Page 81 - DP-2-3

Design+ Evaluation of recreational suitability of urban waterfront green spaces

Figure 4. Schematic diagram of the hierarchical analysis model of the “Wen Juan Xing”
Source: https://www.wjx.cn/.
2.2.3. Determination of evaluation criteria degrees determined through social statistical methods. In

According to the current state of Linyi’s waterfront green this study, the soft indicators were evaluation indicators
spaces, the evaluation indices were divided into five levels, derived from questionnaire surveys. Hard indicators can
and the acquisition of evaluation index data was classified be determined according to evaluation standards; if the
into three types: questionnaire survey, field investigation, evaluation indicator results are the same or fall within the
and data collection. Among these, the questionnaire survey corresponding standard value range, the data are recorded as
focused on collecting data from tourists and staff; the field 1; otherwise, it is recorded as 0. The results are summarized
investigation involved on-site observation of the research to form the membership degree of the evaluation matrix,
site; and data collection referred to the compilation of and then, the degree is multiplied by the weight to calculate
relevant literature and official statistics. After referring to the membership degree of the primary indicators. Through
relevant research literature and standards, 42-44 considering this calculation, the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation score
the actual situation, and consulting with relevant experts, for Linyi Calligraphy Square was finally obtained.
the evaluation criteria for the recreation suitability of urban This study employed the weighted average type fuzzy
waterfront green spaces were finally established (Table 1). operator in the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method
for calculation. The core idea is to perform a weighted
2.2.4. Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation calculation on the weight vector and the evaluation
Due to the numerous factors influencing the recreational matrix, obtaining the comprehensive evaluation result. Its
suitability evaluation results of urban waterfront green calculation formula is as follows in Equation III:
spaces, alongside the differences in evaluators’ assessments M = Min{1, ∑ (a × b )} (III)
and cognitive standards regarding various elements, the K j jk
th
evaluation results can be affected to a certain extent. where a represents the weight of the j factor in the weight
j
th
th
Therefore, the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method vector, b represents the value of the j row and the k column
jk
th
was adopted to establish a multi-level model, ultimately in the evaluation matrix, and M represents the k evaluation
k
obtaining the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation results and value in the comprehensive evaluation result.
the final assessment value of the recreational suitability 2.3. Data collection and processing
of urban waterfront green spaces. This method is based
on the principles of fuzzy mathematics and fuzzy relation Using Linyi Calligraphy Square as a case study, this
synthesis, providing a comprehensive evaluation approach research collected data for evaluation indicators based on
that quantifies factors with unclear boundaries and difficult relevant research standards and official documents. Field
quantification. 45-48 A key aspect of the fuzzy comprehensive investigations at Linyi Calligraphy Square were carried out
evaluation method is determining membership degrees, to obtain index data related to the evaluation indicators, such
which involves dividing the indicators in the urban as recreational facilities, recreational space types, and plant
waterfront green spaces’ recreation suitability evaluation diversity. A questionnaire was designed to collect data for
system into soft and hard indicators. Soft indicators refer the survey-based evaluation indicators. The questionnaire
to those that cannot be classified into standard grades with covered three aspects: demographic and sociological
clear numerical values and can have their membership characteristics (e.g., gender and age), recreational

Volume 2 Issue 3 (2025) 6 doi: 10.36922/DP025110020