Opportunity or Orientation? Who Uses Urban Parks and Why

Brenda B. Lin · Richard A. Fuller · Robert A. Baruch Bush · Kevin J. Gaston · Danielle F. Shanahan

455 citations0/0 files storedPLoS ONE

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Urban Green Space and Health Recreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management Urban Arborization and Environmental Studies

Abstract

There is growing recognition that interactions with nature provide many desirable human well-being outcomes, yet increasing urbanization is degrading the quality and quantity of nature experiences. Thus, it has become increasingly important to understand how and why urban dwellers interact with nature. Studies of urban green space use have largely focused on the availability and ease of access to green space, suggesting that greater opportunities to experience such space will lead to increased use. However, a growing literature emphasizes the potential for an individual's nature orientation to affect their interaction with green space. Here we measure the importance of both opportunity and orientation factors in explaining urban park use. An urban lifestyle survey was deployed across Brisbane, Australia in November 2012 to assess patterns of green space use. Participants (n=1479) were asked to provide information on demographics, private yard use, park visitations in the past week, and their orientation toward nature. About 60% of those surveyed had visited a park in the past week, and while this park user population had significantly greater nearby park coverage (within a 250 m radius; p=0.006), a much stronger determinant of visitation was their higher nature orientation (p<0.00001), suggesting that while both opportunity and orientation are important drivers for park visitation, nature orientation is the primary effect. Park users also spent significantly more time in their yards than non-park users (p<0.00001), suggesting that yard use does not necessarily compensate for lower park use. Park users with stronger nature orientation (i) spent more time in their yard, (ii) traveled further to green spaces, and (iii) made longer visits than park visitors with weaker nature orientation. Overall, our results suggest that measures to increase people's connection to nature could be more important than measures to increase urban green space availability if we want to encourage park visitation.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 455 citations exist upstream.

References

1991Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments 2005World Urbanization Prospects 2010The health benefits of urban green spaces: a review of the evidence 2005The significance of parks to physical activity and public health 2013What are the Benefits of Interacting with Nature?2007Contribution of Public Parks to Physical Activity 2010Fair society, healthy lives: Strategic review of health inequalities in England post-2010 2002Children and Nature

Cited by

2018Geolocated social media as a rapid indicator of park visitation and equitable park access 2019Biodiversity and Health in the Face of Climate Change 2021The role of perceived public and private green space in subjective health and wellbeing during and after the first peak of the COVID-19 outbreak 2017The rarity of direct experiences of nature in an urban population 2018Using social media to understand drivers of urban park visitation in the Twin Cities, MN 2015

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.