See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/337972232

USER PERCEPTION IN PUBLIC OPEN SPACE A CASE OF NEW DELHI, INDIA

Conference Paper · June 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 962

2 authors:

Adiba Shafique Roshida Abdul Majid

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
7 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS    41 PUBLICATIONS   59 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

the relationship between spatial organisation and social interaction in public open space View project

The relationship between spatial organisation and social interaction in public open space View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Adiba Shafique on 29 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 USER PERCEPTION IN PUBLIC OPEN SPACE

A CASE OF NEW DELHI, INDIA

S. Adiba *1 and A.M. Roshida 2

1 Phd candidate, Faculty of Built Environment, University of Technology, Malaysia (UTM), 81310 Johor
Bahru, Johor, Malaysia
(E-mail : [email protected])

2 Faculty of Built Environment, University of Technology, Malaysia (UTM), 81310 Johor Bahru, Johor,
Malaysia
(E-mail : [email protected])

ABSTRACT
Public open spaces have always been considered as a focal point of the city as it
describes the distinctive character of public life. There are in-numerous cities which
are known for their public life while few cities are still struggling to satisfy their users
need in public open spaces. Various researchers have defined distinctive factors to
assess public open spaces whereas fewer attempted to analyze through users
perception. Therefore, this paper attempts to analyze the user perception regarding
different attributes of public open space in New Delhi, India in order to validate the
present designed space in respect of users need. Three public open spaces from
New Delhi, India involved in this study, conducted through survey a using
questionnaire. The questionnaire design is based on ‘Likert scale’ ranging from 1 to
5 which is further analyzed by a basic statistical method. The analysis demonstrates
that user’s satisfaction level is divergent from present design spaces which leads to
ineffective public open space. The result indicates that uses and activities,
microclimate, maintenance and security are below the user’s expectation level while
access and linkages and visual identity are acceptable.

Keywords : Public open space, user perception, attributes of Public open space
public space in New Delhi

1.0 INTRODUCTION want to stay for a longer time. A huge

difference can be seen if we compare
Many types of research reveal the public spaces of India with the public open
immediate condition of Indian public spaces of other western countries. Instead
spaces. Historically, planning of Indian of being, one of the most populous country,
cities was known for their special privilege still public open spaces are somewhere
for public life. While, in contemporary India, lacking in captivating public for a longer
one can easily perceive the ineffectual duration. This is supported by (Burte, 2008)
public life in cities. People didn't find these who describes that major problem in Indian
spaces interesting, therefore, they do not

1
cities that nobody is concern about public and meeting place in balance, in spite of
life or making public open spaces the different usage patterns of the city.
sustainable. People are unaware of the Public space is a place where people can
quality of public life in public open spaces meet and make contact with each other,
or that they have a right to a sustainable exchange information, such as working
city. Moreover, (Bhatia, 2015), discussed experience or economic development. In
the problem in public spaces in Indian addition, a lot of vital activities occur in
cities. He finds that the absence of uses public open space: the celebration of
and activities, amenities, maintenance and festivals, socio-cultural activities, pageant,
security fails to captivate users. Hence, coronations, etc”.
tends to decrease in social interaction and
public interest. Furthermore (Sharma, 1.1.2 Attributes of public open space
2015) identifies that a lack of social
interaction is the major problem in public There are enormous literature reviews who
open space. The connection between defines the factors of public open space
people is negligible which is due to the whereas, few authors described the
improper seating arrangement. Moreover, parameters to study and make public
there were no such designed spaces spaces according to user perception. Each
where people can gather to perform social of the mentioned approaches develops
activities. and identifies its own set of key factors
which play a significant role in ensuring
Several aspects of Indian public open public open space’s success in terms of
spaces have been well documented in user perception. In primarily literature
various research by the architects and reviews, the five most remarkable work
planners, which defines the issues or with appropriate approaches are selected
problems, the importance of public spaces, in order to formulate the determinants of
their parameters, case studies, innovative public open space.
ideas for producing sustainable Indian
public space. However, none of them Therefore, as mentioned in (table 1), the
worked on user perception of different derived parameters of public open spaces
attributes of public open space. Thus, the are accessibility and linkages; uses and
research will attempt to analyze that up to activities; visual image; microclimate;
which level attributes of public open space maintenance and security
are fulfilling the user’s need.
1.1.3 User perception in public open space
1.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
(Lemberg, 2010) posits perception as a
1.1.1 Public open space cognitive process having a set of detection
and interpretation of sensory information.
(Debra Efroymson, 2009) define public (Lemberg, 2010) perception could be
open space as a place where anyone can defined as how person sense, process as
enter or leave without anyone’s consent. well as react to the gathered information in
The place gives the opportunity to interact, a surrounding environment. This process is
sit alone or in groups and observe people. governed by both, biological as well as
It is a place where people can experience socio-cultural aspect. Firstly, human
public life. The public open space is one of receptors like skin, ear, nose, eye, etc.,
the vital element of the city, which has a receive the incoming stimuli and react to it
great impact on social, cultural, economic accordingly over which socio-cultural
and environmental aspects of the city aspects derive meaning and information.
(Truong, 2008). (Addis, Roberts, & Schacter, 2011)
described perception as the process of
(Jan Gehl, 2003), “public open space is arranging, recognizing and interpretation
traditionally used as a marketplace, traffic information of sensory organ which
space, performing socio-cultural activities

2
represents and understand the (Francis, 1998; Jacobs, 1961) described
environment. the distinctive perspective of public open
space of planners and users. Further,
(Ziesel, 2006) asserted that it is important they had given more emphasis on how
to know that users first enquire the space individual perceive and use the space.
then perceive, use and experience the While,(Kyttä, 2002) proclaims that it is
amenities provided in public open space. important to draw a relationship between
The variability between users and urban parks (public open space ) and user
designers outlook were mentioned by perception. The measure of public open
several times (Proshansky, 1972; space success could be measured by how
Wandersman, 1979). Furthermore, people perceive and use space.
(Bratina Jurkovič, 2014), mentioned the Furthermore, (Jacobs, 1961) described
importance of this correlation, planners that, before the design of public open
and researchers which disregards the user space, it is important to investigate the
perception and their opinion. user’s perception.

Table 1 Showing factors of public open space extracted from literature review

Psychogeographi Project For Gehl Architects True Urbanism Design Guidelines Derived Approach
cal Public Spaces Approach– Gehl Approach „Making For Urban Open
Approach Approach (2004) Cities Livable“ - Space – Marcus,
– Janicijevic Based On Lennard (2004) Francis (1998)
(2009) Whyte (1987)

Uses & activities Attractions and Uses & activities Community Uses & activities Uses & activities
Tourist value, Destinations Festivals, Mixed use Seating, Food an
Sociability eating, Program

Access & Access Accessibility.Parki Accessibility and Circulation Access

linkages ng,Paving,Traffic transfer
Security

Comfort Amenities, Urban elements Urban elements , Urban elements,

Flexible Design Aesthetic quality Outdoor cafes & Amenities
restaurants

Image Image and Facades, Access Image / DNA,Human Visual Complexity, Visual image and
Identity and mobility, scale Size, Boundaries identity
Edge, Views and
vistas, Human
scale

Management Aesthetic quality Maintenance Maintenance and

management

Reaching Out Proximity and Compact urban fabric Circulation, Linkage

Like an connection Information and
Octopus • Inner Signs
Square & Outer
Square

Seasonal Climate/Night Microclimate Microclimate

Strategy situation

3
 2.0 METHODOLOGY the basis of formulated criteria, the author
has selected public open spaces of the
2.1 Description of Study Area district centre of New friends colony,
Janakpuri and Saket. Being a part of the
The author has selected three public open district centre, these public open spaces
spaces of New Delhi, which are located in are surrounded by hotels, restaurant,
South Delhi for the study area. In order to offices, commercials areas which cater to
analyze user perception in public open a diverse population.
spaces, it is important that selected site
should be from the same city and of same 2.2 Data Collection - A Selection of
size so that the character of the city does
not change and it will easy to relate. Respondents
Moreover, to get a varied response to
This research is univariate research,
distinguish design spaces, public open
which consist only one variable. The
spaces should also have different context
process of data collection unfolds in two
as well as spatial organization. Thus, on
part. Firstly, primary observation has been
done in order to get a basic idea of
selected public open space while in the
second part, questionnaire survey has
been done to examine the user
perception. Before starting the survey, a
pilot study consisting of 20 samples has
been carried out to ensure the validity of
the questionnaire and for what they
intended to measure.

2.3 Sample size

Figure 1 Delhi map showing location of
three selected sites (source: The aim of the paper is to examine the
www.googlemap.com) user perception on different attributes of

Figure 2 Plan of selected sites (New friends colony, Saket and Janakpuri) (Source: by author)

4
public open space, thus, the sample internal consistency for each factor.
should be almost equal in terms of gender According to (Vaus, 2002) the value of 0.3
and age. Therefore, to get such samples, and above is used as minimum value for
non-probability method (convenience unidimensional scale, whereas if alpha
method) has been adopted. The value is 0.6 and above are considered as
determination of the sample size has been reliable An item-to-scale value of 0.3 and
performed by using (Israel, 1992) table of above was used as the minimum value for
a sample of proportions. As South Delhi is a unidimensional scale (Vaus, 2002),
having population more than, 100,000, while the scale was considered reliable if
therefore, the calculated sample with a the alpha value was 0.6 and above
confidence level (95%) and standard error (Devellis, 1991).
(±10%) is 100. While the researcher has a
target to get 150 sample i.e. 50 samples The result of analyses data demonstrates
from each site. that all the designed construct has
achieved the required alpha value which is
2.4 Questionnaire design 0.60. The construct of accessibility and
linkages are divided into three parts i.e.
The questionnaire design is based on vehicular circulation = 0.87, pedestrian
‘Likert scale’ ranging from 1 to 5“ highly system = 0.89 and public transport system
disagree to highly agree” in order to get = 0.90. For the construct of uses and
user perception on different attributes of activities, visual image, microclimate and
public open space. (Likert, 1932) maintenance and security are 0.82, 0.90,
elaborated the use of quantifiable scales 0.85, 0.80 respectively ( table 2 ). Further,
for investigating information about non- univariate statical tools have been used to
mathematical statements like behavioral determine the answer to each question.
and attitudinal research including users Mean of each question from all the 150
perception and satisfaction. The construct respondents has been calculated,
of questions are divided into five parts and followed by the variance and standard
in each construct, similar questions were deviation of each attribute of public open
asked in order to check the internal space shown in (table 3).
consistency of answers (Likert, 1932). The
survey involved a set of 36 questionnaires 3.0 MAIN RESULTS
asking 50 users from each public open
space. Thus, the total number of a The survey has been conducted three
questionnaire that has been returned is different public open space in New Delhi,
150 India, in order to assess the perception of
users regarding the present condition of
public open spaces. The study is
2.5 Data Analysis
quantitative in nature using a
The questionnaires were designed to questionnaire. The survey involved asking
facilitate data collection and capture the 50 users from each public open space to
user’s perception regarding different answer a set of 36 questionnaire that was
attributes of public open space. After data administered using face to face
collection, it is important to check the questionnaire. Thus, the total number of a
reliability of each construct. The questionnaire that has been returned is
Cronbach’s Alpha value was used to 150. The questionnaire has been divided
examine the reliability of answers through into 5 different part having questions of
5
different attributes of public open space. security comes under unsatisfied category
Moreover, the questionnaire design is with (SD- 0.74 and 0.55) respectively.
based on ‘Likert scale’ ranging from 1 to 5 However, a visual image is quite closer to
which is further analyzed by a basic a neutral level, having a maximum level of
statistical method. The outcomes reveal (SD-0.86). Further, accessibility and
that users are highly unsatisfied with the linkages are quite closer to their
microclimate having (SD- 0.31), while satisfaction level with (SD- 0.66) shown in
uses and activities, maintenance and (graph 1).

Table 2 Showing results of reliability of different attributes of public open space

6
 Table 3 Showing mean, variance and order to captivate people for a longer
standard deviation of different attributes duration, public open space should have
of public open space distinctive uses and activities and urban
elements should respect the present
microclimate. These two parameters of
public open space are consider as
magnets for attracting people. Besides
that, more emphasis should be given to
maintenance as well as insecure areas
should be avoided. During case study, it
can be easily observed that dark areas
and untidy spaces are hardly visited by the
people. Users consider these spaces as
an insecure area, thus they avoid to pass
through from these areas. As a
conclusion, uses and activities,
microclimate, maintenance and security
fail to fulfill the users need. However,
4.0 CONCLUSION access and mobility, visual identity is
acceptable but not up to the mark.
The study concludes the user perception
regarding the present condition of the
public open space of New Delhi, India. In

GRAPH 1 Graph showing the percentage of satisfaction level of user in terms

of different factors of public open space with standard deviation of their
response in each attribute.

7
 5.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
9. Kyttä, M. (2002). Affordances of children's
1. Addis, D. R., Roberts, R. P., & Schacter, D. L. environments in the context of cities, small
(2011). Age-related neural changes in 666 towns, suburbs and rural villages in
autobiographical remembering and Finland and Belarus. Journal of
imagining. Neuropsychology, 49(13), Environmental Psychology, 22(1), 109-
3656-3669. 123.
2. Bratina Jurkovič, N. (2014). Perception, 10. Lemberg, D. (2010). Environmental
experience and the use of public urban perception. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
spaces by residents of urban 11. Likert, R. (1932). A Technique for the
neighborhoods. Urbani izziv, 25(1). Measurement of Attitudes. Archives of
3. Debra Efroymson, T. T. K. T. H., Pham Thu Psychology, 22(140), 1-55.
Ha. (2009). Public Spaces: How They 12. Proshansky, H. M. (1972). Methodology in
Humanize Cities. Dhaka: HealthBridge - Environmental Psychology: Problems and
WBB Trust. Issues. Human Factors, 14(5), 451-460.
4. Devellis, R. F. (1991). Scale Development: 13. Truong, V. (2008). Sydney City’s Public Open
Theory and Application. Thousand Oaks, Spaces. (unpublished masters thesis),
CA: SAGE. University of New South Wales,, Australia.
5. Francis, C. C. M. C. (1998). People Places: 14. Vaus, D. D. (2002). Surveys in Social
Design Guidlines for Urban Open Space Research. London: Routledge.
(2nd ed.). New Jersey, United States: 15. Wandersman, A. (1979). User Participation in
John Wiley and Sons. Planning Environments: A Conceptual
6. Israel, G. D. (1992). Determining Sample Size. Framework. Eenvironmnet and
Retrieved from behavioue, 11(2), 185-208.
7. Jacobs, J. (1961). Death and life of great 16. Ziesel, J. (2006). Inquiry by design:
american cities. New York: Vintage Books. Environment/behavior/neuroscience in
8. Jan Gehl, L. G. (2003). New City Spaces. architecture, interiors, landscape, and
Copenhagen: Danish Architectural Press. planning: W. W. Norton.

View publication stats