Experience of urban parks: attributes that influence preferences and the relationship between personal and park characteristics, park use behaviour, and sense of place and well-being

Datacite citation style:
Dinter, van, Mayke; Borgers, Aloys; van Vliet, Esther; Dane, Gamze; Weijs-Perree, Minou et. al. (2021): Experience of urban parks: attributes that influence preferences and the relationship between personal and park characteristics, park use behaviour, and sense of place and well-being. Version 1. 4TU.ResearchData. dataset. https://doi.org/10.4121/14034821.v1
Other citation styles (APA, Harvard, MLA, Vancouver, Chicago, IEEE) available at Datacite
choose version: version 2 - 2021-06-22 (latest)
version 1 - 2021-06-17

Urban green areas, such as parks, are becoming increasingly important in densifying cities. Urban parks encourage physical and social activity, recreation and relaxation, and thus eventually promote people’s well-being. The aim of the current study is twofold, to examine which urban park attributes influence the preferences of park users and to gain more insight in the relationships between personal and park characteristics, park use behaviour, sense of place and long-term subjective well-being.

For the first question, an online stated-choice experiment was developed. Seven park attributes (number and composition of trees; presence of benches, side paths, a playground, litter, and flowers) were manipulated in a virtual park. In an online stated-choice task, videos of these park alternatives were presented and the preferences were measured.

It is found that especially the number of trees and the presence of flowerbeds, particularly with a diversity of flowers, influenced participants’ preferences. The presence of many benches and a playground were valued as well, but to a lesser extent. The presence of litter was found to be less troublesome than expected. Alternatives with all trees placed in one cluster were disliked. Moreover, significant standard deviations were found for the presence of side paths, a playground, and the absence of litter, which indicates that preference heterogeneity for these attributes exist. In a latent class analysis, two groups were identified, namely a Nature-loving group, who mainly valued the trees and the flowers, and an Amenity-appreciating group, who valued almost all attributes. It can be concluded that natural elements and a variety of flower species are important in an urban park, while facilities are evaluated differently by different groups of people.

An online questionnaire was developed to collect data concerning personal characteristics, characteristics of parks that were visited and the way the park was used. Furthermore, questions were included to measure the sense of place and long term subjective well being. The questionnaire was distributed in two medium sized cities in the Netherlands, namely Eindhoven and ‘s-Hertogenbosch. Data was analysed using a path analysis. The results of this research show that appreciation of facilities, vegetation and the absence of disturbances influence the use and sense of place of a park. Furthermore, the results also show that personal characteristics influence the use of a park and the long-term subjective well-being.

These findings may support park designers and policymakers in decision-making. This information can be used to improve existing parks or design new parks that contribute to more positive experiences and improve thereby the subjective well-being of individuals. Moreover, the research illustrates the usefulness of creating a virtual park in environmental preference research.

  • 2021-06-17 first online, published, posted
.xls; .doc; .mp4
  • 438.19.170
  • Actieagenda Ruimtelijk Ontwerp 2017–2020 of the Rijksoverheid of the Netherlands
TU Eindhoven, Built Environment and Industrial Engineering & Innovation Sciences


files (19)
  • 24,246 bytesMD5:6d2de2faad68138e282417dbf81d4c63 README.docx
  • 1,647,611 bytesMD5:84cf07f3069bc99a793a470fe1b52657 2020 survey questions.docx
  • 386,201 bytesMD5:8417bad071590736d137bef3c30ab091 2020_TUE_Urbanparks_Final_data_raw.xlsx
  • 107,220,625 bytesMD5:c4e9cc4dd0e5ce4f3b1a214bee96242c Alt 1.mp4
  • 113,442,239 bytesMD5:c9f4f51542e41cbfb10d85274925cfc0 Alt 10.mp4
  • 131,789,823 bytesMD5:ddea0bf19383672477dcb5ad057db0cf Alt 11.mp4
  • 118,766,313 bytesMD5:d33fa509c2511ac47434e19a9d2471a6 Alt 12.mp4
  • 135,867,728 bytesMD5:c84fff72b25596d6efaf66b83671ef08 Alt 13.mp4
  • 103,824,786 bytesMD5:0df48c6b64f7592e7b9cacfdba68149e Alt 14.mp4
  • 127,665,435 bytesMD5:e5e8ff10a58abc8de5b13982c69d3011 Alt 15.mp4
  • 105,217,550 bytesMD5:48e670a5f4168ab7f2ff0af95baf8ea5 Alt 16.mp4
  • 102,481,100 bytesMD5:8c6cc71bbb79dd95513c412620cfec5d Alt 2.mp4
  • 130,392,946 bytesMD5:3e66837bcfe6e6d52c59c6e94b36db09 Alt 3.mp4
  • 104,938,571 bytesMD5:fab20214db4ad6c55374987fbcec5b5e Alt 4.mp4
  • 141,597,614 bytesMD5:7123d6d627ed2ba587cf4537a87390e2 Alt 5.mp4
  • 106,231,446 bytesMD5:be6a25b9eb7a175c995d42b0775dd6fb Alt 6.mp4
  • 134,975,774 bytesMD5:dddeb0388da8a82fb6a670ce32db1f58 Alt 7.mp4
  • 101,451,788 bytesMD5:93364ce1833fab177ec7d2744e69d323 Alt 8.mp4
  • 186,440,847 bytesMD5:39934ddec9a2d48e77116ca7f3464746 Alt 9.mp4
  • download all files (zip)
    1,954,362,643 bytes unzipped