USE PATTERN AND ACTIVITIES: THE EVALUATION OF MALAYSIAN GREEN OPEN SPACE DESIGN
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21837/pm.v16i7.505Keywords:
quality neighbourhood park, use pattern, activitiesAbstract
Numerous studies acknowledged green open space (GOS) as part of the sustainable component which promotes livability and active community. GOS offers the opportunity for people to socialise through appropriate outdoor setting. Acknowledging countless GOS benefits, hence it appears relevant to plan for a good quality of GOS (QGOS). A QGOS ensures park users enjoy maximum utilisation and benefit of outdoor spaces. Having a good QGOS is one of the government strategies included in the 11th Malaysian Plan 2016-2020, to improve people quality of life. Numerous urban related studies had shown that proximity, use pattern, sociability, accessibility and varieties of activities are the significant factors for successful parks design with the consideration of needs and preferences of park users. Hence, this paper will focus on park use pattern to access the quality of the neighbourhood park (QNP) in Malaysia. The objectives are; i) to identify park use pattern among Malaysian, ii) to determine influential factors of Malaysian park use pattern. A quantitative method of questionnaire survey was conducted to obtain the data. Factor analysis results generated from the 1,500 respondents surveyed at 15 Malaysian neighbourhood parks indicated that nature appreciation loads the highest (Eigenvalue = 2.067, Variance Explained = 29.534%), social and active activities (Eigenvalue = 1.270, Variance Explained = 18.137%), followed by passive activities (Eigenvalue = 0.825, Variance Explained = 11.785%). Together, this finding provides essential guidance for park planners to plan for future QGOS and as part of the support to the 11th Malaysian Plan (2016-2020).Downloads
References
Al-Bishawi, M., & Ghadban, S. (2011). A methodological approach for reading urban open space. International Journal of Architectural Research, 5(1), 73-85.
Abbasi, A., Alalouch, C., & Bramley, G. (2016). Open space quality in deprived urban areas: User perspective and use pattern. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 216, 194-205.
Abdul Malek, & Nashar, A. (2018). Measuring successfulness of malaysian green open spaces: An assessment tool, Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, 13(2), 21-37.
Adams, A., Harvey, H., & Brown, D. (2012). Constructs of health and
environment inform child obesity prevention in American Indian
communities. Obesity, 16(2), 311-317.
Bounds, M. (2008). Urban social theory: City, self and society. South Melbourne, Vic.: Oxford university press.
Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L. G., & Stone, A. M. (1992). Public spaces. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T., & Tiesdell, S. (2003). Public spaces - urban
spaces: The dimensions of urban design. Oxford, UK: Architectural Press, Elsevier.
Chen, Y., Liu, T., Xie, X., & Maruši?, B. G. (2016). What attracts people to visit community open spaces? A case study of the overseas Chinese Town
community in Shenzhen, China. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 13(7), 644.
Feng, X., & Astell-Burt, T. (2016). What types of social interactions reduce the risk of psychological distress? Fixed effects longitudinal analysis of a
cohort of 30,271 middle to older aged Australians. Journal of Affective
Disorder, 204, 99-102.
Francis, M. (2003). Urban open space: Designing for user needs. London: Island Press.
Giles-Corti, B., Broomhall, M. H., Knuiman, M., Collins, C., Douglas, K., Ng,
K.,…& Donovan, R. J. (2005). Increasing walking: How important is
distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space? American
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28, 169-176.
Goli?nik, B., & Thompson, C. W. (2010). Emerging relationships between designand use of urban park spaces. Landscape and Urban Planning, 94(1), 38-53.
Gobster, P. H. (2002). Managing urban parks for a racially and ethnically diverse clientele. Leisure Sciences, 24, 143-159.
Hadavi, S., Kaplan, R., & Hunter, M. R. (2017). How does perception of nearby nature affect multiple aspects of neighbourhood satisfaction and use patterns? Landscape Research, 43(3), 360-379.
Harun, N. Z., Zakariya, K., Mansor, M., & Zakariya, K. (2014). Determining
attributes of the urban plaza for social sustainability. Procedia- social
and behavioural sciences. 153, 606-615.
Houlden, V., Weich, S., & Jarvis, S. (2017). A cross-sectional analysis of green space prevalence and mental wellbeing in England. BMC Public
Health, 17(1), 460.
Hari, R., & Kujala, M. V. (2009). Brain basis of human social interaction: From concepts to brain imaging. Physiological reviews, 89(2), 453-479.
Iamtrakul, P., Kardi, T., Jian, G., & Kazunori, H. (2005). Interaction of activity
involvement and recreational location selection behaviour in Lowland
City: A case study of public parks in Saga City, Japan. Journal of
Zhejiang University-SCIENCE A, 6(8), 900-906.
Kaczynski, A. T., Potwarka, L. R., & Saelens, B. E. (2008). Association of park
size, distance, and features with physical activity in neighbourhood
parks. American Journal of Public Health, 98, 1451-1456.
Krenichyn, K. (2006). The only place to go and be in the city: Women talk about exercise, being outdoors, and the meanings of a large urban park. Health & Place, 12(4), 631-643.
Kweon, B. S., Christopher, E. D., Leiva, P. I., & Rogers, G. O. (2010). Landscape components, land use, and neighbourhood satisfaction. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 37(3), 500-517.
Lee, A. C., & Maheswaran, R. (2011). The health benefits of urban green spaces: A review of the evidence. Journal of Public Health, 33(2), 212-222.
Lloyd, K., Burden, J., & Kiewa, J. (2008). Young girls and urban parks: Planning for transition through adolescence. Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration, 26(3), 21-38.
Mansor, M., Said, I., & Mohamad, I. (2010). Experiential contacts with green
infrastructure’s diversity and well-being of the urban community. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 49, 257-267.
Matsuoka, R. H., & Kaplan, R. (2008). People needs in the urban landscape:
Analysis of landscape and urban planning contributions. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 84(1), 7-19.
Maulan, S. (2015). Preferences for usability at Taman Tasik Seremban, Malaysia. International Journal of Sustainable Tropical Design Research and
Practice, 8, 28-33.
McCormack, G. R., Rock, M., Toohey, A. M., & Hignell, D. (2010).
Characteristics of urban parks associated with park use and physical
activity: A review of qualitative research. Health & Place, 16(4), 712-
Mohd. Hashim, N. H., Othman Thani, S. K. S., Jamaluddin, M. A., & Mohd
Yatim, N. (2016). A perceptual study on the influence of vegetation
design towards women's safety in public park. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 234, 280-288.
Moulay, A., Ujang, N., & Said, I. (2017). Legibility of neighbourhood parks as a predictor for enhanced social interaction towards social sustainability.
Cities, 61, 58-64.
Nasution, A. D., & Zahrah, W. (2012). Public open space's contribution to quality of life: Does privatisation matters? Asian Journal of EnvironmentBehaviour Studies, 3(9), 59-74.
Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space: People and design in the violent city.
London: Architectural Press.
Neutens, T., Farber, S., Delafontaine, M., & Boussauw, K. (2013). Spatial
variation in the potential for social interaction: A case study in Flanders
(Belgium). Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 41, 318-331.
Park, B. J., Furuya, K., Kasetani, T., Takayama, N., Kagawa, T., & Miyazaki, Y.
(2011). Relationship between psychological responses and physical environments in forest settings. Landscape and Urban Planning, 102(1),
-32.
Parks and Recreation Department (1989). Research study on effectiveness of
public parks in Singapore. Singapore.
Paul, S., & Nagendra, H. (2017). Factors influencing perceptions and use of urban nature: Surveys of park visitors in Delhi. Land, 6(2), 27.
Priego, C., Breuste, J., & Rojas, J. (2008). Perception and value of nature in urban landscapes: A comparative analysis of cities in Germany, Chile and
Spain. Landscape Online, 7(1), 22.
Rahman, A. A., Tuan Hussain, F. N., & Mohamad Ismail, S. (2017). Residents
Willingness to pay for conservation of green spaces and amenities at
Urban Forest Bukit Nanas, Kuala Lumpur, International Journal of the
Malay World and Civilisation, 5(1),81-86.
Schipperijn, J., Ekholm, O., Stigsdotter, U. K., Toftager, M., Bentsen, P.,
Kamper-Jørgensen, F., & Randrup, T. B. (2010). Factors influencing the
use of green space: Results from a Danish national representative survey.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 95(3), 130-137.
Sugiyama, T., Healy, G. N., Dunstan, D. W., Salmon, J., & Owen, N. (2008).
Joint associations of multiple leisure-time sedentary behaviours and
physical activity with obesity in Australian adults. International Journal
of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 5, 35.
Ter, U. (2011). Quality criteria of urban parks: The case of Alaadd?n Hill (KonyaTurkey). African Journal of Agricultural Research, 6(23), 5367-5376.
Veitch, J., Bagley, S., Ball, K., & Salmon, J. (2006). Where do children usually
play? A qualitative study of parents’ perceptions of influences on
children’s active free-play. Health and Place, 12, 383-393.
Warburton, D. E. R., Nicol, C. W., & Bredin, S. S. D. (2006). Health benefits of
physical activity: The evidence. Canadian Medical Association Journal,
, 801-809.
Wendel-Vos, W., Droomers, M., Kremers, S., Brug, J., & Van Lenthe, F. (2007).
Potential environmental determinants of physical activity in adults: A
systematic review. Obesity Reviews, 8, 425-440.
Wilhelm Stanis, W., Sonja, A., Schneider, I. E., Shinew, K. J., Chavez, D. J., &
Vogel, M. C. (2009). Physical activity and the recreation opportunity
spectrum: Differences in important site attributes and perceived
constraints. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 27(4), 73-91.
Yuen, B. (1996). Public housing-led recreation development in
Singapore. Habitat International, 19(3), 239-252.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright & Creative Commons Licence
eISSN: 0128-0945 © Year. The Authors. Published for Malaysia Institute of Planners. This is an open-access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license.
The authors hold the copyright without restrictions and also retain publishing rights without restrictions.
