Legibility of neighborhood parks as a predicator for enhanced social interaction towards social sustainability

Cities 61 (2017) 58–64

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cities journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

Legibility of neighborhood parks as a predicator for enhanced social interaction towards social sustainability Amine Moulay a, Norsidah Ujang a,⁎, Ismail Said b a b

Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Design and Architecture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi, 81310 Skudai, Johor, Malaysia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 18 August 2016 Received in revised form 28 October 2016 Accepted 21 November 2016 Available online xxxx Keywords: Legibility Social interaction Neighborhood park Social sustainability

a b s t r a c t Researchers commonly acknowledge the functions of neighborhood parks in terms of social interaction and their potential roles as social integrators. Nevertheless, many cities are facing the problem of underutilized parks which could be due to the park elements that are not legible and appealing. This paper examines the relationship between legibility attributes (clear structure, visual obstacles, and accessibility) with social interaction (park engagement and the intensity of contact) within neighborhood parks. To confirm the extent to which legibility attributes predict social interaction, surveys were conducted with 378 participants in the neighborhoods of Putrajaya, Malaysia. Results revealed that legibility of the neighborhood parks influences duration of use, which in turn increases the potential for social interactions among neighborhood residents. The level of visual obstruction was strongly linked with the quality of the edges and distances between park activities. The findings highlight the importance of legibility in the planning and design of public spaces to encourage residents to stay longer while enhancing interaction in neighborhood parks and ultimately achieving social sustainability. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The rapid urbanization experienced by many Asian countries has increased awareness about the protection, improvement, and diversification of the functions of public places. Public places are often regarded as the common denominator for a better social life (Montgomery, 2013). As a special type of open space, public parks afford shared places for residents to spend more time to interact with the outdoor environment (Gehl & Svarre, 2013). Public parks vary according to size and available facilities. They can be categorized as pocket parks or mini-parks (b2 ha), neighborhood parks (2 to 8 ha), community parks (8 to 40 ha), and larger parks, including district parks, regional or metropolitan parks and natural parks (Forsyth & Musacchio, 2005; Han, Cohen, & McKenzie, 2013). This study focuses only on neighborhood parks, which are considered the backbone of the park systems, allowing residents from all walks of life to recreate, congregate, relax, and meet others daily and within their residential neighborhood (Kazmierczak, 2013). In the context of Asian cities, public participation is not integrated into the planning process and its important role is not recognized. This is because the development and management of public spaces are largely controlled by local governments through top-down initiatives (Miao,

⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (N. Ujang).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.11.007 0264-2751/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

2013). The lack of public participation posed a challenge for the cities to design parks that facilitate social cohesion and promote social sustainability (Al-Bishawi & Ghadban, 2011; Harun, Zakariya, Mansor, & Zakariaya, 2014). Various studies have identified the lack of social interaction or the common experience among residents (Feng & Astell-Burt, 2016) in the majority of planned residential areas (Neutens, Farber, Delafontaine, & Boussauw, 2012; Peters, Elands, & Buijs, 2010). This occurs despite the existence of public open spaces which are supposedly planned and designed to foster social activities. Moreover, several empirical studies on Asian cities indicated many underutilized parks within neighborhoods of planned residential areas. These include studies done in Singapore and India (Karuppannan & Sivam, 2012), Bangladesh (Byomkesh, Nakagoshi, & Dewan, 2012), and Malaysia (Moser, 2010). In Malaysia, Azmi and Karim (2012) found that neighborhood parks in Putrajaya - a city touted as a model for other sustainable cities, are not fully utilized for users' benefits. It was found that only 20.2% of the population engages in recreational activities at least once a week (Economic Planning Unit, 2011). Lack of social interaction in the parks could be caused by many factors, including the lack of inclusiveness of the parks as social spaces and deficiencies in their physical attributes. Thus, our study was conducted to determine the extent to which legibility attributes predict the level of social interaction within neighborhood parks. The study measures legibility in terms of the apparent clarity of the parkscape which directs movement and social interaction in the context of planned urban residential areas.

A. Moulay et al. / Cities 61 (2017) 58–64

59

2. Social sustainability and social interaction

4. Legibility of urban places

Social sustainability denotes the development and growth suitable for the harmonious evolution of civil society. These foster a supportive environment for greater cohabitation of culturally and socially diverse groups (Polése & Stren, 1999) by preserving the capacity of current and future generations to create healthy and livable communities (Banerjee, 2003). Meanwhile, public places are often associated with social sustainability by strengthening social interaction among urban residents (Harun et al., 2014). Public spaces support physical activities, meeting friends or family, participating in leisure activities, enjoying nature and observing others (Saffer, 2008). These activities help to unite people, reduce negative social behavior, and provide significant sociocultural benefits such as community satisfaction and crime reduction (Brown, Shcebella, & Weber, 2014; Rasidi, Jamirsah, & Said, 2012). Moreover, they help satisfy the crucial human need for social interaction (Kazmierczak, 2013). Social interaction is defined as a process of reciprocal stimulation and interactivity between at least two people (Hari & Kujala, 2009). It can be measured through the amount of time people spend in the place, reflecting their engagement in a public open space and the intensity of contact (Carmona, Tiesdell, Heath, & Oc, 2010; Gehl, 2011). Furthermore, sociological theories provided by both micro (Goffman, 1983; Jessop & Sum, 2016; Lofland, 1998) and macro-sociology (Bukodi, Goldthorpe, Waller, & Kuha, 2015; Oldenburg, 1989) mainly address types of social relations among passive (public solitude, people watching) and active (fleeting encounters, chance encounters and quasi-primary relationships) interactions. They also cover the social behaviors from visual encounters and brief encounters up to longer encounters. Based on these critical components of social interaction, our paper discusses the principles and attributes of good public spaces, which are advocated as agents for liveliness and vitality of social spaces and the interactions within these spaces.

Legibility is one of the key qualities of successful urban places. Lynch (1960, p.2–3) defines legibility as “the ease with which its parts can be organized into a coherent pattern.” He argues that our image of the city is contained within five elements of the landscape, namely paths, edges, districts, nodes, and landmarks (p. 46), which allow the observers to recognize the structure of the cities in their minds. The quality of the built environment (clarity, simplicity, continuity, and rhythm or hierarchy of elements) also determines the coherence of cities (Bounds, 2008). Lynch addresses the vital components that form the environmental image of cities, namely identity, structure, and separable entity. “Identity” involves the identification of a physical object and what makes it distinguishable from others. The “structure” reflects the spatial relationships between the distinguished object and others, while “separable entity” should provide meanings to the observers either in a practical or emotional plan. A legible environment provides its citizens with a deep sense of emotional security because of the harmonious relationships between them and the surrounding physical environment. This allows citizens or observers to move around quickly and easily (Perkins & Taylor, 1996). This compelling literature illustrates the importance of legibility of a physical environment in making places more accessible and identifiable to users due to the coherence of the landscape elements. However, it remains unclear whether the legibility attributes affect users' behavior and interaction within a defined public realm such as a neighborhood park.

3. Principles and attributes of responsive public spaces The main role of public open spaces is to promote social interaction through social activities. In his book Life Between Buildings, Gehl (2011) stated the fact that public open spaces can open up or exclude opportunities for social interaction. These situations demand for accessible and inclusive spaces shaped by the following principles: (1) Avoiding thick obstacles such as walls or any barrier that hinder visibility between people; (2) encouraging walking and cycling paths rather than streets for cars, and (3) integrating diversified activities and variety of people to function together. The principles of common language described by Christopher Alexander (1977) in his book A Pattern Language highlight the importance of constructing the language patterns for any human institution in a compressed form rather than a segregated one, to obtain denser meanings for people. Among the 253 patterns that he proposed include appropriate density of people within a compact area, providing facilities that fit the needs of people at every stage of the life cycle, surrounding the public open spaces with a combination of community facilities that support each other, and creating some “bulges” in the middle of the path to offer places to stop briefly rather than a place just to pass through. Likewise, people gravitate naturally towards the edges of public places. Thus, if the latter does not provide users with natural places to linger, the edges will not be considered attractive. In addition, several scholars have emphasized the impact of physical settings on social interactions (Al-Bishawi & Ghadban, 2011; Bounds, 2008; Dias & Ramadier, 2015), where community requires a setting, and the shape of that setting is critical. In this regard, our study seeks to understand whether a park's legibility, as an important physical attribute, can enhance interaction or create isolation among neighborhood residents.

5. Methods The context of this study is the planned city of Putrajaya in Malaysia. The city is 25 km south of Malaysia's capital of Kuala Lumpur. It has a population of 86,000 (Department of Statistics, Malaysia, 2013). Neighborhood parks in Precinct (District) 8 and Precinct 9 were selected as the sample areas based on the local plan of Putrajaya (Putrajaya Corporation, 2002), which stipulates that Precincts 7, 8, 9 and 10 are the major residential areas with complete public facilities. The findings are based on a field survey to measure Legibility attributes as independent variables - Clarity of Structure, Visual Obstacles, and Accessibility) in relation to social interaction. Clarity of Structure reflects the recognizability of parks' edges, districts, nodes, landmarks, and paths. Visual Obstacles, identifies the presence or the absence of thick elements of obstructions, the distance between activities, types of orientations of seating, and the quality of views. Accessibility is measured by the level of connectivity, number of entrances, frequency of use and the perceived safety. As the dependent variable, Social Interaction was measured in terms of Intensity of Contact, Engagement with the Park and Types of Interaction. Intensity of Contact reflects the range from superficial acquaintances to strong friendships. Engagement with the Park identifies the residents' participation in the parks' activities and their frequency of visits. Types of Interaction describe the range of social activities, from passive to active. A questionnaire survey was chosen as an appropriate method and validated through compelling literature on park values for residents and social bonds (Rasidi et al., 2012; Shukur, Othman, & Hadi, 2012; Talen, 2010). The survey addressed residents' feedback on the legibility of the elements, their characteristics and the residents' level of social interaction on a 5-point Likert- Scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). This survey involved 378 respondents based on the Morgan table instructions (Krejcie & Morgan, 1970) i.e. a table that suggests the optimal sample size according to a given population size with a specific margin of error and the desired confidence interval. The samples were randomly selected from the two neighborhoods. According to the density of each neighborhood, the Precinct 9 consisted 68% of the studied population while Precinct 8 provided 32% of the population samples. Thus, the 378 survey questionnaires were distributed accordingly: Precinct 9 (n = 257) and Precinct 8 (n = 121). The population

60

A. Moulay et al. / Cities 61 (2017) 58–64

Table 1 Scale of measurement for legibility and social interaction. Means (m)

Scale

Legibility

Social Interaction

4.1–5.0 3.1–4.0 2.1–3.0 1.0–2.0

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

Highly recognizable Moderately recognizable Poorly recognizable Unrecognizable

Strong SI Moderate SI Weak SI None SI

in Precinct 9 lives in 18 blocks of residential buildings, each containing 12 floors and 16 apartments per floor, for a total of 3456 apartments. SPSS version 22.0 was used to generate a random selection of 257 cases from the total number of apartments in Precinct 9. The same method of random selection was used for Precinct 8. The respondents were above 18 years of age and for both male and female samples. Field observation was carried out through a systematic observation, to clarify the landscape elements and the pattern of activities among the parks' users, covering the passive and active form of interactions. The observations ran from 15th to 22nd March and continued through 1st to 7th April 2014, including weekdays and weekends from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm to cover all kind of activities occurring in the parks. Data from the survey were categorized to identify the legible elements and the levels of social interaction. Based on the Likert scale description by Bernard (2011), the survey results were classified into four groups with an equal range (m = 1.0) (Table 1). Then, Cronbach's Alpha was used to measure the reliability of the questionnaire items. The Cronbach's α reliability coefficient was 0.763. The data were then descriptively analyzed using crosstab computing means, standard deviations and standard errors. Multiple regression analysis was later applied to predict a dependent (outcome) variable from the independent (predictor) variables. 6. Data analysis and findings 6.1. Demographic information The final responses gathered totaled 339 cases from the 378 survey questionnaires distributed, for a completion rate of 90%. The number of females (52.2%; n = 177) participated in the survey was slightly higher than males (47.8%; n = 162). The majority of the respondents were between 26 and 45 years old (41%; n = 139). The lowest number of respondents was from the elderly group aged above 66 years old (4.4%; n = 15). As for income, the majority of the respondents (70.5%; n = 239) gained less than RM4000 per month. In terms of education, diploma and bachelor degree holders were the majority (32.7%; n = 111

and 42.2%; n = 143), and only 6.2%; (n = 21) were Master's degree holders. In terms of ethnicity, Malays (86.1%; n = 292), Chinese (10.3%; n = 35) and Indian (3.2%; n = 11) were represented in the study.

6.2. Legibility of the neighborhood parks Cross-tabulation was used to identify and compare legibility based on mean scores between the two neighborhood parks. Table 2 shows the respondents' feedback on the parks' legibility measured based on the clarity of structure of the elements: edges, nodes, landmarks, paths and districts; the visual obstacles and accessibility. The results indicate that accessibility was highly identifiable for the Precinct 9 Park with mean score (m = 4.17) and moderately recognizable for Precinct 8 Park with mean score (m = 3.51). Such scores were anticipated due to the easily identifiable park entrances that are visible and well integrated with the residential areas. There were five park entrances in Precinct 9 and three in Precinct 8 Parks. There was, however, a significant difference in the visual obstacles (m = 2.47) for Precinct 8 Park, and (m = 3.58) for Precinct 9 Park. The results also indicated a significant difference in the clarity of structure. Precinct 9 Park has moderately recognizable elements (m = 3.70) while Precinct 8 Park has poorly recognizable elements (m = 2.73). The study found that Precinct 8 Park recorded a significantly lower score regarding structure and visual obstacles compared to Precinct 9 Park, while accessibility level is nearly the same for both places. These results suggest that Precinct 8 Park is less legible than the Precinct 9 Park. Field observations indicate that the level of accessibility is not necessarily determined solely by the proximity of the parks to the residential areas. For instance, even though Precinct 8 Park is situated closer to the residential area as compared to Precinct 9 Park (Fig. 1), the former recorded lower accessibility. The study also revealed that visual obstacles influence park legibility. There is a significant difference in the levels of visual obstacles between the two parks, which may be due to three reasons. First, visual obstacles decreased according to the level of integration of park activities. The more segregated are the activities; the higher is the visual obstacles. This is clearly evident in both parks (Fig. 2) where activity areas were more segregated in the Precinct 8 than in the Precinct 9. Second, a visual obstacle could occur due to the lack of direct view and visibility from a single point. This was also noted in the two parks. In Precinct 9, the park is designed based on a concave curve, which allows users to see the whole park from any single point. Conversely, Precinct 8 Park is

Table 2 Legibility of the parks in Precinct 8 and Precinct 9 based on the questionnaire survey. Precinct 8 N = 107

Precinct 9 N = 232 Legibility

Construct

Variables

Items versus precincts

Legibility

Legibility

Clear structure

Activities in the park can be seen from outside The park is a very noticeable area The location of the park is very convenient There are many gathering places There are many landscape elements The walkways are very comfortable to use Activities in the park are so close from each other

Poorly recognizable M Sd 2.73. 0.999

Se 362

Moderately recognizable M Sd Se 3.70 0.761 0.234

Poorly recognizable M Sd 2.47 0.873

Se 0.272

Moderately recognizable M Sd Se 3.58 0.761 0.321

Visual obstacles

Accessibility

I can see the whole park from a single point The face to face arrangement of the seating allow me to talk with others The park has direct views with good ability to see There are more than one entrance to access the park Most of the area is suitable for walking People use the park frequently The park is well connected with the residential area

Moderately recognizable M Sd Se 3.51 0.810 0.272

Highly identifiable M Sd 4.17 0.725

Se 0.276

A. Moulay et al. / Cities 61 (2017) 58–64

61

Fig. 1. Proximity of the parks to the residence in Precinct 8(left) and Precinct 9(right).

designed on a convex curvilinear shape, which makes it difficult for an observer to see the overall view of the park from a single point (Fig. 3). Another factor that influences the visual obstacle is seating orientation. A lack of face to face seating arrangement does not allow park users to face each other to encourage passive interaction and potential for direct communication. Furthermore, there is insufficient seating in both parks (Fig. 4). 6.3. Engagement with park and types of interaction Mean values of social interaction for both parks range from 2.65 to 3.76. The types of contact with the highest mean values (m = 3.76) were recorded in Precinct 9. This reflects a moderate social interaction (refer to Table 1). However, Precinct 8 recorded a weaker social interaction for types of contact (m = 2.89). The difference in the mean values could be due to the presence of more resting opportunities and the variety of recreational interests in Precinct 9. The duration of outdoor activities was relatively long for Precinct 9 Park (m = 3.79), which reflects the moderate duration of use of the outdoor area. On the other hand, Precinct 8 Park recorded a weak duration of use (m = 2.91). This circumstance may be linked to deficiencies in the planning and design of the parks. In terms of social interaction, the score for types of interactions for Precinct 8 Park (m = 2.65) was weaker than Precinct 9 Park (m = 3.12) (see Table 1). Precinct 9 Park scores reflect a moderate level of social interaction. Nevertheless, the passive social interaction as measured by “observing other people” was moderately demonstrated in both parks, with mean values between 3.12 and 3.43. These outcomes indicate a lower level of social interaction in Precinct 8 Park compared to that of Precinct 9. The high score recorded for the intensity of meeting was mainly due to the “friendly discussion” item (m = 4.1) which is the primary type of contact occurring within the parks. This positive social aspect is encouraged by the low level of visual obstacles and the short distance between activities in Precinct 9 Park. Type of interactions recorded the lowest scores, particularly in Precinct 8 Park. These are under the items “photo taking” (m = 2.21);

“working” (m = 2.31) and “family gathering” (m = 2.51). In addition to the influence of design of the parks, the low level of activities recorded might be influenced by the lifestyle of the largely ethnic Malays who frequented these parks. They may be influenced by cultural cues and customary practices. Islamic codes of behavior greatly shape the pattern of family relations as well as individual behaviors (Zainal, 1995). Results from Table 2 suggest that the Park in Precinct 9 was more legible than the Park in Precinct 8, while social interaction in Precinct 9 was higher than in Precinct 8 (Table 3). Thus, it can be surmised that the legibility of the parks and the corresponding attributes and characteristics, such as the clarity of structure, visual obstacles, and accessibility affect the level of social interaction. It may be inferred that the functions of the neighborhood parks as social spaces for residents to sit, walk, observe other people, relax and meet each other influenced the duration of residents remaining in the parks. This will in turn increase the potential for social interactions among the park users. 6.4. Prediction of relationships between legibility and social interaction Multiple regression analysis was used to predict the value of the dependent variable (Engagement with Parks) based on the values of the independent variables (Clear Structure, Visual Obstacles, and Accessibility). This is to examine the relationship between legibility and social interaction and provide an in-depth analysis of the relationships between the different variables. The multiple regression equation is as follow: Y = a + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3 + b4X4 Where: Y: is the value of the predicted dependent variable “Engagement with Parks”. a: Alpha is the constant. X: is the value of the different independent variables. b: is the slope (Beta coefficient for each independent variable). Table 4 shows that R2 for Engagement with the Park is a dependent variable in its regression with Legibility variables, which is R2 = 0.713 (p b 0.1) and is moderately high and significant for all three

Fig. 2. Distance between activities within parks in precinct 8 and precinct 9.

62

A. Moulay et al. / Cities 61 (2017) 58–64

Fig. 3. Different curvilinear shapes of parks in precinct 8 and precinct 9.

independent variables (Clear structure, Visual obstacles and Accessibility). On the other hand, a high R2 (0.713) indicates that those independent variables are sufficient to predict engagement with park accurately. The results suggest that the three variables in aggregate were significant predictors of engagement with the parks, explaining 71.3% of the variance, F(4339) = 75.46, p ˂ 0.001. When the variables were examined to evaluate their individual contribution to the model, it was found that Clarity of Structure (β = 0.45, p ˂ 0.01), Visual Obstacles (β = 0.26, p = 0.02), and Accessibility (β = 0.27, p ˂ 0.01), contribute significantly to the model. The results indicate that the model is adequate to explain the relationship. Therefore, increasing the clarity of the park's structure, improving its accessibility and decreasing its visual obstacles will increase residents' engagement with their park for greater social interaction. In summary, legibility variables namely Clear Structure, Visual obstacles, and Accessibility, are significant predictors of engagement with parks.

proximity and visually linked to create a sense of continuity and comfort of use. A place is legible if observers are able to understand its layout with ease and comfort. The use of visual cues to draw people to activity nodes should increase familiarity with the parks and facilities offered. As activities areas are more visually as well as physically integrated, the potential for engagement and interaction will increase. Obstructed views and physical barriers segregate spaces, thus reducing chances for active and passive interaction. b. Direct view and visibility. The lack of direct view and visibility from a single point within a park suggests that the design of the overall form and layout of the park should be either a flattened area or a concave curvilinear area. This allows users to observe the overall setting of the park from a single point. This finding is valid only for neighborhood parks and not for larger parks. c. Seating arrangement.

7. Discussion 7.1. Park characteristics and its impact on social interaction. Frequent engagement in park activities is an essential factor to increase the use of neighborhood parks and promote social interaction. To enhance social interaction among residents, park settings should create more opportunities for contacts (passive and active) through participation in or simply observing social events and other people. The following conditions and characteristics were observed in the study areas, and relevant improvements are suggested accordingly. a. Distance between activity areas. The farther the distance between activity areas, the bigger the visual obstacles. The locations of activities and facilities should be in close

The type of seating arrangement influences users' interaction pattern. Face to face seating arrangement allows for greater chances of active interaction to take place between users. This study (refer to Table 2 and Fig. 4), supports the idea that the primary form of social interaction occurs through passive contacts, that is, to see other people as well as be seen by others. Active contacts may occur as a consequence of these passive contacts. In this regard, face-to-face seating arrangements naturally increase the potential for a passive form of contacts, which might lead to a more active form of contacts (see Fig. 5). The study measured the pattern of social interaction within the parks through two main variables: engagement with the parks and the intensity of contact. The findings indicate that the engagement with parks over the duration of visits is mainly influenced by good resting opportunities (e.g. benches), the quietness of the park, and the

Fig. 4. Seats placements in the parks.

A. Moulay et al. / Cities 61 (2017) 58–64

63

Table 3 Social interaction in the precinct 8 and precinct 9 neighborhood parks.

Construct

Variables

Items versus precincts

Social interaction Type of interactions

Observing other people Meeting strangers Meeting neighbors Meeting friends Family gathering Playing games Dating Having fun See and oversee children playing Working Photo taking Walking Cycling Engagement with being in park I participate in many activities within the park

Types of contact

Precinct 8 N = 107

Precinct 9 N = 232

Social interaction

Social interaction

Weak social interaction Moderate social interaction M

Sd

Se

M

Sd

Se

2.65

1.077

0.512

3.12

1.011

0.471

Weak social interaction Moderate social interaction M Sd Se M Sd Se 2.91 0.991 0.379 3.75 0.862 0.373

The park is quiet and reflect a peaceful ambience The park offers good resting opportunities The park allows more conversing opportunities between residents There are variety of recreational interest Many occasions for greeting Weak social interaction Moderate social interaction An occasional discussion M Sd Se M Sd Se A friendly discussion 2.89 0.991 0.379 3.76 0.732 0.553 A warm discussion

Table 4 Multiple regression of park's legibility as predictors of engagement with parks.

Engagement with park R squared VIF Beta P value

Clear structure

View obstacles

Accessibility

0.713 1.306 0.45 0.000

0.713 1.223 0.26 0.02

0.713 1.165 0.27 0.000

Where: R square is the prediction power of this model. VIF is the variance inflation factor, to assess multiple linear: generally a value higher than 10 indicates a multiple linearity problem. Beta is the standardized coefficient. P value is the significance predicator: if p b 0.1 the predicator is significant if p ≥ 0.1 the predicator is not significant.

variety of recreational interests. The park layout (the regular form of the park on a flat or concave curve) allow for different park experiences and social contacts. These physical characteristics become the catalysts in enhancing social interaction and time spending in the parks. This is in line with the idea that the intensity of life in public places is not the product of the number of people only, but rather the amount of time spent in these public places (Gehl, 2009). 7.2. Predictors of legibility in relation to social interaction Results of Multiple Regression Analysis predict that improving the clarity of the structure, accessibility and reducing visual obstacles from

outside and within the parks will enhance the level of social interaction. The outcomes of the model for the variables, namely Clear Structure, Visual Obstacles, and Accessibility, indicate that a park's legibility is a significant predicator for engagement with parks. This finding is in agreement with previous studies done regarding the impact of a park's design on social interaction. Peters et al. (2010), for instance, claims that differences in park's design lead to various uses and consequently to various ambiances. Thus, a lack of park legibility is associated with the lack of social interaction in neighborhood parks, despite the provision of apparently well-designed parks in planned residential areas in Malaysia. 8. Planning and design implications

Fig. 5. Orientation of the seating.

When landscape elements are easily identifiable with a relative order and structural coherence, it allows residents to identify strongly with their communal spaces and associated activities. The functions of landscape elements such as landmarks, nodes, paths, and edges in structuring parks should be emphasized to increase the residents' feeling of connection and familiarity with their immediate environment. The findings from this study could be translated into a more socially inclined planning and design considerations. To decrease visual obstacles and facilitate the continuity of the overall park experience, playgrounds, shelters, and seating should be placed close to each other and closer to paths, within a regular park's overall form, and preferably on a flatten

64

A. Moulay et al. / Cities 61 (2017) 58–64

or concave curvilinear area for better visibility. Furthermore, a park's edges should be treated so as not to become visual barriers from outside or from within the park. 9. Conclusion Neighborhood park legibility plays a significant role in enhancing social interaction among residents. Parks as social integrators require careful planning and design in terms of order, coherence, simplicity, and making landscape elements easily identifiable. The social value of neighborhood parks will be strengthened if the neighborhood parks are legible and appealing to the residents. The legibility attributes of neighborhood parks influence residents' pattern of engagement, particularly duration of use. Direct accessibility and visibility determine the vitality of the parks as social spaces. Our study addresses the value and importance of park legibility in the design of more attractive public parks. A legible environment will strengthen social bonding in urban residential areas, promotes social contacts, and support a more social sensitive approach to the planning and design of public parks. Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the IPS Grant Scheme (UPM/ 7002/1/GPIPS/2016/9483500), Universiti Putra Malaysia for partly funding and facilitating the research, as well as Putrajaya Corporation and the residents of Putrajaya for their cooperation in the data collection process. References Al-bishawi, & Ghadban, S. (2011). A methodological approach for reading urban open space. ArchNet-IJAR. International Journal of Architectural Research, 5(1), 73–85. Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977). A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction. New York: Oxford University Press. Azmi, D. I., & Karim, H. A. (2012). Implications of walkability towards promoting sustainable urban neighbourhood. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 50, 204–2013. Banerjee, B. (2003). Who sustains whose development? Sustainable development and the reinvention of nature. Organization Studies, 24(2), 143–180. Bernard, H. (2011). Research methodology in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Library of Congress UK: ALTAMIRA press. Bounds, M. (2008). Urban social theory: City, self and society. Oxford university press. Brown, G., Shcebella, M., & Weber, D. (2014). Using participatory GIS to measure physical activity and urban park benefit. Landscape and Urban Planning, 121, 34–44. Bukodi, E., Goldthorpe, J., Waller, L., & Kuha, J. (2015). The mobility problem in Britain: New findings from the analysis of birth cohort data. The British Journal of Sociology, 66(1), 93–117. Byomkesh, T., Nakagoshi, N., & Dewan, A. M. (2012). Urbanization and green space dynamics in Greater Dhaka, Bangladesh. Landscape and Ecological Engineering, 8, 45–58. Carmona, M., Tiesdell, S., Heath, T., & Oc, T. (2010). Public places- urban spaces: The dimensions of urban design. MA architectural press. Department of Statistics, Malaysia (2013). http://www.statistics.gov.my/portal/index.php Dias, P., & Ramadier, T. (2015). Social trajectory and socio-spatial representation of urban space: The relation between social and cognitive structures. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41, 135–144. Economic Planning Unit (2011). Malaysia quality of life.2011. Accessed by author on March 2014 http://www.epu.gov.my/ms/documents/guest/publications/malaysian_ quality of life 2011.pdf

Feng, X., & Astell-Burt, T. (2016). What types of social interactions reduce the risk of psychological distress? Fixed effects longitudinal analysis of a cohort of 30,271 middleto-older aged Australians. Journal of Affective Disorder., 204, 99–102. Forsyth, A., & Musacchio, L. (2005). Designing small parks: A manual for addressing social and ecological concerns. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Gehl, J. (2011). Life between buildings: Using public spaces. London: The John Hopkins University Press. Gehl, J. (2009). Cities for people. Island press. Gehl, J., & Svarre, B. (2013). How to study public life. Island press. Goffman, E. (1983). Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings, ‘the interaction order’: American Sociological Association, 1982 presidential address. American Sociological Review, 48, 1–17. Han, B., Cohen, D., & McKenzie, T. L. (2013). Quantifying the contribution of neighborhood parks to physical activity. Preventive Medicine, 5, 483–487. Hari, R., & Kujala, M. V. (2009). Brain basis of human social interaction: From concepts to brain imaging. Physiological reviews, 89, 453–479. Harun, N. Z., Zakariya, K., Mansor, M., & Zakariaya, K. (2014). Determining attributes of urban plaza for social sustainability. Procedia- social and behavioral sciences. 153. (pp. 606–615). Elsevier. Jessop, B., & Sum, N. -L. (2016). What is critical? Critical Policy Studies, 10(1), 105–109. Kazmierczak, A. (2013). The contribution of local parks to neighbourhood social ties. Landscape and Urban Planning, 109(1), 31–44. Karuppannan, & Sivam (2012). Comparative analysis of utilisation of open space at neighbourhood level in three Asian cities: Singapore, Delhi and Kuala Lumpur. Urban Design International, 2, 145–164. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607–610. Lofland, L. H. (1998). The public realm: Exploring the city's quintessential social territory. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. Massachusetts and London Englana: MIT Cambridg. Miao, P. (2013). Beyond the image: Reusing tradition in modern design. Journal of the Indian Institute of Architects, 78(12), 13–18. Montgomery, C. (2013). Happy city, transforming our lives through urban design. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Moser, S. (2010). Putrajaya: Malaysia's new federal administrative capital. Cities. Neutens, T., Farber, S., Delafontaine, M., & Boussauw, K. (2012). Spatial variation in the potential for social interaction: A case study in Flanders (Belgium). Computers, Environment and Urban Systems. Oldenburg, R. (1989). The great good place: Cafes, coffee shops, community centers, beauty parlors, general stores, bars, hangouts and how they get you through the day. New York: Paragon House. Perkins, D. D., & Taylor, R. B. (1996). Ecological assessment of community disorder: Their relationship to fear of crime and theoretical implications. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 63–107. Peters, K., Elands, B., & Buijs, A. (2010). Social interactions in urban parks: Stimulating social cohesion? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 9, 93–100. Polése, M., & Stren, R. (1999). The social sustainability of cities: Diversity and the management of change, University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Western Australian Council of Social Services, model of social sustainability. Putrajaya Corporation (2002). Local plan manual, Putrajaya. Precincts 7,8,9 and 10. April 2002. Rasidi, M. H., Jamirsah, N., & Said, I. (2012). Urban green space design affects urban residents' social interaction. Procedia - Socialand Behavioral Sciences, 68, 464–480. Saffer, H. (2008). The demand for social interaction. Socio-Economics Journal, 37, 1047–1060. Shukur, F., Othman, N., & Hadi, A. (2012). The values of parks to the house residents. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 49, 350–359. Talen, E. (2010). The spatial logic of parks. Journal of Urban Design, 15(5), 473–491. Zainal, K. (1995). The Malay family: Beliefs and realities. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 26, 43–66.