Empirical analysis reveals park use patterns in Shanghai, indicating housing proximity affects visit frequency and intensity.
This study investigates the impact of the spatial structure of job–housing relationships on urban park use in Shanghai's central districts. Using time-geography and activity-space perspectives as the analytical lens, we develop a Job–Housing–Park Use framework and apply it to anonymised location-based service trajectories linked to 260 free-access parks. Home and work locations are inferred from three months of mobility records, and park visits are identified over a representative 14-day period. Descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and regression models are used to examine visit frequency, intensity, timing, and socio-demographic differences. Visit frequencies are highly skewed: about 60% of users appear only once or twice in the window, while a smaller group makes repeated visits. Shorter distances from both residences and workplaces to parks are associated with higher visit frequencies, especially among repeated visitors. Community and district parks attract most visits and show the highest weekday intensity, whereas city and pocket parks display relatively larger weekend increases. Across the four park types, distances from residence and workplace to visited parks are positively correlated but widely dispersed, indicating diverse job–housing configurations behind park use. Regression results indicate higher visit frequencies among lower-income and less-educated groups, highlighting urban parks as a form of everyday welfare infrastructure for disadvantaged residents.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peng et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: