The Park City initiative represents a new urban development paradigm that embeds ecological value into urban systems. However, systematic quantitative evaluations of its development outcomes remain limited. Taking Chengdu, where the Park City concept was first proposed, as the study area, this study assesses Park City implementation from the perspective of ecosystem service value (ESV), focusing on the differentiated roles of natural, suburban, and urban parks. The results show that Chengdu's ESV followed an overall decline–recovery trajectory from 2003 to 2022, while its spatial structure remained highly stable, with hot spots concentrated mainly in the eastern and western mountainous areas. The three park types exhibited clear path differentiation. Natural parks most closely tracked the citywide trajectory and constituted the ecological foundation of Park City development. Suburban parks functioned as transitional buffers between ecological conservation and urban expansion. Urban parks showed the most unstable trajectories under stronger construction intensity and management interventions, serving as an embedded regulator of human–land relationships. Natural factors remained dominant overall, whereas the influence of socioeconomic factors became progressively stronger from natural parks to suburban parks and urban parks. Coupling coordination analysis further revealed a distinct three-circle structure, with low coordination in the urban core, intermediate coordination in the suburban ring, and relatively high coordination in the outer areas underpinned by natural parks. These findings deepen understanding of the ecological effects and differentiated evolutionary mechanisms of Park City development, providing scientific support for ecological spatial optimization, differentiated governance, and the refinement of Park City practice in mega-cities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Su et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: