Gravity-based models have been extensively utilized in urban studies for measuring geographic disparities in access to urban parks over the past several decades. However, despite methodological advancements incorporating various aspects of accessibility, there has been limited focus on the impact of variable selection (e.g., attractiveness factors) and transport modes on accessibility evaluations. This study investigates the differences in gravity-based models for assessing park accessibility based on varying assumptions about attractiveness factors and travel impedance. Semi-structured interviews with local residents were conducted to identify the reasons for park visits in Shanghai. Our bivariate correlation analyses reveal that factors such as park openness and access to public transport were crucial, in addition to conventional factors identified in the literature (i.e., park size and driving accessibility). This insight led to the development of localized accessibility measurements that incorporate park inclusiveness (i.e., entrance fees and opening hours) and multimodal travel options (based on multinomial logistic mode choice models). The results indicate that the refined model produces lower and more varied accessibility levels, which can better capture accessibility gaps across different geographic contexts. This accurate and practical identification of accessibility gaps can assist local planners and decision-makers in formulating effective policies and strategies to promote equitable access to urban public parks.
AnjomshoaaELamitHBShafaghatA, et al. (2017) Accessibility measurement techniques in urban studies: a comprehensive review. Journal of Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences10(6): 92–106.
2.
AnselinL (1995) Local indicators of spatial association-LISA. Geographical Analysis27(2): 93–115.
3.
BrymanA (2006) Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done?Qualitative Research6(1): 97–113.
4.
ChangZChenJLiW, et al. (2019) Public transportation and the spatial inequality of urban park accessibility: new evidence from Hong Kong. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment76: 111–122.
5.
DaiD (2011) Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in urban green space accessibility: where to intervene?Landscape and Urban Planning102(4): 234–244.
6.
DonyCCDelmelleEMDelmelleEC (2015) Re-conceptualizing accessibility to parks in multi-modal cities: a Variable-width Floating Catchment Area (VFCA) method. Landscape and Urban Planning143: 90–99.
7.
El-GeneidyALevinsonDDiabE, et al. (2016) The cost of equity: assessing transit accessibility and social disparity using total travel cost. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice91: 302–316.
8.
GrengsJ (2014) Nonwork accessibility as a social equity indicator. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation9(1): 1–14.
9.
GuXTaoSDaiB (2017) Spatial accessibility of country parks in Shanghai, China. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening27: 373–382.
10.
GuagliardoMF (2004) Spatial accessibility of primary care: concepts, methods and challenges. International Journal of Health Geographics3(1): 3.
11.
HansenWG (1959) How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners25(2): 73–76.
12.
HeJLiLLiJ (2022) Generating inclusive health benefits from urban green spaces: an empirical study of Beijing olympic forest park. Buildings12(4): 397.
13.
HuangYGanHJingP, et al. (2022) Analysis of park and ride mode choice behavior under multimodal travel information service. Transportation Letters14(10): 1080–1090.
14.
JacksonET (1985) Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15.
JosephAEBantockPR (1982) Measuring potential physical accessibility to general practitioners in rural areas: a method and case study. Social Science & Medicine16(1): 85–90.
16.
KarnerA (2018) Assessing public transit service equity using route-level accessibility measures and public data. Journal of Transport Geography67: 24–32.
17.
KempermanATimmermansH (2014) Green spaces in the direct living environment and social contacts of the aging population. Landscape and Urban Planning129: 44–54.
18.
KhanNAEnamAHabibMA, et al. (2022) Exploring joint activity-tour participation, time allocation, and mode choice decisions. Transportation Letters: 1–11.
19.
KwanM-P (1998) Space-time and integral measures of individual accessibility: a comparative analysis using a point-based framework. Geographical Analysis30(3): 191–216.
20.
LalPWoldeBMasozeraM, et al. (2017) Valuing visitor services and access to protected areas: the case of Nyungwe National Park in Rwanda. Tourism Management61: 141–151.
21.
LiWGuanHQinW, et al. (2023) Collective and individual spatial equity measure in public transit accessibility based on generalized travel cost. Research in Transportation Economics98: 101263.
22.
LiangHZhangQ (2017) Assessing the public transport service to urban parks on the basis of spatial accessibility for citizens in the compact megacity of Shanghai, China. Urban Studies55(9): 1983–1999.
23.
LiangHZhangQ (2021) Temporal and spatial assessment of urban park visits from multiple social media data sets: a case study of Shanghai, China. Journal of Cleaner Production297: 126682.
24.
LiangHYanQYanY, et al. (2023) Using an improved 3SFCA method to assess inequities associated with multimodal accessibility to green spaces based on mismatches between supply and demand in the metropolitan of Shanghai, China. Sustainable Cities and Society91: 104456.
25.
LimanondTNiemeierDA (2003) Accessibility and mode-destination choice decisions: exploring travel in three neighborhoods in puget sound, WA. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design30(2): 219–238.
26.
LiuDKwanM-PKanZ (2021) Analysis of urban green space accessibility and distribution inequity in the City of Chicago. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening59: 127029.
27.
LuoWQiY (2009) An enhanced two-step floating catchment area (E2SFCA) method for measuring spatial accessibility to primary care physicians. Health & Place15(4): 1100–1107.
28.
MacfarlaneGSBoydNTaylorJE, et al. (2020) Modeling the impacts of park access on health outcomes: a utility-based accessibility approach. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science48(8): 2289–2306.
29.
MatthewsTLoAYByrneJA (2015) Reconceptualizing green infrastructure for climate change adaptation: barriers to adoption and drivers for uptake by spatial planners. Landscape and Urban Planning138: 155–163.
30.
MeerowSKeithL (2021) Planning for extreme heat. Journal of the American Planning Association88(3): 319–334.
31.
OuyangLYinZWangD (2019) Visualizing disparities in park access for the elderly in Shanghai, China. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space52(2): 260–265.
32.
ParkKRigolonAChoiD, et al. (2021) Transit to parks: an environmental justice study of transit access to large parks in the U.S. West. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening60: 127055.
33.
PearsallHEllerJK (2020) Locating the green space paradox: a study of gentrification and public green space accessibility in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Landscape and Urban Planning195: 103708.
34.
Pinelo SilvaJ (2021) Park access policies: measuring the effects of the introduction of fees and women-only days on the volume of park visitors and physical activity in Bahrain. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability14(2): 204–221.
35.
RadTGAlimohammadiA (2022) A user-based approach for assessing spatial equity of attractiveness and accessibility to alternative urban parks. Geo-spatial Information Science: 1–18.
36.
RigolonANémethJ (2016) A QUality INdex of Parks for Youth (QUINPY): evaluating urban parks through geographic information systems. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science45(2): 275–294.
37.
SemenzatoPCostaACampagnaroT (2023) Accessibility to urban parks: comparing GIS based measures in the city of Padova (Italy). Urban Forestry and Urban Greening82: 127896.
38.
ShanX-Z (2020) Association between the time patterns of urban green space visitations and visitor characteristics in a high-density, subtropical city. Cities97: 102562.
ShenYSunFCheY (2017) Public green spaces and human wellbeing: mapping the spatial inequity and mismatching status of public green space in the Central City of Shanghai. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening27: 59–68.
41.
StessensPCantersFHuysmansM, et al. (2020) Urban green space qualities: an integrated approach towards GIS-based assessment reflecting user perception. Land Use Policy91: 104319.
42.
SundevallEPJanssonM (2020) Inclusive parks across ages: multifunction and urban open space management for children, adolescents, and the elderly. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health17(24): 9357.
43.
TahmasbiBHaghshenasH (2019) Public transport accessibility measure based on weighted door to door travel time. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems76: 163–177.
44.
TalenE (1998) Visualizing fairness: equity maps for planners. Journal of the American Planning Association64(1): 22–38.
45.
TalenEAnselinL (1998) Assessing spatial equity: an evaluation of measures of accessibility to public playgrounds. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space30(4): 595–613.
46.
UllahHWanWHaiderySA, et al. (2019) Analyzing the spatiotemporal patterns in green spaces for urban studies using location-based social media data. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information8(11): 506.
47.
UsherK (2015) Valuing all knowledges through an expanded definition of access. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development1–6.
48.
ValeD (2020) Effective accessibility: using effective speed to measure accessibility by cost. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment80: 102263.
49.
ValeDSPereiraM (2016) The influence of the impedance function on gravity-based pedestrian accessibility measures: a comparative analysis. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science44(4): 740–763.
50.
ValeDSSaraivaMPereiraM (2015) Active accessibility: a review of operational measures of walking and cycling accessibility. Journal of Transport and Land Use9(1): 1–27.
51.
WangKBhatCRYeX (2022) A Multinomial Probit Analysis of shanghai commute Mode Choice. Transportation.
52.
WolchJRByrneJNewellJP (2014) Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: the challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landscape and Urban Planning125: 234–244.
53.
XingLLiuYWangB, et al. (2020) An environmental justice study on spatial access to parks for youth by using an improved 2SFCA method in Wuhan, China. Cities96: 102405.
54.
XuWDingYZhouJ, et al. (2015) Transit accessibility measures incorporating the temporal dimension. Cities46: 55–66.
55.
YangT (2020) Understanding commuting patterns and changes: counterfactual analysis in a planning support framework. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science47(8): 1440–1455.
56.
YangTJinYYanL, et al. (2019) Aspirations and realities of polycentric development: insights from multi-source data into the emerging urban form of Shanghai. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science46(7): 1264–1280.
57.
YangCQianZLiH (2023) Measuring the accessibility deprivation of concentrated resettlement communities in China: an integrated approach of space syntax and multi-criteria decision analysis. Applied Geography150: 102839.
58.
YaoJMurrayATAgadjanianV (2013) A geographical perspective on access to sexual and reproductive health care for women in rural Africa. Social Science & Medicine96: 60–68.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
