Abstract

Citation: Dong W, Kang Q, Wang G, Hou R, Liu P (2025) Exploring the influence of path environment factors on walking behavior in urban parks with configuration attribute control. PLoS One 20(7): e0329278. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0329278

Editor: Xuan Ma, Changan University: Chang'an University, CHINA

Received: January 14, 2025; Accepted: July 9, 2025; Published: July 28, 2025

Copyright: © 2025 Dong et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: Special Research Project of Philosophy and Social Sciences in Shaanxi Province, grant number 2024QN179. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Physical activity (PA) is widely recognized as a critical factor in enhancing people’s quality of life. Inadequate levels of PA can lead to increased risks of physical illnesses [1–3]. Urban parks have been consistently emphasized in previous studies as important settings for promoting PAs [–6]. Research consistently indicates that individuals’ PA levels are influenced by park environments [7]. Scholars from diverse fields, such as public health, urban planning, and environmental design, have identified key park environment features that impact PAs across different scales. They advocate for interventions aimed at improving these crucial environmental attributes to increase visitors’ PA levels [4,8,9].

Previous research has revealed that environmental attributes at various levels within urban parks, including the neighborhood, overall park, and park activity zone levels, significantly influence visitors’ levels of physical activity (PA). At the neighborhood level, factors such as park proximity [10] and accessibility [11,12] have been shown to profoundly impact residents’ PA levels. On the broader scale of the overall park, features such as park size [12–14], paved area size [15], green coverage [16], and the availability of facilities [3,5,17] play crucial roles in affecting the PA levels of park users. Furthermore, at the park activity zone level, specific areas designated for activities [18,19], such as basketball courts, playgrounds, and pathways, present relatively high PA levels, with park pathways demonstrating the most significant associations with PA [20,21]. A particular study highlighted that the likelihood of engaging in physical activities in parks with paved pathways is more than seven times greater than that in parks lacking such amenities, underscoring the importance of further research on pathway environmental characteristics [20,21].

The evidence regarding the influence of park pathway environmental characteristics on physical activity (PA) is limited and contradictory. On the basis of existing research, pathway environments can be categorized into two main attributes: the visual environment and the physical environment. The physical environment of pathways includes pathway morphology and paving, pathway facilities, and the connectivity between the pathway and activity areas. However, studies, focussing primarily on the elderly population, have examined the associations of these two main attributes with walking behavior. In terms of the visual environment dimension, some scholars suggest that factors such as lower spatial enclosure [21], proximity to trees [21], and water bodies [22] encourage PA among visitors, although conflicting findings exist [23]. With respect to pathway morphology and paving in the physical environment, researchers have reported that longer lengths, moderate widths (3–3.9 m), and features such as plastic or paved paving encourage walking behavior [23]. Concerning pathway facilities, some studies indicate that the presence of amenities such as benches [3,23,24] and lighting fixtures [23] increases the likelihood of walking, whereas other research shows no statistical relationship between the number of benches and the probability of walking [25]. Regarding the connection between pathways and activity areas, one study suggested that pathways not linked to activity areas attract more visitors [23], which contradicts previous findings [26]. One potential reason for these disparities could be the lack of control over pathway structural attributes, which have been shown to significantly influence walking behavior [27,28]. Failure to account for these influential factors may introduce bias into walking environment research, resulting in distortions in research conclusions.

Another limitation of this study lies in the method used to measure walking behavior. Previous studies have relied primarily on on-site observations or activity diary surveys, both of which have inherent limitations. On-site observations are constrained by factors such as time, location, and environmental conditions and are susceptible to external disturbances, leading to potential errors or omissions in data recording [16]. Activity diary surveys, on the other hand, depend on participants’ cognitive and memory abilities. Given the complex and variable pathways in urban parks, respondents may struggle to accurately recall their movement trajectories, reducing data accuracy and reliability [29,30]. Additionally, recent studies have explored the use of WiFi sensing technology, which effectively captures the overall distribution and movement trends of visitors within a given area. However, this method is primarily suited for macrolevel analysis and lacks the precision required to track individual walking trajectories [31]. In contrast, GPS tracking technology offers significant advantages in walking behavior research. First, GPS tracking objectively and accurately records visitor trajectories, eliminating errors caused by memory recall limitations or observer bias inherent in traditional methods [29]. Second, GPS tracking minimizes participant interference. In dynamic environments, particularly in open spaces such as urban parks, visitor movement patterns are highly complex. Direct observational methods may unintentionally alter visitor behavior and require observers to have a high level of technical expertise. Even with map-based assistance, manual tracking is prone to omissions or inaccuracies [16]. GPS tracking, on the other hand, enables automated data collection without disrupting visitor activities, ensuring data completeness and accuracy [32]. Furthermore, GPS tracking offers substantial advantages in data processing. Its automated recording function significantly reduces the workload associated with manual data organization and minimizes secondary errors caused by human intervention [33]. Compared with traditional manual data collection methods, GPS tracking facilitates the rapid acquisition of large-scale, high-quality trajectory data, which can be efficiently processed and analyzed using specialized software, thereby increasing overall research efficiency and data reliability.

To address the identified knowledge gap, this study aims to conduct a quantitative investigation into the influence of park walking environments on walking behavior. Specifically, this paper examines the impact of specific park pathway environmental characteristics on walking behavior while controlling for pathway structural attributes. This study seeks to answer two main questions. First, with pathway structural attributes accounted for, does the visual environment of park pathways still significantly influence the number of walking visitors? If so, the study aims to identify which specific features are pivotal and to what extent they affect walking behavior. Second, with pathway structural attributes controlled for, does the physical environment of park pathways still significantly influence the number of pedestrians? Similarly, this study analyzes in detail which specific features are crucial in this context and the extent of their impact on walking behavior. By addressing these questions, the findings of this study will deepen our understanding of park environments conducive to promoting physical activity among citizens. Moreover, it offers empirically based recommendations for park designers and policymakers to enhance park environments and enhance citizens’ levels of physical activity.

Methods

Results

Discussion

This study employs a hierarchical regression model to examine the impact of park pathway environments on pedestrian behavior across three levels. In Model 1, the pathway configurational attributes demonstrate the highest explanatory power for pedestrian behavior (R2 = 0.29), primarily reflecting the spatial topological structure of the park’s pathway network. This indicates that during the initial planning or renovation phases, space syntax techniques should be prioritized to optimize the pathway network layout, ensuring the structural rationality of the walking network and facilitating more efficient pedestrian circulation. In Model 2, the pathway visual environment attributes exhibit an explanatory power of R2 = 0.22 for pedestrian behavior, involving the spatial arrangement of landscape elements along the pathway, such as visible vegetation, water features, and built structures. This suggests that, within the established pathway framework, attention should be given to optimizing the landscape configuration along walking routes, with a reasonable arrangement of vegetation, water features, and buildings to increase the attractiveness and comfort of the walking experience. Finally, in Model 3, the explanatory power of the pathway physical environment attributes is R2 = 0.17, which mainly concerns pathway surface conditions and facility provisions. Although its impact is relatively small, it remains essential to focus on optimizing the path width, pavement smoothness, and related facilities to ensure pedestrian safety and convenience.

Specifically, consistent with prior research [42], the findings from Hierarchical Regression Model 1 indicate that park pathway structural attributes significantly affect pedestrian behavior, reaffirming its role as a crucial control layer in hierarchical regression. Notably, pedestrians prefer pathways with higher choice values. This observation is consistent with prior studies, where pathways with higher choice values tend to serve as more frequent connections between any two pathways in the network, making them more likely to be chosen by pedestrians [43–46]. Unlike conclusions drawn from previous research on urban streets, where higher depth values are associated with fewer pedestrians [40,47], our analysis reveals a positive influence of depth values on pathway pedestrian intensity. This deviation could arise from differing pedestrian motivations. Two studies, which are distinct from our study but related to urban streets, were also conducted in China and utilized DepthMap software for spatial network analysis, which is consistent with our research approach. However, these studies focused primarily on 84 road segments within urban block networks and small-town streets. In such settings, pedestrians are more likely to have utilitarian motivations, meaning that their walks are typically goal oriented, such as commuting to work, school, shopping centers, or other specific destinations. The main objective of such walks is to reach the destination, with less focus on the walking process itself. In these instances, time and distance are likely the primary factors influencing pathway selection, leading to a preference for pathways with lower depth values, indicating greater accessibility. On the other hand, in research concerning urban park pathways, pedestrians participate in activities such as leisurely strolls and fitness walks, emphasizing nonutilitarian motives such as recreation, entertainment, exercise, or simply enjoying their surroundings. In such cases, pedestrians may not have specific destinations in mind but rather enjoy the interactive experience with the surrounding pathway environment. As a result, park pedestrians may prioritize pathways that facilitate exercise and offer scenic enjoyment when making pathway choices.

The results from Model 2 reveal that six visual landscape features of park pathways are linked to pedestrian behavior, explaining 22.3% of the variance. These findings address Research Question 1, indicating that even with pathway structural attributes controlled, visual environmental cues still significantly influence pedestrian behavior. Specifically, a significant positive correlation is observed between the quantity of visible green plant species on either side of the pathway and pedestrian behavior, which aligns with prior research [14]. The Biophilia hypothesis suggests that biodiversity in natural environments enhances human satisfaction and well-being, as individuals exhibit greater curiosity and interest in diverse landscapes [48]. This increased curiosity and interest may prompt individuals to visit and explore such places more frequently. According to forest therapy theory, interacting with nature, particularly diverse plants, can reduce stress levels, alleviate anxiety, enhance mood, and increase attention [49]. As individuals stroll amid the diverse plant life surrounding park pathways, they may experience increased relaxation and contentment, leading them to be more inclined to walk. The study findings also suggest a positive influence of visible landscape architecture on pedestrian behavior. This could be attributed to the visual appeal of landscape architecture and its connection to cultural identity. The landscape architecture in Fengqing Park offers significant visual allure, enhancing pedestrians’ visual enjoyment and thus encouraging more walking along these pathways. Additionally, the park architecture follows traditional Chinese garden styles closely linked to Xi’an’s local culture and history. According to place attachment theory, landscape architecture reflecting local cultural characteristics may evoke emotional attachments among residents [50], fostering greater exploration and interaction among citizens and thereby promoting increased visits to these pathways.

Unlike previous studies [21,51,52], our results indicate that the degree of tree shade coverage has a negative effect on walking behavior in park pathways. Two prior empirical studies from China and an in-depth interview study from Australia suggested that tree shade helps lower the temperature under the canopy and enhances visitor comfort. The contradictory findings in our study may be attributed to visitor preferences and the specific characteristics of the pathway samples in Fengqing Park. First, primary park visitors are middle-aged and elderly individuals who typically prefer sunlight in outdoor settings to promote health and psychological well-being, particularly in densely populated urban areas. Second, in Fengqing Park, 76.22% of the pathways presented shade coverage exceeding 40%, indicating a relatively low proportion of pathways with minimal shade. These factors likely contribute to the higher pedestrian traffic observed on pathways with less shade. Notably, the literature suggests that the effect of tree canopy coverage on walking behavior may vary significantly in winter due to factors such as leaf shedding and changes in sunlight exposure, which makes these findings incomparable to the summer-based findings of this study [53].

We observed a significant negative impact of water presence on pathway usage, which, when combined with previous research findings, suggests the existence of complex underlying mechanisms. Existing studies consistently demonstrate that water bodies significantly increase park visitation. Empirical research from Utah [5], Minnesota [14], and Melbourne [21] has shown that waterfront landscapes effectively increase park appeal and increase visitor numbers. However, the relationship between visitor behavior within parks and water spaces requires further investigation. Case studies from Turkey [54] and Shanghai [55] revealed a significant negative correlation between waterfront areas and the duration and intensity of visitors’ physical activity. This finding aligns with a systematic review covering studies from China, the U.S., Austria, and other countries [2], confirming that water spaces may reduce the intensity of recreational physical activities. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that current research lacks a systematic exploration of the intrinsic relationship between waterfront pathways and walking behavior.

Focusing on the empirical data from this study, we found a negative correlation between water-adjacent pathways and pedestrian volume. We believe that this outcome may stem from three potential factors. First, waterfront landscapes exhibit a dual nature of attraction and activity intensity. While water spaces can attract visitors to pause and enjoy the scenery, such behaviors are often static and low-intensity (e.g., photography, sightseeing) rather than encouraging continuous, high-intensity walking. This reduces the frequency of pedestrian passages per unit of time. In contrast, non-waterfront paths, which do not encourage stopping, tend to facilitate more frequent pedestrian movement. Second, walking behavior in parks is typically dominated by middle-aged and elderly individuals. Our study sample also primarily consists of this demographic data (see Table 2). Owing to safety concerns and walking efficiency preferences, this group may avoid waterfront paths that require crossing bridges or lead to dead-end areas, such as island sections. Third, the data collection took place during the summer season. The seasonal characteristics of the waterfront environment, including high humidity, mosquito infestations, and water-related odors, may collectively reduce walking comfort, thereby further discouraging pedestrian activity. This seasonal environmental constraint warrants further validation in future studies. On the basis of the above analysis, we conclude that pathways designed to promote recreational physical activity in parks should limit the presence of water bodies. This would help prevent prolonged visitor stays from diminishing walking behavior and reducing overall activity intensity.

Second, regarding the impact of flower species diversity on pathway walking intensity, this study revealed a negative association, which differs from the findings of previous studies. For example, studies conducted in Pune, India [2], Beijing, China [23], Guangzhou, China [56], and Vancouver, Canada [26], have shown that flowers and their diversity effectively attract visitors and, to some extent, promote walking activity in parks. However, in this study, we observed a negative correlation between flower species diversity and walking intensity. Further analysis of Model 3 (after adding pathway physical environment attributes) revealed that the variance inflation factor (VIF) value for flower species diversity only slightly increased, indicating that no significant multicollinearity issue occurred in the model. However, its regression coefficient significantly decreased by 0.069 and lost statistical significance. Additionally, the model’s explanatory power (R2) increased to 0.688, suggesting that the inclusion of new variables enhanced the model’s overall explanatory capacity for walking intensity while weakening the independent influence of flower species diversity. This phenomenon indicates that the newly added physical environment variables may have greater explanatory power for walking behavior, dispersing the contribution of the flower species variable and causing it to lose significance. With respect to the relationship between flower species diversity and walking behavior, we speculate that more complex mechanisms and diverse statistical variables may be involved, which are not fully understood in the present study.

The findings of Model 3, which addresses Research Question 2, suggest that even after adjusting for path configurational attributes, the physical environment of pathways continues to significantly influence pedestrian behavior. Notably, pathway width emerges as a key factor, with a significant positive impact on pathway usage intensity (β = 0.514), surpassing other variables in significance. This observation resonates with previous research [57], indicating that wider pathways tend to attract more users. The wider space provided by these pathways likely facilitates various exercise and social activities during walking. To further explore this result, we conducted variance analysis and post hoc multiple comparisons (using the LSD algorithm) to examine differences in pedestrian numbers across pathways of various widths (see Table 5). Our analysis revealed that pathways wider than 5 m draw the greatest number of pedestrians, whereas the steepest growth curve in pedestrian numbers occurs in the 3–4 m width range, indicating significantly greater usage compared with other width ranges (see Fig 5). These findings highlight a positive association between increasing pathway width and a substantial increase in user numbers, particularly within the moderate width range, where pathway utilization exhibits the most pronounced trend.

In line with previous studies [23], we noted a significant positive impact of pathway length on pedestrian behavior. This can be attributed to longer pathways offering more opportunities for physical activity and exercise. Walking, a form of aerobic exercise, has well-documented health benefits [57]. Longer pathways enable pedestrians to extend their walking distance, thus increasing their chances for exercise. Moreover, in park settings, longer paths typically mean fewer intersections and less pedestrian traffic along the way, reducing the need for pedestrians to navigate frequent obstacles and ensuring a smoother and more comfortable walking experience. Additionally, longer pathways suggest a more continuous landscape, providing walkers with a consistent environment. This continuity may increase pedestrians’ enjoyment, leading them to prefer longer paths for their walking activities.

The hierarchical regression analysis indicates that segments with smooth surfaces exhibit greater pedestrian activity, which is consistent with previous research findings [3]. To further examine the differential impact of surface smoothness on walking behavior, a variance analysis and post hoc multiple comparisons were conducted (Table 6). The average number of pedestrians on segments with smooth surfaces is 40.036, whereas on rough segments, it is only 4.065, resulting in a difference of –35.897 individuals. This difference is likely attributed to the provision of a more comfortable and safe walking environment with smooth surfaces. Pedestrians navigating smooth paths experience reduced concerns about tripping or falling, thereby minimizing the risk of injuries. Comfort and safety play vital roles in shaping the appeal of walking environments, especially among demographics such as elderly individuals, who prioritize safety. Moreover, on smooth surfaces, individuals who exercise typically maintain a swifter walking pace. The favorable surface conditions make walking more effortless, reducing resistance during movement and encouraging users to sustain higher speeds. This holds particular significance for park users selecting segments for exercise, as they tend to favor pathways conducive to aerobic activity that better meet their physical exercise needs.

Conclusion

This study investigated the crucial environmental factors influencing walking behavior in urban parks. Research has shown that, even when accounting for pathway structural attributes, both visual (R2 = 0.223) and physical (R2 = 0.173) environments significantly impact walking behavior. Specifically, among pathway structural attributes (R2 = 0.293), parks with higher values of choice (β = 0.359, p < 0.01) and depth (β = 0.179, p < 0.05) are preferred by visitors. With respect to visual landscapes, an abundance of green vegetation positively correlates with walking behavior, while the presence of landscape architecture (β = 0.143, p < 0.05) also has a positive impact, although the presence of water (β = −0.168, p < 0.01) has a negative influence. In terms of physical environments, path width (β = 0.514, p < 0.01), length (β = 0.163, p < 0.05), and pavement smoothness (β = 0.152, p < 0.05) significantly affect walking behavior. Wider pathways attract more users, whereas longer pathways offer increased opportunities for physical activity and exercise. Smooth pavement positively influences walking behavior by providing a comfortable and safe walking environment, which is particularly suitable for safety-sensitive groups such as elderly people. To our knowledge, this study is the first to explore the impact of park pathway environments on walking behavior while controlling for pathway structural attributes. The findings provide substantial recommendations for designers to improve and construct urban park pathways, contributing to the creation of more appealing urban park walking environments.

Supporting information

References

1. 1. Duggal NA, Niemiro G, Harridge SDR, Simpson RJ, Lord JM. Can physical activity ameliorate immunosenescence and thereby reduce age-related multi-morbidity? Nat Rev Immunol. 2019;19(9):563–72. pmid:31175337
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
2. 2. Gaikwad A, Shinde K. Use of parks by older persons and perceived health benefits: A developing country context. Cities. 2019;84:134–42.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
3. 3. Li D, Xu H, Kang Y, Steemers K. Systematic Review: Landscape Characteristics Correlated with Physical Activity of the Elderly People. Land. 2023;12(3):605.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
4. 4. Arifwidodo SD, Chandrasiri O. The effects of park improvement on park use and park-based physical activity. JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURE AND URBANISM. 2021;45(1):73–9.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
5. 5. Park K. Park and Neighborhood Attributes Associated With Park Use: An Observational Study Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Environment and Behavior. 2019;52(5):518–43.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
6. 6. Tian Y, Ning H, Ren H, Liu J, Wang K, Hong B. National Fitness Evaluation of Urban Parks in the National Ecological Garden City: A Case Study in Baoji, China. Land. 2022;11(6):889.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
7. 7. Sevtsuk A, Basu R, Li X, Kalvo R. A big data approach to understanding pedestrian route choice preferences: Evidence from San Francisco. Travel Behaviour and Society. 2021;25:41–51.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
8. 8. Derose KP, Wallace DD, Han B, Cohen DA. Effects of park-based interventions on health-related outcomes: A systematic review. Prev Med. 2021;147:106528. pmid:33745954
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
9. 9. Dong J, Guo R, Guo F, Guo X, Zhang Z. Pocket parks-a systematic literature review. Environ Res Lett. 2023;18(8):083003.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
10. 10. Schipperijn J, Cerin E, Adams MA, Reis R, Smith G, Cain K, et al. Access to parks and physical activity: an eight country comparison. Urban For Urban Green. 2017;27:253–63. pmid:29805351
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
11. 11. Coombes E, Jones AP, Hillsdon M. The relationship of physical activity and overweight to objectively measured green space accessibility and use. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(6):816–22. pmid:20060635
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
12. 12. Arifwidodo SD, Chandrasiri O. Association Between Park Characteristics and Park-Based Physical Activity Using Systematic Observation: Insights from Bangkok, Thailand. Sustainability. 2020;12(6):2559.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
13. 13. Wang H, Dai X, Wu J, Wu X, Nie X. Influence of urban green open space on residents’ physical activity in China. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1093. pmid:31409316
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
14. 14. Donahue ML, Keeler BL, Wood SA, Fisher DM, Hamstead ZA, McPhearson T. Using social media to understand drivers of urban park visitation in the Twin Cities, MN. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2018;175:1–10.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
15. 15. Zhang L, Shao K, Tang W, Lau SSY, Lai H, Tao Y. Outdoor Space Elements in Urban Residential Areas in Shenzhen, China: Optimization Based on Health-Promoting Behaviours of Older People. Land. 2023;12(6):1138.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
16. 16. Zhang R, Wulff H, Duan Y, Wagner P. Associations between the physical environment and park-based physical activity: A systematic review. J Sport Health Sci. 2019;8(5):412–21. pmid:31534816
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
17. 17. Zhang S, Zhou W. Recreational visits to urban parks and factors affecting park visits: Evidence from geotagged social media data. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2018;180:27–35.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
18. 18. Rung AL, Mowen AJ, Broyles ST, Gustat J. The Role of Park Conditions and Features on Park Visitation and Physical Activity. J Phys Act Health. 2011;8(s2):S178–87. pmid:28829702
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
19. 19. Child ST, McKenzie TL, Arredondo EM, Elder JP, Martinez SM, Ayala GX. Associations between park facilities, user demographics, and physical activity levels at San Diego County parks. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 2014;32(4):68–81.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
20. 20. Kaczynski AT, Potwarka LR, Saelens BE. Association of park size, distance, and features with physical activity in neighborhood parks. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(8):1451–6. pmid:18556600
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
21. 21. Veitch J, Flowers E, Ball K, Deforche B, Timperio A. Designing parks for older adults: A qualitative study using walk-along interviews. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2020;54:126768.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
22. 22. Gerstenberg T, Baumeister CF, Schraml U, Plieninger T. Hot routes in urban forests: The impact of multiple landscape features on recreational use intensity. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2020;203:103888.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
23. 23. Zhai Y, Baran PK. Urban park pathway design characteristics and senior walking behavior. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2017;21:60–73.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
24. 24. Wang X, Zhang J, Wu C. Users’ recreation choices and setting preferences for trails in urban forests in Nanjing, China. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2022;73:127602.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
25. 25. Schmidt T, Kerr J, Schipperijn J. Associations between Neighborhood Open Space Features and Walking and Social Interaction in Older Adults-A Mixed Methods Study. Geriatrics (Basel). 2019;4(3):41. pmid:31284590
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
26. 26. Chudyk AM, Winters M, Moniruzzaman M, Ashe MC, Gould JS, McKay H. Destinations matter: The association between where older adults live and their travel behavior. J Transp Health. 2015;2(1):50–7. pmid:27104147
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
27. 27. Tannous HO, Major MD, Furlan R. Accessibility of green spaces in a metropolitan network using space syntax to objectively evaluate the spatial locations of parks and promenades in Doha, State of Qatar. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2021;58:126892.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
28. 28. Bahrini F, Bell S, Mokhtarzadeh S. The relationship between the distribution and use patterns of parks and their spatial accessibility at the city level: A case study from Tehran, Iran. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2017;27:332–42.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
29. 29. Stedman R, Diefenbach DR, Swope CB, Finley JC, Luloff AE, Zinn HC, Et Al. Integrating wildlife and human-dimensions research methods to study hunters. Journal of Wildlife Management. 2004;68(4):762–73.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
30. 30. Stopher PR, Greaves SP. Household travel surveys: Where are we going? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 2007;41(5):367–81.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
31. 31. Zhou W, Zhang J, Li X, Guo F, Zhu P. Influence of environmental factors on pedestrian summer vitality in urban pedestrian streets in cold regions guided by thermal comfort: A Case Study of Sanlitun—Beijing, China. Sustainability. 2024;16(23):10419.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
32. 32. Huang X, Li M, Zhang J, Zhang L, Zhang H, Yan S. Tourists’ spatial-temporal behavior patterns in theme parks: A case study of Ocean Park Hong Kong. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management. 2020;15:100411.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
33. 33. Dong W, Kang Q, Wang G, Zhang B, Liu P. Spatiotemporal behavior pattern differentiation and preference identification of tourists from the perspective of ecotourism destination based on the tourism digital footprint data. PLoS One. 2023;18(4):e0285192. pmid:37115762
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
34. 34. Xi’an Municipal People’s Government. Population status Xi’an: Xi’an Municipal People’s Government; 2023 [updated March 30; cited 2024 March 01]. http://www.xa.gov.cn/sq/csgk/rkzk/1.html
35. 35. Mandal A, Johansson C, Lindelöw D. Exploring walking from the perspective of theory of planned behavior. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives. 2023;22:100931.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
36. 36. Hillier B, Penn A, Hanson J, Grajewski T, Xu J. Natural movement: or, configuration and attraction in urban pedestrian movement. Environ Plann B. 1993;20(1):29–66.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
37. 37. Yun J, Liu H. Spatial Syntax Analysis of the Evolution of the Water System and Garden Distribution Relationship in Suzhou: 13th–20th Centuries. Buildings. 2023;13(7):1703.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
38. 38. Rashid M. The geometry of urban layouts. Cham: Springer; 2017.
39. 39. Pan M, Shen Y, Jiang Q, Zhou Q, Li Y. Reshaping Publicness: Research on Correlation between Public Participation and Spatial Form in Urban Space Based on Space Syntax—A Case Study on Nanjing Xinjiekou. Buildings. 2022;12(9):1492.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
40. 40. Liang W, Ahmad Y, Mohidin HHB. Spatial Form and Conservation Strategy of Sishengci Historic District in Chengdu, China. Heritage. 2023;6(2):891–903.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
41. 41. Vaughan L. The spatial syntax of urban segregation. Progress in Planning. 2007;67(3):205–94.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
42. 42. Zhai Y, Baran PK. Do configurational attributes matter in context of urban parks? Park pathway configurational attributes and senior walking. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2016;148:188–202.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
43. 43. Macdonald S. A companion to museum studies. USA: John Wiley & Sons. 2011.
44. 44. Freeman LC. Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Network: Critical Concepts in Sociology. 2002. p. 238–63.
45. 45. Can Traunmüller I, İnce Keller İ, Şenol F. Application of space syntax in neighbourhood park research: an investigation of multiple socio-spatial attributes of park use. Local Environment. 2023;28(4):529–46.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
46. 46. Huang B-X, Chiou S-C, Li W-Y. Accessibility and Street Network Characteristics of Urban Public Facility Spaces: Equity Research on Parks in Fuzhou City Based on GIS and Space Syntax Model. Sustainability. 2020;12(9):3618.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
47. 47. Lv W, Tang J. Studies of Ancient Townscape Regeneration through the Articulation of the Space Syntax Methodology. Cogent Engineering. 2019;6(1).
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
48. 48. Wilson EO. Biophilia. Harvard: Harvard University Press. 1986.
49. 49. Coventry PA, Brown JE, Pervin J, Brabyn S, Pateman R, Breedvelt J, et al. Nature-based outdoor activities for mental and physical health: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SSM Popul Health. 2021;16:100934. pmid:34646931
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
50. 50. Farhad S, Maghsoodi Tilaki MJ, Hedayati Marzbali M. Architectural identity and place attachment in historic neighbourhoods: an empirical study in Sanandaj, Iran. JPMD. 2020;14(2):148–62.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
51. 51. Guo F, Guo R, Zhang H, Dong J, Zhao J. A canopy shading-based approach to heat exposure risk mitigation in small squares. Urban Climate. 2023;49:101495.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
52. 52. Guo F, Luo M, Zhang C, Cai J, Zhang X, Zhang H, et al. The Mechanism of Street Spatial Form on Thermal Comfort from Urban Morphology and Human-Centered Perspectives: A Study Based on Multi-Source Data. Buildings. 2024;14(10):3253.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
53. 53. Pratiwi PI, Xiang Q, Furuya K. Physiological and Psychological Effects of Walking in Urban Parks and Its Imagery in Different Seasons in Middle-Aged and Older Adults: Evidence from Matsudo City, Japan. Sustainability. 2020;12(10):4003.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
54. 54. Akpinar A, Cankurt M. How are characteristics of urban green space related to levels of physical activity: Examining the links. Indoor and Built Environment. 2016;26(8):1091–101.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
55. 55. Zhai Y, Li D, Wu C, Wu H. Spatial distribution, activity zone preference, and activity intensity of senior park users in a metropolitan area. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2023;79:127761.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
56. 56. Lin M, Feng X. Relationship between visitor characteristics, physical activity levels and park environment in subtropical areas’ urban parks. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2023;85:127958.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
57. 57. Kaplan R, Kaplan S, Ryan RL. With people in mind: design and management of everyday nature. Landscape Jrnl. 1999;18(1):99–101.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar