Objective Park Features Outshine Perception in Shaping Older Adults’ Park Use

Older adults who visit community parks in the Chinese coastal city of Xiamen appear to be guided far more by measurable features of their surroundings than by how they feel about them, according to a new study published in Frontiers in Psychology. Researchers from Putian University surveyed 404 people aged 60 and over across 83 sub-areas within eight community parks and found that objective environmental factors, such as travel distance and the density of fitness facilities and seating, significantly predicted how often, how long, and how actively older adults used park spaces. Perceived environmental factors, by contrast, showed no significant predictive effect on park exposure levels.

The study set out to answer three questions: which environmental factors are most likely to cause older adults’ perceptions to diverge from objective conditions, how perceptions vary within the older population, and whether the objective or the perceived environment contributes more to park exposure. Park exposure, defined as the degree and frequency of human interaction with a park, has been linked in earlier research to higher physical activity, improved mental health and psychological restoration, stronger social interaction and cohesion, and better overall health outcomes among older adults. Yet mere availability of a park does not guarantee exposure, since people may not visit an available park at all, or may use it only briefly or in limited ways.

Data collection took place from July to August 2025 in Siming District and Huli District, the two districts of Xiamen with the highest density of older residents. Eight community parks with high visitation rates among older adults were selected, and within each park the researchers treated individual sub-areas, rather than whole parks, as the basic unit of analysis. Sub-areas had to be equipped with fixed facilities such as seating or fitness equipment, or be spaces where older adults were actually observed during the study period. Paths were excluded because their environmental composition differs fundamentally from lingering-oriented sites. The 83 sub-areas ultimately identified ranged in size from 32.0 to 1118.4 square meters, with a mean of 327.9 square meters.

The researchers measured 12 objective environmental factors, including travel distance from the respondent’s home, sound level, slope, sub-area size, green view index, blue view index, sky view factor, seating density, amenity density, fitness facility density, and accessible facilities. Green and blue view indices were calculated from photographs taken at eye level in four directions and analyzed with a deep-learning semantic segmentation tool, while sky view factor was captured with a fisheye lens photograph pointing upward. Perceptions were assessed with a questionnaire adapted from the Age-Friendly Community Parks Survey, using a five-point Likert scale. Interviewers assisted participants who had difficulty reading or understanding the items, and the study received ethics approval from Putian University with written informed consent from all participants.

Statistical analysis combined Spearman’s correlation, nonparametric tests, and multiple linear regression. The pilot survey of 105 respondents showed acceptable reliability, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.77 and a KMO value of 0.80. After factor analysis, four items were removed because of cross-loadings or weak loadings, leaving eight perceived factors organized into two constructs: perceived attractiveness, covering acoustic comfort, psychological safety, physical safety, and the convenience of seating, fitness facilities, and amenities; and perceived support, covering community support and policy support. Because the two composite exposure measures were strongly positively skewed, the researchers applied natural log transformations before regression analysis.

The correlation analysis revealed two distinct ways in which older adults perceive their surroundings. Some perceptions tracked objective conditions fairly accurately: perceived seating and amenity convenience rose with the actual numbers of seats and amenities. Other perceptions were what the authors call biased cognitive translation, in which a perceived factor relates not to its own objective counterpart but to other features. Blue view index, the proportion of water visible from a sub-area, and seating density emerged as the positive factors most strongly associated with the greatest number of perceptual factors, while sky view factor and travel distance were the main negative influences. Seating convenience, for example, was significantly positively correlated with seating density, blue view index, and amenity density, and negatively correlated with sky view factor. Acoustic comfort correlated positively with blue view index and amenity density. Notably, fitness facility convenience showed no significant association with actual fitness facility density.

Perceptions also varied systematically across demographic groups. Women rated acoustic comfort, psychological safety, and seating convenience higher than men, with statistically significant differences. Age mattered for psychological safety: adults aged 80 and above reported higher ratings than those aged 70 to 79, a pattern the authors link to the so-called paradox of aging, in which the oldest adults paradoxically show higher life satisfaction and psychological resilience. Educational level produced the widest perceptual variation, with more highly educated respondents rating fitness facility convenience, amenity convenience, and community support significantly lower than other groups, which the authors attribute to higher expectations for functional support and community cohesion. Perception also shifted with use patterns: seating convenience varied with visit frequency in a U-shaped pattern, and people rated factors related to their preferred activities as focal points, giving them lower ratings, while overestimating factors unrelated to those preferences.

The regression results delivered the study’s central finding. In models predicting a composite physical activity index, travel distance had a significant negative effect, with a standardized coefficient of −0.247, and fitness facility density had a significant positive effect of 0.178. In models predicting a composite social activeness index, seating density was the only significant positive predictor, while travel distance, sub-area size, green view index, and amenity density all had significant negative effects. Perceived environmental factors, however, failed to predict either exposure measure: the model linking perceived factors to the physical activity index was not statistically significant overall, and apart from the control variable gender, none of the perceived factors reached significance. Women exhibited higher exposure levels than men on both measures. The objective-environment models explained only a modest share of the variance, with adjusted R-squared values of 0.12 and 0.19, underscoring that park exposure depends on many factors beyond the measured features.

The authors interpret this perception-behavior disconnect through habitual behavior and cognitive dissonance theory. Older adults who visit parks repeatedly every day may rely on habit rather than attitudes or perception, and place attachment and familiarity may lead them to downplay environmental deficiencies. When unable to change an environment, people may lower their expectations to reduce psychological discomfort, so that perceptual evaluations reflect adaptive satisfaction rather than a genuine assessment. The authors stress that this does not negate the role of perception, which may still shape psychological experience and interact with motivation and habits, but it does challenge the linear assumption that improving the environment automatically enhances perception and thereby promotes use.

The study carries clear limitations. Data were collected only during summer daytime, so the conclusions apply to that context and cannot be generalized to nighttime or other seasons. Sampling focused on sub-areas where older adults are relatively active, excluding underused or abandoned spaces, and the cross-sectional design cannot establish causal relationships. The authors themselves note that the model’s explanatory power is limited and that the non-significant role of perception is strictly bounded by the sample and variable definitions of this study. Nevertheless, the practical implications are concrete: travel distance should be minimized by embedding small park spaces within a fifteen-minute living circle in high-density aging communities, and facility provision should match target behavior, with fitness equipment prioritized in activity-oriented areas and ample seating in social-interaction areas. Park planning for older adults, the authors argue, should shift from quantity provision to demand matching, integrating objective environmental conditions, perception, and activity preferences rather than relying on satisfaction surveys alone.

Subject of Research: How objective and perceived community park environments influence park exposure among older adults in Xiamen, China

Article Title: Park exposure levels in older adults: the more significant influence of objective environment

Article References: Chen, Y., Zhuang, W., Li, L., Chen, G., & Huang, L. (2026). Park exposure levels in older adults: the more significant influence of objective environment. Frontiers in Psychology, 17, Article 1945202. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1945202

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1945202

Keywords: park exposure, older adults, community parks, perceived environment, objective environment, Xiamen, physical activity, social interaction, environmental psychology, healthy aging, urban planning, Park