Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 80 (2023) 127827

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Urban Forestry & Urban Greening

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ufug

Original article

Assessment of spatial equity of urban park distribution from the perspective

of supply-demand interactions☆
Jingyuan Zhang a, *, Puay Yok Tan b, **
a
School of Architecture, Harbin Institute of Technology (Shenzhen), 518055 Shenzhen, China
b
Department of Architecture, 4 Architecture Drive, National University of Singapore, 117566, Singapore

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Urban parks have been widely recognized for the critical functions they provide in enhancing health and
Spatial equity wellbeing. However, parks are known to be inadequately provided and non-uniformly distributed in cities,
Supply-Demand interactions leading to an increasing interest to examine spatial equity of park distribution. Such studies have mostly focused
Most often used parks
on the distributional attributes of park supply in determining spatial equity, while the role of residents’ demand
Perceptional demand
is usually ignored or not adequately assessed. In addition, people’s preferences for park use were normally
Multi-scale analysis
ignored and nearest parks were assumed as supplier of park services. Moreover, even though equity assessment is
scale-dependent, few studies adopt a multi-scale assessment. We report on a study to address these gaps. A multi-
scale Supply-Demand Equity Index (SDEI) was developed to assess spatial equity of park distribution from the
perspective of supply and demand interactions, and data were collected at a fine scale of neighborhood level.
Residents’ accessibility to their most often used parks and nearest parks were used to assess and compare supply
level; while residents’ perceptions obtained from surveys and population density were used to assess and
compare demand level. Results showed that supply measured by accessibility to most often used park more
accurately reflects supply, and demand assessment on the basis of perception could reflect variations among
different social groups and reveal otherwise hidden patterns of spatial inequity. It was also shown that SDEI
could identify areas where mismatch between supply and demand occurs. We demonstrated in a single study that
different definitions and approaches of quantifying spatial equity can lead to distinct conclusions, therein
highlighting that the complex nature of equity requires nuanced approaches and providing a broader view of
equity assessment. In addition, the implications of this study for urban park planning and management were
highlighted.

1. Introduction
Parks have long been accepted as significant public spaces in urban
history, serving as central points of recreation and social interaction,
promoting health and well-being, as well as providing a range of envi­
ronmental benefits (Byrne and Wolch, 2009; Kim and Jin, 2018; Ward
Thompson, 2011; J. R. Wolch et al., 2014). For the community it serves,
the social and ecological benefits of a park system are largely influenced
by the amount and distribution of parks (Bedimo-Rung et al., 2005; J. R.
Wolch et al., 2014). Increasingly, studies across a range of cities
worldwide highlight that distribution of parks are often suboptimal
(Barbosa et al., 2007; Nicholls, 2001; Oh and Jeong, 2007; Tan and
Samsudin, 2017; Zhou and Kim, 2013). In these studies, equity of park
distribution is studied in two main ways: first, assessment of park
accessibility and provision use indicators such as distance or time for
reaching parks, per capita park area, park service area, etc., in relation to
amount received by different socioeconomic, demographic, or racial
groups (Dai, 2011; Giles-Corti and Donovan, 2002; Sister et al., 2010;
Zhou and Kim, 2013); second, assessment of these indicators in relation
to the amount present within different regions or subdivisions within an
area of interest, from a spatial viewpoint (Neutens et al., 2010; Oh and
Jeong, 2007; Tan and Samsudin, 2017). The commonality between these

☆
This research was founded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 52108048), Shenzhen Excellent Technology Creative Talents Cultivation
Foundation (No. RCBS20210609104539077), and Shenzhen Imported High-level Talents Research Foundation (No. FB11409008).
* Correspondence to: School of Architecture, Harbin Institute of Technology (Shenzhen), China.
** Correspondence to: Department of Architecture, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
E-mail addresses: jingyuanz@u.nus.edu (J. Zhang), puay.yok.tan@nus.edu.sg (P.Y. Tan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127827
Received 19 August 2022; Received in revised form 27 November 2022; Accepted 30 December 2022
Available online 31 December 2022
1618-8667/© 2022 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
J. Zhang and P.Y. Tan
types of studies is that they rely on disparities in park services among
either different social groups or spatial units to assess the extent of
equity.
We suggest that such assessments provide a useful, but incomplete
view of equity assessment. The primary limitation is that adequacy of
parks provides only one perspective—the “supply” of parks. Equity
however, is a concept that embeds additional components over and
beyond the supply of parks. Equity refers to the quality of being equal or
fair in a situation or distribution, which would affect individual well-
being (Alonso, 1968; Deutsch, 1975). Spatial equity of parks implies a
social or political consensus about the fairness or justice of the spatial
distribution of costs and benefits of parks (Dear, 1978; Truelove, 1993).
Equity does not mean equal shares of public goods for all, but rather the
supply of goods in variable proportions to different people with different
demand (Bennett, 1980), i.e., whether the distribution of parks is
effective and optimal for satisfying residents’ demand (Nicholls, 2001).
In practice, accessibility to parks has been widely used as an indicator of
equity (Nicholls, 2001; Oh and Jeong, 2007; Talen, 1998; Xiao et al.,
2017). Accessibility to parks refers to the ease with which a park can be
reached (C. Liu et al., 2010; Pirie, 1979). Equity on the other hand as
suggested, addresses whether there exists disparity between supply and
demand (Lee and Hong, 2013). The one-dimensional focus on supply
disparity therefore does not provide a complete view of equity. With the
development of theories and practices in human-oriented urban plan­
ning, the importance of “demand” in influencing the assessment of
urban park equity has gradually become considered and incorporated in
recent years (Z. Liu et al., 2021; Shao and Luo, 2022). Therefore, we
suggest that the assessment of spatial equity should focus on the balance
between accessibility to parks, which represents “supply” of parks, and
the extent to which these are actually needed by residents whom they
are meant to serve, i.e., the “demand” for parks. The spatial match of
supply and demand of park resources is then a critical indicator in the
assessment of adequacy and reasonableness of park distribution.
Although clearly important, demand is much less addressed in
studies on spatial equity of parks. By definition, demand refers to peo­
ple’s behavioral intentions and motivations, and indicates how much an
individual is willing to try, and how much effort a person is willing to
exert, for the aim of performing a specific behavior (Ajzen, 1991).
However, demand for urban parks has yet been fully explored and
adequately measured in literature (Peña et al., 2015). The majority of
previous studies have either ignored the measurement of demand, or
only relied on desktop measurements. In the latter, demand is usually
assessed using proxies such as population, population density (Lee and
Hong, 2013; B. Liu et al., 2022), ratio of population to park service area
(Sister et al., 2010), age group coefficient (Y. Lin et al., 2021), combi­
nations of population and other indicators (Cortinovis and Geneletti,
2020; Y. Lin et al., 2021), etc. In these studies, the implicit assumption
for using population as a proxy is that different groups of residents have
a uniform demand (B. Liu et al., 2022; Shao and Luo, 2022), and the
level of demand of a certain region is mainly determined by the quantity
or density of residents. The incorporation of social group coefficient is an
improvement and considers group stratification. Even in recent litera­
ture, demand was still coarsely assessed by using population density (B.
Liu et al., 2022). However, population size or social group coefficient as
a single indicator of demand is one-dimensional which is useful in
assessing demand for ecosystem services, but has limitations in
revealing differences in demand among population and in providing
useful information on residents’ actual willingness for park use. In
addition, these traditional proxies of demand are usually based on
aggregated geographical units, and fine-scale data from smaller units
like neighborhood level were seldom used, which inevitably under­
mined the accuracy of demand assessment. Demand in the realm of
recreational services provided by urban parks, in essence is a variable
that is associated with perceptional data and cannot be simply assumed
to be uniform across the population or certain social groups; hence a
direct assessment of demand is more accurate than proxies derived from
2
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 80 (2023) 127827
either population density or socioeconomic characteristics. Therefore,
residents’ actual demand level measured at a finer scale based on per­
ceptions should be incorporated into equity analysis, and doing so ne­
cessitates conceptual and methodological approaches for demand to be
quantified. This also would advance the assessment of spatial equity,
since residents’ perceptions, demand and satisfactions have become
important indicators for the level of reasonableness of park distribution
(Larkin et al., 2021; Y. Lin et al., 2021; Lotfi and Koohsari, 2009).
Apart from the lack of methods for measurement of demand, there
are also additional challenges associated with spatial equity assessment.
First, a commonly held assumption is that people would use nearest
parks irrespective of individual preferences, see (Barbosa et al., 2007; B.
B. Lin et al., 2014; Nicholls, 2001; Oh and Jeong, 2007; Sister et al.,
2010). However, residents’ most often used parks are not necessarily the
closest ones, which may not be favored and used by residents. In addi­
tion, the distinction between nearest and most often used parks is usu­
ally not considered in park equity studies, and the adoption of nearest
park as recreational destinations would result in oversimplification of
park supply level, which would further undermine the accuracy of eq­
uity analysis. Second, spatial scale is also a key issue that needs to be
considered. The critical role of scale in influencing analysis results is
well-recognized within the discourse and practice of spatial equity
analysis (Omer, 2006). However, most studies have been limited to the
use of large-scale aggregated data, such as census tract or planning area
level data (Omer, 2006; Zhou and Kim, 2013), a point also emphasized
by Tan and Samsudin (2017). Data at smaller spatial scales such as at the
neighborhood level is more limited, and the specific ways in which eq­
uity manifests in relation to scales of analysis are still relatively un­
known. In addition, while the spatial quantification of whether supply
meets demand at a fine scale is increasingly recognized as an important
topic in the area of urban ecosystem services assessment, approaches
and empirical assessment of this area for urban parks as an important
source of cultural services are scarce. Therefore, a method for equity
assessment that could be applied to multi-scale levels would contribute
to the illustration of equity in a fuller picture.
The aim of this paper is to assess the application of a framework for
equity analysis of urban parks, that considers both park supply and
demand for parks in concert using fine-scale data. The objectives of this
study are to: (1) develop and apply a framework and index for equity
analysis that integrates park supply and residents’ park use demand
simultaneously, using data from fine-scale neighborhood level, and
assess the application of the equity index across multiple scales; (2)
compare differences in supply and demand assessment arising from the
use of accessibility to most often used parks compared to nearest parks
as park supply, as well as residents’ perceptional demand compared to
population density as park use demand; (3) assess the spatial pattern of
supply, demand, and resulting equity level of urban parks in four lo­
calities in Singapore, and discuss its implications for planning and
management.
2. Methodology
2.1. Overview of key components and framework
An overview of combination of assessing park supply and demand in
equity analysis is shown in Fig. 1, which in essence, addresses equity as
the matching level of residents’ demand for using parks and the supply
of parks. We conducted this assessment at two scales: subzone and
planning area, and data were collected at the household level. Subzone
and planning area are areal units used by Singapore Urban Redevelop­
ment Authority. Subzone is the smallest areal unit, which is usually
centered on a neighborhood center or activity node. Each planning area
is composed of several subzones, and typically represents a residential
town, with a population of around 150,000 (Urban Redevelopment
Authority, 2014).
In our study supply is defined as the recreational potential provided
J. Zhang and P.Y. Tan
Fig. 1. Conceptual framework of spatial equity assessment integrating supply and demand.
by parks, and was measured by accessibility from respondents’ home to
their most often used parks and nearest parks respectively, for
comparative analysis. In accessibility assessment, researchers have al­
ways tried to incorporate the positive influence of quality and the
negative influence of distance into the measurement of accessibility,
such as gravity potential (Luo and Wang, 2003) and 2-step floating
catchment area method (Shao and Luo, 2022). These two methods were
not used in this study since the influence of park area on accessibility
would be exaggerated in fine-scale analysis, and even hinder the dif­
ferences in distance. In addition, our study design requires the com­
parison between accessibility to nearest and most often used park, while
2-step floating catchment area method inevitably calculates accessibility
to several surrounding parks. Data on respondents’ most often used
parks were obtained through household surveys, while nearest parks
were selected based on network distance, using ArcGIS 10.2 (ESRI,
Redlands, CA, United States). As for the specific measurement of
accessibility, network distance was adopted since it most closely ap­
proximates the actual walking distance from residents’ home to park,
with a clear connotation of accessibility, and could be easily used for
comparative analysis among different study sites.
Demand is defined as residents’ behavioral intentions to use parks for
recreational services provided by urban parks, and it shows an in­
dividual’s attitudinal commitment or desire towards using parks. In
other words, demand signifies how much residents need to use or
dependent on parks as a source of recreation. Demand was measured in
two approaches in this study for comparative analysis: calculating
population density and obtaining residents’ perceptional demand level
for park use through questionnaire in a Likert scale, ranging from 1 (very
low demand) to 5 (high demand). The grading assessment was adopted
as it is a widely adopted measurement that can provide an assessment of
demand. For instance, Zhang and Tan (2019) and Wang et al., (2015)
used a Likert scale (1− 5) to measure demand for parks; Peña et al.
(2015) and H. Zhang et al., (2021) used questionnaire survey to collect
demand data on recreational services. In order to make it clear for re­
spondents to understand what demand is, we added explanations for the
question of park use demand, and set a uniform standard to make it
comparable for different responds (details in Appendix I of Supple­
mentary Material). Perceptional demand obtained from each respondent
at household scale was aggregated at subzone and planning area scale
for subsequent analysis.
2.2. Case study design and data collection
2.2.1. Site selection and sampling process
Singapore was selected as the study site for several reasons. First,
Singapore as a “Garden City” has dedicated significant resources to park
supply, planning, and design (Tan et al., 2013), but there is no localized
study on whether the level of park supply match with demand. Second,
3
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 80 (2023) 127827
spatial equity assessment on park distribution is less studied in
high-density Asian cities, with the majority of past studies in U.S. or
European cities (Crompton and Wicks, 1988; Neutens et al., 2010;
Nicholls, 2001; Talen and Anselin, 1998; Wen et al., 2013; J. Wolch
et al., 2005; X. Zhang et al., 2011; Zhou and Kim, 2013). As a widely held
model of compact city (Tan et al., 2013), the approaches used and results
of this study could hold useful lessons for rapid urbanizing cities in East
and Southeast Asia.
In this study, household level data were collected through door-to-
door survey in four planning areas: Choa Chu Kang, Seng Kang, Bukit
Batok, and Pasir Ris. The selection of study sites was based on case study
logic and the analysis of cases adopts a logical inference approach
(Berg-Schlosser et al., 2009; Ragin and Becker, 1992; Small, 2009). An
important principle for selecting multiple cases is that each subsequent
case is expected to replicate the prior one under two different ap­
proaches. The first approach is literal replication, through which a
similar case is selected to compare whether similar mechanism and re­
sults are present; the second approach is theoretical replication, in
which a different case is chosen to investigate if the presumed con­
trasting mechanism and results would be found (Small, 2009). There­
fore, Choa Chu Kang and Seng Kang both of which have relatively low
park provision (park area ratio is 10.0% and 9.1% respectively) and high
population density (663 and 465 capita/ha respectively) were selected,
and per capita park area is 1.5 and 2.0 square meters respectively. In
contrast, Bukit Batok and Pasir Ris were selected as they have relatively
high park provision (park area ratio is 21.9% and 24.1% respectively)
and low population density (356 and 316 capita/ha respectively), and
per capita park area is 6.2 and 7.6 square meters respectively.
Within each study site, stratified random sampling was used to
ensure that sampled residents reflect a range of socio-demographic and
socio-economic groups, and thus be representative of the whole popu­
lation of study sites. Target respondents were adults aged above 21 years
old, which is the official adult age in Singapore. One eligible respondent
was randomly selected from each sampled household, using the “last
birthday method” (person whose birthday is closest to the day of sur­
vey). If no one in the selected household agreed to take the survey, a
replacement household two units away from the original one was used.
2.2.2. Household survey and spatial data collection
Household level data were collected using door-to-door question­
naire survey between February and June in 2016 (approved by Insti­
tutional Review Board, No. A-15–234). Information on residents’ socio-
demographic and socio-economic attributes, home locations, name of
most often used parks, park use demand levels, etc. were collected, and
the questionnaire used was provided in Supplementary Material. We
sampled 600 households and collected 597 valid questionnaires,
comprising 167 from Choa Chu Kang, 145 from Seng Kang, 142 from
Bukit Batok, and 143 from Pasir Ris (Fig. 2). The reliability assessed
J. Zhang and P.Y. Tan Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 80 (2023) 127827

Fig. 2. Spatial distribution of respondents in four study sites.

using Cronbach’s alpha showed that internal consistency was satisfied
(α = 0.85 >0.70). The proportions of surveyed samples from different
dwelling types (HDB, condominium, and landed property), racial groups
(Chinese, Malay, Indian, and Others), and gender types (male, female)
were largely proportional to the composition of the whole population in
each study site, suggesting that our samples represent the population
well (Table 1).
For spatial data, the boundaries of planning areas and subzones,
residential land use, geographic data on urban parks and park connec­
tors were obtained from Urban Redevelopment Authority, while build­
ing footprints and road network data were from Singapore Land
Authority. The specific locations of park entrances of all parks in study
sites were mapped during fieldwork. Road network data were refined by
adding detailed footpaths and small service roads, and were used for the
calculation of network distance.
2.3. Formulation of supply-demand equity index
On the basis of our proposed conceptual framework, multi-scale
Supply-Demand Equity Indexes (SDEI) were developed. Subzone scale
equity assessment aggregates the congruence or mismatch between park
supply and demand, thus could be used to identify under or ‘over’
supplied subzones. Functions (1− 3) are used to derive SDEI at the
subzone level. Specifically, park supply proxied by accessibility to
nearest park and park demand proxied by population density were used
to calculate SDEII (Function 1); accessibility to most often used park in
combination with population density were used to calculate SDEIII
(Function 2); accessibility to most often used park in combination with
perceptional demand were used to calculate SDEIIII (Function 3). A value
of SDEI close to 1 indicates a higher level of spatial equity, otherwise
(SDEI close to 0 or larger than 1) a lower level of spatial equity is
indicated, i.e., mismatch between supply and demand was identified.
To aggregate demand data in subzone and planning area, demand
proxied by population density (i.e. Djs and Dis) was directly used to
represent the overall level of demand; demand proxied by perceptional
levels (i.e. Djp and Dip) was aggregated by the summation of demand
value of all the samples in subzone (1 to k) and planning area (1 to n).
Supply data were also aggregated accordingly, using the average value

Table 1
The proportions of dwelling types, racial groups, and gender types in samples and whole population of each study site.
Study site Comparison of proportion Dwelling type (%) Racial group (%) Gender type (%)

HDB Condominium Landed properties Chinese Malays Indians Others Male Female

Choa Chu Kang Sample 88.0 10.8 1.2 68.9 14.4 10.8 6.0 46.1 53.9
Population 88.3 10.4 1.3 71.4 16.8 9.1 2.7 50.1 49.9
Seng Kang Sample 88.3 9.7 2.1 75.2 11.7 10.3 2.8 51.0 49.0
Population 92.2 7.2 0.6 79.0 10.2 8.3 2.5 49.5 50.5
Bukit Batok Sample 73.9 22.5 3.5 69.0 10.6 14.1 6.3 45.8 54.2
Population 71.4 24.7 3.9 72.3 14.2 10.6 2.9 49.5 50.5
Pasir Ris Sample 72.0 23.1 4.9 63.6 16.8 14.0 5.6 54.5 45.5
Population 71.5 24.1 4.4 67.3 20.3 8.3 4.1 49.7 50.3

4
J. Zhang and P.Y. Tan Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 80 (2023) 127827

of accessibility (Function (1− 2)) and the summation of accessibility ⃒

⃒ ∑k
⃒
⃒
(Function 3). Thereafter, we used division operation to compare the ⃒
⃒ A ⃒
Djs × Al ⃒⃒
jm
1 ∑m ⃒ j=1
differences between supply and demand in each subzone, and used the SDEI pII = × ⃒ ∑n − ⃒ ∈ [0, 1] (6)
2 l=1 ⃒ A Dis × Am ⃒
level of mismatches between supply and demand in planning area as a ⃒ i=1 im ⃒
⃒ ⃒
baseline. The main reason accounting for the difference in the units of
supply and demand is that they essentially capture different aspects of ⃒ ⃒
⃒ ∑
k ∑k ⃒
the park system, i.e., supply reflects the physical capacity of recreational ⃒ Ajm Djp ⃒⃒
⃒
1 ∑m ⃒ j=1
resources, which should be assessed by amount or distance; demand SDEI pIII = × ⃒∑n
j=1
− ∑n
⃒
⃒ ∈ [0, 1] (7)
reflects social capacity of recreational resources expressed by users, 2 l=1 ⃒ A
⃒ i=1 im
⃒
i=1 Dip ⃒

which thus has to be assessed by scale levels or social group composi­ ⃒ ⃒

tions. Therefore, the combined consideration of supply and demand
addresses both the physical and social aspects of park system. Although where l refters to lth subzone; m is the total number of subzones in the
the units for assessing supply and demand are different, they both could whole planning area; Al is the area of lth subzone; Am is the area of the
be used to illustrate whether the level of supply and demand is high, whole planning area.
medium, or low, so this does not undermine the reasonableness of their
interactions and the calculation of SDEI. In addition, this difference in 3. Results
units was offset by the division operation, resulting in a mathematical
ratio that is used to represent the equity level. Similarly, Tardieu and 3.1. Comparison of different approaches to measuring park supply
Tuffery (2019) used geometric mean and B. Liu et al. (2022) used di­
vision to compute the combined effect of supply and demand. In previous studies, supply was normally measured by accessibility to
/ nearest parks, even though residents may not necessarily use the nearest
∑k
park. Our results lend credence to this observation. As shown in Fig. 3,
Ajn k/∑ Ain /n
n

j=1 there were more than 85% of residents can reach nearest parks within
SDEI I = i=1
(1) 400 m′ Euclidean distance range in four study sites, and 100% of resi­
Djs Dis
dents live within 800 m to nearest parks, indicating a high level of park
∑
k / supply. However, when Euclidean distance was replaced with network
∑
n
Ajm k/ Aim /n distance, these percentages were reduced to around 60–70% and 96%,
(2) respectively. More notably, if accessibility was measured by network
j=1 i=1
SDEI II =
Djs Dis
distance to most often used parks, the proportions of accessible residents
decreased further to 30–50% and 50–75%, respectively, indicating
∑ medium to low supply level. In addition, regarding the transportation
k
∑n
Ajm / Aim
SDEI III
j=1
= k i=1
∑n (3) means for accessing most often used park, 75.2% of the respondents
∑ i=1 Dip chose walking, while using private car, MRT & Bus, and cycling have
Djp
j=1 almost equal shares, i.e., 7.6%, 7.6%, and 7.3%, respectively. In
contrast, jogging and others are the least favorite transportation means
where Ajn and Ajm are the accessibility level (i.e. reciprocal of network for reaching parks (1.9% and 0.4%). This finding shows that people
distance, to transform distance to the level of accessibility) of jth sample prefer to walking to their most often used parks.
in subzone l to nearest park and most often used park, respectively; k is To further illustrate the importance of incorporating park users’
the total number of samples in subzone l; Djs is population density of preferences, the differences in residents’ destination choices between
subzone l; Djp is perceptional demand of jth sample in subzone l; Ain, Aim, nearest park and most often used park were assessed (Table 2), using
Dis, Dip, and n have the same meaning with aforementioned pairwise study site Bukit Batok as an example, and the distribution of parks in
items but the calculation region is changed to the whole planning area. Bukit Batok are shown in Fig. 4. There were general mismatches be­
Equity analysis at planning area scale was also performed to address tween the percentage of respondents living adjacent to a specific park
whether each subzone within this area enjoys the same equity level. The (A) and the percentage of respondents using it most often (B). It is worth
concept of residential segregation between racial groups was extended noting that for Beauty Garden Park and Park #251, the differences were
to assess the spatial disparity between supply and demand. As shown in 24% and 10.6%, respectively. The common attribute for these two parks
Function (4), Duncan and Duncan (1955) proposed a dissimilarity index is that they are both tiny neighborhood parks (<1 ha) with limited
D to assess the degree of residential segregation between Black and public spaces and facilities in a high-density residential area. More
White residents in a certain region. We modified this index, substituting importantly, there is a large attractive regional park Bukit Batok Town
population of different racial groups with supply and demand and Park near these two parks (<1 km), which is naturally preferred and
deriving three sets of SDEI at planning area scale, i.e. SDEIpI, SDEIpII, and chosen by the majority of residents as their most often park. This finding
SDEIpIII, ranging from 0 to 1, with 0 representing ideal equity, while 1 suggests that although there are relatively high population residing near
indicates extreme inequity (Functions 5–7). Higher values of SDEIp these two parks, only a few choose to use them regularly, and thus
indicate lower equity level and should provoke planning concerns. signifies the importance of considering residents’ preferences on parks.
⃒ ⃒ In contrast, for Bukit Batok Nature Park and Bukit Batok Town Park, the
1 ∑n ⃒⃒bi wi ⃒⃒
D= × ⃒ − ∈ [0, 1] (4) discrepancy is − 35.2% and − 5.6%, respectively, which indicates that
2 i=1 B W⃒
there were far more residents attracted by these large parks apart from
where bi and wi represent population of Black and White residents in ith users from surrounding neighborhoods. The main reason accounted for
area; B and W are the total population of these two racial groups in the this notable difference is that these two parks are both attractive
whole area. regional parks. Our results showed that the choice of destination dataset
⃒ ⃒ would have an impact on the measurement of park supply, and acces­
⃒ ∑
⃒
k ⃒
⃒ sibility to most often used parks would reflect supply level in a more
⃒ Ajn
1 ∑m ⃒ j=1 Djs × Al ⃒⃒ accurate manner.
SDEI pI = × ⃒∑n
l=1 ⃒
− ⃒ ∈ [0, 1] (5)
2 A Dis × Am ⃒
⃒ i=1 in ⃒
⃒ ⃒

5
J. Zhang and P.Y. Tan Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 80 (2023) 127827

Fig. 3. Comparison of park supply assessment based on different approaches.

Table 2
Differences in destination choice between nearest park and most often used park (using Bukit Batok as a sample).
Park Name Park Area Percentage of respondents living adjacent to it Percentage of respondents using it most often Percentage of difference (%)
(m2) (%) (A) (%) (B) (A-B)

Bukit Batok Central Park 23,686.4 6.3 8.5 -2.2

Bukit Batok Playground 26,182 9.9 2.8 7.1
Park #180 21,589 7.7 3.5 4.2
Bukit Batok Town Park 413,765 15.5 21.1 -5.6
Jalan Dernawan 1935.29 0.7 0 0.7
Playground
Lorong Kemunchup Park 1396.83 7.0 0 7
Chu Yen Playground 2856.57 0.7 0 0.7
Hillview Crescent 4187.42 2.8 0 2.8
Playground
Bukit Batok Nature Park 352,891 6.3 41.5 -35.2
Jalan Remaja Interim Park 954.25 0.7 0 0.7
Burgundy Crescent 2707.76 1.4 0 1.4
Playground
Pavilion Playground 4342.06 0.7 0 0.7
Phoenix Heights 3772.95 2.1 2.1 0
Playground
Park #251 7016.10 12.7 2.1 10.6
Beauty Garden Park 3483.75 25.4 1.4 24

3.2. Comparison of park demand across population
Demand proxied by population density assumes that people have
uniform demand level across the population(Shao and Luo, 2022), and
the differences of demand among geographical units are solely deter­
mined by the aggregation of population. However, our results showed
that there exist group variations among residents regarding perceptional
demand. What is interesting about the cross-group comparison is that
perceptional demand levels were statistically and significantly different
in population with different ethnic attributes (p = 0.004), family
structure (p = 0.005), type of dwelling (p = 0.035), reasons for moving
(p = 0.000), and whether used park last week (p = 0.000) (Kruskal-­
Wallis H Test was used for variables with multi-groups; Mann-Whitney U
Test was used for variables with only two groups; the details about
groups were provided in Supplementary Material). Specifically, for
ethnic attributes, pairwise comparisons showed that Indians express
significantly higher demand than Chinese. This finding confirms our
hypothesis that people with different ethnic characteristics would have
different demand levels, which is also in agreement with the findings of
previous studies (Dwyer, 1994; Payne et al., 2002). Families with chil­
dren under 21 years old (official adult age in Singapore) expressed
stronger demand than families without children, which is consistent
with the commonly held assumption that children are generally more
eager to use parks. It is worth noting that residents from landed prop­
erties expressed higher demand for using parks than others from HDB
and condominiums, one possible reason is that there are normally few
comprehensive regional parks located near landed properties. In addi­
tion to sociodemographic attributes, two attitude and behavior related
groups were also included in comparison. Specifically, respondents who
chose current house for being closer to parks reported higher park use
demand, and respondents who used park last week also reported higher
demand level. In contrast, perceptional demand did not show significant
differences among socioeconomic groups like gender, education level,
working status, individual and household monthly income, indicating
that socioeconomic status did not constrain residents’ inner demand for
using parks. It is also worth noting that although residents from different
age groups have statistically similar demand, people aged 25–34 showed
lowest average demand compared with other groups.
3.3. Spatial pattern of park supply and demand
From the comparative analysis conducted above, supply assessed by
network distance to most often used parks is more accurate and closer to
the actual level of park service attributed to residents. Similarly, demand
measured by perceptional demand could better reflect demand varia­
tions among the population in a more precise manner than population
density (the specific data for supply and demand measured through
different approaches as well as location of subzones were provided in
Appendix IV in Supplementary Material). In order to better illustrate the
spatial variations of park supply and demand measured through

6
J. Zhang and P.Y. Tan
Fig. 4. Park distribution in study site Bukit Batok.
aforementioned approaches, the spatial patterns of them in four study
sites are shown in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively. Less spatial variations
among subzones were observed when supply was calculated by acces­
sibility to nearest parks, and residents can easily reach a park within
800 m′ walking distance (Fig. 5). However, when the destinations were
replaced with most often used parks, there is at least one subzone has
low supply level (network distance > 800 m), and the proportion of
subzones with high supply level was largely decreased. This supports our
earlier analysis that accessibility to nearest parks would overestimate
supply and mask spatial variations.
The spatial distribution of park demand showed different patterns
when it was measured in different approaches. It is observed that several
subzones with high population density exhibited low perceptional park
use demand, and vice versa (Fig. 6). For instance, the subzone located at
the eastern part of Seng Kang was identified with high population
density but low demand level. It is counterintuitive but if we analyze in
conjunction with supply, we may infer that residents’ low demand might
be influenced by the low supply level of this area (averagely 950 m).
This finding supports our proposition that aggregation of population
would not necessarily be transformed to equal portions of demand for
using parks. It also indicates that demand might be influenced by other
factors. We also found that people residing in subzones close to regional
parks, such as in the western subzones of Seng Kang and Pasir Ris, tend
to have medium to high perceptional demand, which might be rein­
forced by their interactions with parks.
3.4. Spatial equity assessment at the multiple scales
At the subzone scale, SDEI was calculated for each subzone in four
study sites using different approaches to measuring park supply and
demand (Function (1− 3)), as with the ones used in Section 3.3. The
spatial variation of equity value of subzones was illustrated in Fig. 7 (the
specific data for spatial equity measured through different approaches as
well as location of subzones were provided in Supplementary Material).
A value of SDEI that is close to 1 indicates a higher level of spatial equity,
and light green was used to illustrate the spatial match of high supply
and high demand within the range of (0.8, 1.2], while light yellow in­
dicates low supply accompanied by low demand with the same range of
7
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 80 (2023) 127827
SDEI value. SDEI close to 0 indicates a lower level of spatial equity and a
series of yellow to brown color was used to show that demand exceeds
supply, i.e., undersupplied areas (low supply-high demand). SDEI that is
larger than 1 indicates that supply exceeds demand, i.e., oversupplied
areas (high supply-low demand), with green and dark green used to
illustrate this oversupplied situation. SDEII, SDEIII, and SDEIIII led to
different spatial patterns due to different definitions and methods for
assessing equity. Spatial equity revealed by SDEIII generally is more
diverse than by SDEII, while SDEIIII derived mixed-level of spatial
variation. These inconsistencies reinforced our proposition that fine-
scale data on park supply and demand used in SDEIII and SDEIIII
would reveal hidden patterns, while general proxies like accessibility to
nearest parks and population density used in SDEII tends to show
oversimplified spatial equity assessment. The underlying reason
accounted for the mixed-level equity revealed by SDEIIII might be that
the disparity level of demand among subzones is different across plan­
ning areas, which would be further discussed in the following section.
For the planning area scale, SDEIp was calculated for each study site
based on Function (5− 7). The major difference between SDEIp and SDEI
is that SDEIp captures the general spatial equity level from a synthesized
perspective, and transfers the local disparities as shown in Fig. 7 to an
overall assessment. The strength of SDEIp is that it is able to demonstrate
the overall equity level of a region intuitively, hence it is especially
useful when comparative analysis is required. The value of SDEIp was
calculated for four study sites (Table 3), ranging from 0 to 1, with
0 representing ideal equity, while 1 indicates extreme inequity. In
comparing the data in columns of Table 3, we showed that for the same
planning area, the equity level revealed by SDEIpI and SDEIpII is
different, and SDEIpIII indicated mixed-level of spatial equity. Another
observation is that SDEIpI measured by traditional indicators would
overestimate equity level. For instance, the equity level of Choa Chu
Kang actually is the lowest as indicated by SDEIpII and SDEIpIII, but it
ranked as the second highest shown by SDEIpI. As for the comparison of
data in rows, it is shown that Pasir Ris generally has the highest level of
spatial equity, Choa Chu Kang ranks as the lowest, Seng Kang and Bukit
Batok showed mid-level spatial equity. We showed that although Pasir
Ris and Bukit Batok both have high park supply level, equity levels are
different. This similarly applied to the low park supply level group of
J. Zhang and P.Y. Tan Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 80 (2023) 127827

Fig. 5. Spatial pattern of park supply proxied by accessibility to nearest park (upper) and most often used park (lower).

8
J. Zhang and P.Y. Tan Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 80 (2023) 127827

Fig. 6. Spatial pattern of park demand proxied by population (upper) and perceptional demand (lower).

9
J. Zhang and P.Y. Tan
Fig. 7. Spatial pattern of equity measured by SDEII, SDEIII, and SDEIIII.
Choa Chu Kang and Seng Kang. Overall, these results showed that
supply-demand interactions presented a different assessment of park
equity than supply, or demand alone, affirming the use of SDEIp as a
quantitative tool to assess overall equity level at this scale.
10
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 80 (2023) 127827
4. Discussion
4.1. A more accurate approach to measuring park supply and demand
A key contribution of this study is that it demonstrates conceptually
and empirically that the integration of park supply and demand vari­
ables provided a more nuanced picture of park equity. On the supply
side, residents’ accessibility to the most often used parks avoided the
assumption that people would use the nearest parks, which tends to
J. Zhang and P.Y. Tan
Table 3
Value of SDEIp in three approaches for four study sites (planning area scale).
Study sites SDEIpI SDEIpII SDEIpIII Average supply (accessibility
to nearest park; m)
Choa Chu 0.149 0.328 0.244 308.82
Kang
Seng Kang 0.296 0.184 0.062 349.41
Bukit 0.203 0.167 0.225 330.71
Batok
Pasir Ris 0.083 0.123 0.186 309.62
overestimate actual park supply and equity level. The observed
mismatch between nearest park and most often used park (Fig. 3) im­
plies that different approaches to measuring supply would lead to
different even contrasting understandings of park supply. In addition,
the comparison between differences in destination choice between
nearest park and most often used park (Table 2) helps us to understand
residents’ decision-making process. Specifically, based on data from
questionnaire survey and interview, it is implied that distance is only
one of the influential factors of park usage, while other factors also exert
an effect, like park area, aesthetic value, number and quality of facilities,
convenience for parking, etc. In addition, from the perspective of
random utility theory, the preferences of an individual among available
alternatives can be described by a utility function, and the increase of
utility is gradually slow with the increase of input. Therefore, a rational
individual would choose the one with maximum utility, no matter the
total number of alternatives is large or very limited (Termansen et al.,
2013). This also explained the reasonableness of using most often used
parks as the supply source, since these parks were believed to generate
the maximum utility of recreational experiences, and were thus
preferred and chosen by residents.
On the demand side, the conventional use of proxies of demand like
population implicitly assumes that different segments of the population
have equal demand for parks, which is unlikely to be universally true.
Indeed, it is more commonly reported that different segments of the
population, as influenced by age, ethnicity, and even education level
manifest different needs for parks (Y. Lin et al., 2021; Payne et al.,
2002). In addition, assuming equal demand at aggregated levels can lead
to ecological fallacy, which normally arises when inferences and con­
clusions are made about individuals based on analyses of the group
performance to which those individuals belong. Differentiated demand
among population will thus contribute to a more nuanced examination
of equity (Omer, 2006; Talen, 1998). We applied perceptional demand
data and showed that there exist group variations. For instance, our
results suggest that residents’ reasons for moving and whether used park
last week are good indicators of park use demand, as these two factors
actually reflected people’s attitudes towards parks and actual park use
behavior, which have been shown to hold significant and positive cor­
relations with park use demand in a prior study (Zhang and Tan, 2019).
In addition, we found that income did not differentiate people’s demand
level, and this is partly attributed to the fact that almost all parks are free
of charge in Singapore. Not surprisingly, people aged 25–34 showed
lowest average demand, which may be partly attributed to the fact that
people from this age group would mostly be young working adults and
tend to spend more time at work. On the whole, the result of demand
variations indicates that perceptional park use demand is more relevant
with personal preferences, ethnic characteristics, considerations for
children, and housing types, rather than with socioeconomic status. This
finding expanded the current literature on demand variations among
population, as previous studies normally focus on the influence of
population aggregation or speculate the group variations from litera­
ture, lack of the support of empirical data (Cortinovis and Geneletti,
2020; Z. Liu et al., 2021; Shao and Luo, 2022). The variation of demand
across population also confirms our hypothesis that perceptional de­
mand would capture different attitudes among population, and is more
accurate than population density as a proxy of demand.
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 80 (2023) 127827
Average supply (most Average demand (population Average demand (perceptional
often used park; m) density; 1000 person/m2) demand; Likert scale)
564.29 32.916 3.33
720.67 27.251 3.22
894.28 20.189 3.26
781.88 22.088 3.32
To further compare the different approaches to measuring park
supply and demand, we conducted comparative analyses using three
types of SDEI, and the results further highlighted the influence of mea­
surement indicators and the importance of incorporating this more
nuanced approach. Specifically, our comparative analysis showed that
when supply was assessed by accessibility to most often used parks and
demand was assessed by perceptional demand, some new information
regarding spatial variation is shown, which would contribute to the
investigation of actual situation and underlying reasons of inequity.
4.2. Park equity assessment at multiple scales based on fine-scale data
Within the discourse and practice of spatial equity analysis,
geographic analysis scale is an indispensable component (Omer, 2006).
Most studies have been limited to data aggregated over a large spatial
scale, which inevitably makes results prone to aggregation error
(Apparicio et al., 2008). Our study tried to overcome this problem by
using household-level data on accessibility and demand: the point of
origin is the location of respondent’s home, making the collection of
data on more nuanced supply and demand possible. Another major
strength of fine-scale data is that it partly overcomes the limits posed by
analytical scale. Specifically, park supply does not benefit in-situ users
only, as they also benefit users dwelling in other units and who are
willing to access to these parks. Therefore, collecting data on supply and
demand based on self-reported data at household scale can provide a
matching unit and more accurate data source for subsequent
supply-demand matching analysis. Studies also highlighted that larger
spatial scale tends to result in a more equitable measurement result,
regardless of the measurement used, leading to the suggestion that
different scales should be adopted in spatial equity assessment (Tan and
Samsudin, 2017; Truelove, 1993). Our multi-scale analyses provide a
more comprehensive understanding of spatial equity.
4.3. Interpreting the relationship between park provision, supply, demand
and equity
Park provision has long been used as an indicator of the spread of
park benefits and the effectiveness of park planning in practice, and the
equal share of park provision has also been widely used as an indicator
of equity (C. Liu et al., 2010; Nicholls, 2001). However, our results
showed that study sites with higher park provision do not necessarily
have higher equity level (Table 3), which indicates that provision alone
as one aspect of supply cannot fully explain equity. For instance, we
observed that Pasir Ris and Bukit Batok both have higher park provision
and lower population density, but the equity level in Pasir Ris is
consistently higher. This difference was accounted by the lower park
supply of Bukit Batok assessed by accessibility to most often used parks,
and this comparison helps to highlight and locate the strengths of park
supply other than provision as an indicator of equity. However, the
heterogeneity of park supply level is also not adequate to explain equity,
and should be analyzed in conjunction with demand. A major reason is
that the equal inputs of services seldom result in output equality, due to
the variation in individual’s demand and abilities. For instance, it has
been suggested that equal inputs to unequally endowed residents may
result in severely unequal outputs (Lineberry, 1977). One example is
11
J. Zhang and P.Y. Tan
that the average supply level of Choa Chu Kang measured by network
distance to most often used parks was the highest (Fig. 3), but its equity
levels shown by SDEIpII and SDEIpIII were the lowest. This finding in­
dicates that although on average residents in Choa Chu Kang have easier
access to parks, disparities of supply among residents are larger than
other study sites. This disparity is also accounted by the unequal demand
level expressed by residents living in each subzone. It can be seen from
Figs. 2 and 6 that the majority of parks are concentrated in the central
area, while residents from peripheral areas expressed high levels of
demand. In contrast, Seng Kang had lowest park supply (Fig. 3), but its
equity level was not the lowest in general. This is mainly due to the fact
the park distribution in Seng Kang is dispersive and evenly, and the
matching degree between supply and demand in each subzone is high.
This finding also indicates another issue that deserves further explora­
tion, is that high equity level also could be derived by evenly but low
levels of supply. Therefore, statistical equity alone as an indicator of
park distribution cannot adequately explain the reasonableness of park
distribution, and this is the reason why we emphasized that we should
explore and map the spatial pattern of supply and demand separately
first and then in concert to derive equity, and the results derived in each
stage could be used as guidance of planning intervention. We thus
suggest that practitioners should have a clear understanding of the
connotation of park provision, supply, demand and equity levels as well
as their interrelationships before developing strategies. On the whole,
this comparative analysis has shown that high park provision does not
equate with high supply and equity level. In other words, although
residents live in a planning area with abundant park resources, there still
could exists high spatial disparity of supply and demand within that
region, resulting in certain groups of residents receive deprived park
resources.
4.4. Implications of SDEI for park planning and management and
limitations
The concept of supply-demand interactions remains underused in
supporting practical decisions in urban park planning and management.
The generation of practical decisions is largely based on physical attri­
butes of parks, ignoring individuals’ preferences and demands for these
attributes. As a result, the main metric used for park system planning is
accessibility to nearest parks, assuming that every resident located
within the planned distance from park is a potential user. However, a
number of studies have shown that this assumption is far from being
verified (Tardieu and Tuffery, 2019; J. Zhang and Tan, 2019). In this
study, we developed an index to spatially explicitly show the spatial
heterogeneity of supply based on accessibility to most often used park,
demand based on residents’ expressed preferences, and resulting equity.
This approach is innovative in the sense that supply assessment is nor­
mally based on an unverified assumption of potential users, and demand
assessment is usually inaccurate and specified with only the density or
sociodemographic characteristics of individuals.
First, SDEI could be used as a decision-support tool for urban park
planning, and may shed light upon the identification of areas worth
prioritized attention, so as to generate optimized suggestions for inter­
vention at a fine scale. As several scholars have pointed out, planning for
public amenities need to be conducted at smaller spatial scales in order
to assess distributional inadequacies (Tan and Samsudin, 2017). Spe­
cifically, subzone level equity assessment explicitly shows the spatial
heterogeneity of supply and demand, and the mapping of
supply-demand imbalance explicitly shows two types of mismatching
(oversupplied (low demand-high supply) and undersupplied (high
demand-low supply)) and two types of matching (high supply-high de­
mand and low supply-low demand) that are worth noting. For over­
supplied areas, decision makers could consider how to optimize the
attractiveness of abundant park resources and benefit a larger group of
population apart from local residents. While for undersupplied areas,
priorities should be given to them in future park development and
12
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 80 (2023) 127827
regeneration, to enhance the equity of park services. For instance, the
subzone located at the western part of Pasir Ris was identified with
undersupply (Fig. 7), and there is a clear mismatch between supply and
demand (Figs. 5 and 6). In addition, two types of matching (high
supply-high demand and low supply-low demand) are also worth noting.
The first type would contribute to the optimized utilization of park re­
sources, and generate positive circulation between supply and demand.
In contrast, areas with low supply-low demand should be prioritized in
the regeneration of park resource although their equity levels are high,
since we found that residents’ low demand might influenced and rein­
forced by the low supply of parks in a certain area. On a larger scale,
planning area level provides an overall equity level assessment and al­
lows for an explicit comparison across study sites, also could be used as
an assessment tool to facilitate equitable park planning at the citywide
scale. For instance, planning area Choa Chu Kang was identified with the
lowest equity level and should be prioritized in future planning to
reduce regional inequity.
Second, our results are helpful for the discussion of trade-off between
providing larger regional parks and smaller neighborhood parks. Park
size is critical in the sense that a large regional park may provide more
functions and is more attractive, and elicit more planned activities
(Boone et al., 2009). Smaller neighborhood parks are also essential since
they can be easily accessed. In our study, it was observed that diversity
of park types in a certain area, including both regional and neighbor­
hood parks, would contribute to the ease of reaching parks and
improvement of equity level, as seen in the central part of Choa Chu
Kang and Bukit Batok. In contrast, if an area only has neighborhood
parks, people would travel longer to reach more attractive parks which
they prefer to use, as seen in the northern part of Choa Chu Kang. This
finding provides significant insights for park planners, that the quality
and attractiveness of a park play a substantial role in influencing resi­
dents’ choice of most often used parks and thus improve equity level.
SDEI in turn, can be used for devising planning and community in­
terventions to alleviate localities with inequitable park provision.
Third, apart from supporting practical decisions in park planning, we
further validate the usefulness of SDEI by using it to facilitate park
management. On one hand, based on comparison between the spatial
heterogeneity of supply measured by accessibility to nearest and most
often used parks, it is indicated that if the management goal is to
maximize the recreational value, park managers should focus on
improving facilities, services and events that are attractive for most of
the residents nearby, so as to transfer nearest park to most often used
parks and minimize this observed mismatch. On the other hand, based
on the results of heterogeneity of demand across population, it is high­
lighted that if the management focus is to enhance the recreational
values for certain social groups, the demand of these groups should be
carefully examined. For instance, we found that families with children
expressed stronger demand for using parks, and Mäntymaa et al., (2022)
found that low-income groups would benefit more than others from the
reconstruction and management of parks.
Nevertheless, as a concept and tool, SDEI has limitations. A major
limitation is that obtaining perceptional demand is time consuming, and
therefore, a resource intensive exercise that will be challenging to
conduct at a larger scale and over frequent periods. However, with the
development of new techniques for data collection and processing,
including perception data collected from social media (Song et al.,
2020), perception data generated based on machine learning of re­
spondents’ ratings (F. Zhang et al., 2018), perception data deduced from
street view images (Ye et al., 2019), etc., there would emerge promising
ways to overcome this challenge in the future. Another limitation of
SDEI lies in the lack of time dimension in supply and demand assess­
ment, since residents’ most often used parks and demand may vary in
everyday experiences, weekends, and holidays. In our study, people’s
demand in the general situation was asked to generate an overall value.
Therefore, we would like to highlight that in future studies, it would be
insightful to assess perceptional demand in a more refined manner,
J. Zhang and P.Y. Tan
taking the time dimension into consideration.
Despite these limitations, we suggest that our study is useful to
provide a method for operationalizing the challenges of integrating
supply and demand in spatial equity assessment. Demand, in particular,
cannot be easily represented by more conventional data such as popu­
lation within a catchment of interest, as it refers to people’s behavioral
intensions to use parks (Zhang and Tan, 2019). We demonstrated the use
of perceptional demand is reasonable and helpful in the spatial visual­
ization of supply-demand mismatch. In addition, perceptional park use
demand is more relevant with personal preferences, ethnic character­
istics, considerations for children, and housing types, rather than with
socioeconomic status. This difference might also be extrapolated to the
population at the whole city level, and could be used to derive social
group coefficients for easier calculation of demand in future studies. In
addition, SDEI has the potential to be further refined and adapted to
other cities.
5. Conclusion
Assessment of spatial equity should emphasize the degree of spatial
match of accessibility to park resources and residents’ demand level.
While this is a logical inference from the conceptual underpinnings of
equity, simultaneous assessment of supply and demand has been inad­
equately addressed in the majority of spatial equity studies. We attribute
this to the lack of suitable methods for assessment and challenges in data
collection on demand. We developed an integrated framework and a
series of SDEI to assess equity at multiple scales, as replicable method­
ology to support spatial assessment and management of urban parks. We
further validated its usefulness by applying SDEI in four study sites in
Singapore. On the whole, our study demonstrated a method to oper­
ationalize more accurate assessment of supply and demand, contributing
to existing literature on assessment of park equity.
Our study also demonstrated three other areas of improvement. First,
through the comparative mapping of park supply and demand pattern
using different approaches, we concluded that residents’ assessment on
the basis of their preferences and perceptions may serve as a more ac­
curate and reasonable proxy for supply and demand of urban parks.
Second, through the multi-scale analysis of spatial equity assessed using
different types of SDEI, a more comprehensive understanding of spatial
equity in a locality was provided. We particularly showed the usefulness
of data collection at the household level, which can be aggregated at
larger scales. In addition, SDEI could be easily replicable in other cities
and regions, at multiple scales. Third, our proposed framework also has
the potential to be widely adopted as a comprehensive approach to
support decision making, and could be used for communication by re­
searchers and practitioners. Our results highlighted that higher park
provision do not necessarily result in higher spatial equity level, indi­
cating that more efforts should be made on improving equity level apart
from traditional focus on park provision. Spatially, areas with a low park
supply but high demand can be identified and targeted for intervention.
Urban planners can also consider the baseline level of demand in plan­
ning for parks. It is not uncommon, for instance, that parks located at the
fringe of cities away from core residential areas where the demand is
low, may then become less accessible and less often used than those
closer to residential areas where the demand is the high. Incorporating
demand into park planning systematically can help to generate
reasonable match between supply and demand for decision making. A
better understanding of park distribution and equity assessment are
worthy topics for further studies that can influence the well-being of a
large number of urban dwellers. We believe that the methods and
assessment described in our study can lead to a more nuanced picture of
equity in the endeavor to plan for and provide parks in a more equitable
manner.
13
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 80 (2023) 127827
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Zhang Jingyuan: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation,
Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review
& editing, Visualization, Funding acquisition. Tan Puay Yok: Concep­
tualization, Methodology, Data curation, Investigation, Writing – review
& editing, Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Appendix A. Supporting information
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the
online version at doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127827.
References
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50
(2), 179–211.
Alonso, W., 1968. Equity and its Relation to Efficiency in Urbanization. Institute of Urban
& Regional Development, University of California,.
Apparicio, P., Abdelmajid, M., Riva, M., Shearmur, R., 2008. Comparing alternative
approaches to measuring the geographical accessibility of urban health services:
Distance types and aggregation-error issues. Int. J. Health Geogr. 7 (1), 7.
Barbosa, O., Tratalos, J.A., Armsworth, P.R., Davies, R.G., Fuller, R.A., Johnson, P.,
Gaston, K.J., 2007. Who benefits from access to green space? A case study from
Sheffield, UK. Landsc. Urban Plan. 83 (2), 187–195.
Bedimo-Rung, A.L., Mowen, A.J., Cohen, D.A., 2005. The significance of parks to
physical activity and public health: a conceptual model. Am. J. Prev. Med. 28 (2),
159–168.
Bennett, R.J., 1980. The Geography of Public Finance. Routledge,.
Berg-Schlosser, D., De Meur, G., Rihoux, B., Ragin, C.C., 2009. Qualitative comparative
analysis (QCA) as an approach. Config. Comp. Methods.: Qual. Comp. Anal. (QCA)
Relat. Tech. 1–18.
Boone, C.G., Buckley, G.L., Grove, J.M., Sister, C., 2009. Parks and people: An
environmental justice inquiry in Baltimore, Maryland. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 99
(4), 767–787.
Byrne, J., Wolch, J., 2009. Nature, race, and parks: past research and future directions for
geographic research. Prog. Hum. Geogr.
Cortinovis, C., Geneletti, D., 2020. A performance-based planning approach integrating
supply and demand of urban ecosystem services. Landsc. Urban Plan. 201, 103842.
Crompton, J.L., Wicks, B.E., 1988. Implementing a preferred equity model for the
delivery of leisure services in the US context. Leis. Stud. 7 (3), 287–304.
Dai, D., 2011. Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in urban green space
accessibility: Where to intervene? Landsc. Urban Plan. 102 (4), 234–244.
Dear, M., 1978. Planning for mental health care: a reconsideration of public facility
location theory. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 3 (2), 93–111.
Deutsch, M., 1975. Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used
as the basis of distributive justice? J. Soc. Issues 31 (3), 137–149.
Duncan, O.D., Duncan, B., 1955. A methodological analysis of segregation indexes. Am.
Sociol. Rev. 210–217.
Dwyer, J.F., 1994. Customer Diversity and the Future Demand for Outdoor Recreation.
DIANE Publishing,.
Giles-Corti, B., Donovan, R.J., 2002. Socioeconomic status differences in recreational
physical activity levels and real and perceived access to a supportive physical
environment. Prev. Med. 35 (6), 601–611.
Kim, D., Jin, J., 2018. Does happiness data say urban parks are worth it? Landsc. Urban
Plan. 178, 1–11.
Larkin, A., Gu, X., Chen, L., Hystad, P., 2021. Predicting perceptions of the built
environment using GIS, satellite and street view image approaches. Landsc. Urban
Plan. 216, 104257.
Lee, G., Hong, I., 2013. Measuring spatial accessibility in the context of spatial disparity
between demand and supply of urban park service. Landsc. Urban Plan. 119, 85–90.
Lin, B.B., Fuller, R.A., Bush, R., Gaston, K.J., Shanahan, D.F., 2014. Opportunity or
orientation? Who uses urban parks and why. PloS One 9 (1).
Lin, Y., Chen, X., Huang, L., Zhu, C., Shahtahmassebi, A., Zhang, J., Gan, M., 2021. Fine-
scale mapping of urban ecosystem service demand in a metropolitan context: A
population-income-environmental perspective. Sci. Total Environ. 781, 146784.
Lineberry, R.L., 1977. Equality and Urban Policy: The Distribution of Municipal Public
Services. Sage Publications, Inc,.
Liu, B., Tian, Y., Guo, M., Tran, D., Alwah, A.A.Q., Xu, D., 2022. Evaluating the disparity
between supply and demand of park green space using a multi-dimensional spatial
equity evaluation framework. Cities 121, 103484.
Liu, C., Li, X., Han, D., 2010. Accessibility analysis of urban parks: methods and key
issues. Acta Ecol. Sin. 30 (19), 5381–5390.
J. Zhang and P.Y. Tan
Liu, Z., Huang, Q., Yang, H., 2021. Supply-demand spatial patterns of park cultural
services in megalopolis area of Shenzhen, China. Ecol. Indic. 121, 107066.
Lotfi, S., Koohsari, M.J., 2009. Analyzing Accessibility Dimension of Urban Quality of
Life: Where Urban Designers Face Duality Between Subjective and Objective Reading
of Place. Soc. Indic. Res. 94 (3), 417–435.
Luo, W., Wang, F., 2003. Measures of spatial accessibility to health care in a GIS
environment: synthesis and a case study in the Chicago region. Environ. Plan. B:
Plan. Des. 30 (6), 865–884.
Mäntymaa, E., Jokinen, M., Louhi, P., Juutinen, A., 2022. Visitors’ heterogeneous
preferences for urban park management: The case of a city park in Oulu, Finland.
Urban For. Urban Green. 77, 127751.
Neutens, T., Schwanen, T., Witlox, F., De Maeyer, P., 2010. Equity of urban service
delivery: a comparison of different accessibility measures. Environ. Plan. A 42 (7),
1613.
Nicholls, S., 2001. Measuring the accessibility and equity of public parks: a case study
using GIS. Manag. Leis. 6 (4), 201–219.
Oh, K., Jeong, S., 2007. Assessing the spatial distribution of urban parks using GIS.
Landsc. Urban Plan. 82 (1), 25–32.
Omer, I., 2006. Evaluating accessibility using house-level data: A spatial equity
perspective. Comput., Environ. Urban Syst. 30 (3), 254–274.
Payne, L.L., Mowen, A.J., Orsega-Smith, E., 2002. An examination of park preferences
and behaviors among urban residents: the role of residential location, race, and age.
Leis. Sci. 24 (2), 181–198.
Peña, L., Casado-Arzuaga, I., Onaindia, M., 2015. Mapping recreation supply and
demand using an ecological and a social evaluation approach. Ecosyst. Serv. 13,
108–118.
Pirie, G.H., 1979. Measuring accessibility: a review and proposal. Environ. Plan. A 11 (3),
299–312.
Ragin, C.C., Becker, H.S., 1992. What is a case?: exploring the foundations of social
inquiry. Cambridge university press,.
Shao, Y., Luo, W., 2022. Supply-demand adjusted two-steps floating catchment area
(SDA-2SFCA) model for measuring spatial access to health care. Soc. Sci. Med. 296,
114727.
Sister, C., Wolch, J., Wilson, J., 2010. Got green? Addressing environmental justice in
park provision. GeoJournal 75 (3), 229–248.
Small, M.L., 2009. How many cases do I need?’On science and the logic of case selection
in field-based research. Ethnography 10 (1), 5–38.
Song, X.P., Richards, D.R., He, P., Tan, P.Y., 2020. Does geo-located social media reflect
the visit frequency of urban parks? A city-wide analysis using the count and content
of photographs. Landsc. Urban Plan. 203, 103908.
Talen, E., 1998. Visualizing fairness: Equity maps for planners. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 64 (1),
22–38.
14
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 80 (2023) 127827
Talen, E., Anselin, L., 1998. Assessing spatial equity: an evaluation of measures of
accessibility to public playgrounds. Environ. Plan. A 30 (4), 595–613.
Tan, P.Y., Samsudin, R., 2017. Effects of spatial scale on assessment of spatial equity of
urban park provision. Landsc. Urban Plan. 158, 139–154.
Tan, P.Y., Wang, J., Sia, A., 2013. Perspectives on five decades of the urban greening of
Singapore. Cities 32, 24–32.
Tardieu, L., Tuffery, L., 2019. From supply to demand factors: What are the determinants
of attractiveness for outdoor recreation? Ecol. Econ. 161, 163–175.
Termansen, M., McClean, C.J., Jensen, F.S., 2013. Modelling and mapping spatial
heterogeneity in forest recreation services. Ecol. Econ. 92, 48–57.
Truelove, M., 1993. Measurement of spatial equity. Environ. Plan. C. 11.
Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2014, Master Plan 2014.
Wang, D., Brown, G., Liu, Y., Mateo-Babiano, I., 2015. A comparison of perceived and
geographic access to predict urban park use. Cities 42, 85–96.
Ward Thompson, C., 2011. Linking landscape and health: The recurring theme. Landsc.
Urban Plan. 99 (3–4), 187–195.
Wen, M., Zhang, X., Harris, C.D., Holt, J.B., Croft, J.B., 2013. Spatial disparities in the
distribution of parks and green spaces in the USA. Ann. Behav. Med. 45 (1), 18–27.
Wolch, J., Wilson, J.P., Fehrenbach, J., 2005. Parks and park funding in Los Angeles: An
equity-mapping analysis. Urban Geogr. 26 (1), 4–35.
Wolch, J.R., Byrne, J., Newell, J.P., 2014. Urban green space, public health, and
environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landsc.
Urban Plan. 125, 234–244.
Xiao, Y., Wang, Z., Li, Z., Tang, Z., 2017. An assessment of urban park access in
Shanghai–Implications for the social equity in urban China. Landsc. Urban Plan. 157,
383–393.
Ye, Y., Richards, D., Lu, Y., Song, X., Zhuang, Y., Zeng, W., Zhong, T., 2019. Measuring
daily accessed street greenery: A human-scale approach for informing better urban
planning practices. Landsc. Urban Plan. 191, 103434.
Zhang, F., Zhou, B., Liu, L., Liu, Y., Fung, H.H., Lin, H., Ratti, C., 2018. Measuring human
perceptions of a large-scale urban region using machine learning. Landsc. Urban
Plan. 180, 148–160.
Zhang, H., Zhang, Z., Dong, G., Yu, Z., Liu, K., 2021. Identifying the supply-demand
mismatches of ecorecreation services to optimize sustainable land use management:
A case study in the Fenghe River watershed, China. Ecol. Indic. 133, 108424.
Zhang, J., Tan, P.Y., 2019. Demand for parks and perceived accessibility as key
determinants of urban park use behavior. Urban For. Urban Green. 44, 126420.
Zhang, X., Lu, H., Holt, J.B., 2011. Modeling spatial accessibility to parks: a national
study. Int. J. Health Geogr. 10 (1), 31.
Zhou, X., Kim, J., 2013. Social disparities in tree canopy and park accessibility: A case
study of six cities in Illinois using GIS and remote sensing. Urban For. Urban Green.
12 (1), 88–97.