Calculated and perceived accessibility: A path analysis to evaluate satisfaction with access to green spaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parks and green spaces are important components of cities and play a vital role in individuals' well-being. Park quality and proximity to parks are key determinants of parks' usage and their associated benefits for individuals. Yet, most studies focus on users' satisfaction with park features, typically neglecting the influence of accessibility to parks. While a few studies have investigated proximity to parks, accessibility is a multidimensional concept that depends on multiple land use, transport and individual factors. Therefore, this study analyzes the relationship between accessibility to parks (both calculated and perceived) and satisfaction with accessibility. Three calculated accessibility measures (number, area, and quality of parks) and three perceived accessibility measures are assessed (overall access, parks meeting needs, number of parks). The case study (Montreal, Canada) uses data from a representative online survey of residents ( n = 683). A path analysis is conducted to study the relationships between individual, land use and transport characteristics, along with calculated and perceived accessibility, to then assess the determinants of park access satisfaction. Results highlight the influence of walking infrastructure and walking to reach parks, as well as the lower perceived accessibility among women and lower-income individuals, and a strong association between perceived accessibility and satisfaction. Conversely, calculated measures of accessibility (e.g., number of parks) show clear shortcomings in understanding park access satisfaction. Thus, this study confirms the need for researchers and planners to assess individuals' perceptions of land use and transport infrastructure, along with their needs and preferences when analyzing residents' satisfaction level with park access. • A strong association between perceived accessibility and satisfaction is found. • Key influence of walking infrastructure and walking to parks. • Lower perceived accessibility among women and lower-income individuals. • Calculated measures reveal gaps in understanding park access satisfaction. • Individuals' perceptions, needs and preferences can better explain satisfaction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".