Pocket Parks: A Systematic Review

Prévia do material em texto

Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 61 (2021) 127080
Available online 13 March 2021
1618-8667/© 2021 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
Review 
Pocket parks in English and Chinese literature: A review 
Hanyan Zhang a,*, Mingxi Han b 
a University of Copenhagen, Denmark 
b Renmin University of China, China 
A R T I C L E I N F O 
Handling Editor: Wendy Chen 
Keywords: 
Minipark 
Pocket park 
Small green space 
Systematic review 
A B S T R A C T 
Pocket parks have the characteristics of being small in size, low in expenditure, easy to access and flexible in 
shapes and location. Several studies have explored the environmental and social benefits as well as the design 
principles of pocket parks. However, a meta-analysis of research on pocket park is lacking. There is also no 
previous comparison of Chinese and English language research papers on pocket parks. This paper aims to 
systematically review 32 key English publications and 33 key Chinese publications from 4 databases (i.e. Google 
Scholar, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data). The results show that the definition of pocket park is only 
different in size when comparing English and Chinese papers. Moreover, the review highlighted the needs of 
exploring pocket parks in the areas of Latin America, Africa and Southeast Asia. The summary of research topics 
and trends provides a useful knowledge for future studies on pocket parks. 
1. Introduction 
Today, with global population growth and the rapid increase in 
urban sprawl, over half of the world’s population is living in urban areas 
(UN, 2018). In developing countries such as China, people’s migration 
from rural to urban areas has rapidly increased from 2008 to 2018 
(Statista, 2020). The rapid urbanization not only influences the envi-
ronment by causing an increase in local air temperature leading to heat 
island effect (Zhang et al., 2010), but it also changes people’s social and 
cultural lives,(Aziz et al., 2012). Moreover, with rapid urbanization, the 
green spaces are being gradually occupied by facilities such as housing 
and workplaces. Therefore, it becomes more and more difficult for cit-
izens to access green spaces. 
Urban parks are a significant part of cities, as they provide important 
ecosystem services. They provide regulating ecosystem services such as 
climate adaptation (Foster et al., 2011; Demuzere et al., 2014), 
storm-water management (Keeley et al., 2013; Ellis, 2013), and air 
quality improvement (Jayasooriya et al., 2017). In addition, they also 
provide provisioning ecosystem services, benefitting social ties (Cohen 
et al., 2014), protecting against diabetes (Dalton et al., 2016), and 
people who frequent urban parks have reduced stress levels (Berg et al., 
2010). Due to its ecological, economic and social benefits, blue-green 
infrastructure plays a significant role in big cities. 
However, blue-green infrastructure in the city centre is a luxury. The 
establishment of large-scale urban blue-green infrastructure is difficult 
and costly, especially in developing countries with rapid urbanization 
and a booming population. Therefore, small scale blue-green infra-
structure such as pocket parks is becoming a trend in urban design. 
Previous papers on this topic show that pocket parks improve people’s 
physical activities, which in turn benefits human health (Cohen et al., 
2014), and promotes quality of life (Zawya and Hamra, 2019). Besides, 
some papers investigate the potential of building pocket parks in 
high-density areas (Abd-al-Aziz, 2015) and designing a more useful 
pocket park (Nordh and Østby, 2013). Pocket parks not only provide 
ecosystem services as other forms of urban green infrastructure do but 
also work as a low-cost green infrastructure that is suitable for 
high-density cities. 
It appears that previous papers mainly focussed on investigating the 
benefits and design principles of pocket parks. There is no paper that 
summarises and analyses the definition and research trends about 
pocket parks, which include publication numbers according to years; 
study locations in different countries; and research disciplines. Also, no 
study exists that makes comparisons on the above criteria and discusses 
development trends from the year of the first pocket park appeared in 
1967 to the current year (2020). The aim of this paper is not only to 
summarize the definition, study location, research topic and trends of 
pocket park studies, but also to compare the existing research in English 
and Chinese languages on pocket parks. A clear definition of pocket 
parks can help improving our shared understanding of the characteris-
tics and functions of pocket parks. The exploration and comparison of 
* Corresponding author at: Geoscience and Natural Resources Management, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 23, 1958, Frederiksberg, Denmark. 
E-mail address: hzh@ign.ku.dk (H. Zhang). 
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect 
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ufug 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127080 
Received 13 August 2020; Received in revised form 1 March 2021; Accepted 5 March 2021 
mailto:hzh@ign.ku.dk
www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/16188667
https://www.elsevier.com/locate/ufug
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127080
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127080
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127080
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127080&domain=pdf
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 61 (2021) 127080
2
pocket parks from western countries and China will facilitate a wider 
understanding of the research trends and development, and provide 
non-Chinese speaking researchers a better research overview. Moreover, 
the paper aims to lay the groundwork for Chinese pocket park research, 
broaden horizons for future research on green infrastructure and pro-
vide the necessary guidance to urban designers. 
2. Methods: a systematic review 
According to Piper (2013), through a systematic literature review, it 
is possible to identify the limitations, potential, and quality of current 
research as well as potentially answer our research questions. 
In this research, we have used the protocols of the “Preferred 
Reporting Items for Systematic Review Recommendations” (PRISMA) 
Statement from Moher et al. (2009) to systematically review existing 
papers that contain the following keywords: pocket park, minipark, vest 
pocket park, green space, small urban park and small green space for 
English publications; 小型公园, 迷你公园, 口袋公园, 社区公园, 小区游 
园, 游园 for Chinese publications. Keywords such as vest-pocket park 
and minipark appear in different publications related to pocket parks. 
We used the Google Translate software to deal with language translation 
issues. A search of English-language, peer-reviewed academic literature 
and government posters and reports using widely recognised databases: 
Google Scholar and Web of Science for English publications, CNKI and 
Wanfang databases for Chinese publications. They provide the latest 
research papers as well. Using of two different databases in order to 
make sure all the related paper are included. The review was experi-
enced a double screening by two authors between April 2020 and August 
2020 by searching for key words within the title, keywords, abstract and 
full text content of publications. 324 records were screened before 
excluding records that were duplicates and grey literature. The 
remaining 70 records were further screened, and 5 records were 
excluded on the basis that the full text were not addressing the pocket 
parks (Fig. 1). The definition part included definitions from Wikipedia as 
well. The papers were published during the years 1980–2020. The full 
text could be retrieved from these selected publications. Papers where 
only part of the text could be retrieved (e.g. abstract, introduction) from 
these four databases were omitted. We fully retrieved 33 Chinese pub-
lications out of138 publications which summarised the research defi-
nition and topics. The selected papers were based on different 
geographical locations, disciplinary orientations and publication years. 
When analysing the study location in China, we included all the case 
study papers – 36 out of 138. 
Papers were summarised according to the following five categories: 
publication year, publication numbers, study location, research topic 
and disciplinary orientation. We categorised summarised definitions 
using five classification metrics based on similarities and differences in 
each definition: spatial, typological, organizational, locational and 
functional. Disciplinary orientation includes natural science, social sci-
ence, planning and review. The former three are derived from Horte and 
Eisenman (2020). We added category ‘review’ as a separate category in 
order to emphasize the number of existing review papers. 
Finally, we summarised the limitations of the papers and concluded 
on the research trends and changes in topics over the past decades, both 
in western countries and in China. In addition, we explored potential 
research gaps. 
3. Result 
3.1. Publication year and numbers 
Findings regarding publication frequency is shown in Fig. 2. 
Fig. 1. PRISMA Flowchart. 
Fig. 2. Number of Publications in English and Chinese. 
H. Zhang and M. Han 
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 61 (2021) 127080
3
English papers: According to Google Scholar and Web of Science, 
there are 32 publications that include the keyword ‘pocket park’ or 
‘minipark’ or ‘small green space’. There was only one publication before 
2003 (published in 1981). From 2003 to 2020 there were between nine 
and four papers per year. The majority of papers were published be-
tween 2011 and April 2020. 
Chinese papers: According to Wanfang Data and CNKI databases, the 
total number of publications which include the keywords ‘口袋公园 
(pocket park)’ or ‘迷你公园 (minipark)’ or ‘小型绿地 (small green 
space)’ from 2007 to April 2020 is 138. The publication number from 
2007 to 2013 is 24, which accounts for 17.39 % of the total number of 
publications. The number of publications from 2014 to April 2020 is 114 
which accounts for 82.61 % of the total. The first was published in 2007. 
The highest number of publications was in 2019 with 33 publications, 
followed by the years 2018 and 2017 with 24 and 19 publications, 
respectively. The publication number increased dramatically from 2014 
to 2015, from 4 to 12. Thereafter, the number of publications per year 
increased steadily from 2015 to 2019. 
Fig. 2 compares the number of publications in English and Chinese 
by year. From the graph, we can see that the English publications on 
pocket parks appeared earlier than Chinese ones. The development 
period is after 2010 for English research and post 2011 for Chinese 
research. However, after 2007, the number of Chinese publications has 
far exceeded that of the English publications. 
3.2. Summary of definitions 
English papers: Of the 32 reviewed papers in English, there are 14 
articles/publications related to the definition of ‘pocket park’ in the 
English language papers. These definitions are summarized in chrono-
logical order in Table 1. We distilled the most frequent words mentioned 
in the definition part and produced a ‘word cloud’ as shown in Fig. 3. 
Chinese papers: Of the 33 reviewed papers in Chinese, there are 9 
publications that defined ‘pocket park’ in the Chinese language papers. 
We summarised them according to citation frequency. The word ‘pocket 
park’ is replaced by ‘…’ in the following table. We distilled the most 
frequent words mentioned in the definition part and produced a ‘word 
cloud’ as shown in Fig. 4 and Table 2. 
3.3. Definition classification 
The definition can be classified into several categories. See Table 3. 
3.3.1. Spatial 
Until now, there has been no clear definition for the scale of a pocket 
park. Chinese researcher Wang (2009) defined pocket park as an area 
that is less than 8,000 m2. Yu (2016) defined it as an area between 400 
and 10,000 m2, while Fang and Ma (2020) defined it as an area up to10, 
000 m2. However, Sinou and Kenton (2013) defined pocket parks at a 
small scale of 0.125 acres (about 506 m2). National Recreation and Park 
Association defined pocket parks as small areas that are less than 0.4 ha 
(4,000 m2). This is also mentioned by the Mayor of London. 
3.3.2. Typological 
The researchers, Zhang (2007), Liu (2011), Fang and Ma (2020), 
Wang (2019) and Sinou and Kenton (2013), defined pocket park as an 
‘open space’ in urban/city area. In the book Urban heritage in times of 
uncertainty: Complexity, Sensitivity, and Protection, a pocket park is 
described as an ‘open public space’. Similarly, in the book Great City 
Parks, the pocket park is also re-named as ‘Great Public Space’. Ke 
(2011a) defined pocket park as a ‘green space’ in urban areas in his two 
papers. And the Northamptonshire city council also considered pocket 
park as a ‘green space’. 
3.3.3. Organizational 
Yu (2016) described pocket parks as those that can be used by 
Table 1 
Definition of Pocket Parks in English Papers. 
Year Author/Source Definition 
1988 Hajime A minipark may be considered as a ‘pocket’ 
of a cloth which creates a small oasis for 
people in the cold winter, also bringing them 
comfort and relaxation. 
1996 Lin He called ‘vest-pocket’ parks 
‘neighbourhood commons’. Adults and 
teenagers helped build the playgrounds 
using tonewood and other salvaged material 
from old building sites. 
2004 Tate The book concluded that pocket park has 
numerous benefits, including that it ‘creates 
the optimal micro-climate’ and ‘obscures 
street noise’ etc. It was also renamed ‘Great 
Public Space’ by the Project for Public 
Spaces. 
2005 Forsyth and Musacchio Small parks are a key part of most 
neighbourhoods, but they typically provide 
mostly recreational benefits. They have 
limited areas, so they cannot meet all the 
potential demands for space for varied 
human activities and multiple natural 
processes. 
2007 Zhang Pocket parks are also called miniparks or 
vest-pocket parks. It refers to the small open 
spaces in cities. They are often scattered, 
spread or hidden in the urban landscape, 
directly serving the residents. 
2010 Babalis A ‘vest-pocket park’ is described as an open 
public space placed within an urban block 
and defined as a minipark with natural 
elements. 
2011 Waldman He called the park ‘a hidden oasis in 
midtown’, which defines the underlying 
purpose of the park, to create a haven within 
the city. The park appears to be an extension 
of its midtown surroundings while 
simultaneously transporting you away from 
the hustle and bustle. 
2012 Little Pocket parks are green spaces owned and 
managed by local people (volunteers). They 
provide free open access to the countryside 
for everyone at all times. 
2013 Babalis Pocket parks are described as urban spaces of 
a very small size that should be distributed 
and embedded in the public urban fabric, 
accessible to people and suitable to different 
local needs. 
2013 Sinou and Kenton Urban pocket parks are urban open spaces at 
a small scale of 0.125 acres. These spaces 
have the potential to provide relief from the 
city, contribute to a sense of place, provide 
comfort and a sense of well-being to the user 
and contribute positively to the urban 
microclimate. Pocket parks can be defined as 
greens or quiet enclaves. 
2019 Labuz The concept of a pocket park (also called 
vest-pocket or minipark) emerged from the 
need to improve the quality of urban life in 
the aspect of accessibility of public spaces, 
including green areas. 
Unknown Mayor of London Pocket parks are small areas (less than 0.4 
ha)of inviting public spaces for all people to 
enjoy, providing relief from the hustle and 
bustle of the city. 
Unknown National Recreation 
and Park Association 
Pocket parks are small areas (less than 0.4 
ha) of inviting public spaces for all people to 
enjoy, providing relief from the hustle and 
bustle of the city. They should be open and 
accessible to all; they should have places to 
sit and relax and for people to come together; 
and they should contribute to making the 
city friendlier, greener and more resilient. 
Unknown WIKI A pocket park (also known as a parkette, 
minipark, vest-pocket park or vest park) is a 
(continued on next page) 
H. Zhang and M. Han 
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 61 (2021) 127080
4
anyone, which also meant that pocket parks are owned by everyone. 
Similarly, the Mayor of London, National Recreation and Park Associ-
ation and WIKI described pocket parks as a place that serves everyone. 
Another category is community/neighbourhood based. In the Congres-
sional Record, Lin (1996) defined pocket parks as ‘neighbourhood 
commons’. It is similar to the definition by the Northamptonshire city 
council, which described pocket parks as those owned and managed by 
local people. There is only one Chinese definition for pocket parks ac-
cording to this classification, where Yu (2016) compared it to overseas 
definitions. 
3.3.4. Locational 
According to Wang (2009), Ke (2011a), Liu (2011) and Wang (2019), 
pocket parks are usually located in high-density urban areas. In Ke’s 
(2011b) second paper, he added that pocket parks are distributed along 
the route of daily activities. The book Urban heritage in times of uncer-
tainty: Complexity, Sensitivity and Protection, Babalis (2010, 2013), 
Waldman (2011) mentioned that pocket parks are located in urban 
areas. Labuz (2019) emphasised that pocket parks are in the city centre. 
3.3.5. Functional 
Pocket parks provide environmental functions such as providing 
greenings (Liu, 2011), mitigating climate change and reducing street 
noise (Lin, 1996). Yu (2016), Fang and Ma (2020), Wang (2019) and 
Hajime (1988), the book Designing Small Parks, Mayor of London and 
Table 1 (continued ) 
Year Author/Source Definition 
small park accessible to the general public. 
Pocket parks are frequently created on a 
single vacant building lot or small, irregular 
pieces of land. 
Fig. 3. Word Cloud of Common Terms about Pocket Park’s Definition Based on 
15 Papers in English. 
Fig. 4. Word Cloud of Common Terms about Pocket Park Definitions in 9 Papers in 
Chinese. 
Translation: high-density area (高密度地区), open public area (开放公共场所), 
accessibility (易进入), local resident (当地居民), social activity (社交活动), 
minipark (迷你公园), suitable (合适的), relax (放松的), communicate (交流). 
Table 2 
Definitions of Pocket Parks in Chinese Papers. 
Author (year) Citation Definition 
Zhang (2007) 202 …is also called Minipark or Vest-Pocket Park. It refers 
to the small open spaces of cities. They are often 
scattered spread-out or hidden in the urban landscape, 
directly serving the local residents. 
Wang (2009) 72 …is a small open space located in high-density urban 
areas. It is of easily to reach and get access. It is with a 
suitable size. In this paper, the case selection area is 
less than 8000m2. 
Ke (2011a) 40 Broadly speaking, … is any small area in the city open 
space. It can be a small size green space. In the narrow 
sense, … is located in the high-density central area of 
the city. 
Ke (2011b) 27 …belongs to the urban park and it is a part of an urban 
green space. It is distributed along the route of daily 
activities. 
Liu (2011) 23 …is located in high-density urban agglomeration 
areas, serving the surrounding citizens. The scale is 
suitable and it is a small city open space with certain 
greening service functions. 
Jia (2015) 3 …is a small public green system with certain urban 
park model and is located in the urban area. 
Yu (2016) 6 …is an area between 400 and 10000m2 and flexibly 
scattered in the city. It characterized by a high 
greening rate, being convenient to reach, and easy to 
enter. It is an urban outdoor small space that can be 
used by anyone and can provide a good place for 
people to relax and communicate. 
Fang and Ma 
(2020) 
0 …is a small outside public open space that satisfies 
people’s needs for relaxation and communication. The 
area is between 0–10000 m2. 
Wang (2019) 0 …is located near a high-density city block or 
commercial centre or transportation hub. The layout is 
flexible and changeable, easy to get access and the 
scale is humanized. It is a small open space that meets 
the daily life of the residents, provides a space for 
social activities. 
Table 3 
Definition Classification. 
Category Chinese paper English paper 
Spatial Wang (2009), Yu (2016), 
Fang and Ma (2020) 
Sinou and Kenton (2013), NRPA 
Typological Zhang (2007), Ke (2011a), 
Liu (2011), Fang and Ma 
(2020), Wang (2019) 
Babalis (2010), Little (2012), 
Sinou and Kenton (2013), Tate 
(2004) 
Organizational Yu (2016) Lin (1996), Little (2012), Mayor 
of London, NRPA, WIKI 
Locational Wang (2009), Ke (2011a, 
2011b), Liu (2011), Wang 
(2019) 
Labuz (2019), Babalis (2010, 
2013), Waldman (2011), WIKI 
Functional Liu (2011), Yu (2016), Fang 
and Ma (2020), Wang 
(2019) 
Hajime (1988), Tate (2004), 
Forsyth and Musacchio (2005), 
Sinou and Kenton (2013), Labuz 
(2019), Mayor of London, NRPA 
H. Zhang and M. Han 
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 61 (2021) 127080
5
NRPA mentioned that pocket parks provide social functions such as 
relaxation, communication and recreation. Sinou and Kenton (2013) 
mentioned both environmental and social functions of pocket parks. 
To conclude, the definitions of pocket parks are similar in Chinese 
and English publications except when it comes to the spatial size. 
3.4. Research summary 
English papers: An overview of findings regarding study location is 
provided in Table 4. 
3.4.1. Study locations 
Most research on pocket parks has been conducted in the United 
States with 8 published papers, followed by Scandinavian countries with 
7. The majority of study sites are in the US and European cities. The 
mapped study locations exclude mainland China, which is shown in 
detail in the following segment. 
3.4.2. Research topic 
We summarised 32 English language papers published from 1981 to 
April 2020. Table 5 shows an overview of the research themes of the 
individual papers. The conclusion of the research topic mainly focusses 
on the main research objective and research methodology. 
Chinese papers: An overview of findings regarding study location in 
mainland China is provided in Fig. 5. 
3.4.3. Study locations 
There is a total of 36 case studies on pocket parks in China based on 
138 publications. Fieldwork was conducted in 13 provinces, which 
included 21 cities (19 cities and 2 municipalities, Shanghai and Beijing). 
Shanghai and Jiangsu provinces ranked first with 6 case studies 
respectively, followed by Zhejiang province and Guangdong province 
with 4 case studies each. Beijing ranked fourth with 3 case studies. 
Anhui province, Hebei province and Shandong province each had 2 case 
studies respectively. The rest of the cities had done 1 case study each. 
There have been 18 case studies each done in northern and southern 
cities. 
Table 4 
Numbers of Publications according to Study Location City. 
Country Total 
number 
City 
USA 8 Michigan (Kaplan, 1981), Pennsylvania (Edwards, 
2006), Los Angeles (Cohen et al., 2014), StapletonDenver (Gibson and Canfield, 2016), Boston (Danford 
et al., 2018), Illinois (Sinha, 2018), New York (2) ( 
Patel et al., 2016), (Han et al., 2013) 
Denmark 4 Copenhagen (4) (Peschardt et al., 2012), (Peschardt 
and Stigsdotter, 2013), (Peschardt and Stigsdotter, 
2014), (Peschardt et al., 2016) 
Norway 2 Oslo (2) (Nordh et al., 2011), (Nordh and Østby, 2013) 
Egypt 2 Cairo (2) (Abd-al-Aziz, 2015), (Mokhtar and Rehim, 
2017) 
Japan 2 Tokyo (2) (Ito, 2004), (Patel et al., 2016) 
Hongkong 2 Hong Kong (2) (Lau et al., 2012), (Lin et al., 2017) 
Australia 1 Melbourne (Nichols and Freestone, 2003) 
Turkey 1 Isparta (Özgüner, 2011) 
Indonesia 1 Jakarta and Yokohama (Mutiara and Isami, 2012) 
Malaysia 1 Kuala Lumpur (Kerishnan et al., 2020) 
Greece 1 Athens (Sinou and Kenton, 2013) 
UK 1 London (Sinou and Kenton, 2013) 
Iran 1 Qazvin (Chokami et al., 2014) 
Scandinavia 1 Unknown (Nordh et al., 2009) 
Peru 1 Lima (Patel et al., 2016) 
Spain 1 Madrid (Lorenzo et al., 2016) 
South Korea 1 Seoul (Park et al., 2017) 
Poland 1 Kraków (Labuz, 2019) 
Brazil 1 São Paulo (Almeida, 2019) 
Table 5 
Summary of English Research Themes. 
Year Author Research Topic Disciplinary 
Orientation 
1981 Kaplan Case study using a survey to 
investigate the use and 
satisfaction of Liberty Plaza 
pocket park 
Social science 
2003 Nichols and 
Freestone 
Case study to survey the residents 
living near the internal reverse 
and to see how they value pocket 
park 
Social science 
2004 Ito To clarify the relationship 
between a landowner and a 
conversion method in the 
conversion process of the un- 
intensive and unused land into a 
pocket park 
Planning 
2006 Edwards To investigate selected pocket 
parks and to design better pocket 
parks that promote positive 
interaction among people 
regardless of their social and 
economic background. Marginal 
groups’ welfare 
Social science 
2009 Nordh et al. To assess the extent to which 
hardscape, grass, lower ground 
vegetation and so on predicted 
the judged possibility for 
restoration in small urban green 
spaces in Scandinavian cities 
Natural science 
2010 Baur & Tynon To explore the benefits to health 
and well-being that pocket parks 
can contribute 
Social science 
2011 Nordh, Alalouch 
and Hartig 
To investigate the relative 
importance of environmental 
components, in small urban parks 
in Oslo, for people looking for 
somewhere to sit down and rest 
Natural science 
2011 Özgüner To understand how different 
cultural and ethnic groups value 
and use urban parks and how it is 
crucial in developing appropriate 
design and management 
strategies. 
Social science 
2012 Lau, Lin and Qin The reports of the results of an 
empirical study on summertime 
environmental performances of a 
pocket park 
Natural science 
2012 Mutiara and Isami To clarify, through field work and 
case study, that Jakarta needs to 
improve the parks by involving 
the community and providing a 
communal space for participation 
Planning 
2012 Peschardt, 
Schipperjin and 
Stigsdotter 
To investigate how nine urban 
small green spaces in 
Copenhagen are used by the 
citizens through survey and 
questionnaires 
Social science 
2013 Sinou and Kenton To identify some key design 
parameters for the creation of a 
successful pocket park through 
two case studies 
Planning 
2013 Nordh and Østby To explore how pocket parks 
should be designed to promote 
their potential for psychological 
restoration and to imagine what 
activities people could do in 
pocket parks 
Social science 
2013 Han, Cohen and 
McKenzie 
To quantify the contribution of U. 
S. neighbourhood parks to the 
time spent in moderate-to- 
vigorous physical activity by the 
local population through 
observation and a model- 
averaging approach 
Social science 
2013 Social science 
(continued on next page) 
H. Zhang and M. Han 
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 61 (2021) 127080
6
3.4.4. Research topic 
We distilled 33 papers from 138 publications and summarised them 
according to the year of publication. The research content section in the 
table below includes between one and four significant points. The new/ 
special point(s) section is the summary that contains new views in each 
paper (Table 6). 
3.5. Summary of research topics 
English papers: The idea of the pocket park came from Europe after 
the Second World War. The pocket park was brought into America after 
the 1950s. The concept of ‘vest-pocket park’ was first introduced in 1967 
by Robert Zion, who designed the first pocket park Paley Park in New 
York. However, the first publication about pocket parks came out in 
1981 (Kaplan, 1981). In the following 20 years, related publications 
appeared only rarely. From 2003, the number of publications gradually 
increased, although research topics remained simple. After 2010, there 
were more and more researchers who began focusing on exploring 
pocket parks. The topics included investigating the uses of pocket parks 
(Peschardt et al., 2012) and the health function of pocket parks 
(Peschardt and Stigsdotter, 2013). Several more studies emerged 
combining the consideration of physical and psychological health ben-
efits of pocket parks. 
Chinese papers: The concept of ‘Pocket park’ was first introduced by 
Professor Wenying Zhang in 2007. From 2007 to 2014, the number of 
publications per year was very low but steadily increased. Researchers 
started to gradually explore and investigate pocket parks, although the 
process was very slow. Then research topics mainly focused on the 
design principles and political points of view (Peng, 2009). The case 
study on megacities such as Beijing and Shanghai started to appear 
(Shen, 2011), which meant that researchers realised that pocket parks 
were a significant part of green infrastructure in high-density urban 
areas. 
After 2014, the number of publications increased every year. The 
topics became more varied and detailed. Cultural elements such as 
‘Chinese Taoist’ started to be integrated into pocket park designing (Tian 
and Chen, 2015a, 2015b). Researchers applied the concept of pocket 
parks in different kinds of cities, e.g. sponge city (Su, 2015) and ancient 
town (Chen et al., 2017). 
The first summary paper about the current status of pocket parks in 
China appeared in 2017 (Wang et al., 2017). This paper only analysed 
the status and problems of Chinese pocket parks in general, which not 
include definition analysis and case study analysis. The first review 
paper about overseas pocket park research appeared in 2019 (Duan 
et al., 2019). This paper only reviews overseas pocket park and sum-
marize the research frontiers which provides guideline to designing of 
Chinese pocket parks. Besides, the above two papers only analyse either 
Chinese or oversea pocket park study without comparison. 
Table 5 (continued ) 
Year Author Research Topic Disciplinary 
Orientation 
Peschardt and 
Stigsdotter 
To test whether park 
characteristics are associated 
with the perceived restrictiveness 
of nine small public urban green 
spaces 
2014 Cohen et al. To assess the use of new pocket 
parks in low-income 
neighbourhoods in Los Angeles 
through the System of Observing 
Play and Recreation in 
Communities tool 
Social science 
2014 Peschardt and 
Stigsdotter 
To focus on the health-promoting 
potential of pocket parks in the 
dense city area of Copenhagen 
through natural experiments and 
interviews 
Planning 
2014 Gibson and 
Canfield 
To assess resident perceptions of 
pocket parks as an alternative to 
private yards and investigate 
pocket parks as places that foster 
community interaction 
Social science 
2014 Chokami et al. To define pocket parks using 
some important criteria such as 
locations on the side streets, local 
use,easy access for local people, 
applied freely for the public of all 
ages 
Planning 
2015 Abd-al-Aziz To evaluate the possibility of 
creating pocket parks with 
community participation through 
questionnaires and observations 
Planning 
2016 Peschardt, 
Stigsdotter and 
Schipperrijin 
To identify features in pocket 
parks that may support the use of 
‘rest and restitution’ and 
‘socializing’ 
Natural science 
2016 Patel, Gandhi and 
Bhatt 
To discuss the health aspects in 
an urban area for the citizens 
followed by the basics of and 
some of the cases related to novel 
efforts in developing mini-parks 
Social science 
2016 Lorenzo et al. To evaluate the role of small 
urban spaces in cities as an 
opportunity to access nature and 
restrictiveness 
Social science 
2017 Armato To emphasize the importance of 
pocket parks and its development 
history and origin 
Planning 
2017 Lin et al. To conduct in situ climate 
measurements and 
morphological analyses of 12 
cities in Hong Kong 
Natural science 
2017 Mokhtar and 
Rehim 
To achieve sustainability in 
designing spaces between 
residential units and to recognize 
remarkable local and 
international experiences to 
comprehend and discover the 
advantages and disadvantages 
Planning 
2017 Park et al. To determine the types and 
structures of small green spaces 
that effectively reduce the air 
temperature in urban blocks 
Natural science 
2018 Danford et al. To explore the actual use of 
informal small green spaces by 
using behavioural measures 
Planning 
2018 Sinha To combine pocket parks with 
social study and explore the use 
of pocket parks in both 
neighbourhoods and 
communities 
Social science 
2019 Labuz To presents general principles of 
the idea of creating pocket parks 
by investigating two pocket parks 
Planning 
2019 Almeida To understand the viability of 
pocket parks in the context of 
Social science 
Table 5 (continued ) 
Year Author Research Topic Disciplinary 
Orientation 
smart cities in order to 
reterritorialize small urban 
spaces that allow improvement in 
the quality of people’s lives and 
appreciation of the local 
community 
2020 Kerishnan et al. To provide an overview of the 
pocket parks in Kuala Lumpur 
while identifying the 
characteristics of the pocket 
parks associated with the 
visitation and usage 
Planning 
H. Zhang and M. Han 
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 61 (2021) 127080
7
3.6. Discipline orientation comparison 
There are 16 English papers that fall under ‘social science’. These 
account for 50 % of the total selected papers. In Chinese publications, 
the ‘social science’ papers only account for 12.1 % of the total number of 
selected papers. However, there are 22 publications in Chinese, which 
can be categorised as ‘planning’ papers, which account for 66.6 % of the 
33 papers in the selected sample. In English publications, 34.4 % of the 
total number of selected papers fall under ‘planning’. There are 4 English 
publications in ‘natural science’ and no ‘review’ papers. Only 3 Chinese 
publications are falling under ‘natural science’, and 3 are ‘review’ pa-
pers. To conclude, the English publications tend to focus on ‘social sci-
ence’ study of pocket parks. However, the Chinese publications tend to 
focus on ‘planning’ study. 
3.7. Summary of research trends 
The time-flow graph in Fig. 6 is based on the development of research 
trends according to time, from 1967 (the year that the first pocket park 
has been established) for English papers and 2007 for Chinese papers. In 
the English literature, the notation of pocket parks underwent a very 
long and slow exploration and development period over 1967–2010. 
Chinese researchers only used 7 years to explore pocket parks and reach 
a fast development period. 
4. Discussion 
This systematic review has focused specifically on pocket parks. 
Various reviews on topics of urban green spaces and urban parks have 
been carried out but these tended to be focused on the benefits, uses and 
functions of urban parks or green spaces (Sadeghian and Vardanyan, 
2013; Bosch et al., 2013; McCormack et al., 2010). There are reviews 
about other types of green infrastructures such as urban greenways 
(Horte and Eisenman, 2020) as well, which summarised the types and 
terminology of greenways, and green roofs (Vijayaraghavan, 2016), 
which summarised the benefits and components of green roof. The 
findings of the current review have not only summarised the study 
location and research trends of existing studies on pocket parks and 
distinguished the definitions of each research but have also compared 
the studies on pocket parks between English and Chinese language pa-
pers and found the research gaps for further studies. 
This literature review has considered both English and Chinese lan-
guage research papers on pocket parks. It has demonstrated that the 
research on pocket parks is geographically limited. The study locations 
mainly focus on American and European countries, indicating a lack of 
studies in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia. One of the expla-
nations would be the rapid urbanisation with lack of consideration to 
green spaces (Mensah, 2014); or poor social conditions and economic 
and environmental deterioration (Said and Mansor, 2011). In China, a 
majority of the case studies were done in the east. Moreover, a majority 
of the case study cities are located in provinces that are near the sea, 
where the population density is high and thus the demand for small 
urban green spaces is expected to be higher. 
In contrast to the narrow geographic distribution of research, pocket 
parks have attracted scholarly research interest from a wide range of 
study disciplines, including natural and social sciences, and the aspects 
of planning and reviewing. The diverse disciplines within pocket park 
studies also indicate why researchers use different methods in different 
Fig. 5. Bubble Map according to Publication Study Locations-Provinces (from Google Maps). 
H. Zhang and M. Han 
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 61 (2021) 127080
8
Table 6 
Summary of Chinese Research Themes. 
Year Author Content New/special point 
(s) 
Disciplinary 
Orientation 
2007 Zhang (1)Defined and 
introduced ‘pocket 
park’ in the Chinese 
context (2)Analysed 
the design and 
construction of pocket 
parks in America (3) 
Made suggestions to 
establish pocket parks 
in China 
Introduced ‘pocket 
park’ in China, and 
defined it 
Planning 
2008 Wang 
and 
Guo 
(1)Emphasised the 
importance of pocket 
parks (2)Compared 
Chinese pocket parks 
with American pocket 
parks (3)Made 
suggestions to choose 
the right place and 
focus on human needs 
Made comparison 
of Chinese and 
American pocket 
parks 
Planning 
2009 Wang (1)Analysed 12 
overseas pocket parks 
and 11 Chinese pocket 
parks (2)Found design 
deficiencies in Chinese 
pocket parks and 
provided guidance (3) 
Conducted an 
innovative design 
method study on 
public facilities, water 
features and so on 
Mentioned 
integrated ‘public 
participation’ with 
pocket park design 
but not in much 
detail 
Planning 
2009 Peng (1)Introduced the 
definition, 
characteristics, 
function and 
development of pocket 
parks (2)Described the 
use of pocket parks in 
modern city areas (3) 
Explained design 
models and principles 
according to rules and 
law 
Integrated design 
with local rules and 
law 
Planning 
2010 Chen (1)Suggested that 
community parks are 
important to physical 
and mental health (2) 
Compared the 
similarities between 
communityparks and 
pocket parks (3) 
Analysed the theory 
and practice of foreign 
pocket parks and 
expounded the 
significance of foreign 
pocket parks in theory 
and practice in the 
construction of 
community parks in 
China 
Started to notice 
that pocket park is 
significant to both 
physical and mental 
health 
Social 
science 
2011 Ke(b) (1)Investigated pocket 
parks in cold cities 
according to seasons 
(2)Integrated 
environmental 
psychology and 
behavioural 
psychology theories 
and gave guidance 
Integrated 
environmental 
psychology and 
behavioural 
psychology theories 
Natural 
science 
2011 Xu (1)Analysed 
characteristics of 
pocket parks in 
Combined pocket 
parks with local 
natural elements 
Natural 
science 
Table 6 (continued ) 
Year Author Content New/special point 
(s) 
Disciplinary 
Orientation 
waterfront landscapes. 
(2)Combined pocket 
parks with rural 
resources and the use 
of natural elements 
such as ‘soil, water, 
tea, wood’ (3)Aimed 
to create residential 
pocket parks with 
local characteristics 
and functions 
2011 Li (1)Brought forward 
the concept and 
characteristics of 
urban pocket parks 
and economical design 
for the same (2) 
Identified problems in 
the economical design 
of urban pocket parks 
in China (3)Proposed 
that pocket parks are 
expected to make the 
‘depressed’ space 
‘reactive’ (4)Promoted 
the importance of 
public participation in 
the construction of 
pocket parks 
Integrated 
‘economical design’ 
with pocket parks 
Planning 
2011 Shen (1)Applied on-site 
classified 
investigation, 
analysed three big 
cities: Shanghai, 
Beijing, Nanjing (2) 
Combined with the 
design case in Huzhou, 
empirically explored 
the relationship 
between pocket parks 
and urban space, 
transportation, 
architecture, urban 
natural environment, 
historical context, and 
urban life 
Started to analyse 
pocket parks in big 
cities in China as 
well as more factors 
for pocket park 
designing 
Planning 
2012 Ge (1)Reviewed and 
discussed pocket parks 
in western academia 
(2)Summarized the 
new value standard 
under the era 
background, 
emphasised ‘small’ as 
good 
Review 
2012 Yang (1)Described the 
development of 
American vest-pocket 
parks (2)Analysed the 
profound significance 
of pocket parks, which 
can enhance 
understanding in 
China on construction 
urban recreation 
environment in high- 
density core areas 
Focused on the 
construction of 
pocket parks in 
high-density core 
areas in China 
Planning 
2013 Li (1)Analysed 6 pocket 
parks in cold cities in 
America and Japan, 
conducting surveys in 
6 pocket parks in 
Harbin (2)Designed 
trialism: material 
form, psychological 
Trail design of 
pocket parks 
Planning 
(continued on next page) 
H. Zhang and M. Han 
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 61 (2021) 127080
9
Table 6 (continued ) 
Year Author Content New/special point 
(s) 
Disciplinary 
Orientation 
environment, cultural 
connotation 
2013 Hou, 
Wen 
and Lin 
(1)Summarized the 
characteristics of the 
city pocket parks and 
the existing problems 
of the city pocket 
parks in China (2) 
Analysed the aesthetic 
characteristics of 
Suzhou Art Garden (3) 
Provided a new way of 
thinking to solve the 
blind ‘copying’ and 
stereotyped situations 
Started to combine 
‘art’ into pocket 
park designing 
Planning 
2014 Jiang (1)Analysed pocket 
parks in the old city. 
(2)Discussed the 
design of pocket parks 
from design principles 
and content aspects 
Focused on the 
pocket park in old 
cities 
Planning 
2015 Tian 
and 
Chen 
(a) 
(1)Analysed the design 
points of the new and 
traditional residential 
areas of the pocket 
park, combined with 
humanities, beauty 
and cultural 
characteristics (2) 
Proposed economic 
measures to reduce 
maintenance costs 
Residential pocket 
parks in traditional 
and new-built areas 
Planning 
2015 Tian 
and 
Chen 
(b) 
Combined the 
traditional Chinese 
Taoist aesthetics with 
the pocket park 
Combined 
traditional culture 
with the pocket 
park 
Planning 
2015 Yu (1)Identified the 
following problems: 
blind site selection, 
poor practicality and 
blindly planting a 
large number of 
plants; leading to no 
space for people to do 
activities (2)Put 
forward 
corresponding 
countermeasures, 
clarified the service 
radius of the pocket 
park, determined the 
demand, increased the 
vertical greening rate, 
and rationally 
arranged 
Mentioned ‘vertical 
greening’ in pocket 
parks 
Planning 
2015 Su Combined the 
characteristics of a 
pocket park with a 
sponge city to provide 
water storage 
Sponge city and 
pocket parks 
Natural 
science 
2016 Gao 
and Cui 
Suggested that the 
design of pocket parks 
should be a combined 
effort between the 
government, designers 
and users 
Detailed and 
introduced the 
importance of 
public participation 
Planning 
2016 Tan 
and 
Peng 
(1)Analysed principal 
component method to 
investigate and 
analyse the 
influencing factors of 
alleviating mental 
stress (2)Highlighted 
that studies have 
shown that the 
Detailed how 
pocket parks 
alleviate human 
mental stress 
Social 
science 
Table 6 (continued ) 
Year Author Content New/special point 
(s) 
Disciplinary 
Orientation 
colours, types and 
quantities of natural 
landscapes have a very 
high value in the 
evaluation of the 
stress-relieving effect 
of the park 
2017 Chen 
et al. 
Proposed two stages of 
pocket park 
development: the 
initial stage from 1991 
to 2009 and rapid 
development from 
2009 
Provided detailed 
explanation and 
summary of current 
Chinese research on 
pocket parks; it is 
the first paper 
providing an 
overview of pocket 
parks in China. 
Review 
2017 Lan (1)Analysed 6 
commercial district 
pocket parks in the 
megacities of Beijing 
and Shanghai (2)Put 
forward design 
principles and main 
points 
Focused on mega- 
cities 
Planning 
2017 Wang, 
Xu and 
Wu 
(1)Analysed the 
difficulties of building 
pocket parks in the 
ancient town (2) 
Planned and analysed 
the layout 
Pocket parks in 
ancient towns 
Planning 
2018 Zhao (1)Classified urban 
pocket parks, 
proposed to 
implement pocket 
parks through ‘flexible 
space mechanism’, 
‘communication 
sharing platform’, and 
‘public participation 
model’ (2)Discussed 
the flexible 
development strategy 
of pocket parks from 
‘traffic accessibility’, 
‘infrastructure 
volume’, ‘inter-S 
elasticity value’ and 
‘public participation’ 
Pocket parks in 
‘shared cities’ 
Planning 
2018 Yu Combined small ruins 
and pocket parks to 
promote the 
advantages, enrich the 
cultural connotation 
of pocket parks, meet 
the cultural needs of 
the public and 
stimulate citizens’ 
awareness of cultural 
protection 
Pocket parks and 
small ruins 
Planning 
2018 Li et al. Summarized user 
behaviour 
characteristics, needs 
and an evaluation of 
the same 
Social 
science 
2018 Deng (1)Provided analysis 
of overseas cases, 
which involved 
gardening therapy, 
environmental 
treatment, play 
treatment, gardening 
treatment and other 
methods to improve 
the environment of the 
pocket parks, and 
Integrated 
horticultural 
therapy into pocket 
park designing 
Social 
science 
(continued on next page) 
H. Zhang and M. Han 
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 61 (2021) 127080
10
studies. Papers related to the discipline of social science have dominated 
the English language studies, while those related to ‘planning’ have 
dominated Chinese language studies. The choice of research methods in 
these papers vary due to disciplinary orientation. Studies based on social 
sciences includequestionnaires and surveys (see, e.g., Nichols and 
Freestone, 2003; Peschardt et al., 2012), and those based on natural 
sciences include GIS (see, e.g., Fang & Ma, 2020). Regarding the types of 
sample, the majority of researchers choose pocket parks in big/capital 
cities. This is because of the establishment of pocket parks becoming a 
gradual trend in big cities due to its multiple environmental, social and 
economic functions (Ge, 2012). This review also found that there is still 
no unified definition for pocket parks. The above potential questions 
must be answered by further research. 
According to Figs. 2 and 6, the 1st English publication appeared 26 
years earlier than the 1st Chinese publication. The numbers of publi-
cation in English are stable, while in Chinese is gradually increased, the 
reason is, most of the English language paper are from European or the 
United States, where the pocket parks origin. It is not a new-type park in 
those countries. However, in China, especially in recent 5 years, the 
rapid urbanization and increased population, the government gradually 
aware of the construction of pocket parks. There are several goals made 
by government (e.g., According to Beijing Gardening and Greening Bureau 
(Beijing Gardening and Greening Bureau, 2021), Beijing has an aim to 
build 41 urban leisure parks, 13 urban forests, and 50 new pocket parks 
in 2020). Thus, more and more researchers start and involve in pocket 
park research. Compared to English language research, pocket park 
research in Chinese experienced a short exploration period. During 
exploration period, both language research is focusing on investigate the 
function, characteristics, design and planning of pocket parks. After 
exploration period, more topics have integrated with pocket park 
research, e.g., in English language research, human health have 
involved; in Chinese language research, more case studies in different 
cities were involved. In the meantime, pocket parks play an essential 
role in urban renewal, e.g. the abandoned lands and illegal building can 
be rebuilt to pocket parks. 
5. Conclusion 
This paper systematically reviewed and compared 32 English and 33 
Chinese publications that use the terms ‘pocket park’, ‘minipark’ and 
‘small green space’ in the title, abstract or keywords and summarised 
them using the following categories: publication numbers, year, study 
location, disciplinary orientation, definition, study topics and trends. 
The review finds that there is an increased number of publications on 
pocket parks in the recent 10 years; that over half of the Chinese papers 
belong to ‘planning’, whereas half of English papers belong to ‘social 
sciences’; that the study locations mainly focus on the US and European 
countries and China; that there is only a difference in the size of pocket 
parks when comparing definition in Chinese and English papers. In 
China, the development of pocket parks not only integrated cultural 
elements, but also tend to integrate new concept such as ‘urban micro- 
renewal’-changing the city from the small public spaces, to adapt rapid 
development of the cities. The identified research gaps show that future 
studies can focus on the literature review of pocket parks in Latin 
America, Africa and Southeast Asia according to different languages, 
which will replenish the current knowledge about pocket park globally. 
As a part of urban green spaces, pocket parks reflect continuous devel-
opment of landscape planning and design concepts, as well as oppor-
tunities for related scholarships and practice for the future. 
Authorship contributions 
Conception and design of study: H. Zhang. 
Acquisition of data: H. Zhang. 
Analysis and/or interpretation of data: H. Zhang, M. Han. 
Drafting the manuscript: H. Zhang. 
Revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content: 
H. Zhang, M. Han. 
Approval of the version of the manuscript to be published (the names 
of all authors must be listed): H. Zhang, M. Han. 
Table 6 (continued ) 
Year Author Content New/special point 
(s) 
Disciplinary 
Orientation 
improve the physical 
and mental health of 
users (2)Designed the 
layout of the pocket 
park based on the five 
senses to meet user 
needs 
2018 Song 
and 
Zhang 
(1)Combined pocket 
parks with the urban 
micro-update concept 
(2)Conducted in-depth 
research on the 
renewal of public 
spaces in old urban 
communities from 
three aspects: 
‘community space, 
community function 
and community 
vitality’ 
Started to integrate 
‘micro-renewal’ 
into pocket park 
designing 
Planning 
2019 Wang (1)Explored pocket 
parks’ low-carbon, 
energy-saving and 
environmental 
protection functions 
and benefits in terms 
of purifying the air, 
regulating the 
temperature, and 
reducing city noise (2) 
Highlighted the 
importance of the 
borderless design of 
the park 
Explored the 
importance of 
environmental 
services in pocket 
parks 
Natural 
science 
2019 Li (1)Combined the 
development history 
and characteristics of 
Western pocket parks, 
to plan Guangzhou 
Pocket Park (2) 
Proposed the use of 
small public spaces, 
and turning 
demolished buildings 
into pocket parks, as 
well as the concept of 
the central super-block 
concept 
Combined pocket 
park designing of a 
western city with 
that of a Chinese 
city 
Planning 
2019 Liu Summarized features 
located at traffic 
nodes, with large and 
small-scale mobility 
Focused on traffic 
pocket park 
designing 
Planning 
2019 Duan Used co-word analysis 
reviews to research 
overseas studies on 
pocket parks from 
2007 to 2017, which 
are indexed by Web of 
Science, and 
summarized the 
research frontiers 
The first Chinese 
review paper about 
western pocket 
parks 
Review 
2020 Fang 
and Ma 
(1)Analysed the 
distribution 
characteristics of 
pocket parks in core 
areas using GIS (2) 
Summarized problems 
and gave suggestions 
Used GIS Planning 
H. Zhang and M. Han 
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 61 (2021) 127080
11
Declaration of Competing Interest 
There is no competing financial interests or personal relationships 
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. 
References 
Abd-al-Aziz, N.A., 2015. Potentials of creating pocket parks in high density residential 
neighborhoods: The case of Rod El Farag, Cairo city. Int. J. Dev. Sustain. 4 (7), 
805–824. 
Almeida, G.G.F., 2019. Compact public spaces as intelligent connections spaces: the 
pocket parks in São Paulo, Brazil. In: Cidades inteligentes: desafios e oportunidades 
nas cidades do século, XXI, pp. 255–267. 
Armato, F., 2017. Pocket park: product urban design. Des. J. 20 (1), S1869–S1878. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352705. 
Aziz Noor Abd, Noreen, Hassan Haslin Aziah Wan, Wan, Saud Adilah, Nur, et al., 2012. 
The Effects of Urbanization towards Social and Cultural Changes among Malaysian 
Settlers in the Federal Land Development Schemes (FELDA), Johor Darul Takzim. 
Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 68 (12), 910–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 
sbspro.2012.12.276. 
Babalis, D., 2010. Urban Heritage in Times of Uncertainty: Complexity, Sensitivity and 
Protection. Altralinea Edizioni. 
Babalis, D., 2013. Urban Heritage in Times of Uncertainty: Complexity, Sensitivity and 
Protection. Altralinea Edizioni. 
Baur, J.W., Tynon, J.F., 2010. Small-scale urban nature parks: Why should we care? Leis. 
Sci. 32 (2), 195–200. 
Beijing Gardening and Greening Bureau website, http://yllhj.beijing.gov.cn/zwgk/f 
gwj/qtwj/202001/t20200121_1619893.shtml. (Accessed 15 January 2021). 
Berg, A.E., Maas, J., Verheij, R., Groenewegen, P.P., 2010. Green space as a buffer 
between stressful life events and health. Soc. Sci. Med. 70 (8), 1203–1210. 
Bosch, C.K., Maruthaveeran, S.,Nielsen, A.B., 2013. Benefits of Urban Parks a Systematic 
Review. IFPRA. https://worldurbanparks.org/images/Newsletters/IfpraBenefitsOf 
UrbanParks.pdf. 
Chen, T., Wang, D., Shi, F., Sun, B., 2017. 我国口袋公园研究及应用现状, 2, pp. 81–84. 
China Yuanyi Wenzhai. 
Chokami, M.S.M., Hajilooie, N., Azimi, K.P.S., 2014. Introducing and Implementation of 
Pocket Parks in Iranian Parks by Using AHP Model (Case Study: Andisheh Park in 
Qazvin City, Iran). Civ. Eng. Archit. 2 (4), 170–175. https://doi.org/10.13189/ 
cea.2014.020403. 
Cohen, D.A., Williamson, S., Marsh, T., Han, B., 2014. The potential for pocket parks to 
increase physical activity. Am. J. Health Promotion 28 (3), 19–26. 
Dalton, A.M., Jones, A.P., Sharp, S.J., Cooper, A.J.M., Griffin, S., Wareham, N.J., 2016. 
Residential neighbourhood greenspace is associated with reduced risk of incident 
diabetes in older people: a prospective cohort study. BMC Public Health 16 (1), 
1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3833-z. 
Danford, R.S., Strohbach, M., Warren, P.S., Ryan, R., 2018. Active greening or rewilding 
the city: how does the intention behind small pockets of urban green affect use? 
Urban For. Urban Green. 29 (11), 377–383. 
Demuzere, M., Orru, K., Heidrich, O., Olazabal, E., 2014. Mitigating and adapting to 
climate change: multi-functional and multi-scale assessment of green urban 
infrastructure. J. Environ. Manage. 146 (3), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 
jenvman.2014.07.025. 
Deng, H., 2018. 基于园艺疗法的城市口袋公园设计探究 [Unpublished Doctoral 
dissertation]. Southwest University of Science and Technology. 
Duan, H., Zhang, P., Zhang, J., 2019. 国外口袋公园研究前沿及对中国的启示 —— 2007 
— 2017 Web of Science相关文献综述. Huazhong Architecture 37 (5), 11–14. 
Edwards, K.J., 2006. Promoting Social Interaction Through Urban Design: Delaware 
Street Park: A Pocket Park for Homeless at Wheeler Mission and Local Community 
[Unpublished Bachelor’s Thesis]. College of Architecture and Planning. 
Ellis, J., 2013. Sustainable surface water management and green infrastructure in UK 
urban catchment planning. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 56 (1), 24–41. 
Fang, X., Ma, X., 2020. 基于ＧＩＳ的北京市核心区口袋公园分布特征研究. J. Beijing 
Univ. Agric. 35 (2), 94–99. https://doi.org/10.13473/j.cnki.issn.1002- 
3186.2020.0220. 
Forsyth, A., Musacchio, L., 2005. Designing Small Parks. John Wiley& Sons. 
Foster, J., Lowe, A., Winkelman, S., 2011. The Value of Green Infrastructure for Urban 
Adaptation. The Center for Clean Air Policy. http://ccap.org/assets/The-Value 
-of-Green-Infrastructure-for-Urban-Climate-Adaptation_CCAP-Feb-2011.pdf. 
Gao, Y., Cui, J., 2016. 公众参与与我国城市口袋公园设计的发展. Xue Yan Tan Suo, 000 
(017), pp. 148–149. 
Ge, S., 2012. 浅析城市口袋公园建设的意义及规划设计. J. Jiangxi Agric. 24 (3), 18–22. 
https://doi.org/10.19386/j.cnki.jxnyxb.2012.03.005. 
Gibson, H., Canfield, J., 2016. Pocket parks as community building blocks: A focus on 
Stapleton, CO. Community Dev. 47 (5), 1–14. 
Hajime, Y., 1988. Pocket park. Process Architecture 78, 15–25. 
Han, B., Cohen, D., McKenzie, T.L., 2013. Quantifying the contribution of neighborhood 
parks to physical activity. Prev. Med. 57 (5), 483–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 
ypmed.2013.06.021. 
Horte, O.S., Eisenman, T.S., 2020. Urban greenways: a systematic review and typology. 
Land 40 (9). https://doi.org/10.3390/land9020040. 
Hou, J., Wen, C., Lin, S., 2013. 浅析苏州艺圃对中国城市口袋公园设计的启发. 
Heilongjiang Agric. Sci. 06, 78–81. 
Ito, H., 2004. A study on the practical use of un-intensive & unused land in Adachi-ku, 
Tokyo. J. Jpn. Inst. Landsc. Archit. 67 (5), 763–766. 
Jayasooriya, V.M., Muthukumaran, A.W.M., Perera, B.J.C., 2017. Green infrastructure 
practices for improvement of urban air quality. Urban For. Urban Green. 21 (1), 
34–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.11.007. 
Jia, C., 2015. 论口袋公园系统化设计初探. 齐鲁艺苑 (1), pp. 97–101. https://doi.org/ 
10.3969/j. issn.1002-2236. 
Jiang, C., 2014. 刍议口袋公园在旧城景观改造中的应用.. Chengshi Jianshe Lilun Yanjiu, 
000(010). 
Kaplan, R., 1981. Evaluation of an Urban Vest-pocket Park. Research Paper NC-195. 
Ke, X., 2011a. The Preliminary Exploration of Vest-pocket Park’s Design [Unpublished 
Master’s Thesis]. Northeast Forestry University. 
Fig. 6. Research Trend according to Time. 
H. Zhang and M. Han 
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0005
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0005
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0005
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0010
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0010
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0010
https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352705
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.276
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.276
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0025
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0025
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0030
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0030
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0035
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0035
http://yllhj.beijing.gov.cn/zwgk/fgwj/qtwj/202001/t20200121_1619893.shtml
http://yllhj.beijing.gov.cn/zwgk/fgwj/qtwj/202001/t20200121_1619893.shtml
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0045
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0045
https://worldurbanparks.org/images/Newsletters/IfpraBenefitsOfUrbanParks.pdf
https://worldurbanparks.org/images/Newsletters/IfpraBenefitsOfUrbanParks.pdf
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0055
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0055
https://doi.org/10.13189/cea.2014.020403
https://doi.org/10.13189/cea.2014.020403
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0065
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0065
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3833-z
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0075
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0075
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0075
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.025
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.025
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0085
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0085
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0090
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0090
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0095
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0095
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0095
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0100
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0100
https://doi.org/10.13473/j.cnki.issn.1002-3186.2020.0220
https://doi.org/10.13473/j.cnki.issn.1002-3186.2020.0220
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0110
http://ccap.org/assets/The-Value-of-Green-Infrastructure-for-Urban-Climate-Adaptation_CCAP-Feb-2011.pdf
http://ccap.org/assets/The-Value-of-Green-Infrastructure-for-Urban-Climate-Adaptation_CCAP-Feb-2011.pdf
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0120
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0120
https://doi.org/10.19386/j.cnki.jxnyxb.2012.03.005
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0130
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0130
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0135
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.06.021
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.06.021
https://doi.org/10.3390/land9020040
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0150
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0150
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0155
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0155
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.11.007
https://doi.org/10.3969/j. issn.1002-2236https://doi.org/10.3969/j. issn.1002-2236
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0170
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0170
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0175
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0180
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0180
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 61 (2021) 127080
12
Ke, X., 2011b. The Research of the Pocket Parks of Humanized Design in Cold City 
[Unpublished master’s thesis]. Northeast Forestry University. 
Keeley, M., Koburger, A., Dolowitz, D., Medearis, D., 2013. Perspectives on the use of 
green infrastructure for stormwater management in Cleveland and Milwaukee. 
Environ. Manage. 51 (6), 1093–1108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0032-x. 
Kerishnan, P.B., Maulan, S., Maruthaveeran, S., 2020. Investigating the usability pattern 
and constraints of pocket parks in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Urban For. Urban Green. 
50 (4) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126647. 
Labuz, R., 2019. Pocket park-a new type of green public space in Kraków (Poland). IOP 
Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 471 (11) https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/471/11/ 
112018. 
Lan, Y., 2017. High-density business district pocket park usage status evaluation and 
design strategy exploration. Chin. Hortic. Abstract 12 (1). 
Lau, S.S., Lin, P., Qin, H., 2012. A preliminary study on environmental performances of 
pocket parks in high-rise and high-density urban context in Hong Kong. Int. J. Low- 
Carbon Technol. 7 (3), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlct/cts033. 
Li, Y., 2011. 城市口袋公园节约型设计研究 [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Nanjing 
Forestry University. 
Li, S., 2013. 基于“三元论”的寒地城市口袋公园规划设计研究 [Unpublished doctoral 
dissertation]. Northeast Agriculture University. 
Li, S., 2019. 巴塞罗那 口袋公园体系建设对广州的借鉴. 2019 中国城市规划年会 https:// 
doi.org/10.26914/c.cnkihy.2019.012600. 
Li, D., Zheng, Y., Shao, F., Yan, H., 2018. 城市口袋公园使用后评价 (POE) 研究. J. Chin. 
Urban For. 16 (3), 41–46. 
Lin, K., 1996. Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the 89th Congress. 
Lin, P., Lau, S.S., Qin, H., Gou, Z., 2017. Effects of urban planning indicators on urban 
heat island: a case study of pocket parks in high-rise high-density environment. 
Landsc. Urban Plan. 168 (12), 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan. 
Little, R., 2012. Pocket Parks of Northamptonshire: A Toolkit. Northamptonshire County 
Council Countryside Services. 
Liu, Y., 2011. Research on Economical Design of Urban Pocket Park [Unpublished 
Master’s Thesis]. Nanjing Forestry University. 
Liu, Y., 2019. 交通型口袋公园的景观设计研究 ——以上海宣桥下盐路为例. China Constr. 
Inf. (15), 76–78. 
Lorenzo, E., Corraliza, J.A., Collado, S., Sevillano, V., 2016. Preferencia, restauración y 
calidad ambiental percibida en plazas urbanas. Psyecology 7 (2), 152–177. https:// 
doi.org/10.1080/21711976.2016.1149985. 
Mayor of London. Retrieved 5.25.2020, from https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/ 
files/pocket_parks_prospectus_1.pdf. 
McCormack, G.R., Rock, M., Toohey, A.M., Hignel, D., 2010. Characteristics of urban 
parks associated with park use and physical activity: a review of qualitative research. 
Health Place 16 (4), 712–726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.03.003. 
Mensah, C.A., 2014. Urban green spaces in Africa: nature and challenges. Int. J. Ecosyst. 
4 (1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.ije.20140401.01. 
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., 2009. Preferred reporting items for 
systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 151 
(4), 264–269. 
Mokhtar, F.N., Rehim, I.V.A., 2017. Sustainable vest -pocket parks as an effective tool in 
sustainable urban design-Egypt. ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 12 (23), 6949–6966. 
Mutiara, S., Isami, K., 2012. Characteristics of public small park usage in Asia Pacific 
countries: case study in Jakarta and Yokohama City. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 35 
(12), 412–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.02.106. 
National Recreation and Park Association (n.d) Creating mini-parks for increased 
physical activity. Bulletin, 1–4. http://www.nrpa.org/uploadedFiles/nrpaorg/Gra 
nts_and_Partners/Recreation_and_Health/Resources/Issue_Briefs/Pocket-Parks.pdf. 
Nichols, D., Freestone, R., 2003. Community valuations of historic pocket parks: a 
Melbourne study. Ann. Leis. Res. 6 (2), 114–133. 
Nordh, H., Østby, K., 2013. Pocket parks for people – a study of park design and use. 
Urban For. Urban Green. 12 (1), 12–17. 
Nordh, H., Hartig, T., Hägerhäll, C.M., Fry, G., 2009. Components of small urban parks 
that predict the possibility for restoration. Urban For. Urban Green. 8 (4), 225–235. 
Nordh, H., Alalouch, C., Hartig, T., 2011. Assessing restorative components of small 
urban parks using conjoint methodology. Urban For. Urban Green. 10 (2), 95–103. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2010.12.003. 
Özgüner, H., 2011. Cultural differences in attitudes towards urban parks and green 
spaces. Landsc. Res. 36 (5), 599–620. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 
01426397.2011.560474. 
Park, J., Kim, J., Lee, D.K., Park, C.Y., Jeong, S., 2017. The influence of small green space 
type and structure at the street level on urban heat island mitigation. Urban For. 
Urban Green. 21 (2), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.12.005. 
Patel, M.K., Gandhi, Z.H., Bhatt, B.V., 2016. Mini parks increasing physical activities in 
urban settlement. Glob. Res. Dev. J. 3, 8–13. http://www.grdjournals.com/uplo 
ads/conference/GRDCF/001/004/GRDCF001004.pdf. 
Peng, Y., 2009. 口袋公园设计初探 [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Jiangnan University. 
Peschardt, K.K., Stigsdotter, U.K., 2013. Associations between park characteristics and 
perceived restorativeness of small public urban green spaces. Landsc. Urban Plan. 
112 (1), 26–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.12.013. 
Peschardt, K.K., Stigsdotter, U.K., 2014. Evidence for designing health promoting pocket 
parks. Archnet-IJAR 8 (3), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.26687/archnet-ijar. 
v8i3.341. 
Peschardt, K.K., Schipperijn, J., Stigsdotter, U.K., 2012. Use of small public urban green 
spaces (SPUGS). Urban For. Urban Green. 11 (3), 235–244. https://doi.org/ 
10.1016/j.ufug.2012.04.002. 
Peschardt, K.K., Stigsdotter, U.K., Schipperrijn, J., 2016. Identifying features of pocket 
parks that may be related to health promoting use. Landsc. Res. 41 (1), 79–94. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2014.894006. 
Piper, R.J., 2013. How to write a systematic literature review: a guide for medical 
students. National AMR 1 (2), 1–8. http://cures.cardiff.ac.uk/files/2014/10/NSA 
MR-Systematic-Review.pdf%0Acures.cardiff.ac.uk/files/2014/%E2%80%A6/NSA 
MR-Systematic-Review.pdf. 
Pocket park (6.10.2020). Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_park. 
Sadeghian, M.M., Vardanyan, V., 2013. The benefits of urban parks, a review of urban 
research. J. Novel Appl. Sci. 2 (8), 231–237. 
Said, I., Mansor, M., 2011. Green infrastructure in cities and Towns in Southeast Asian 
countries: quest for research. In: 2nd International Seminar on Sustainable Urban 
Development (ISOSUD 2011). 7.21.2011, Jakarta, Indonesia. 
Shen, J., 2011. 湖州口袋公园一体化设计研究 [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. 
Nanjing Forestry University. 
Sinha, A., 2018. Small Parks and their Communities : Ethnographies of the Public Realm. 
TEKTON 5 (2), 20–33. 
Sinou, M., Kenton, A.G., 2013. Parameters contributing to the design of a successful 
urban pocket park. In: PLEA2013 - 29th Conference, Sustainable Architecture for a 
Renewable Future, 9, pp. 10–12. 
Song, R., Zhang, X., 2018. 口袋公园在城市旧社区公共空间微更新中的应用策略研究. 
Archit. Cult. 176 (11), 139–141. 
Statista, 2020. Urban and Rural Population of China From 2008-2018. https://www.stati 
sta.com/statistics/278566/urban-and-rural-population-of-china/. 
Su, X., 2015. 基于海绵城市视角的深圳市口袋公园提升模式与方法研究 [Unpublished 
Doctoral Dossertation]. Harbin Institute of Technology. 
Tan, S., Peng, H., 2016. A study on impact factor of vest-pocket park alleviating stress of 
humans. Chin.Garden 2. 
Tate, A., 2004. Great City Park, 2nd ed. Routledge. 
Tian, Z., Chen, C., 2015a. 居住型口袋公园设计初探-以杭州雷锋纪念园为例. Chin. Hortic. 
Abstracts (003), 146–147, 000. 
Tian, Z., Chen, C., 2015b. 道家美学思想在口袋公园设计中的应用. J. Zhejiang A & F Univ. 
32 (3), 453–457. https://doi.org/10.11833/j.issn.2095. 
UN, 2018. 68% of the World Population Projected to Live in Urban Areas by 2050, Says 
UN, 5.16.2018, New York. https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/pop 
ulation/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html. 
Vijayaraghavan, K., 2016. Green roofs: a critical review on the role of components, 
benefits, limitations and trends. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 57 (5), 740–752. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.119. 
Waldman, B., 2011. Paley Park: A Hidden Oasis in Midtown. Untapped New York. https: 
//untappedcities.com/2011/09/06/paley-park-a-hidden-oasis-in-midtown/. 
Wang, J., 2009. Research on the Planning and Design of City Pocket Park [Unpublished 
Master’s Thesis]. Nanjing Forestry University. 
Wang, Y., 2019. 低碳生态视角下的口袋公园设计研究 —纽约２ ０ １ ５ 总体规划的启示. 
China Acad. J. Electron. Publ. House 8. 
Wang, Y., Guo, Z., 2008. 城市中心区边角空间的利用. Chongqing Science Technology 
Institute, 000(004), 98-98. 
Wang, C., Xu, S., Wu, H., 2017. 扬州明清古城 ‘口袋公园’ 布局研究. Journal ofTaizhou 
Polytechnic College 17 (5), 2–5. 
Xu, W., 2011. 县域滨水口袋公园规划设计-以金寨县潘冲河口袋公园为例., 28, 
pp. 511–512. Nong Ji Fu Wu, (4). 
Yang, D., 2012. 口袋公园案例研究与启示. J. Green Sci. Technol. (4), 60–63. 
Yu, L., 2015. The problems and solutions in the pocket parks in current China. J. Chifeng 
Univ. 11 (01). 
Yu, L., 2016. Research on the Layout and Design of Pocket Parks—Taking Hefei Old 
Town As an Example [Unpublished Master’s Thesis]. Hefei University of Technology. 
Yu, G., 2018. 口袋公园与小型遗址保护展示利用. China Cult. Heritage Sci. Res. 52 (04), 
31–34. 
Zawya, A., Hamra, A., 2019. Urban pocket parks promoting quality of life and mitigating 
UHI impacts – a case study of ‘Al Zawya Al Hamra’ district. J. Urban. Int. Res. 34 
(10), 56–77. 
Zhang, W., 2007. Pocket parks- oasis away from bustle of high-density midtown. Chin. 
Gardens 4, 1000- 6664(2007)04- 0047- 07. 
Zhang, A.Y., Ren, G., Zhou, J., Chu, Z., Ren, Y., Tang, G., 2010. Urbanization effect on 
surface air temperature trends over China. J. Meteorol. Res. 68 (6), 957–966. 
Zhao, L., 2018. 共享城市背景下城市口袋公园弹性策略研究. 2018 China Urban Planning 
Annual Conference. 
H. Zhang and M. Han 
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0185
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0185
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0032-x
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126647
https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/471/11/112018
https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/471/11/112018
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0205
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0205
https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlct/cts033
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0215
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0215
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0220
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0220
https://doi.org/10.26914/c.cnkihy.2019.012600
https://doi.org/10.26914/c.cnkihy.2019.012600
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0230
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0230
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0235
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0245
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0245
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0250
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0250
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0255
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0255
https://doi.org/10.1080/21711976.2016.1149985
https://doi.org/10.1080/21711976.2016.1149985
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/pocket_parks_prospectus_1.pdf
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/pocket_parks_prospectus_1.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.03.003
https://doi.org/10.5923/j.ije.20140401.01
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0280
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0280
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0280
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0285
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0285
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.02.106
http://www.nrpa.org/uploadedFiles/nrpaorg/Grants_and_Partners/Recreation_and_Health/Resources/Issue_Briefs/Pocket-Parks.pdf
http://www.nrpa.org/uploadedFiles/nrpaorg/Grants_and_Partners/Recreation_and_Health/Resources/Issue_Briefs/Pocket-Parks.pdf
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0300
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0300
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0305
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0305
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0310
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0310
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2010.12.003
https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2011.560474
https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2011.560474
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.12.005
http://www.grdjournals.com/uploads/conference/GRDCF/001/004/GRDCF001004.pdf
http://www.grdjournals.com/uploads/conference/GRDCF/001/004/GRDCF001004.pdf
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0335
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.12.013
https://doi.org/10.26687/archnet-ijar.v8i3.341
https://doi.org/10.26687/archnet-ijar.v8i3.341
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2012.04.002
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2012.04.002
https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2014.894006
http://cures.cardiff.ac.uk/files/2014/10/NSAMR-Systematic-Review.pdf%0Acures.cardiff.ac.uk/files/2014/%E2%80%A6/NSAMR-Systematic-Review.pdf
http://cures.cardiff.ac.uk/files/2014/10/NSAMR-Systematic-Review.pdf%0Acures.cardiff.ac.uk/files/2014/%E2%80%A6/NSAMR-Systematic-Review.pdf
http://cures.cardiff.ac.uk/files/2014/10/NSAMR-Systematic-Review.pdf%0Acures.cardiff.ac.uk/files/2014/%E2%80%A6/NSAMR-Systematic-Review.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_park
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0370
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0370
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0375
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0375
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0375
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0380
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0380
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0385
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0385
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0390
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0390
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0390
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0395
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0395
https://www.statista.com/statistics/278566/urban-and-rural-population-of-china/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/278566/urban-and-rural-population-of-china/
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0405
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0405
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0410
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0410
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0415
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0420
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(21)00105-9/sbref0420
https://doi.org/10.11833/j.issn.2095
https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html
https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.119