Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 58 (2021) 126985

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Urban Forestry & Urban Greening

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ufug

Factors contributing to the usage of pocket parks–A review of the evidence

Praveena Balai Kerishnan a, b, Sreetheran Maruthaveeran a, *
a
Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Design and Architecture, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), 43400, Serdang, Selangor, Darul Ehsan, Malaysia
b
Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), 52109, Kepong, Selangor, Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: N Nadja Kabisch This paper presents a summary of empirical evidence drawn from a literature review on the factors contributing
to people using the pocket parks. Initial findings indicate that pocket parks play a significant role by providing
Keywords: access to nature for individuals living in urban areas. This paper provides an evidence-based approach to the
Small urban green space usage and benefits of pocket parks by applying the SE-Model approach. This review includes 15 papers on pocket
Socio-ecological model
parks, obtained from electronic journal databases such as Scopus, Science Direct, Springer Link, SAGE Journals
Vest-pocket parks
and Google Scholar sort by relevance containing key words such as pocket parks, vest-pocket parks, small public
Small public urban green space
Physical activities urban green space, small urban parks, use as well as usage of pocket parks. Selection was restricted to peer-
reviewed publications related to pocket parks usage. The authors analysed these literatures for its sample
characteristics, data collection, sampling method, data analysis and the main study finding. This review reveals
an increase in research on the usage of pocket parks published in peer-reviewed journals in the recent years and a
strong geographic bias. The selected studies have consistently reported on the importance of pocket parks for
mental well-being, predominantly, followed by social benefits, however limited study approached the potential
of pocket parks for physical activities. Physical components (green ground cover, bushes, trees, flower beds,
water features) and Perceived Environment (preference for greener view; calm atmosphere; safety) are mostly
reported to be highly associated with human health.

1. Introduction
1.1. Motivation
According to the United Nations: Department of Economic and Social
Affairs (2014), 70 % of the world’s population will live in urban areas by
2050. Today one in two live in cities and this number is expected to rise
to two in three in the next 30 years (UNFPA, 2011). This rapid urbani­
sation is most likely to have consequences not only from the environ­
ment but from the social perspective particularly from psychological and
physical stress caused by lack of contact with nature in an urban envi­
ronment (Cox and Gaston, 2018). The World Health Organisation
(WHO) also encourages the local governments to increase the provision
of urban green spaces. However, to increase the provision of urban green
spaces such as urban parks in a city can be a difficult task and chal­
lenging too because of the scarcity of space. It would be practical to
include more small urban green spaces in this context which would be
integrated in the peoples’ daily life (Peschardt et al., 2012).
Studies suggests that small urban green spaces such as pocket parks
less than 5000 m2 or other forms such as street trees, flower beds or
green roofs within the urban context could offer recreational and
experiential benefits (e.g. Peschardt et al., 2012; Danford et al., 2018;
Mesimäki et al., 2019). The escalating densities and limited urban green
spaces for recreation and relaxation has initiated studies on pocket parks
to provide contact with nature among urban citizens (Kaplan, 1981;
Ghavampour et al., 2015; Shahhosseini et al., 2015; Abd El Aziz, 2017;
Lin et al., 2017). This view was further supported by Shirleyana (2013)
who wrote that due to urbanisation, cities are challenged to identify new
opportunities and possibility of converting available spaces into pocket
parks. However, due to limited open space for greenery in densely built
area, pocket parks are scattered throughout the city and function as the
main green open space in downtown. This was also highlighted by Lau
et al. (2012) in their study on the environmental performances of pocket
parks in high-rise and high-density urban context in Hong Kong. Simi­
larly, Armato (2017) stated that those who have pocket parks close to
their home particularly in cities that lack green outdoor spaces are
certainly lucky especially when for many years, pocket parks were
scattered over the urban fabric without any relation with the context yet

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sreetheran@upm.edu.my (S. Maruthaveeran).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.126985
Received 11 April 2020; Received in revised form 4 January 2021; Accepted 5 January 2021
Available online 11 January 2021
1618-8667/© 2021 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
P. Balai Kerishnan and S. Maruthaveeran
increased in number, suddenly and rapidly to contribute to the
well-being of urban communities.
Seymour (1969) defined pocket parks as parks smaller than most
urban parks; less than half an acre in size; and are often created out of
vacant lots, rooftops and otherwise forgotten and unused spaces. There
are several other definitions that were found for pocket park including
‘small urban park bounded by buildings; may include a fountain or
water feature’ (Rakhshandehroo and Mohd Yusof., 2015); and ‘urban
open space at a very small scale; usually only a few house lots in size or
smaller’ (Blake, 2021). According to Nordh et al. (2009), the focus on
the importance of parks and nature for a number of
public-related-health-reason has mainly been on forests or large parks.
But, as a result of densification and the decreased number of urban green
spaces per capita (James et al., 2009), the research interest has turned
toward smaller city parks such as pocket parks (Nordh et al., 2009, 2012;
Peschardt et al., 2012). Moreover, the research on small public urban
green spaces is still limited (Peschardt et al., 2012); and according to
Chiesura (2004), less attention is being paid to the type of nature close to
where people live and work; including to the small-scale green areas in
cities as well as the benefits of the smaller urban parks to the people.
1.2. Goals of the study
A recent review on pocket parks by Abd El Aziz (2017) reported on
the theoretical background from previous literature to identify key
design parameters of pocket parks that meet the users need and
behaviour in a high-density residential area in Cairo City, Egypt. How­
ever, the review was based on a selection of research and case studies as
well as grey articles such as conference papers, Masters’ thesis and
lecturer reviews while did not include peer-reviewed journals. More­
over, there are several past reviews on the multiple benefits of urban
parks (Lee and Maheswaran, 2010; Konijnendijk et al., 2013) but none
on the benefits of small urban parks or pocket parks and the factors
contributing to the use of these small parks. This is further supported by
Hashim et al. (2019) that studies to prove that pocket park is important
in ensuring public health; mentally and physically is insufficient.
Therefore, this current article aims to identify the research trend with
reference to studies on how the small urban parks or pocket parks are
used and the factors contributing to the use, selected from peer-reviewed
journals. The key attributes from the Socio-Ecological Model (SE-Model)
was selected to be the four determinant factors for the pocket park
usage. This is achieved by addressing the following three objectives; (a)
to compile and summarise the current state of research on pocket parks’
usage with regards to region, sample characteristics, landscape stimulus,
research methodology and key findings; (b) to broadly examine the
evidence for the benefits of pocket parks; and (c) to suggest the factors
associated with higher rates of visitation or usage of pocket parks.
2. Method
2.1. Search strategy
A computer-based literature search was carried out in the following
electronic journal databases (Scopus, Science Direct, Springer Link,
SAGE Journals and Google Scholar©) to find studies related to how
pocket parks are used. The search terms included a combination of
keywords and phrases such as “pocket park”, “small urban green space”,
“small public urban green space”, “small urban parks”, “vest-pocket
park”, “visit”, “use”, “usage”, and “usability”. For the purpose of this
review, the term “pocket park” refers to small urban green spaces
(<5000m2) with a well-defined area for public use (Nordh et al., 2009;
Peschardt et al., 2012). The literature search was performed from
August 2018 to March 2020 and was limited to user survey,
peer-reviewed, English-language journals papers published between
2000 and 2020. We did not seek to impose a time limit on the search (e.
g. 10 or 20 years) but as not all older papers are full-text searchable, this
2
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 58 (2021) 126985
is a limitation that may cause the related publication to be underrep­
resented. It is worth to mention that, there were no peer-reviewed ar­
ticles published between year 2000 and 2008, however the number of
publications identified for the review started and increased consistently
after 2009 until 2020.
2.2. Study selection
The related keywords and phrases used to analyse titles and abstracts
identified 55 studies on small urban green space/pocket parks including
conference papers, course notes and project papers. Several research
targeting on pocket parks were selected to look in their reference sec­
tions for additional potentially relevant publications not found in the
database searches. This further generated 28 results that included grey
articles such as chapters in books; RAND research report; and conference
proceedings which were excluded as the selection was restricted to peer-
reviewed publications and to studies conducted regarding how pocket
parks are used. Studies were eligible if they met the following criteria: (i)
the research focus was primarily on pocket park(s), (ii) the study
involved human studies that were delivered with a measure of use of the
pocket park(s) as an outcome; and (iii) the factors or components that
promote pocket park(s) usage were identified.
Several interdisciplinary studies containing the selected keywords
and phrases, such as “reclaiming public space”, “vacant lots”, “neigh­
bourhood parks”, “developing open space network in shrinking cities”
and studies on the “non-monetary value of formal and informal urban
green spaces” that appeared during the search were excluded from the
literature. Based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Re­
views and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) flow diagram (Liberati et al., 2009),
the selection identified 15 studies (n = 15) for this study (Fig. 1). The
PRISMA statements and flow diagram was developed for transparent
reporting of a systematic review and meta-analysis (Liberati et al.,
2009). Data extraction
The selected papers were analysed and the following key data was
extracted; including information of; (i) author(s), (ii) year of publica­
tion, (iii) region, (iv) study aim, (v) sample characteristics (e.g., gender,
age), (vi) landscape stimulus (e.g., slides, photographs, video), (vii)
research methodology (e.g., data collection method, sample size, type of
data), and (viii) key findings, as given in Table 2. These data were
entered into a table based on spreadsheet which Sreetheran and van den
Bosch (2014) applied in their systematic review of the attributes that
evoke fear of crime in urban green spaces. The papers were arranged
according to the publication year to analyse the publication pattern
including the research trends or trilogy and key authors. The results
were presented in tables to efficiently present and synthesise findings
from the articles, following similar presentation and analysis used by
Sreetheran and van den Bosch (2014). The key factors from the selected
articles were summarised based on the SE-Model approach and are
presented in the following section.
According to Sallis et al. (2006), the context for study and practice in
physical activity has been dominated mainly by hypotheses and models
that define behavioural psychological and social factors. For instance,
the Attention Restoration Theory (ART) by Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989;
Kaplan, 1995) that focuses on the relationship between psychological
restorative and nature elements to suggest that the exposure to natural
environment improves allows our brains to recover and replenish its
directed attention capacity. On the other hand, the SE-Model is widely
used as a conceptual framework to structure and understand the factors
influencing human behaviour within the field of leisure research
(Schipperijn et al., 2010; Sreetheran and van den Bosch, 2014; Eunjung
Kim, 2018). For instance, Fig. 2 on the SE-Model framework illustrates
that human behaviour towards physical activity or health living is least
impacted by individual attributes such as age, gender or educational
level; and more heavily influenced by environmental or policy factors
such as aesthetics of environment, safety, accessibility to parks and
recreational facilities. Therefore, this study intends to identify the
P. Balai Kerishnan and S. Maruthaveeran
Fig. 1. Flow of information during the steps to identify articles for the systematic review of literature examining the usage of pocket parks from a socio-
ecological approach.
attributes of the personal factors, social factors, physical factors and
perceived environment from the SE-Model that highly influenced the
usage of the pocket parks.
3. Result and discussion
3.1. Overview of the findings
Of the 83 articles identified in the database search, 66 were title and
abstract-screened as well as screened for grey publications (11 confer­
ence papers, six (6) reports, three (3) course notes, four (4) book/
chapter in book, six (6) dissertations, six (6) abstracts and an unknown
publication); while 29 were screened at full-text level. Fifteen (15) ar­
ticles met the inclusion criteria for review and these articles were
retrieved from 11 journals. These papers are distributed across the
following journal; Urban Forestry and Urban Greening; Landscape and
Urban Planning; Journal of Environmental Psychology; Landscape
Research; International Journal of Architectural Research; American
Journal of Health Promotion; International Journal of Development and
Sustainability; International Journal of Architectural Engineering &
Urban Planning, Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning as well
as Journal of Hotel and Business Management. The journal publishing
the most articles related to pocket parks was Urban Forestry and Urban
Greening (40 %) although three (3) of the six (6) articles are from the
same authors. The journal distribution of the 15 articles reviewed in this
study is detailed in Table 1. The distribution demonstrates that a variety
of journals share an interest in this topic, though the authors are far less
diverse (e.g. Nordh et al. (2009, 2011& 2013), (20 %) and Peschardt
et al. (2012, 2013, 2014 & 2016), (26.7 %).
3.2. Synthesis of study findings
The earliest study included in this review was published in 2009
(Nordh et al., 2009). The year of publication for these 15 articles ranges
from 2009 to 2020. The majority of the studies were carried out in
Europe (n = 8, 53.5 %), i.e. in Norway, Denmark and Spain, many of
3
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 58 (2021) 126985
which were by the same author group (Nordh et al., 2009, 2011;
Peschardt et al., 2012; Nordh and Ostby, 2013; Peschardt and Stigs­
dotter, 2013, 2014; Peschardt et al., 2016; Lorenzo et al., 2016). Two
studies (13.3 %) were carried out respectively in the United States of
America (Los Angeles, California and Boston, Massachusetts), Egypt
(Cairo City) and Southeast Asia (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia) by Cohen
et al. (2014); Danford et al. (2018); Abd El Aziz (2015, 2017) as well as
Hashim et al. (2019) and Praveena et al. (2020); while one study (6.7 %)
was carried out in Iran (Tabriz) by Shahhosseini et al., 2015. The studies
mostly cited on the health promoting use of the pocket parks by iden­
tifying the park components or design framework that predicts the
possibility for rest and restitution (Nordh et al., 2009, 2011; Peschardt,
and Stigsdotter, 2013; Peschardt and Stigsdotter, 2014; Peschardt et al.,
2016; Lorenzo et al., 2016; Hashim, et al. 2019). Several studies explore
how pocket parks can enhance the quality of life while benefitting the
urban citizen in terms of the need for everyday experiences of outdoor
areas (Peschardt et al., 2012; Nordh and Ostby, 2013; Danford et al.,
2018; Abd El Aziz, 2015, 2017; Praveena et al., 2020); the potential of
pocket parks to promote as well as to increase physical activity (Cohen
et al., 2014; Hashim, et al. 2019) and public visual preferences for
pocket parks (Shahhosseini et al., 2015), as summarised in Table 2. As
the findings from these papers are in line with previous studies that the
exposure to nature and contact with urban green space have positive
impacts towards human health and mental well-being, social benefits as
well as physical health (Lee & Maheswaran, 2010; Konijnendijk et al.,
2013; Bertram and Rehdanz, 2015; Wood et al., 2017), this review will
be anchored around these three themes to portray how the pocket parks
are used. Table 3 summarises the SE-Model factors identified contrib­
uting to the usage of pocket park by the studies in our sample.
4. Factors contributing to the usage of pocket parks
4.1. Personal factor
According to Pan et al. (2009), personal factors can be divided into
biological (e.g. age, gender and health status) as well as psycho-social (e.
P. Balai Kerishnan and S. Maruthaveeran
Fig. 2. The ecological model for physical activity. Adapted from Sallis J.F., Cervero R.B., Ascher W., Henderson K.A., Kraft M.K., & Kerr J. (2006). An ecological
approach to creating active living communities. Annual Review of Public Health, 27 297-322.
g. intention, self-efficacy and health beliefs). Furthermore, individual
factors such as age, education, gender and ethnicity also influence
people’s use of green space (Giles-Corti et al., 2005; Gobster, 2002). This
is further supported by Veitch et al., 2006; Lloyd et al., 2008; Adams
et al., 2012 and Nurhayati and Amanina (2018) that park use patterns
are influenced by age groups; emphasising on the association between
the visitor’s age groups and the types of activities before designing a
pocket park to encourage usage. Nonetheless, the selected papers did not
specifically identify personal factors to contribute to the usage of pocket
parks among the respondents except for Peschardt et al. (2012). This
study reported that ‘age’ and ‘gender’ are good predictors of using the
small urban parks for ‘rest and restitution’; and concluded that as people
got older, the more likely they were to visit the small urban parks at least
once a week for relaxation; while women were more likely to visit the
parks to ‘socialise’ than men. Meanwhile, Nordh et al. (2011) reported
on the different component importance among respondents grouped
according to age, gender, earlier involvement in parks or nature through
work or studies, and frequency of park visits. Their study found signif­
icant differences between age groups in terms of their preference for
flowers and water. Older respondents (>60 years old) have stronger
preferences for flower and water; while flowers were significantly more
important to women than to men. Those with professional experience
preferred trees and water features more than those without experience;
whereas those with no earlier involvement in parks or nature gave
higher importance values to other people. This could be due safety
perception in which the presence of other people is assumed to increase
the feelings of safety. However, these studies support the previous
research that parks are supporting healthy aging (Xie et al., 2018;
4
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 58 (2021) 126985
Gibson, 2018; Gaikwad & Shinde, 2019). The observation by Gibson
(2018) identified that older adults in Australia are more motivated to
use or visit a park if their autonomy need in term of park location, el­
ements and natural environment are fulfilled. Similarly, the older per­
sons in Pune, India are able to derive psychological benefits such as
relieving stress, mental peace, and restorative experiences including
feeling fresh and cheerful in a park that promotes safety, is quiet and
clean as well as located within the neighbourhood, promoting accessi­
bility (Gaikwad & Shinde, 2019). However, Praveena et al. (2020) did
not observe park users above 60 years old because most of the study site
pocket parks are located in the hectic city centre zone of Kuala Lumpur.
This study observed people between 18− 30 years old as the most
frequent age group users. One study (Shahhosseini et al., 2015) did not
provide data on the gender of respondents and have included age above
18 years old as the inclusion criteria for his study. The study by Abd El
Aziz (2015, 2017) identified those less than 12 years old to be most
engaged in outdoor recreation and leisure activities in Cairo City, fol­
lowed by teens and adults. The behavioural observation conducted by
Danford et al. (2018) also identified lower white population within the
study sites compared to the minority population. However, much of the
available literature found that white, affluent users are more likely to
visit large, city-designed, urban park public than minority user groups
such as low-income population or ethnic minorities (e.g., Byrne et al.,
2009; Kweon et al., 2016). Therefore, factors promoting a more
balanced access to urban nature among all user groups regardless of
income and marginalisation merit further research to increase the
acceptance for outdoor activity participation. Overall, the studies re­
ported a greater percentage of female respondents (54 %) compared to
P. Balai Kerishnan and S. Maruthaveeran
Table 1
Journal distribution of the 15 research papers reviewed in this study.
Journal No. of Studies
papers
Urban Forestry & 6 - Nordh, H. et al. / Urban
Urban Greening Forestry & Urban Greening 8
(2009) 225–235
- Nordh, H. et al. / Urban
Forestry & Urban Greening
10 (2011) 95–103
- Peschardt, K.K. et al. / Urban
Forestry & Urban Greening
11 (2012) 235– 244
- Nordh, H.& Østby, K. / Urban
Forestry & Urban Greening
12 (2013) 12– 17
- Danford, R.S., / Urban
Forestry & Urban Greening
(2018) 377–383
- Praveena, et al. / Urban
Forestry & Urban Greening
50 (2020) 126,647
Landscape and Urban 1 - Peschardt, K.K.& Stigsdotter,
Planning U.K. / Landscape and Urban
Planning 112 (2013) 26– 39
International Journal 1 - Peschardt, K.K.& Stigsdotter,
of Architectural U.K. / Archnet-IJAR, Vol. 8-
Research Issue 3 (2014) 149− 164
American Journal of 1 - Cohen et al. / American
Health Promotion Journal of Health Promotion,
28(3_suppl), S19–S26 (2014)
International Journal 1 - Abd El Aziz / International
of Development Journal of Development and
and Sustainability Sustainability Vol.4 No.7
(2015): 805− 824
International Journal 1 - Shahhoseini et al., 2015 /
of Architectural International Journal of
Engineering & Architectural Engineering &
Urban Planning Urban Planning, Vol. 25, No.
2 when safety is not a concern, restoration is enhanced by the absence of
Landscape Research 1 - Peschardt, K.K. et al.
Landscape Research, (2016) /
https://doi.org/10.1080/
01426397.2014.894006
Journal of 1 - Lorenzo, E. et al. / Journal of
PsyEcology PsyEcology (Bilingual
(Bilingual Journal Journal of Environmental
of Environmental Psychology), (Taylor & Fancis
Psychology), Online), Vol. 7, No. 2,
(Taylor & Fancis 152–177(2016)
Online)
Landscape 1 - Abd El Aziz / Landscape
Architecture and Architecture and Regional
Regional Planning Planning 2017; 2(2): 51− 60
Journal of Hotel and 1 - Hashim, N.I., et al. / Journal
Business of Hotel and Business
Management Management 8:194. (2019)
doi: 10.35248/
2169− 0286.19.8.194
Total 15
male (39 %); and highlighted the potential of gender differences in
environmental preferences (Nordh et al., 2011) or in willingness to use
outdoor environments (Lottrup et al., 2012) among the pocket park
users. According to Praveena et al. (2020), both the male and female
respondents in Kuala Lumpur have similar motives of using the pocket
parks; however, of the 30 respondents (7.7 %) that use the pocket parks
as an ‘easiest access to nature’, 22 (73.3 %) are female. This is in line
with the study by Abd El Aziz (2015) that female would really appreciate
visiting pocket parks more than other large urban green spaces due to its
ease of accessibility. Barriers to recreation have been studied since the
1980s to determine the relationship between perceived barriers and
gender-role traits (Henderson et al., 1988; Kane, 1990; Henderson,
1990; Jackson, 1991; Jinhee Jun and Kyle, 2012), however, these papers
did not measure the constraints or barriers faced by the different gender
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 58 (2021) 126985
in using the pocket parks. While previous literature (Wight, 1996)
suggested that nature tourist tend to be more highly educated than
Country general tourist, no studies reported the relationship between education
level and pocket park use. Overall, older adults and women were
Norway commonly cited as more frequent pocket park users but some studies
Norway report that young adults participate in more socially benefitting activity
Denmark at the pocket parks with opportunities for gathering in the presence of
Norway café/food vendors, among others.
Boston, MA
Malaysia
4.2. Social factor
Social support and social networks such as companionship, encour­
agement, assistance from friends/family members, advice and infor­
mation from professionals has an effect on participation in physical
activity (McNeill et al., 2006; Pan et al., 2009). People are more likely to
be active when they have the social support and encouragement from
families, friends, coworkers and others (Sallis and Owen, 1999). One
study (Nordh et al., 2011) reported the preference of a ‘few people’ over
the other levels (‘no people’, ‘few people’, and ‘many people’) as a
Denmark reason for using pocket park. The preference for a few other people in
the pocket park by Nordh et al. (2011) and Abd El Aziz (2015, 2017) is in
line with the assumption by Ulrich et al. (1991) and Staats and Hartig
Denmark
(2004) that the presence of other people can influence the possibility for
restoration. Furthermore, Staats and Hartig (2004) wrote that the
California, presence of a few other people can also increase feelings of safety.
United Similarly, majority of the respondents in the study by Praveena et al.
States
Egypt
(2020) prefer to visit the parks in a group with friends and family. This is
true for both genders and the respondents do not prefer to visit or use the
park alone. Likewise, Peschardt et al. (2012) explained that ‘it is logical to
assume that people who ‘socialise’ often visit a pocket park together with
Iran
others, whereas those who are in need of ‘rest and restitution’ will visit the
park alone’ (p.242). The study claimed that people enjoy the company of
a friend in an urban environment for many reasons including safety, but
Denmark company (Staats and Hartig, 2004). Nevertheless, the perception of
safety may deter people from using the pocket parks for physical ac­
tivities (Cohen et al., 2014). Although several studies (Nordh et al.,
Madrid 2011; Peschardt et al., 2012; Cohen et al., 2014; Abd El Aziz, 2015)
observed the presence of few other people to promote mental well-being
and social benefits, the impact of companionship was not assessed for
physical activities. Moreover, previous studies have reported that
women choose to visit green spaces accompanied by family members or
others rather than alone as they have significantly greater fear levels
Egypt than their male counterparts (e.g. Sreetheran and van den Bosch, 2014).
However, the impact of being in the company of others such as friend­
Malaysia s/family were not reported neither assessed.
4.3. Perceived environment and factors influencing the use of pocket
parks
In the SE-model, perceived environment is defined as the perceived
characteristics of the physical context in which people live, work and
engage in recreation in line with Davison and Lawson (2006). This in­
cludes aspects of safety, traffic density, attractiveness and accessibility.
Previous studies have emphasised the perceived access to green spaces
(Sugiyama et al., 2008; Foster et al., 2009) and perceived quality of open
spaces (Sugiyama and Thompson, 2008) as important factors that in­
fluence actual physical activity. Nordh et al. (2009) claimed that the
bigger a park is, the more likely it is that a person will find a possibility
for restoration; however some of the smallest parks in their sample also
had some of the highest restorative value ratings. The study concluded
that design of the parks might help people experience the park as larger
in area than it actually is to experience restoration.
The accessibility of the pocket parks was observed by Cohen et al.
(2014) who suggested developing pocket parks in multiple accessible
places to serve as catalysts for physical activity; and Abd El Aziz (2015,
5
 P. Balai Kerishnan and S. Maruthaveeran
Table 2
Summary of findings from the reviewed articles (n = 13).
Sample characteristics Data collection Sampling Data analysis

Author(s) Region Study Aim Respondent Gender Data collection Landscape Sampling Sample size (N) Data analysis Findings
methods stimulus used method(s) approach
described described

Nordh et al. Norway To assess the extent to which Undergraduate and M+F Mixed method Photographs Yes (random 52 Yes (Pearson All environmental
(2009) park components, graduate students (rating + open of 72 parks (74 sample) correlations for components except flowering
individually and in ended question) park photos) variables; Sobel plants were strongly
combination, predict the tests for statistical associated with restoration
possibility for restoration in significance and likelihood.
small urban green spaces. hierarchical ‘Fascination’ is strongly
regression associated with water and
analyses) size; ‘being away’ from the
demands and routines of
directed attention is strongly
associated with grass, bushes,
trees, and size.
Nordh et al. Norway To investigate the relative Residents of a M+F Quantitative (web- Text Yes (random 154 Yes (omnibus Many trees, bushes, all grass
(2011) importance of neighbourhood based describing sample-recruited Friedman non- cover, flower beds, a small
environmental components, questionnaire) successive through parametric test, fountain, and a few other
in small urban parks, for pairs of park advertisement) Wilcoxon people were preferred as
people looking for alternatives matched-pairs respective park components
somewhere to sit down and tests, non- for people looking for
rest. parametric tests) somewhere to sit down and
rest.
Peschardt Denmark To describe the use of small Park users M+F Quantitative (on- Real landscape Yes (random 686 Yes (frequency The primary reasons for
et al. public urban green spaces site questionnaire) sample) analysis; logistic visiting SPUGS were
6

(2012) (SPUGS) and to obtain an regression ‘socialising’ and ‘rest and

understanding of the factors analyses) restitution’.
associated with the use. Men and older people in the
age group 50–65 used the
parks for ‘rest and
restitution’.
Younger people visit with
others and tend to use the
SPUGS more for social
reasons.
Nordh & Norway To explore the use of small Students M+F Quantitative Photographs Yes (random 58 Yes (mean values “Natural” categories
Østby urban public parks, and how (rating) (74 park sample- for each park; contributed the most to high
(2013) components of the park may photos) volunteers) frequency analysis ratings on restoration
promote, or prevent, the of components and likelihood. Park design,

Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 58 (2021) 126985

potential for psychological
restoration through stays in
the park.
Peschardt, Denmark To investigate the
and association between users’
Stigsdotter perceived restorativeness of
(2013) small public urban green
space and the perceived
sensory dimensions.
activities) enclosure and location of
seating, as well as the park
surroundings affect the
possibility for restoration.
Small urban parks can
provide activities of
importance for restoration,
social and physical health.
Park users M+F Quantitative (On- Real landscape Yes (random 686 Yes (statistical Most stressed users get a
site questionnaire) sample) analyses using stronger feeling of being
SPSS version 19; removed from everyday
linear regression pressure and obligations if
analysis) nature is present in the park.
‘Space’, ‘nature’, ‘refuge’ and
(continued on next page)
 P. Balai Kerishnan and S. Maruthaveeran
Table 2 (continued )
Sample characteristics Data collection Sampling Data analysis

Author(s) Region Study Aim Respondent Gender Data collection Landscape Sampling Sample size (N) Data analysis Findings
methods stimulus used method(s) approach
described described

‘social’ are significantly

associated with the
environment component
preference for releasing stress
and relaxing.
Peschardt, Denmark To provide information on Park users M+F Mixed methods Real landscape Yes (random Pre: 48 No ‘Rest and restitution’ is the
and the design of pocket parks (questionnaire and sampling) Post-redesign: 45 primary use both before and
Stigsdotter that best meets user needs by interview) Interview (post): 6 after the redesign of the park.
(2014) investigating the design and The park was used because
use of a pocket park before the area was close to
and after a redesign. respondents work or as a
break from travelling from
one place to another.
Cohen et al. California To assess the use of new Household M+F Qualitative (quasi- Real landscape Yes (random 1837 No (descriptive Pocket park can promote
(2014) pocket parks in low-income members, pocket experimental post- sampling) (Pocket park = 71 statistics and moderate-to-vigorous
neighbourhoods. parks users, test) Tool- System of + 432; generalized physical activity compared to
neighbourhood Observing Play neighbourhood estimating existing playground space in
park users, and Recreation in park: 992 + 342) equations) nearby parks; however,
residents Communities additional strategies and
(SOPARC) programs may be needed to
encourage more residents to
use these parks.
Abd El Aziz Cairo city, To examine the possibility of Residents, park M+F Mixed methods Real No (age and 25 No Deserted small leftovers
7

(2015) Egypt implementing the pocket users (observation, face- landscape- gender) closed ended streets and
park concept in the Egyptian to-face potential public owned parcels were
context. semi interview, spaces recommended to be
closed ended transformed into pocket
questionnaire). parks.
Land ownership, funding,
maintenance and
determining the responsible
party to maintain the park is
crucial for the long-term
success of the park.
Shahhoseini Tabriz, To determine public visual Nine (9) experts M+F Quantitative photo Photographs Yes (random 394 Yes (descriptive The most preferred spatial
et al. Iran preferences based on spatial (including 5 survey method- sampling method statistics, visual configuration was ‘Mystery’,
(2015) configuration and content of Architects, 1 Urban visual preference and geographical preference rating) while ‘Prospect’ with a space

Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 58 (2021) 126985

small urban parks (SUP).
Peschardt Denmark To determine the
et al. relationship between
(2016) selected features (greenness,
Environmental Assessment
of Public Recreation Spaces
(EAPRS) elements, shape,
size and noise level) within
pocket parks to ‘socialising’
and ‘rest and restitution’ use.
Designer, and 3 rating cluster sampling with broad vista received the
Landscape approach) lowest preference ratings.
Architects) The public prefers to see more
natural and hidden areas in
comparison with the open
space and clear focal points.
Park users M+F Quantitative (on- Real landscape Yes (random 686 Yes (descriptive The presence of ‘café’,
site questionnaire) sample) statistics, ‘tables’ and ‘other seating
correlations and than benches’ has positive
interrelation correlations with ‘socialising;
between features) while ‘eye-level green’,
‘green ground cover’,
‘unpaved trail’ and
‘flowerbeds’ indicate reduced
suitability for ‘socialising’.
(continued on next page)

Table 2 (continued )
Author(s) Region Study Aim
Lorenzo et al. Madrid To examine the restorative
(2016) experiences role of small
urban squares (pocket
parks), and to evaluate how
the characteristics of these
parks can contribute to their
potential as restorative
spaces.
Abd El Aziz Cairo City, To identify the parameters
(2017) Egypt contributing to the design of
a successful pocket park
through
a participatory approach.
8
Danford et al. Boston, To explore the actual use of
(2018) MA informal green spaces by
using behavioral measures
(Project for Public Spaces,
2000)
Hashim et al. Kuala To understand visitors’
(2019) Lumpur, awareness toward the
Malaysia importance of pocket parks
in term of restorative
environment and to
determine the characteristics
of the restorative experience
offered by the park.
P. Balai Kerishnan and S. Maruthaveeran
Sample characteristics Data collection Sampling Data analysis
Respondent Gender Data collection Landscape Sampling Sample size (N) Data analysis Findings
methods stimulus used method(s) approach
described described
Greener and more enclosed
pocket parks support rest and
restitution to a greater extent
than ‘socialising’.
Park users M+F Qualitative (in-situ Real landscape No (random 537 Yes (descriptive The most preferred settings,
interview) sampling method) statistics, t-test, the most restorative and the
Pearson highest level of perceived
correlations) environmental quality are
those parks with higher level
of vegetation.
Residents/ M+F Observation, Real landscape No 25 No The proposed design of
Focus group, pocket park in Cairo City
Questionnaire developed with the local
community incorporates
accessible park location,
multi- functional spaces for
different age groups, plants,
edible garden, and facilities
including seats, trash bin,
lighting, sidewalk, pedestrian
walk and parking lots.
Park users NA Qualitative Real landscape No (systematic NA (10 site pairs No (Wilcoxon rank Informal urban green spaces
(observational) behavioural (20 sites)) sums tests, JMP 11 are being used for many types
observation) software package) of leisure and restorative
activities.
Communication, restoration,
and viewing behaviours were
more prevalent in
intentionally managed green
spaces, across user groups.
The author encouraged future
research to clarify which
basic features, (e.g., benches,
trash cans, signage), reduce
littering and safety issues will
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 58 (2021) 126985
increase acceptance of parks
for all user groups.
Park visitors M+F Mixed methods; Real landscape Yes (survey and 385 No (Statistic The direct benefit offered by
quantitative observation Package of Social the pocket park is
(questionnaire) method) Science (SPSS) enhancement of mental
and qualitative program) health; while the indirect
(observation) benefit is the stimulation to
do physical activity.
The pocket park is proven to
fit the elements of restorative
environment, significant with
‘Being Away’, however the
park lack the attractive
elements for ‘Fascination’ to
explore the park better.
(continued on next page)
P. Balai Kerishnan and S. Maruthaveeran Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 58 (2021) 126985

2017) who reported that pocket parks should be accessible and

never used the parks. Most of

the respondents also visit the
18− 30 years old; most of the
well-connected not only to each other, but also to a broader green

respondents visit the pocket

group were people between
women than men using the

parks ‘sometimes’. Only 59

Lumpur; most frequent age

higher usage was to ‘relax

frequently; while 26 have

pocket parks by foot. The

network to meet the recreational and the social needs of the local urban

respondents use the park

There are slightly more
residents. This is in line with the findings by Currie (2016) that the

pocket parks in Kuala

and reduce stress’.

design of a good and small urban park consists of the following princi­
ples; park accessibility, specificity, authenticity, functionality and adapt­
ability elements; as well as consistent with the studies from the U.S. and
Findings

other developed countries that the access to park is considered an

essential precondition for usability and critical for establishing a stron­
ger user base (Mowen and Confer, 2003). Two studies identified that
place attachments supports the usage of pocket parks for health benefits
(Peschardt and Stigsdotter, 2014; Lorenzo et al., 2016). People sense the
Data analysis

Data analysis

feeling of place attachment when their general perception of the park is

described
approach

positive (Peschardt and Stigsdotter, 2014) while Lorenzo et al. (2016)

SPSS

suggested that place attachment might influence the preference of the

small parks for restorativeness and the amount of vegetation although
there was no further assessment on this.
Sample size (N)

One study (Peschardt and Stigsdotter, 2013) identified that the most
stressed users get a stronger feeling of being removed from everyday
pressure and obligations if nature is present in the small parks. They
390

further reported that, the presence of the following perceived sensory

dimension (PSD); ‘space’, ‘nature’, ‘refuge’ and ‘social’ are significantly
associated with the component preferred by stressed individuals in small
The respondents

urban environments. The PSDs are a latest nature characteristics clas­

randomly and
aged between
were selected

18–60 years

sification version developed by Grahn and Stigsdotter (2010) to identify

method(s)
described
Sampling

Sampling

characteristic that park users associate with nature and urban parks. The
PSDs classified nature into eight park characteristics that includes;
old

‘serene’ (e.g. silent and calm), ‘space’ (e.g. spacious and free), ‘nature’
(e.g. wild and untouched), ‘rich in species’ (e.g. several animals and
Real landscape
stimulus used

plants), ‘refuge’ (e.g. safe, benches and play equipment), ‘culture’ (e.g.
Landscape

decorated with fountains and ornamental plants), ‘prospect’ (e.g. flat

and well-cut grass surfaces and vistas) and ‘social’ (e.g. entertainment
and restaurants). Similarly, Shahhosseini et al. (2015) who adapted the
following six visual preferences; Mystery, Coherence, Refuge,
Complexity, Legibility, Prospect to explain the different landscape
Data collection

Data collection

Questionnaire

preference among the park users that contributed to park use identified
that the public prefers to see more natural and hidden areas in com­
methods

parison with the open space and clear focal points (‘Mystery’). Accord­
ing to Hashim et al. (2019), the fascinating elements to see in the park,
which includes the clouds, sunsets, the motion of leaves in a breeze,
Gender

M+F

vegetation as well as water fountain could contribute to the restoration

of the user’s direct attention; while consistently reporting that park users
Sample characteristics

need a calm environment to restore their mind.

Several studies identified whether the issues of safety will influence
the use of pocket park (Nordh et al., 2011; Nordh and Ostby, 2013;
Respondent

Cohen et al., 2014; Lorenzo et al., 2016; Praveena et al., 2020). The
Park users

presence of a few other people can increase the feelings of safety but
more than a few people may cause feelings of crowding in the small park
(Nordh et al., 2011; Praveena et al., 2020). Nordh and Ostby (2013)
pocket parks associated with

noted that the importance of enclosure or good seating may signify the
the pocket parks in the city
To provide an overview of

the characteristics of the

the visitation and usage.

need for control and safety; as enclosure, whether visual or physical,

centre of Kuala Lumpur

does not only affect safety, but improves people’s ability to relax and
while identifying

trigger restorative experiences. The presence of homeless people living

in the park was identified to contribute to the ‘crowded parks’ and ‘poor
Study Aim

hygiene of the parks users’ (Praveena et al., 2020). Cohen et al. (2014)
found that crime was the primary reason the respondents thought the
pocket parks was unsafe. According to the study, pocket parks are
generally considered as safe; nonetheless, the study cited the suggestion
by Newman (1972) that park enhancements such as programming and
Malaysia
Lumpur,
Region

special events may draw more people to the pocket parks, which could in
Kuala
Table 2 (continued )

turn enhance the feelings of safety among the users. According to Staats
and Hartig (2004), having company while visiting a recreational envi­
ronment may be a critical enabling factor to help a person feel safe.
Author(s)

Praveena

(2020)

Moreover, dangers from other people such as the danger of molestation

et al.

or robbery, constitutes a fear that is widely held, especially among

women (Day, 1995; Nasar & Fisher, 1993).

9
P. Balai Kerishnan and S. Maruthaveeran Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 58 (2021) 126985

Table 3
The SE-Model components (factors) identified contributing to the usage of pocket park by the selected studies.
Benefits Personal factor Social factor Physical factor Perceived Environment Studies

– – Grass/tree/park size Greener view Nordh et al. (2009)

Mental well-being (restoration,
rest and restitution, relaxing)
Social benefits (gathering/
meeting others/leisure
activities)
Few people Grass, bushes, trees, flower
– Safety Nordh et al. (2011)
(safety) beds, water features
Age (50–65 years old) Peschardt et al.
Alone Greener and natural setting –
Gender (male) (2012)
A lot of grass/flower/plants
Water features Calm atmosphere Nordh and Ostby,
– –
Enclosed park Little traffic 2013
Good seating
Many trees/ natural setting Peschardt and
– Not crowded Sunny and shady places
Tables and benches Stigsdotter (2013)
Walking path
– – Sun exposure Cohen et al. (2014)
Benches
Variation in terrain Sunny and shady places
Peschardt and
– – Planting (green appearance) Distanced from the traffic
Stigsdotter (2014)
Surface cover Place attachment
Seating area
Age Few people
Multi-function spaces Safety Abd El Aziz (2015)
Gender (safety)
Lighting/trash bins
Location
Shahhoseini et al.
– – Park size –
(2015)
Visual appearance
Peschardt et al.
– – Green ground cover –
(2016)
– – High level of vegetation Place attachment Lorenzo et al. (2016)
– – – – Abd El Aziz (2017)
Benches/places to sit Nature viewing activities
Acceptance for all user
– Trash cans Stewardship activities Danford et al. (2018)
groups (majority/minority)
Signage Safety issues
Calm environment
Fascination and
Vegetation
interesting elements to see:
– – Water fountain Hashim et al. (2019)
clouds, sunsets, motion of leaves in a
Proper sitting area
breeze, vegetation, water fountain
Park cleanliness
Few people
(safety) Park accessibilities and Greener and natural setting Praveena et al.
Gender (female)
Family and facilities Cleanliness (2020)
Friends
– – – – Nordh et al. (2009)
– – – – Nordh et al. (2011)
Age (15− 29 years old) Peschardt et al.
Other people Greener and natural setting –
Gender (female) (2012)
Nordh and Ostby,
– – Placement of benches –
2013
Peschardt and
– – – –
Stigsdotter (2013)
Walking path
– Other people Benches Safety Cohen et al. (2014)
Water features
Benches
Peschardt and
– – Spaces for sitting, lying and –
Stigsdotter (2014)
playing
Host coffee shop, retailers,
Age vendors
– Easily accessible Abd El Aziz (2015)
Gender Lighting/trash bins
Shade trees
Shahhoseini et al.
– – – –
(2015)
Paved trail
Table
Easily accessible Peschardt et al.
– – Other seating than benches
Opportunities for gathering (2016)
Café
Playground
– – Little vegetation – Lorenzo et al. (2016)
Lighting/facilities
Pedestrian movement
Age
Other people Gender-based zone Safety Abd El Aziz (2017)
Gender
separation
Recreational games
Benches/places to sit
Nature viewing activities
Acceptance for all user Trash cans,
– Stewardship activities Danford et al. (2018)
groups (majority/minority) Signage
Safety issues
Sports facilities
(continued on next page)

10
P. Balai Kerishnan and S. Maruthaveeran Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 58 (2021) 126985

Table 3 (continued )
Benefits Personal factor Social factor Physical factor Perceived Environment Studies

– – – – Hashim et al. (2019)

Physical health/activities
Age Few people Park accessibilities and Shady places Praveena et al.
Gender (safety) facilities Opportunities for gathering (2020)
Family and Other seating than benches Cleanliness
Friends Café Safety aspect
Rest areas
– – – – Nordh et al. (2009)
– – – – Nordh et al. (2011)
Peschardt et al.
– – – –
(2012)
Nordh and Ostby,
– – – –
2013
Peschardt and
– – – –
Stigsdotter (2013)
Water features
Playground equipment
Walking path
– – Safety Cohen et al. (2014)
Benches
Accessibility (walking to the
park)
Peschardt and
– – – –
Stigsdotter (2014)
Activity area and informal
playing zone
Plants
Age Seating area
– Safety Abd El Aziz (2015)
Gender Vendors
Billiard tables (for rent)
Lighting/trash bins
Pedestrian paths
Shahhoseini et al.
– – – –
(2015)
Peschardt et al.
– – – –
(2016)
– – – – Lorenzo et al. (2016)
Lighting/facilities
Gender-based zone
Age separation Separation from traffic
– Abd El Aziz (2017)
Gender Recreational games Well-maintained
Kid’s playground
Bicycle tracks
– – – – Danford et al. (2018)
– – – – Hashim et al. (2019)
Praveena et al.
– – – –
(2020)

4.4. Physical factor
Humpel et al. (2002) mentioned that the environment influences the
use of green space; and that environmental characteristics also include
features, condition and distance (Owen et al., 2004). However, as
mentioned, research identifies distance as being the main influencing
factor on the use of green space (van Herzele and Wiedemann, 2003;
Giles-Corti et al., 2005). Nonetheless, there were strong evidence that
that physical park components supporting greener and natural setting
such as lower ground vegetation, grass, trees, flowering plants and water
features had the most influence as choices among other park alternatives
for use and most likely to contribute to health and mental well-being
(Nordh et al., 2009, 2011; Nordh and Ostby, 2013; Peschardt and
Stigsdotter, 2013, 2014; Shahhosseini et al., 2015; Hashim et al., 2019).
This finding is supported by Sinou and Kenton (2013) that the most
important factor for the design of a successful park was the inclusion of
trees and green surfaces. These finding are also in line with the research
by Kaplan (1984) that natural elements have the capacity to hold one’s
attention and provide a strong sense of belonging to a place, the factors
that make an environment psychologically comfortable. This view is
further supported by Maller et al. (2005); Duggal and Chib (2014),
Bertrama & Rehdanz (2015), Larson et al. (2016) and Kim and Jin
(2018), that urban green space plays a vital role in human health and
well-being among the urban residents; as well as Chiesura (2004) that
even small-scale urban green areas are beneficial to cities in terms of
environmental services as well as social and psychological services. One
study (Peschardt et al., 2016) reported that ‘paved trail’, ‘table’, ‘other
seating than benches’ and ‘café’ were positively correlated with social­
ising while Lorenzo et al. (2016) noted the preference for urban squares
with little vegetation for high levels of social activity. Park users also
express the importance of other physical attributes such as park size,
enclosure and good seating (Nordh et al., 2009) at the parks their prefer
to visit; as well as and the integration between man-made elements and
greenery (Shahhosseini et al., 2015) to contribute to the park use pref­
erence. According to Cohen et al. (2014), pocket parks may provide
limited opportunities for moderate-to-vigorous physical activity because
of the park size and limited space, however, the study proposed the
inclusion of other exercise programs in the pocket parks, such as aero­
bics, yoga, and Zumba as these programs can be offered in outdoor
settings without special exercise equipment or site modification.
Lorenzo et al. (2016) noted that the diversity of vegetation is asso­
ciated with a greater usage of the park to ‘play with the children’ and to
‘have something to eat or drink’; while the amount of vegetation, is more
closely linked with the activity of ‘walking’. Peschardt and Stigsdotter
(2014) however reported that feature such as green ground cover which
is positively related to rest and restitution is negatively related to
socialising, whereas ‘tables’ or ‘café’ are positively related to socialising,
but negatively related to rest and restitution. This may indicate that

11
P. Balai Kerishnan and S. Maruthaveeran
pocket parks cannot always support both uses simultaneously, or that, if
the space allows, the design of pocket parks should consist of separate
‘rooms’ designed for different types of use.
This review also elucidated several park attributes that predicted the
possibility for restoration, for example, Nordh et al. (2009) quantified
the following variables; hardscape, grass, lower ground vegetation; flow­
ering plants, bushes, trees, and water (water/no water). Among these, the
presence of more ‘hardscape’ (e.g. pavement, buildings, stairs or poorly
shielded from the surrounding) were the least preferred park features.
The study concluded that grass, trees, bushes and park size are most
likely to contribute to restoration. The most frequently mentioned user
preference contributing to high ratings on restoration likelihood were: ‘a
lot of grass’ followed by ‘a lot of flowers/plants’ and ‘water features’;
while ‘a lot of traffic’, ‘a lot of hard surfaces’ and ‘poorly shielded from
the surroundings’ were the three most commonly described categories
giving low ratings on restoration likelihood (Nordh and Ostby, 2013).
On the contrary, although the pocket parks in Kuala Lumpur are located
at high traffic streets, the respondents could still use the pocket parks ‘to
rest and reduce stress’ (Praveena et al., 2020); supporting the claims by
Kaplan (1993) and Lottrup et al. (2012) that the availability of the
natural environment close to workplace can foster positive impact with
respect to well-being.
Peschardt et al. (2012) reported a different pattern in the use of
pocket parks compared to larger urban green spaces in Copenhagen as
the park users were found to have travelled quite far for the pocket parks
or lived quite far from the parks. Unlike previous research (Grahn and
Stigsdotter, 2003) where shorter distances from home or travelled to the
small urban parks were related to higher frequencies of park use,
Peschardt et al. (2012) identified that the context in which people used
the small parks (‘en route’ or ‘coming from home’ or ‘going home’)
exceeded 1000 m. Praveena et al. (2020) reported that most of the re­
spondents visit the parks by foot although they indicated to have trav­
elled more than 2 km to reach the parks as most of these parks are
located near to the shopping complexes and office areas which are easily
accessible by just walking. Therefore, as written by Cohen et al. (2014),
although pocket parks have lesser space, they can serve as catalysts for
physical activity and other important roles if the parks are located in
multiple places. The access to large attractive green spaces also increases
with distance (Paul and Nagendra, 2017); while large urban heritage
parks are much valued for their environmental benefits (Swamy and
Devy, 2010). The observation by Mullick (1993) identified that the
design of an environment must be responsive to the surrounding pop­
ulation’s especially the declining capabilities of older adults, to
encourage park visit and use. This finding is further supported by Wan
Azlina and Ismail (2015) who reported that the creation of a good public
space should be based on the vision of the urban dwellers and their
needs.
4.5. Emerging themes-environmental benefits
During the course of the analysis, the following new research themes
on pocket parks were identified; the impact of pocket parks on the urban
heat island (UHI) intensity or the urban heat mitigating effects of pocket
parks (Lau et al., 2012; Lin et al., 2017; Park et al., 2017); and the ability
of pocket parks to support biodiversity (Strohbach et al., 2013; Ikin
et al., 2013; Jasmani et al., 2017; and Carbó-Ramírez and Zuria, 2011).
Bird species were identified as the indicator of assessment for the value
of pocket parks to support biodiversity by Strohbach et al., 2013; Ikin
et al., 2013; and Jasmani et al., 2017; while Carbó-Ramírez and Zuria,
2011 explored the date on the bird communities that occupy small urban
parks, and the landscape features that affect them.
The urban heat island (UHI) has been investigated by many re­
searchers as an indicator of urban climate (Oke, 1987; Peng et al., 2012;
Wang et al., 2015). Lau et al. (2012) cited Gartland (2008) on the
negative impacts of UHI on the environment and people. The scholar
stated that higher temperature will result in higher cooling load in
12
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 58 (2021) 126985
summer, serious air pollution and thermal discomfort, among others.
The empirical study on the summertime environmental performances of
a pocket park in Hong Kong by Lau et al. (2012) measured daytime and
night-time climatic parameters such as air temperature, wind velocity
and solar radiation. The study by Lin et al. (2017) measured the floor
area ratio (FAR), building density, park area, tree cover ratio (TCR) and
shrub cover ratio (SCR) to quantify the land use intensity and greenery
of twelve pocket parks in Hong Kong. On the other hand, Park et al.
(2017) measured air temperature of six highly developed blocks in
Seoul, South Korea at the street level to determine the types and struc­
tures of small green spaces that effectively reduce air temperature in
urban area. These studies found that small green spaces such as pocket
parks can positively contribute to alleviate UHI including denser and
multi-layered polygonal shaped parks.
4.6. Limitation and future research
To the researchers’ knowledge, this is the first study to synthesise the
literature on how pocket parks are use from a socio-ecological
perspective. This work is also an initial attempt to review the current
research on factors contributing the usage of pocket parks. Several
limitations should be considered when interpreting the studies, espe­
cially the paucity of studies performed outside Europe and the lack of
studies represented from the Asian region in our sample. Even among
the U.S. regions, only a few pocket parks were assessed. We observed a
huge gap between the publication years intended for the review and
obtained from the search. There were no peer-reviewed articles on
pocket parks published between year 2000 and 2008, and the number of
publications identified for the review increased consistently after 2009.
Although, a wide inclusion criteria were used during the search; we may
still have missed some significant articles by neglecting relevant key­
words during the search process or missed some older papers that are not
full-text searchable. Published studies that are not accessible openly also
may have limited the number of studies identified for this review. Other
than that, the restriction to include only peer-reviewed English-language
journal articles may have resulted in some limitations as well. This view
is supported by McCormack et al. (2010) and Knobloch et al. (2011) who
stated that publication bias is likely to exist and needs to be considered,
although this has been the case for most review articles. Despite the
limitations mentioned related to years of publication and the
under-represented papers, we believe this study contributes important
information to why people use pocket parks as well as the SE-Model
components that are associated with higher rates of pocket park usage.
A major limitation for many of the studies has been the predomi­
nance of before-and-after and cross-sectional study design as suggested
by Lee and Maheswaran (2010). Only three studies (30 %) used a
comparison study by defining how the pocket parks were used after an
intervention (Peschardt and Stigsdotter, 2014; Cohen et al., 2014) while
Danford, et al. (2018) compared intentional parks paired with unin­
tentional informal urban green spaces by conducted Systematic Behav­
ioral Observation to characterise how different user groups engage with
different types of informal green spaces in the city of Boston. There were
also a number of studies (Nordh et al., 2009; Nordh and Ostby, 2013)
that were conducted among student groups as observers and partici­
pants due to convenience. Although this method is supported by Stamps
(1999) who found that environmental evaluations made by students
were highly correlated with evaluations made by non-student groups;
issue pertaining to small sample size as well as the large proportion of
women respondents in the studies may be bias.
Whilst the majority of the studies in our sample have consistently
reported on the importance of pocket parks for mental well-being and
social benefits, limited study approached the potential of pocket parks
for physical activities. Moreover, the studies did not adequately assess
the impact of the SE-Model components on the usage of pocket parks
especially components such as personal (education level/ethnicity);
social (alone/family/friends); physical (park distance); perceived
P. Balai Kerishnan and S. Maruthaveeran
environment (traffic/attractiveness/accessibility) as well as the inter­
action between the factors, therefore, merits further attention for future
research.
5. Conclusions
The review identified that pocket parks are highly potential to pro­
mote mental well-being, social benefits as well as physical health. The
following park components including green ground cover, bushes, trees,
flower beds, water features as well as a calm atmosphere far from traffic
are highly associated with mental well-being; whilst facilities including
placement of benches, water features, walking path, café and adequate
space for stationary use promotes socialising. The preference for greener
or natural setting is higher among user visiting the pocket parks for
mental well-being compared to people using the parks for socialising.
Older people (50–65 years old) tend to visit the smaller parks for
restoration while younger adults (15− 29 years old) visit the pocket
parks to socialise. Moreover, the inclusion of more pocket parks in a
dense city would attract near users to do simple exercise by simply
walking to the nearest park while indirectly enhancing visitors’ physical
activity. Therefore, a thorough discussion of any one of the factors could
be voluminous. We understand this review briefly touches the surface of
the research interest. Nevertheless, the intention is to highlight the
importance of pocket parks and the role it can play in shrinking cities.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Praveena Balai Kerishnan: Methodology, Validation, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Writing -
review & editing, Visualization. Sreetheran Maruthaveeran: Concep­
tualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review &
editing, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) that
supported this work through Putra Grant under the Putra Graduate
Initiative (IPS), (GP-IPS/2018/9618200).
References
Abd El Aziz, N., 2015. Potentials of creating pocket parks in high density residential
neighbourhoods: the case of Rod El Farag, Cairo City. Int. J. Dev. Sustainability 4 (7),
805–824.
Abd El Aziz, N., 2017. Pocket park design in informal settlements in Cairo City, Egypt.
Landscape Archit. Reg. Plann. 2 (2), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.
larp.20170202.12, 2017.
Adams, A., Harvey, H., Brown, D., 2012. Constructs of health and environment inform
child obesity prevention in American Indian communities. Obesity 16 (2), 311–317.
Armato, F., 2017. Pocket park: product urban design. Des. J. 20 (sup1), S1869–S1878.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352705.
Bertram, C., Rehdanz, K., 2015. The role of urban green space for human well-being. In:
Ecological Economics, vol. 120(C. Elsevier, pp. 139–152.
Blake, A. (n.d.). Pocket Parks. Retrieved on 12 October 2017 from www.researchgate.
net.
Byrne, J., Wolch, J., Zhang, J., 2009. Planning for environmental justice in an urban
national park. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 52, 365–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09640560802703256.
Carbó-Ramírez, P., Zuria, I., 2011. The value of small urban greenspaces for birds in a
Mexican city. Landsc. Urban Plan. 100, 213–222.
Chiesura, A., 2004. The Role of Urban Parks for the Sustainable City. Landscape and
Urban Planning. Volume 68, Issue 1, pp. 129–138.
Cohen, D.A., Marsh, T., Williamson, S., Han, B., Derose, K.P., Golinelli, D., McKenzie, T.
L., 2014. The potential for pocket parks to increase physical activity. Am. J. Health
Promotion: AJHP 28 (3 Suppl), S19–S26. https://doi.org/10.4278/ajhp.130430-
QUAN-213.
13
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 58 (2021) 126985
Cox, D.T., Gaston, K.J., 2018. Human–nature interactions and the consequences and
drivers of provisioning wildlife. Philos. Trans. Biol. Sci. 5 https://doi.org/10.1098/
rstb.2017.0092, 373(1745). pii: 20170092.
Currie, M.A., 2016. A design framework for small parks in ultraurban, metropolitan,
suburban and small town settings. J. Urban Des. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13574809.2016.1234334.
Danford, R.S., et al., 2018. Active Greening or Rewilding the city: How does the intention
behind small pockets of urban green affect use? Urban For. Urban Green. 29,
377–383.
Davison, K.K., Lawson, C.T., 2006. Do attributes in the physical environment influence
children’s physical activity? A review of the literature. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act.
3 (19) https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-3-19 (2006).
Duggal, A., chib, A., 2014. The role of urban green spaces for the sustainable city, Jammu
(J&K). PARIPEX - Indian J. Res. 3 (6), 92–94.
Gartland, L., 2008. Heat Islands: Understanding and Mitigating Heat in Urban Areas.
Earthscan.
Ghavampour, E., Vale, B., Del Aguila, M.A., 2015. Nature As a Design Element in Small
Urban Public Spaces. Paper Presented at Future of Places, Stockholm.
Gibson, S.C., 2018. “Let’s go to the park.” an investigation of older adults in Australia
and their motivations for park visitation. Landsc. Urban Plan. 180, 234–246.
Giles-Corti, B., Broomhall, M.H., Knuiman, M., Collins, C., Douglas, K., Ng, K.,
Donovan, R.J., 2005. Increasing walking: how important is distance to,
attractiveness, and size of public open space? Am. J. Prev. Med. 28 (2), 169–176.
Grahn, P., Stigsdotter, U.K., 2003. Landscape planning and stress. Urban For. Urban
Green. 2 (2003), 001–018.
Grahn, P., Stigsdotter, U.K., 2010. The relation between perceived sensory dimensions of
urban green space and stress restoration. Landsc. Urban Plan. 94, 264–275.
Hashim, N.I., Yusof, N.H.S., Anuar, A.N.A., Sulaiman, F.C., 2019. The Restorative
Environment Offered by Pocket Park at Laman Standard Chartered Kuala Lumpur.
J. Hotel. Bus. Manag. 8, 194. https://doi.org/10.35248/2169-0286.19.8.194.
Henderson, K.A., 1990. The meaning of leisure for women: an integrative review of the
research. J. Leis. Res. 22 (3), 228–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00222216.1990.11969827.
Henderson, K.A., Stalnaker, D., Taylor, G., 1988. The relationship between barriers to
recreation and gender-role personality traits for women. J. Leis. Res. 20 (1), 69–80.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1988.11969758.
Humpel, N., Owen, N., Leslie, E., 2002. Environmental factors associated with adults’
participation in physical activity: a review. Am. J. Prev. Med. 22 (3), 188–199
(2002).
Ikin, K., Beaty, R.M., Lindenmayer, D.B., et al., 2013. Landsc. Ecol. 28, 45. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10980-012-9811-7.
Jackson, E.L., 1991. Special issue introduction: leisure constraints/constrained leisure.
Leis. Sci. 13 (4), 273–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490409109513144.
James, P., Tzoulas, K., Adams, M.D., Barber, A., Box, J., Breuste, J., et al., 2009. Towards
an integrated understanding of green space in the European built environment.
Urban For. Urban Green. 8 (2), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2009.02.001.
Jasmani, Z., Ravn, H.P., van den Bosch, C.C.K., 2017. The influence of small urban parks
characteristics on bird diversity: A case study of Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. Urban
Ecosyst. 1 (20), 227–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-016-0584-7.
Jun, Jinhee, Kyle, G.T., 2012. Gender identity, leisure identity, and leisure participation.
J. Leis. Res. 44 (3), 353–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2012.11950269.
Kane, M.J., 1990. Female involvement in physical recreation—gender role as a
constraint. J. Phys. Educ. Recreat. Dance 61 (1), 52–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/
07303084.1990.10606414.
Kaplan, R., 1993. The role of nature in the context of the workplace. Landsc. Urban Plan.
26, 193–201.
Kaplan, S., 1995. The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework.
J. Environ. Psychol. 15 (3), 69–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-
2. ISSN 0272-4944.
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., 1989. The Experience of Nature: a Psychological Perspective.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Kim, Eunjung, 2018. A systematic review of motivation of sport event volunteers. World
Leis. J. 60 (4), 306–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/16078055.2017.1373696.
Kim, D., Jin, J., 2018. Does happiness data say urban parks are worth it? Landsc. Urban
Plan. 178, 1–11.
Knobloch, K., et al., 2011. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and
meta–analysis (PRISMA) statement and publication bias. J. Cranio-maxillofacial
Surg. 39, 91–92.
Konijnendijk, C.C., Annerstedt, M., Nielsen, A.B., Sreetheran, M., 2013. Benefits of Urban
Parks. A Systematic Review. A Report for IFPRA. Copenhagen & Alnarp, January,
2013.
Kweon, B.S., Marans, R.W., Yi, C.W., 2016. Parks and quality of life: differences among
african american and white residents. Landsc. J. 35, 97–108. https://doi.org/
10.3368/lj.35.1.97.
Larson, L.R., Jennings, V., Cloutier, S.A., 2016. Public parks and wellbeing in urban areas
of the United States. PLoS One 11 (4). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0153211 e0153211.
Lau, S.S., Lin, P., Qin, H., 2012. A preliminary study on environmental performances of
pocket parks in high-rise and high-density urban context in Hong Kong. Int. J. Low-
carbon Technol. 7 (3), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlct/cts033. September
2012.
Lee, A.C.K., Maheswaran, R., 2010. The health benefits of urban green spaces: a review of
the evidence. J. Public Health (Bangkok) 33 (2), 212–222. https://doi.org/10.1093/
pubmed/fdq068.
Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P.C., Ioannidis, J.P.A., et al.,
2009. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of
P. Balai Kerishnan and S. Maruthaveeran
studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ
2009 (339), b2700.
Lin, P., Lau, S.S., Qin, H., Gou, Z., 2017. Effects of urban planning indicators on urban
heat island: a case study of pocket parks in high-rise high-density environment.
Landsc. Urban Plan. 168 (2017), 48–60.
Lloyd, K., Burden, J., Kiewa, J., 2008. Young girls and urban parks: planning for
transition through adolescence. J. Park Recreat. Admi. 26 (3), 21–38.
Lorenzo, E., Corraliza, J.A., Collado, S., Sevillano, V., 2016. Preference, restorativeness
and perceived environmental quality of small urban spaces. J. PsyEcology (Bilingual
J. Environ. Psychol.) 7 (2), 152–177.
Lottrup, L., Stigsdotter, U.K., Meilby, H., Corazon, S.S., 2012. Associations between use,
activities and characteristics of the outdoor environment at workplaces. Urban For.
Urban Green. 2, 159–168.
Maller, C., Townsend, M., Pryor, A., Brown, P., St Leger, L., 2005. Healthy nature healthy
people: ‘contact with nature’ as an upstream health promotion intervention for
populations. Health Promot. Int. 21 (1) https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dai032.
McNeill, L.H., Kreuter, M.W., Subramanian, S.V., 2006. Social Environment and Physical
activity: a review of concepts and evidence. Soc. Sci. Med. 63 (4), 1011–1022.
Mesimäki, M., Hauru, K., Lehvävirta, S., 2019. Do small green roofs have the possibility
to offer recreational and experiential benefits in a dense urban area? A case study in
Helsinki, Finland. Urban For. Urban Green. 40 (2019), 114–124.
Mowen, A.J., Confer, J.J., 2003. The relationship between perceptions, distance, and
socio-demographic characteristics upon public use of an urban park “in-fill”. J. Park
Recreat. Admi. 21, 58–74.
Mullick, A., 1993. Accessibility issues in park design: the national parks. Landsc. Urban
Plan. 26, 25–33.
Newman, O., 1972. Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through Urban Design.
Macmillan, New York.
Nordh, H., Ostby, K., 2013. Pocket parks for people—a study of park design and use.
Urban For. Urban Green. 12 (1), 12–17.
Nordh, H., Hartig, T., Hagerhall, C.M., Fry, G., 2009. Components of small urban parks
that predict the possibility for restoration. Urban For. Urban Green. 8 (4), 225–235.
Nordh, H., Alalouch, C., Hartig, T., 2011. Assessing restorative components of small
urban parks using conjoint methodology. Urban For. Urban Green. 10, 95–103.
Nurhayati, A.M., Amanina, N., 2018. Use pattern and activities: the evaluation of
malaysian green open space design. Planning Malaysia. J. Malaysian Inst. Planners
16 (3), 121–131.
Oke, T.R., 1987. Boundary Layer Climate, 2nd ed. Methuen, London.
Owen, N., Humpel, N., Leslie, E., Bauman, A., Sallis, J.F., 2004. Understanding
environmental influences on walking: review and research agenda. Am. J. Prev.
Med. 27 (1), 67–76, 2004.
Pan, S.Y., Cameron, C., Desmeules, M., Morrison, H., Craig, C.L., Jiang, X., 2009.
Individual, social, environmental, and physical environmental correlates with
physical activity among Canadians: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 9, 21.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-9-21.
Park, J., Kim, J.H., Lee, D., Park, C.Y., Jeong, S.G., 2017. The influence of small green
space type and structure at the street level on urban heat island mitigation. Urban
For. Urban Green. 21, 203–212.
Paul, S., Nagendra, H., 2017. Factors influencing perceptions and use of urban nature:
surveys of park visitors in Delhi. Land 2017 (6), 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/
land6020027.
Peng, S., Piao, S., Ciais, P., Friedlingstein, P., Ottle, C., Bréon, F.-M., Nan, H., Zhou, L.,
Myneni, R.B., 2012. Surface urban heat island across 419 global big cities. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 46, 696–703. https://doi.org/10.1021/es2030438.
Peschardt, K.K., Stigsdotter, U.K., 2013. Association between park characteristic and
perceived restorativeness of small public urban green spaces. Landscape Urban
Plann. 112, 26–39.
Peschardt, K.K., Stigsdotter, U.K., 2014. Evidence for designing health promoting pocket
parks. Int. J. Archit. Res. Archnet-ijar 8 (3), 149–164.
Peschardt, K.K., Schipperjin, J., Stigsdotter, U.K., 2012. Use of small public urban green
spaces (SPUGS). Urban For. Urban Green. 11 (3), 235–244.
Peschardt, K.K., Stigsdotter, U.K., Schipperjin, J., 2016. Identifying features of pocket
parks that may be related to health promoting use. Landsc. Res. 41 (1), 79–94, 2016.
Praveena, B.K., Sreetheran, M., Maulan, S., 2020. Investigating the usability pattern and
constraints of pocket parks in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Urban For. Urban Green. 50,
126647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126647.
Rakhshandehroo & Mohd Yusof, 2015. In: Establishing New Urban Green Spaces
Classification for Malaysian Cities. Paper Presented at IFLA 2014 Asia Pacific
Congress, Kuching, Malaysia. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3912.6880.
14
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 58 (2021) 126985
Sallis, J., Owen, N., 1999. Physical Activity and Behavioural Medicine. Sage
Publications, London.
Schipperijn, J., Ekholm, O., Stigsdotter, U.K., Toftager, M., Bentsen, P., Kamper-
Jørgensen, F., Randrup, T.B., 2010. Factors influencing the use of green space:
results from a Danish national representative survey. Landsc. Urban Plan. 95 (3),
130–137.
Seymour Jr., W.N., 1969. Small Urban Spaces: The Philosophy, Design, Sociology and
Politics of Vest-Pocket Parks and Other Small Urban Spaces. New York University
Press, New York.
Shahhosseini, H., Kamal, M., Maulan, S., 2015. Visual preferences of small urban parks
based on spatial configuration of place. Int. J. Archit. Eng. Urban Plann. 25 (2),
84–93.
Shirleyana, S., 2013. The possibility of converting available spaces into pocket parks in
urban settlements in Indonesia. Jurnal Eco-Teknologi UWIKA (eJETU) I (1), 1–6.
ISSN: 2301-850X.
Sinou, M., Kenton, A.G., 2013. In: Parameters Contributing to the Design of a Successful
Urban Pocket Park. PLEA2013 - 29th Conference, Sustainable Architecture for a
Renewable Future. Munich, Germany, 10-12 September 2013.
Sreetheran, M., van den Bosch, C.C.K., 2014. A socio-ecological exploration of fear of
crime in urban green spaces –A systematic review. Urban For. Urban Green. 13,
1–18.
Staats, H., Hartig, T., 2004. Alone or with a friend: a social context for psychological
restoration and environmental preferences. J. Environ. Psychol. 24, 199–212.
Stamps, A.E., 1999. Demographic effects in environmental aesthetics: a meta-analysis.
J. Plan. Lit. 155–175.
Strohbach, M.W., Lerman, S.B., Warren, P.S., 2013. Are Small Greening Areas Enhancing
Bird Diversity? Insights From Community-driven Greening Projects in Boston.
Sugiyama, T., Thompson, C.W., 2008. Associations between characteristics of
neighbourhood open space and older people’s walking. Urban For. Urban Green. 7
(1), 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2007.12.002.
Sugiyama, T., Leslie, E., Giles-Corti, B., Owen, N., 2008. Associations of neighbourhood
greenness with physical and mental health: do walking, social coherence and local
social interaction explain the relationships? J. Epidemiol. Community Health 62, e9.
https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2007.064287, 2008.
Swamy, S., Devy, S., 2010. Forests, heritage green spaces, and neighbourhood parks:
citizen’s attitude and perception towards ecosystem services in Bengaluru. J. Resour.
Energy Dev. 7, 117–122.
Ulrich, R.S., Simons, R.F., Losito, B.D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M.A., Zelson, M., 1991. Stress
recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J. Environ. Psychol.
11, 201–230.
UNFPA, 2011. State of World Population 2011: People and Possibilities on a World of 7
Billion. Information and External Relations Division of UNFPA, the United Nations
Population Fund. Retrieved from www.unfpa.org on 11 June 2019.
United Nations: Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2014. 68% of the World
Population Projected to Live in Urban Areas by 2050. says UN. Retrieved from
https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018-revision-of-
world-urbanization-prospects.html on 11 June 2019.
Van Herzele, A., Wiedemann, T., 2003. A monitoring tool for the provision of accessible
and attractive urban green spaces. Landsc. Urban Plan. 63 (2003), 109–126.
Veitch, J., Bagley, S., Ball, K., Salmon, J., 2006. Where do children usually play? A
qualitative study of parents’ perceptions of influences on children’s active free-play.
Health Place 12, 383–393.
Wan Azlina, W.I., Ismail, S., 2015. Integrating the community in urban design and
planning of public spaces: a review in malaysian cities. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci.
168, 357–364.
Wang, J., Huang, B., Fu, D., Atkinson, P., 2015. Spatiotemporal variation in surface
urban heat island intensity and associated determinants across major Chinese cities.
Remote Sens. (Basel) 7, 3670–3689. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs70403670.
Wight, P.A., 1996. North american ecotourists: market profile and trip characteristics.
J. Travel. Res. 34 (4), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759603400401.
Wood, L., Hooper, P., Foster, S., Bull, F., 2017. Public green spaces and positive mental
health – investigating the relationship between access, quantity and types of parks
and mental wellbeing. Health Place 48 (2017), 63–71.
Xie, B., An, Z., Zheng, Y., Li, Z., 2018. Healthy aging with parks: association between
park accessibility and the health status of older adults in urban China. Sustain. Cities
Soc. 43, 476–486.