Research on accessibility of urban open space at home and abroad: Thematic context and frontier trends

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-9479.2024.02.2021908

Abstract

Abstract:

The accessibility of public open space is an important indicator to measure the level of urban recreational public services and the quality of public life. In the first place, this study used CNKI and Web of Science core databases to extract Chinese and English literature on accessibility of urban open space. Then, statistical analysis was conducted on the year of publication, names of journals, and nationalities of authors. Next, with the help of VOSviewer and CiteSpace bibliometric analysis software, this study made a visual analysis on the core author group, key documents, keyword clustering as well as burst keywords. Again, we summarized the knowledge domains of the academic field at home and abroad. Finally, the study initially proposed several directions of this academic field for future research. The research findings can be summarized as following: (1) The number of literatures on the accessibility of urban open space research has been increasing yearly. Chinese scholars are far ahead in the number of papers, however, the impact of which need to be improved. There are a certain number of author cooperative groups both at home and abroad, nevertheless stable core author groups have not yet emerged, as well as the cooperative links among groups are not sufficient. (2) There are some similarities between domestic and foreign research hotspots, mainly reflected in the impact of open space on public health and the research on the ecosystem service function of green open space. (3) Recent domestic research focuses on the accessibility of emergency shelters and park green space, while recent foreign research concentrates on the impact of park accessibility on house price valuation and the value of open space. In the future, paying more attention to the following propositions is expected to contribute new knowledge to the research of urban open space: the accessibility of different types of urban open spaces, the fairness of urban open space, user preference and resident behavior of different social groups, as well as the accessibility of urban emergency shelters.

Key words: urban open space, accessibility, cluster analysis, thematic context, frontier trends, at home and abroad

摘要：

公共开敞空间可达性是衡量城市游憩公共服务水平及公众生活质量的重要指标。使用CNKI、Web of Science核心数据库检索城市开敞空间可达性研究领域的中英文文献，对其发文年份、期刊及国家分布进行统计分析，借助VOSviewer、CiteSpace文献计量分析软件对文献的核心作者群、关键文献、关键词聚类及突现词进行可视化分析，厘清了国内外相关研究的知识域及其主题脉络，并对该领域的未来研究导向作了初步探讨。研究发现：城市开敞空间可达性领域的研究力量逐年壮大，中国学者的文献发表量遥遥领先但其影响力有待提升，国内外均出现一定数量的作者合作群体，但尚未形成稳定的核心作者群且群体间缺乏足够的合作链接；国内外研究热点具有一定相似之处，主要体现在开敞空间对公共健康的影响及绿色开敞空间生态系统服务功能研究两个方面；国内研究近期关注的主题是应急避难场所和公园绿地的可达性，国外研究近期侧重于公园可达性对房价估值的影响和开敞空间带给人的价值；未来对以下命题给予重点探讨可望为城市开敞空间研究贡献新知识：不同类型城市开敞空间的可达性研究、城市开敞空间的公平性研究、不同人群的使用偏好及居民行为差异研究、城市应急避难场所的可达性研究。

关键词: 城市开敞空间, 可达性, 聚类分析, 主题脉络, 前沿趋势, 国内外

Erbin XU, Qingwei ZHU, Jifei ZHANG. Research on accessibility of urban open space at home and abroad: Thematic context and frontier trends[J]. World Regional Studies, 2024, 33(2): 136-150.

许尔斌, 朱庆伟, 张继飞. 国内外城市开敞空间可达性研究：主题脉络与前沿趋势[J]. 世界地理研究, 2024, 33(2): 136-150.

Figures/Tables 7

References 72

1	国家统计局. 第七次全国人口普查公报(第七号) . 北京: 国家统计局, 2021.
	State Statistical Bureau. Bulletin of the Seventh National Census (No.7). Beijing: State Statistical Bureau, 2021.
2	陈明星, 叶超, 陆大道, 等. 中国特色新型城镇化理论内涵的认知与建构. 地理学报, 2019, 74(4): 633-647.
	CHEN M, YE C, LU D, et al. Cognition and construction of the theoretical connotations of new urbanization with Chinese characteristics. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2019, 74(4): 633-647.
3	胡凯群, 林美霞, 吝涛, 等. 快速城镇化过程中的城市蔓延与生态保护冲突空间识别与量化评估——以长三角生态绿色一体化发展示范区为例. 生态学报, 2022, 42(2): 462-473.
	HU K, LIN M, LIN T, et al. Spatial identification and quantitative evaluation of conflict space between urban sprawl and ecological protection in the process of rapid urbanization: A case study of the Yangtze River Delta Eco-Green Integrated Development Demonstration Zone. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2022, 42(2): 462-473.
4	ADDAS A, MAGHRABI A. Social evaluation of public open space services and their impact on well-Being: A micro-scale assessment from a coastal university. Sustainability, 2021, 13(8): 4372.
5	ADDAS A, MAGHRABI A. A proposed planning concept for public open space provision in Saudi Arabia: A study of three Saudi Cities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020, 17(16): 5970.
6	王绍增, 李敏. 城市开敞空间规划的生态机理研究(上). 中国园林, 2001(4): 5-9.
	WANG S, LI M. Study on ecological mechanism of urban open space planning (Part I). Chinese Landscape Architecture, 2001(4): 5-9.
7	陈鹏, 张晶. 成都市中心城区城市开敞空间规划建设思考. 规划师, 2013, 29(S1): 38-41.
	CHEN P, ZHANG J. Urban wide open space planning of Chengdu. Planners, 2013, 29(S1): 38-41.
8	蔚芳, 李王鸣, 皇甫佳群. 城市开放空间规划标准研究. 城市规划, 2016, 40(7): 74-80.
	WEI F, LI W, HUANGPU J. A study on urban open space planning standards. City Planning Review, 2016, 40(7): 74-80.
9	叶鹏. 中国当代城市广场认知与实践的3个阶段——基于符号学、语用学视角的观察. 建筑学报, 2013(S2): 78-83.
	YE P. The three phases of recognition and practice on contemporary Chinese urban squares: An observation based on semiotics and pragmatics. Architectural Journal, 2013(S2): 78-83.
10	江海燕, 吴俊达, 李智山, 等. 存量增长下的南海开敞空间质量提升规划设计指引. 中国园林, 2016, 32(12): 92-96.
	JIANG H, WU J, LI Z, et al. Nanhai open space planning and design guideline toward quality improvement under the inventory growth. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 2016, 32(12): 92-96.
11	邹德慈. 城市的宜居性 //中国城市规划学会. 城市规划面对面——2005 城市规划年会论文集(上). 北京: 中国水利水电出版社, 2005.
	ZOU D. Livability of the city // Urban Planning Society of China. Face to Face Urban Planning: Proceedings of 2005 Annual Conference on Urban Planning (Part I). Beijing: China Water & Power Press, 2005.
12	尹海伟. 城市开敞空间: 格局·可达性·宜人性. 南京: 东南大学出版社, 2008.
	YIN H. Urban Open Space: Pattern, Accessibility and Amenity. Nanjing: Southeast University Press, 2008.
13	李平华, 陆玉麒. 城市可达性研究的理论与方法评述. 城市问题, 2005(1): 69-74.
	LI P, LU Y. Review on theories and methods of urban accessibility research. Urban Problems, 2005(1): 69-74.
14	陈竹, 叶珉. 什么是真正的公共空间? ——西方城市公共空间理论与空间公共性的判定. 国际城市规划, 2009, 24(3): 44-49.
	CHEN Z, YE M. What is authentic urban public space?: A review of western public space theories and a evaluation of the "Publicness" of pubilc space. Urban Planning International, 2009, 24(3): 44-49.
15	刘常富, 李小马, 韩东. 城市公园可达性研究: 方法与关键问题. 生态学报, 2010, 30(19): 5381-5390.
	LIU C, LI X, HAN D. Accessibility analysis of urban parks: Methods and key issues. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2010, 30(19): 5381-5390.
16	宋正娜, 陈雯, 张桂香, 等. 公共服务设施空间可达性及其度量方法. 地理科学进展, 2010, 29(10): 1217-1224.
	SONG Z, CHEN W, ZHANG G, et al. Spatial accessibility to public service facilities and its measurement approaches. Progress in Geography, 2010, 29(10): 1217-1224.
17	屠星月, 黄甘霖, 邬建国. 城市绿地可达性和居民福祉关系研究综述. 生态学报, 2019, 39(2): 421-431.
	TU X, HUANG G, WU J. Review of the relationship between urban greenspace accessibility and human well-being. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2019, 39(2): 421-431.
18	亚历山大. 模式语言: 城镇建筑结构. 王听度, 译. 北京: 知识产权出版社, 2002.
	ALEXANDER X. Pattern Language: Urban Architectural Structure. Translated by WANG T. Beijing: Intellectual Property Publishing House, 2002.
19	HANSEN W G. How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 1959, 25: 73-76.
20	湛东升, 张文忠, 谌丽, 等. 城市公共服务设施配置研究进展及趋向. 地理科学进展, 2019, 38(4): 506-519.
	ZHAN D, ZHANG W, CHEN L, et al. Research progress and its enlightenment of urban public service facilities allocation. Progress in Geography, 2019, 38(4): 506-519.
21	李平华, 陆玉麒. 可达性研究的回顾与展望. 地理科学进展, 2005(3): 69-78.
	LI P, LU Y. Review and prospectation of accessibility research. Progress in Geography, 2005(3): 69-78.
22	熊曦, 闫跳跳, 段宜嘉, 等. 中国城镇化质量研究现状与热点分析. 人文地理, 2021, 36(4): 37-43.
	XIONG X, YAN T, DUAN Y, et al. Analysis on the status quo and hot spots of China's urbanization quality. Human Geography, 2021, 36(4): 37-43.
23	刘晓琼, 张瑜洋, 赵新正, 等. 可持续农业和农村发展研究进展与展望——基于1990—2020年WoS核心合集的文献计量分析. 人文地理, 2021, 36(2): 91-101.
	LIU X, ZHANG Y, ZHAO X, et al. Research progress and enlightenment of sustainable agriculture and rural development: Bibliometric analysis based on 1990-2020 Web of Science core collection literatures. Human Geography, 2021, 36(2): 91-101.
24	张烨, 黄宗海, 赵姝婷, 等. 新型冠状病毒肺炎(COVID-19)研究热点可视化分析. 世界科学技术-中医药现代化, 2020, 22(3): 665-672.
	ZHANG Y, HUANG Z, ZHAO S, et al. Visualization analysis of research hotspots on COVID-19. Modernization of Traditional Chinese Medicine and Materia Medica-World Science and Technology, 2020, 22(3): 665-672.
25	CHEN C, IBEKWE-SANJUAN F, HOU J. The structure and dynamics of cocitation clusters: A multiple-perspective cocitation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2010, 61(7): 1386-1409.
26	黎恒, 王宁, 王宗水, 等. 碳足迹研究现状与演变: 基于社会网络视角分析. 世界地理研究, 2019, 28(6): 132-144.
	LI H, WANG N, WANG Z, et al. Research status and evolution trend of carbon footprint: Based on social network perspective. World Regional Studies, 2019, 28(6): 132-144.
27	周春雷. 基于h指数的核心作者遴选方法的比较研究. 中国科技资源导刊, 2009, 41(1): 46-51.
	ZHOU C. Comparative study of core authors selecting method based on H-index in a field. China Science & Technology Resources Review, 2009, 41(1): 46-51.
28	杨鑫, 唐庄生, 鱼小军, 等. 近二十年中外文草地遥感研究热点及前沿演进——基于CiteSpace的数据可视化分析. 草地学报, 2021, 29(6): 1136-1147.
	YANG X, TANG Z, YU X, et al. Hot topics and frontier evolution of grassland Remote Sensing research in Chinese and foreign languages in the past two decades: Visual analysis based on CiteSpace. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(6): 1136-1147.
29	张艺川, 胡萌, 李红. 基于CiteSpace的引力模型研究进展及其热点问题综述——经济地理视角下的文献对比分析. 世界地理研究, 2023, 32(1): 130-140..
	ZHANG Y, HU M, LI H. A review of the progress and hot issues of Gravity Model based on the Citespace: A comparative analysis of literature from an economic geography perspective. World Regional Studies, 2023, 32(1): 130-140.
30	OLAWUMI T U, CHAN D W M. A scientometric review of global research on sustainability and sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner production, 2018,183: 231-250.
31	李孟桐, 杨令宾, 魏冶. 高斯两步移动搜索法的模型研究——以上海市绿地可达性为例. 地理科学进展, 2016, 35(8): 990-996.
	LI M, YANG L, WEI Y. Improved Gaussian based 2-step floating catchment area method: A case study of green space accessibility in Shanghai. Progress in Geography, 2016, 35(8): 990-996.
32	俞孔坚, 段铁武, 李迪华, 等. 景观可达性作为衡量城市绿地系统功能指标的评价方法与案例. 城市规划, 1999(8): 7-10.
	YU K, DUAN T, LI D, et al. Landscape accessibility as a measurement of the function of urban green system. City Planning Review, 1999(8): 7-10.
33	季珏, 高晓路. 紧急避难场所震灾服务效率的评价方法及实证——以北京市海淀区为例. 地理研究, 2014, 33(11): 2105-2114.
	JI J, GAO X. Evaluation method and empirical study on service quality of seismic emergency shelters. Geographical Research, 2014, 33(11): 2105-2114.
34	龙奋杰, 石朗, 彭智育, 等. 基于手机信令数据的城市公园服务评价. 城市问题, 2018(6): 88-92.
	LONG F, SHI L, PENG Z, et al. Service evaluation of urban parks based on cell phone signaling data. Urban problems, 2018(6): 88-92.
35	李文, 张林, 李莹. 哈尔滨城市公园可达性和服务效率分析. 中国园林, 2010, 26(8): 59-62.
	LI W, ZHANG L, LI Y. Accessibility and service efficiency of Harbin's urban parks. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 2010, 26(8): 59-62.
36	张金光, 韦薇, 承颖怡, 等. 基于GIS适宜性评价的中小城市公园选址研究. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2020, 44(1): 171-178.
	ZHANG J, WEI W, CHENG Y, et al. Study on site selection of small and medium-sized city parks based on GIS suitability evaluation. Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Sciences Edition), 2020, 44(1): 171-178.
37	董玉萍, 刘合林, 齐君. 城市绿地与居民健康关系研究进展. 国际城市规划, 2020, 35(5): 70-79.
	DONG Y, LIU H, QI J. Progress of studies on the relationship between urban green space and public health. Urban Planning International, 2020, 35(5): 70-79.
38	杨文越, 杨如玉, 范颖玲. 美国明尼阿波利斯城市公园绿地规划经验及其借鉴. 规划师, 2020, 36(17): 83-89.
	YANG W, YANG R, FAN Y. Illumination of urban parks planning in Minneapolis. Planners, 2020, 36(17): 83-89.
39	徐美, 李达立, 刘春腊, 等. 湖南省森林公园空间分布特征及其影响因素分析. 资源开发与市场, 2018, 34(7): 1004-1009.
	XU M, LI D, LIU C, et al. Spatial distribution characteristics and influence factors of forest parks in Hunan province. Resource Development & Market, 2018, 34(7): 1004-1009.
40	刘韬, 杨德刚, 张豫芳, 等. 城市公园绿地可达性时空变化及影响因素——以乌鲁木齐市为例. 中国科学院大学学报, 2021, 38(3): 350-359.
	LIU T, YANG D, ZHANG Y, et al. Spatial-temporal change and influence factors of park green space accessibility in arid area: Taking Urumqi as an example. Journal of University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2021, 38(3): 350-359.
41	张金光, 余兆武, 赵兵. 城市绿地促进人群健康的作用途径——理论框架与实践启示. 景观设计学, 2020, 8(4): 104-113.
	ZHANG J, YU Z, ZHAO B. The role of urban green space in promoting population health: Theoretical framework and practical enlightenment. Landscape Architecture Frontiers, 2020, 8(4): 104-113.
42	CRESPO R D, FULFORD R. Eco-Health linkages: Assessing the role of ecosystem goods and services on human health using causal criteria analysis. International Journal of Public Health, 2018, 63(1): 81-92.
43	姜玉培, 甄峰, 王文文, 等. 城市建成环境对居民身体活动的影响研究进展与启示. 地理科学进展, 2019, 38(3): 357-369.
	JIANG Y, ZHEN F, WANG W, et al. Influence of urban built environment on residents' physical activity: Review and implications. Progress in Geography, 2019, 38(3): 357-369.
44	芦迪, 芦建国. 探索绿道可达性和使用者活动程度的关联——以美国巴尔的摩市"TCB"绿道为例. 中国园林, 2013, 29(7): 72-75.
	LU D, LU J. Explore the relevance between greenway accessibility and users' activity level: A case study of "TCB" greenway trail at Baltimore, USA. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 2013, 29(7): 72-75.
45	何仲禹, 李岳昊. 基于开放数据的上海城市公园使用活跃度时空特征研究. 中国园林, 2020, 36(10): 45-50.
	HE Z, LI Y. The temporal-spatial characteristics of usage activeness of urban parks in Shanghai based on open data. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 2020, 36(10): 45-50.
46	王小月, 杨东峰. 建成环境如何影响老年人绿地使用频率——基于可达性和吸引力双重视角. 中国园林, 2020, 36(11): 62-66.
	WANG X, YANG D. How the built environment affect the frequency of green space used by the elderly: Based on the dual perspective of accessibility and attractiveness. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 2020, 36(11): 62-66.
47	尹海伟, 孔繁花, 宗跃光. 城市绿地可达性与公平性评价. 生态学报, 2008(7): 3375-3383.
	YIN H, KONG F, ZONG Y. Accessibility and equity assessment on urban green space. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2008(7): 3375-3383.
48	张灵珠, 晴安蓝, 崔敏榆, 等. 立体化超高密度亚热带城市的老年群体休憩用地使用偏好研究. 国际城市规划, 2020, 35(1): 36-46.
	ZHANG L, ALAIN C, CUI M, et al. The elders' preferences for open spaces in Multi-level, Hyper dense sub-tropical city. Urban Planning International, 2020, 35(1): 36-46.
49	许基伟, 方世明, 刘春燕. 基于G2SFCA的武汉市中心城区公园绿地空间公平性分析. 资源科学, 2017, 39(3): 430-440.
	XU J, FANG S, LIU C. Spatial equity of public green in Wuhan central districts based on Gravity Two-Step Floating Catchment Area Method. Resources Science, 2017, 39(3): 430-440.
50	顾鸣东, 尹海伟. 公共设施空间可达性与公平性研究概述. 城市问题, 2010(5): 25-29.
	GU M, YIN H. Overview of research on spatial accessibility and fairness of public facilities. Urban problems, 2010(5): 25-29.
51	VAN HERZELE A, WIEDEMANN T. A monitoring tool for the provision of accessible and attractive urban green spaces. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2003, 63(2): 109-126.
52	KOPPEN G, SANG A O, TVEIT M S. Managing the potential for outdoor recreation: Adequate mapping and measuring of accessibility to urban recreational landscapes. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2014, 13(1): 71-83.
53	USTAOGLU E, AYDINOGLU A C. Site suitability analysis for green space development of Pendik district (Turkey). Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2020, 47: 126542.
54	JANG K M, KIM J, LEE H Y, et al. Urban Green Accessibility Index: A measure of pedestrian-centered accessibility to every green point in an urban area. Isprs International Journal of Geo-Information, 2020, 9(10): 586.
55	ZHANG W, YANG J, MA L, et al. Factors affecting the use of urban green spaces for physical activities: Views of young urban residents in Beijing. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2015, 14(4): 851-857.
56	LI X, NI G, DEWANCKER B. Improving the attractiveness and accessibility of campus green space for developing a sustainable university environment. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2019, 26(32), 33399-33415.
57	HUERTA C M, CAFAGNA G. Snapshot of the use of urban green spaces in Mexico City during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2021, 18(8): 4304.
58	KOVACS-GYORI A, RISTEA A, KOLCSAR R, et al. Beyond spatial proximity-classifying parks and their visitors in London based on spatiotemporal and sentiment analysis of Twitter Data. Isprs International Journal of Geo-Information, 2018, 7(9): 378.
59	MARTINICO F, LA ROSA D, PRIVITERA R. Green oriented urban development for urban ecosystem services provision in a medium sized city in southern Italy. Iforest-Biogeosciences and Forestry, 2014, 7(6): 385-395.
60	VAN DE VOORDE T. Spatially explicit urban green indicators for characterizing vegetation cover and public green space proximity: A case study on Brussels, Belgium. International Journal of Digital Earth, 2017, 10(8): 798-813.
61	BERTRAM C, REHDANZ K. The role of urban green space for human well-being. Ecological Economics, 2015, 120:139-152.
62	ALMOHAMAD H, KNAACK A L, HABIB B M. Assessing spatial equity and accessibility of public green spaces in Aleppo City, Syria. Forests, 2018, 9(11): 706.
63	KOOHSARI M J, MAVOA S, VILLANUEVA K, et al. Public open space, physical activity, urban design and public health: Concepts, methods and research agenda. Health & Place, 2015, 33: 75-82.
64	MELIS G, GELORMINO E, MARRA G, et al. The effects of the urban built environment on mental health: A cohort study in a large northern Italian city. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2015, 12(11): 14898-14915.
65	SCHALKWIJK A A H, VAN DER ZWAARD B C, NIJPELS G, et al. The impact of greenspace and condition of the neighbourhood on child overweight. European Journal of Public Health, 2018, 28(1): 88-94.
66	LEE Y, GU N, AN S. Residents' perception and use of green space: Results from a mixed method study in a deprived neighbourhood in Korea. Indoor and Built Environment, 2017, 26(6): 855-871.
67	SCHLOSBERG D. Reconceiving environmental justice: Global movements and political theories. Environmental Politics, 2004, 13: 517-540.
68	ZHANG R, ZHANG C Q, CHENG W, et al. The neighborhood socioeconomic inequalities in urban parks in a high-density city: An environmental justice perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2021, 211: 104099.
69	ERGEN M. Using geographical information systems to measure accessibility of green areas in the urban center of Nevs, ehir, Turkey. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2021, 62: 127160.
70	戴其文, 李毅, 代嫣红, 等. 环境正义研究前沿及其启示. 自然资源学报, 2021, 36(11): 2938-2954.
	DAI Q, LI Y, DAI Y, et al. Frontiers of environmental justice research and its enlightenment. Journal of Natural Resources, 2021, 36(11): 2938-2954.
71	杨洋, 王颖, 何春阳, 等. 21世纪以来城市蔓延国际研究进展与趋势——基于CiteSpace的知识图谱分析. 世界地理研究, 2020, 29(4): 750-761.
	YANG Y, WANG Y, HE C, et al. International research progress and trend of urban sprawl since the 21^st century: An analysis of knowledge mapping based on CiteSpace. World Regional Studies, 2020, 29(4): 750-761.
72	张金光, 赵兵. 城市公园可达性研究演进与领域动态. 现代城市研究, 2020(8): 2-10.
	ZHANG J, ZHAO B. Urban park accessibility research progress and field dynamics. Modern Urban Research, 2020(8): 2-10.

中英文期刊	文章数	比重/%	总被引频次	平均被引频次
中国园林	26	13.90	650	25.00
现代城市研究	10	5.35	84	8.40
生态学报	9	4.81	1 491	165.67
地理科学进展	9	4.81	364	40.44
国际城市规划	6	3.21	698	116.33
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening	54	13.64	911	16.87
Landscape and Urban Planning	46	11.62	2 758	59.96
Sustainability	46	11.62	198	4.30
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health	41	10.35	513	12.51
Ecological Indicators	12	3.03	464	38.67

中英文期刊	文章数	比重/%	总被引频次	平均被引频次
中国园林	26	13.90	650	25.00
现代城市研究	10	5.35	84	8.40
生态学报	9	4.81	1 491	165.67
地理科学进展	9	4.81	364	40.44
国际城市规划	6	3.21	698	116.33
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening	54	13.64	911	16.87
Landscape and Urban Planning	46	11.62	2 758	59.96
Sustainability	46	11.62	198	4.30
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health	41	10.35	513	12.51
Ecological Indicators	12	3.03	464	38.67

国家	文章数	中心性	总被引频次	平均被引频次	H指数
中国	138	0.30	2 131	15.44	23
美国	79	0.24	1 979	25.05	24
英国	35	0.07	1 320	37.71	13
德国	30	0.26	788	26.27	12
澳大利亚	18	0.75	1 385	76.94	10
意大利	18	0.41	361	20.06	10
加拿大	17	0.11	390	22.94	10
土耳其	17	0	184	10.82	4
荷兰	14	0.50	284	20.29	8
西班牙	13	0.01	299	23.00	7

国家	文章数	中心性	总被引频次	平均被引频次	H指数
中国	138	0.30	2 131	15.44	23
美国	79	0.24	1 979	25.05	24
英国	35	0.07	1 320	37.71	13
德国	30	0.26	788	26.27	12
澳大利亚	18	0.75	1 385	76.94	10
意大利	18	0.41	361	20.06	10
加拿大	17	0.11	390	22.94	10
土耳其	17	0	184	10.82	4
荷兰	14	0.50	284	20.29	8
西班牙	13	0.01	299	23.00	7

文献	强度	开始	结束	2003—2021年
Boone CG, 2009	5.51	2011	2014	▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂▂▂▂
Wende HEW, 2012	6.79	2014	2017	▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▃▂▂▂▂
Lee ACK, 2011	7.26	2015	2016	▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▂▂▂▂▂
Wolch JR, 2014	11.76	2017	2019	▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▂▂
La Rosa D, 2014	6.63	2017	2019	▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▃▃▃▂▂