Page 82 - DP-2-3

Design+ Evaluation of recreational suitability of urban waterfront green spaces

Table 1. Evaluation criteria for recreational suitability indicators of Linyi’s waterfront green spaces

Evaluation indicator Data source Evaluation criteria
Excellent (5) Good (4) Average (3) Poor (2) Very poor (1)
Sunshine hours (annual, hours) Data collection >2,600 2,400–2,600 2,200–2,400 2,000–2,200 <2,000
Temperature (annual average, °C) Data collection 18–22 14–18 12–14; X–12; <X;
18–20 20–25 >25
Air quality index Data collection ≤35 35–75 75–115 115–150 >150
Rainfall (annual, mm) Data collection 750–950 650–750; 550–650; 450–550; <450;
950–1,050 1,050–1,150 1,150–1,350 >1,350
Wind speed (km/h) Data collection <11 11–19 20–28 29–49 >50
Water quality a Data collection Better than Class III Class III Class IV Class V Worse than Class V
Noise levels Questionnaire Excellent Good Average Poor Very poor
Sanitation Questionnaire Excellent Good Average Poor Very poor
Vegetation landscape Questionnaire Excellent Good Average Poor Very poor
Geomorphic landscape Questionnaire Excellent Good Average Poor Very poor
Water landscape Questionnaire Excellent Good Average Poor Very poor
Rock landscape Questionnaire Excellent Good Average Poor Very poor
Pathway landscape Questionnaire Excellent Good Average Poor Very poor
Architectural sculptures Questionnaire Excellent Good Average Poor Very poor
Historical sites Data collection National level Provincial level Municipal level Unlisted Negligible
Plant diversity Field survey Excellent Good Average Poor Very poor
Greening coverage rate (%) Data collection >90 80–90 70–80 60–70 <60
Topography Data collection Excellent Good Average Poor Very poor
Water resources Data collection National level Provincial level Municipal level County level Below the county level
Cultural relics Data collection National level Provincial level Municipal level Unlisted Negligible
Folk customs Questionnaire Excellent Good Average Poor Very poor
Educational facilities Questionnaire Excellent Good Average Poor Very poor
Signage completeness Questionnaire Excellent Good Average Poor Very poor
Facility diversity (types) Field survey 5 4 3 2 1
Maintenance status Questionnaire Excellent Good Average Poor Very poor
Comfort level Questionnaire Excellent Good Average Poor Very poor
Distribution Questionnaire Excellent Good Average Poor Very poor
Recreational facility diversity (types) Field survey 6 5 4 3 2
Recreational facility fun Questionnaire Excellent Good Average Poor Very poor
Facility management Questionnaire Excellent Good Average Poor Very poor
Facility safety Questionnaire Excellent Good Average Poor Very poor
Waterfront facility rationality Questionnaire Excellent Good Average Poor Very poor
Recreational space diversity (types) Field survey 5 4 3 2 1
Space comfort Questionnaire Excellent Good Average Poor Very poor
Space safety Questionnaire Excellent Good Average Poor Very poor
Waterfront accessibility Questionnaire Excellent Good Average Poor Very poor
Activity diversity (types) Field survey 6 5 4 3 2
Participation level Questionnaire Excellent Good Average Poor Very poor
Waterfront entertainment Questionnaire Excellent Good Average Poor Very poor
Geographic location (km from downtown) Data collection <5 5–10 10–15 15–20 >20
Visitor proximity Questionnaire Excellent Good Average Poor Very poor
Internal transportation Questionnaire Excellent Good Average Poor Very poor
External transportation Questionnaire Excellent Good Average Poor Very poor
Note: Classification of water quality based on environmental quality standards for surface water in China (GB 3838-2002).
a

Volume 2 Issue 3 (2025) 7 doi: 10.36922/DP025110020