GIS-Based Sustainable Accessibility Mapping of Urban Parks: Evidence from the Second Largest Settlement of Sindh, Pakistan

Abstract

Hyderabad’s recreational amenities have made limited progress in comparison to the development of its industrial and commercial sectors. People require parks to unwind from their hectic lives. Parks can be a healthy location to host social events and can enhance community bonds. The evaluation of park accessibility has not been considered over the years in Hyderabad. Hyderabad is the eighth largest settlement in Pakistan and the second largest in the Sindh province. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the spatial accessibility of the urban parks situated in the city’s distinct locations. The spatial distribution of parks throughout the city was determined in this research. This study evaluated how accessible urban parks are to users by conducting a buffer analysis with ArcGIS-10.8. The questionnaire survey was conducted to record the participants’ opinions about the existing conditions of the parks with a sample size of 400. There was a total of 28 inaccessible urban parks found in Hyderabad. The total facility coverage was decided to be 0.80%. This value is extremely low as per local standards. Therefore, this study recommends the planned development of 40–45 parks to reach the standard level of 18% of the park coverage area. This study suggests that government officials should take pivotal measures to better maintain parks. This research is significant in the advanced modern world because natural areas, such as parks, can offer social and psychological benefits to society. The accessibility of parks is essential for the prosperity of citizens and the achievement of sustainable development goals. The findings of this research may contribute to SDGs 3 and 11, i.e., good health and well-being and sustainable cities and communities.

1. Introduction

In the highly urbanized world, city park areas are critical for a quality lifestyle [1]. As human civilizations become more urbanized, the accessibility of parks is crucial from a strategic perspective to enhance the excellence of urban life in constrained places [2]. Urban environments benefit from natural resources such as urban parks and forests, green belts, and their components, e.g., trees and water, in different ways [3]. Parks are essential elements of sustainable urban landscapes that help the ecology, society, and economy of cities [4]. Parks offer possibilities for various leisure pursuits, promote physical activity, and foster social relationships among various communities. Urban parks may also assist in lowering stress and enhancing the citizens’ physical and mental health [5]. People with limited access to parks are more likely to experience depression, which can significantly worsen their standard lifestyle [6]. Users must have appropriate access to open spaces so they can grasp opportunities and the potential advantages of active and healthy lifestyles [7].

The key factor in the provision of equitable urban parks and green areas is accessibility [8]. A more accessible location increases the chance of retrieving activities that are dispersed spatially [9]. It assesses the variety of green space services offered to people, adds more data to evaluate the improvement of the city’s environmental quality, and underlines the significance of the green space distribution pattern [10]. Accessibility can be described in many ways [11,12,13,14]. Accessibility differs from other nonspatial components including regime properties in the social sciences and urban planning. In this situation, accessibility has an inherent spatial aspect that relates to the ability of individuals to reach a certain place at a particular time [15]. In simple words, the ease and comfort of reaching desired locations may be known as accessibility [16,17]. The site selection decision mainly depends on the park’s accessibility criterion in terms of distance or time [18]. From this perspective, parks should be planned on accessible sites as urban settlers can effortlessly access them [19]. For more than a century, parks and recreation centers have been linked to happier lives; parks and green spaces also enhance society’s health, well-being, economy, and ecology. Successful parks help communities by fostering a sense of community, boosting tourist and economic investment, and improving residents’ health and quality of life. Residents are concerned about the city’s declining green spaces and hold the government responsible. Most of Lahore’s urban green areas are parks where locals congregate and enjoy their free time. Hazuri Bagh, Shalamar Garden, Gulshan-e-Iqbal Park, Nasir Bagh, Jilani Park, Jallo Park, Bagh-e-Jinnah, Model Town Park, and Greater Iqbal Park are some of the most well-known city parks in Pakistan.

National parks in Pakistan are areas with exceptional aesthetic value and natural beauty where the flora, animals, and landscape are protected and kept in their native states. It is against the law to hunt wild animals or temper with precious vegetation. Hence, national parks are often utilized as sanctuaries to save endangered species of animals and plants. Khirthar National Park in Southern Pakistan is the renowned and largest national park in the country. It is situated on the Khirthar mountain range, district Jamshoro, Sindh. Khirthar park was set up in the year 1974. The area of the park is about 3807 km². The black bucks, stripped hyenas, Indian leopards, gazelles, and Sindh ibex are often found in this park. This park supplies a healthy and livable environment to the precious species, which creates a sustainable environment for all living things.

Due to their sensitivity to individual differences in the capacity to engage in activities, space–time accessibility measurements have drawn a lot of attention in recent years [20]. For citizens to live independently in today’s society, it is crucial to expand their mobility and accessibility. For example, physical limitations, maintaining a regular lifestyle for their health and customs, limited space–time areas for activity engagement, the limited ability of information acquisition, and monetary budget deficits prevent people, especially the elderly, from performing essential activities. The location of individuals (space) and the order of their activities (time) impose restrictions on their space–time accessibility metric. To arrive at the desired place on time, accessibility is crucial. When everyone has an equal opportunity to use public spaces, that location must be equally accessible to all users. If the person’s position is between 200 to 400 m away, they can comfortably walk for 4–5 min. If accessibility is not offered, a regular person may become impaired. On the other hand, in an accessible setting, even a wheelchair user, a blind person, or an old person can access certain locations efficiently.

Planners in the 19th century first realized the value of public green spaces in urban settings. Urban parks enhance the quality of life of city people by enhancing the surrounding area and raising property values by fostering both physical and psychological comfort. Numerous types of research on public amenities, such as urban parks, have been conducted in terms of site criteria, positioning techniques, accessibility, and distribution that are appropriate. For instance, Unal et al. (2016) [21] created a network analysis to determine the sufficiency of neighborhood park services in the Cukurova district in terms of accessibility, park space distribution, the size of neighborhood park spaces, and use intensity. In this study, the serviceability of neighborhood parks (NPs) was evaluated. Nicholls and Shafer (2001) [22] used GIS technology in their study of urban parks and recreational services. To figure out the number of facilities and the percentage of the population in the chosen region, they employed the straightforward radii buffering approach. To determine the real travel distance along roadways to nearby parks, they also conducted a network analysis.

Van Herzele (2003) [23] conducted a study on the quantity and quality of green spaces that influence citizens’ patterns of behavior, forms, and frequency of daily recreation; methods of environmental education; chances to unwind from the stresses of the day; etc., and included an integrated indicator. From this vantage point, the study’s methodology transcended the conventional distinction between enjoying nature as a hobby and using it to promote one’s health and well-being. This concept is distinctive in that it emphasizes the connections between the availability of green areas and social demands. The model encompasses a methodological perspective considerably more than just the databases it holds. The model’s adaptability could lead to fresh insights. Antwerp, Ghent, Aalst, and Kortrijk are the four Belgian cities where the GIS model has been used. From the perspective of “green livability,” this research intends to explain the underlying concepts, define the GIS structure, characterize the indicator’s parameters, and discuss its value as a reference for policy. This research’s aim to build a link between scientific theories and planning practice constitutes its main original contribution. There are several research findings available on the general public’s feelings about the values of urban parks. However, the presentation of information, as clarified in this study, is rarely described in a way that could be apprehended for the development of planning and policy guidelines.

To maintain accessibility standards, it is mandatory to provide active or passive open spaces to citizens with equality. Like many developing nations, Pakistan has infrastructure categorizations and standards that have been approved by the Pakistani government [24].

Table 1. Standards of Parks in Pakistan [26].

Type of Park	Park Size in Square Kilometers (km2)	Catchment Area (meters)	Description
Metropolitan city park	0.50 to 0.70 km2	Up to 3200–8000 m	A specialized area including a zoo and a botanical garden
City park	0.12 to 0.15 km2	3200 m or more	Numerous recreational options, including fountains, a lake, landscaping, etc.
Community park	0.04 to 0.05 km2	1200 m	Park with recreation areas, paved trails, and tree planting
Neighborhood park	0.033 to 0.04 km2	About 400 m	Variety of services, including child play fixtures and walking and jogging paths
Mohalla park	0.02–0.04 km2	About 400 m	Tot lots with swings, slides, and other areas with some vegetation

displays the classification, criteria, and characteristics of the urban parks in all Pakistani municipalities and cities. In Pakistan, the recommended distance to urban parks and open spaces should be less than 200 m [25]. For densely populated urban centers, 18% of the total urban land should be designated for planned open spaces [26].

The Pakistani standards for the provision of distinct categories of parks can be seen in Table 1. For a metropolitan city park, the recommended size is 0.5–0.7 km² with a catchment area from 3200 to 8000 m. In the same way, the recommended standard sizes in hectares of the city park, community park, neighborhood park, and Mohalla park are assigned as 0.12–0.15, 0.4–0.5, 0.3–0.4, and 0.16–0.36 km², respectively. The standard catchment areas for the city park, community park, neighborhood park, and Mohalla park can be seen as 3200 m, 1200 m, 400 m, and 400 m, respectively.

Considering the importance of accessibility to urban parks and open spaces, this study was conducted in Hyderabad, the second largest settlement in Sindh Province, Pakistan. From earlier research, it has been proven that urban green spaces have the potential to enhance cities’ competitiveness. However, urban green areas make significant contributions to social and economic life, as well as to the ecological and planning systems and, ultimately, to the quality of life in cities [27]. No study that measures the accessibility of urban parks in Hyderabad, the second largest settlement of Sindh, Pakistan, has been found so far. Now, there are no governmental restrictions needed to incorporate public green spaces and recreational areas into housing structures. Hence, the current research contributes to supplying access to urban parks to the residents of Hyderabad that may serve as recreational, environmental, and aesthetic spaces. All these characteristics are crucial to achieving SDG-3 (good health and well-being) and SDG-11 (sustainable cities and communities). This research also contributes to the field of the Master Planning approach as it suggests the development of more urban parks, which would fill the supply and demand gap and would meet the requirements of the residents.

2. Theoretical Consideration and Review of Previous Research

Tannous (2021) [28] defined green urbanism as an interdisciplinary practice of urban design and planning, including landscaping, transportation planning, urban planning, sociology, gardening, and even agricultural efforts. Smart, safe, and sustainable cities are frequently referred to as “green urbanism” [29]. A definition of urban parks put forwarded by Joan Alberich (2021) [30] stated that “a type of green area that is normally public property and, consequently, available to the general public; and can contain children’s parks, leisure facilities, and other qualities that promote open-air enjoyment”. Urban green and open spaces are necessary for a high standard of living, yet this need is often disregarded during the land development process. Land that has not been developed is used for other purposes when growth demands increase [31]. Urban parks offer possibilities for a variety of leisure pursuits and are crucial for promoting both physical activity and interpersonal relationships among various populations.

2.1. Accessibility and Sustainability

The term “accessibility” describes how simple it is to access a service or an area [32]. Consequently, it can be used to assess the chance of coming into contact with or interacting with a particular phenomenon, such as a park [33,34]. Over the past few decades, the physical accessibility of public resources has received a lot of attention in the literature on urban administration and urban planning [35]. As psychological research on behavioral intentions to utilize parks has rarely been conducted, accessibility influences a person’s judgment, which ultimately determines whether or not they use parks [36]. Accessibility to parks demonstrates how well parks are spatially distributed to local people’s needs [37,38]. The key to creating a sustainable city is accessibility. The sustainable growth of cities can be more easily achieved by creating public areas that are secure, welcoming, and accessible to improve health and quality of life [39,40].

2.2. Role of Parks in Sustainable Development

The concept of sustainable development combines social progress, environmental preservation, and economic success [41]. The sustainable development of the area refers to development that guarantees that residents’ demands are satisfied without affecting the ability of the following generation [42]. Parks are remarkable in terms of quality, design, and management and have a substantial impact on visitors’ well-being. They also have beneficial effects on the city’s image and value. This fundamental aspect determines how parks are connected to urban sustainable development [43]. Lee and Kim (2015) [44] suggested that urban green areas, such as parks, can offer social services that improve quality of life and are essential for sustainability. The best method to protect the outdoors and the natural environment for both the current and the next generation is to create parks. The relationship between urban parks and sustainable development can be seen in Figure 1.

To assess the quality of life issues, which are at the heart of the definitions of sustainability in cities, contemporary cities have created their sustainability indicators. Urban parks and green areas can provide social, environmental, and economic services that improve quality of life and are seen as being essential to sustainability (Figure 1). Urban areas are changing, and sustainable parks are acting as catalysts. Nady (2016) [45] mentioned that the sustainability of urban parks and cities is related in ways that are social, economic, and environmental.

2.3. Access to Greenspaces

The quality of people’s lives can be improved through accessibility and interaction with nature [46]. The phrase “accessible green spaces” was first used in the UK’s early research on the shortest distance residents should go to access a natural environment, and this phrase led to the development of the Accessible Natural Green Space Standard (ANGSt), which was developed in the early 1990s [47]. In this regard, the basic accessibility model can be seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2 indicates the ANGSt model [48]. This model recommends equity in accessing natural green spaces. The following are its key guidelines:

i.

No farther than 300 m or a 5-min walk with a minimum park area of 2 ha (0.2 Km²).

ii.

A 100 ha (1 km²) area should be accessible within a radius of five kilometers of the residential areas.

iii.

At least one park must have an area of 20 ha (0.2 km²) that is reachable within a radius of two kilometers of the residential areas.

iv.

A 500 ha (5 km²) area should be accessible within a radius of ten kilometers of the residential areas.

2.4. Spatial Analysis

A Geographic Information System (GIS) is an instrument used to assess park accessibility in terms of supply and demand [49]. Many academics have utilized straightforward buffering techniques with a GIS to calculate accessibility when creating usable areas around facilities by utilizing linear distance [50]. Khaza (2020) [51] used 500 m and 1000 m buffer distances to determine the parks’ service areas. In Abbottabad, Pakistan, Sumari (2019) [52] performed a study to determine the accessibility of basic and secondary education facilities by using a buffer analysis. Several 500 m bands were set up to conduct buffer assessments of various points in terms of accessibility along with the major central highway.

Earlier studies on the distribution of urban parks have been conducted in which accessibility is the key indicator and primarily focuses on rational allocation. By utilizing a GIS, accessibility is used to study the geographic equality of urban parks. Further, the requirements and spatial distribution of certain social groups are considered to evaluate the social equity of urban parks. For example, in Changzhou city, it was found that there was an improper distribution of parks in different regions. There were very few numbers in the suburbs than in the business area, especially in the New North District and Wujin District. The main challenges that need to be addressed in future city planning for Changzhou are the quantity, size, and spatial distribution of urban parks. Bahriny and Bell (2020) [53] mentioned that there were not many public spaces available in various sections of Tehran due to the city’s rapid population growth and sprawl. This inhibits the fair distribution of green areas and other welfare facilities. The Tehran Parks and Green Space Organization (TPGSO) has a policy of buying land and changing its usage to create added public parks to address the issue. This is opportunistic, though, and depends on the availability of the land. Over the past 30 years, around 154 parks have been developed. Certain studies related to the accessibility of urban parks have been conducted. A summary of the literature review can be seen below in

Table 2. Literature synthesis on parks using GIS.

References	Publication Titles	Authors and Publication Year
[54]	GIS-Based Evaluation Method for Accessibility of Social Infrastructure Facilities	Hayeon Yhee, Sungpyo Kim, and Sanghyeok Kang (2021)
[55]	Environmental Justice and Urban Parks. A Case Study Applied to Tarragona (Spain)	Joan Alberich, Yolanda Perez-Albert, Jose Ignacio Muro Morales, and Edgar Bustamante Picon (2021)
[56]	The Distribution and Accessibility of Urban Parks in Beijing, China: Implications of Social Equity	Joan Alberich, Yolanda Perez-Albert, Jose Ignacio Muro Morales, and Edgar Bustamante Picon (2019)
[57]	Evaluation of the Equity of Urban Park Green Space Based on Population Data Spatialization: A Case Study of a Central Area of Wuhan, China	Chuandong Tan, Yuhan Tang, and Xuefei Wu (2019)
[58]	Assessing Spatial Equity and Accessibility of Public Green Spaces in Aleppo City, Syria	Hussein Almohamad, Anna Lisa Knaack, and Badriah Mohammed Habib (2018)

.

Table 2 highlights certain case studies related to the theme of this article. Yhee and Kang (2021) [54] indicated a thorough evaluation approach to determine social infrastructure accessibility and to locate residential regions with low access. Social infrastructure facilities, such as parks, libraries, elementary schools, daycare facilities, kindergartens, and sports facilities are also discussed. To assess the method’s applicability, Namdong-gu in South Korea’s Incheon Metropolitan City was used. The AI was simple to grasp since it served as an intuitive indicator of a region’s general accessibility in a matter of minutes, which was one advantage of the suggested technique. Similarly, Alberich et al. (2021) [55] highlighted the Park Quality Index (PQI) and explored sociodemographic data. This study sought to establish the environmental justice of urban parks in Tarragona, Spain. A Multicriteria Evaluation (MCE) with GIS integration was created. The findings demonstrated that most parks had a low PQI, with the vegetation receiving the highest and the infrastructure receiving the lowest values. This research also highlighted that green spaces were difficult to reach.

Additionally, to look at the relationship between the population distribution and the accessibility of urban parks at different administrative levels; Alberich et al. (2021) [56] used the location quotient along with the Lorenz curve and Gini coefficient. The results of the study showed that access to urban parks varied at the district and subdistrict levels. Further, this study clarified that accessibility was frequently greater in places with more urban parks. Likewise, the geographical alignment of service provision and user group demand was used to assess the equity of the urban park green space by Tan and Tang (2019) [57]. The Geographically Weighted Regression (GWR) model and the Population Data Specialization (PDS) technique were executed. The results showed that the range of the park green space in Wuhan’s central urban area was within 15 min of walking and that Hongshan District had the lowest equity of park green space. In addition, Almohamad and Habib (2018) [58] looked at the accessibility of urban green spaces in Aleppo, Syria. An honestly significant difference (HSD) test was used after a network analysis and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). At lower hierarchies, there was a significant lack of urban green space, although the access to quarter parks and district parks was quite high.

No studies have worked on determining the accessibility of urban parks in Hyderabad so far. Hence, the current study fills this gap and can be considered a novel approach in terms of the study area. The study not only focused on the spatial accessibility of parks but also suggested the allocation of more parks to meet the requirements of the people. This research also recorded peoples’ perception towards the current condition of parks with the help of a questionnaire survey. The current study may be nominated as being the first of its kind in the context of the accessibility of urban parks and their serviceability in Hyderabad. The review process helped use design the proper research methods to attain the objectives of the study. The detailed methodology section can be reviewed henceforth.

3. Material and Methods

3.1. Study Area

This research was conducted to evaluate the accessibility of recreational parks. This study was conducted in the Hyderabad district, which is in Sindh province, Pakistan. Hyderabad was ranked as the second largest urban city in Sindh and the eighth largest in Pakistan [59]. Administratively, the Hyderabad district is divided into four Talukas: Hyderabad city, Qasimabad, Latifabad, and Hyderabad rural, and one Cantonment area with a total population of more than 2.1 million people. Three main Talukas are called (a) Latifabad Taluka, (b) Qasimabad Taluka, and (c) Hyderabad City Taluka; additionally, the Cantonment area includes 70.22 km² of urban land, which is concentrated in the city’s center. Hyderabad Rural Taluka comprises agricultural land and villages. According to the 2017 census report, the Hyderabad district contained more than 2.1 million people with an average growth rate of 2.05% from 1998 to 2017, as seen in

Table 3. Population of Hyderabad district (Source: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics).

Name	Population		Growth Rate 1998–2017
Area	1998	2017
Hyderabad district (overall)	1,494,866	2,199,928	2.05%
Hyderabad City Taluka	525,299	725,153	1.71%
Qasimabad Taluka	115,374	304,779	5.24%
Latifabad Taluka	563,761	703,690	1.17%
Hyderabad Rural Taluka	290,432	466,306	2.52%
Cantonment area	81,381	99,767	1.10%

.

The demographic features from 1998 and 2017 are visible in Table 3. During the previous 19 years, the population of the Hyderabad district increased by 2.05% (From 1998 to 2017). Likewise, Qasimabad Taluka was leading in terms of the Average Annual Population Growth Rate (AAPGR) with 5.24%. The AAPGRs of Latifabad Taluka, Hyderabad Rural, Hyderabad City Taluka, and the Cantonment area were noted as 1.17%, 2.52%, 1.71%, and 1.1%, respectively. The location of the study area can be seen in Figure 3.

This study just focused on the urban land of Hyderabad; therefore, Latifabad, Qasimabad, City Taluka, and the Cantonment area were considered as study areas to evaluate the accessibility of urban parks. Like other cities of Pakistan, Hyderabad is additionally confronted with a deficiency of parks and their management issues. Thus, the current study work presents an analysis of the park’s distribution. In addition, this research evaluates the accessibility of available parks and computes their shortage as per local guidelines.

3.2. Methodology

The applied research methods followed the steps listed below:

i.

Collect data regarding the parks in different Talukas of Hyderabad from the Hyderabad Development Authority (HDA).

ii.

Generate the spatial map showing the distribution of urban parks in the entire city.

iii.

Utilize the ANGSt model and Standards of Pakistan to draw accessibility buffers.

iv.

Highlight the areas that have a deficit in parks.

v.

Prepare questionnaires to acquire data about the condition of parks.

vi.

Analyze the results with SPSS software (SPSS-23.0).

vii.

Give recommendations and conclusion.

From steps i–vii, the methods were drawn and divided into three phases: (a) Input Phase, (b) Processing Phase, and (c) Output Phase (Figure 4). In the first phase, the data were acquired via statistical reports, the Hyderabad district’s census report, and satellite imagery via open street maps and Google Earth pro software. The people’s attitudes towards the condition of the parks were acquired with the help of questionnaires.

As shown in Figure 4, the second phase was concerned with the analysis. ArcGIS-10.8 Software was used to transform and georeference the spatial data. The parks’ shapefiles were manually digitized, saved as a polygon feature, distributed, and then a buffer analysis was applied to calculate the service area of the parks. After the analysis, the authors recommended suitable zones to allocate new parks to meet the requirements of residents.

3.2.1. Data Collection

This study incorporated and used data from multiple sources. (i) Park type, size, and distribution throughout the entire city were obtained from Hyderabad Development Authority (HDA), Google satellite images, open street maps, and official urban park statistics. According to the “National Reference Manual on Planning and Infrastructure Standards (NRM),” urban parks are classified into five categories: Metropolitan Park, city park, community park, neighborhood park, and Mohalla park. (ii) The people’s perception of the condition of the existing parks was acquired from a questionnaire survey. (iii) The country’s current population data were obtained from the website of the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, i.e., https://www.pbs.gov.pk/, accessed on 1 September 2022.

3.2.2. Park Accessibility

When designing urban parks, a variety of standards were utilized to determine the accessible distance. The ANGSt model recommends that natural green spaces or parks of a minimum of 2 hectares should be placed within a distance of no more than 300 m from residential locations [19]. The NRM suggests that desirable distances for the parks and open spaces should be within a convenient walkable distance for small children, i.e., <200 m and 400 m for the neighborhood and Mohalla park (see Table 1). Therefore, in this study, three levels of buffer zones were established with a radius of 200, 300, and 400 m from the boundary of each park. Three tiers of buffer zones were created with a 200, 300, and 400 m radius from each park’s edge. Park accessibility was calculated using the ratios of the matching area and population inside the buffer zones. ArcMap software was used to create the buffer zones, and the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics supplied the population data.

3.2.3. Service Area and Service Population Ratio

This study’s notion included the service area ratio and service population ratio, which is related to the effectiveness of parks based on their location. The service area ratio, which excludes park areas, is the proportion of the service area within the area of analysis:

Service area ratio (%) = (service area by parks)/(total area − park area) × 100

(1)

The service population ratio showed the proportion of the analysis area’s overall population that was made up of the service population by parks:

Service population ratio (%) = (service population by parks)/(total population) × 100

(2)

3.2.4. Questionnaire Design and Sample

The questionnaire was designed with closed-ended questions to procure data regarding the condition of existing parks, general facilities, and the need for parks. The questionnaire consisted of five parts: (a) socio-demographic characteristics, (b) visitation of parks, (c) facility-supported public parks, (d) accessibility of parks, and (e) condition of parks.

The questionnaire sample size was calculated as 400. Due to a dearth of secondary sources on present population statistics, the Compound Interest Formula was used to estimate Hyderabad’s current population. Hyderabad’s forecasted population was calculated as 5,725,239 using the annual growth rate of 2.05% (see Table 3). The Taro technique was used to determine a meaningful sample size for the current investigation used by Talpur et al. (2017) [60]. It could be expressed mathematically as follows:

$$\mathrm{n}=\frac{N}{1+N{\left(e\right)}^2}$$

(3)

where

n = sample size.

N = population size.

e = level of precision.

The sample sizes were calculated using Equation (3). The sample size is indicated in (4).

A confidence level of 95% with P = 0.05 was considered.

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{n}=\frac{5725239}{1+5725239 {\left(0.05\right)}^2}\\ n=3999.999\cong 400\end{array}$$

(4)

With the help of the stratified random sampling technique, the required sampled data were gathered from the study area. In total, 100 questionnaires were selected for each area as depicted in

Table 4. Sample size distribution in the case study area.

District	Urban Areas/Talukas	Total Sample Size	Sample Size Distribution
Hyderabad	Latifabad Taluka	400	100
	City Taluka		100
	Qasimabad Taluka		100
	Cantonment area		100

. The data were analyzed with SPSS (SPSS-23.0).

As shown in Table 4, the questionnaire proportion was equally divided among all four Talukas of the study area.

4. Results and Discussion

Due to the rapid urbanization of Hyderabad and the increase in industry and buildings, the city’s active green areas are insufficient to meet the needs of its inhabitants. The map shown in Figure 5 displays the distribution of the parks at present in Hyderabad, which forms 28 major parks and covers an area of 0.5701 km² of the total area of 70.22 km². Evaluating the population’s access to and use of this amenity service depends heavily on the distribution of parks throughout the study area. From the survey and visual observation of the study area, 28 parks of assorted sizes were found, and their information can be retrieved from

Table 5. Current features of parks in Hyderabad district.

S. No	Location	Park Name	Area (km2)	S. No	Location	Park Name	Area (km2)
01	Latifabad Taluka	Afzal ground	0.0151	15		Wapda colony park	0.0059
02		Akbari park	0.0126	16		Wapda Ground	0.0163
03		Alisha park	0.0057	17	Qasimabad Taluka	Public park 2	0.0073
04		Baby Afza public park	0.0084	18		Sahrish Nagar Park	0.0049
05		Bismillah extension public park	0.0050	19		Giddu park	0.038161
06		Board Stadium	0.0351	20		Qasimabad park	0.005548
07		Extension park 2	0.0029	21	Cantonment area	Defense Park	0.0066
08		Mustafa Ground	0.0108	22		Cantonment park	0.0409
09		Niaz Stadium	0.0314	23		Askari park	0.0137
10		Nursery park	0.0154	24		Barrage colony park	0.0075
11		Public park	0.0027	25		Ziauddin park	0.0082
12		Public school park	0.0142	26		Sports Ground	0.0277
13		Rani Bagh	0.1972	27		Bagh	0.0123
14		SRTC playground	0.0067	28	Hyderabad City Taluka	Mubarak playground	0.0054
Total covering area of the parks in Hyderabad = 0.563 km2

and Figure 5, respectively. The largest park according to the size of the area was Rani Bagh (0.21 km²), and the others were Cantonment park (0.0409 km²), Giddu park (0.0402 km²), Board Stadium (0.0351 km²), and Niaz Stadium (0.0314 km²). These five parks account for around 0.34 km² of land or cover 61.14% of the city’s total parkland. A total of 23 parks made up the remaining 38.86% of the city’s total park area. The information about the availability of parks can be found in Table 5.

Figure 5 represents the availability of parks in Hyderabad. The main roads and residential neighborhoods can also be seen in Figure 5. The city’s entire area was noted as 70.22 km²; however, only 0.5701 km² (0.80%) of that total area was covered by parks. The southern side of the study area had more parks than the other sides, the western side had the largest parks, and the eastern side had least number of parks compared with the other sides.

4.1. Buffer Analysis

To assess accessibility, a GIS is a vital spatial tool. This study employed a GIS buffer analysis to calculate the distance to the nearest park and the size of its service area. To determine park accessibility using buffer analysis, 200, 300, and 400 m buffer zones were employed (Figure 6). The total buffered area was computed as 30.41 km², which was around 21.24% of the study area. The number and locations of urban parks in Hyderabad are believed to be insufficient, as depicted in Figure 6.

According to the NRM, each city’s urban area should reserve 18% of its land for green space [26].

Table 6. Service area and population analysis in Hyderabad.

Talukas in Hyderabad	Area (km2)	Population	The Number of Urban Parks	Park Area (km2)	Park Area Ratio (%)	Buffers Radius	Total Parks Service Area (km2)	Service Area Ratio (%)	Service Population Ratio (%)
Latifabad Taluka	29.45	703,690	16	0.39	1.32	200 m	3.19	28.38	36.17
						300 m	5.61
						400 m	8.25
Qasimabad Taluka	24.02	304,779	04	0.051	0.21	200 m	0.75	10.09	25.21
						300 m	1.50
						400 m	2.42
Hyderabad City Taluka	11.35	725,153	01	0.0054	0.04	200 m	0.19	5.55	3.45
						300 m	0.38
						400 m	0.63
Cantonment area	5.40	99,767	07	0.117	2.16	200 m	1.33	62.27	45.8
						300 m	2.28
						400 m	3.29
Total area of Hyderabad	70.22	1,833,389	28	0.563	0.80	200 m	5.61	21.24	24.09
						300 m	10
						400 m	14.8

shows that only 0.80% of the total area is covered by parks, which is much less than the standard level as per local conditions.

Table 6 shows that the service area ratio of the residential areas in the different Talukas was analyzed in the following order: Latifabad (28.38%), Qasimabad (10.09%), Hyderabad (5.55%), and Cantonment (62.27%). The service area ratio of the total area of the city was calculated as 21.24%. The service population ratio of the residential areas appeared as follows: Latifabad (36.17%), Qasimabad (25.21%), Hyderabad (3.45%), and Cantonment (45.80%). The service population ratio for the entire city was calculated as 24.09%. Keeping in view these statistics, it cannot be wrong to state that the residents of Hyderabad were found struggling to access urban parks. To further confirm the parks’ scarcity and services deficiency, a questionnaire survey was conducted to judge the peoples’ perception. The people also verified the shortage of urban parks and the absence of suitable services in the existing urban parks in the study area.

Oh and Jeong (2007) [61] carried out their study in Seoul, the capital of South Korea. They employed the equity concept to evaluate the serviceability of urban parks, with a particular emphasis on park distribution. The total area of urban parks in Seoul was approximately 158 km², which is fairly large compared to Hyderabad. The spatial distribution of parks in Seoul’s five subregions (northwest, northeast, central, southwest, and southeast) was assessed based on serviceability indices, such as the service area ratio and service population ratio, according to the study results. The analysis of the residential service area ratio in the subregions was conducted in the following order: southeast (68.52%), southwest (57.24%), central (57.16%), northeast (37.82%), and northwest (33.65%). Southeast (75.90%), southwest (60.92%), central (59.78%), northeast (43.16%), and northwest (33.48%) had the highest service population ratios. In comparison to Hyderabad, Seoul’s distribution of urban parks is thought to be reasonably adequate. Hyderabad’s overall service area to population ratio was determined to be 21.24%, which is incredibly low. The service population to service area ratio was 24.09%.

The study area of Hyderabad is the eighth largest and the most densely developed city in Pakistan. The total area of the study area was determined as approximately 70.22 km². The city recorded 2,199,928 residents in 2017. The area of Hyderabad was administratively divided into four regions: Latifabad Taluka (29.45 km²), Qasimabad Taluka (24.02 km²), Hyderabad City Taluka (11.35 km²), and the Cantonment area (5.40 km²). This accounted for 41.92%, 34.20%, 16.16%, and 7.69% of the total area, respectively. The Latifabad Taluka was the largest part of the city, having 16 parks including a city park, neighborhood park, community park, and Mohalla park. Hyderabad City Taluka had the least number of parks, i.e., only one park located in the entire area. The buffering method was used to calculate the service area per the four different parcels of land (see Figure 6).

Table 7. Catchment area of parks.

Park Category	Number of Parks	Total Park Area in Hyderabad (km2)	Catchment Area
City park	1	0.20	3200 m
Community park	2	0.08	1200 m
Neighborhood park	3	0.09	1000 m
Mohalla park	22	0.19	1000 m

describes the catchment area of various categories of Parks set by the government of Pakistan.

Table 7 shows the variety of parks according to the catchment area. The parks were divided into four categories: (a) city park (3200 m), (b) community park (1200 m), (c) neighborhood park (400 m), and (d) Mohalla park (400 m). The only available city park was Rani Bagh in Hyderabad. Giddu park and Cantonment park were the only two community parks, while Board Stadium, Niaz Stadium, and Sports Ground were the neighborhood parks in Hyderabad. The rest of the parks were Mohalla parks including Afzal ground, Akbari park, Alisha park, Baby Afza public park, Bismillah extension public park, Wapda colony park, Wapda Ground, Public park 2, Sehrish Nagar park, Qasimabad park, Extension park 2, Mustafa Ground, Nursery park, Public park, Public school park, SRTC playground, defense park, Askari park, Barrage colony park, Ziauddin park, Bagh, and Mubarak playground in Hyderabad, as shown in Figure 7.

This study found that the residential areas of Latifabad Taluka had adequate facilities of parks for the inhabitants. Latifabad mainly consisted of 16 parks compared to the rest of the Talukas (Qasimabad, Hyderabad, and the Cantonment area). Rani Bagh (0.201 km²) is situated in Latifabad Taluka and only served a population of about 0.4 million people. According to the NRM, each city’s urban area should reserve 18% of its land for green spaces and parks [26]. Table 5 reveals that only 0.80% of the total area was covered by parks, which can be said to be way below the standards. These parks only served 21.24% of the total area, which is insufficient to meet the requirements of city residents.

In contrast to Figure 8, this study also found that residential colonies suffered from park deficiency and less accessibility. These colonies were merged into four zones, as seen in Figure 8 and

Table 8. Suitable zones for additional parks in Hyderabad.

Zones	Location in Taluka	Suitable Sites for the Allocation of Parks
Zone-1	Hyderabad City Taluka	Pathan Colony, Amil Colony, Muhammadi Town, Heerabad, Silawat Para, Liaquat Colony, Dadan Shah, Choti Ghitti, Pakka Qila, Resham Gali, Phuleli.
Zone-2	Latifabad Taluka	Islamabad, Fateh Chowk Gulshan-E-Subhan, Gulshan-E-Kheir, Gaddi Colony, Al-Waheed Colony, Kalhora Village, Labour Colony
Zone-3	Qasimabad Taluka	Qasim Town, Sacchalabad, Citizen Colony, Momin Nagar, Burhani Nagar, Al-Mustafa Town Phase 2
Zone-4	Qasimabad Taluka	Bhittai Town, Marvi Town, Gulistan-E-Faiz, Happy Homes, Al-Fateh Town

.

Starting from Zone-1 located in the City Taluka, which includes Pathan Colony, Amil Colony, Muhammadi Town, Hyderabad, Silawat Para, Liaquat Colony, Dadan Shah, Choti Ghitti, Pakka Qila, Resham Gali, Phuleli, it seemed densely populated; Zone-2 is located in Latifabad Taluka and comprises Islamabad, Fateh Chowk Gulshan-E-Subhan, Gulshan-E-Kheir, Gaddi Colony, Al-Waheed Colony, Kalhora Village, Labour Colony; Zone-3 and Zone-4 both are located in Qasimabad Taluka and consist of Qasim Town, Sacchalabad, Citizen Colony, Momin Nagar, Burhani Nagar, Al-Mustafa Town Phase 2, Bhittai Town, Marvi Town, Gulistan-E-Faiz, Happy Homes, Al-Fateh Town, and they seem to have the least access to urban parks. There are only seven parks located in Qasimabad Taluka, and they are far away from the residential areas. Further illustrations can be seen in Figure 8.

Figure 8 illustrates the City Taluka, which is comparatively more densely populated. Meanwhile, the area has only one park (0.04%), which is insufficient for the residents.

Due to deprivation, four prominent subregions were identified for the construction of new parks. In total, 30 locations were found, which can be seen in Figure 9. It clarifies the potential sites for the development of new parks. It is recommended that potential sites should be given priority for the planning and designing of new parks in City Taluka.

4.2. Descriptive Analysis

The questionnaire was designed to understand people’s perceptions of the existing condition of the parks. The main purpose of this step was to validate the outcome of the spatial analysis. Moreover, this process also helped to record the opinion of the residents about the conditions of the available urban parks. A descriptive analysis was used to evaluate the information gathered. The analysis method is known as descriptive statistics and is used to present data in tabular, graphical, and numerical forms [60]. The actual results were ascertained using SPSS-22. Charts were used to show the results of the data collected from a questionnaire survey. The sociodemographic features of the respondents can be seen in

Table 9. Sociodemographic characteristics of respondents.

Demographic	Variables	N	Percentage (%)
Gender	Male	211	52%
	Female	189	47%
Age	18–24 Years	177	44%
	25–35 Years	159	39%
	36–45 Years	60	15%
	Above 45 Years	4	1%
Education	Primary–Secondary	28	7%
	Intermediated	187	46%
	Bachelor	167	41%
	Master’s	18	4%
Location	Latifabad	100	25%
	Qasimabad	100	25%
	Hyderabad	100	25%
	Cantonment area	100	25%

.

In terms of the respondents’ sociodemographic characteristics, male involvement (52%) was greater than female participation (47%) (see Table 9). The respondents were primarily from the Latifabad (25%), Qasimabad (25%), Hyderabad (25%), and Cantonment region (25%). The respondents were aged 18 to 24 and the majority had at least one college degree. In conclusion, the respondents were more likely to be younger males not older than 45. The majority of the visitors were aged 18 to 24 years. Additionally, the participants were frequently more educated; for example, when asked to characterize their level of education, 46% chose “intermediated” and 41% chose “Bachelor.” The information about daily visits can be found in

Table 10. Users’ normal routine to parks.

Item	Variables	N	Percentage (%)
Visit	Daily	9	2%
	Weekly	31	7%
	Once a month	80	20%
	Once every few months	35	8%
	Yearly	91	22%
	Every two years and over	35	8%
	Sometimes	119	29%
Spending time	Less than half an hour	4	2%
	Half an hour	72	18%
	1 h to 2 h	157	39%
	2 to 4 h	110	27%
	Over 4 h	57	14%
Time spent traveling from home to the park	<5 min	98	18%
	5–10 min	150	30%
	11–30 min	122	25%
	31–60 min	18	17%
	>60 min	12	10%
Respondent travel to the park	On foot	73	18%
	Bike	210	52%
	Bus	13	3%
	Car	104	26%

.

The visit patterns are broken down into four categories in Table 10, including the desired visit time and duration of the visit. The findings showed that more than half of the respondents preferred to visit parks close to their homes. The average travel time to the parks was less than two hours; hence, going to a park in their area was often the first option. Only nine (2%) respondents claimed to visit parks every day, while 210 (52%) respondents stated that they commute to parks by bike. The results showed that 157 (39%) respondents said that their visit to the park lasted between one and two hours. The information about facilities can be seen in

Table 11. Facilities provided at public parks.

Facility	Variables	N	Percentage (%)
Public transport	Yes	161	41%
	No	239	59%
Walking and bicycle trails	Yes	103	25%
	No	234	58%
	Maybe	63	15%
Community parks	Yes	145	36%
	No	213	53%
	Maybe	42	10%
Playgrounds	Yes	228	57%
	No	137	34%
	Maybe	35	8%
Auditorium	Yes	3	8%
	No	346	86%
	Maybe	51	12%
Rides	Yes	149	37%
	No	215	53%
	Maybe	36	9%
Benches	Yes	113	28%
	No	251	62%
	Maybe	36	9%

.

The park’s amenities are broken down into seven categories in Table 11. These categories are public transportation, walking and biking paths, neighborhood parks, playgrounds, auditoriums, rides, and benches. Most respondents were dissatisfied with the amenities offered in parks. According to the results, 239 (59%) of the respondents highlighted the absence of transportation services, 234 (58%) respondents complained about the lack of walking and bicycle trails in parks, 213 (53%) respondents said that there were no community parks nearby, 137 (34%) respondents mentioned a lack of playgrounds, 215 (53%) respondents said there were no rides available in the parks, and 251 (62%) respondents mentioned the absence of proper sitting arrangements. In conclusion, the respondents claimed that the available parks do not have enough services to meet their needs. Most of the parks were devoid of facilities, such as auditoriums and concert venues, gardens, walking and bicycling trails, etc. They expressed a dire need for officials to provide suitable facilities in the parks. The recorded responses about the park’s accessibility can be seen in

Table 12. User responses regarding accessibility of parks.

Item	Variable	N	Percentage (%)
Neighborhood park	Yes	75	18%
	No	283	70%
	Maybe	52	10%
Why parks are not accessible	Too far to walk	185	46%
	Step topography of the local area	20	5%
	Significant barriers such as busy roads, railway lines, creeks, rivers, etc., limit access.	195	48%

.

Table 12 analyzes the accessibility of the parks and the reasons why the parks are inaccessible to respondents. In total, 283 (70%) respondents claimed that local parks are inaccessible. Approximately 195 (48%) respondents rated busy highways, railroad tracks, streams, and rivers as the prime reasons responsible for the inaccessibility of parks. People’s perceptions of the condition of the park can be seen in

Table 13. Responses regarding condition of parks.

Item	Variables	N	Percentage (%)
Condition of the park	Satisfied	68	17%
	Fairly satisfied	5	1%
	Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	72	18%
	Fairly dissatisfied	98	24%
	Dissatisfied	157	39%
Need for more parks	Yes	284	71%
	No	18	4%
	Maybe	98	24%

.

Table 13 displays the state of the parks. A need for more parks was cited by 284 respondents (71%). Approximately 157 respondents (39%) were unhappy with the conditions of the parks. This information corroborated that most parks in Hyderabad are facing a lack of suitable facilities for residents. Most people were concerned about the condition and management issues together with inadequate basic facilities. As a result, it is strongly suggested that the HDA should offer the required amenities to improve the services in the parks of the city.

4.3. Integration of Spatial Analysis and Questionnaire Survey

The questionnaire survey was conducted to record the participants’ opinions about the accessibility of parks and the availability of essential services within existing parks. From the results of both concepts, it is clear that the available parks are not accessible, fall short of the threshold limit, and are devoid of a proper provision of services. The motive was to identify the ground realities concerning park accessibility in the study area. The participant’s opinion was recorded to further validate the outcome of the spatial analysis. Additionally, the fact that the city of Hyderabad is struggling in terms of the availability of parks according to national planning standards was verified by the findings of the spatial analysis. Therefore, concerned planning agencies should sit together and resolve the triggering urban issue as soon as possible.

Considering the limited facilities in parks in Hyderabad, the current study suggests allocating funds to develop new parks with services and amenities to meet the needs of every city resident. We discovered that people have stronger preferences for parks that are bigger and offer more amenities. Other than park location, amenities play a big role in how many people visit parks. Interestingly, a Shanghai study found that citizens’ utilization of country parks was unaffected by the minimal amenities offered [62]. Any increase in the utilization of public parks that already include amenities such as parking lots, restrooms, or restaurants increases the number of visitors. By offering opportunities for physical and mental recreation, parks can also improve citizens’ happiness. The entry/exit points on the main road must be prohibited to avoid accidents. Moreover, green spaces, which are important elements of urban ecosystems, support sustainable growth, a high standard of living, and good citizen health. They produce a variety of real and intangible ecosystem services, including amenities, possibilities for outdoor leisure, cleaning up the air, the preservation of wildlife habitats, and the improvement of physical and mental health. A high relevance rating was given to the usage of parks as urban green areas and recreational locations. A considerable improvement in urban ecology will result in the deployment of accessible green spaces in a balanced manner within reasonable distances to suit both recreational and ecological needs. The availability of recreational requirements is closely tied to the distance and accessibility of green spaces around the city. Hence, the results of the survey from the respondents show that they would like the government to allocate more parks in Hyderabad. People visit parks for relaxation, exercise, and to spend time with their families. However, most of the visitors are not satisfied with the condition of the parks. Therefore, there is a dire need to fulfill the shortage of urban parks in the study area with the provision of basic amenity services. In this regard, this research highlights the suitable sites for the creation of new parks around Hyderabad. The establishment of new parks should be close to homes, schools, and other zones, which would potentially enhance accessibility by decreasing commuting times and costs and supply a variety of travel options. This study also focused on the condition and maintenance of parks. It suggests that HDA should take necessary steps for the better management of parks. The concerned authority should also strive to supply adequate facilities, such as fairs and rides for children; walking tracks for elderly people; bicycling and running trails for athletes; auditoriums for concerts and events; etc. Additionally, to further strengthen the methodology, findings, and recommendations of this study, we decided to take opinions from local experts of the study area.

5. Local Experts’ Opinion

In total, three local experts with expertise related to this study’s scope were contacted. Of the three, two local experts agreed to comment on the methods, findings, and recommendations of this study. The profiles of the local experts and a summary of the interviews can be seen henceforth.

• Profile A: Dr. Muhammad Yousif Mangi
• Email: [email protected]
• https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Muhammad-Mangi-4 (accessed on 18 March 2023).
• Introduction to Local Expert:

Dr. Muhammad Yousif Mangi is a Ph.D. graduate in City and Rural Planning from the Department of Urban Planning and Design, School of Architecture, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China. He also completed his master’s and undergraduate degree in the field of City and Regional Planning at Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro, Pakistan. His research interests include Contemporary Urban Planning and Development, Urban Land Use and Transportation Planning, Urban Morphology and Design, Big Data, RS/GIS, Spatial Modeling, Inclusive Housing, etc.

He has been engaged in several research and physical projects throughout his academic and professional field career and has more than 12 years of experience. However, he mainly worked on GIS/RS-related research projects, including projects revolving around the detection of informal urban built-up growth, LULC changes, the impacts of COVID-19 on urban development patterns, and urban accessibility towards transportation and other facilities. Moreover, he has also performed a land suitability analysis through MCDA by using a GIS and has investigated urban flooding, created an urban heat island, and performed contour mapping.

He has published many research articles and presented his research at various international and national conferences. Dr. Yousif has also contributed as a reviewer in different international journals including Tourism Management Perspectives (SSCI), Cogent Business and Management (ESCI), and Cogent Social Sciences (ESCI). He mainly reviews GIS-related research articles in a particular field.

Moreover, he has worked as a team leader and GIS expert for numerous projects, including “Regeneration of Commercial Uses at Cantt Board Jhelum Catchment Area, Jhelum, Pakistan”, and “Development of Local Plan (Need Assessment Report) of Garhi Khuda Bux Bhutto as a Model Town, Larkana, Pakistan”.

Apart from his research and professional field activities, Dr. Muhammad Yousif Mangi has taught various courses to undergraduate (UG), postgraduate (PG), and Ph.D. students, such as Transportation Engineering and Planning (UG), Site Planning and Urban Design (UG), Introduction to GIS (UG), GIS and Remote Sensing (IEEM) (UG), Land Use and Building Control (UG), Master Planning (UG), Comparative Urban Planning (PG), Advanced Planning Techniques (PG), and Regional Planning (Ph.D.).

Additionally, Dr. Yousif has often used GIS-based software for spatial analysis in his research tasks, including Arc G.I.S (Arc Map, Arc Catalog), QGIS, ERDAS Imagine, IDRISI, TerrSet, SAS Planet, Google Earth Pro, and Remote Sensing Applications.

Summary of the Feedback: This study was found pretty much suitable. I have never seen such research conducted in this study area, i.e., Hyderabad, Sindh, Pakistan. I also worked on some parts of the Hyderabad Master Plan, but still, that document lacked the details debated in this study. Although buffering and network analysis are utilized often, for this particular study area, I have never experienced the execution of such tools to measure the accessibility of parks. This study is groundbreaking in this aspect as the researchers performed laborious work, such as by conducting a spatial analysis and utilizing surveys, to record the opinion of citizens on park accessibility. To the best of my knowledge, the researchers performed well; they rightly highlighted the issues and designed recommendations related to the subject matter of the research.

I suggest adding the following to the manuscript’s suggestions section:

i.

Parks must be provided within a walkable distance (10–15 min) of each prominent residential neighborhood in the area.

Now it is the responsibility of the concerned planning agencies that will execute the recommendations of this research in the larger interest of the local community to improve the accessibility and design specifications of parks in Hyderabad.

Note: It should be noted that I was contacted by the authors of the manuscript titled “GIS-based Sustainable Accessibility Mapping of Urban Parks: Evidence from the Second Largest Settlement of Sindh, Pakistan” to comment on the methodology, results, and recommendation sections. The manuscript specified which parts should be reviewed voluntarily to assist the local researchers, and the authors specified that this review may induce planning and research activities in the study area.

• Profile B: Plnr. Hassam Bin Waseem
• Email: [email protected]
• https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hassam-Bin-Waseem-2 (accessed on 18 March 2023).
• Introduction to Local Expert:

Planner Hassam Bin Waseem is currently serving as an assistant director (Town Planning) at the Capital Development Authority, Islamabad, Pakistan. Mr. Hassam is actively engaged in the planning and development activities of the Capital City of Pakistan. He is also doing a Ph.D. at the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, NUST, Islamabad, in the field of Urban and Regional Planning. His research interests included Urban Planning, GIS, Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), Climate Change Adaptation (CCA), and the DRR-CAA nexus.

Summary of the Feedback: Planning greenspaces in line with population requirements and at optimum locations is an important aspect that needs to be considered when developing a city. However, such aspects are not given much importance in the planning and development of major urban settlements in Pakistan, and the provision of green spaces is needed in such areas.

This study applies the GIS to determine the accessibility of parks, which is a good step. I must congratulate the authors on their work. No doubt, the city of Hyderabad needs an enormous number of Parks to facilitate its citizens. From this study, the field experts working in the study area may learn this lesson and implement such research directions not only for park accessibility but also for the planning and development of the entire city.

The manuscript is well written and all its sections are poised well. As the aforementioned tools are utilized for the first time to measure the accessibility of the parks in the study area, I would not recommend further improving the tools. However, for future studies, advanced GIS-based tools and models may be used to improve every development sector in the study area. The results and findings look suitable. A few recommendations may be added to further improve the accessibility of the parks in the study area as follows:

i.

The parks must be provided at neighborhood and Tehsil levels.

ii.

Standard design specifications must be referenced to design new parks.

iii.

The concerned authorities should supply public transport to facilitate the citizens’ access to the parks.

For future studies, my recommendations are as follows:

i.

Instead of distance, future research could use more indicators to generate refined results.

ii.

Public perceptions and preferences towards green spaces could be explored more in future studies.

iii.

Recommendations could be proposed considering the prominent land uses surrounding the green spaces.

In the end, I would like to thank the authors for allowing me to comment on a burning issue in the study area. I wish the best of luck to the authors’ research and further future endeavors. I must note that I voluntarily commented on the manuscripts’ methods, findings, and recommendations. My comments should only be considered for the publication process of the manuscript “GIS-based Sustainable Accessibility Mapping of Urban Parks: Evidence from the Second Largest Settlement of Sindh, Pakistan”.

6. Recommendations

As needed, households visit various venues daily or weekly (e.g., public parks, worksites, departmental stores, health, and education facilities). These amenities should be evenly spaced beside the highways and a settlement as indicated in Figure 10. Activities that are spread out over a larger area require more travel to get to them. If the locations are near together, the average travel time and distance may be reduced and may even be walkable. As a result, according to norms, an increase in the number of urban parks tends to improve accessibility. On the other hand, short distances can boost the population’s travel options, mainly walking. Litman claimed that accessibility standards might be improved if amenities were closer together.

If destinations are close enough, they may be easily accessible by foot, which is ideal for congested developing countries where most people do not own a car. As depicted in Figure 11, the centered origin can minimize the average distance to each destination, which increases accessibility.

Travel requirements are concentrated in a more central location, which might improve accessibility. Residents’ accessibility can be improved with good road connectivity. Every park should have access to roads, which are necessary for normal operations to be completed. If parks were established on both ends of various settlements, accessibility and transportation flows would be improved, as explained in Figure 11. The accessibility of parks is likely to improve, which can help improve citizens’ accessibility standards.

Urban park systems, with the right optimization and enhancement, can meet the rising need for a healthy environment that improves well-being. Two options are presented in this study to enhance and better the network of urban parks in Hyderabad. One is the construction of more urban parks in Hyderabad. Even a little house lot can serve as a fantastic urban park. The park is great because of its design. Even a small park with a good design has the potential to draw visitors and keep them there. Such tiny parks can be placed on vacant lots in residential areas that lack green space or are crowded. Hyderabad needs larger parks; however, it may be challenging to change how the currently built-up city uses its land. As a result, these little parks can be crucial, and they can be planned with consideration for crucial physical aspects. Small-scale urban natural parks could improve the health and well-being of urban neighborhoods. In an urban context, these parks can be allocated in central business districts. The percentage of park areas in the city can be increased by adding sidewalks along the streets, a small plaza park with a fountain and a few benches between towering buildings, and an outside grassy area between commercial complexes. Secondly, the accessibility of a park from residential areas should be given more consideration when building urban parks and recreational facilities. Families, young children, and older people must be able to reach and use parks within 200 and 300 m. More consideration should be drawn to Hyderabad City Taluka as the city was found to be suffering from a maximum deficiency of parking.

7. Conclusions

Urban areas are densely populated with multiple activities. Recreation is one of the paramount activities of urban settlements. Parks and playgrounds are vital areas for recreation activities. Urban parks are mandatory to meet sustainable indicators. Parks and other public areas can significantly improve a person’s mental health. Hence, this research was articulated to evaluate the accessibility of urban parks in Hyderabad. Hyderabad is the second largest city in Sindh and the sixth largest in Pakistan with a population of more than 2.1 million. This city is facing an acute shortage of urban parks that further deteriorates the accessibility standards. The areas of Hyderabad have an insufficient number of parks as there are only 28 urban parks available throughout the city. The residential areas were also found to be distant without proper transport facilities. Likewise, many people were reluctant to visit parks because of the absence of services and facilities. So, it was time to measure the accessibility standards of the parks. For the first time, GIS technology was experimented with to measure the accessibility of urban parks in Hyderabad. A buffer analysis and people’s perceptions were integrated to achieve the objectives of this study. By executing buffer analysis, this study determined the service coverage of existing parks. By using the multiple ring buffering approach, a linear distance of 200, 300, and 400 m between the parks and the service areas was measured. This study found that the total service coverage area of the parks was 21.24%, which is extremely limited as compared to the Standards of Pakistan. The participants’ opinion was also recorded to validate the spatial analysis. It was found that the residents were also not satisfied with the unavailability of services in the existing parks. The respondents also pointed out issues with accessing the urban parks in the study area. The existing parks were found to be incapable of serving the full population of Hyderabad. This study investigated that most of the parks failed to meet the needs of the visitors. Park users demand enhanced accessibility, better management, suitable facilities, enough rides for kids, and food courts for light refreshments, among other things. Certain regions were overserved by the clustering of parks. On the other hand, some locations had few or no parks. Few residential areas were noted to be far from the existing available parks. Consequently, the city is in dire need of urban parks in order to upgrade the quality of life and accessibility standards. In this way, this research successfully retrieved the objectives and put forward recommendations to mitigate issues regarding the accessibility of urban parks. This research recommends the planning and development of new parks, i.e., 40–45 on the proposed locations together with standardized services. The accessibility standards can be increased in this way to attract more visitors in the future. For the very first time, this study computed the accessibility of parks by using a GIS. Therefore, this research sets a platform for planning agencies to work hard on the subject matter to increase park accessibility for the larger interest of the city and country. This research contributes to SDGs 3 and 11, which certainly focus on the provision of a livable urban environment.