Environment and Social Psychology

Behavioral criteria in pocket park design through the lens of environmental psychology: A systematic review

Dong Han

School of Housing, Building, and Planning, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11700, Malaysia

Mohd Jaki Bin Mamat

School of Housing, Building, and Planning, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11700, Malaysia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v10i6.3818

Keywords: Pocket parks; environmental psychology; behavioral criteria; comfort; social interaction; restorative environments

---

Abstract

Although pocket parks are being marketed as essential urban green spaces in congested urban settings, their layout frequently ignores the behavioral and psychological reactions of patrons. Understanding how spatial design might promote comfort, interaction, and well-being in these types of environments is made possible by environmental psychology. The purpose of this study is to discover behavioral characteristics derived from environmental psychology that impact pocket park design by conducting a literature review. The objective is to comprehend how urban small-scale green spaces influence human perception, comfort, and interaction. Peer-reviewed papers were sourced from sources such as Scopus, Web of Science, Taylor & Francis, and Google Scholar, in accordance with PRISMA principles. Design criteria and pocket park-related keywords were employed. Recurring behavioral and psychological criteria were categorized using thematic synthesis. Comfort, social interaction, perceived safety, restorative quality, emotional well-being, walkability, activities, and privacy are the eight primary behavioral emphasis areas that the review finds as being pertinent to pocket park design. Additionally, attention is paid to nine design components, including "natural & restorative elements," "visual & spatial experience," "accessibility, proximity & connectivity," and "functional activity settings." Pocket park design has a significant impact on psychological experiences and behavioral patterns in addition to being aesthetically pleasing and functional. It is necessary to include psychological insights into landscape architecture in order to develop pocket parks with a human-centered approach. The study suggests a set of behavioral standards that can direct the creation of urban microparks that are more socially sensitive, inclusive, and emotionally influential.

---

References

[1]. 1.Das, S., Choudhury, M. R., Chatterjee, B., Das, P., Bagri, S., Paul, D., ... & Dutta, S. (2024). Unraveling the urban climate crisis: Exploring the nexus of urbanization, climate change, and their impacts on the environment and human well-being–A global perspective. AIMS Public Health, 11(3), 963. https://doi.org/10.3934/publichealth.2024050

[2]. 2.Thomson, G., & Newman, P. (2021). Green infrastructure and biophilic urbanism as tools for integrating resource efficient and ecological cities. Urban planning, 6(1), 75-88. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v6i1.3633

[3]. 3.Brom, P., Engemann, K., Breed, C., Pasgaard, M., Onaolapo, T., & Svenning, J. C. (2023). A decision support tool for green infrastructure planning in the face of rapid urbanization. Land, 12(2), 415. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020415

[4]. 4.Pamukcu-Albers, P., Ugolini, F., La Rosa, D., Grădinaru, S. R., Azevedo, J. C., & Wu, J. (2021). Building green infrastructure to enhance urban resilience to climate change and pandemics. Landscape ecology, 36(3), 665-673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01212-y

[5]. 5.Jabbar, M., Yusoff, M. M., & Shafie, A. (2022). Assessing the role of urban green spaces for human well-being: A systematic review. GeoJournal, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-021-10474-7

[6]. 6.Barragan-Jason, G., Loreau, M., de Mazancourt, C., Singer, M. C., & Parmesan, C. (2023). Psychological and physical connections with nature improve both human well-being and nature conservation: A systematic review of meta-analyses. Biological Conservation, 277, 109842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109842

[7]. 7.Palliwoda, J., Banzhaf, E., & Priess, J. A. (2020). How do the green components of urban green infrastructure influence the use of ecosystem services? Examples from Leipzig, Germany. Landscape Ecology, 35, 1127-1142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-01004-w

[8]. 8.Rosso, F., Cappa, F., Spitzmiller, R., & Ferrero, M. (2022). Pocket parks towards more sustainable cities. Architectural, environmental, managerial and legal considerations towards an integrated framework: A case study in the Mediterranean region. Environmental Challenges, 7. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100402

[9]. 9.Zhang, Y., Hu, Y., Wei, Y., & Xie, Y. (2025). Can pocket parks be compared to community parks in the restoration effect of physical and mental health for young adults? A comparative experiment in high-density urban Green spaces. Frontiers in Public Health, 13, 1610497. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1610497

[10]. 10.Basu, S., & Nagendra, H. (2021). Perceptions of park visitors on access to urban parks and benefits of green spaces. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 57, 126959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126959

[11]. 11.Jaszczak, A., Pochodyła, E., Kristianova, K., Małkowska, N., & Kazak, J. K. (2021). Redefinition of park design criteria as a result of analysis of well-being and soundscape: The case study of the Kortowo Park (Poland). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(6), 2972. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18062972

[12]. 12.El-Kholy, S. A., Moustafa, Y. M., & Abou El-Ela, M. A. (2022). Urban park design and children’s physical activity levels: an investigation of design characteristics of green areas and playgrounds. Journal of Engineering and Applied Science, 69(1), 93. https://doi.org/10.1186/s44147-022-00152-x

[13]. 13.Currie, M. A. (2017). A design framework for small parks in ultra-urban, metropolitan, suburban and small town settings. Journal of urban Design, 22(1), 76-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2016.1234334

[14]. 14.Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge university press.

[15]. 15.Ulrich, R. S. (2023). Stress reduction theory. D. Marchand, E. Pol, & K. Weiss (Eds.), 100, 143-146. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Roger-Ulrich-2/publication/377281012_Ulrich_RS_2023_Stress_reduction_theory/links/659e9458c77ed940476dab17/Ulrich-RS-2023-Stress-reduction-theory.pdf

[16]. 16.Barker, R. (1968). Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

[17]. 17.Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010). Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of environmental psychology, 30(1), 1-10.

[18]. 18.Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Prisma Group. (2010). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. International journal of surgery, 8(5), 336-341. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535

[19]. 19.Naghibi, M., Faizi, M., & Ekhlassi, A. (2022). Visual questionnaire survey to apply design possibilities in relation to planting enclosure in five vest-pocket parks. MethodsX, 9, 101638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2022.101638

[20]. 20.Cariñanos, P., Grilo, F., Pinho, P., Casares-Porcel, M., Branquinho, C., Acil, N., ... & Vilhar, U. (2019). Estimation of the allergenic potential of urban trees and urban parks: towards the healthy design of urban green spaces of the future. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(8), 1357. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16081357

[21]. 21.Jaszczak, A., Małkowska, N., Kristianova, K., Bernat, S., & Pochodyła, E. (2021). Evaluation of soundscapes in urban parks in olsztyn (Poland) for improvement of landscape design and management. Land, 10(1), 66. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10010066

[22]. 22.Daniels, B., Zaunbrecher, B. S., Paas, B., Ottermanns, R., Ziefle, M., & Roß-Nickoll, M. (2018). Assessment of urban green space structures and their quality from a multidimensional perspective. Science of the Total Environment, 615, 1364-1378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.167

[23]. 23.Li, Y., Song, Y., Cho, D., & Han, Z. (2019). Zonal classification of microclimates and their relationship with landscape design parameters in an urban park. Landscape and Ecological Engineering, 15, 265-276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-019-00378-7

[24]. 24.Franjaya, E. E., Sitompul, R. A., & Satria, W. D. (2022, October). The design of Rajabasa pocket park based on Lampung Cultural Motifs. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 1092, No. 1, p. 012024). IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1092/1/012024

[25]. 25.Huang, Y., Lin, X., Lin, S., Chen, Z., Fu, W., Wang, M., & Dong, J. (2023). Pocket Parks: A New Approach to Improving the Psychological and Physical Health of Recreationists. Forests, 14(10). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14101983

[26]. 26.Hussein, H., Jhung, L. K., & Zhang, H. (2022). Green Pause in a City: Design elements of a pocket park in Kuala Lumpur. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 7(19), 191-200. https://doi.org/10.21834/ebpj.v7i19.3206

[27]. 27.Ma, G., Pellegrini, P., Ma, J., & Shi, L. (2024). Investigating the influence of elements in pocket parks on the psychological restoration of young people: A study from Guiyang and Chongqing in Southwest China. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2024.2398204

[28]. 28.Peng, H., Li, X., Yang, T., & Tan, S. (2023). Research on the Relationship between the Environmental Characteristics of Pocket Parks and Young People’s Perception of the Restorative Effects-A Case Study Based on Chongqing City, China. SUSTAINABILITY, 15(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/su15053943

[29]. 29.Xu, J., Qiu, B., Zhang, F., & Zhang, J. (2024). Restorative Effects of Pocket Parks on Mental Fatigue among Young Adults: A Comparative Experimental Study of Three Park Types. FORESTS, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/f15020286

[30]. 30.Yin, Y., Shao, Y., Wang, Y., & Wu, L. (2023). Developing a Pocket Park Prescription Program for Human Restoration: An Approach That Encourages Both People and the Environment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(17). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20176642

[31]. 31.Zhou, C., Xie, M., Zhao, J., & An, Y. (2022). What affects the use flexibility of pocket parks? Evidence from Nanjing, China. Land, 11(9), 1419. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11091419

[32]. 32.Cohen, D. A., Han, B., Nagel, C. J., Harnik, P., McKenzie, T. L., Evenson, K. R., ... & Katta, S. (2016). The first national study of neighborhood parks: Implications for physical activity. American journal of preventive medicine, 51(4), 419-426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.03.021

[33]. 33.Tan, Z., Lau, K. K. L., Roberts, A. C., Chao, S. T. Y., & Ng, E. (2019). Designing urban green spaces for older adults in Asian cities. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16(22), 4423. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224423

[34]. 34.Bradecki, T., & Opania, S. (2022). Functional-Environmental Evaluation of Pocket Parks in Urbanized Areas-The Case Study of Gliwice. CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING REPORTS, 32(4), 50–72. https://doi.org/10.2478/ceer-2022-0044

[35]. 35.Hamdy, M., & Plaku, R. (2021). Pocket parks: Urban living rooms for urban regeneration. Civil Engineering and Architecture, 9(3), 747–759. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.13189/cea.2021.090316

[36]. 36.Zhang, L., Xu, X., & Guo, Y. (2023). The Impact of a Child-Friendly Design on Children’s Activities in Urban Community Pocket Parks. Sustainability (Switzerland), 15(13). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310073

[37]. 37.Abd El Aziz, N. (2015). POTENTIALS OF CREATING POCKET PARKS IN HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS: THE CASE OF ROD EL FARAG, CAIRO, CITY. International Journal of Development and Sustainability. https://isdsnet.com/ijds-v4n7-3.pdf

[38]. 38.Almohamad, H., Knaack, A. L., & Habib, B. M. (2018). Assessing spatial equity and accessibility of public green spaces in Aleppo City, Syria. Forests, 9(11), 706. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9110706

[39]. 39.Xue, F., Gou, Z., & Lau, S. (2017). The green open space development model and associated use behaviors in dense urban settings: Lessons from Hong Kong and Singapore. Urban Design International, 22, 287-302. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41289-017-0049-5

[40]. 40.Chen, Z., Liu, Q., Li, M., & Xu, D. (2024). A New Strategy for Planning Urban Park Green Spaces by Considering Their Spatial Accessibility and Distributional Equity. Forests, 15(3), 570. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15030570

[41]. 41.Dong, J., Guo, R., Guo, F., & Cai, J. (2024). Potential evaluation and implementation strategy for pocket park construction in high-density urban areas: A case study in Dalian, China. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 13(2), 319–334. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2023.12.007

[42]. 42.Ghamsary, E., Karimimoshaver, M., Akhavan, A., Goruh, Z., Aram, F., & Mosavi, A. (2023). Locating pocket parks: Assessing the effects of land use and accessibility on the public presence. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS, 18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2023.100253

[43]. 43.Lai, S., & Deal, B. (2025). An innovative approach to urban parks and perception: a cross-cultural analysis using big and small data. Discover Cities, 2(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44327-025-00075-1

[44]. 44.Labuz, R. (2019, February). Pocket park–a new type of green public space in Kraków (Poland). In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 471, No. 11, p. 112018). IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/471/11/112018

[45]. 45.Bajwoluk, T., & Langer, P. (2023). The Pocket Park and Its Impact on the Quality of Urban Space on the Local and Supralocal Scale—Case Study of Krakow, Poland. Sustainability (Switzerland), 15(6). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065153

[46]. 46.Wang, X., Li, G., Pan, J., Shen, J., & Han, C. (2023). The difference in the elderly’s visual impact assessment of pocket park landscape. SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-43522-y

[47]. 47.Zhong, J., Liu, J., Xu, Y., & Liang, G. (2022). Pedestrian-level gust wind flow and comfort around a building array–influencing assessment on the pocket park. Sustainable Cities and Society, 83, 103953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.103953

[48]. 48.Rosso, F., Pioppi, B., & Pisello, A. L. (2024). Tactical urban pocket parks (TUPPs) for subjective and objective multi-domain comfort enhancement. Journal of Environmental Management, 349. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119447

[49]. 49.Duan, X., Lin, B., Meng, L., & Zhao, F. (2025). A Method for Selecting and Optimizing Pocket Park Design Proposals Based on Multi-Attribute Decision Making. BUILDINGS, 15(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15071026

[50]. 50.Zhang, Z., Yang, J., Shi, Y., Yang, H., Chen, D., Zhang, C., Zhang, Z., & Zhang, X. (2025). Installation of pocket parks in mountainous cities: A case study on the nonlinear effect of the built environment on pocket park vitality in Chongqing, China. ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS, 173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2025.113417

[51]. 51.Soleimani, S., & Sayari, S. (2024). Application of ART and SRT theories to revitalize riverine landscapes with a mental health improvement approach (case study: Qeshlaq River, Sanandaj. Urban Structure and Function Studies, 11(41), 55-83.

[52]. 52.Bahr, C. (2024). The Restorative Design Scale (RDS) An Assessment Guide: Measuring the Potential for Mental Restoration in Urban Green Spaces. https://doi.org/10.26076/aade-1554

[53]. 53.Keshmiri, H., & Nikounam Nezami, H. (2023). The Concept of Behavioral Setting and its Impact on Improving Environmental Quality Neighborhood Parks (Case Study: Shiraz SEKONJ Neighborhood Park). Iran University of Science & Technology, 33(2), 0-0. https://doi.org/10.22068/ijaup.687

[54]. 54.Zhang, L., Liu, S., & Liu, S. (2021). Mechanisms underlying the effects of landscape features of urban community parks on health-related feelings of users. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(15), 7888. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18157888

[55]. 55.Riungu, G. K., Peterson, B. A., Beeco, J. A., & Brown, G. (2021). Understanding visitors’ spatial behavior: a review of spatial applications in parks. Tourism Spaces, 65-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2018.1519720

[56]. 56.Pedroso, S. H. (2024). Urban Parks and Green Corridors. The Hibiya and Pocket Park in Tokyo. https://www.academia.edu/download/77414493/CEA16-14891799.pdf

[57]. 57.Sun, G., Choe, E. Y., & Webster, C. (2023). Natural experiments in healthy cities research: how can urban planning and design knowledge reinforce the causal inference?. Town Planning Review, 94(1), 87-108. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2022.14

[58]. 58.Perry, M., Cotes, L., Horton, B., Kunac, R., Snell, I., Taylor, B.& Devan, H. (2021). “Enticing” but not necessarily a “space designed for me”: experiences of urban park use by older adults with disability. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(2), 552. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020552

[59]. 59.Wayara, C. (2021). Decolonizing “Greenspace” and the “Equitable City” Paradigm: Emphasizing ‘Subjectivity’to Support Inclusionary Design Interventions and Health Justice for Black and Brown Bodies.

[60]. 60.Hui, L. C., & Jim, C. Y. (2022). Unraveling visiting-activity patterns of heterogeneous communities for urban-park planning and design. Forests, 13(6), 841. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13060841

[61]. 61.Zhang, R., Cao, L., Wang, L., Wang, L., Wang, J., Xu, N., & Luo, J. (2024). Assessing the relationship between urban park spatial features and physical activity levels in Residents: A spatial analysis Utilizing drone remote sensing. Ecological Indicators, 166, 112520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112520

[62]. 62.Tarpani, E., Pigliautile, I., & Pisello, A. L. (2023). On kids' environmental wellbeing and their access to nature in urban heat islands: Hyperlocal microclimate analysis via surveys, modelling, and wearable sensing in urban playgrounds. Urban Climate, 49, 101447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2023.101447

[63]. 63.von Ziegler, L., Sturman, O., & Bohacek, J. (2021). Big behavior: challenges and opportunities in a new era of deep behavior profiling. Neuropsychopharmacology, 46(1), 33-44. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-020-0751-7

[64]. 64.Pauleit, S., Vasquéz, A., Maruthaveeran, S., Liu, L., & Cilliers, S. S. (2021). Urban green infrastructure in the Global South. Urban ecology in the Global South, 107-143. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67650-6_5