatively associated
with accessibility.

Table 5. Multiple linear regression results.

Standardized Coefficient
Independent Variables VIF
OP LSP MSP HSP
Proportion of old people 1.352 0.124 *** −0.031 0.150 *** 0.094 **
Proportion of children 1.257 −0.057 −0.019 −0.066 * −0.042
Housing price 1.409 0.378 *** 0.089 * 0.399 *** 0.294 ***
Population density 1.224 −0.113 *** −0.007 −0.083 ** −0.103 ***
Building density 1.470 0.010 −0.059 −0.015 0.022
Greenery rate 1.223 0.14 *** −0.016 0.040 0.152 ***
Block age 1.462 −0.066 * −0.019 −0.022 * −0.069 *
Distance to the city center 1.378 0.283 *** 0.072 * 0.260 *** 0.234 ***
Adjusted R2 - 0.208 0.017 0.168 0.149
p-value of the model - 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

When considering different quality levels of UGSs, housing prices and distance to
the city center have stable positive associations with all quality levels of UGSs. The
block greenery rate has a significant positive association with HSP accessibility. Block age
and population density have weak negative associations with MSP and HSP accessibility.
The proportion of elderly population has a significant positive association with MSP
and HSP accessibility, while the proportion of children population has a weak negative
association only with MSPs. The block greenery rate has a significant positive association
with HSP accessibility.
This indicates that children may be at a disadvantage in accessing adequate MSP
services, while the elderly population may have a more matched accessibility to UGSs.
Blocks with higher socioeconomic status, farther distance from the city center, newer
construction age, and lower density are more likely to access UGSs. Blocks with higher
greenery rates are also more likely to access HSPs.

3.3.2. Disparities in UGS Accessibility and Block Characteristics Based on Housing

Price Levels
As shown in Table 6, compared to low-priced blocks, high-priced blocks have a lower
proportion of elderly population and a higher proportion of children population. However,
high-priced blocks exhibit a significantly lower population density and building density.
The construction age of high-priced blocks is also generally later, and they tend to have
higher greenery rates compared to low-priced blocks. Low-priced blocks may generally
be situated farther from the city center. Additionally, the median MSP accessibility in
low-priced blocks is slightly higher than in middle-low-priced blocks. This may be due to
the fact that low-priced blocks are located in areas farther from the city center, where more
UGSs are built, leveraging the surrounding natural resources.
The results of the Mann–Whitney U test in Table 7 indicate significant differences in
the accessibility of MSPs and HSPs between blocks with high housing prices and those
with other housing price levels. The median accessibility of UGSs in blocks with high
housing prices is consistently the highest. Conversely, the accessibility of HSPs in blocks
with low housing prices is significantly lower than that in the other three types of blocks. It
is noteworthy that, although blocks with both high and low housing prices have relatively
high median green coverage rates, the accessibility in blocks with low housing prices is
significantly lower than that in blocks with high housing prices. This could be attributed
to blocks with low housing prices having many underutilized potential UGSs, such as
affiliated green spaces and protective green spaces.
Land 2024, 13, 626 12 of 17

Table 6. Block characteristics variables statistics based on housing price levels.

(a) Low (b) Low-Middle (c) Middle-High (d) High

Proportion of old people (%) 24.55 25.30 25.18 19.72
Proportion of children (%) 9.29 9.11 9.07 11.29
Population density (person/km2 ) 27,726 42,947 33,893 25,941
Building density 0.49 0.52 0.53 0.38
Greenery rate 0.13 0.10 0.10 0.13
Block age (year) 23 25 24 18
Distance to the city center (m) 6836.77 4716.20 4179.25 5173.10

Table 7. Mann–Whitney U test results for UGS accessibility based on housing price levels.

LSP MSP HSP OP

(a) Low 0.00 (d **) 0.15 (d ***) 0.55 (b */c **/d ***) 1.65 (c */d ***)
(b) Low-middle 0.00 (d **) 0.10 (d ***) 0.85 (a */d ***) 2.21 (d ***)
(c) Middle-high 0.00 0.17 (d **) 0.86 (a **/d ***) 2.48 (a */d ***)
(d) High 0.00 (a/b **) 0.43 (a ***/b ***/c **) 1.30 (a/b/c ***) 4.47 (a/b/c ***)
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. The letters before the housing price levels denote the group numbers. The
groups with significant differences and their significance levels are indicated in parentheses after each median.

4. Discussion
4.1. Disparities in Types of UGS Services Obtained across Different Regions
The research findings indicate significant differentiation in the types of UGS services
available in different urban areas. Firstly, the western part of the city facilitates access to
various types of UGSs, which aligns with the emphasis on UGS development in newly
developed urban areas. The service availability in the riverside areas is also adequate,
consistent with previous studies [7,8,48], suggesting a universally positive role of proximity
to water bodies in UGS development.
Secondly, most blocks in the eastern suburbs and southeastern parts can only access
HSP services. However, due to the limited number of HSPs, their service coverage is
relatively small. This suggests that the overall accessibility advantage in certain urban areas
may not stem from a variety of green space resources but rather from the local advantages
of a few large-scale UGSs. Additionally, most blocks cannot reach LSPs within the specified
time threshold, and the accessibility level in the southern part of the city is generally poor,
with some blocks only able to access HSP services with low accessibility opportunities.
These phenomena may stem from a planning approach based on average indicators. Due
to the larger scale and diverse service types of HSPs, they can quickly increase the overall
green coverage and per capita green space area in the region to achieve the government’s
expected goals [48]. This creates a “superficial” perception of service adequacy and may
lead planners to overlook other types of UGSs.
These findings highlight a contradiction: whether, with the same expected total
area of UGSs, it is preferable to incrementally increase numerous small-scale UGSs with
lower supply capabilities in a decentralized manner or to concentrate on fewer large-scale
UGSs with higher supply capabilities in a centralized manner. Previous studies have
addressed this issue [12,50], indicating that, compared to geographically concentrating
resources and initiating several rounds of upscale development of large UGSs, focusing on
smaller-scale interventions is more advantageous for UGS equity and can help to prevent
gentrification. This study, from the perspective of different supply capabilities of UGSs,
supports this viewpoint. Firstly, the construction and maintenance costs of HSPs are high,
and they require large land areas as a foundation, which is unrealistic for high-density
urban areas severely lacking in UGSs. Secondly, a single type of UGS may not fully meet
the diverse needs of residents and may impose greater service pressures on HSPs. Studies
have shown that residents prefer to engage in daily activities in smaller UGSs [51,52],
possibly due to the disadvantages of larger UGSs such as crowding and difficulty in
Land 2024, 13, 626 13 of 17

accessing activity areas. In contrast, LSPs and MSPs have several advantages, including
greater flexibility, ease of encouraging residents to engage in physical activities [53], and
contributing to strengthening community ties [54,55], among others. Therefore, in future
planning, emphasis should be placed on incrementally supplementing more LSPs and
MSPs in a decentralized manner to serve more blocks.

4.2. Association between Block Characteristics and UGS Accessibility

The research results indicate that house prices have a significant positive relationship
with UGS accessibility. Except for low-supply parks (LSPs), which have a relatively limited
accessible range, the median accessibility of various types of UGSs in high-priced blocks
is the highest and significantly different from blocks of other price levels. This supports
previous views [7,12], indicating significant socioeconomic inequality in UGS accessibility.
This may be because high-income groups are generally willing to pay high costs for a
better living environment [56] and have more opportunities to participate in decision-
making processes related to their interests [57]. This may increase the housing prices in
surrounding blocks [58], leading to significant segregation in accessing UGS services for
low-income groups.
Similar to previous studies, this research also highlights differences in accessing
UGSs between the elderly and children [16,22,49]. Areas with a higher proportion of
children may exhibit lower accessibility to MSPs, while areas with a higher proportion
of elderly residents may have higher accessibility to both MSPs and HSPs. This could
be attributed to two factors. Firstly, families with children may choose to reside in older
urban areas, which offer abundant commercial and educational resources [49], but lower
UGS accessibility. Secondly, with the large-scale industrial transformation in China, the
middle-aged and young unemployed population in old industrial areas are forced to
migrate elsewhere, leading to an increase in aging population. However, measures such as
industrial land replacement and renovation of old communities have also increased green
spaces. Therefore, the elderly population may inadvertently benefit from access to urban
parks [49].
Urban spatial structural factors partially explain the inequality of UGSs. Areas with
high housing prices generally have later construction times and characteristics of low
density and high green coverage. This partially explains the accessibility differences
between new and old urban areas. New areas have better conditions for UGS construction,
while old areas did not emphasize the importance of UGSs in the early stages and lacked
comprehensive construction regulations, making it difficult to retrospectively increase
UGSs in already built-up areas. However, this planning approach overlooks the lower
population demand in new areas, leading to an increase in housing prices in these areas.
Consequently, a large number of UGSs are overly concentrated in certain areas, exacerbating
spatial inequality in UGSs and creating significant disadvantages for low-income groups in
accessing UGSs.

4.3. Urban Planning and Policy Implications

Firstly, research on UGS spatial inequality should not only focus on areas lacking
services but also consider the differences in UGS service types obtained in different areas.
For example, the lower accessibility in the central urban area is due to the severe shortage
of UGS supply, requiring prioritized expansion of the UGS total area. In contrast, for some
blocks in the southern region, a more reasonable approach than continuing to increase
HSPs is to add more LSPs and MSPs near these blocks and establish complete connections
with existing HSPs. This can achieve greater benefits at lower costs.
Secondly, in terms of specific renovation strategies, attention should be paid to adopt-
ing stock planning schemes in areas where it is difficult to increase UGSs. There are three
specific recommendations: (i) emphasize avoiding large-scale concentrated development
and focus on small-scale interventions to supplement more LSPs and MSPs to bridge the
gap; (ii) enhance facilities and services in existing LSPs to provide a more diverse range
Land 2024, 13, 626 14 of 17

of functions to alleviate inequality [35]; (iii) advocate for open neighborhood planning to
maximize the public benefits of closed non-park green spaces [59,60].
Finally, planners should prioritize addressing green inequality issues by actively inter-
vening with policies and allocating funds to safeguard the health rights of low-income and
vulnerable groups. At the same time, attention should be paid to increasing corresponding
UGS service facilities in areas with a higher proportion of children and elderly populations
to meet their specific needs.

5. Conclusions and Future Work

This study’s main contributions are as follows: firstly, we utilized advanced data
collection techniques, including Python data collection, drone image capture, and image
stitching technology. This reduced the difficulty of obtaining data and improved the
accuracy of the research results. Secondly, we considered elements related to physical
activity in the measurement of UGS accessibility and improved the 2SFCA model from
both supply and demand aspects, making the evaluation of accessibility more accurate.
Thirdly, we separately evaluated the accessibility of different types of UGSs, which helps
to formulate more precise planning strategies to ensure the maximization of benefits
with limited construction costs. Fourthly, we evaluated the association between various
urban spatial structure variables and accessibility, further explaining the reasons for UGS
inequality based on previous research.
The conclusions of this study indicate the following: (1) there is significant differen-
tiation in the types of UGS services available in different areas of the city. Government
reliance on a single indicator for planning may lead to a severe lack of small-scale, low-cost
UGSs, which hinders the full satisfaction of residents’ diverse needs. (2) The accessibility
of UGSs is significantly positively influenced by housing prices, with accessibility in high-
priced areas notably higher than in low-priced areas, demonstrating clear socioeconomic
inequality. (3) Children may be at a disadvantage in accessing UGSs, highlighting the need
for future planning to pay greater attention to vulnerable groups.
Several limitations of this research framework must be acknowledged. Firstly, this
study only used objective indicators to evaluate the sports service capacity of UGSs, without
considering residents’ subjective perceptions and needs in the park. In reality, residents’
perceived quality of parks may vary [61] and be related to various factors [62]. Secondly,
different modes of transportation were not considered for the accessibility evaluation of
different types of UGSs. Lastly, due to the limitations of micro-data acquisition, the unequal
differences in various vulnerable groups have not been further studied. Future research
should be based on more field investigations, adopting a combination of subjective and
objective data acquisition methods to further improve the reliability of the results.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.H. and Y.L.; methodology, Y.H. and Y.L.; project ad-
ministration, Y.H. and L.W.; resources, Y.H. and L.W.; software, Y.L. and Y.W.; supervision, L.W.;
visualization, Y.L. and Y.W.; writing—original draft, Y.L.; writing—review and editing, Y.H. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: Project supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China: Research on the
Cold Island Mechanism of Seasonal Variations in Horizontal and Vertical Structures of Forests in Cold
Cities (No. 42171246). Project supported by the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation: Research
on the spatial mechanism of promoting physical activity in cold industrial community green spaces
under the guidance of public health and the optimization model of “Sports-Green Integration” (No.
2020M670873).
Data Availability Statement: The source of all the data used in this study is provided in the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Land 2024, 13, 626 15 of 17

References
1. Lee, I.-M.; Shiroma, E.J.; Lobelo, F.; Puska, P.; Blair, S.N.; Katzmarzyk, P.T. Effect of physical inactivity on major non-communicable
diseases worldwide: An analysis of burden of disease and life expectancy. Lancet 2012, 380, 219–229. [CrossRef]
2. McCormack, G.R.; Rock, M.; Toohey, A.M.; Hignell, D. Characteristics of urban parks associated with park use and physical
activity: A review of qualitative research. Health Place 2010, 16, 712–726. [CrossRef]
3. Dai, D. Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in urban green space accessibility: Where to intervene? Landsc. Urban Plan.
2011, 102, 234–244. [CrossRef]
4. Kidokoro, T.; Sho, K.; Fukuda, R. Urban suburbia: Gentrification and spatial inequality in workers’ communities in Tokyo. Cities
2023, 136, 104247. [CrossRef]
5. Hsiao, H. Spatial distribution of urban gardens on vacant land and rooftops: A case study of ‘The Garden City Initiative’ in Taipei
City, Taiwan. Urban Geogr. 2021, 43, 1150–1175. [CrossRef]
6. Guo, S.; Song, C.; Pei, T.; Liu, Y.; Ma, T.; Du, Y.; Chen, J.; Fan, Z.; Tang, X.; Peng, Y.; et al. Accessibility to urban parks for elderly
residents: Perspectives from mobile phone data. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 191, 103642. [CrossRef]
7. Chen, Y.; Yue, W.; La Rosa, D. Which communities have better accessibility to green space? An investigation into environmental
inequality using big data. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 204, 103919. [CrossRef]
8. Xing, L.; Liu, Y.; Liu, X.; Wei, X.; Mao, Y. Spatio-temporal disparity between demand and supply of park green space service in
urban area of Wuhan from 2000 to 2014. Habitat Int. 2018, 71, 49–59. [CrossRef]
9. Lu, Y.; Chen, R.; Chen, B.; Wu, J. Inclusive green environment for all? An investigation of spatial access equity of urban green
space and associated socioeconomic drivers in China. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2024, 241, 104926. [CrossRef]
10. Chen, W.Y.; Hu, F.Z.Y. Producing nature for public: Land-based urbanization and provision of public green spaces in China. Appl.
Geogr. 2015, 58, 32–40. [CrossRef]
11. Wu, L.; Kim, S.K. Exploring the equality of accessing urban green spaces: A comparative study of 341 Chinese cities. Ecol. Indic.
2021, 121, 107080. [CrossRef]
12. Wolch, J.R.; Byrne, J.; Newell, J.P. Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities
‘just green enough’. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 125, 234–244. [CrossRef]
13. Wu, L.; Rowe, P.G. Green space progress or paradox: Identifying green space associated gentrification in Beijing. Landsc. Urban
Plan. 2022, 219, 104321. [CrossRef]
14. Rigolon, A. A complex landscape of inequity in access to urban parks: A literature review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 153, 160–169.
[CrossRef]
15. Nesbitt, L.; Meitner, M.J.; Girling, C.; Sheppard, S.R.J.; Lu, Y. Who has access to urban vegetation? A spatial analysis of
distributional green equity in 10 US cities. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 181, 51–79. [CrossRef]
16. Shen, Y.A.; Sun, F.; Che, Y.Y. Public green spaces and human wellbeing: Mapping the spatial inequity and mismatching status of
public green space in the Central City of Shanghai. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 27, 59–68. (In English) [CrossRef]
17. Bolte, G.; Tamburlini, G.; Kohlhuber, M. Environmental Inequalities among Children in Europe—Evaluation of Scientific Evidence
and Policy Implications. Eur. J. Public Health 2010, 20, 14–20. [CrossRef]
18. Maas, J.; Verheij, R.A.; de Vries, S.; Spreeuwenberg, P.; Schellevis, F.G.; Groenewegen, P.P. Morbidity is related to a green living
environment. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2009, 63, 967–973. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Yigitcanlar, T.; Kamruzzaman, M.; Teimouri, R.; Degirmenci, K.; Alanjagh, F. Association between park visits and mental health
in a developing country context: The case of Tabriz, Iran. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 199, 103805. [CrossRef]
20. Xie, B.; An, Z.; Zheng, Y.; Li, Z. Healthy aging with parks: Association between park accessibility and the health status of older
adults in urban China. Sust. Cities Soc. 2018, 43, 476–486. [CrossRef]
21. Pereira, G.; Foster, S.; Martin, K.; Christian, H.; Boruff, B.J.; Knuiman, M.; Giles-Corti, B. The association between neighborhood
greenness and cardiovascular disease: An observational study. BMC Public Health 2012, 12, 466. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Zhang, R.; Peng, S.; Sun, F.; Deng, L.; Che, Y. Assessing the social equity of urban parks: An improved index integrating multiple
quality dimensions and service accessibility. Cities 2022, 129, 103839. (In English) [CrossRef]
23. Zhang, R.; Huang, L.; Wang, H. Accessibility Improvement and Renewal of Urban Park Green Space for the Elderly and the
Disabled. Forests 2023, 14, 1801. [CrossRef]
24. Shao, H.; Song, P.; Mu, B.; Tian, G.; Chen, Q.; He, R.; Kim, G. Assessing city-scale green roof development potential using
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) imagery. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 57, 126954. [CrossRef]
25. Liang, H.; Li, W.; Zhang, Q.; Zhu, W.; Chen, D.; Liu, J.; Shu, T. Using unmanned aerial vehicle data to assess the three-dimension
green quantity of urban green space: A case study in Shanghai, China. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 164, 81–90. [CrossRef]
26. Radke, J.; Mu, L. Spatial Decompositions, Modeling and Mapping Service Regions to Predict Access to Social Programs. Ann. GIS
2000, 6, 105–112. [CrossRef]
27. Luo, W.; Wang, F. Measures of Spatial Accessibility to Healthcare in a GIS Environment: Synthesis and a Case Study in Chicago
Region. Env. Plann B Plann Des. 2003, 30, 865–884. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Dony, C.C.; Delmelle, E.M.; Delmelle, E.C. Re-conceptualizing accessibility to parks in multi-modal cities: A Variable-width
Floating Catchment Area (VFCA) method. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 143, 90–99. [CrossRef]
29. Luo, W.; Whippo, T. Variable catchment sizes for the two-step floating catchment area (2SFCA) method. Health Place 2012, 18,
789–795. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Land 2024, 13, 626 16 of 17

30. Hu, S.; Song, W.; Li, C.; Lu, J. A multi-mode Gaussian-based two-step floating catchment area method for measuring accessibility
of urban parks. Cities 2020, 105, 102815. [CrossRef]
31. Mao, L.; Nekorchuk, D. Measuring spatial accessibility to healthcare for populations with multiple transportation modes. Health
Place 2013, 24, 115–122. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Wan, N.; Zou, B.; Sternberg, T. A three-step floating catchment area method for analyzing spatial access to health services. Int. J.
Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2012, 26, 1073–1089. [CrossRef]
33. Luo, J. Integrating the Huff Model and Floating Catchment Area Methods to Analyze Spatial Access to Healthcare Services. Trans.
GIS 2014, 18, 436–448. [CrossRef]
34. Huff, D.L. A probabilistic analysis of shopping center trade areas. Land Econ. 1963, 39, 81–90. [CrossRef]
35. Wu, J.; Peng, Y.; Liu, P.; Weng, Y.; Lin, J. Is the green inequality overestimated? Quality reevaluation of green space accessibility.
Cities 2022, 130, 103871. (In English) [CrossRef]
36. Knobel, P.; Dadvand, P.; Alonso, L.; Costa, L.; Español, M.; Maneja, R. Development of the urban green space quality assessment
tool (RECITAL). Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 57, 126895. (In English) [CrossRef]
37. Gidlow, C.; van Kempen, E.; Smith, G.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Kruize, H.; Gražulevičienė, R.; Ellis, N.; Hurst, G.; Masterson, D.; Cirach,
M.; et al. Development of the natural environment scoring tool (NEST). Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 29, 322–333. [CrossRef]
38. Bedimo-Rung, A.L.; Gustat, J.; Tompkins, B.J.; Rice, J.; Thomson, J. Development of a Direct Observation Instrument to Measure
Environmental Characteristics of Parks for Physical Activity. J. Phys. Act. Health 2006, 3, S176–S189. [CrossRef]
39. Kaczynski, A.T.; Potwarka, L.R.; Saelens, B.E. Association of park size, distance, and features with physical activity in neighbor-
hood parks. Am. J. Public Health 2008, 98, 1451–1456. (In English) [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Giles-Corti, B.; Broomhall, M.H.; Knuiman, M.; Collins, C.; Douglas, K.; Ng, K.; Lange, A.; Donovan, R.J. Increasing walking:
How important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space? Am. J. Prev. Med. 2005, 28, 169–176. [CrossRef]
41. Sugiyama, T.; Francis, J.; Middleton, N.J.; Owen, N.; Giles-Corti, B. Associations between recreational walking and attractiveness,
size, and proximity of neighborhood open spaces. Am. J. Public Health 2010, 100, 1752–1757. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42. Zhang, H.; Chen, B.; Sun, Z.; Bao, Z. Landscape perception and recreation needs in urban green space in Fuyang, Hangzhou,
China. Urban For. Urban Green. 2013, 12, 44–52. [CrossRef]
43. Salmon, B.J. Where do children usually play? A qualitative study of parents’ perceptions of influences on children’s active
free-play. Health Place 2006, 12, 383–393.
44. Ries, A.V.; Gittelsohn, J.; Voorhees, C.C.; Roche, K.M.; Clifton, K.J.; Astone, N.M. The environment and urban adolescents’ use of
recreational facilities for physical activity: A qualitative study. Am. J. Health Promot. 2008, 23, 43–50. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. Griffin, S.F.; Wilson, D.K.; Wilcox, S.; Buck, J.; Ainsworth, B.E. Physical Activity Influences in a Disadvantaged African American
Community and the Communities’ Proposed Solutions. Health Promot. Pr. 2008, 9, 180–190. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46. Xing, L.; Liu, Y.; Wang, B.; Wang, Y.; Liu, H. An environmental justice study on spatial access to parks for youth by using an
improved 2SFCA method in Wuhan, China. Cities 2020, 96, 102405. [CrossRef]
47. Zhang, J.; Cheng, Y.; Zhao, B. How to accurately identify the underserved areas of peri-urban parks? An integrated accessibility
indicator. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 122, 107263. [CrossRef]
48. Liu, B.; Tian, Y.; Guo, M.; Tran, D.; Alwah, A.A.Q.; Xu, D. Evaluating the disparity between supply and demand of park green
space using a multi-dimensional spatial equity evaluation framework. Cities 2022, 121, 103484. [CrossRef]
49. Xiao, Y.; Wang, Z.; Li, Z.; Tang, Z. An assessment of urban park access in Shanghai—Implications for the social equity in urban
China. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 157, 383–393. [CrossRef]
50. Schauman, S.; Salisbury, S. Restoring nature in the city: Puget Sound experiences. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1998, 42, 287–295.
[CrossRef]
51. Kabisch, N.; Strohbach, M.; Haase, D.; Kronenberg, J. Urban green space availability in European cities. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 70,
586–596. [CrossRef]
52. Wendel, H.E.W.; Zarger, R.K.; Mihelcic, J.R. Accessibility and usability: Green space preferences, perceptions, and barriers in a
rapidly urbanizing city in Latin America. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 107, 272–282. [CrossRef]
53. Cohen, D.A.; Marsh, T.; Williamson, S.; Han, B.; Derose, K.P.; Golinelli, D.; McKenzie, T.L. The potential for pocket parks to
increase physical activity. Am. J. Health Promot. 2014, 28, S19–S26. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
54. Zhang, H.; Han, M. Pocket parks in English and Chinese literature: A review. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 61, 127080. [CrossRef]
55. Liu, S.; Wang, X.H. Reexamine the value of urban pocket parks under the impact of the COVID-19. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021,
64, 127294. (In English) [CrossRef] [PubMed]
56. Xiao, Y.; Lu, Y.; Guo, Y.; Yuan, Y. Estimating the willingness to pay for green space services in Shanghai: Implications for social
equity in urban China. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 26, 95–103. (In English) [CrossRef]
57. Shrestha, R.; Flacke, J.; Martinez, J.; Van Maarseveen, M. Environmental health related socio-spatial inequalities: Identifying
“hotspots” of environmental burdens and social vulnerability. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 691. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
58. Jim, C.Y.; Chen, W.Y. External effects of neighbourhood parks and landscape elements on high-rise residential value. Land Use Pol.
2010, 27, 662–670. [CrossRef]
59. Ke, X.; Huang, D.; Zhou, T.; Men, H. Contribution of non-park green space to the equity of urban green space accessibility. Ecol.
Indic. 2023, 146, 109855. [CrossRef]
Land 2024, 13, 626 17 of 17

60. Wen, Z.H.; Zhang, S.; Yang, Y.; Zheng, X.; Song, Z.; Zhou, Y.; Hao, J. How does enclosed private residential green space impact
accessibility equity in urban regions? A case study in Shenzhen, China. Urban For. Urban Green. 2023, 85, 127968. (In English)
[CrossRef]
61. Larson, K.L.; Brown, J.A.; Lee, K.J.; Pearsall, H. Park equity: Why subjective measures matter. Urban For. Urban Green. 2022, 76,
127733. (In English) [CrossRef]
62. Lau, K.K.L.; Yung, C.C.Y.; Tan, Z. Usage and perception of urban green space of older adults in the high-density city of Hong
Kong. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 64, 127251. (In English) [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.