Design Criteria for Pocket Parks in Old City Districts: Fostering Shared Urban Landscapes

  • Authors

    • Dong Han School of Housing, Building, and Planning, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11700, Malaysia and School of Art Design, Communication University of Shanxi, Shanxi Province, 030043, China
    • Mohd Jaki Bin Mamat School of Housing, Building, and Planning, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11700, Malaysia
    https://doi.org/10.14419/1h3pa092

    Received date: August 5, 2025

    Accepted date: September 12, 2025

    Published date: September 14, 2025

  • Cultural Negotiation; Environmental Psychology; Micro-Public Spaces; Pocket Parks,; Urban Regeneration

  • Abstract

    Pocket parks have become essential tools for improving social interaction, environmental quality, and public well-being because of China's fast urbanisation, especially in crowded old metropolitan areas. Underutilisation and inefficient land use result from the planning and design of these small-scale green spaces, which frequently lack scientific quality. Using a mixed-methods approach that incorporates field observations, geographical analysis, user surveys, and expert interviews, this study examines 70 pocket parks in Taiyuan, Shanxi Province, China. The results show that the park's location, design elements, and community demands are not aligned, underscoring the significance of functional coordination, cultural readability, and perceptual clarity. This research offers a set of evidence-based design and siting criteria for pocket parks in historic urban settings by including the shared urban landscapes principles, which prioritise usability, accessibility, and social inclusion. The findings encourage inclusive and resilient cityscapes and promote sustainable, human-centered urban regeneration by offering practical insights to policymakers, landscape architects, and urban planners.

  • References

    1. Y. Tu, B. Chen, L. Yu, Q. Xin, P. Gong, and B. Xu, ‘How does urban expansion interact with cropland loss? A comparison of 14 Chinese cities from 1980 to 2015’, Landscape Ecol, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 243–263, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10980-020-01137-y.
    2. S. He and Y. Li, ‘Understanding Impacts of Neighbourhood Micro-Renewal Through a Lens of Place Value: A Case Study of Wuhan, China’, Land, vol. 13, no. 11, p. 1910, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.3390/land13111910.
    3. C. Wen, C. Albert, and C. Von Haaren, ‘Equality in access to urban green spaces: A case study in Hannover, Germany, with a focus on the elderly population’, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, vol. 55, p. 126820, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126820.
    4. L. Ye, X. Peng, L. Q. Aniche, P. H. T. Scholten, and E. M. Ensenado, ‘Urban renewal as policy innovation in China: From growth stimulation to sustainable development’, Public Admin & Development, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 23–33, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.1002/pad.1903.
    5. Y. Wang and F. Wu, ‘Micro-regeneration and participatory governance: a local social governance experiment in China’, Journal of Chinese Govern-ance, pp. 1–25, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.1080/23812346.2025.2493988.
    6. X. Chu, A. Inkuer, C. Mayusoh, and P. Puntien, ‘POCKET PARK DESIGN STRATEGY TO REALIZE HUMANISTIC CARE IN URBAN MICRO-RENEWAL’, Procedia of Multidisciplinary Research, 3(3), 52-52, 2025, https://so09.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/PMR/article/download/6185/3811.
    7. Z. Wu and S. A. Sharudin, ‘Study on Urban Renewal and Micro-Space Optimization Strategies in Zhengzhou: A Perspective on Function En-hancement and Cultural Heritage’, J. Educ. Humanit. Soc. Res., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 16–24, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.71222/72133451.
    8. F. Rosso, F. Cappa, R. Spitzmiller, and M. Ferrero, ‘Pocket parks towards more sustainable cities. Architectural, environmental, managerial and le-gal considerations towards an integrated framework: A case study in the Mediterranean region’, Environmental Challenges, vol. 7, p. 100402, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.envc.2021.100402.
    9. J. Dong, R. Guo, F. Guo, X. Guo, and Z. Zhang, ‘Pocket parks-a systematic literature review’, Environ. Res. Lett., vol. 18, no. 8, p. 083003, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ace7e2.
    10. X. Shu et al., ‘Needs and expectations of German and Chinese children for livable urban green spaces revealed by the method of empathy-based stories’, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, vol. 68, p. 127476, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127476.
    11. X. Duan, B. Lin, L. Meng, and F. Zhao, ‘A Method for Selecting and Optimizing Pocket Park Design Proposals Based on Multi-Attribute Decision Making’, Buildings, vol. 15, no. 7, p. 1026, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.3390/buildings15071026.
    12. A. Rigolon and J. Németh, ‘Green gentrification or “just green enough”: Do park location, size and function affect whether a place gentrifies or not?’, Urban Studies, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 402–420, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.1177/0042098019849380.
    13. K. M. I. Monty, ‘Pocket park: a new idea for creating qualified social green open space in an extremely dense area of Dhaka, Bangladesh’, Archi-tecture and Modern Information Technologies, (4 (61)), 292-305, 2022, doi: 10.24412/1998-4839-2022-4-292-305.
    14. T. Bajwoluk and P. Langer, ‘The Pocket Park and Its Impact on the Quality of Urban Space on the Local and Supralocal Scale—Case Study of Krakow, Poland’, Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 6, p. 5153, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.3390/su15065153.
    15. M. Bazrafshan, A. M. Tabrizi, N. Bauer, and F. Kienast, ‘Place attachment through interaction with urban parks: A cross-cultural study’, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, vol. 61, p. 127103, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127103.
    16. A. H. Patria, M. R. M. Hussain, and I. Tukiman, ‘PRESERVING CULTURAL VALUES THROUGH POCKET PARKS IN AN URBAN EN-VIRONMENT: A NARRATIVE REVIEW’, vol. 16, no. 1, 2025, doi: 10.22452/jscp.vol16no1.6.
    17. Y. Zhou, ‘The Research and Application of the Urban Organic Update Theory in Historic Conservation Districts Regeneration’, 2012, https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:bth-2096.
    18. Y. Kunyuan and T. Hellquist, ‘The Transformation on Brownfields based on the concept of “Organic Update”’.
    19. J. Liu, Q. He, W. Song, and Y. Wang, ‘Sustainable Urban Neighborhood Renewal in China: An Mopa Analysis of its Past, Present and Future’, 2023. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4468301.
    20. M. T. Heydari, A. Majidi Heravi, and M. Rahmani, ‘Creating Pocket Parks for Regenerating People’s Social Interactions, Case study: Khorramdareh City’, Journal of Iranian Architecture & Urbanism (JIAU), 13(2), 21-39, 2022, doi: 10.30475/isau.2021.264783.1605.
    21. F. M. Wartmann, C. B. Stride, F. Kienast, and M. Hunziker, ‘Relating landscape ecological metrics with public survey data on perceived landscape quality and place attachment’, Landscape Ecol, vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 2367–2393, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10980-021-01290-y.
    22. C. Liu, H. Gan, and M. He, ‘Evaluating the Flexibility of Rural Public Cultural Spaces Based on Polyvalence Theory: A Case Study of Xiangyang Village, Shanghai’, Land, vol. 14, no. 6, p. 1177, May 2025, doi: 10.3390/land14061177.
    23. M. M. Abdelhamid and M. M. Elfakharany, ‘Improving urban park usability in developing countries: Case study of Al-Shalalat Park in Alexandria’, Alexandria Engineering Journal, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 311–321, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2019.12.042.
    24. Y. Song, G. Newman, X. Huang, and X. Ye, ‘Factors influencing long-term city park visitations for mid-sized US cities: A big data study using smartphone user mobility’, Sustainable Cities and Society, vol. 80, p. 103815, May 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2022.103815.
    25. D. Ma, Y. Wang, D. Zhou, and Z. Zhu, ‘Cooling effect of the pocket park in the built-up block of a city: a case study in Xi’an, China’, Jul. 12, 2022. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-1575602/v1.
    26. J. Hassan Murtadha, ‘The importance of community participation and effective waste management systems in maintaining the sustainability of ur-ban parks. International Journal of Advances Engineering and Civil Research, 4(1), 32-41, 2024, doi: 10.21608/ijaecr.2025.386088.1035.
    27. B. Kiss, F. Sekulova, K. Hörschelmann, C. F. Salk, W. Takahashi, and C. Wamsler, ‘Citizen participation in the governance of nature‐based solu-tions’, Env Pol Gov, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 247–272, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.1002/eet.1987.
    28. S. Faridtehrani, ‘The Impacts of Physical and Social Environmental Factors on Women’s Use and Well-being Experiences in Pocket Parks: A Case Study of Salsbury Park, Vancouver’, 2025, https://summit.sfu.ca/_flysystem/fedora/2025-06/etd23721.pdf.
    29. L. Zhang, X. Xu, and Y. Guo, ‘The Impact of a Child-Friendly Design on Children’s Activities in Urban Community Pocket Parks’, Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 13, p. 10073, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.3390/su151310073.
    30. J. Xu, B. Qiu, F. Zhang, and J. Zhang, ‘Restorative Effects of Pocket Parks on Mental Fatigue among Young Adults: A Comparative Experimental Study of Three Park Types’, Forests, vol. 15, no. 2, p. 286, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.3390/f15020286.
    31. N. Khaleghimoghaddam, ‘The Role of Nature and Physical Environment in Mental Relaxation: Konya Kyoto Park’, Artium, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 85–93, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.51664/artium.1379482.
    32. W. Alders, ‘Rural Settlement Dynamics in a Rapidly Urbanizing Landscape: Insights from Satellite Remote Sensing and Archaeological Field Sur-veys in Zanzibar, Tanzania’, Journal of Field Archaeology, vol. 49, no. 8, pp. 634–652, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.1080/00934690.2024.2402962.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Han , D. ., & Mamat , M. J. B. . (2025). Design Criteria for Pocket Parks in Old City Districts: Fostering Shared Urban Landscapes. International Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 14(5), 486-495. https://doi.org/10.14419/1h3pa092