1 Introduction
As vital public infrastructure for urban sustainable development, parks play an irreplaceable role in improving air quality, purifying water quality, regulating microclimates, preventing and mitigating disasters, and enhancing residents' quality of life
[1–
3]. The global evolution of park–city relations follows a three-phase pattern characterized by "individual construction–system building–catalystdriven development." During the mid-1800s, influenced by New York's Central Park and the park movement, park projects gradually emerged across major cities in Europe and North America
[4].
These early initiatives primarily focused on developing individual parks according to urban needs, treating parks as isolated green spaces. By the late 19th century, Ebenezer Howard's "Garden City" concept and Patrick Geddes' regional planning theories promoted the development of urban green network systems
[5], establishing theoretical and practical foundations for subsequent green space systems, greenways, and green infrastructure. From the mid-20th century onward, accompanied by Jane Jacobs' perspective of parks as catalysts for social vitality
[6] and Charles Waldheim's advocacy of Landscape Urbanism
[7], parks gradually evolved into paradigms for catalyst-driven urban renewal, opening new pathways for sustainable development of urban parks.
In contrast, the development of parks in China demonstrates distinct local characteristics, following an evolutionary trajectory that can be summarized into four stages: park prototypes, feebased parks, free parks, and boundaryless parks. The genuine prototypes of parks in China, such as Shanghai's Bund Park (Public Garden) and Hongkou Park, emerged during the late Qing Dynasty (around 1900). Although these modern parks were public open spaces, their accessibility was limited by high entry barriers and expensive tickets, resulting in restricted public welfare
[8]. After the 1940s, some private gardens were converted into public parks, but they remained enclosed and fee-based for an extended period. The internal landscapes of these parks contrasted sharply with the surrounding urban environment, imparting a strong attribute of being "scenic spots". Activities within the parks also offered distinctive experiences that differ from daily life
[9]. This enclosed fee-based model persisted until the 1990s, leading to relatively weak connections between parks and their external urban contexts. As urbanization progressed, the free opening of Chinese urban parks in the modern sense was initiated in 2001
[10]. Apart from historical and cultural heritage parks that continued to impose entrance fees to limit visitor numbers and preserve cultural relics, most urban parks were gradually free. This transformation significantly enhanced public accessibility and usage vitality. Nevertheless, park planning and management during this phase remained predominantly focused on internal spaces, exhibiting distinctly inward-oriented characteristics.
As China's urbanization transitioned from incremental expansion to quality enhancement of existing urban stock, parks were no longer perceived merely as isolated spaces. Instead, their spillover effects and dynamic interactions with urban structures have received increasing attention. Within this context, "Park City" has emerged as a central theme in urban planning. Since 2023, the open and shared use of parks has emerged as a key strategy for urban renewal. Beijing responds proactively by introducing concepts such as "Boundaryless Parks" and "Garden City, " advocating for the removal of park walls and fostering integration between parks and urban neighborhoods. Concurrently, other regions across China have launched a range of innovative park initiatives, including planning integrated green space system, dismantling physical barriers, opening lawns, diversifying amenities, and encouraging institutional participation in governance. These efforts collectively promote the "park plus" model (i.e., multifunctional park development), significantly elevating the functional roles and value of urban parks. Throughout this process, research on park vitality and associated evaluation techniques has gradually developed
[11–
13]. These measures facilitate the transformation of parks toward "landscape catalysts" for urban renewal, upon which this article proposes the "Park Vitality Area" theory.
2 Connotations and Characteristics of the Park Vitality Area
2.1 Park Vitality Area
This study defines "Park Vitality Area" by drawing on the theory of landscape catalyst, while integrating and expanding frameworks and analytical methods from Trade Area research and urban vitality studies. The urban catalyst theory originated from the decline and subsequent renewal practices of urban centers in the USA after World War II. Its core premise holds that isolated highquality design cannot effectively stimulate urban renewal; rather, a catalyst should be a planning and design strategy that expands progressively from individual sites to broader urban areas
[14]. With the emergence of Landscape Urbanism, the concept of "landscape catalyst" gradually formed, yet it has largely remained at the level of conceptual explanation or description of design outcomes, without developing a systematic research framework
[15]. Additionally, research on urban vitality has formed a rich academic tradition. Vitality, as one dimension of urban design expression, reflects how well the physical form of a place supports urban vitality, human activities, and physiological needs
[16–
19]. Various factors, including street types, safety, accessibility, visual quality, and diversity of social interactions, collectively shape urban vitality
[20–
23]. Moreover, parks are recognized as a significant factor influencing urban vitality
[24–
25]. Building on this research trajectory, the Park Vitality Area theory proposed in this article positions parks as the core catalyst, explicitly identifies urban vitality as the central carrier of the catalytic effect, and constructs a systematic analytical framework by incorporating the methodological logic of Trade Area research.
The Park Vitality Area theory posits that parks not merely influence urban vitality but also function as engines driving it. Broadly, it denotes the spatial extent served by spillover effects of diverse park functions, i.e., the geographical area where park vitality can exert influence, encompassing both broad and narrow connotations. The broad sense of the Park Vitality Area emphasizes sustainable development, holistically considering the capacity of parks to foster sustainability in surrounding areas across ecological, social, and economic dimensions. Its radiation range should be defined according to different types of vitality and patterns of spatial flow. For instance, from a species perspective, the vitality area of insects is smaller than that of birds, whereas the stormwater regulation function of a park requires integrated assessment of surrounding drainage networks, topography, and watershed characteristics. The narrow sense of the Park Vitality Area specifically denotes vitality centered on human recreational use, which is most analogous to the Trade Area concept. It primarily focuses on the parks' attractiveness to people and the radiation range of activities the parks can stimulate.
The introduction of Park Vitality Area reflects dual transformations in physical space and conceptual thinking. From a physical spatial standpoint, parks are no longer isolated "points" but physical spaces with a "point–line–plane" multi-level structure capable of linking adjacent areas. Conceptually, the Park Vitality Area represents a perceptual shift—parks are no longer viewed simply as a land use type but are redefined as engines that drive surrounding vitality and promote local sustainable development. Its theoretical core resonates academically with Landscape Urbanism, as both stress that landscape can replace architecture as the city's primary framework, thereby promoting urban development and vitality enhancement
[26]. The distinction lies in that the Park Vitality Area is rooted in China's urbanization process and embodies a Landscape Urbanization path with localized characteristics
[27].
Concepts related to the Park Vitality Area include the park system, the park service radius, and the 15-minute community life circle (Table 1). The park system primarily highlights the connectivity and systematic development of physical landscapes, while the park service radius specifically denotes the spatial coverage of a park's services in its vicinity. In contrast, the Park Vitality Area emphasizes how parks can serve and stimulate vitality and development across surrounding areas. Conceptually, it aligns more closely with the community life circle. In 2014, Shanghai pioneered the "15-minute community life circle" concept, which centers on community residents with their residences as the focal point. Within a 15-minute walking radius, it aims to fulfill diverse basic needs including dining, leisure, culture, sports, healthcare, and commerce, while establishing a safe, comfortable, and barrier-free slow-traffic system. Unlike the community life circle, which addresses a broad range of services, the Park Vitality Area positions the park as the focal point of service, with greater emphasis on functions related to park vitality. Overall, the development of the Park Vitality Area can both connect with the community life circle, serving as one of its organic components, and operate independently, as the influence of park vitality is not confined to adjacent neighborhoods.
2.2 Composition and Characteristics of Park Recreational Vitality Area
As a broad concept, the Park Vitality Area encompasses extensive connotations that cannot be fully addressed in a single article. This study therefore concentrates on the narrow sense, i.e., the Park Recreational Vitality Area, which focuses on human activity and comprises three key spatial components: internal, boundary, and service spaces. Internal space denotes the physical area enclosed by park boundaries, serving as the core supplier of park vitality and the primary field for its generation. Boundary space refers to the transitional zone where the park boundaries interact with external users, holding potential for stimulating and enhancing park vitality. Service space represents the actual spatial extent served by park vitality, directly reflecting the scope of vitality demand. Notably, with the rapid development of social media, the spatial dimensions of Park Recreational Vitality Area have transcended physical boundaries, extending into virtual domains such as social media platforms and online communities. Consequently, the service space embodies dual dimensions: physical and virtual (Fig. 1).
The physical dimension demonstrates distinct layers and variation patterns, broadly categorized as daily, holiday, and checkin recreational circles. Use frequency in these circles decreases progressively with increasing distance from the park boundary. The daily recreational circle acts as the primary source of park vitality, featuring frequent use. The holiday recreational circle may attract users from beyond the surrounding area, with activities concentrated on holidays and a correspondingly lower frequency of use. The check-in recreational circle attracts users drawn by the park's unique appeal or specific events, typically for one-time or non-recurrent visits. Overall, as the spatial radiation range of the park extends outward, the frequency of use declines, but the duration of visits shows a contrasting pattern—visitors traveling longer distances generally spend more time in the park
[28].
The virtual dimension of Park Recreational Vitality Area primarily manifests as the Park Virtual Vitality Area, representing a park's comprehensive influence in digital domains. This influence can be observed across multiple dimensions, including online community engagement, topic dissemination, and virtual interaction intensity. As a non-physical sphere, it can directly or indirectly affect physical park usage through mechanisms such as user cognitive construction and behavior guidance. Instead of a homogeneous virtual space, the Park Virtual Vitality Area exhibits differentiated features corresponding to physical layers due to variations in user behavior. This differentiation not only continues the behavioral patterns of daily, holiday, and check-in activities but also generates new manifestations due to the boundaryless nature of virtual space. For example, a park-based book exchange community, whose members are predominantly nearby residents, demonstrates online interaction frequencies highly synchronized with offline activity cycles. This forms a Park Virtual Vitality Area with daily characteristics, whose spatial radiation range largely overlaps with the physical daily recreational circle. In contrast, a marathon community organized around the park's branded events transcends geographical constraints, with participants potentially spanning nationwide enthusiasts. Their online discussion intensity fluctuates in a holiday-peak pattern with the event cycle and participation often exhibits marked check-in characteristics, constituting a cross-regional virtual vitality area. Overall, this differentiation reflects both the mirroring of physical behavior in virtual space and the spatial restructuring capability empowered by digital technology.
Similar to Trade Areas
[29], the Park Recreational Vitality Area demonstrates the following four typical characteristics:
1) Hierarchy: The radiation range of park vitality displays a distinct layered structure, gradually decreasing from the inner to outer areas, with clear layers and progressive hierarchy. Large parks generally exhibit relatively larger radiation circles with more layers, while small parks have smaller service ranges with fewer layers.
2) Irregularity: Spatially, Park Recreational Vitality Area may take irregular forms that vary significantly according to surrounding topography, ecological conditions, transportation, and socio-demographic distribution.
3) Overlap: Vitality areas of different parks can overlap and intersect geographically. In these overlapping zones, multiple parks simultaneously serve relevant populations, implying competition among parks to attract users.
4) Fluidity: This denotes the dynamic spatial changes of park users, influenced by external factors such as park system patterns, population demand structure, and transportation conditions, as well as internal factors including management strategies, operational policies, basic facilities, and service capabilities.
3 Beijing's Pathways for Developing Park Recreational Vitality Area
This study uses three parks in Beijing—Ritan Park, Longtan Zhonghu Park, and Wenyuhe Park—as examples to illustrate innovative approaches in developing Park Recreational Vitality Area. Geographically, these parks are located in different districts within Beijing's Sixth Ring Road, covering both the urban core and suburban areas. At Ritan Park, a series of innovative measures emerged from exploring vitality of a cultural relic protection site. As a renowned cultural relic site, it operates under governmentled management, with full administration by the Ritan Park Management Office. The approach at Longtan Zhonghu Park involves renovating a former amusement park. Its predecessor, Beijing Amusement Park, underwent redevelopment starting in 2020 and reopened as Longtan Zhonghu Park on September 24, 2021, offering free admission. Its management combines government subsidies and enterprise-led operation as a pilot initiative. Wenyuhe Park is a newly constructed waterfront linear park, positioned as a naturebased, high-quality, international urban ecological leisure park that integrates cultural exchange and exhibition with outdoor sports experiences. A notable feature is its fully enterprise-led operation, where daily maintenance and management serve for commercial purposes. In summary, Ritan Park is characterized by "cultural relic activation and boundary sharing, " Longtan Zhonghu Park emphasizes "site renewal and community operation, " and Wenyuhe Park exemplifies "linear waterfront and enterprise operation." These three parks represent development models of "historical revitalization, site renewal, and new area leadership, " respectively, demonstrating typicality and comparability in historical context and management approaches.
In developing Park Recreational Vitality Area, these parks have implemented diverse innovative practices, which can be categorized into three pathways: enhancing internal vitality, linking internal and external vitality, and cultivating virtual vitality communities (Fig. 2). The results of interviews with members from relevant park management offices and Beijing Park Association, together with field surveys, indicate that the degree and characteristics of innovation in constructing the vitality area differ among parks along these pathways (Table 2).
3.1 Enhancing Internal Vitality
The foundational pathway for developing Park Recreational Vitality Area focuses on introducing diverse facilities and activities to enhance park vitality. The three case study parks demonstrate distinct approaches in this regard.
As a historical garden, Ritan Park enhances its vitality by revitalizing park assets and meeting diverse public needs. Ten percent of the park's space is allocated for dining services, repurposing underutilized areas such as the stone boat and horticulture stations into catering spaces, generating economic benefits through market-oriented operations. The remaining ninety percent of the space is dedicated to providing free public services, fulfilling citizens' needs for walking, exercise, social interaction, and recreation. Spatially, the park is organized into three vitality units: the northern area recreates ritual spaces of the altar temple, the western area constructs social interaction spaces inspired by Jiangnan gardens, and the eastern area creates an innovation zone for sports technology experiences. This demonstrates a contemporary approach to revitalizing historical gardens.
Longtan Zhonghu Park's internal vitality enhancement centers on the renovation of the former amusement park. All water areas within the park are designated for commercial use, while the ratio of land-based public service areas to commercial spaces is approximately 9:1. By collaborating with nearby sports management organizations, the park has been thematically positioned as a "sports and recreation plus" destination, forming a four-tier vitality scene encompassing urban lifestyle, outdoor recreation, events, and sports. Concurrently, catering services have been introduced. By leveraging its intrinsic characteristics and focusing on sports and recreational facilities, the park integrates diverse business formats to create new scenarios, thereby boosting its vitality and attractiveness.
At Wenyuhe Park, efforts to enhance internal vitality are reflected in diverse experiments with linear waterfront commercial and recreational offerings. In autumn 2020, the Chaoyang Section Demonstration Area opened first. The park features a variety of dining facilities and operational projects, including ecological experiences, nature education, sports adventures, pet services, and comprehensive leisure areas. As a park fully operated by an enterprise, Wenyuhe Park continuously innovates in developing vitality and actively explores diverse forms of outdoor recreation.
3.2 Linking Internal and External Vitality
Establishing connections with surrounding vitality areas to expand the scope and influence of park services constitutes the second strategic focus in developing Park Recreational Vitality Area. Various parks have undertaken diverse explorations in this regard. For instance, Longtan Zhonghu Park utilizes nearby parking facilities, collaborates with sports management organizations to host series of sports activities, and partners with Beijing Academy of Forestry and Landscape Architecture to conduct nature education and cultural programs. Wenyuhe Park, meanwhile, connects with adjacent parks and communities through greenway development. The most representative case is Ritan Park, which has achieved vitality integration between internal and external spaces through approaches of "boundary opening and sharing" and "linking with surrounding businesses" (Fig. 3).
In the renovation for boundary opening and sharing, Ritan Park proactively relocated perimeter fences, freeing approximately 1 hm2 of space for neighborhood improvement. This created a highquality garden neighborhood spanning 1.94 hm2 by integrating adjacent streets. The park incorporated municipal sidewalks into its green spaces, achieving seamless visual integration between park landscapes and the urban environment. Simultaneously, the park developed a convenience and public service block, transforming previously enclosed green space into an area for rest and healthcare-supportive activities. By removing physical barriers and sharing boundary space in response to surrounding land use needs, the park further stimulated the utilization potential and vitality of adjacent areas.
The "2024 Ritan Park Golden Autumn Garden Fair" exemplifies collaboration with surrounding businesses. Breaking from conventional models, the event not only featured internal garden activities but also partnered with 42 business entities in the surrounding commercial area. Visitors received exclusive discounts and a "food map, " allowing them to enjoy dining and shopping benefits while participating in park activities. Evolving from a single park festival into a multifaceted district-wide collaboration, the event established a synergy between visitor flows and commercial activities, effectively stimulating economic vitality in the commercial area. Through innovations in operational concepts, methods, and event planning, Ritan Park has established a mutually beneficial relationship with commercial entities, demonstrating a viable pathway for park development and revenue transformation.
3.3 Cultivating Virtual Vitality Communities
Advances in information and communication technologies and the rise of social media have expanded the concept of space, making cyberspace a site and medium for generating new social relationships
[30]. Cyberspace transcends geographical boundaries, encompassing not only residents of a specific area but all individuals who identify with a place across diverse spatiotemporal contexts. Through perception and cultural exchange in virtual environments, cyberspace influences physical spaces and human activities, thereby creating new spatiotemporal and social dynamics
[31]. Therefore, the Park Recreational Vitality Area should not only consider the spatial reach of physical environments but also foster relationships between people and parks in cyberspace.
Establishing and utilizing online platforms for promotion to attract more visitors has become a routine practice for major parks. These parks have progressively established new media platforms, navigation tools, and community forums to leverage the influence of cyberspace for outreach. For instance, the 2024 Ritan Park Golden Autumn Garden Fair achieved over 2 billion exposures across 37 new media platforms.
Beyond basic platform development and activity promotion, Longtan Zhonghu Park stands out particularly in community building. Its management team has created and operated two major types of communities: "Zhonghu Little Managers" (park volunteer service groups) and "Zhonghu Little Players" (park user communities). Currently, there are four volunteer groups with more than 800 members and over 30 user communities comprising tens of thousands of members, covering diverse themes such as music, running clubs, photography, and flea market stalls. While primarily targeting surrounding neighborhoods, these communities extend their influence beyond geographical boundaries. Through online community management, Longtan Zhonghu Park has achieved segmented management based on user types, strengthened park vitality and user engagement, and established important channels for activity promotion and feedback collection.
4 Discussion
4.1 Academic and Practical Significance of Park Vitality Area
As a theoretical framework for enhancing park vitality, Park Vitality Area refers to a dynamic spatial system centered on park spaces that facilitates the aggregation and diffusion of biological flows, material flows, human flows, and cultural information flows through functional radiation. The development of Park Vitality Area holds multiple values at both academic and practical levels.
For scholarly research, this theoretical framework enables future studies to focus on key scientific questions, including the internal structural characteristics of the vitality area, spatial radiation effects, systemic linkage mechanisms, multidimensional driving factors, and spatiotemporal evolution patterns. For example, research may examine the radiation effects of parks in areas such as cooling spillovers, housing price enhancement, and urban vitality improvement. Specific investigations could include analyzing differences in spatial radiation capacity among parks of varying scales and types, comparing radiation characteristics of pointbased, patch-based, and linear parks, and investigating whether the Park Vitality Area exhibits non-concentric distribution patterns under the influence of accessibility and other factors. In addition, the characteristics of Park Vitality Areas may vary across different national, cultural, and urbanization contexts. It is worth noting that park vitality intensity does not follow a simple linear growth pattern. Similar to central business districts, there exists an optimal scale effect for internal vitality. From an ecological conservation perspective, park systems are also constrained by multidimensional carrying capacities. Therefore, in-depth research on the comprehensive carrying capacity of park systems and their internal functional spaces, as well as establishing scientific mechanisms for vitality element integration and exploring strategies for regulating human activities under carrying capacity constraints will become critical research directions.
For practical implications, the Park Vitality Area framework provides clear objectives and strategic guidance for park construction and renewal. Park development should focus on creating differentiated vitality content systems and expanding the scope of vitality radiation through spatial coordination mechanisms. Based on varying development levels, the construction of Park Vitality Area progresses through four evolutionary stages: 1) focusing on cultivating internal vitality, manifested as a spontaneously emerging initial form; 2) emphasizing synergy in physical spaces through integrated spatial design and coconstruction mechanisms to amplify vitality impact; 3) promoting the integration of physical and virtual spaces through digital technologies to establish cultural information networks and to reshape urban cultural ecology; and 4) achieving systematic coupling of natural ecology and cultural vitality, enabling parks to become core pillars of urban sustainable development.
4.2 Governance-Oriented Approach to Park Recreational Vitality Area
While this study focuses on the narrow sense of Park Recreational Vitality Area and its implementation pathways, this does not imply that park construction and management should be entirely oriented toward enhancing human attraction or increasing facility investment. On the contrary, we advocate for advancing the development of Park Recreational Vitality Area through governance thinking, based on two aspects: the "negative list" and "non-material" approaches.
Strengthening the "negative list" approach aims to clarify the boundaries of "what cannot be done." Parks possess significant public welfare attributes, and Park Vitality Area aims to extend the concept of parks from "public welfare" to "shared benefits." However, overemphasizing human attraction may lead to neglect of natural ecological vitality in parks or even cause ecological damage. Parks should first consolidate their ecological functions in biodiversity conservation and climate change response. Subsequently, they should provide multifunctional public spaces to meet citizens' diverse needs within natural environments
[32]. The broad sustainable perspective forms the foundation of Park Vitality Area. Future development should prioritize ecological protection, avoiding excessive commercialization. Furthermore, parks' appeal to crowd, to some extent, is spontaneous. Urban parks, particularly those in central areas, carry substantial potential usage demands from surrounding users. Current management models emphasize the public welfare, which may restrict park use and suppress related demands. With policy adjustments, these latent demands may spontaneously transform into park usage vitality at any time. Therefore, the core challenge is to reasonably regulate the level of control to achieve shared benefits while maintaining public welfare. The key to establishing a negative list lies in defining unrecommended content and behaviors, emphasizing the construction of regulatory systems. Through categorized management, tiered administration, and internal zoning controls, park scenarios can be guided toward healthy development, thereby promoting the spontaneous emergence of more recreational activities.
The essence of the "non-material" approach lies in strengthening operational capabilities rather than relying on rapid investment in physical infrastructure. Intangible event catalysts, particularly large-scale activities, can enrich and enhance urban sustainable development across multiple dimensions
[33]. Park scenarios develop spontaneously based on natural and social needs. Future development of China's Park Recreational Vitality Area should move beyond the incremental mindset focused on large-scale demolition and construction of physical landscapes and facilities. Instead, emphasis should be placed on the principle of "operation first, " prioritizing support for teams with mature operational capabilities to participate in development. Moreover, park scenario operations must be fully integrated with surrounding land use conditions to comprehensively drive the development of peripheral areas, adopting systematic operational thinking that transcends park boundaries. Through categorized, tiered, and zoned management, parks can establish positive and negative lists for diverse entities and consumption models. While maintaining institutional constraints, resource sharing platforms should be developed to enable more social groups, businesses, and citizens to share resources and benefits. Suitable models for different parks should seek common ground while respecting differences. Overall priority should be given to supporting teams with operational capabilities, while moderately encouraging innovative exploration.
Adopting governance rather than construction as the primary focus, Park Recreational Vitality Area can implement a dualmechanism logic: using the "negative list" to define boundaries and "non-material" operations to activate potential. This approach establishes the institutional guarantee of "public welfare as foundation, shared benefit as principle" while achieving multistakeholder collaboration. It shifts from "restricting what cannot be done" to "stimulating spontaneous growth" and explores a Chinese pathway of differentiated governance by using institutions to stabilize boundaries and operations to promote vitality.
5 Conclusions
Against the backdrop of park city development, urban qualitative regeneration, and the opening and sharing of park space, this study clarifies the theoretical connotations of Park Vitality Area and practical pathways for the narrow sense of Park Recreational Vitality Area. As a distinctive Chinese model of landscape catalytic development, Park Vitality Area demonstrates breakthroughs at theoretical, governance, and practical levels. It reshapes the academic framework of park research: transitioning from isolated "points" to layered systems, from aggregate vitality metrics to carrying capacity thresholds, and from physical spaces to virtual–physical integration—forming an interpretable, comparable, and iterative research framework. Emphasizing parks as catalytic cores interconnected through vitality layers, the Park Vitality Area continuously radiates ecological benefits, social vitality, and economic momentum to urban renewal areas. It promotes sustainable development of existing spaces through functional iteration, cultural regeneration, and social integration. The progressive pathway of Park Vitality Area reflects China's proactive exploration in revitalizing and utilizing parks, demonstrating the professional value and practical wisdom of planning and design disciplines in building a beautiful China and contributing to global sustainable development.
PDF
(1887KB)
