Current protocols for assessing non-spatial aspects of urban parks may be helpful for landscape planning and design; yet further research and development are warrantedUrban parks are important assets for enhancing the quality of life for city residents. Not all parks are equal, however, in terms of the potential benefits they provide. Assessments of parks often focus on such spatial dimensions as availability, proximity, and accessibility. An increasing number of park assessment studies are also considering non-spatial dimensions, such as quality, use, and benefits. This study aimed to systematically review, summarize, and synthesize the current academic literature focused on the protocols used for assessing the non-spatial dimensions of urban parks.
Criteria for inclusion in this comprehensive review of the literature consisted of (1) articles published in English-language peer-reviewed journals and (2) studies including the development of new protocols for measuring three non-spatial dimensions (quality, use, and benefits) of green open space, especially parks in urban settings. Studies that used existing protocols to measure non-spatial dimensions of parks, or that applied any existing protocols, were not included in this review. Studies that did not specify the development of a new protocol to assess those non-spatial dimensions were also excluded from the review. Thirty-seven studies met the review criteria.
The review identified 18 innovative approaches for assessing park quality, 14 assessing park use, and 5 assessing park benefits. Sixteen of the eighteen park quality assessments included landscape or aesthetic features; fifteen included facility or amenity; more than half assessed park safety and maintenance/general conditions. Park quality assessments tended to reflect a physical activity perspective and relied on the observers’ impression of the park’s condition versus the visitors’ subjective impressions. Additionally, all the park quality assessments were constructed in the Western Hemisphere; none were developed in Asia or Africa. Similar concerns related to assessments of park use: (1) studies employed observational methods and (2) assessments tended to focus on physical activity or people’s intention of doing physical activity versus more passive park uses, such as social interaction, relaxation, and education. The park benefit protocols were less developed and relied more on self-report data than the protocols for quality and use. An analysis of protocols assessing park benefits shows that no single protocol can assess all benefits across the different aspects of human functioning (psychological, psychophysiological, social/cultural, environmental, and economic). Reliability and validity issues relating to park assessment protocols represent another area of concern.
This review includes a comparative analysis of existing protocols and offers a recommended list for assessing park quality and use. Also included are research implications for landscape planning and urban design scholars.
The Bottom Line