EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 685 (2026) E3S Web Conf., 685 (2026) 03002 References
Open Access
Issue
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 685, 2026
International Seminar on Livable Space (IS-LiVaS 2025)
Article Number 03002
Number of page(s) 21
Section Various Dimensions of Livable-Space
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202668503002
Published online 14 January 2026
  1. R. Alshehri, B. Alzenifeer, A. Alqahtany, H. Afify, T. Alrawaf, M. Alshammari. Impact of urban green spaces on social interaction and sustainability: a case study in Jubail, Saudi Arabia. Sustainability, 17(10), 4467(2025). https://doi.org/10.3390/su17104467. [Google Scholar]
  2. P. Ziaesaeidi. 'Relax underneath the trees and read a book' : exploring social sustainability in parks through the lens of young people. Sustainability, 17(5), (2025). https://doi.org/10.3390/su17052138 [Google Scholar]
  3. S. Güngör, S. Özer, M. Seyhan. Investigation of important park features that encourage park visiting, physical activity and social interaction among teenagers with the case of Ihlamur Park. Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology, 12(s4), 2867–2871 (2024). https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v12is4.2867-2871.7332 [Google Scholar]
  4. Y. Sun, S. Tan, Q. He, J. Shen. Influence mechanisms of community sports parks to enhance social interaction: a bayesian belief network analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(3) (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031466 [Google Scholar]
  5. H. Wang, T. Su, W. Zhao. (2025). Understanding urban park-based social interaction in shanghai during the covid-19 pandemic: insights from large-scale social media analysis. Isprs International Journal of Geo-Information, 14(2) (2025). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi14020087 [Google Scholar]
  6. H. Cui, N. Maliki, Y. Wang. The role of urban parks in promoting social interaction of older adults in China. Sustainability, 16(5) (2024). https://doi.org/10.3390/su16052088 [Google Scholar]
  7. Y. Zhang, T. Dijk, G. Weitkamp, A. Berg. The relationship between park design and seniors' use of green spaces in x'ian, china. The Journal of Public Space, 8(2), 21–40 (2023). https://doi.org/10.32891/jps.v8i2.1348 [Google Scholar]
  8. Y. Zou. A study on urban park design from the perspective of environmental perception: exploring future landscapes to enhance well-being and social inclusion for vulnerable groups. Applied and Computational Engineering, 122(1), 71–76 (2025). https://doi.org/10.54254/2755-2721/2025.19603 [Google Scholar]
  9. C. Yang, S. Shi, G. Runeson, D. Lu.Towards social sustainability in urban communities: exploring how community parks influence residents' social interaction during the covid-19 pandemic. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1) (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04035-9 [Google Scholar]
  10. M. Page, J. McKenzie, P. Bossuyt, I. Boutron, T. Hoffmann, C. Mulrow, D. Moher. The prisma 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, n71. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 [Google Scholar]
  11. H. Guo, Z. Luo, M. Li, S. Kong, H. Jiang. A literature review of big data-based urban park research in visitor dimension. Land, 11(6) (2022) https://doi.org/10.3390/land11060864 [Google Scholar]
  12. Q. Sheng, Q. D. Wan, D., & B. Yu. Effect of space configurational attributes on social interactions in urban parks. Sustainability, 13(14) (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147805 [Google Scholar]
  13. R.S. Ulrich, R. S. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224(4647) (1984) 420–421. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6143402 [Google Scholar]
  14. S. Kaplan. The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15 (3) (1995)169-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2 [Google Scholar]
  15. M. Argyle, L. Luo. Happiness and cooperation. Personality and Individual Differences 12 (10) (1991) 1019–1030. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(91)90032-7 [Google Scholar]
  16. J. Gehl. Cities for People. Island Press. (2010) [Google Scholar]
  17. Whyte, W. H. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Washington, D.C.: Conservation Foundation. (1980) [Google Scholar]
  18. B. Hillier, J. Hanson, J.The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. 9 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597237 [Google Scholar]
  19. Y. Long, J. Qin, Y. Wu, K. Wang. Analysis of urban park accessibility based on space syntax: take the urban area of changsha city as an example. Land, 12(5) (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/land12051061 [Google Scholar]
  20. R. Askarizad, P. Daudén, C. Garau. (2024). The application of space syntax to enhance sociability in public urban spaces: a systematic review. Isprs International Journal of Geo-Information, 13(7) (2024). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi13070227 [Google Scholar]
  21. R.D. Putnam. Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster. (2000). [Google Scholar]
  22. A. Rahimi, M. Tarashkar, B. Jahantab. Contribution of design indicators in perception of social capital, and interference of socio-demographic information in the process. Sustainability, 13 (7) (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073589 [Google Scholar]
  23. C. Villani, K. Siu, Z. Yang. (2022). Learning from older adults' use of urban parks in Hong Kong's low-income areas. The Journal of Public Space, 7(2) (2022) 9–28. https://doi.org/10.32891/jps.v7i2.1473 [Google Scholar]
  24. H. Silvennoinen, S. Kuliga, P. Herthogs, D. Recchia, B. Tunçer. Effects of gehl's urban design guidelines on walkability: a virtual reality experiment in singaporean public housing estates. Environment and Planning B Urban Analytics and City Science, 49(9) (2022) 2409–2428. https://doi.org/10.1177/23998083221091822 [Google Scholar]
  25. S. Williams, C. Ahn, H. Gunc, E. Ozgirin, M. Pearce, Z. Xiong. Evaluating sensors for the measurement of public life: a future in image processing. Environment and Planning B Urban Analytics and City Science, 46(8) (2019), 1534–1548. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808319852636 [Google Scholar]
  26. O. Zapata, J. Honey-Rosés.The behavioral response to increased pedestrian and staying activity in public space: a field experiment. Environment and Behavior, 54(1), (2020) 36–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916520953147 [Google Scholar]
  27. S. Di, Z. Chen, Z. Ren, T. Ding, Z. Zhao, Y. Hou, Z. Chen. (2024). Transformation of modern urban park based on user's spatial perceived preferences: a case study of Kowloon walled city park in Hong Kong. Forests, 15(9) (2024). https://doi.org/10.3390/f15091637 [Google Scholar]
  28. F. Tahroodi, N. Ujang. Engaging in social interaction: relationships between the accessibility of path structure and intensity of passive social interaction in urban parks. International Journal of Architectural Research Archnet-Ijar, 16(1), (2021) 112–133. https://doi.org/10.1108/arch-04-2021-0100 [Google Scholar]
  29. J. Zhang, L. Wu. Gentrification outcomes of greening in different urbanization stages: a longitudinal analysis of Chinese cities, 2012-2020. Environment and Planning B Urban Analytics and City Science, 52(1) (2024) 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/23998083241258683 [Google Scholar]
  30. N. Jelks, V. Jennings, A. Rigolon. Green gentrification and health: a scoping review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(3)(2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18030907 [Google Scholar]
  31. A. Rigolon, J. Németh. Green gentrification or 'just green enough' : do park location, size and function affect whether a place gentrifies or not? Urban Studies, 57(2) (2019) 402–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098019849380 [Google Scholar]
  32. I. Anguelovski, J. Connolly, H. Cole, M. Garcia-Lamarca, M. Triguero-Mas, F. Bare, J. Martinez-Minaya. Green gentrification in European and North American cities. Nature Communications, 13(1) (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-31572-1 [Google Scholar]
  33. N. Serrano, L. Schmidt, A. Eyler, R. Brownson. Perspectives from public health practitioners and advocates on community development for active living: what are the lasting impacts?. American Journal of Health Promotion, 38(1) (2023) 80-89. https://doi.org/10.1177/08901171231198403 [Google Scholar]
  34. H. Lemekh, H. Changing the landscape of an american town: immigrantrification of a korean ethnoburb and its cultural and economic consequences. Journal of International Migration and Integration / Revue De L Integration Et De La Migration Internationale, 24(3) (2022), 1039–1065. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-022-00990-x [Google Scholar]
  35. A.K. Fard, M. Paydar, V.G. Navarrete. Urban park design and pedestrian mobility—case study: temuco, chile. Sustainability, 15(20) (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014804 [Google Scholar]
  36. X. Wang, S. Rodiek. Older adults' preference for landscape features along urban park walkways in Nanjing, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(20) (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16203808 [Google Scholar]
  37. J. Mercadé-Aloy, M. Cervera-Alonso-de-Medina. Enhancing Access to Urban Hill Parks: The Montjuïc Trail Masterplan and the 360° Route Design in Barcelona. Land, 13(1) (2024). https://doi.org/10.3390/land13010002 [Google Scholar]
  38. H. Petryshyn, O. Kryvoruchko, H. Lukashchuk, N. Danylko, O. Klishch. Changing the Qualities of Urban Space by Means of Landscape Architecture. Architectural Studies, 8(1) (2022) 22–33. https://doi.org/10.56318/as2022.01.022 [Google Scholar]
  39. G. Stauskis, G Multicriteria assessment of landscape architecture projects: the sustainability perspective. Landscape Architecture and Art, 21(21) (2022), 80–89. https://doi.org/10.22616/j.landarchart.2022.21.08 [Google Scholar]
  40. J. Jakaitis, J. Zukas, J. Intuitive spatial interaction in landscape design. Landscape Architecture and Art, 15(15) (2019) 22–30. https://doi.org/10.22616/j.landarchart.2019.15.02 [Google Scholar]
  41. X. Peng, M.R. Mohamed Afla. A Multi-Dimensional Assessment of Pocket Park Landscapes: Insights from Scenic Beauty Estimation and Analytic Hierarchy Process in Dadukou District, Chongqing. Sustainability (Switzerland), 17(5) (2025). https://doi.org/10.3390/su17052020 [Google Scholar]
  42. Y. Bao, M. Gao, D. Luo, X. Zhou. Urban Parks-A Catalyst for Activities! The Effect of the Perceived Characteristics of the Urban Park Environment on Children's Physical Activity Levels. Forests, 14(2) (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/f14020423 [Google Scholar]
  43. K. Hurst, C. Lee, F. Ndubisi). Universal design in playground environments: A place-based evaluation of amenities, use, and physical activity. Landscape Journal 42 (2) (2023) 55–80 https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.42.2.55 [Google Scholar]
  44. B. Liu, Y. Chen, M. Xiao. The social utility and health benefits for older adults of amenity buildings in China's urban parks: A Nanjing case study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17 (20) (2020) 1–26. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17207497 [Google Scholar]
  45. A. Van Puyvelde, B. Deforche, I. Mertens, E. Rivera, D. Van Dyck, J. Veitch, L. Poppe. Park features that encourage park visitation among older adults: A qualitative study. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 86 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2023.128026 [Google Scholar]
  46. P. Sun, P. Liu, Y. Song. Seasonal variations in urban park characteristics and visitation patterns in Atlanta: A big data study using smartphone user mobility. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 91 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2023.128166 [Google Scholar]
  47. S. Salih, S. Ismail, A. Sabil. The sustainable city: the characteristic public urban green space for enhancing community social sustainability in baghdad. International Journal of Sustainable Construction Engineering Technology, 12(3) (2021) https://doi.org/10.30880/ijscet.2021.12.03.020 [Google Scholar]
  48. Y. Wang, W. Hu. Satisfaction Evaluation and Renewal Strategies for Urban Parks Based on the Importance-Performance Analysis: A Case of Shaping Park in Chongqing, China. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 150(2) (2024). https://doi.org/10.1061/JUPDDM.UPENG-4546 [Google Scholar]
  49. B. Srdjevic, Z. Srdjevic, K.M. Reynolds, M. Lakicevic, S. Zdero. Using Analytic Hierarchy Process and Best-Worst Method in Group Evaluation of Urban Park Quality. Forests, 13(2) (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/f13020290 [Google Scholar]
  50. M. Lin, X. Feng. Relationship between visitor characteristics, physical activity levels and park environment in subtropical areas' urban parks. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 85 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2023.127958 [Google Scholar]
  51. M. Gao, C. Hu. Landscape Design Utilizing Visual Communication Technologies. International Journal of Information System Modeling and Design, 16(1) (2025). https://doi.org/10.4018/IJISMD.368148 [Google Scholar]
  52. M. Paydar, A.K. Fard. The impact of legibility and seating areas on social interaction in the neighbourhood park and plaza. Archnet-Ijar: International Journal of Architectural Research, 15(3) (2021), 571–588. https://doi.org/10.1108/arch-07-2020-0146 [Google Scholar]
  53. B. Feyzi, M. Pazhouhanfar, M. Farrokhzad. Influence of Visual Attribute of Pocket Parks in Increasing Perceived Restorative Potential: a Path Model. Journal of Urban and Environmental Engineering, 16(1) (2022), 73–81. https://doi.org/10.4090/juee.2022.v16n1.073081 [Google Scholar]
  54. S. Luo. Assessing the preference and restorative potential of urban park blue space. Land, 10(11) (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/land10111233 [Google Scholar]
  55. Y. Luo, J. He, Y. Long, L. Xu, L. Zhang, Z. Tang, C. Li, X. Xiong. The Relationship between the Color Landscape Characteristics of Autumn Plant Communities and Public Aesthetics in Urban Parks in Changsha, China. Sustainability (Switzerland), 15(4) (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043119 [Google Scholar]
  56. J. Zhuang, L. Qiao, X. Zhang, Y. Su, Y. Xia. Effects of visual attributes of flower borders in urban vegetation landscapes on aesthetic preference and emotional perception. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(17) (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18179318 [Google Scholar]
  57. A. Jahani, M. Saffariha, M. Aesthetic preference and mental restoration prediction in urban parks: An application of environmental modeling approach. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 54 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126775 [Google Scholar]
  58. K. Cai. Bridging landscape preference and landscape design: A study on the preference and optimal combination of landscape elements based on conjoint analysis. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 73 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127615 [Google Scholar]
  59. Y. Xing, P. Brimblecombe, S. Wang, H. Zhang. Tree distribution, morphology and modelled air pollution in urban parks of Hong Kong. Journal of Environmental Management, 248 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109304 [Google Scholar]
  60. C. Chen. Digital Landscape Architecture Design Combining 3D Image Reconstruction Technology. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 15(8) (2024), 145-154. https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2024.0150815 [Google Scholar]
  61. D. Kim, Y. Son. Differences in Perceptions of Naturalness among Urban Park User Groups in Seoul. International Review for Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development, 10(4) (2022), 112–129. https://doi.org/10.14246/irspsd. 10.4 112 [Google Scholar]
  62. J.A. Belaire, C. Higgins, D. Zoll, K. Lieberknecht, R.P. Bixler, J.L. Neff, T.H. Keitt, S. Jha. Fine-scale monitoring and mapping of biodiversity and ecosystem services reveals multiple synergies and few tradeoffs in urban green space management. Science of the Total Environment, 849 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157801 [Google Scholar]
  63. N. Muhlisin, M. Lubis, S. Nugroho, S. The effect of biodiversity on social interaction in the public parks of Bogor, Indonesia. GeoJournal, 86(5) (2021), 2109–2121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-020-10160-z [Google Scholar]
  64. M. Peng, Y. Hung, K. Liu, K. Neoh. Landscape configuration and habitat complexity shape arthropod assemblage in urban parks. Scientific Reports, 10(1) (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-73121-0 [Google Scholar]
  65. H.I. Jo. Overall environmental assessment in urban parks: Modelling audio-visual interaction with a structural equation model based on soundscape and landscape indices. Building and Environment, 204 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108166 [Google Scholar]
  66. T. Jin, J. Lu, Y. Shao, Y. Exploring the Impact of Visual and Aural Elements in Urban Parks on Human Behavior and Emotional Responses. Land, 13(9) (2024). https://doi.org/10.3390/land13091468 [Google Scholar]
  67. J. Liu, Z. Dan, Z. Yan. Research on a New Soundscape Evaluation Method Suitable for Scenic Areas. Sustainability, 16 (2024). https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093707 [Google Scholar]
  68. Y. Chen, Z. Chen, S. Lin, X. Lin, S. Li, T. Li, J. Dong. Thermal-Acoustic Interaction Impacts on Crowd Behaviors in an Urban Park. Forests, 14(9) (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/f14091758 [Google Scholar]
  69. L. Zhang, H. Xu, J. Pan. Investigating the Relationship between Landscape Design Types and Human Thermal Comfort: Case Study of Beijing Olympic Forest Park. Sustainability (Switzerland), 15(4) (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/su15042969 [Google Scholar]
  70. W. Jia, M. Zhang. Design and Optimization of Landscape Lighting in Urban Parks using Internet of Things Technology. Computer-Aided Design and Applications, 20(S11) (2023), 58–70. https://doi.org/10.14733/cadaps.2023.S11.58-70 [Google Scholar]
  71. J. Yuan, Z. Wang, S. Xing, C. Kim. Evaluation Study on the Smart and Interactive Landscape Design of Haiyuntai Waterfront Park from the Perspective of a Sustainable City. Land, 14(2) (2025). https://doi.org/10.3390/land14020357 [Google Scholar]
  72. M. Franëk, L. Rezny, D. Sefara, J. Cabal. Effect of birdsongs and traffic noise on pedestrian walking speed during different seasons. Peerj, 7, (2019). https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7711 [Google Scholar]
  73. F. Kazemi, N. Hossein pour, H. Mahdizadeh. Sustainable low-input urban park design based on some decision-making methods. Land Use Policy, 117. (2022) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106092 [Google Scholar]
  74. X. Chen, M. Hedayati Marzbali. How urban park features impact perceived safety by considering the role of time spent in the park, gender, and parental status. Cities, 153 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.105272 [Google Scholar]
  75. M. Mihinjac, G. Saville. Third-generation crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED). Social Sciences, 8(6) (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8060182 [Google Scholar]
  76. A. Askari, S. Soltani. CPTED Principles and Preventing Crimes: The Cases from Shiraz City, Iran. Journal of Design and Built Environment: 23(2) (2023) https://doi.org/10.22452/jdbe.vol23no2.1 [Google Scholar]
  77. S. Chen, K.M. Christensen, S. Li. A comparison of park access with park need for children: A case study in Cache County, Utah. Landscape and Urban Planning, 187 (2019) 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.04.001 [Google Scholar]
  78. N. Bhor,. D. Mayavel. The Socio-Spatial Distribution and Equity of Access to Urban Parks: A Case Study of Bengaluru, India. Challenges 15(2), 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/challe15020020 [Google Scholar]
  79. S. Zhang. Urban Parks Quality Assessment Using Multi-Dimension Indicators in Chengdu, China. Land, 13(1) (2024). https://doi.org/10.3390/land13010086 [Google Scholar]
  80. J. Veitch, N. Biggs, B. Deforche, A. Timperio. What do adults want in parks? a qualitative study using walk-along interviews. BMC Public Health, 22(1) (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13064-5 [Google Scholar]
  81. X. Cheng, S. Van Damme, P. Uyttenhove. Assessing the Impact of Park Renovations on Cultural Ecosystem Services. Land, 11(5) (2022), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11050610 [Google Scholar]
  82. L. Taylor, E. Leckey, P. Lead, D. Hochuli. What visitors want from urban parks: diversity, utility, serendipity. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 8 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2020.595620 [Google Scholar]
  83. C. Xin, V. D. Sylvie, L. Luyuan, U. Pieter. Taking "social relations" as a cultural ecosystem service: A triangulation approach. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 55 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126790 [Google Scholar]
  84. H. Fu, J. Guan, Q. Zhong, L. Fu, Y. Jian, J. Li. Landscape Elements, ecosystem services and users' Happiness: An indicator framework for park management based on cognitive appraisal theory. Ecological Indicators, 165(2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112209 [Google Scholar]
  85. Y. Yousofpour, L. Abolhassani, S. Hirabayashi, D. Burgess, M. Sabouhi Sabouni, M. Daneshvarkakhki. (2024). Ecosystem services and economic values provided by urban park trees in the air polluted city of Mashhad. Sustainable Cities and Society, 101 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.105110 [Google Scholar]
  86. A.J. Marshall. Communicating biophilic design: Start with the grasslands. Frontiers in Built Environment, 5 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2019.00001 [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.