[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-618666-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":79,"doc-detail-618666-en":129},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":72,"head_meta":74,"extra_data":76,"updated_unix":78},105,"en","a-novel-hierarchical-framework-to-evaluate-residential-exposure-to-green-spaces","A novel hierarchical framework to evaluate residential exposure to green spaces","","Urban residents’ exposure to green space (e-GS) is recognized for its health benefits, yet most approaches emphasize availability or accessibility while overlooking green space quality linked to residents’ willingness and visit time. This study proposes a hierarchical framework combining availability, accessibility, and attractiveness to quantify residential e-GS. It compares disparities across rural, peri-urban, and urban areas in Yangzhou, revealing weak correlations among the three metrics and highlighting theoretical and practical implications for health-oriented planning.",{"@graph":14,"@context":71},[15,34,54],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/a-novel-hierarchical-framework-to-evaluate-residential-exposure-to-green-spaces/618666/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":48,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":49,"interactionStatistic":50},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/a-novel-hierarchical-framework-to-evaluate-residential-exposure-to-green-spaces/618666.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"ahduag","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-19",true,{"@type":51,"interactionType":52,"userInteractionCount":4},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":53},"ViewAction",{"@type":55,"mainEntity":56},"FAQPage",[57,63,67],{"name":58,"@type":59,"acceptedAnswer":60},"What hierarchical indicators does the framework use to assess residential green space exposure?","Question",{"text":61,"@type":62},"It evaluates availability, accessibility, and attractiveness. Availability reflects the quantity of surrounding greenness, accessibility captures network distance to major green spaces with recreation facilities, and attractiveness integrates quality and related features.","Answer",{"name":64,"@type":59,"acceptedAnswer":65},"How do the three e-GS metrics relate to each other spatially?",{"text":66,"@type":62},"The study finds different spatial distributions across availability, accessibility, and attractiveness, with weak correlations, indicating they represent distinct dimensions of e-GS.",{"name":68,"@type":59,"acceptedAnswer":69},"What differences are observed across rural, peri-urban, and urban areas?",{"text":70,"@type":62},"Significant differences are reported among urban, peri-urban, and rural areas for each metric, using a Kruskal–Wallis test with p \u003C 0.01.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":73,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":75,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":77,"site_id":7},618666,1792449745,{"code":4,"msg":80,"data":81},"success",[82,86,90,94,99,104,109,113,118,121,125],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":83,"show_sort_weight":84,"slug":85},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":87,"show_sort_weight":88,"slug":89},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":91,"show_sort_weight":92,"slug":93},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":95,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":96,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":98},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":100,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":101,"show_sort_weight":102,"slug":103},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":105,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":106,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":108},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":110,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":111,"slug":112},8,30,"research-report",{"id":114,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":115,"show_sort_weight":116,"slug":117},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":119,"show_sort_weight":116,"slug":120},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":122,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":123,"show_sort_weight":122,"slug":124},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":126,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":127,"show_sort_weight":95,"slug":128},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":80,"data":130},{"doc_id":77,"user_id":131,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":132,"doc_module":4,"category_id":110,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":133,"file_id":134,"file_url":135,"file_type":136,"file_size":137,"view_count":4,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":138,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":78,"read_time":143},3985747870414,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc","Landsc Ecol (2022) 37:895–911  \n[https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01378-5](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01378-5)  \nRESEARCH ARTICLE  \nA novel hierarchical framework to evaluate residential exposure to green spaces  \nJinguang Zhang . Zhaowu Yu  . Yingyi Cheng . Xiaohan Sha .  \nHanyu Zhang  \nReceived: 25 July 2021/Accepted: 16 November 2021/Published online: 29 November 2021  \n􀀂 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2021  \nAbstract  \nContexts It has been widely acknowledged that exposure to green space (e-GS) has positive health benefits to urban residents. While most studies estimate e-GS from an availability or accessibility perspective, few studies have considered GS quality, which is closely related to the willingness and time of residents’ visits to GS.  \nObjectives Here we propose a hierarchical framework to assess residential e-GS including three individual indicators—availability, accessibility, and attractiveness, and further explore the disparities in GS exposure across rural, peri-urban, and urban areas in a rapidly urbanizing Chinese city (Yangzhou) . Specifically, availability means assessing the quantity of surrounding greenness including all types of GSs; accessibility means calculating the network distance from home to major GS with recreational facilities (e.g., public parks); and attractiveness indicator  \nSupplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at [https://doi.org/10.1007/](https://doi.org/10.1007/)[ ](https://doi.org/10.1007/)[s10980-021-01378-5](s10980-021-01378-5.)[.](s10980-021-01378-5.)  \nJ. Zhang 􀀂 Z. Yu (&) 􀀂 X. Sha 􀀂 H. Zhang Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Fudan University, Shanghai 200438, China  \ne-mail: [zhaowu_yu@fudan.edu.cn](zhaowu_yu@fudan.edu.cn)  \n[J. Zhang](J. Zhang) 􀀂 Y. Cheng  \nCollege of Landscape Architecture, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210037, China  \nintegrated the major GS ’micro’ features (i.e., quality), proximity and population density calculated by a modified gravity model.  \nResults The results show the spatial distribution of residential e-GS was different among availability, accessibility, and attractiveness, and these metrics showed weak correlations suggesting they are three distinct e-GS metrics. Significant differences (Kruskal–Wallis test, p \\ 0.01) were revealed in the comparisons of the GS availability, accessibility, and attractiveness values among the urban, peri-urban, and rural areas. Further, we outlined the potentially preferable exposure metrics in exploring the pathways linking GS to various dimensions of health outcomes. Conclusions The hierarchical framework has important theoretical and practical significance in identifying the hierarchical form of e-GS and targeting vulnerable communities that may suffer from health issues due to lack of GSs.  \nKeywords Green spaces exposure 􀀂 Attractiveness metric 􀀂 Availability and accessibility 􀀂 Hierarchical framework 􀀂 Health planning  \nIntroduction  \nGreen space (GS) plays an important role in promoting urban sustainability by providing a wide range of ecosystem services (Niemel¨a et al. 2010; Fan et al.  \n2019; Yang et al. 2020) . More importantly, it has been widely acknowledged that exposure to green spaces (e-GS) helps improve the quality of life and public health of urbanites (Hartig et al. 2014; Yu et al. 2020; Zhang et al. 2020b) . The e-GS is a broad term, and a standardized definition for a ’simple’ exposure proxy is still lacking (Markevych et al. 2017) . It usually refers to the amount of contact between an individual or a group of people and the natural environment (Bratman et al. 2019), which could be broadly classified as ’actual’ exposure and ’potential’exposure.  \n’Actual’ exposure aims to monitor the interaction between GSs and urban residents, focusing on the individuals’ exposure scenarios. Two ways are considered in measuring actual e-GS, including selfreported exposure and real-time exposure meth","cbCaitIki3WFrR5Y","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaitIki3WFrR5Y","pdf",2154801,17,"English","# Abstract\n# Introduction\n# Methods and Framework\n# Results\n# Discussion\n# Conclusions","[{\"question\":\"What hierarchical indicators does the framework use to assess residential green space exposure?\",\"answer\":\"It evaluates availability, accessibility, and attractiveness. Availability reflects the quantity of surrounding greenness, accessibility captures network distance to major green spaces with recreation facilities, and attractiveness integrates quality and related features.\"},{\"question\":\"How do the three e-GS metrics relate to each other spatially?\",\"answer\":\"The study finds different spatial distributions across availability, accessibility, and attractiveness, with weak correlations, indicating they represent distinct dimensions of e-GS.\"},{\"question\":\"What differences are observed across rural, peri-urban, and urban areas?\",\"answer\":\"Significant differences are reported among urban, peri-urban, and rural areas for each metric, using a Kruskal–Wallis test with p \\u003c 0.01.\"}]","A novel hierarchical framework to evaluate residential exposure to green spaces | PDF",43]