In response to the global challenge of population ageing, active ageing has emerged as a key strategy. Urban parks, as core elements of an age-friendly city’s physical and social infrastructure, play a vital role in enhancing older adults’ well-being. This study aims to construct a framework for age-friendly park development integrating dual supply–demand perspectives. The framework systematically defines Space Friendly and Service Friendly attributes under the supply dimension, and Spatial Differences and Social Differences under the demand dimension. Space Friendly denotes the accessible, safe, and comfortable physical design of parks. Service Friendly encompasses soft services such as management, maintenance, and programming. Spatial Differences address heterogeneous demands arising from geographic location and park type. Social Differences focus on diverse needs stemming from socio-economic status. By utilizing the Coupling Coordination Degree Model (CCM) and the Entropy Weight Method, this study developed a comprehensive evaluation system. The model results indicated that Space Friendly and Service Friendly were weighted at 39.63% and 60.37%, respectively, while Spatial Differences and Social Differences were weighted at 44.28% and 55.72%, respectively. The results in the research area indicated that 8.11% of the blocks fell into the Disorder Recession Class, 24.33% belonged to the Transitional Development Class, and 67.56% were classified under Coordinated Development Class. Overall, the age-friendliness of park resources in the study area was relatively high. Nevertheless, significant spatial disparities existed between the central areas and peripheral areas. Based on the characteristics of different blocks, this study proposed targeted optimization strategies. By offering quantitative tools and strategic guidance, this research provides an interdisciplinary method on evaluating age-friendliness of urban park resources.
Ali Abd Al-HameedK (2022) Spearman’s correlation coefficient in statistical analysis. International Journal of Nonlinear Analysis and Applications13: 3249–3255.
2.
AlidoustSBosmanCHoldenG, et al. (2017) The spatial dimensions of neighbourhood: How older people define it. Journal of Urban Design22: 547–567.
3.
ArtmannMChenXIojăC, et al. (2017) The role of urban green spaces in care facilities for elderly people across European cities. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening27: 203–213.
4.
AttardJOrlandiFScerriS, et al. (2015) A systematic review of open government data initiatives. Government Information Quarterly32: 399–418.
5.
BeecoJABrownG (2013) Integrating space, spatial tools, and spatial analysis into the human dimensions of parks and outdoor recreation. Applied Geography38: 76–85.
6.
BoavidaJAyanogluHPereiraCV, et al. (2023) Active aging and smart public parks. Geriatrics8: 94.
7.
BoneCWulderMAWhiteJC, et al. (2013) A GIS-based risk rating of forest insect outbreaks using aerial overview surveys and the local Moran’s I statistic. Applied Geography40: 161–170.
8.
CaoYGuoYWangC, et al. (2022) Evaluation and optimization of refuge green space in the central area of Tianjin for geological disasters. Sustainability14: 15507.
9.
CohenMBurrowesKGwamP (2022) The Health Benefits of Parks and Their Economic Ompacts. Urban Institute.
10.
CostanzaR (2008) Ecosystem services: Multiple classification systems are needed. Biological Conservation141: 350–352.
11.
DehalwarKSharmaSN (2023) Fundamentals of Area Appreciation and Space Perceptions. Notion Press.
12.
DikkenJvan den HovenRFvan StaalduinenWH, et al. (2020) How older people experience the age-friendliness of their city: Development of the age-friendly cities and communities questionnaire. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health17: 6867.
13.
FangYMaoJLiuQ, et al. (2021) Exploratory space data analysis of spatial patterns of large-scale retail commercial facilities: The case of Gulou District, Nanjing, China. Frontiers of Architectural Research10: 17–32.
14.
GarnerIWHollandCA (2020) Age-friendliness of living environments from the older person’s viewpoint: Development of the Age-Friendly Environment Assessment Tool. Age and Ageing49: 193–198.
15.
GedamuWTPlank-WiedenbeckUWodajoBT. (2024) A spatial autocorrelation analysis of road traffic crash by severity using Moran’s I spatial statistics: A comparative study of Addis Ababa and Berlin cities. Accident Analysis & Prevention200: 107535.
16.
GharaveisA (2020) A systematic framework for understanding environmental design influences on physical activity in the elderly population: A review of literature. Facilities38: 625–649.
17.
GuoSSongCPeiT, et al. (2019) Accessibility to urban parks for elderly residents: Perspectives from mobile phone data. Landscape and Urban Planning191: 103642.
18.
HaleckiWStachuraTFudałaW, et al. (2023) Assessment and planning of green spaces in urban parks: A review. Sustainable Cities and Society88: 104280.
19.
HarrellRLynottJGuzmanS, et al. (2014) What is Livable? Community Preferences of Older Adults. American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) Public Policy Institute.
20.
HertzogCKramerAFWilsonRS, et al. (2008) Enrichment effects on adult cognitive development: can the functional capacity of older adults be preserved and enhanced?Psychological Science in the Public Interest9: 1–65.
21.
KimKBuckleyTBurnetteD, et al. (2022) Measurement indicators of age-friendly communities: Findings from the AARP age-friendly community survey. The Gerontologist62: e17–e27.
22.
KraemerRKabischN (2021) Parks in context: Advancing citywide spatial quality assessments of urban green spaces using fine-scaled indicators. Ecology and Society26(2): 10.5751/es-12485-260245.
23.
LeeGHongI (2013) Measuring spatial accessibility in the context of spatial disparity between demand and supply of urban park service. Landscape and Urban Planning119: 85–90.
24.
LeeS (2001) Developing a bivariate spatial association measure: An integration of Pearson’s r and Moran’s I. Journal of Geographical Systems3: 369–385.
25.
LeiXLiuHLiS, et al. (2024) Coupling coordination analysis of urbanization and ecological environment in Chengdu-Chongqing urban agglomeration. Ecological Indicators161: 111969.
26.
LinBBChangCAstell-BurtT, et al. (2023) Nature experience from yards provide an important space for mental health during Covid-19. NPJ Urban Sustainability3: 14.
27.
LiuYDijstMGeertmanS (2014) Residential segregation and well-being inequality between local and migrant elderly in Shanghai. Habitat International42: 175–185.
28.
LwinKKMurayamaY (2011) Modelling of urban green space walkability: Eco-friendly walk score calculator. Computers, Environment and urban systems35: 408–420.
29.
LyuFZhangL (2019) Using multi-source big data to understand the factors affecting urban park use in Wuhan. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening43: 126367.
30.
MakBKJimCY (2022) Contributions of human and environmental factors to concerns of personal safety and crime in urban parks. Security Journal35: 263–293.
31.
McCormackGRRockMTooheyAM, et al. (2010) Characteristics of urban parks associated with park use and physical activity: A review of qualitative research. Health & Place16: 712–726.
32.
ParkSKimMChungS (2021) Age-friendly environments and depressive symptoms among Korean adults: The mediating effects of loneliness. Aging & Mental Health25: 1060–1070.
33.
RadTGAlimohammadiA (2021) Modeling relationships between the network distance and travel time dynamics for assessing equity of accessibility to urban parks. Geo-Spatial Information Science24: 509–526.
34.
RoeJMondscheinANealeC, et al. (2020) The urban built environment, walking and mental health outcomes among older adults: A pilot study. Frontiers in Public Health8: 575946.
35.
RohinikumarR (2017) Design guidelines for urban public spaces for the elderly. Master’s Thesis. Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Uttarakhand.
36.
SabharwalSWilsonHReillyP, et al. (2015) Heterogeneity of the definition of elderly age in current orthopaedic research. Springerplus4: 1–7.
37.
StroblRMaierWLudygaA, et al. (2016) Relevance of community structures and neighbourhood characteristics for participation of older adults: A qualitative study. Quality of Life Research25: 143–152.
38.
SugiyamaTLeslieEGiles-CortiB, et al. (2008) Associations of neighbourhood greenness with physical and mental health: Do walking, social coherence and local social interaction explain the relationships?Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health62: e9.
39.
TanZLauKKNgE (2016) Urban tree design approaches for mitigating daytime urban heat island effects in a high-density urban environment. Energy and Buildings114: 265–274.
40.
Van den BergMWendel-VosWvan PoppelM, et al. (2015) Health benefits of green spaces in the living environment: A systematic review of epidemiological studies. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening14: 806–816.
41.
Van MalderenLMetsTDe VriendtP, et al. (2013) The active ageing-concept translated to the residential long-term care. Quality of Life Research22: 929–937.
XiangLMeiT (2024) Developing the ag-friendly community parks survey for older adults: Assessing aging environment. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening99: 128424.
44.
XieBAnZZhengY, et al. (2018) Healthy aging with parks: Association between park accessibility and the health status of older adults in urban China. Sustainable Cities and Society43: 476–486.
45.
YangYUXianYXiangLI, et al. (2025) Supply–demand matching evaluation and coupling coordination of cultural ecosystem services in urban park green spaces. Landscape Architecture32: 90-99.
