International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 8, Issue 12 (December 2021), Pages: 102-109

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

 Title: Park visitation in the context of Khartoum town

 Author(s): Ahmed Osman Ibrahim 1, Mohamed Ahmed Said 1, 2, *, Yakubu Aminu Dodo 3, Faizah Mohammed Bashir 4, Umar Lawal Dano 5

 Affiliation(s):

 1Architectural Engineering Department, College of Engineering, University of Hail, Hail, Saudi Arabia
 2College of Architecture and Planning, Sudan University of Science and Technology, Khartoum, Sudan
 3Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Istanbul Gelisim University, Istanbul, Turkey
 4Department of Interior Design, College of Engineering, University of Hail, Hail, Saudi Arabia
 5Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5118-5821

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2021.12.012

 Abstract:

Parks improve people's physical and mental well-being, strengthen communities, and make towns and neighborhoods more appealing places to live and work. Many reasons discourage frequent park visitations, such as poor park characteristics, poor management system, and the lack of programs to encourage park visitation. Participation in different outdoor activities has become a necessity for many people nowadays. However, many residents are not engaged in recreational activities in Khartoum, making parks an important element. Therefore, the study aimed at investigating parks characteristics and different patterns of users based on societal needs. The study concentrates on the residents' characteristics such as age, gender, income, education level; these characteristics are tested against park visitation patterns such as type of visitation, the best day for visitation, and visit frequency. A two hundred and fifty (250) participant questionnaire survey was carried out in Al Tifl Park to assess the park's visitation pattern based on the purposive sampling technique. The result shows that most of the visitation patterns were not frequent regardless of the visitors' characteristics. It proves that the visitation pattern was not based on the visitors' characteristics but rather on the park characteristics. The study recommends that the park's features be redesigned based on user affinity to improve visitation, visitor benefits, and income generation. 

 © 2021 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords: Park, Frequent visitation, Visitors' characteristics

 Article History: Received 29 June 2021, Received in revised form 4 October 2021, Accepted 17 October 2021

 Acknowledgment 

No Acknowledgment.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Ibrahim AO, Said MA, and Dodo YA et al. (2021). Park visitation in the context of Khartoum town. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 8(12): 102-109

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 No Figure

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3  

----------------------------------------------    

 References (40)

  1. Bedimo-Rung AL, Mowen AJ, and Cohen DA (2005). The significance of parks to physical activity and public health: A conceptual model. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2): 159-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.024   [Google Scholar] PMid:15694524
  2. Bell S (2008). Design for outdoor recreation. Taylor and Francis, Abingdon, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203928110   [Google Scholar]
  3. Besler EL (2011). Measuring locational equity and accessibility of neighbourhood parks in Kansas City, Missouri. M.Sc. Thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  4. Daniels SM (2011). Social anxiety, attention control, and performance deficits. Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  5. Driver BL, Brown PJ, and Peterson GL (1991). Benefits of leisure. Venture Publishing, Edmonton, Canada.   [Google Scholar]
  6. Dunnett N, Swanwick C, and Woolley H (2002). Improving urban parks, play areas and green spaces. Department for transport, local government and the regions, London, UK.   [Google Scholar]
  7. Gobster PH (2002). Managing urban parks for a racially and ethnically diverse clientele. Leisure Sciences, 24(2): 143-159. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400252900121   [Google Scholar]
  8. Godbey G, Graefe AR, and James SW (1992). The benefits of local recreation and park services: A nationwide study of the perceptions of the American public. National Recreation and Park Association, Arlington, USA. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.027   [Google Scholar] PMid:15694523
  9. Godbey GC, Caldwell LL, Floyd M, and Payne LL (2005). Contributions of leisure studies and recreation and park management research to the active living agenda. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2): 150-158.   [Google Scholar]
  10. Golicnik B and Thompson CW (2010). Emerging relationships between design and use of urban park spaces. Landscape and Urban Planning, 94(1): 38-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.07.016   [Google Scholar]
  11. Greenhalgh E and Worpole K (1995). Park life, urban parks and social renewal. Comedia and Demos, London, UK.   [Google Scholar]
  12. Gutiérrez ME (2011). Urban growth, policy and planning of public space. International Review of Sociology, 21(1): 89-102. https://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2011.544184   [Google Scholar]
  13. Heslehurst N, Ells LJ, Simpson H, Batterham A, Wilkinson J, and Summerbell CD (2007). Trends in maternal obesity incidence rates, demographic predictors, and health inequalities in 36 821 women over a 15‐year period. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 114(2): 187-194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01180.x   [Google Scholar] PMid:17305899
  14. Ho CH, Sasidharan V, Elmendorf W, Willits FK, Graefe A, and Godbey G (2005). Gender and ethnic variations in urban park preferences, visitation, and perceived benefits. Journal of Leisure Research, 37(3): 281-306. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2005.11950054   [Google Scholar]
  15. Hoehner CM, Ramirez LKB, Elliott MB, Handy SL, and Brownson RC (2005). Perceived and objective environmental measures and physical activity among urban adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2): 105-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.023   [Google Scholar] PMid:15694518
  16. Holman CD, Donovan RJ, and Corti B (1996). Factors influencing the use of physical activity facilities: Results from qualitative research. Health Promotion Journal of Australia: Official Journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals, 6(1): 16-21.   [Google Scholar]
  17. Jim CY and Chen WY (2006). Impacts of urban environmental elements on residential housing prices in Guangzhou (China). Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(4): 422-434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.12.003   [Google Scholar]
  18. Kuo FE (2001). Coping with poverty: Impacts of environment and attention in the inner city. Environment and Behaviour, 33(1): 5-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160121972846   [Google Scholar]
  19. Liski J and Kauppi P (2000). Forest resources of Europe, CIS, North America, Australia, Japan and New Zealand (Industrialized Temperate/Boreal Countries). Main Report, UN-ECE/FAO Contribution to the Global Forest Resources Assessment, Geneva, Switzerland.   [Google Scholar]
  20. Loukaitou-Sideris A (1995). Urban form and social context: Cultural differentiation in the uses of urban parks. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(2): 89-102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X9501400202   [Google Scholar]
  21. Malike OZ (2010). User preferences on transformations of shopping centers into private urban public spaces: The case of Izmir, Turkey. African Journal of Business Management, 4(10): 1990-2005.   [Google Scholar]
  22. Marcus CC and Francis C (1997). People places: Design guidelines for urban open space. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  23. Morris N (2003). Black and minority ethnic groups and public open space: Literature review. OPEN Space, Edinburgh, Scotland.   [Google Scholar]
  24. Neuvonen M, Sievänen T, Tönnes S, and Koskela T (2007). Access to green areas and the frequency of visits–A case study in Helsinki. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 6(4): 235-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2007.05.003   [Google Scholar]
  25. Nikolopoulou M and Lykoudis S (2007). Use of outdoor spaces and microclimate in a Mediterranean urban area. Building and Environment, 42(10): 3691-3707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.09.008   [Google Scholar]
  26. Oguz D (2000). User surveys of Ankara’s urban parks. Landscape and Urban Planning, 52(2-3): 165-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00130-4   [Google Scholar]
  27. Perez-Verdin G, Lee ME, and Chavez DJ (2008). Use of the recreation opportunity spectrum in natural protected area planning and management. In: Chavez DJ, Winter PL, and Absher JD (Eds.), Recreation visitor research: Studies of diversity: 23-38. General Technical Reports PSW-GTR-210, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  28. Raymore L and Scott D (1998). The characteristics and activities of older adult visitors to a metropolitan park district. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 16(4): 1-21.   [Google Scholar]
  29. Rutledge AJ (1986). Anatomy of a park: The essentials of recreation area planning and design. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  30. Said MA and Touahmia M (2020). Evaluation of allocated areas for parks and their attributes: Hail city. Engineering, Technology and Applied Science Research, 10(1): 5117-5125. https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.3253   [Google Scholar]
  31. Shaftoe H (2008). Convivial urban spaces: Creating effective public places. Earthscan, London, UK.   [Google Scholar]
  32. Sugiyama T, Thompson CW, and Alves S (2009). Associations between neighbourhood open space attributes and quality of life for older people in Britain. Environment and Behaviour, 41(1): 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916507311688   [Google Scholar]
  33. Takano T, Nakamura K, and Watanabe M (2002). Urban residential environments and senior citizens’ longevity in megacity areas: The importance of walkable green spaces. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 56(12): 913-918. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.56.12.913   [Google Scholar] PMid:12461111 PMCid:PMC1756988
  34. Talen E (2000). New urbanism and the culture of criticism. Urban Geography, 21(4): 318-341. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.21.4.318   [Google Scholar]
  35. Tinsley HE, Tinsley DJ, and Croskeys CE (2002). Park usage, social milieu, and psychosocial benefits of park use reported by older urban park users from four ethnic groups. Leisure Sciences, 24(2): 199-218. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400252900158   [Google Scholar]
  36. UNHCR (2007). Operation in Chad and Sudan. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Geneva, Switzerland.   [Google Scholar]
  37. Watson AE (2000). Wilderness recreation use estimation: A handbook of methods and systems. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Collins, USA. https://doi.org/10.2737/RMRS-GTR-56   [Google Scholar]
  38. Wolch JR, Pastor M, and Dreier P (2004). Up against the sprawl: Public policy and the making of Southern California. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  39. Wong, K. K., & Domroes, M. (2005). The visual quality of urban park scenes of Kowloon Park, Hong Kong: likeability, affective appraisal, and cross-cultural perspectives. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 32(4), 617-632. https://doi.org/10.1068/b31028   [Google Scholar]
  40. Woolley H (2006). Freedom of the city: Contemporary issues and policy influences on children and young people's use of public open space in England. Children's Geographies, 4(01): 45-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733280600577368   [Google Scholar]