Livable Cities - London AMPS | City, University of London Page 279 In previous studies, these three types of spaces have often been uniformly classified as green spaces, without a more nuanced analysis. However, practical field surveys reveal that while the overall expanse of green spaces may be large, the areas that facilitate deep nature contact are relatively limited. Non- accessible natural spaces and accessible natural spaces generally offer a natural ambiance rather than actual opportunities for interaction. Therefore, the detailed analysis of the 12 small-scale biophilic spaces becomes crucial. In these small-scale biophilic spaces, detailed observations and analyses uncover the specific elements and conditions that facilitate meaningful nature contact activities. This refined understanding highlights the limited yet valuable opportunities for deep nature contact within larger green spaces, underscoring the importance of designing and maintaining such interactive spaces in urban environments. Types of activities and nature contact activities In the small-scale biophilic spaces within the park in Nottingham, UK, 82 types of activities were observed, of which 42 were classified as nature contact activities, such as watching animals and sliding on grassy slopes (Figure 3). These nature contact activities accounted for 51% of the total activities. They can be divided into five categories, listed in descending order of frequency: animals, plants, water, natural spaces, slopes, and sky. On the street, 22 types of activities were observed, with seven classified as nature contact activities, such as sightseeing and walking dogs, representing 32% of the total activities. These activities fell into two categories, with the most frequent involving animals, followed by natural spaces. In the building, 17 types of activities were noted, 12 of which were nature contact activities, such as observing and touching animal models, comprising 71% of the total activities. These nature contact activities were categorized into four categories, in descending order of frequency: animals, artificial natural spaces, artificial natural facilities, and nature-related textual descriptions. In the small-scale biophilic spaces within a park in Chengdu, China, 35 types of activities were observed, with 19 identified as nature contact activities, such as approaching the lake and swimming. These activities accounted for 54% of the total observed. The nature contact activities were categorized into seven categories, listed in descending order of frequency: animals, plants, water, natural spaces, artificial stones, sand, and sky. On the street, 59 types of activities were recorded, with 29 classified as nature contact activities, such as gazing at the scenery and taking landscape photos, representing 49% of the total activities. These activities were divided into six categories, in descending order of frequency: animals, water, natural spaces, plants, stones, and sand. In the building, 27 types of activities were observed, with nine being nature contact activities, such as observing and touching animal models, making up 33% of the total activities. These activities were grouped into four categories, listed in descending order of frequency: water, natural spaces, animals, and plants. This comparative analysis provides insights into how different urban settings in Chengdu facilitate nature contact activities and illustrates how people interact with natural elements in parks, streets, and buildings.
