The Effect of Green Spaces on User Satisfaction in Historical City of Nicosia
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. GIS Research
2.3. Averages of Green Spaces
2.4. Content of the Survey
2.5. Limitations of the Study
3. Results
3.1. Survey Results
3.2. Analysis of the Survey According to Various Factors
3.3. Comparison of Nicosia with the Green Area Averages of Various Cities
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Chen, W.Y.; Hu, F.Z.Y.; Li, X.; Hua, J. Strategic interaction in municipal governments’ provision of public green spaces: A dynamic spatial panel data analysis in transitional China. Cities 2017, 71, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, B.; Adimo, O.A.; Bao, Z. Assessment of aesthetic quality and multiple functions of urban green space from the users’ perspective: The case of Hangzhou Flower Garden, China. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 93, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nesticò, A.; Passaro, R.; Maselli, G.; Somma, P. Multi-criteria methods for the optimal localization of urban green areas. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 374, 133690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ugolini, F.; Massetti, L.; Calaza-Martínez, P.; Cariñanos, P.; Dobbs, C.; Ostoić, S.K.; Marin, A.M.; Pearlmutter, D.; Saaroni, H.; Šaulienė, I.; et al. Understanding the benefits of public urban green space: How do perceptions vary between professionals and users? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2022, 228, 104575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ke, X.; Huang, D.; Zhou, T.; Men, H. Contribution of non-park green space to the equity of urban green space accessibility. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 146, 109855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, L.; Zheng, Y.; Ma, S. Links of urban green space on environmental satisfaction: A spatial and temporarily varying approach. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023, 25, 3469–3501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shekhar, S.; Aryal, J. Role of geospatial technology in understanding urban green space of Kalaburagi city for sustainable planning. Urban For. Urban Green 2019, 46, 126450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swensen, G. Integration of historic fabric in new urban development—A Norwegian case-study. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 107, 380–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rostami, R.; Lamit, H.; Khoshnava, S.M.; Rostami, R.; Rosley, M.S.F. Sustainable cities and the contribution of historical urban green spaces: A case study of historical persian gardens. Sustainability 2015, 7, 13290–13316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Koçan, N. Kütahya-Eskigediz Tarihi Kent Dokusunun Peyzaj Mimarlığı Açısından Değerlendirilmesi. Ordu Üniversitesi Bilim Ve Teknol. Derg. 2012, 2, 81–96. [Google Scholar]
- Li, W.; Wang, H.; Zhang, S.; Jiang, B.; Lee, S.Y. Spatial and Temporal Evolution of Urban Green Space Pattern Based on GIS Sensors and Remote Sensing Information: Taking Xi’an as an Example. J. Sens. 2022, 2022, 3648880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al Masri, A.; Özden, Ö.; Kara, C. Green Corridor Development as an Approach for Environmental Sustainability in Jordan. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 8, 418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiao, L.; Zhang, Y.; Qi, A.; Luo, H. Structural planning of urban green space system—A case study of Xuchang, China. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2013, 11, 1421–1425. [Google Scholar]
- Xie, J.; Woolley, H.; Liu, B.; Elsadek, M. Overview of urban planning policy and urban green space system at a national level in China. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2019; Volume 349, p. 012021. [Google Scholar]
- Sakıcı, Ç.; Ayan, E.; Ayan, Ö.; Çelik, S. Kastamonu Kentindeki Açık Yeşil Alanların Farklı Kullanıcılar Tarafından Kullanılabilirliğinin İrdelenmesi. J. For. Fac. Kastamonu Univ. 2013, 13, 129–143. [Google Scholar]
- Choi, D.A.; Park, K.; Rigolon, A. From XS to XL urban nature: Examining access to different types of green space using a ‘just sustainabilities’ framework. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, A.C.; Maheswaran, R. Kentsel yeşil alanların sağlık yararları: Kanıtların gözden geçirilmesi. Halk Sağlığı Derg. 2011, 33, 212–222. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, Y.; Ling, G.H.T. A Systematic Review of Morphological Transformation of Urban Open Spaces: Drivers, Trends, and Methods. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Köksaldı, E.; Turkan, Z. Urban Furniture in Sustainable Historical Urban Texture Landscapes: Historical Squares in the Walled City of Nicosia. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mısırlısoy, D.; Günçe, K. A critical look to the adaptive reuse of traditional urban houses in the Walled City of Nicosia. J. Archit. Conserv. 2016, 22, 149–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Department of Urban Planning Report. Nicosia Development Plan; Interior Ministry: Nicosia, Cyprus, May 2018.
- İnançoğlu, S.; Özden, Ö.; Kara, C. Green corridors in urban landscapes, case study Nicosia Pedieos river. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 9, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gürkan, H.M. Dünkü ve Bugünkü Lefkoşa; Galeri kültür yayınları, Galeri Kültür Printing: Nicosia, Cyprus, 2006; 255p. [Google Scholar]
- Keshishian, K.K. Nicosia, Capital of Cyprus Then Now; Moufflon Book and Art Centre: Nicosia, Cyprus, 1978; pp. 68–91. [Google Scholar]
- Thomson, J. A Journey through Cyprus in the Autumn of 1878. In Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society and Monthly Record of Geography; The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers); Blackwell Publishing: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1879; Volume 1, pp. 97–105. [Google Scholar]
- Available online: http://wikimapia.org/1869893/tr/Atat%C3%BCrk-Meydan%C4%B1-Saray%C3%B6n%C3%BC (accessed on 9 May 2022).
- Available online: https://www.devplan.org/index_en.html (accessed on 9 May 2022).
- Department of Urban Planning Report. Available online: http://spd.gov.ct.tr/L%C4%B0P-KARAR-RAPORU (accessed on 7 November 2022).
- Watson, H. Nicosia Master Plan-Landscape Report. Nicosia. 1982. Available online: https://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiT9pSP3rqAAxUsgVYBHVL9AEkQFnoECAsQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Funece.org%2Ffileadmin%2FDAM%2Fthepep%2Fen%2Fworkplan%2Furban%2Fdocuments%2FpetridouNycosiamasterplan.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0uz5IdfcXj_6qfWNyUOS41&opi=89978449 (accessed on 7 November 2022).
- Kabisch, N.; Strohbach, M.; Haase, D.; Kronenberg, J. Urban green space availability in European cities. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 70, 586–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Available online: http://www.worldcitiescultureforum.com/data/of-public-green-space-parks-and-garden (accessed on 7 November 2022).
- Gupta, K.; Roy, A.; Luthra, K.; Maithani, S. GIS based analysis for assessing the accessibility at hierarchical levels of urban green spaces. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 18, 198–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stessens, P.; Canters, F.; Huysmans, M.; Khan, A.Z. Urban green space qualities: An integrated approach towards GIS-based assessment reflecting user perception. Land Use Policy 2020, 91, 104319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ernstson, H.; Sörlin, S.; Elmqvist, T. Social movements and ecosystem services—The role of social network structure in protecting and managing urban green areas in Stockholm. Ecol. Soc. 2008, 13, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Flores, A.; Pickett, S.T.; Zipperer, W.C.; Pouyat, R.V.; Pirani, R. Adopting a modern ecological view of the metropolitan landscape: The case of a greenspace system for the New York City region. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1998, 39, 295–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, B.X.; Li, W.Y.; Ma, W.J.; Xiao, H. Space Accessibility and Equity of Urban Green Space. Land 2023, 12, 766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teixeira, C.P.; Fernandes, C.O.; Ahern, J.; Honrado, J.P.; Farinha-Marques, P. Urban ecological novelty assessment: Implications for urban green infrastructure planning and management. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 773, 145121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wendel, H.E.W.; Zarger, R.K.; Mihelcic, J.R. Accessibility and usability: Green space preferences, perceptions, and barriers in a rapidly urbanizing city in Latin America. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 107, 272–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wüstemann, H.; Kalisch, D.; Kolbe, J. Access to urban green space and environmental inequalities in Germany. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 164, 124–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yıldırım, S.; Asilsoy, B.; Özden, Ö. Urban Resident Views About Open Green Spaces: A Study in Güzelyurt (Morphou), Cyprus. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 9, 441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- You, H. Characterizing the inequalities in urban public green space provision in Shenzhen, China. Habitat Int. 2016, 56, 176–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eizenberg, E.; Sasson, O.; Shilon, M. Urban morphology and qualitative topology: Open green spaces in high-rise residential developments. Urban Plan. 2019, 4, 73–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Local Park | 0.50 ha/1000 person |
Children’s play areas | 0.50 ha/1000 person |
Green spaces (excluding urban parks, walled areas, Pedieos streams, and roadside green strips) | 0.50 ha/1000 person |
Sports playgrounds (dual function of community sports centers and school playgrounds) | 0.33 ha/1000 person |
Total local open spaces (including sports play areas) | 1.83 ha/1000 person |
Community sports centers | 0.30–0.36 ha/1000 person |
Number (n) | Percentage (%) | |
---|---|---|
Opinion on enough in green area in Walled City of Nicosia | ||
There is | 84 | 21.88 |
None | 230 | 59.90 |
No opinion | 70 | 18.23 |
Opinion on status of construction and planning of green spaces | ||
Done | 26 | 6.77 |
Not done | 163 | 42.45 |
No opinion | 195 | 50.78 |
Agreement with statement: “Green spaces are very important places for people.” | ||
Not participating | 21 | 5.47 |
Undecided | 11 | 2.86 |
Attended | 352 | 91.67 |
Number (n) | Percentage (%) | |
---|---|---|
Evaluation according to safety factor | ||
Safe | 116 | 30.21 |
Insecure | 268 | 69.79 |
Reason for finding it unsafe (n = 268) * | ||
Stray animals | 71 | 26.49 |
Inadequate lighting | 240 | 89.55 |
Dangerous people | 211 | 78.73 |
Evaluation according to cleanliness factor | ||
Clean | 91 | 23.7 |
Dirty | 293 | 76.3 |
Reason for finding it dirty (n = 293) * | ||
Ugly writings on walls and benches | 198 | 67.58 |
Rubbish and vegetable waste in the area | 280 | 95.56 |
Failure to clean the roads | 123 | 41.98 |
Evaluation for maintenance factor | ||
Groomed | 63 | 16.41 |
Unmaintained | 321 | 83.59 |
Reason for finding it neglected (n = 321) * | ||
Poor condition of plant material | 226 | 70.4 |
Poor condition of park furniture | 274 | 85.36 |
Poor condition of the floor covering | 186 | 57.94 |
Evaluation for plant material factor | ||
Adequate | 32 | 8.33 |
Inadequate | 352 | 91.67 |
Reason for finding inadequate (n = 352) | ||
Tree | 232 | 72.27 |
Bush | 124 | 38.63 |
Lawn areas/Seasonal flowers | 283 | 88.16 |
Evaluation according to equipement elements factor | ||
Adequate | 32 | 8.33 |
Inadequate | 352 | 91.67 |
Reason for finding it insufficient (n = 352) * | ||
Lighting elements | 269 | 83.8 |
Children’s playgrounds/tools | 209 | 65.11 |
Toilets | 209 | 65.11 |
Shading elements | 164 | 51.09 |
Seating elements | 228 | 71.03 |
Plastic items (sculptures, etc.) | 98 | 30.53 |
Garbage bins | 191 | 59.5 |
Floor coverings | 138 | 42.99 |
Sports fields (basketball, football, tennis, etc.) | 174 | 54.21 |
Sales kiosks/cafeterias | 112 | 34.89 |
Fitness equipment | 96 | 29.91 |
Living | Not Living | X2 | p | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | % | n | % | |||
Favourable opinion of the green area in the Walled City of Nicosia | ||||||
There is | 14 | 20.00 | 70 | 22.29 | 3218 | 0.200 |
None | 38 | 54.29 | 192 | 61.15 | ||
No opinion | 18 | 25.71 | 52 | 16.56 | ||
Opinion on status of construction and planning of green spaces | ||||||
Done | 3 | 4.29 | 23 | 7.32 | 10,840 | 0.004 * |
Not done | 19 | 27.14 | 144 | 45.86 | ||
No opinion | 48 | 68.57 | 147 | 46.82 | ||
“Green spaces are very important places for people.” | ||||||
Not participating | 5 | 7.14 | 16 | 5.10 | 1132 | 0.568 |
Undecided | 3 | 4.29 | 8 | 2.55 | ||
Attended | 62 | 88.57 | 290 | 92.36 | ||
Availability of green space | ||||||
Outgoing | 54 | 77.14 | 250 | 79.62 | 0.213 | 0.645 |
Not going | 16 | 22.86 | 64 | 20.38 | ||
Evaluation according to safety factor | ||||||
Safe | 8 | 11.43 | 108 | 34.39 | 14,320 | 0.000 * |
Insecure | 62 | 88.57 | 206 | 65.61 | ||
Evaluation according to cleanliness factor | ||||||
Clean | 6 | 8.57 | 85 | 27.07 | 10,833 | 0.001 * |
Dirty | 64 | 91.43 | 229 | 72.93 | ||
Evaluation according to the factor of maintainability | ||||||
Groomed | 4 | 5.71 | 59 | 18.79 | 7136 | 0.008 * |
Unmaintained | 66 | 94.29 | 255 | 81.21 | ||
Evaluation according to plant material factor | ||||||
Adequate | 2 | 2.86 | 30 | 9.55 | 3361 | 0.067 |
Inadequate | 68 | 97.14 | 284 | 90.45 | ||
Evaluation according to factor for equipment elements | ||||||
Adequate | 4 | 5.71 | 36 | 11.46 | 2029 | 0.154 |
Inadequate | 66 | 94.29 | 278 | 88.54 | ||
Opinion on status of development of social and recreational activities in green spaces | ||||||
Yes | 5 | 7.14 | 64 | 20.38 | 20,680 | 0.000 * |
No | 17 | 24.29 | 127 | 40.45 | ||
No information | 48 | 68.57 | 123 | 39.17 |
Yes | No | X2 | p | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | % | n | % | |||
Opinion on the green area in the Walled City of Nicosia | ||||||
There is | 23 | 20.54 | 61 | 22.43 | 2215 | 0.330 |
None | 73 | 65.18 | 157 | 57.72 | ||
No opinion | 16 | 14.29 | 54 | 19.85 | ||
Opinion on the status of construction and planning of green spaces | ||||||
Done | 11 | 9.82 | 15 | 5.51 | 2552 | 0.279 |
Not done | 48 | 42.86 | 115 | 42.28 | ||
No opinion | 53 | 47.32 | 142 | 52.21 | ||
“Green spaces are very important places for people.” | ||||||
Not participating | 7 | 6.25 | 14 | 5.15 | 0.202 | 0.904 |
Undecided | 3 | 2.68 | 8 | 2.94 | ||
Attended | 102 | 91.07 | 250 | 91.91 | ||
Availability of green space | ||||||
Outgoing | 91 | 81.25 | 213 | 78.31 | 0.416 | 0.519 |
Not going | 21 | 18.75 | 59 | 21.69 | ||
Evaluation according to safety factor | ||||||
Safe | 29 | 25.89 | 87 | 31.99 | 1397 | 0.237 |
Insecure | 83 | 74.11 | 185 | 68.01 | ||
Evaluation according to cleanliness factor | ||||||
Clean | 21 | 18.75 | 70 | 25.74 | 2141 | 0.143 |
Dirty | 91 | 81.25 | 202 | 74.26 | ||
Evaluation according to the factor of maintainability | ||||||
Groomed | 18 | 16.07 | 45 | 16.54 | 0.013 | 0.909 |
Unmaintained | 94 | 83.93 | 227 | 83.46 | ||
Evaluation according to plant material factor | ||||||
Adequate | 5 | 4.46 | 27 | 9.93 | 3.099 | 0.078 |
Inadequate | 107 | 95.54 | 245 | 90.07 | ||
Evaluation according to equipment elements factor | ||||||
Adequate | 12 | 10.71 | 28 | 10.29 | 0.015 | 0.902 |
Inadequate | 100 | 89.29 | 244 | 89.71 | ||
Opinion on status of development of social and recreational activities in green spaces in the Walled City of Nicosia | ||||||
Yes | 21 | 18.75 | 48 | 17.65 | 0.422 | 0.810 |
No | 44 | 39.29 | 100 | 36.76 | ||
No information | 47 | 41.96 | 124 | 45.59 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
İnançoğlu, S.; Uzunahmet, H.A.; Özden, Ö. The Effect of Green Spaces on User Satisfaction in Historical City of Nicosia. Sustainability 2023, 15, 12198. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612198
İnançoğlu S, Uzunahmet HA, Özden Ö. The Effect of Green Spaces on User Satisfaction in Historical City of Nicosia. Sustainability. 2023; 15(16):12198. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612198
Chicago/Turabian Styleİnançoğlu, Selda, Havva Arslangazi Uzunahmet, and Özge Özden. 2023. "The Effect of Green Spaces on User Satisfaction in Historical City of Nicosia" Sustainability 15, no. 16: 12198. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612198