Evaluation of user satisfaction concerning Spatial organization in public open space
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/x9n5te30Keywords:
User Satisfaction, Spatial Organization, Indian public open space,, Indian contextAbstract
The research paper examines the level of users satisfaction regarding spatial organization in Indian public open space. Moreover, for comprehensive investigation, it also seeks to explore the difference in responses between gender and age group. The methodology of research includes quantitative method with questionnaire-based survey, evaluate by using ‘Likert scale’ ranging from 1 to 5 i.e. from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree'. The three public open spaces of New Delhi have been selected as a case study. The output of the study is validated through univariate statistical tools including mean and standard deviation, whereas for analyzing difference in responses between male and female, different age group, T-test and one-way ANOVA has been performed, respectively. The finding contributes to determine the outlook of user’s satisfaction for present spatial organization of Public open space. Further, the study concludes that the user’s response is between unsatisfied to neutral which implies that spatial organization in Indian public open space needs improvement as per users necessity.
Downloads
References
1. Abdullah, W. M. Z. W. (2008). Appropriate urban public open space. Faculty of Built Environment. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
2. Akari, A. H. (2014). Assessment of urban public spaces; cases of Kuala Lumpur city centre. (phd), University of malaya, Malaysia.
3. Aljabri, H., & Smith, H. (2013). Users’ perceptions about planning and design of public open spaces: a case study of Muscat. Paper presented at the 11th EAEA Envisioning Architecture: Design, Evaluation, Communication Conference, Milan.
4. Aydin, D., & Uysal, M. (2009). Determination of architec- tural programming data using the space performance assess- ment: case of education faculty. Journal of the Institute of Sci- ence and Technology of Erciyes University, 25, 11-23.
5. Bhatia, A. (2015). Placemaking- creating sence of place or place of sence. School of planning and architecture, New Delhi. issue.
6. Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests. Psychometrika(16), 297-334.
7. Erkip, F. (1997). The distribution of urban public services: the case of parks and recreational services in Ankara. Cities, 14(6), 353-361.
8. Fichter, G. (2013). A CULTURAL FOOTPRINT IN AUCKLAND’S PUBLIC SPACE. (MASTER OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION), Unitec,
9. Fletcher, D., & Fletcher, H. (2003). Manageable Predictors of Park Visitor, Satisfaction. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 21, 21-37.
10. Garau, P. (2016). Measuring the Magic of Public Space. Le Piazze di Roma. The Journal of Public Space, 1(1), 17-24.
11. Garcia-Ramon, M. D., Ortiz, A., & Prats, M. (2004). Urban planning, gender, and the use of public space in a peripheral neighborhood of Barcelona. Journal of Cities, 21(3), 215– 223.
12. Giles-Corti, B., Broomhall, M. H., Timperio, A., Bull, F., & Pikora, T. (2005). Understanding Physical Activity Environmental Correlates: Increased Specificity for Ecological Models. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, 33(4), 175-181.
13. Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in Public Place. New York: The free press.
14. Hernández-García, J. (2013). Public Space in Informal Settlements: The Barrios of Bogota. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
15. Holland, C., Clark, A., Katz, J., & Peace, S. (2007). social Interactions in Urban Public Places. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
16. Huang, S.-C. L. (2010). The impact of public participation on the effectiveness of, and users’ attachment to, urban neigbourhood parks. Landscape research, 35(5), 551-562.
17. Israel, G. D. (1992). Determining Sample Size. Retrieved from
18. Ja'afar, N. H., & Bina, J. S. (2009). Physical and Transportation Elements of Traditional Street in Malaysia. European Journal of Social Sciences, 9(4), 669-676.
19. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge.: Cambridge University Press.
20. Lindgaard, G. (2007). Aesthetics, visual appeal, usability, and user satisfaction: what do the user’s eyes tell the user’s brain? Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society.
21. Matthew Carmona, Hammond, L., & Magalhães, C. d. (2008). Public space : the management dimension / Matthew Carmona, Claudio de Magalhães, Leo Hammond. London: Routledge.
22. McDowell, L. (1999). Gender, Identity, and Place: Understanding Feminist Geographies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
23. Melik, R. v. (2008). Changing public space: The recent redevelopment of Dutch city squares. Utrecht University, Utrecht.
24. Mori, A., Matsushima, H., & Asakawa, S. (2005). Effect of intercept plantings on user perceptions on road-side urban green area, Sapporo. Paper presented at the Paper on Environmental Information Science.
25. Nezhad, M., Khabari, M. A., & Moghadam, R. A. (2003). Renovation and Iranian contemporary architecture in the years after the Islamic Revolution. Journal of Iranian –Islamic City(2).
26. Oliver, R. W. (1996). Satisfaction: A behavioural perspective on the consumer. New York: Irwin McGraw- Hill.
27. Özkan, D. G. (2011). Post occupancy evaluation in urban open spaces: A case study of Trabzon coast line. (Master Thesis), University of Karadeniz Technical, Turkey.
28. Özkan, D. G. r., Alpak, E. M., Yılmaz, S., Düzenli, T. b., & Özbilen, A. (2015). Post occupancy evaluation and user satisfaction inurban open space. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 24(5), 1659 - 1672.
29. Pallant, J. F. (2011). SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS for Windows Version 15 (4th ed.). Berkshire: Allen & Unwin.
30. Shafique, A., & Majid, R. a. (2020). Determining attributes of Spatial Organization in Public open space. International Conference on Architecture and Civil Engineering.
31. Stedman, R. C. (2002). Toward a social psychology of place: Predicting behavior from place-based cognitions, attitude and identity. Environment and Behavior, 34(5), 561- 581.
32. Stephen, C., Rivlin, L. G., Francis, M., & Stone, A. M. (1992). Public Space (Carr Stephen Ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
33. Torabi, Z., & Brahman, S. (2013). Effective Factors in Shaping the Identity of Architecture. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 15(1), 106-113.
34. Whyte, W. H. (1980). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. New York: Project for Public Spaces.
35. Woolley, H. (2003). Urban Open Spaces. London: Spon Press.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
