Implementation of city models in China: how residents use different green/blue space

Abstract

Similar to most countries in the world, the rapid process of urbanisation in China has resulted in various environmental crises, like city flooding, ecological diversity reduction, air pollution, water pollution, etc. Moreover, the unpleasant living environment in cities has led to an unhealthy state among residents, both physically and psychologically. As it is commonly acknowledged, green space and blue space can have a restorative effect on human health, both physically and psychologically. To improve the urban environment and residents’ lives, the Chinese government promoted several new city models, for example, Forest City, Sponge City, and Garden City. The application of these city models is intended to reform and reconstruct the urban environment from different perspectives in an integrated way. The city models not only act as urban planning instructions but also as a promotion strategy to convey the impression that the city has a pleasant environment to live in.

Under the instruction of these city models, different types of parks, like forest parks, and wetland parks, have been constructed, and green/blue space in city areas has indeed increased significantly. However, the effectiveness of these city models has usually only been assessed from economic and environmental perspectives, and the residents’ perspective is neglected. Furthermore, the strong awareness of the health benefits of green/blue space is limited to the academic field, and it might have limited effects on encouraging park visits among the residents. Thus, this study tried to figure out two questions concerning these aspects. First, what is the residents’ current understanding and utilisation of parks that are constructed under different city models? Second, do different types of parks influence the way residents use them? And if so, how?

Two cities, Guangzhou and Dongguan, in one of the most developed areas in China, the Pearl River Delta, were selected as study cities. The study applied a three-layered mixed-methods approach to answer the research questions. The first level was a questionnaire survey concerning the general use of three types of parks: wetland parks, forest parks, and ordinary parks. Through a questionnaire investigation, the universal impression and residents’ use of the three types of parks was explored. The second level applied on-site interview surveys to gain a further understanding of why residents visit different parks and why they might engage in different activities in different parks. The third level was a one-day experiment conducted in selected parks, that was intended to compare the three selected parks horizontally. The three-layered method was originally planned to be applied in both cities; however, due to the restrictions on movement because of the COVID pandemic, the experiment was in practice only applied in Dongguan before the outbreak of the pandemic.

The results show that familiarity with the Forest City and Sponge City concepts has limited influence on park visits in both cities. Park distance and visit frequency to other parks significantly influence park use, and age is an influential factor in ordinary park visits in both cities but not in other types of parks. Residents of Dongguan show a strong recognition of the environmental value of parks, especially for forest and wetland parks, whereas residents in Guangzhou show a weaker recognition of this value. Guangzhou residents tend to use parks more from a self-conscious point of view, while Dongguan residents use parks more for the services the parks provide. The findings demonstrate that the application of city models might have neglected the needs of residents, and duplication of city model implementation might have overlooked the characteristics of the inhabitants in different cities. The study has implications for city planners, policymakers, and park designers in China. Perhaps, amid the massive planning and construction boom of different city models, it is necessary to reconsider what residents care about in terms of space beyond the fulfilment of implementing new city models.