QUALITY OF DESIGNS AND FEATURES OF SMALL URBAN GREEN SPACES IN PETALING JAYA TOWN, MALAYSIA

Authors

  • Fatiah A.A. Faculty of Forestry and Environment UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA
  • Zakiah Ponrahono Faculty of Forestry and Environment UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA
  • Khalilah Zakariya Kulliyyah of Architecture and Environmental Design INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21837/pm.v19i15.931

Keywords:

Attractive, Accessible, Functional, Safe, Neighbourhood Parks, Park Users

Abstract

Small Urban Green Spaces (SUGS) mushroomed in dense cities as a scaled down version of larger parks. In the past, SUGS are often abandoned, or their quality is often overlooked. The purpose of this study is to explore the design and features to make a good quality SUGS. Five experts were approached with a weightage evaluation to rate its quality based on selected criteria's; Accessibility, Attractiveness, Functionality, and Safety. Each criterion had a variable to measure the construct. Findings from the expert evaluation showed that SUGS were rated medium or low overall quality. The variables that obtained the highest score and attained high-quality ratings were Obstacles (Safety criteria), General Maintenance (Attractiveness criteria), and Play Area (Accessibility criteria). Interview with park users revealed that they preferred the "presence of trees," "well-maintained environment," and "walking path accessibility." The least preferred attributes were "poor maintenance," "dangerous walking path," and "negative perception of safety." Overall, to ensure the quality of SUGS attention should be placed on the Accessibility of its features (e.g., walking path and play area), the attractiveness of the park (e.g., vegetation and maintenance), the functionality of the features (e.g., sports facilities) and perception of Safety (e.g., absence of obstacles).

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Akpinar, A. (2016). How is quality of urban green spaces associated with physical activity and health? Urban forestry & urban greening, 16, 76-83.

Anuar, a. N. A., & muhamadan, n. H. (2018). The demand of recreational facilities in neighbourhood parks: visitors' perspectives. Planning malaysia journal, 16(7).

Aram, F., Solgi, E., & Holden, G. (2019). The role of green spaces in increasing social interactions in neighborhoods with periodic markets. Habitat International, 84, 24-32.

Bakar, N. A., Malek, N. A., & Mansor, M. (2016). Access to Parks and Recreational Opportunities in Urban Low-income Neighbourhood. Procedia-social and behavioral sciences, 234, 299-308.

Biernacka, M., & Kronenberg, J. (2018). Classification of institutional barriers affecting the availability, Accessibility and attractiveness of urban green spaces. Urban forestry & urban greening, 36, 22-33.

Cohen, D. A., Marsh, T., Williamson, S., Han, B., Derose, K. P., Golinelli, D., & McKenzie, T. L. (2014). The potential for pocket parks to increase physical activity. American journal of health promotion, 28(3_suppl), S19-S26.

Danis, A., Sidek, S., & Yusof, S. M. (2014). Environmental characteristics influences on physical activity among overweight adolescents: Urban neighbourhood parks. Procedia-social and behavioral sciences, 153, 402-409.

Hadavi, S., Kaplan, R., & Hunter, M. R. (2018). How does perception of nearby nature affect multiple aspects of neighbourhood satisfaction and use patterns? Landscape Research, 43(3), 360-379.

Iqbal, A., & Ceccato, V. (2016). Is CPTED useful to guide the inventory of Safety in parks? A study case in Stockholm, Sweden. International criminal justice review, 26(2), 150-168.

Jasmani, Z., Ravn, H. P., & van den Bosch, C. C. K. (2017). The influence of small urban parks characteristics on bird diversity: A case study of Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. Urban ecosystems, 20(1), 227-243.

Luymes, D. T., & Tamminga, K. (1995). Integrating public Safety and use into planning urban greenways. Landscape and Urban Planning, 33(1-3), 391-400.

Maas, J., Spreeuwenberg, P., Van Winsum-Westra, M., Verheij, R. A., Vries, S., & Groenewegen, P. P. (2009). Is green space in the living environment associated with people's feelings of social safety? Environment and Planning A, 41(7), 1763-1777.

Malek, N. A., Mariapan, M., & Shariff, M. K. M. (2012). The making of a quality neighbourhood park: A path model approach. Procedia-social and behavioral sciences, 49, 202-214.

Malek, N. A., & Nashar, A. (2018). Use pattern and activities: The evaluation of Malaysian green open space design. PLANNING MALAYSIA Journal of the Malaysian Institute of Planner, 16(7).

Moulay, A., Ujang, N., & Said, I. (2017). Legibility of neighborhood parks as a predicator for enhanced social interaction towards social sustainability. Cities, 61, 58-64.

Ngesan, M. R., Karim, H. A., & Zubir, S. S. (2012). Human behaviour and activities in relation to Shah Alam urban park during night-time. Procedia-social and behavioral sciences, 68, 427-438.

Nordh, H., Hartig, T., Hagerhall, C., & Fry, G. (2009). Components of small urban parks that predict the possibility for restoration. Urban forestry & urban greening, 8(4), 225-235.

Nordh, H., & Østby, K. (2013). Pocket parks for people–A study of park design and use. Urban forestry & urban greening, 12(1), 12-17.

Peschardt, K. K., Schipperijn, J., & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2012). Use of small public urban green spaces (SPUGS). Urban forestry & urban greening, 11(3), 235-244.

Peschardt, K. K., & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2013). Associations between park characteristics and perceived restorativeness of small public urban green spaces. Landscape and Urban Planning, 112, 26-39.

Peschardt, K. K., & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2014). Evidence for designing health promoting pocket parks. International Journal of Architectural Research: ArchNet-IJAR, 8(3), 149-164.

Stessens, P., Khan, A. Z., Huysmans, M., & Canters, F. (2017). Analysing urban green space accessibility and quality: A GIS-based model as spatial decision support for urban ecosystem services in Brussels. Ecosystem services, 28, 328-340.

Wang, R., Zhao, J., & Liu, Z. (2016). Consensus in visual preferences: The effects of aesthetic quality and landscape types. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 20, 210-217.

Wen, C., Albert, C., & Von Haaren, C. (2018). The elderly in green spaces: Exploring requirements and preferences concerning nature-based recreation. Sustainable cities and society, 38, 582-593.

Zhai, Y., & Baran, P. K. (2016). Do configurational attributes matter in context of urban parks? Park pathway configurational attributes and senior walking. Landscape and Urban Planning, 148, 188-202.

Zhai, Y., & Baran, P. K. (2017). Urban park pathway design characteristics and senior walking behavior. Urban forestry & urban greening, 21, 60-73.

Downloads

Published

2021-05-17

How to Cite

A.A., F., Ponrahono, Z., & Zakariya, K. (2021). QUALITY OF DESIGNS AND FEATURES OF SMALL URBAN GREEN SPACES IN PETALING JAYA TOWN, MALAYSIA. PLANNING MALAYSIA, 19(15). https://doi.org/10.21837/pm.v19i15.931

Most read articles by the same author(s)

<< < 1 2 3