Page 90 - DP-2-3

Design+ Evaluation of recreational suitability of urban waterfront green spaces

and comprehensive evaluations of recreational suitability Availability of data
play a positive and promoting role in the construction and
development of urban waterfront green spaces. The data presented in this study are available on request
from the corresponding author.
Due to limited time and energy, this study has several
limitations. The evaluation indicators were compiled from References
existing literature and refined based on expert opinions. 1. Yan F. Research and practice on urban greenway design
However, their comprehensiveness may still be limited, from a multifunctional perspective. Contemp Hortic.
and certain dimensions warrant further exploration. In 2022;8:155-157.
addition, the evaluation process may have been influenced doi: 10.14051/j.cnki.xdyy.2022.08.005
by subjective factors, which should be addressed through
improved methods in future research applications. Moreover, 2. Zhang R. Research on waterfront open space planning
strategy in small and medium-sized cities. North China Univ
the field validation focused solely on Linyi Calligraphy Technol. 2021.
Square as a single case study, resulting in a somewhat limited
and context-specific analysis. An important future research doi: 10.26926/d.cnki.gbfgu.2021.000565
direction is to incorporate more perspectives and increase the 3. Taufen A, Yocom K. Transitions in urban waterfronts:
number of expert participants. In terms of case study analysis, Imagining, contesting, and sustaining the aquatic/terrestrial
more urban waterfront green spaces should be selected for interface. Sustainability. 2021:13(1):366.
comprehensive research to further explore the generalizability doi: 10.3390/su13010366
of the recreational suitability evaluation system. 4. Lv Y. Study on the Planning and Design of Health-Oriented
Urban Waterfront Greenway. China: Beijing Forestry
Acknowledgments University; 2022.
None. 5. Zhang W, Liu Y. Research on urban waterfront space
renewal design based on the concept of “stickiness”. Landsc
Funding Arch Acad J. 2021;38(2):52-57.

The research was funded by the Linyi University Student 6. Asakawa S, Yoshida K, Yabe K. Perceptions of urban stream
Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program: corridors within the greenway system of Sapporo, Japan.
Research on Recreational Suitability Evaluation of Landsc Urban Plan. 2004;68(2-3):167-182.
Urban Waterfront Green Spaces – A Case Study of Linyi doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00158-0
Calligraphy Square (Project No.: X202410452462). 7. Steinwender A, Gundacker C, Wittmann KJ. Objective
Conflict of interest versus subjective assessments of environmental quality of
standing and running waters in a large city. Landsc Urban
The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Plan. 2008;84(2):116-126.
doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.07.001
Author contributions
8. Sairinen R, Kumpulainen S. Assessing social impacts in
Conceptualization: All authors urban waterfront regeneration. Environ Impact Assess Rev.
Data curation: All authors 2006;26(1):120-135.
Formal analysis: All authors doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2005.05.003
Investigation: Haixia Chen
Methodology: Qianda Zhuang 9. Kong-Jian UY, Di-Hua LI. Renovation and planning of
urban river and waterfront. Urban Res. 2003;5:29-32.
Visualization: Haixia Chen
Writing–original draft: Haixia Chen 10. Liaoji Z, Huiqing L. The management pattern of waterfront
Writing–review & editing: Qianda Zhuang areas in cities and towns. Prog Geogr. 2010;29(10):1256-1262.
doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2010.10.014
Ethics approval and consent to participate
11. Yijie W, Lumian W, Zhenhui D, Cheng Q, Jiajie C. Effects
Informed consent was obtained from the participants of urban waterfront green space on summer microclimate.
before participation. J Nanjing For Univ. 2025;49(2):233-241.
doi: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202310003
Consent for publication
12. Yumin Y, Xiaodong Z, Yingbi X, Haiyan Y, Xiang S. Assessing
Participants consented to the publication of their data. the visual quality of urban waterfront landscapes: The case

Volume 2 Issue 3 (2025) 15 doi: 10.36922/DP025110020