Assessing Public Open Spaces A Case of City Nagpur, India

sustainability
Article
Assessing Public Open Spaces: A Case of City Nagpur, India
Pritam Ahirrao * and Smita Khan
Department of Architecture and Planning, Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur 440010, India;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]
Abstract: Major Indian cities have a lower public open space (POS)-capita ratio and do not meet
national and international standards. Moreover, factors such as lack of design guidelines for POSs,
limited funding, and lack of public participation have affected these limitedly available POSs and
made them ineffective and incapable of meeting the contemporary needs of a diverse range of users.
Therefore, it is essential to make them not only inclusive, user-friendly, attractive, and efficient, but
also socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable in order to serve the various facilities
and services at their optimum level. This study includes the assessment of two POSs to identify
strengths and deficiencies that affect their character and use. These POSs are public parks, provide
free access to users and are located in the city of Nagpur. For assessment, the study proposed the
Public Open Space Index (POSI) that combines five aspects: Individual well-being, Inclusiveness,
Engagement, Sustainable spaces, and Management.A mixed methods approach was considered
for data collection, including a self-administered questionnaire survey and observations.According
to the results, POSs have strengths in that they facilitate social cohesion, engagement, and basic
facilities. POSs do not encourage equitable access and sustainable practices, which are considered
deficiencies.The study helps planners, designers, and parenting authority to develop initiatives to
make these limited POSs inclusive, functional, and sustainable.
Citation: Ahirrao, P.; Khan, S.
Assessing Public Open Spaces: A Keywords: user’s perception; quality of life; parks; public open space index; sustainability
Case of City Nagpur, India.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 4997.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094997
1. Introduction
Academic Editor: Manuel
Public open spaces (POSs) are considered to be recreational areas, where human beings
Duarte Pinheiro
develop social relationships [1]. Here, a lively gathering of people takes place for a variety
of purposes and occasions. Due to many benefits, these POSs are considered as one of the
Received: 16 March 2021
Accepted: 24 April 2021
most valued and crucial elements in the development of the urban environment. Scholars
Published: 29 April 2021
have argued that high-quality POSs help to enhance the quality of life of their users [2].
In India, major cities are facing a number of challenges due to rapid urbanisation. These
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
challenges include a vast scale of migration, high population density, and increased land
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
prices [3]. Existing and proposed development plans for various major cities have shown
published maps and institutional affil- that these cities have a lower space-capita ratio and do not meet national and international
iations. standards [4–9]. Urban and regional development plan formulation and implementation
(URDPFI) and World Health Organisation (WHO) standards have suggested an ideal ratio
of 9 Sq.m to 12 Sq.m POS per capita at the city level [10,11]. Another observation indicated
that the lack of design guidelines for POSs, limited funding, and lack of public participation
have affected these limitedly available POSs and have made them ineffective and incapable
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
of meeting the contemporary needs of a wide range of users [3,12]. Therefore, it is essential
This article is an open access article
to make these POSs not only inclusive, user-friendly, attractive, and functional, but also
distributed under the terms and socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable so they can serve the various
conditions of the Creative Commons facilities and services at their optimum level.
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Literature shows several studies on POSs have been conducted in India from various
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ perspectives. Studies such as environmental impact on POSs, Chennai [13], analysis of
4.0/). environmental attributes of POSs, Pune [14], urbanisation impact on POSs, Bangalore [15],
Sustainability 2021, 13, 4997. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094997 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 21
Sustainability 2021, 13, 4997 2 of 24

ous perspectives. Studies such as environmental impact on POSs, Chennai [13], analysis
of environmental attributes of POSs, Pune [14], urbanisation impact on POSs, Bangalore
[15], growing and preserving POSs and green cover, Bangalore [16], etc. have been con-
ducted
growingbased on environmental,
and preserving POSs andsocial green andcover, planning
Bangalore perspectives.
[16], etc. have Fewer
beenstudies
conducted are
available that provide insights into the character and use of POSs.
based on environmental, social and planning perspectives. Fewer studies are available thatSuch studies have been
conducted in Western
provide insights countries
into the characterandandmust usebeofconsidered
POSs. Such in studies
South Asian
have countries
been conducted with a
different
in Western cultural
countriescontext.
and This
muststudy fills a current
be considered gap. The
in South Asianaimcountries
of the study with is atodifferent
identify
cultural context.
strengths This studyoffills
and deficiencies a current
POSs gap. The
that affect theiraim of the study
character is toThe
and use. identify
studystrengths
follows
andvision
the deficiencies of POSs Development
of Sustainable that affect their character
Goals 11 (SDG and11)use.ofThe
the study
Unitedfollows
Nations thethat
vision
en-
of Sustainable
courages Development
sustainable Goals development
and inclusive 11 (SDG 11) of theFor
[17]. United Nations
this study, that encourages
sustainable devel-
sustainable
opment and inclusive
is considered as’ development
a development [17].that
Formeets
this study, sustainable
people’s current development
needs without is
considered as’ athe
compromising development that meets
ability of future people’s to
generations current
meetneeds
their without
own needs. compromising
’ In addition, the
ability of future
‘promote generations
development to meet
to meet their basic
people’s own needs.
needs ’while
In addition, ‘promote
also fostering development
social and eco-
to meetgrowth
nomic people’s andbasic needs while
mitigating also fostering
environmental social and economic
degradation’ [18]. growth and mitigating
environmental
The study degradation’
focuses on two [18].POSs. These POSs are public parks, offer free access to
usersThe
andstudy focusesinonthe
are located two POSs.
city These POSs
of Nagpur. For are
the public parks, the
assessment, offerstudy
free access
proposed to users
the
and are located in the city of Nagpur. For the assessment,
Public Open Space Index (POSI) that combines five aspects: Individual well-being,the study proposed the Public
In-
Open Space Index
clusiveness, (POSI) that
Engagement, combinesspaces,
Sustainable five aspects: Individual well-being,
and Management. The study Inclusiveness,
adopted a
Engagement,
mixed approach, Sustainable
including spaces, and Management.
a self-administered The studysurvey
questionnaire adopted and a mixed approach,
site observation
including
for a self-administered
data collection. A total of 553 questionnaire
visitors from survey
both and
POSs site observationinfor
participated thedata
main collection.
survey.
A total of 553 visitors from both POSs participated in the main
The study helps planners, designers, and parental authority to develop initiatives survey. The study helps
to
planners, designers, and parental authority to develop initiatives
make these limited POSs inclusive, functional, sustainable, and contribute to improving to make these limited
POSs
the inclusive,
quality of lifefunctional, sustainable,
of users. Figure 1 shows and contributerepresentation
a schematic to improving the of thequality of life of
methodology
users. Figure 1 shows
adopted for the study. a schematic representation of the methodology adopted for the study.
Figure
Figure 1.
1. Schematic
Schematic representation
representation of
of the
the methodology
methodology adopted
adopted for
for the
the study.
study.
Facilities, services,
Facilities, services,and
andthe the appearance
appearance of POSs
of POSs provide
provide various
various benefits
benefits to theto the
users
users [19,20].
[19,20]. The aim Theofaim
the of the study
study is to identify
is to identify the strengths
the strengths and deficiencies
and deficiencies of POSsof POSs
that
that would
would help help planners
planners and designers
and designers to enhance
to enhance their their character
character and The
and use. use. study
The study
con-
considered
sidered users’
users’ perceptional
perceptional opinion
opinion for for assessing
assessing the the POSs.
POSs. Perception
Perception is defined
is defined as
as an
an experience
experience caused
caused by by
thethe stimulation
stimulation ofof senseorgans
sense organs[21].
[21].AAuser
userperceives
perceives space
space and
expresses an
expresses an opinion
opinion about
about it [22]. ThisThis study assumes
assumes the user’s
user’s opinion
opinion of visiting or
using space
using space is based on the perception he/she has gained through the available facilities,
he/she has gained through the available facilities,
services, and aesthetic appearance of that POS. Perception is a latent and subjective vari-
services, and aesthetic appearance of that POS. Perception is a latent and subjective var-
able that
iable that could
could bebe beyond
beyond the the control
control ofof planners
planners and
and designers. However, planners
designers. However, planners andand
designers can
designers can change
change the
the facilities,
facilities, services,
services, and
and aesthetic
aesthetic appearance
appearance of of the
the space
space [23].
[23]. To
To
prove the assumption, the study demonstrates a hypothesis that user’s perception has aa
prove the assumption, the study demonstrates a hypothesis that user’s perception has
close relationship
close relationship with
with the
the space
space facilities,
facilities, services,
services, and
and aesthetics.
aesthetics.
2. Literature Review
2. Literature Review
2.1. Public Open Space (POS)
2.1. Public Open Space (POS)
POSs are social spaces generally open and accessible to all people [24]. Scholars ex-
POSs
plained POSareassocial spaces generally
“an outdoor area whichopen andtoaccessible
is open to alland
freely chosen people [24]. Scholars
spontaneous ex-
activities,
plained POS as “an outdoor area which is open to freely chosen and spontaneous
movement, or visual exploration” [25]. POSs help people to share their culture, ideas, activi-
and emotions that represent society [24,25]. POSs encourage social interaction, gathering,
common activities, and programmes that build a “sense of community” among people.
Scholars suggested some noteworthy characteristics of good POSs, such as connecting

people to nature [26], encouraging active and passive activities [25], granting freedom in
action and access [24,27], promoting leisure and recreational facilities, and providing a
stage for public art and performance [28].
2.2. Public Open Space Index (POSI)

The study considered urban planning and design literature for the formulation of
the Public Open Space Index (POSI).The field of urban planning emphasises the impor-
tance of social, economic, and environmental dimensions in order to achieve sophisticated
and sustainable development [29,30]. Literature argued that these three dimensions are
essential for addressing the city’s challenges and promoting inclusive development [31–34].
Urban design is a branch of architecture that aims to make spaces usable, visually pleasing,
and convenient. It focuses on space layout, appearance, user activity, human scale, and
user-space attachment [35,36]. In order to establish a theoretical framework, the study
considered three design parameters, such as functional, aesthetic, and user-centric ap-
proach [37–40]. The study has established aspects that promote planning dimensions
as well as design parameters. The aspects are Individual well-being, Inclusiveness, En-
gagement, Space sustainability, and Management. These aspects aid researcher in the
development of the Public Open Space Index (POSI). The assessment was carried out on
the site scale.
The first aspect, Individual well-being, relates to functional, aesthetic, and user-centric
parameters and social dimension. Well-being is defined as a state of happiness, health,
relaxation, and a comfortable lifestyle [41,42]. In terms of POS, a human desire causes
people to visit POSs that provide them with physical and psychological comfort. Here,
comfort refers to a state where space promotes physical and psychological relief and
satisfies human needs through the provision of convenient physical conditions, facilities,
and aesthetical features [43,44]. A well-defined and visible entrance gives comfort to
users and allows them to enter the POS. Wide, single-level walkways within POS improve
usability and provide physical comfort not only to joggers but also to senior citizens who
prefer walking [45–47]. Furthermore, the climate responsive design of POS also improves
physical comfort [48,49]. The open and shaded area, semi-covered seating, and shelter
facilities allow users to use the space during different seasons. In terms of psychological
comfort, the availability of focal points and vistas create visually appealing and pleasing
views for users [43,50,51]. These elements create a perceivable and positive image of the
POS between users [52,53]. Additionally, POS that receives less outside noise improves
psychological comfort.
The second aspect, Inclusiveness, is linked with the functional, user-centric parameters
and social dimension. Inclusive spaces promote a democratic public realm by facilitating
equitable gathering and discussion. Here, users connect with the community and gain a
sense of belonging [54]. The literature emphasises equitable access, social cohesion, and
users’ freedom to explain inclusiveness. Equitable access encourages all users to have
access to POS [55,56]. Social cohesion involves interpersonal dynamics and a sense of
interpersonal relationship between individuals [57]. Social cohesion in POSs could be
achieved by giving people the opportunity to participate in events and programmes, to
engage in positive conversation, and to share their experiences [58]. Regarding users’
freedom, scholars argued that POS should promote an open and unrestricted environment
in which users feel free to act [43,44]. Space management authority must protect the
privacy of users. The authority should neither retain control of the entrance nor impose
any restrictions on the activities, behaviour, and roaming of users [43,44].
Engagement, the third aspect, promotes functional, user-centric parameters, and
social dimension. The aspect focuses on users’ effective involvement in activities. The
literature described two approaches to achieving effective engagement in POSs. The first is
“engagement with space”, and the second is “engagement with community” [24,43,44,59].
If POS accommodates activities according to users’ needs, then users effectively engage
with space [60,61]. Factors such as space flexibility, layout, and design also contribute to
effective engagement. Here, flexibility means the versatility of space to adapt changes to
users’ needs [24,38]. Scholars argued that active and passive activities help users to engage
with a space [24,25]. Other activities, such as necessary, social, and optional activities, also
contribute to improving the experience of space [62]. Furthermore, lively space edges those
promote activities such as food, soft drinks, reading, shopping, and entertainment allow
users to stay within space for an extended period of time [39,43]. The second method,
“engagement with community”, emerges when POS provides the user with an opportunity
to interact with other familiar and unknown users [54,63,64]. It helps people to trust one
another, to feel proud, and to respond to their communal obligations.
The fourth aspect, ‘Sustainable spaces’, promotes functional, user-centric parameters
as well as economic and environmental dimensions. The aspect focuses on achieving eco-
nomic and environmental sustainability [18,31,65]. Scholars argued economic sustainability
could be recognised by promoting adequate employment, business, livelihood opportuni-
ties, and reducing the cost of living and health [66]. The ability of POS to promote nearby
businesses such as shopping, hotels, street food, and other commercial activities not only
helps the neighbourhood and city grow economically, but also improves the quality of
life for those who depend on these businesses. In addition, POS helps reduce the cost
of living by offering access to community services, amenities, and leisure facilities [66].
Environmental sustainability emphasises the use of responsible practices for energy, water,
and soil conservation [31,32,67]. Such practices include use of renewable energy resources,
rainwater harvesting, waste management, energy and water-efficient irrigation systems,
and intelligent artificial lighting in the POS [68]. Environmental sustainability could also be
achieved by promoting sustainable landscape practices, such as the use of native species,
xeriscaping, and the preservation of natural topography [69,70].
The fifth aspect, Management, is linked with functional, user-centric parameters as
well as social and environmental dimensions. People prefer to visit spaces where they
find a safe environment, especially women, children, and senior citizens [71,72].Scholars
suggested some techniques for achieving safety within POSs. Shaftoe [39] and Oc and Ties-
del [72] recommended a Panoptic approach, which includes the presence of security guards,
and a CCTV system in POSs. Moreover, Marcus and Francis [2], Lang and Marshall [73]
suggested passive control, including the display of written or symbolic instructions to
prevent unwanted activities. Shaftoe [39] and Jacobs [52] recommended “eyes on space”
or natural surveillance by space users and adjacent neighbourhood dwellers. Users’ be-
haviour and responsibility are also important factors in maintaining a safe environment
within the POS. Carr et al [24] suggested “responsible freedom”, which means a person
can use POS as per his/her wishes, but with the recognition that POS is a public and
shared space. Carmona [74] and PPS [44] explained that users should respect POS as their
national property, avoid activities like vandalism and littering, and maintain peace within
the space. Carmona [74] described the space management authorities should respect the
rights of users. These rights include privacy, equitable behaviour and handling for all users,
allowing photography, discussion, rest, and freedom of movement. Basic facilities should
be provided, such as drinking water, clean washrooms, and first aid. Figure 2 shows the
analytical framework considered for the study.
Figure2.2.Analytical
Figure Analyticalframework
frameworkconsidered
consideredfor
forthe
thestudy.
study.
3.3.Methods
Methods
3.1.
3.1.Study
StudyArea
Area
Nagpur ◦ ◦
Nagpurisislocated
locatedatat21.15
21.15°N N79.08
79.08°EEand andisisthe
thethird
thirdlargest
largestcitycityin
inthe
theIndian
Indianstatestate
of
of Maharashtra. The city has recorded a population of 2.4 million and a literacyrate
Maharashtra. The city has recorded a population of 2.4 million and a literacy rateofof
92%
92%ininthethecensus-2011
census-2011 [75]. People
[75]. People fromfromneighbouring
neighbouring districts come
districts and and
come settlesettle
in theincity
the
for opportunities such as education, employment and business.
city for opportunities such as education, employment and business. The City Develop- The City Development
Plan-2041 (CDP-2041)
ment Plan-2041 prepared
(CDP-2041) by Nagpur
prepared Municipal
by Nagpur Corporation
Municipal (NMC)
Corporation predicts
(NMC) 29%
predicts
and 35% of population growth in the coming years 2021 and 2031, respectively. CDP-2041
29% and 35% of population growth in the coming years 2021 and 2031, respectively.
also stated that the city of Nagpur suffers from an acute shortage of POSs and the current
CDP-2041 also stated that the city of Nagpur suffers from an acute shortage of POSs and
space-person ratio is below national and international standards. The city encompasses
the current space-person ratio is below national and international standards. The city
a mix of cultural, social and income communities. The demographic pattern of the city
encompasses a mix of cultural, social and income communities. The demographic pat-
and the issues of POSs are similar to other major cities. Therefore, the city of Nagpur was
tern of the city and the issues of POSs are similar to other major cities. Therefore, the city
considered a representative example and selected for the study.
of Nagpur was considered a representative example and selected for the study.
According to the information received from NMC officials, the Garden Department
According to the information received from NMC officials, the Garden Department
is responsible for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the POSs. The city
is responsible for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the POSs. The city in-
included a larger number of NMC’s own free access POSs than paid access POSs. Pilot
cluded a larger number of NMC’s own free access POSs than paid access POSs. Pilot
study observations indicated that paid access POSs are more maintained, clean and provide
study observations indicated that paid access POSs are more maintained, clean and pro-
different facilities and services to users than POSs that offer free access. Some of the free
vide different
access POSs were facilities and services
confronted to users
with issues suchthan POSs that offer
as inadequate free access.
maintenance, Some
poor of the
artificial
free access POSs were confronted with issues such as inadequate
lighting, untidiness, debris, littering, and broken furniture and pathways. Observations maintenance, poor ar-
tificial lighting, untidiness, debris, littering, and broken furniture and
also suggest that most citizens prefer to visit free access POSs for yoga, walking, exercise, pathways. Obser-
vations
and also suggest
roaming as part of that most
their citizens
ordinary prefer With
routine. to visit
thefree
helpaccess POSssuch
of factors for yoga,
as pilotwalking,
study
observations, citizens’ preference for visits and availability in higher numbers, such
exercise, and roaming as part of their ordinary routine. With the help of factors it was as
pilot study
decided observations,
to consider citizens’
free access POSs preference
for the mainfor visits
study.and Twoavailability
free access in higher
POSs; num-
namely,
bers, it was decided to consider free access POSs for the main
Major Surendra Deo Park (MSDP) and Rajiv Gandhi Park (RGP) with an area of 4.97 and study. Two free access
POSs;
8.0 namely,
acres, Major Surendra
were selected Deo of
on the basis Park (MSDP)criterion.
a specific and RajivThe Gandhi Parkexamined
criterion (RGP) with an
area,
area of 4.97 and 8.0 acres, were selected on the basis of a specific
ownership, daily footfall, and adjacent neighbourhood. Preference was given to POSs criterion. The criterion
examined
that area, ownership,
were surrounded daily footfall,
by commercial activityandandadjacent
residencesneighbourhood.
from various social,Preference was
cultural,
given
and to POSsgroups.
economic that were surrounded
Such by commercial
diversity encouraged theactivity
researcherandtoresidences
cover a wide fromrange
variousof
social, cultural,
information in theand economic
study, such asgroups. Suchpatterns,
visitation diversity encouraged
space use, users’ theactivities,
researcher to their
and cover
a wide range
perceptual of information
opinion of space. Bothin thePOSsstudy, such as visitation
are normally open to the patterns, space5:30
public from use,a.m.
users’
to
activities, and their perceptual opinion of space. Both POSs are
10:00 a.m. (morning) and from 4:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. (evening). Figure 3 shows the locationnormally open to the
public
of from 5:30
both POSs. a.m. to 10:00
In addition, Figure a.m. (morning)
4 shows and from
both POSs and 4:30
theirp.m. to 8:30 p.m.
surrounding area.(evening).
Figure 3 shows the location of both POSs. In addition, Figure 4 shows both POSs and
their surrounding area.
Figure3.3.Location
Figure Locationmap.
map.
Figure 3. Location map.
Figure 4. MSDP(POS-1) and RGP(POS-2).

Figure4.4.MSDP(POS-1)
Figure MSDP(POS-1)and
andRGP(POS-2).
RGP(POS-2).
3.2. Data Collection
3.2.
3.2.Data
DataCollection
Collection
A mixed methods approach was used for data collection. According to Tashakkori
A mixed
A mixed[76]
and Teddlie methods
methods approach
approach
and Creswell was
and was used
Clarkused for
fordata
[77], datacollection.
mixed methodsAccording
collection. Accordingtoto
incorporate Tashakkori
theTashakkori
strengths
and
and Teddlie
Teddlie [76]
[76] and
and Creswell
Creswell and
and Clark
Clark [77],
[77], mixed
mixed
of both qualitative and quantitative methods, which aid in the collection of data methods
methods incorporate
incorporate thethe strengths
strengths
from
of
of both
both qualitative
qualitative and
and quantitative
quantitative methods,
methods, which
which aid
aid
multiple perspectives, improves the findings’ accuracy, validity, reliability, and provides ininthe
the collection
collection ofofdata
data from
from
multiple
multiple perspectives,
perspectives, improves
improves the
the findings’
findings’ accuracy,
accuracy,
a better understanding of the study. The study employed a self-administered question- validity,
validity, reliability,
reliability,and provides
and provides a
better
a betterunderstanding
understanding of the study.
of the study. The study employed
The study employed a self-administered
a self-administered questionnaire
question-
naire survey andobservation. A self-administered questionnaire survey, a quantitative
survey andobservation.
naire survey A self-administered questionnaire survey, a quantitative approach
approach thatandobservation.
helps to understand A self-administered
the users’ perceptions questionnaireof POS. survey, a quantitative
A self-administered
that helps tothat
approach understand
helps toallowsthe users’ perceptions
understand the users’ of POS. A self-administered questionnaire
questionnaire survey the researcher to perceptions
gain a betterofunderstanding
POS. A self-administeredof a POS’s
survey allows
questionnaire the researcher
survey to gain
allowscapabilities a
the researcher better understanding
to gain of a POS’s functional and
functional and aesthetic from the aperspective
better understanding of users of[43,59,63].
a POS’s
aesthetic
functional capabilities
and aestheticfrom the capabilities
perspective of users [43,59,63]. Aself-administered [43,59,63]. question-
Aself-administered questionnaire assists from respondentsthe perspective
to completeoftheusers response them-
naire assists
Aself-administeredrespondents to complete
questionnaire the
assists response
respondents themselves without
to complete an the intervention
theappropriate
response them-
selves without the intervention of the researcher. It is consideredas plat-
ofselves
the researcher.
without theItfreely
is consideredas
intervention an researcher.
appropriateItplatform for users anto freely express
form for users to express of the
their opinions. Moreover, is consideredas
a self-administeredappropriate plat-
question-
their
form opinions.
for users Moreover,
to freely a self-administered
express their opinions. questionnaire
Moreover, survey
a has advantages
self-administered over
question-
naire survey has advantages over other data collection methods that are inexpensive and
other data
naireless
survey collection methods over that are inexpensive and take less time [63].inexpensive
Scholars such
take timehas advantages
[63]. Scholars such other
as Mehtadata[43],
collection methods
Zamanifard that[59]
et al. are and Askari etand al.
as Mehta
take less [43], Zamanifard et al. [59] and Askari et al. [63], have used questionnaire sur-
[63], havetime used[63]. Scholars such
questionnaire as Mehta
surveys [43], Zamanifard
to determine et al. [59]and
users’ opinions anddemonstrated
Askari et al.
veys to determine users’ opinions and demonstrated their suitability for similar studies.
[63], have
their used for
suitability questionnaire
similarapproach, surveys
studies. to determine
Observation, users’ opinions and demonstrated
Observation, a qualitative was used toaanalyse qualitative approach,
active-passive was used to
activities, useran-
their suitability
alyse active-passive for similar studies.
activities, user Observation,
behaviour, a qualitative
facilities, and approach,
services was usedwithin
provided to an-
behaviour, facilities, and services provided within space. According to Kothari [78], an
alyse active-passive
space. According activities,
toeliminate
Kothari [78], user behaviour, helps
an observation facilities, and services
to eliminate provided within
observation helps to subjective bias, if used correctly. It aidssubjective bias, if
in understanding used
the
space.
correctly.According
It aids into Kothari
understanding [78], antheobservation
current helps
situation tooreliminate
status of subjective
POS and bias,
requiresif used
less
current situation or status of POS and requires less active cooperation from other people.
correctly.
active It aids in understanding
cooperation from other the current
people. Scholars situation
such asorWhyte
status [28]of POS and andGehl requires
[62] less
have
Scholars such as Whyte [28] and Gehl [62] have used an observation to identify significant
activeancooperation
used observation from other people.
to identify significant Scholars suchof
characters asPOSs
Whyte [28] and
in their Gehl [62] have
studies.
characters of POSs in their studies.
usedThe an observation
publicopen to
openspace identify
spaceindex significant
index(POSI) characters
(POSI)included
includedfive of POSs
fiveaspects, in their
aspects,thirteen studies.
thirteenvariables
variablesand and
The public
The public
forty-five measuring open items.
space index of (POSI) included five aspects, thirteen variablesitems and
forty-five measuring items. OutOut of these,these, users twenty-four
users rated rated twenty-four
measuring measuring
items through
forty-five
through measuring
their perception items. Out of
and the researcher these, users rated
rated twenty-one twenty-four measuring
items by observation. items
The
their perception and the researcher rated twenty-one items by observation. The researcher
through their
researcher had perception
prepared and separate
two the researcher sheets, rated
i.e. twenty-one
the items by questionnaire
self-administered observation. The for
had prepared two separate sheets, i.e. the self-administered questionnaire for respondents,
researcher
respondents, had andprepared
the two
observation separate
sheet sheets,
for i.e.
himself. the self-administered
Measuring
and the observation sheet for himself. Measuring items were rated with the help of a five items questionnaire
were rated with for
the
respondents,
help ‘Likert
point and
of a fivescale’
pointonthe observation
‘Likert scale’ on
both sheets. sheet
The both for himself.
sheets.
scale Measuring
The scale was
was organised items
as, ‘1organised were
= No’, ‘2 = rated with
as,Somewhat’,
‘1=No’, ‘2 = the
help of a five‘3point
‘3Somewhat’,
= Moderate’, ‘4== ‘Likert and
Moderate’,
Mostly’, scale’ on bothThe
‘4 =‘5Mostly’,
= Yes’. sheets.
and The
‘5=Yes’.
Likert scale
The
scale was organised
Likert
obtains anscale as, ‘1=No’,
obtains
intelligence an ‘2 =
intelli-
response
Somewhat’,
gence
and ‘3
response and
is commonly = Moderate’,
usedisincommonly ‘4 = Mostly’,
questionnaire used and ‘5=Yes’.
in questionnaire
surveys The
[77]. Scholars Likert
surveys scale obtains an
[77]. Scholars such
have recommended intelli-
have
gence responsesuch
recommended andtype is commonly
of scaling inused similar in studies
questionnaire
[43,62,63]. surveys [77]. Scholarssurvey
The questionnaire have
recommended such type of scaling in similar studies [43,62,63]. The questionnaire survey
type of scaling in similar studies [43,62,63]. The questionnaire survey and observation were
conducted multiple times a day and week; therefore, the mean score was considered for the
result. In each aspect of POSI, different numbers of measuring items were included; hence,
the individual aspect score and the overall mean score (summation of all five aspects’ score)
were converted into a percentage to ensure the uniformity of the result. The study also
proposed a ranking for the analysis of the percentage score as: Below 50%-‘Poor’, 50% to
59%-‘Fair’, 60% to 69%-‘Average’, 70% to 79%-‘Good’ and 80% to 100%-‘Excellent’.
The pilot study helps to check the capability of tools and to identify errors in the
survey [79]. It was carried out with 30 users in the first week of July 2019 to check the time
taken by respondents to fill out the questionnaire, efficiency, wording of the questionnaire
and participants’ interest in the survey. Based on the experience of the pilot survey, some
of the questions were reconstructed in simple terms in the main survey in order to improve
the understanding of the respondents. This method helped to improve the reliability
of the main survey. Due to the vague ward population of government records and the
non-existence of register (to track user entry and exit) at the entrance of POSs, the weekly
footfall of the individual POS was counted and considered to identify the sample size.
Values such as the weekly footfall, a confidence level of 95%, and margin of error −/+ 5%
were considered to determine the sample size [80,81].
The researcher and two architecture graduate attendees conducted the main survey. A
person aged 18 and above was considered eligible to respond to the questionnaire survey.
At the main entrance of POSs, the researcher informed users about the aim of the study and
requested them to participate in the survey. Users, who expressed an interest received a
questionnaire. Participation was voluntary, and no incentive was offered to the respondents.
Scholars have adopted and recommended such a method in similar studies [82,83]. A total
of 290 from MSDP and 263 from RGP respondents participated in the main survey. Data
was collected over the simultaneous period of 2–13 September 2019 (twelve days) in MSDP
and 14–27 September 2019 (fourteen days) in RGP. On average, respondents completed 24
questionnaires per day.The response ratio was 4 to 1, implying that one out of every four
users expressed an interest in participating in the survey.
The Social Sciences Statistical Package (SPSS, version-25) was used for data analysis.
A descriptive statistical method was used to determine mean, standard deviation, and
percentage. Cronbach’s reliability and Pearson’s correlation coefficient were performed to
identify the relationship between measuring items.
4. Results
The study is formulated to identify the strengths and deficiencies of POSs. Accordingly,
the results are described in three sections.
4.1. Respondent Characteristics and POSs Visitation

A total of 553 questionnaires were filled out by respondents from both POSs. The
response rate of male participants was higher than that of females. Users in the age
groups 25 to 39 gave a higher response to the survey. All 553 respondents were educated
and 47.20% were degree holders. Most of the respondents were working in the private
sector, followed by self-employed people and then government servants. Table 1 shows
respondent characteristics in detail.
Table 1. Respondent characteristics.
MSDP ( POS-1) RGP (POS-2)

Sr.No. Characteristics (n = 290) (n = 263)
Count Percentage Count Percentage
1 Gender
Male 165 56.89 166 63.11
Female 125 43.1 97 36.88
2 Age group
18–24 years 51 17.6 55 20.9
25–39 years 101 34.8 99 37.6
40–59 years 78 26.9 66 25.1
60 years and older 60 20.7 43 16.3
3 Education level
School 13 4.5 8 3.0
Junior College 55 19.0 42 16.0
Degree 133 45.9 128 48.7
Post graduation 61 21.0 52 19.8
Doctorate 21 7.2 22 8.4
Post Doctorate 7 2.4 11 4.2
Not visited school 0 0.0 0 0.0
4 Occupation
Government servant 48 16.6 24 9.1
Private Sector 112 38.6 96 36.5
Self Employed 67 23.1 52 19.8
Retired 9 3.1 26 9.9
Student 24 8.3 31 11.8
Housewife 21 7.2 17 6.5
Not working/Searching for Job 9 3.1 17 6.5
5 Footfall measured in one week 1172 852
Source: SPSS (version 25).
The study also recorded the users’ visit frequency inthese spaces. The analysis of the
results showed that most users visited POSs a few times a week. These users were engaged
in active, passive, and other social activities. The survey recorded a higher percentage
of users in this category, i.e., 43% and 42% in MSDP and RGP, respectively. Users who
visited POSs once a day reported 24% in MSDP and 25% in RGP. This category includes
those engaged in physical activities such as yoga, walking, jogging, and open gym exercise.
Another analysis indicated that users living at a distance of 0.5 km to 2.0 km from POSs
visited spaces higher than users living at a long distance. This group accounted for 38%
of MSDP users and 40% of RGP users. Users who reside at a distance of 5.0 km and more
usually prefer to visit spaces occasionally.
4.2. Public Open Space Index [POSI] Score Received by POSs

First, describing aspect wise result; both POSs received ‘poor’ rank in Individual well-
being aspect. Here, MSDP and RGP earned 48.29% and 45.13%, respectively. Whereas, both
POSs gained ‘fair’ rank in Inclusiveness and Sustainable spaces aspects, in these aspects,
MSDP scored 51.37%, and 55.75% and RGP received 56.02% and 57.64%, respectively.
RGP scored ‘average’ rank in Engagement and Management aspects. Here, RGP received
64.76% and 63.83%, respectively. MSDP got ‘fair’ rank in Engagement and ‘poor’ rank in
Management by getting 56.25% and 44.29% respectively. Next, describing the total POSI
score (i.e. summation of all five aspects scores), MSDP and RGP earned 50.67% and 57.30%
with a ‘fair’ ranking. The overall result shows that there is a need for improvement in both
spaces. Figure 5 indicates the aspect wise POSI score received by both POSs. In addition,
the POSI score received by both POSs is shown in Table A1 in Appendix A.
Figure5.5.POSI
Figure POSIscore
scorereceived
receivedby
byaspects
aspects(Percentage).
(Percentage).
Results
Results nownowdescribe
describethethevariable
variablewise wisescorescoreobtained
obtainedby byPOSs.
POSs.In Inthe
theindividual
individual
well-being
well-being aspect, MSDP achieved a high score in the ‘physical comfort’ variable.The
aspect, MSDP achieved a high score in the ‘physical comfort’ variable. The
variable
variableassessed
assessedthe thecapacity
capacityof ofPOSs
POSsto toprovide
provideconvenient
conveniententry,entry,walkways,
walkways,open openand and
shaded
shadedareas,
areas,arrangement
arrangementof ofseating,
seating,and andshelter.
shelter.ItItalso
alsochecked
checkedwhetherwhetherall allage
agegroups
groups
used the space effectively or not. In the same aspect, RGP gained a high
used the space effectively or not. In the same aspect, RGP gained a high score in the var- score in the variable
‘psychological
iable ‘psychologicalcomfort’. It assessed
comfort’. the availability
It assessed of elegantof
the availability architecture and landscape
elegant architecture and
features, attractive and pleasant views. The variable also evaluated
landscape features, attractive and pleasant views. The variable also evaluated the the availability of noise
avail-
buffer
abilityzone in combination
of noise buffer zone with planting vegetation
in combination in order vegetation
with planting to reduce outside
in order traffic noise
to reduce
that gives users peace, ease, and pleasure. Simultaneously, in
outside traffic noise that gives users peace, ease, and pleasure. Simultaneously, in the the aspectInclusiveness,
both POSs received almost equal scores in the variable ‘equitable access’. The variable
aspectInclusiveness, both POSs received almost equal scores in the variable ‘equitable
evaluated the potentiality of POSs to promote diversity and Universal Design. In the
access’. The variable evaluated the potentiality of POSs to promote diversity and Uni-
same aspect, RGP received a high score in ‘social cohesion’. It assessed whether or not
versal Design. In the same aspect, RGP received a high score in ‘social cohesion’. It as-
POSs provided opportunities for users to participate in various events and programmes,
sessed whether or not POSs provided opportunities for users to participate in various
encouraged positive conversations, shared experiences, a sense of community, and a sense
events and programmes, encouraged positive conversations, shared experiences, a sense
of pride.
of community, and a sense of pride.
In the aspect Engagement, RGP received higher scores in variables, ‘engagement with
In the aspect Engagement, RGP received higher scores in variables, ‘engagement
space’ and ‘engagement with community’. Users argued that the design and layout of
with space’ and ‘engagement with community’. Users argued that the design and layout
RGP is appropriate for them and is therefore rated higher. The variable ‘engagement with
of RGP is appropriate for them and is therefore rated higher. The variable ‘engagement
space’ assessed space versatility to adapt changes to the needs of users, space capacity
with space’ assessed space versatility to adapt changes to the needs of users, space ca-
to encourage a variety of activities, and the appropriateness of the design and layout
pacity
of spacetofor encourage
users. The a variable
variety of activities,
also checkedand the appropriateness
whether the space had active of theand design and
vibrant
layout of space for users. The variable also checked whether
edges to encourage engagement with food, shopping, and entertainment. Another vari- the space had active and
vibrant
able, edges to encourage
‘engagement engagement
with community’, with food,that
has indicated shopping, and entertainment.
RGP promotes social activities, An-
other variable, ‘engagement with community’, has indicated that
interactions, local culture, and the arts. Therefore, it received a high score. The result of RGP promotes social
activities,
the interactions,Spaces
aspect Sustainable local culture,
has shown and that
the arts.
bothTherefore,
POSs haveitscoredreceived wella high
in thescore. The
variable
result of the
‘economic aspect Sustainable
sustainability.’ Spaces has
The variable shownwhether
checked that both orPOSs have contribute
not POSs scored welltointhe the
variable ‘economic sustainability.’ The variable checked whether
enhancement of businesses around them, such as shopping, hotels and street food. It also or not POSs contribute
to the enhancement
ensured that POSs helpedof businesses around
to minimise thethem,
overall such
costas of
shopping,
living byhotels and street
providing access food.
to
It also ensured that POSs helped to minimise the overall cost of
community services, utilities and leisure facilities.The variable ensured space would lead living by providing ac-
cess
to to community
a reduction in healthservices, utilities
expenditure forand
users,leisure
whereasfacilities.The
both POSsvariable
had a low ensured
score inspacethe
would lead
variable to a reduction
‘Environmental in health expenditure
sustainability’ due to poorfor users, whereas
adoption both POSs
of sustainable had asuch
practises low
score
as in the
the use variable ‘Environmental
of renewable energy resources, sustainability’ due to poor
rainwater harvesting, adoption
waste of sustainable
management and a
practises suchirrigation
water-efficient as the use of renewable
system. Observation energy hasresources,
also shown rainwater
that the twoharvesting,
POSs dowaste not
management and a water-efficient
promote sustainable landscape practise. irrigation system. Observation has also shown that the
two InPOSs do not promote sustainable landscape practise.
Management, RGP scored high in variables, ‘users’ responsibility, ’ ‘provision of
basic In Management,
facilities’ RGPand
and ‘safety scored high in
security’. Thevariables,
result of‘users’ responsibility,
these variables ’ ‘provision
indicated that RGPof
basic facilities’
provides and ‘safety
more facilities andand security’.
safety The result
to its users. of these suggested
Observations variables indicated
that usersthat RGP
of RGP
provides more facilities and safety to its users. Observations suggested that users of RGP
showed
showed respect
respectfor
forspace
spaceand
andacted in in
acted a civil, appropriate
a civil, andand
appropriate responsible manner.
responsible Figure
manner. 6
Fig-
describes the comparative radar diagram showing all variables’ scores.
ure 6 describes the comparative radar diagram showing all variables’ scores.
Figure 6. Comparative radar diagram showing all variables’ score.

Figure 6. Comparative radar diagram showing all variables’ score.
4.3. Reliability
4.3. Reliability Analysis
Analysis and
and aACorrelation
Correlationbetween
betweenMeasuring
MeasuringItems
Items
The study
The study deals
dealswith
withlatent
latentvariable
variable‘perception’.
‘perception’. Measuring
Measuring items
itemsformulated in the
formulated in
study are directly and indirectly associated with the unobserved variable,
the study are directly and indirectly associated with the unobserved variable, perception. perception.
Therefore, it
Therefore, it was
was essential
essential to
to ensure
ensure the
the internal
internal consistency
consistency of of all
all the
the items.
items. Cronbach’s
Cronbach’s
alpha is
alpha is one
one way
way of
of measuring
measuring thethe strength
strength of of consistency.
consistency. ItIt furthermore
furthermore demonstrates
demonstrates
whether the
whether the scale
scale constructed
constructed for
for research
research is is fulfilling
fulfilling its
its purpose
purpose or or not.
not. According
According toto
Ryan [84], the efficiency of Cronbach’s alpha should be 0.70 or more
Ryan [84], the efficiency of Cronbach’s alpha should be 0.70 or more to consider it as to consider it as
‘acceptable’. Table
‘acceptable’. Table22shows
showsthethereliability
reliabilityanalysis
analysisof ofboth
bothPOSs
POSstogether.
together.
Table 2. ReliabilityTable
analysis.
2. Reliability analysis.
Sr.No. POSs Name Sample Size (n) Sample

Number Number of
of Measuring Measur-Cronbach’s Alpha (α)
Items
Sr.No. POSs Name Size (n) Cronbach’s Alpha (α)
1 MSDP 290 45
ing Items 0.730
1 MSDP 290 45 .730
2 RGP 263 45 0.776
2 RGP 263 45 .776
Source: SPSS (version-25).
Pearson bivariate correlation analysis was conducted to support the hypothesis of the
Pearson bivariate correlation analysis was conducted to support the hypothesis of
study. It assists the researcher to identify the correlation between two variables. Table 3
the study. It assists the researcher to identify the correlation between two variables. Table
indicates the correlation between the available facilities, services, and aesthetic appearance
3 indicates the correlation between the available facilities, services, and aesthetic ap-
of the space (independent variable) and respondents’ perceptional response (dependent
pearance of the space (independent variable) and respondents’ perceptional response
variable). It shows that both independent and dependent variables are closely related to
(dependent
each other. Itvariable).
proved theIthypothesis
shows that of both independent and dependent variables are
the study.
closely related to each other. It proved the hypothesis of the study.
Table 3. Correlation between Space facilities, services, and aesthetic appearance and users’ perception.
Respondents’
Space Facilities, Services, MSDP (POS-1)(n = 290) RGP (POS-2)(n = 263)
Perception
Sr.No and Aesthetic Appearance Pearson Pearson
(Dependent Sig.(2-Tailed) Sig.(2-Tailed)
(Independent Variable) Correlation Correlation
Variable)
POS makes a
POS offers attractive and
1 perceivable and 0.240 ** 000 405 ** 000
pleasant views
positive image
Space encourages a variety of User spends
2 activities: active, passive and quality time in 0.525 ** 0.000 0.266 ** 0.000
other this space
Space needs more safety
arrangements: Security Users feel safe
3 −0.133 * 0.024 −0.343 ** 0.000
guards, Lights and within space
CCTV
Space is capable
Design and layout of space
4 of fulfilling 0.513 ** 0.000 0.186 ** 0.003
appropriate for users
people’s needs
Space provides access to Space leads to
community services, the reduction of
5 −0.495 ** 0.000 −0.125 * 0.034
amenities, and leisure health
facilities. expenditure
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).Source: SPSS (version-25).
5. Discussion
The results showed a statistical analysis of the data collected through a self-administered
questionnaire survey and observation. The discussion section interprets the results and
identifies the strengths and deficiencies of the POSs that affect their character and use. Some
measuring items received high scores from users and researcher.These measuring items
have been considered as strengths of POSs. Items those received poor scores indicated
deficiencies of POSs.
Both POSs scored less than 60% in the overall results. In the aspect individual well-
being, POSs provide users with easy access.Elegant architectural elements such as sculpture,
water fountains, landscape, and aesthetically rich furniture are included in POSs. According
to observations, people are using POSs effectively. MSDP users argued that POS provides
them with visual pleasure. They enjoy visiting space to experience attractive and pleasant
views that relax them. The results identified a positive relationship between attractive and
pleasant views and users’ perceptions of space (r = 0.240 ** and 405 **, p ≤ 0.01). Whyte [28]
and Mehta [43] explained that attractive and pleasant views provide psychological comfort
to their users. Furthermore, both POSs have wide, single-level walkways that allow
multiple users to use the space. Now explaining deficiencies, POSs have poor climate-
responsive design. Marcus and Francis [2], Shaftoe [39], and Carr et al [24] stressed the
importance of microclimate in their studies. The lack of semi-covered seating and shelter
arrangements makes it difficult for users to use these spaces throughout the year. Morever,
users of both POSs claimed they could hear outside traffic noise. Both POSs received lower
scores on these measuring items. These deficiencies could be addressed by providing open
and covered seating/gathering areas, as well as shelters, in POSs. Furthermore, various
design innovations must be implemented within POSs in order to reduce external noise,
e.g. planting dense and thick buffer strips of shrubs and trees between the POS and the
noise source, creating soil berms, or constructing a wall made of brick, stone, or concrete.
The result of ‘Inclusiveness’ revealed that both POSs allow people to enter regardless
of their age, gender, religion, or social economic status. POSs also arrange different
events and programmes, and encourage people to participate in them. RGP users argued
space encourages a fun atmosphere for social networking, positive conversation, and
experience sharing. According to users, such an environment fosters a sense of belonging,

confidence, acceptance, and connectivity among people and contributes to social cohesion.
Holland et al. [54], Moulay et al. [55], and Jennings and Bamkole [57] explained similar
observations in their studies. Some measuring items highlighted deficiencies, e.g. both
POSs do not follow the practice of Universal Design. POSs do not have ramps, walkways
with tactile flooring, making it difficult for people with physical disabilities to use POSs.
Wolfgang and Ostroff [55] argued it is essential to follow the practice of Universal Design,
in particular when planning and creating public spaces. Furthermore, users have requested
to extend the POSs’ operating hours so that the maximum number of people can make
the most of their visits and spend a little more time in space. In the aspect ‘Engagement’,
MSDP promotes active and passive activities. The results indicated that POS activities
have a positive relationship with users’ quality time (r = 0.525 ** and 0.266 **, p ≤ 0.01).
It means a wide range of activities inside the space encourages people to spend quality
time there. According to the observations, RGP has the flexibility to respond to the
needs of users.POS can change and adjust its layout to meet the diverse needs of users.
Scholars such as Carr et al. [24] and Carmona et al. [38] suggested the feature to enhance the
affection between POS and users. RGP also provides users with interaction opportunities.
These strengths encourage users’ effective engagement with the space and the community.
Both POSs do not have active and vibrant edges. Activities such as food, shopping, and
entertainment need to be incorporated at the edges of POSs. These activities provide
‘liveliness’ to POSs and attract more people to them.
Concerning the aspect‘Sustainable spaces’, the results indicate that access to commu-
nity services, utilities, and recreational facilities has a negative relationship with user health
costs (r = −0.495 **, p ≤ 0.01 and −0.125 *, p ≤ 0.05). It means that when users gain access
to community services, utilities, and recreational facilities, their healthcosts decrease, or
vice versa. According to observations, POSs have also helped in the financial improvement
of the local businesses that are located around them. These are the POSs’ strengths in
promoting economic sustainability [17,18,31]. In addition, both POSs are linked to other
parts of the city by large walkways and public transportation. This connectivity allows
people to walk and take public transportation, reducing the use of personal vehicles and
fuel consumption.While talking about deficiencies, POSs do not encourage sustainable
practices that include the use of renewable energy resources, rainwater harvesting, waste
management, and a water-efficient irrigation system. Sustainable landscape practices such
as the use of native plants, xeriscaping, and the preservation of natural topography have
also been poorly introduced by POSs. These deficiencies increase the use of electricity and
water, produce solid waste, and contribute to soil degradation. According to Blowers [68]
and Selman [69], sustainable practices are a critical need of the twenty-first century in order
to protect natural resources and the environment.
In the aspect ‘Management’, both POSs encourage user responsibility, safety and
security, and the provision of basic facilities. Users arguedthey felt secure in POSs dur-
ing the day and evening hours [32,71]. The results showed that the demand for safety
arrangements has a negative relationship with the perception of users as a safe space
(r = −0.133 *, p ≤ 0.05 and −0.343 **, p ≤ 0.01). Users perceive space as safe, the demand
for safety arrangements decreases or vice-versa.In addition, users argued they perceived
space as clean, neat, and well maintained. It has also been observed that users of both
POSs show respect for spaces. They helped to maintain a healthy public realm [44]. POSI
identified a number of deficiencies in both POSs. Both POSs do not encourage passive
control, including the display of written or symbolic instructions to prevent unwanted
activities. Furthermore, POSs do not include the display of helpline numbers such as police
station, women’s and childcare, and medical service near the entrance. This type of display
is required to increase user awareness and should be installed. A summary of strengths
and deficiencies for all five aspects is shown in Table A2 in Appendix A.
6. Conclusions
POSs are one of the key components in urban areas that contribute to improving
the quality of life of citizens. The results demonstrate that the characteristics of POSs,
such as the built environment, aesthetics, facilities, services and maintenance have an
impact on people’s use and perception. These characteristics are responsible for inviting
a wide range of users and providing them with a psychological and physical console.
The study proposed the Public Open Space Index (POSI) for assessing POSs. The study
promotes planning dimensions such as social, economic, and environmental, as well as
design parameters such as functional, aesthetic and user-centric approaches by considering
them in the formation of the POSI. Furthermore, the study provides a common platform
for users to share their perceptions of POSs. In this way, it encourages users to participate
in the design process. The study also encourages the government authority to adopt a
comprehensive design strategy for the development of sophisticated POSs within the city.
This study has outlined the importance of qualitative POSs. It is considered essential in
India, where a large population depends on a limited number of POSs, and cities include a
wide range of users with diverse needs and choices. POSI reveals, both POSs include some
strengths that attract footfall towards them. POSs also have some deficiencies that must
be addressed with effective measures. The study will have practical implementation. It
develops modern ideas for the design of POSs. It indicates that although the available POSs
are inadequate in quantity, proper initiatives will improve their character and use, and
enable them to serve different facilities at their optimum level. When inclusive, functional,
and aesthetically strong POSs emerge within cities and satisfy the needs of users, they
convey accurate expressions to sustain a healthy public life. This study has a limitation.
It focuses solely on public parks. The city has other POSs, such as squares, playgrounds
and riverside, which also need to be assessed in order to improve their character and
use. Subsequent studies can be developed with these spaces to identify their strengths
and deficiencies.
Author Contributions: Methodology, P.A.; software, P.A.; writing—original draft, P.A.; writing-
review and editing, P.A.; supervision, S.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not Applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The study did not report any data.
Acknowledgments: This research is funded by the scholarship awarded to Pritam Ahirrao from
Ministryof Human Resource Development (MHRD), Government of India. We would like to thank
Jeanie Wang and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments that help us to improve
the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1. Public Open Space Index (POSI) score received by POSs.
RGP (POS-2)
MSDP (POS-1) n = 290
Variable Measuring Item Score n = 263
Variable Measuring Item
No. No. (Maximum) Standard
Mean Score Mean Score StandardDeviation
Deviation
Aspect—1: Individual well-being
Physical POSoffers barrier-free and convenient
1 1 5 3.88 0.864 1.29 0.454
comfort entry
Convenient walkway surface for
2 5 1.81 0.686 1.43 0.619
multiple users
POS includes open and shaded
walkways and seating arrangements to
3 provide convenience to users in all 5 1.72 0.722 1.29 0.452
climate seasons (Climate responsive
design)
Availability of open and shaded areas,
4 semi-covered seating arrangements, and 5 2.16 0.821 2.14 0.910
shelter within POS
POS is being used by all age groups
5 5 3.21 0.986 1.79 0.675
effectively
Presence of elegant architecture and
Psychological
2 6 landscape features that enhance user 5 3.94 0.825 1.64 0.717
comfort
experience in space
POS offers attractive and pleasant views
7 5 2.37 0.970 3.78 0.862
that gives users a visual pleasure
POS makes a perceivable and positive
8 5 1.81 0.686 3.64 0.816
image between users
Users can hear outside noise while
9 5 1.82 0.683 1.72 0.702
roaming within POS
POS brings users peace, ease and
10 5 1.42 0.495 3.86 0.917
pleasure
Total Measuring Items 10 50 24.14 22.57
Index Score (Percentage) 48.29 45.13
Ranking Poor Poor
Table A1. Cont.
RGP (POS-2)
Deviation
Aspect 2: Inclusiveness
POS provides equitable access to all
Equitable people, regardless of age, gender,
3 11 5 3.86 0.960 4.29 0.699
access religion or social economic status
(Promotes Diversity)
Availability of ramp, and tactile
flooringprovide convenience to users
12 5 1.34 0.474 1.14 0.352
with physical disabilities ( Promotes
Universal Design)
Social
cohesion POS provides an opportunity to
4 13 5 3.62 0.912 4.00 0.929
(Social sus- participate in events and programmes
tainability)
User feels like a part of the POS
14 5 2.30 0.874 3.64 1.113
community (Sense of community)
POS has a fun atmosphere for social
15 networking, positive conversation and 5 2.54 1.497 3.71 1.034
sharing experiences
People are proud to have such space in
16 5 2.89 1.570 3.79 1.012
their neighbourhood (Sense of Pride)
Users’ User feel free about his/her behaviour in
5 17 5 2.63 0.879 1.57 0.625
freedom space
Space enables users to freely roam
18 5 2.87 0.809 1.93 0.706
without restrictions
Surveillance cameras, security guards,
19 5 2.31 0.853 2.72 1.161
etc. infringe the privacy of users
Users are pleased with the opening
20 5 1.32 0.469 1.22 0.413
hours of space
Ranking Fair Fair
Table A1. Cont.
RGP (POS-2)
Deviation
Aspect 3: Engagement
Engagement Space is capable of fulfilling people’s
6 21 5 2.31 1.385 2.22 1.325
with space needs (Local needs)
Space versatility to adapt changes to the
22 5 2.57 1.064 4.44 0.620
needs of users
Space encourages a variety of activities:
23 5 4.27 0.774 3.28 0.885
active, passive and other
Design and layout of space appropriate
24 5 2.24 1.093 3.06 1.032
for users
25 More activities are required in this space 5 3.79 0.986 4.15 0.739
Space has active and vibrant edges to
26 encourage food, shopping and 5 1.26 0.437 1.14 0.352
entertainment
Engagement
Space encourages social activities and
7 withcom- 27 5 3.03 1.149 3.28 1.029
interaction
munity
28 Space encourage local culture and arts 5 3.05 1.143 3.93 0.703
29 User spends quality time in this space 5 2.79 1.244 3.63 1.237
Ranking Fair Average
Aspect 4: Sustainable spaces
Economic Space contributes to enhance
8 Sustain- 30 surrounding businesses such as 5 4.12 0.819 2.80 1.205
ability shopping, hotels, and street foods
Space provides access to community
31 services, utilities and leisure facilities to 5 3.44 1.018 4.14 0.743
minimise the overall cost of living
Space leads to the reduction of health
32 5 3.48 1.229 3.99 0.929
expenditure for users
Table A1. Cont.
RGP (POS-2)
Deviation
Space encourage sustainable practice
Environmental such as the use of renewable resources
9 Sustain- 33 for power, rainwater harvesting, waste 5 1.17 0.372 1.22 0.413
ability management and a water-efficient
irrigation system
Space encourage sustainable landscape
practice, such as the use of native species,
34 5 1.23 0.424 1.14 0.348
xeriscaping, and the preservation of
natural topography
Space is well connected to other areas
with wide walkways and public
35 5 3.29 1.211 4.00 0.929
transport (Promote walk ability and
public transport)
Ranking Fair Fair
Aspect 5: Management
Safety and
10 36 User feels safe within space 5 1.17 0.372 4.07 0.967
Security
Space promote natural and artificial
37 5 1.57 0.642 4.57 0.905
surveillance
Space needs more safety arrangements:
38 5 3.76 0.906 4.07 0.888
Security guards, Lights and CCTV
Display of helpline numbers near the
39 entrance: Police station, woman and 5 1.25 0.433 1.21 0.410
child care, and medical
Availability of display board that shows
40 ‘Behaviour instructions for users within 5 1.08 0.276 1.14 0.352
the space’ to maintain law and order
Cleanness
Space is clean, neat and
11 and main- 41 5 2.31 0.861 2.51 1.553
well—maintained
tenance
Space requires more cleanliness and
42 5 3.20 1.197 2.84 1.184
maintenance
Table A1. Cont.
RGP (POS-2)
Deviation
Provision
Availability of basic facilities: Drinking
12 of basic 43 5 2.39 1.117 3.35 0.900
water, washrooms and first aid
facilities
Users’ Users are behaving ina civil, appropriate,
13 responsi- 44 and responsible manner (People to 5 2.81 1.230 4.00 0.929
bility People)
Users show respect for public / national
45 5 2.61 1.178 4.15 0.911
property (People to space)
Ranking Poor Average
Total score of all five aspects (out of 225) 114.01 128.93
Total score of all five aspects (out of 100) i.e. Percentage 50.67 57.30
Ranking for percentage score of all five aspects Fair Fair
Below 50 %—Poor 50 % to 59 %—Fair 60 % to 69 %—Average 70 % to 79 %—Good 80 % to 100 %—Excellent
Table A2. Summary of strengths and deficiencies identified by POSI of both POSs.
Affect on POS Affect on POSs

Sr.No Strength/s Affect on POSs Use Deficiency/ies Affect on POS Use
Character Character
Aspect 1: Individual well-being
1. Promote physical 1. Inability to use POSs
Inadequate semi-covered
POSs offer barrier-free comfort. Poor climate-responsive in all climate seasons
1 User friendly POSs seating and shelter
and convenient access 2. Attract users toward design. 2. Provides users with
arrangements.
POSs. inconvenience.
POSs include elegant
architectural elements 1. There is no noise
1. Promots psychological
such as sculpture, water Users could hear the buffer zone within POSs
Create a good image of comfort. Poor noise-reduction
2 fountain, beautiful noise from outside 2. POSs are unable to
space between users. 3. Enhance space design.
landscape and traffic. provide users with peace
experience.
aesthetically rich and comfort.
furniture.
POSs include attractive 1. Provide visual
3 Make a strong identity
focal points and vistas pleasure.
1. POSs for all.
All age groups have
4 Inclusive POSs 2. Contribute to well-
effectively used POSs.
being.
1. Allow people of all
Wide and single levelled
5 User friendly POSs. ages to walk
walkways.
conveniently.
Aspect 2: Individual well-being
1. Convince everybody
1. Parks do not offer
that POSs are a form of Absence of tactile Poorly adopted
POSs allow all people to convenience for people
1 Equitable POSs entertainment. flooring ramp and Universal Design
enter. with physical
2. People regard POSs as walkway. practice.
disabilities.
a part of their daily lives.
POSs provide users with 1. Preservation of social
opportunities to values among citizens Short opening hours of Time restriction for 1. Users cannot use
2 Socially cohesion POSs
participate in various 2.Create socially healthy POSs. recreation. space throughout day.
events and programmes societies within cities
POSs have a fun
1.Promote a sense of
atmosphere for social Create a forum where
belonging, trust, and
3 networking, positive people can strengthen
acceptancebetween
conversation, and their social connections.
people
experience sharing.
Table A2. Cont.

Character Character
Aspect 3: Engagement
Absence of active and
vibrant edges that would
POSs promote active and Promote effective 1. Users have a variety 1. Edges do not
1 encourage food, Poorly supportive edges
passive activities engagement of recreation options. contribute to recreation.
shopping, and
entertainment.
POSs have to ability to 1. POS layouts can be
2 adapt changes to the POSs promote versatility modified to meet the
needs of users. diverse needs of users.
1. POSs aid in the
preservation of social
POSs provide values and beliefs.
Promote sustainable
3 opportunity for 2. POSs allow people to
community
interaction share their thoughts,
feelings, ideas, and
opinions with others.
Aspect 4: Sustainable spaces
POSs provide common 1. Help to reduce the
POSs do not help to 1. Increase energy and
access to community Spaces for recreation and overall cost of living 2. POSs do not encourage
1 preserve the water consumption
services, utilities, and celebration. Improve people’s quality sustainable practice
environment. 2. Produce solid waste
leisure facilities. of life
POSs contributes to the
1. Improve the economic POSs do not encourage POSs do not help to 1. Increases water
improvement of local Act a source of
2 status of those who rely sustainable landscape preserve the consumption and soil
businesses that located livelihood
on these businesses. practice environment. degradation
around them
1. Reduce the use of
private vehicles, which
POSs are well connected
use fossil fuels and
to other areas with wide
3 Approachable POSs pollute the environment.
walkways and public
2. Help to reduce traffic
transport.
congestion within the
city.
Table A2. Cont.

Character Character
Aspect 5: Management
1. Women, children, and POSs do notinclude 1. Users would be
POSs offer safety, and the elderly feel safe written or symbolic unaware of an etiquette
1 Safe POSs Lack of passive control
Basic facilities visiting POSs. 2. Make instructions to prevent describing POS
users’ lives easier. unwanted activities behaviour.
1. Users will visit POSs
more frequently 1. In an emergency,
Users perceived POS as POSs do notinclude
Clean and 2. POSs can improve needy users will not
2 clean, neat, and well display of helpline Lack of passive control
well-maintained POSs their and the receive support or
maintained. numbers
surrounding assistance.
neighborhood’s image.
Users are showing
1.Prevent vandalism,
3 respect toward POSs as a Responsible users
littering, and negligence.
national property.
References
1. Aram, F.; Solgi, E.; Holden, G. The role of green spaces in increasing social interactions in neighbourhoods with periodic markets.
Habitat Int. 2019, 84, 24–32. [CrossRef]
2. Marcus, C.C.; Francis, C. (Eds.) People Places: Design Guidlines for Urban Open Space; John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1997.
3. Chaudhry, P.; Bagra, K.; Singh, B. Urban greenery status of some Indian cities: A short communication. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Dev.
2011, 2, 98. [CrossRef]
4. Amritsar Municipal Corporation. Available online: https://www.amritsarcorp.com/ (accessed on 2 August 2019).
5. Bangalore Municipal Corporation. Available online: http://bbmp.gov.in/home (accessed on 2 August 2019).
6. Chennai Municipal Corporation. Available online: http://www.chennaicorporation.gov.in/ (accessed on 2 August 2019).
7. Nagpur Municipal Corporation. Available online: https://www.nmcnagpur.gov.in/assets/250/2018/10/.../Final_CDP_
Nagpur_-Mar_15.pdf (accessed on 5 August 2019).
8. Mumbai Municipal Corporation. Available online: https://portal.mcgm.gov.in/irj/portal/anonymous (accessed on 6 August
2019).
9. Pune Municipal Corporation. Available online: https://pmc.gov.in/en (accessed on 6 August 2019).
10. URDPFI. Available online: http://mohua.gov.in/link/urdpfi-guidelines.php (accessed on 9 August 2019).
11. World Health Organisation. Available online: www.euro.who.int (accessed on 9 August 2019).
12. Subramanian, D.; Jana, A. Assessing urban recreational open spaces for the elderly: A case of three Indian cities. Urban For. Urban
Green. 2018, 35, 115–128. [CrossRef]
13. Sundaram, A.M. Urban green-cover and the environmental performance of Chennai city. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2011, 13, 107–119.
[CrossRef]
14. Budruk, M.; Thomas, H.; Tyrrell, T. Urban green spaces: A study of place attachment and environmental attitudes in India. Soc.
Nat. Resour. 2009, 22, 824–839. [CrossRef]
15. Bharath, H.A.; Vinay, S.; Chandan, M.C.; Gouri, B.A.; Ramachandra, T.V. Green to gray: Silicon valley of India. J. Environ. Manag.
2018, 206, 1287–1295. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Nagendra, H.; Nagendran, S.; Paul, S.; Pareeth, S. Graying, greening and fragmentation in the rapidly expanding Indian city of
Bangalore. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 105, 400–406. [CrossRef]
17. Rahman, K.M.; Zhang, D. Analyzing the level of accessibility of public urban green spaces to different socially vulnerable groups
of people. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3917. [CrossRef]
18. Kuhlman, T.; Farrington, J. What is sustainability? Sustainability 2010, 2, 3436–3448. [CrossRef]
19. Paul, S.; Nagendra, H. Factors influencing perceptions and use of urban nature: Surveys of park visitors in Delhi. Land 2017, 6, 27.
[CrossRef]
20. Douglas, O.; Russell, P.; Scott, M. Positive perceptions of green and open space as predictors of neighbourhood quality of life:
Implications for urban planning across the city region. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2019, 62, 626–646. [CrossRef]
21. Dennis, W. Cultural and Developmental Factors in Perception; Ronald Press: New York, NY, USA, 1951.
22. D’Souza, L.V. Public Perceptions of Urban Community Park Benefits: A Study in Arlington, Texas; Landscape Architecture: London,
UK, 2013.
23. Cilliers, E.J.; Timmermans, W.; Van den Goorbergh, F.; Slijkhuis, J.S.A. Designing public spaces through the lively planning
integrative perspective. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2015, 17, 1367–1380. [CrossRef]
24. Carr, S.; Francis, M.; Rivlin, L.G.; Stone, A.M. Public Space; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1992.
25. Woolley, H. Urban Open Spaces; Taylor and Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2003.
26. Parra-Saldívar, A.; Abades, S.; Celis-Diez, J.L.; Gelcich, S. Exploring Perceived Well-Being from Urban Parks: Insights from a
Megacity in Latin America. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7586. [CrossRef]
27. Bahriny, F.; Bell, S. Traditional versus Modern? Perceptions and Preferences of Urban Park Users in Iran. Sustainability 2021, 13,
2036. [CrossRef]
28. Whyte, W.H. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces; The Conservation Foundation: Washington, DC, USA, 1980.
29. Nadarajah, M.; Yamamoto, A. Urban Crisis: Culture and the Sustainability of Cities; Whiley-Bacjwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006;
pp. 1–79.
30. El Din, H.S.; Shalaby, A.; Farouh, H.E.; Elariane, S.A. Principles of urban quality of life for a neighborhood. Hbrc J. 2013, 9, 86–92.
[CrossRef]
31. Mitlin, D.; Satterthwaite, D. Sustainable development and cities. Sustain. Environ. Urban. 1996, 4, 23–62.
32. Goosen, Z.; Cilliers, E.J. Enhancing social sustainability through the planning of third places: A theory-based framework. Soc.
Indic. Res. 2020, 150, 835–866. [CrossRef]
33. Manzi, T.; Lucas, K.; Jones, T.L. Social Sustainability in Urban Areas: Communities, Connectivity and the Urban Fabric; Taylor and
Francis: Oxfordshire, UK, 2010; pp. 105–159.
34. Back, S. A Study on the Design Checklist for Ecologically Sustainable Public Space. Available online: http://www.kisd.or.kr
(accessed on 12 December 2020).
35. Wiryomartono, B. Urban Design and Urbanism. In Livability and Sustainability of Urbanism; Palgrave Macmillan: Singapore, 2020;
pp. 101–123.
36. Macdonald, E. Urban design for sustainable and livable communities: The case of Vancouver. In Transportation, Land Use, and
Environmental Planning; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 83–104.
37. Nasar, J.L. The evaluative image of the city. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 1990, 56, 41–53. [CrossRef]
38. Carmona, M.; Heath, T.; Oc, T.; Tiesdell, S. Urban Spaces-Public Places: The Dimensions of Urban Design; Elsevier: Oxford, England,
2003.
39. Shaftoe, H. Convivial Urban Spaces: Creating Effective Public Places; Earthscan: London, UK, 2012.
40. Weijs-Perrée, M.; Dane, G.; van den Berg, P. Analyzing the Relationships between Citizens’ Emotions and their Momentary
Satisfaction in Urban Public Spaces. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7921. [CrossRef]
41. Mensah, C.A.; Andres, L.; Perera, U.; Roji, A. Enhancing quality of life through the lens of green spaces: A systematic review
approach. Int. J. Wellbeing 2016, 6. [CrossRef]
42. Kothencz, G.; Kolcsár, R.; Cabrera-Barona, P.; Szilassi, P. Urban green space perception and its contribution to well-being. Int. J.
Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 766. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
43. Mehta, V. Evaluating public space. J. Urban Des. 2014, 19, 53–88. [CrossRef]
44. PPS. What Makes a Successful Space? 2019. Available online: https://www.pps.org/article/grplacefeat (accessed on
15 September 2019).
45. Peng, Y.; Peng, Z.; Feng, T.; Zhong, C.; Wang, W. Assessing comfort in urban public spaces: A structural equation model involving
environmental attitude and perception. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1287. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46. Chen, C.; Luo, W.; Li, H.; Zhang, D.; Kang, N.; Yang, X.; Xia, Y. Impact of perception of green space for health promotion on
willingness to use parks and actual use among young urban residents. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5560. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
47. Zhou, Z.; Xu, Z. Detecting the pedestrian shed and walking route environment of urban parks with open-source data: A case
study in Nanjing, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4826. [CrossRef]
48. Krishan, A. (Ed.) Climate Responsive Architecture: A Design Handbook for Energy Efficient Buildings; Tata McGraw-Hill Education:
Noida, India, 2001.
49. Gautam, A. Climate Responsive Vernacular Architecture: Jharkhand, India. Ph.D. Thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan,
KS, USA, 2008.
50. Wood, L.; Hooper, P.; Foster, S.; Bull, F. Public green spaces and positive mental health–investigating the relationship between
access, quantity and types of parks and mental wellbeing. Health Place 2017, 48, 63–71. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
51. Charkhchian, M.; Daneshpour, S.A. Interactions among different dimensions of a responsive public space: Case study in Iran. In
Review of Urban and Regional Development Studies: Journal of the Applied Regional Science Conference; Blackwell Publishing Asia:
Melbourne, Australia, 2009; Volume 21, pp. 14–36.
52. Jacobs, J. The Death and Life of Great American Cities; Random House: New York, NY, USA, 1961; pp. 321–325.
53. Lynch, K. The Image of the City; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1960; Volume 11.
54. Holland, C.; Clark, A.; Katz, J.; Peace, S. Social Interactions in Urban Public Places; Policy Press: Bristol, UK, 2007.
55. Moulay, A.; Ujang, N.; Said, I. Legibility of neighborhood parks as a predicator for enhanced social interaction towards social
sustainability. Cities 2017, 61, 58–64. [CrossRef]
56. Wolfgang, F.P.; Ostroff, E. Universal Design Handbook; Nova: New York, NY, USA, 2001.
57. Jennings, V.; Bamkole, O. The relationship between social cohesion and urban green space: An avenue for health promotion. Int.
J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 452. [CrossRef]
58. Enssle, F.; Kabisch, N. Urban green spaces for the social interaction, health and well-being of older people—An integrated view
of urban ecosystem services and socio-environmental justice. Environ. Sci. Policy 2020, 109, 36–44. [CrossRef]
59. Zamanifard, H.; Alizadeh, T.; Bosman, C.; Coiacetto, E. Measuring experiential qualities of urban public spaces: Users’ perspective.
J. Urban Des. 2019, 24, 340–364. [CrossRef]
60. Francis, M. Urban Open Space: Designing for User Needs; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
61. Ujang, N. Place attachment and continuity of urban place identity. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 49, 156–167. [CrossRef]
62. Gehl, J. Life between Buildings: Using Public Space; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2011.
63. Askari, A.H.; Soltani, S.; Mohd, I. Engagement in public open spaces across age groups: The case of Merdeka Square in Kuala
Lumpur city, Malaysia. Urban Des. Int. 2015, 20, 93–106. [CrossRef]
64. Eizenberg, E.; Jabareen, Y. Social sustainability: A new conceptual framework. Sustainability 2017, 9, 68. [CrossRef]
65. UN World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987.
66. Sugiyama, T.; Carver, A.; Koohsari, M.J.; Veitch, J. Advantages of public green spaces in enhancing population health. Landsc.
Urban Plan. 2018, 178, 12–17. [CrossRef]
67. Financial Times. Definition of Environmental Sustainability. 2018. Available online: http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=
environmental-sustainability (accessed on 6 August 2019).
68. Blowers, A. (Ed.) Planning for a Sustainable Environment; Routledge: London, UK, 2013.
69. Selman, P. What do we mean by sustainable landscape? Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2008, 4, 23–28.
70. VanDerZanden, A.M.; Cook, T.W. Sustainable Landscape Management: Design, Construction, and Maintenance; John Wiley and Sons:
Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010.
71. Williams, T.G.; Logan, T.M.; Zuo, C.T.; Liberman, K.D.; Guikema, S.D. Parks and safety: A comparative study of green space
access and inequity in five US cities. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 201, 103841. [CrossRef]
72. Oc, T.; Tiesdell, S. Safer City Centres: Reviving the Public Realm; Paul Chapman Publishing: London, UK, 1997.
73. Lang, J.; Marshall, N. Urban Squares as Places, Links and Displays: Successes and Failures; Routledge: London, UK, 2016.
74. Carmona, M. Principles for public space design, planning to do better. Urban Des. Int. 2019, 24, 47–59. [CrossRef]
75. Lahoti, S.; Kefi, M.; Lahoti, A.; Saito, O. Mapping methodology of public urban green spaces using GIS: An example of Nagpur
City, India. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2166. [CrossRef]
76. Tashakkori, A.; Teddlie, C. (Eds.) Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research; Sage: New York, NY, USA, 2010.
77. Creswell, J.W.; Clark, V.L.P. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research; Sage publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017.
78. Kothari, C.R. Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques; New Age International: Mumbai, India, 2004.
79. Fink, A. The Survey Handbook; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2003.
80. Barlett, J.E.; Kotrlik, J.W.; Higgins, C.C. Organizational research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Inf.
Technol. Learn. Perform. J. 2001, 19, 43.
81. Hazelrigg, L. Inference. In The Handbook of Data Analysis; Hardy, M., Bryman, A., Eds.; Sage: London, UK, 2009.
82. Sreetheran, M. Exploring the urban park use, preference and behaviours among the residents of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Urban
For. Urban Green. 2017, 25, 85–93. [CrossRef]
83. Gaikwad, A.; Shinde, K. Use of parks by older persons and perceived health benefits: A developing country context. Cities 2019,
84, 134–142. [CrossRef]
84. Ryan, R.L. Exploring the effects of environmental experience on attachment to urban natural areas. Environ. Behav. 2005, 37, 3–42.
[CrossRef]

Assessing Public Open Spaces A Case of City Nagpur, India

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessing Public Open Spaces A Case of City Nagpur, India

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessing Public Open Spaces A Case of City Nagpur, India

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 4997. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094997 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 4997 2 of 24

Scholars suggested some noteworthy characteristics of good POSs, such as connecting

2.2. Public Open Space Index (POSI)

Figure 4. MSDP(POS-1) and RGP(POS-2).

4.1. Respondent Characteristics and POSs Visitation

Table 1. Respondent characteristics.

MSDP ( POS-1) RGP (POS-2)

4.2. Public Open Space Index [POSI] Score Received by POSs

Figure 6. Comparative radar diagram showing all variables’ score.

Sr.No. POSs Name Sample Size (n) Sample

experience sharing. According to users, such an environment fosters a sense of belonging,

Table A1. Cont.

Table A1. Cont.

Table A1. Cont.

Table A1. Cont.

Affect on POS Affect on POSs

Table A2. Cont.

Affect on POS Affect on POSs

Table A2. Cont.

Affect on POS Affect on POSs

You might also like