Urban parks are progressing but are in chaos in the twenty-first century. Therefore the purposes of this study are to consider critically and classify the new paradigm of urban parks. Urban parks are one of the space products, and progressing aspects can be divided into three parts; supply, demand and market aspects. In the abstract, urban parks' progress represents process, openness or voidness, general and cultural ecology, productivity, experience program, identity or sense of place, carriers of urban regeneration, urban infrastructure, community space, multi-layered activity, active space, communication with urban space, tool of low carbon strategy and consilience. But urban parks have come under increased criticism about the long period development on trees growth, covering open space, limitation of general and cultural ecology, production, activity programs, identity and community space, visible urban regeneration, economic validity, urban sprawl, not using as the low carbon strategy, and finally negative consilience with contiguous fields. We collected these critical consideration about progressing urban parks, and proposed urban agricultural park as one of the alternative urban parks. This is closely connected with sustainable region development, low-carbon society, local food, well-being, Lohas paradigm and amenity of urban life.

This study aims at providing basic policy materials to build a basis for supplying and creating urban parks balanced across Gyeonggi province and improving the quality of life of residents through, an extensive analysis of all city parks in cities/counties in Gyeonggi province. The study result showed that first, the number of parks is only 40% of the adequate number and, thus, accessibility of Gyeonggi province residents to parks in neighborhoods is significantly low. Second, a proportion of park types in children's park, neighborhood park, urban nature park is 67% : 24% : 2%, which is adequate in Gyeonggi province as a whole. Third, as for the area of parks per resident, the area of designated park is 17.7m2/person, which is over three times of legal requirement in urban planning area (6m2/person). However, created park area is only 5.6m2/person, which fails to meet the legal requirement. Fourth, when park area of each city was compared, the areas varied significantly across cities. The Gyeonggi provincial government needs to secure funds aggressively and accelerate setting up and expanding facilities at designated parks located within the current urban areas. The findings from this study should be used as important materials when developing supply & demand policies for urban parks in Gyeonggi province. The study implicates that independent park policies and management by each city/county as well as the establishment and management of a comprehensive park policy at a provincial level is significantly important.

This study aims to examine what factors park users value in urban parks and to find ways to elevate user satisfaction for the creation and usage of an urban park. To achieve this, the study relied on two methods: the descriptive method of researching publications and related scholastic writings, and the empirical study method including a survey of present condition and interviews with users. The result shows that the "sense of nature" is more important than “functional facilities” in urban natural parks and "management part like safety and cleanliness of park" is more important than "utilizing facilities" in urban neighborhood parks. Generally, the importance rating of urban parks visitors felt in them were higher than the satisfaction rating, in terms of living surroundings. Factor analysis resulted in six factors in a natural park and in eight factors in a neighborhood park. Regression analysis in a natural and a neighborhood park showed a positively correlated factor: benefits sought, suggesting that people recognize the importance of urban parks through the benefits they gain in them and the satisfaction they find in urban parks depends on utilizing facilities. Therefore, in urban natural parks, people will find greater satisfaction through pursuit of the benefits they are seeking; improvements to park facilities should address the benefits that park users are seeking.

This study aims to evaluate urban parks in terms of public service and to find ways to elevate user satisfaction for the creation and usage of an urban park, on the assumption that an urban park is a sort of urban public service. To achieve this, the study relied on two methods: the descriptive method of researching publications and related scholastic writings, and the empirical study method including a survey and interviews with respondents. As a result, "Conviction for a local government" was the highest item and "benefit of urban parks", "physical environment", and "safety" were of lower orders of evaluation. On the contrary, "park information" and "reflecting of park users' opinion" were the lowest item. This means although the local government has enough ability to provide and manage physical park facilities, the government passes secondary service over lightly, in terms of public service. Correlation and regression analysis showed all positively correlated factors: “Y = -0.465 + 0.164 X1 + 0.176 X2 + 0.197 X3 + 0.169 X4 + 0.186 X5 + 0.148 X6 + 0.112 X7” (Y = park service satisfaction, X1 = credibility, X2 = originality, X3 = accessibility, X4 = representative, X5 = physical settings, X6 = safety, X7 = consensus).Urban parks must be essential public facilities in urban city. Therefore, for maximizing park benefits, more careful consideration will be made in terms of the public service of urban park.

This study aims to examine what factors park users value in urban neighborhood parks in terms of usage value and to find ways to elevate the user satisfaction for the usage and creation of an urban neighborhood park. To achieve this, the study relied on the descriptive method researching publications and related scholastic writings and the empirical study method including present condition survey and user interviews. As a result, first, item of "cleanliness" is the most important item and management of facility, safety, and lighting facility are important factors. Cultural facilities, recreation facilities, and play facilities were of lower orders of the importance. It means that "management part like safety and cleanliness of park" is more important than "utilizing facilities" in urban neighborhood parks. Second, the evaluation of importance and satisfaction on urban neighborhood parks showed 5.82, 3.96 each on mean, in terms of living surroundings. The importance is higher than the satisfaction. Third, the factor analysis resulted in five factors: benefit sought, management, convenience, facilities for use, and pleasant use. Fourth, correlation and regression analysis showed that park management and benefit-sought have an effect on the importance of urban neighborhood parks. Therefore, in urban neighborhood parks, people will expect more satisfaction when maximizing benefit pursuing in urban parks and improving park facilities by benefit sought of park users.