Home › Research › Risk factors
Urban Density-Dependent Effects of Neighborhood Park Spatial Features: Evidence from the Seoul Metropolitan Area
Miri Jun. Sustainability, 2026-04-11
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
This study examines how users’ preferences for spatial elements in neighborhood parks influence satisfaction and assesses the moderating role of urban density in this relationship. An online survey was conducted with 283 residents in the Seoul Metropolitan Area, and the study area was classified into high-, medium-, and low-density urban contexts. Exploratory factor analysis was employed to derive key spatial elements, and multiple regression and moderation analyses were conducted to empirically verify the relationship between the respondents’ spatial preferences and satisfaction. The study finds that the spatial elements of neighborhood parks have significantly varying effects on user satisfaction based on urban density. Specifically, natural and community spaces were identified as core elements that consistently influenced satisfaction across all urban density levels. In contrast, multifunctional cultural spaces were the only significant predictors of the relationship between spatial preferences and satisfaction in high-density spaces and urban-landscape spaces only had a significant influence in medium-density areas. The findings suggest that the spatial elements of neighborhood parks do not operate universally; rather, their effects on user satisfaction are context-dependent and shaped by urban density.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Jun, M. (2026). Urban Density-Dependent Effects of Neighborhood Park Spatial Features: Evidence from the Seoul Metropolitan Area. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18083790
Vancouver
Jun M. Urban Density-Dependent Effects of Neighborhood Park Spatial Features: Evidence from the Seoul Metropolitan Area. Sustainability. 2026. doi:10.3390/su18083790.
BibTeX
@article{jun2026-6ddc0d42,
author = {Jun, Miri},
title = {{Urban Density-Dependent Effects of Neighborhood Park Spatial Features: Evidence from the Seoul Metropolitan Area}},
journal = {Sustainability},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.3390/su18083790},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3390/su18083790}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- The study finds that the spatial elements of neighborhood parks have significantly varying effects on user satisfaction based on urban density.
- In contrast, multifunctional cultural spaces were the only significant predictors of the relationship between spatial preferences and satisfaction in high-density spaces and urban-landscape spaces only had a significant influence in medium-density areas.
- The findings suggest that the spatial elements of neighborhood parks do not operate universally; rather, their effects on user satisfaction are context-dependent and shaped by urban density.
Why it matters
This study is about neighborhood park features and satisfaction in the Seoul Metropolitan Area, not Alzheimer's disease, so it does not provide information on treating, curing or preventing Alzheimer's. It found that the effects of park spatial elements on user satisfaction varied with urban density.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 29/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 27 of the 93 points we could judge it on, which is 29 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Sustainability) |
| Journal's citation record | 3 / 4 | Sustainability: journal h-index 308 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 0 / 7 | Cited 0 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 0 / 5 | 0.0 citations a year over 2 year(s) since 2026 |
| Impact for its field and year | 0 / 6 | Cited 0.0× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 0 / 4 | Cited 0 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | OpenAlex's profile for last-listed author Miri Jun holds only 2 work(s), too few to judge a track record — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 0 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 0 institution(s) in 0 countries — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete) |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 27 / 93 | Scored on 18 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 93 points we could judge it on is 29 out of 100. |
| Total | 29 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
Related studies in Risk factors
Also in Risk factors
356 studies in the library are filed under Risk factors with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Risk factors hub.