Similar articles

Abstract: public parks provide many benefits to the community as the representatives of green area. The allocation of public places plays an extremely important role in the daily lives of inhabitants especially for recreational use that could enhance the quality of life of residents in the vicinity. To understand park users’ behavior is one of the most important prerequisites for assessing the participation in public service from the park users’ point of view. The pattern of park utilization on location and activity selection are important elements in behavioral study, while the public parks topograph may also influence the typical user’s behavior. Questionnaire survey on park utilization was used to investigate the interaction between activity involvement and recreational location with the use of linear discriminant analysis (LDA) model. The study found that public park users’ behavior is influenced not only by social characteristics but also by the recreational activities and their specific location characteristics. We found that about 45 percent of park visitors are local residents living within a radius of 3 km preferred travel to parks near their residential area. This implies that location selection behavior is correlated with travel distance, travel time and travel cost. Visit frequencies and on site expenditures reflect the recreation behavior for different type of activities. The overall information can be usefully applied by decision makers to launch appropriate public policy in consistence with the useful results of this study.

[1] Bright, A.D., 2003. A within-subjects/multiple behavior alternative application of the theory of reasoned action: a case study of preferences for recreation facility development. Leisure Sciences, 25:327-340.

[2] Erkip, F., 1997. The distribution of urban public services: the case of parks and recreational services in Ankara. Cities, 14(6):353-361.

[3] Giles-Corti, B., Donovan, R.J., 2002. Socioeconomic status differences in recreational physical activity levels and real and perceived access to a supportive physical environment. Preventive Medicine, 35:601-611.

[4] Gobster, P.H., 2002. Managing urban parks for a racially and ethnically diverse clientele. Leisure Sciences, 24:143-159.

[5] Hwang, S., Lee, C., Chen, H., 2005. The relationship among tourists’ involvement, place attachment and interpretation satisfaction in Taiwan’s national parks. Tourism Management, 26(2):143-156.

[6] Iamtrakul, P., Teknomo, K., Hokao, K., 2004. Accessibility and Attractiveness for Public Park Utilization: A Case Study of Saga, Japan. Proceeding of the International Symposium on Lowland Technology (ISLT 2004), p.319-324.

[7] Mitchell, T.M., 1997. Machine Learning. WCB/McGraw-Hill, Boston, p.154-170.

[8] Roovers, P., Hermy, M., Gulinch, H., 2002. Visitor profile, perceptions and expectations in forests from a gradient of increasing urbanisation in Central Belgium. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59:129-145.