Skip to main content
. 2019 Nov 12;16(22):4423. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16224423

Table A1.

Response of perception of UGS characteristics (Numbers in brackets are the percentage of respondents).

Not satisfied at All Not Satisfied Satisfied Very Satisfied
HK TN HK TN HK TN HK TN
Total amount of UGS 0 (0%) 12 (13%) 8 (7%) 10 (11%) 81 (69%) 47 (50 %) 28 (24%) 24 (26%)
Number of trees 8 (7%) 11 (12%) 10 (8%) 20 (22%) 65 (55%) 46 (49%) 35 (30%) 16 (17%)
Amount of exercise facility 2 (2%) 16 (17%) 38 (32%) 27 (29%) 65 (55%) 36 (39%) 13 (11%) 14 (15%)
Amount of seats/resting areas 8 (7%) 11 (12%) 22 (19%) 13 (14%) 63 (53%) 42 (45%) 25 (21%) 27 (29%)
Safety in UGS 2 (2%) 2 (2%) 7 (6%) 14 (15%) 79 (67%) 48 (52%) 30 (25%) 29 (31%)
Aesthetic quality of UGS 0 (0%) 2 (2%) 9 (8%) 16 (17%) 87 (74%) 56 (60%) 21 (18%) 19 (21%)