You are on page 1of 17


Urban Studies
2018, Vol. 55(9) 1983–1999
Ó Urban Studies Journal Limited 2017
Assessing the public transport service Reprints and permissions:
to urban parks on the basis of spatial DOI: 10.1177/0042098017705846
accessibility for citizens in the
compact megacity of Shanghai, China

Huilin Liang
Nanjing Forestry University, China

Qingping Zhang
Nanjing Forestry University, China

Urban parks and public transport are indispensable elements of a compact megacity for their
environmental and social values. However, few measures of urban park accessibility have consid-
ered the public transport travel mode. Based on the framework of geographic information sys-
tems (GIS) network analysis, this study proposes an innovative method to incorporate public
transport travel mode into urban park accessibility evaluations. Taking Shanghai, China, as the
study area, we measured home to park and park from home travel times on multi-modal trans-
port networks, calculated the accessibilities by multiple equations, and compared accessibilities
for different districts. These methods extend current accessibility measures by calculating accessi-
bility at a realistic level, and provide a measure of public transport service for urban parks. The
results for Shanghai show that approximately 99.95% of home to park routes might include public
transport. The distribution of home to park public transport accessibility of the city was uneven.
The patches with best accessibility tend to be distributed in the built-up area in the city centre.
Public transport access to urban parks is inhomogeneous for different districts, because of urban
park locations, road network characteristics, and uneven public transport supply. The distribution
of park from home public transport accessibility has no significant correlation with district devel-
opment stage. Public transport service in Shanghai takes no account of the factors of park star
rating or size. Positive actions are required to improve the equity of public transport access to
the important public health resources of urban parks.

accessibility, geographic information systems (GIS), public transport, Shanghai, urban green space,
urban park

Corresponding author:
Qingping Zhang, College of Landscape Architecture,
Nanjing Forestry University, 159 Longpan Road, Nanjing
210037, China.
1984 Urban Studies 55(9)

ഝਟ䗮ᙗⲴ㺑䟿ᤷḷѝ勌ᴹ㘳㲁‫ޜ‬Ӕࠪ㹼ᯩᔿⲴDŽᵜ⹄ウสҾൠ⨶ؑ᚟㌫㔏 (GIS)
㔃᷌ᱮ⽪ˈӾᇦࡠ‫ޜ‬ഝⲴ䐟㓯ѝབྷ㓖 99.95%

ਟ䗮ᙗǃൠ⨶ؑ᚟㌫㔏 (GIS)ǃ‫ޡޜ‬Ӕ䙊ǃк⎧ǃ෾ᐲ㔯ൠǃ෾ᐲ‫ޜ‬ഝ

Received September 2016; accepted March 2017

Introduction in China, has limited urban parks and well

developed public transportation. There is a
Urban parks are indispensable elements great need to assess the public transport
of a compact megacity for their crucial envi- service to urban parks on the basis of
ronmental (Chiesura, 2004; Liang et al., 2017) accessibility for citizens in the compact
and social functions (Van Dillen et al., 2012). megacity of Shanghai.
In particular, they provide citizens with open- Citizens usually go to parks directly from
air physical activity spaces for aesthetic their residence (McCormack et al., 2010).
(Barbosa et al., 2007), psychological Home to park public transport access is influ-
(Germann-Chiari and Seeland, 2004), restora- enced by factors such as road layout, traffic
tive (Ulrich, 1984), and recreational functions conditions (Cutts et al., 2009), arrangement of
(Takano et al., 2002). To experience the bene- public transport routes and stops, residence
fits of activities in urban parks, citizens must location (La Rosa, 2014), and park distribution
have reasonable access to these resources and attraction (Kaczynski et al., 2008; Talen,
(Reyes et al., 2014). Geographical accessibility 1997). Urban parks with convenient public
assessment is the starting point for investigat- transport service and shorter distance are pre-
ing land utilisation (Kang, 2015). Increasing ferred (Hörnsten and Fredman, 2000), and the
car usage and dependence has resulted in neg- attractiveness of a public open space is associ-
ative effects on physical (Paulley et al., 2006) ated with the probability of a high level of
and environmental health (Gorham et al., access (Giles-Corti et al., 2005). Citizens might
2002; Shannon et al., 2006), and public trans- also like to visit more distant urban parks that
port modes are becoming more important have more attractions. For the current study,
(Costa and Markellos, 1997; Hensher, 2007). the factor of elevation height need not be con-
Reasonable public transport access to urban sidered as Shanghai is located on a plain.
parks is essential and should be considered Many previous studies have focused on
for the sustainable development of cities, assessing accessibility to urban green spaces
especially compact megacities. Shanghai, or urban parks. Some studies conducted
the largest and most densely populated city access measurement via simple radius
Liang and Zhang 1985

buffering method (Moseley et al., 2013; choosing which park. None of the previous
Nicholls and Shafer, 2001; Potestio et al., studies have addressed all of the issues above.
2009; Richardson et al., 2010). This method is GIS network analysis methods could be used
straightforward and often used in early stud- and combined with suitable calculation meth-
ies, but encounters three main issues: (1) citi- ods to assess the public transport accessibility
zens may not go to the closest green space or to urban parks or green spaces and tackle the
park for various reasons, such as its size, issues above. The interactions of different
attractiveness, or socialising with friends; (2) parks and neighbourhoods and complex desti-
it neglects the spatial distribution of green nation selection factors are required to be con-
spaces or urban parks; (3) it ignores accessibil- sidered. Citizens may choose a park because of
ity of realistic access routes. Some studies used its attractiveness. Some previous studies con-
gravity models to assess accessibility with the sidered accessibility by public transport mode
distance from each neighbourhood to each (Lee, 2005; Mao and Nekorchuk, 2013;
green space as travel friction (Hillsdon et al., Mavoa et al., 2012; O’Sullivan et al., 2000;
2006; Li et al., 2005). This method may Widener et al., 2015; Yigitcanlar et al., 2007),
address the first issue, but the others remain but these studies were all focused on public
unsolved. As the focus on geographical acces- health functional destinations, rather than
sibility increased, Euclidean, Manhattan, and urban parks or urban green spaces.
vector-based road network distances have Shanghai has relatively low car ownership
been used for calculating accessibility mea- owing to a long period of strong regulatory
sures (Apparicio et al., 2008; Higgs et al., controls including a quota system on registra-
2012). Some studies incorporated statistical tions, high public transport supply and strong
analysis of trip length on the basis of survey ridership and mode share. Thus, Shanghai is a
data and simple Euclidean distance (Coombes good case study to explore public transport
et al., 2010; Dai, 2011; Kessel et al., 2009). access to parks. To bridge this gap in the body
These methods address the first and second of knowledge of public transport access to
issues, but the third remains unsolved. To urban parks, we used GIS to measure home to
address the three main issues, some studies park public transport accessibility for the com-
used vector-based road network distance, pact megacity of Shanghai. Our objectives were
which is significantly more precise than to: (1) provide a new approach for assessing
Euclidean or Manhattan, to assess accessibil- accessibility by public transport to urban parks;
ity (La Rosa, 2014; Sander et al., 2010). With (2) assess the arrangement and supply of public
the development of geographic information transport to urban parks in the compact mega-
systems (GIS) network analysis modules, city of Shanghai on the basis of accessibility via
more advanced methods for vector-based multiple transportation modes, such as rail
road network distance evaluations were transits, buses and ferries; (3) assist planners
applied and integrated with urban landscape and policy makers to develop intervention pro-
characteristics (Comber et al., 2008; Kuta grammes for planning, construction, and devel-
et al., 2014; Nicholls, 2001; Oh and Jeong, opment of the compact megacity of Shanghai.
2007; Talen and Anselin, 1998). However,
these GIS network analysis methods fail to Materials and methods
include accessibility by public transport mode
and encounter some new issues, such as access Study area
from different neighbourhoods to the same The study area centres on the city of
green space, and the park size may not suffi- Shanghai (121 °50#E, 31 °40#N), which is
cient to include complex options citizen the largest and most densely populated city
1986 Urban Studies 55(9)

Figure 1. Study area.

in China (Figure 1). Covering an area of York and 2.8 that of London (Wang et al.,
634,050 ha, it has 17 districts, including eight 2012). After the Shanghai World Expo in
old and nine new towns (Table 1). The popu- 2010, the green ratio of the city and its built-
lation density of Shanghai was 13,400 people up area exceeded 20% and 37%, respec-
per km2 in 2010, almost 1.6 that of New tively. The per capita green cover of the city
Liang and Zhang 1987

Table 1. Shanghai districts’ basic information (2013).

Development stage District Abbreviation Green cover (m2/capita) Park count

Old town Huangpu HP 1.79 12

Xuhui XH 5.55 11
Changning CN 7.27 13
Jiang’an JA 1.58 3
Putuo PT 6.11 17
Zhabei ZB 3.42 7
Hongkou HK 1.95 9
Yangpu YP 4.26 14
New district Pudong PD 24.39 25
Minhang MH 24.34 10
Baoshan BS 24.30 14
Jiading JD 25.38 5
Jinshan JS 17.99 7
Songjiang SJ 14.74 5
Qingpu QP 23.39 3
Fengxian FX 12.08 1
Chongming CM 10.02 2
Total (Shanghai) – – 13.38 158

was 13.38 m2 in 2014, which, compared with The list of urban parks in Shanghai and
other cities in the world, is much less than their various characteristics are published
adequate (Fuller and Gaston, 2009). As a con- annually. For this study, we used data from
gested and compact city with meagre ground the end of 2014, which listed 161 public
urban green space, it is essential to enhance urban parks in Shanghai, distributed as
the usage efficiency of Shanghai’s urban green shown in Figure 1.
space. Along with the city’s rapid urbanisa- The Shanghai Administration Department
tion and economic development, both urban of Afforestation and City Appearance orga-
park and public transit in Shanghai had great nise and publicise star ratings (i.e. 5, 4, 3, 2,
development. In Shanghai, there were 40 pub- and 1) for the parks in Shanghai every year.
lic transit lines in the early 1950s and more The standards for park rating (http://
than 1300 public transit lines in 2014. From were studied, written and
1995 to 1999, 23 new urban parks covering amended by professionals on the basis of
293.9 ha were built. In spite of fast develop- public consultation. The factors considered in
ment, urban parks in Shanghai are still lim- the standards for park rating, such as
ited. Until 2014, there were 161 urban parks Shanghai park classification, area, visitor
covering 2240.39 ha, only about 0.35% of its numbers, facilities, security, service, land-
city area. scape and scenic, maintenance and manage-
ment, were rational and comprehensive. On
the basis of a large survey via varieties of
Data preparation ways and methods, the park rating in
Our research focused on Shanghai’s publi- Shanghai was on the focus of citizen’s con-
cally accessible parks. Park data was sourced cern and on the basis of actual situation. The
from the official website of Shanghai star rating of urban parks might not reflect
Administration Department of Afforestation all aspects of park attractions, but it includes
and City Appearance ( the general factors that concerned citizens,
1988 Urban Studies 55(9)

Table 2. Shanghai public roads’ passing mode. 2000); public transport refers to bus, rail
transit and ferry in this research. The public
Road type Passing mode transport data for buses, rail transits, and
Freeway Driving ferries included transport stops, routes, and
First-class road Driving and walking schedules. Since trips to urban parks are usu-
Second-class road Driving and walking ally during daytime, our study focused on
Third-class road Driving and walking daytime public transport routes. Details of
Fourth-class road Driving and walking
Pedestrian Walking
the more than 1400 public transport routes
used in this study are summarised in Table 3.
As well as park and transportation data,
and is by far the most reliable, convincing other data were compiled from a number of
and important evaluation to directly indicate key sources, purchased from the government
park attractions to citizens and travellers, (, including satellite
and partly determines visit options. The images (resolution of 0.5 m 3 0.5 m, taken in
Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards 2015) and digital maps of district boundary,
(ANGS) (Handley and Nature, 2003) classi- park and community. Field trips for parks
fied parks in Shanghai by size for four cate- and public transport condition in Shanghai
gories: R1 (0–2 ha), R2 (2–20 ha), R3 (20– were performed in May 2015 to check and
100 ha), and R4 (100–500 ha). Shanghai validate the compiled data, and the data were
parks’ star rating and area rank are sum- subsequently input to ArcGIS (10.2 Esri) soft-
marised in Figure S1 (available online). ware for geo-referencing and digitising.
Transportation data for 2014 were com- This study uses spatial data, the network
piled and purchased from the government analysis toolbox in ArcGIS, and multilevel
(, including road models to obtain the spatial accessibility
and public transport digital maps. The from home to urban park via public trans-
Shanghai public road and public transport port to assess the public transport service to
networks are shown in Figure S2 (available urban parks. The research methodology is
online). The public road network contains illustrated in Figure 2. GIS network analysis
six road types, as shown in Table 2. Public was employed to calculate the distance or
transport is the transportation of people by travel time of the shortest network path
means of buses, trains, or other vehicles run- from site access points and provide the
ning on fixed routes (Collins Dictionary, actual routes of site catchment. After

Table 3. Shanghai districts’ basic information.

Route type Count Average speed


Rail transit 15 430 (maglev railway)

60 (metro line 16)
45 (metro line 2, 3)
40 (metro line 5)
35 (metro line 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13)
30 (metro line 6, 10)
Bus route within built-up area 534 20
Bus route outside of built-up area 417 30
Bus route commuting between built-up area and suburbs 435 40
Ferry 20 20
Liang and Zhang 1989

Figure 2. Schematic of the proposed method.

digitising, the road and public transport public transport or walking mode. Distance
data were edited as components to create a and travel time from community entrance to
multi-modal transport network. The multi- park entrance were calculated. The distance of
modal transport network combines the net- 800 m (approximately 0.5 mile) was typically
works of walking streets and roads and pub- used as the maximum likely walking distances
lic transport, using travel time and distance as for people to walk to a park (National
network impedances. The walk travel time for Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2002;
each street segment was calculated by the Donahue, 2015; LaPlante and Kaeser, 2007;
length of the street segment and walking Sherret, 1979), i.e. if the distance between a
speed 1.2 m/s, based on field observations of community and park was not more than 800
walking speeds in China (Yang et al., 2006). m, walking mode was assumed. For larger dis-
Public transport travel time for each route tances, other modes, such as public transport,
segment was calculated using the length of the would be taken.
route segment and the speed for each route. Public transport travel time includes four
parts: access to origin transport stops via
Public transport travel time calculation walking, transport waiting time, duration of
public transport journey from origin to des-
methods tination transport stops, and access to urban
We considered potential access from more parks via walking. Only transport stops
than 8900 communities to 161 urban parks via within 400 m of the community and park
1990 Urban Studies 55(9)

entrances were considered as origin and des- Academy of Social Sciences (
tination transport stops (El-Geneidy et al.,
2010; Hsiao et al., 1997). For a given com-
munity, i, and park, j, the quickest travel Home to park public transport accessibility
time from the community entrance – the calculation methods
transition space between the residential quar-
ters to the urban space for most urban resi- In this study, the accessibility indices of pub-
dential area were closed managed in China – lic transport mode include: (1) the quickest
to the park entrance via public transport is: travel time by public transport; (2) the short-
est distance via public transport; (3) park
Min PTij = MinðCSii Þ + Min SSij attraction value. Based on the accessibility
  ð1Þ measurement studied by Geertman and
+ Min SPjj + Wt ,
Ritsema Van Eck (1995), the public trans-
  port accessibility calculation formula for
where Min PTij is the quickest travel time
from the community to park entrances via community to urban parks was:
public transport; MinðCSii Þ, is the shortest Xn   
walking time from the community entrance PTi = j=1
ppij Min PTij , ð2Þ
to the transport stop within 400 m, calcu-
lated from origin destination (OD) cost where, for a given community, i, and park, j,
matrices based on the walking street network PTi is the average weighted public transport
using travel
 from the community to the parks;
 400 m as the default cutoff value; Min PTij is quickest the travel time from the
Min SPjj is the shortest walking time from
the transport stop within 400 m of the park community to park entrances via public
entrance to the entrance, calculated from OD transport; and ppij is the coefficient of resi-
cost matrixes based on the walking street net- dents’ willingness from community i to park
work j via public transport:
 400 m as the default cutoff value; vj
Min SSij is the fastest public transport travel pdija
time from the transport stop within 400 m of ppij = P vj , ð3Þ
j pdija
the community entrance to the transport stop
within 400 m of the park entrance, calculated where a is a decay factor (2.0); vj is the
by OD cost matrixes based on the multi- attraction value of park j, assigned value by
modal network. In Shanghai, waiting times the park’s star rating; pdij is the shortest dis-
are different for different bus or subway lines, tance by public transport from the commu-
at different stations and different times. The nity entrance to the park entrance.
waiting times are generally shorter when traf-
fic is heavy, such as the rush hour, and vice
versa. This narrows the total travel time dif-
Park from home public transport
ferences caused by traffic condition. In this accessibility calculation methods
study, to simplify the calculation, waiting time The public transport accessibility calculation
for a change in transport mode was used as a formula for urban park from communities was:
variable static in the travel time calculation, as Xn   
traffic factors such as traffic jams were left out PTj = ppij Min PTij , ð4Þ
in the equation. Wt is the average waiting time
for a change in transport mode and is set to 7 where, for a given park, j, and community, i,
minutes, based on field observations of trans- PTj is the average weighted public transport
port services in Shanghai by the Shanghai travel time for urban park from the
Liang and Zhang 1991

Figure 3. Home to park walking areas.

communities; Min PTij is quickest the travel Results
time from the community to park entrances
via public transport; and ppij is the public
Public transport service area
transport mode probability from the com- Within easy walking distance, citizens may
munity to the park. go to the park from home on foot. As the
1992 Urban Studies 55(9)

Figure 4. Home to park proportion of public transport by district.

threshold set as 800 m, the possible park towns than in new districts. Hence citizens
walking areas were shown in Figure 3. Most living in new districts tend to rely more on
walking areas are in the built-up regions, public transport to go to parks than those
especially the largest region around the city living in old towns.
centre. This is partly because the majority of
urban parks in Shanghai are located in the
built-up area, particularly the city centre, Home to park public transport accessibility
and also because communities tend to be The distribution of home to park public
closer to urban parks in the downtown area. transport accessibility is uneven, as shown in
Citizens prefer public transport to auto- Figure 5. It shows strong space polarisation,
mobiles for multiple reasons, such as strong with public transport accessibility decreasing
regulatory controls of private car, heavy from the centre to fringe regions of the city.
traffic and environmental factors (Costa and The patches with best accessibility tend to be
Markellos, 1997; Gorham et al., 2002; distributed in the built-up area in the city
Hensher, 2007; Paulley et al., 2006; Shannon centre. Most areas of Chongming island, the
et al., 2006). Hence, for home to park or southwestern region of the city, and the
park from home distances larger than 800 regions along the southeastern coast line,
m, public transport is the main method for have the worst home to park public trans-
home to park commuting. Considering only port accessibility. Figure 6 shows that acces-
public transport mode when distances sibility in the eight old towns is significantly
between home and park are above 800 m, better than for the nine new districts: the
approximately 99.95% of home to park means of home to park public transport
routes in Shanghai would include public accessibility in old towns are all below 8
transport, as shown by district in Figure 4. minutes, whereas the new districts are all
The proportion of public transport routes to above 10 minutes. The home to park public
parks from communities are less for older transport accessibility of Chongming island
Liang and Zhang 1993

Figure 5. Home to park public transport accessibility overall.

is significantly worse than the other 16 dis- Park from home public transport
tricts, as shown in Figure 6. It indicates that accessibility
the community public transport service to
Unlike the distribution of home to park
urban parks is generally better in the old
public transport accessibility (Figure 5), the
towns than new districts. The Chongming
distribution of park from home public trans-
district has the most inconvenient home to
port accessibility (Figure 7) has no correla-
park public transport.
tion with district development stage.
1994 Urban Studies 55(9)

Figure 6. Home to park public transport accessibility by district.

Although the communities in built-up area Home to park public transport accessibility
and old towns have better community to and demographics
park public transport accessibility than
Figure 8 shows the negative relationship
those outside of built-up areas or in new dis-
between average home to park weighted
tricts, parks in built-up areas and old towns
public transport travel time and population
do not have better park from home public
densities of districts. As population density
transport accessibility than those outside of
increases, home to park access time via pub-
built-up area or in new districts. The parks
lic transport decreases, i.e. districts with
with higher star rating usually need better
more dense populations often have better
park from home public transport accessibil-
home to park public transport accessibility.
ity. Unfortunately, the park from home pub-
Hence allocation of public transport for
lic transport accessibility does not have
park visits in Shanghai broadly follows the
positive correlation with the star rating of
population distribution.
urban parks (Figure 7). Many parks with
higher star rating have worse public trans-
port accessibility, while many parks with
lower star rating have better public trans-
port accessibility, such as the five parks (1 The distribution of park public transport
for star rating 5, 1 for star rating 4, 1 for star accessibility is broadly related to population
rating 2 and 2 for star rating 1) outside of distribution. It might be because of the local
built-up area at the southeast part of planning requirements for green spaces and
Pudong district. The park from home acces- parks. Also different development stage
sibility has no correlation with park rating might be another reason. Unlike old towns
or size. It indicates that public transport ser- with a long development history, new dis-
vice in Shanghai takes no account of the fac- tricts are still being developed and have more
tors of park star rating or size. need of parks construction and public
Liang and Zhang 1995

Figure 7. Park from home public transport accessibility overall.

transport services improvement. Considering old towns, and particularly in Chongming

only public transport mode, approximately island. Various factors could contribute to
99.95% of home to park routes beyond walk- the difference, such as low density public
ing scope for citizens require public trans- transport networks, indirect public transport
port. Public transport service to urban parks routes, inefficient transport stop arrange-
is quite unequal in the 17 districts. It is much ments, and inadequate park distribution.
worse in the nine new districts than the eight Thus, increasing the public transport supply
1996 Urban Studies 55(9)

Figure 8. Home to park public transport accessibility and population density by district.

and park construction according to the anal- GIS network analysis), entrance to entrance
ysis results in this paper would reduce the OD cost matrixes, and multiple accessibility
inconvenience and disparity of citizen’s park on the basis of home to park paths; (4) this
catchment. Home to park public transport research assessed home to park and park
accessibility in the 17 districts, especially the from home access via public transport mode
new districts, could be improved by adding and analysed the results to evaluate public
urban parks, optimising locations between transport supply for urban parks.
parks and communities, and supplementing However, there are some limitations. This
public transport service supply. Public trans- study did not source information directly
port service improvement in Shanghai could from residents to develop and calibrate the
take account of the factors of the park, such accessibility measures. The duration of public
as park star rating or size. transport journey was assumed to be the crit-
This research provides four important ical factor for route selection, which neglects
contributions: (1) Urban park accessibility the effects of transport transfer. Some citi-
measures are focused on public transport zens may prefer public transport journeys
modes, which fills a gap in the literature; (2) with less transfers rather than strictly shorter
more accurate and advanced calculations duration. We used a fixed 7 minutes average
than previous studies (Coombes et al., 2010; public transport waiting time to calculate
Comber et al., 2008; Dai, 2011; Neuvonen total travel time, but this does not consider
et al., 2007; Oh and Jeong, 2007) from some traffic factors for more realistic scenar-
employing access distance and park star rat- ios, such as service frequency, traffic condi-
ings as variables; (3) based on the spatial dis- tion and waiting times for different transit
tribution of urban parks, the methods lines, at different stations and different times.
applied here provided more precision and Different service frequencies may cause
objectiveness than the literature in many markedly different wait times for different
respects, such as actual travel path (from commuting times and routes. Different traffic
Liang and Zhang 1997

conditions and waiting times may cause space? A case study from Sheffield, UK. Land-
markedly different travel time for different scape and Urban Planning 83: 187–195.
traffic lines and at different times. Other vari- Chiesura A (2004) The role of urban parks for the
ables in perceptions of different parks, week- sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Plan-
day/weekend, seasonal, etc. which may cause ning 68: 129–138.
Collins English Dictionary (2000) Available at:
different accessibility were neither not consid-
ered. These factors are needed to be consid- english (accessed 10 February 2007).
ered and analysed in more detail for the Comber A, Brunsdon C and Green E (2008)
accessibility assessment in future study. Using a GIS-based network analysis to deter-
mine urban greenspace accessibility for differ-
ent ethnic and religious groups. Landscape and
Conclusions Urban Planning 86: 103–114.
Coombes E, Jones AP and Hillsdon M (2010)
This research proposed a measure for public The relationship of physical activity and over-
transport accessibility to urban parks, ana- weight to objectively measured green space
lysed multi-mode transport home to park accessibility and use. Social Science and Medi-
accessibility for the megacity of Shanghai, cine 70: 816–822.
and provided valuable insights for urban Costa Á and Markellos RN (1997) Evaluating
planners and designers to develop a sustain- public transport efficiency with neural net-
able city with an equal and accessible public work models. Transportation Research Part C:
transport service to urban parks. Combining Emerging Technologies 5: 301–312.
GIS network analysis and accessibility cal- Cutts BB, Darby KJ, Boone CG, et al. (2009) City
structure, obesity, and environmental justice:
culation methods, the methods applied here
An integrated analysis of physical and social
allowed a more realistic estimation of public barriers to walkable streets and park access.
transport accessibility than reported previ- Social Science and Medicine 69: 1314–1322.
ously. The findings can assist in presenting Dai D (2011) Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic
the abundance and/or shortage of public disparities in urban green space accessibility:
transport provision for urban parks in Where to intervene? Landscape and Urban
Shanghai, improving public transport ser- Planning 102: 234–244.
vice, and optimising urban park distribution Donahue R (2015) Pedestrians and park planning:
to ensure convenience in accessibility. How far will people walk. City Parks Blog.
Available at:
Funding people-walk/.
This research received no specific grant from any El-Geneidy AM, Tetreault P and Surprenant-
funding agency in the public, commercial, or Legault J (2010) Pedestrian access to transit:
not-for-profit sectors. Identifying redundancies and gaps using a vari-
able service area analysis. Transportation
Research Board 89th Annual Meeting, Washing-
References ton, DC. Washington, DC: Transportation
Apparicio P, Abdelmajid M, Riva M, et al. Research Board of the National Academies.
(2008) Comparing alternative approaches to Fuller RA and Gaston KJ (2009) The scaling of
measuring the geographical accessibility of green space coverage in European cities. Biol-
urban health services: Distance types and ogy Letters 5: 352–355.
aggregation-error issues. International Journal Geertman SC and Ritsema van Eck JR (1995)
of Health Geographics 7: 7. GIS and models of accessibility potential: An
Barbosa O, Tratalos JA, Armsworth PR, et al. application in planning. International Journal
(2007) Who benefits from access to green of Geographical Information Systems 9: 67–80.
1998 Urban Studies 55(9)

Germann-Chiari C and Seeland K (2004) Are Kessel A, Green J, Pinder R, et al. (2009) Multi-
urban green spaces optimally distributed to disciplinary research in public health: A case
act as places for social integration? Results of study of research on access to green space.
a geographical information system (GIS) Public Health 123: 32–38.
approach for urban forestry research. Forest Kuta AA, Odumosu JO, Ajayi OG, et al. (2014)
Policy and Economics 6: 3–13. Using a GIS-based network analysis to deter-
Giles-Corti B, Broomhall MH, Knuiman M, et al. mine urban greenspace accessibility for differ-
(2005) Increasing walking: How important is ent socio-economic groups, specifically related
distance to, attractiveness, and size of public to deprivation in Leicester, UK. Civil and Envi-
open space? American Journal of Preventive ronmental Research 6: 12–20.
Medicine 28: 169–176. La Rosa D (2014) Accessibility to greenspaces:
Gorham R, Black W and Nijkamp P (2002) Car GIS based indicators for sustainable planning
dependence as a social problem. In: Black WR in a dense urban context. Ecological Indicators
and Nijkamp P (eds) Social Change and Sus- 42: 122–134.
tainable Transport. Bloomington, IN: Indian Laplante J and Kaeser TP (2007) A history of
University Press, pp. 107–115. pedestrian signal walking speed assumptions.
Hörnsten L and Fredman P (2000) On the dis- 3rd Urban Street Symposium, 24–27 June
tance to recreational forests in Sweden. Land- 2007, Seattle, Washington, USA: 1–8.
scape and Urban Planning 51: 1–10. Lee BH-Y (2005) Parcel-level measure of public
Handley J and Nature E (2003) Accessible Natu- transit accessibility to destinations. In: Levin-
ral Green Space Standards in Towns and Cities: son DM and Krizek KJ (eds) Access to Desti-
A Review and Toolkit for their Implementation. nations, pp. 215–242.
Peterborough: English Nature. Li F, Fisher KJ, Brownson RC, et al. (2005)
Hensher DA (2007) Sustainable public transport Multilevel modelling of built environment
systems: Moving towards a value for money characteristics related to neighbourhood
and network-based approach and away from walking activity in older adults. Journal of
blind commitment. Transport Policy 14: 98–102. Epidemiology and Community Health 59:
Higgs G, Fry R and Langford M (2012) Investi- 558–564.
gating the implications of using alternative Liang H, Chen D and Zhang Q (2017) Assessing
GIS-based techniques to measure accessibility urban green space distribution in a compact
to green space. Environment and Planning-Part megacity by landscape metrics. Journal of
B 39: 326. Environmental Engineering and Landscape
Hillsdon M, Panter J, Foster C, et al. (2006) The Management 25(1): 64–67.
relationship between access and quality of McCormack GR, Rock M, Toohey AM, et al.
urban green space with population physical (2010) Characteristics of urban parks associ-
activity. Public Health 120: 1127–1132. ated with park use and physical activity: A
Hsiao S, Lu J, Sterling J, et al. (1997) Use of geo- review of qualitative research. Health and
graphic information system for analysis of Place 16: 712–726.
transit pedestrian access. Transportation Mao L and Nekorchuk D (2013) Measuring spa-
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation tial accessibility to healthcare for populations
Research Board 1604: 50–59. with multiple transportation modes. Health
Kaczynski AT, Potwarka LR and Saelens BE and Place 24: 115–122.
(2008) Association of park size, distance, and Mavoa S, Witten K, McCreanor T, et al. (2012)
features with physical activity in neighbor- GIS based destination accessibility via public
hood parks. American Journal of Public Health transit and walking in Auckland, New Zeal-
98: 1451–1456. and. Journal of Transport Geography 20:
Kang C-D (2015) The effects of spatial accessibil- 15–22.
ity and centrality to land use on walking in Moseley D, Marzano M, Chetcuti J, et al. (2013)
Seoul, Korea. Cities 46: 94–103. Green networks for people: Application of a
Liang and Zhang 1999

functional approach to support the planning Environment and Planning. B, Planning and
and management of greenspace. Landscape Design 37: 874.
and Urban Planning 116: 1–12. Shannon T, Giles-Corti B, Pikora T, et al. (2006)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Active commuting in a university setting:
(2002) National Survey of Pedestrian and Bicy- Assessing commuting habits and potential for
clist Attitudes and Behaviors. Washington, DC: modal change. Transport Policy 13: 240–253.
US Department of Transportation. Sherret A (1979) BART’s First Five Years: Trans-
Neuvonen M, Sievänen T, Tönnes S, et al. (2007) portation and Travel Impacts: Final Report.
Access to green areas and the frequency of vis- Washington, DC: US Department of
its – A case study in Helsinki. Urban Forestry Transportation.
and Urban Greening 6: 235–247. Takano T, Nakamura K and Watanabe M (2002)
Nicholls S (2001) Measuring the accessibility and Urban residential environments and senior cit-
equity of public parks: A case study using izens’ longevity in megacity areas: The impor-
GIS. Managing Leisure 6: 201–219. tance of walkable green spaces. Journal of
Nicholls S and Shafer CS (2001) Measuring acces- Epidemiology and Community Health 56:
sibility and equity in a local park system: The 913–918.
utility of geospatial technologies to park and Talen E (1997) The social equity of urban service
recreation professionals. Journal of Park and distribution: An exploration of park access in
Recreation Administration 19: 102–124. Pueblo, Colorado, and Macon, Georgia.
O’Sullivan D, Morrison A and Shearer J (2000) Urban Geography 18: 521–541.
Using desktop GIS for the investigation of Talen E and Anselin L (1998) Assessing spatial
accessibility by public transport: An isochrone equity: An evaluation of measures of accessi-
approach. International Journal of Geographi- bility to public playgrounds. Environment and
cal Information Science 14: 85–104. Planning A 30: 595–613.
Oh K and Jeong S (2007) Assessing the spatial Ulrich R (1984) View through a window may
distribution of urban parks using GIS. Land- influence recovery. Science 224: 224–225.
scape and Urban Planning 82: 25–32. Van Dillen SM, De Vries S, Groenewegen PP,
Paulley N, Balcombe R, Mackett R, et al. (2006) et al. (2012) Greenspace in urban neighbour-
The demand for public transport: The effects hoods and residents’ health: Adding quality to
of fares, quality of service, income and car quantity. Journal of Epidemiology and Commu-
ownership. Transport Policy 13: 295–306. nity Health 66: e8–e8.
Potestio ML, Patel AB, Powell CD, et al. (2009) Wang L, Li C, Ying Q, et al. (2012) China’s urban
Is there an association between spatial access expansion from 1990 to 2010 determined with
to parks/green space and childhood over- satellite remote sensing. Chinese Science Bulle-
weight/obesity in Calgary, Canada? Interna- tin 57: 2802–2812.
tional Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Widener MJ, Farber S, Neutens T, et al. (2015)
Physical Activity 6: 77. Spatiotemporal accessibility to supermarkets
Reyes M, Páez A and Morency C (2014) Walking using public transit: An interaction potential
accessibility to urban parks by children: A case approach in Cincinnati, Ohio. Journal of
study of Montreal. Landscape and Urban Plan- Transport Geography 42: 72–83.
ning 125: 38–47. Yang J, Deng W, Wang J, et al. (2006) Modeling
Richardson E, Pearce J, Mitchell R, et al. (2010) pedestrians’ road crossing behavior in traffic
The association between green space and system micro-simulation in China. Transporta-
cause-specific mortality in urban New Zeal- tion Research Part A: Policy and Practice 40:
and: An ecological analysis of green space util- 280–290.
ity. BMC Public Health 10: 240–254. Yigitcanlar T, Sipe N, Evans R, et al. (2007) A
Sander HA, Ghosh D, Van Riper D, et al. (2010) GIS-based land use and public transport
How do you measure distance in spatial mod- accessibility indexing model. Australian Plan-
els? An example using open-space valuation. ner 44: 30–37.