A Perceived-Value-Informed, Segment-Level Assessment of Mountain Greenway Suitability Across Physical-Activity Scenarios: Evidence from Wugong Mountain, China

Mountain-greenway planning requires approaches that account for heterogeneous user needs, trail safety, experiential quality, and limited maintenance capacity. Taking the Shenzi Village–Longshan Village section of Wugong Mountain as a case, this study develops a perceived-value-informed, segment-level, scenario-based framework for assessing mountain greenway suitability. COROS PACE 3 FIT trajectories, field observations, and researcher-based environmental interpretation were used to construct eight indicators for ten segments. Entropy weights characterize within-sample variation, while the Potential Suitability Value (PSV) integrates environmental conditions with a priori utility rules for low-, moderate-, and high-activity scenarios. Ranking sensitivity was examined through utility-function sampling, fixed-endpoint comparisons, equal-weight comparisons, leave-one-segment-out reweighting, weight perturbation, and indicator-deletion analysis. Shade, exposure, movement difficulty, and cumulative ascent exhibited relatively high differentiation within the present sample. S10 ranked among the top three under all three scenarios in both the baseline entropy-weight and leave-one-segment-out schemes, but fell to fourth under the high-activity scenario with equal weights. The low-activity rankings of S5 and S8 were jointly affected by the span and internal spacing of the utility functions, whereas the high-activity advantage of S6 depended structurally on the treatment of risk indicators. By identifying segments with inadequate environmental support, elevated safety pressure, or parameter-sensitive rankings, the framework can inform targeted field verification, maintenance prioritization, and risk communication. It is a scenario-based suitability and planning-support tool, not an assessment of sustainability outcomes. Ecological disturbance, environmental carrying capacity, community benefits, social equity, long-term maintenance costs, resource efficiency, and actual user perceptions were not measured and require separate indicators and external validation.