Content uploaded by Frederico Meireles Rodrigues
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Frederico Meireles Rodrigues
Content may be subject to copyright.
PERCEIVED USE OF GREEN URBAN PARKS: USER’S ASSESSMENT OF FIVE CASE-
STUDIES
Frederico Meireles Rodrigues1, Paulo Farinha Marques, Simon Bell, Eva Silveirinha de
Oliveira
KEYWORDS: Urban green parks, Polis Programme, Case-study, Post-occupancy evaluation
INTRODUCTION
Parks, as well as other urban open spaces, are seen as objects of urban regeneration and are
also tangible entities, publicly lived and owned by everyone. The globalization of design and the
discussion about design models has been increasingly frequent. There are many views about
the contemporary park design, but two emerge rather opposing.
On one hand, the park as a metaphor of the city (Geuze, 1993), a cultural, artistic “physical-
architectural fashion” (Shaffer, 2006, p 21) that extends the urban form and it is a means to
indulge our insistent need to discover community life (Kostof, 1992).The “experimental site for
current garden art” (Shaffer, 2006, p 29) and the horticulture of beauty, rather than a naturalistic
urban vision (Worpole, 2000). On the other hand, the park is seen as the representation of
nature (Koh, 1982), as if contrasting with the “dark side”. The sustainable park is well integrated
in the urban fabric, yet evokes a new and more ecological aesthetic (Cranz & Boland, 2004). It
reclaims the natural systems for the city, connects the bits and pieces of outdoor space,
promotes well-being, ecological integrity, construction and maintenance cost adaptation, and
the mitigation of a wide range of negative impacts over the city life and environment (Tate,
2001). It also accentuates the need for a biodiversity-based strategy, able to deal with a creative
and sensitive management of parks as green urban spaces (Farinha-Marques, 2006).
Ultimately, the park is the place designed by nature and time, the loose-fit environment where
the absence of formal design keeps the space available to a dynamic allocation of various uses
(Ward Thompson, 2002).
David Louwerse (1993) stresses these two conceptions of parks when focusing on the
relationship between architecture and the urban park: on one hand the park as an “unroofed
building”, and on the other the sub-urban park, where there is more space available, and so the
opportunity to present a more naturalized vision. If the first is constrained by the architecture
and the city form, the second brings up the challenge to adapt nature to the needs of a dense
urban life.
Parks are landscapes and these are dynamic, therefore change is one of their qualities (Antrop,
2005). If parks are being designed, managed and used by people at a certain time, political
reality can also be one the causes of the transformation (Ward Thompson, 2002). Although
sometimes denied as an “ideological battlefield” (Shaffer, 2006, p 29), Ward Thompson (2002)
discusses park design by looking at it from two democratic perspectives: Firstly, the park as
“melting pot” which tends to absorb cultural differences and seek multifunctional design
solutions (Ward Thompson, 2002), becoming an informal space that accomodates free use
(Pardal, 2006). Alternatively the park can be seen as a “salad bowl”, where cultural differences
can find their individual expression, attending to everyone’s needs, becoming perhaps more
intensively designed, but, has Ophuis (2002, p 9) stresses, safeguarding “the overlapping and
interchange of different social realms”. Despite that, Bernard Huet (1993) using La Villete as an
example, rejects the “plug-in park” (p 20), i.e., a place that aggregates specific functions for
everybody and anything, with no integrity. It is a problem to be solved by design, which should
then recognize “the need of all individuals to distinguish themselves as well as be surprised and
amused by others and, not least, by the design of the place itself” (Ophuis, 2002, p 9).
1 1 UTAD - University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal
CITAB – Centre for the Research and Technology of Agro-Environmental and Biological Sciences
+351 259 350 832 fmeireles@utad.pt
The creation of a series of new green urban parks in Portugal, between 2000 and 2010, went
through an intense phase, under a large scale government programme, which was mostly
modelled upon the successful case of Lisbon’s International Exhibition of 1998 (Correia
Guedes, Pinheiro, & Manuel Alves, 2009; Partidário & Nunes Correia, 2004; MAOT, 2000). The
Polis Programme was designed to assist the environmental regeneration of a number of cities.
Medium and small cities were able to access funding with which to generate new recreation and
leisure opportunities. This growth however was not concurrent with the development and
implementation of evaluation strategies seeking to understand its impact on urban
environmental quality and, ultimately, on people’s quality of life. In fact, field observations in
parks, conducted by the authors for the past 12 years, suggest that most parks in Portugal are
generally expensive and intensively designed, following contemporary architectural trends and
quickly result in neglected sites, which look as if they’re not entirely responding to user’s needs
and expectations (Farinha-Marques, 2006; Meireles-Rodrigues, 2007).
One of the main motivations of this study was to confront those assumptions with the actual
pattern of park use and user’s evaluations of the Polis parks. Previous evaluations of the results
and outcomes are mainly focused on the programme’s governance, planning and environmental
issues. Apart from some descriptive analysis and visual quality assessment of Polis parks, there
was a lack of scientific research into the way these new parks have met their goals, and almost
none in the field of user’s and post-occupancy evaluation (POE).
RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHODOLOGY
An evaluation as constructive-deductive research strategy can be used to assess existing
landscape conditions and to assess the success of programmes, plans, designs and
management actions (Swaffield & Deming, 2011). As developed by Friedman, Zimring and
Zube (1978), it has proved to be valuable as a feedback mechanism for practice and teaching,
to support decision making, to create and improve places, assessing user’s needs and
preferences and improving efficiency and value of money. Theobald (1979, p 61) emphasizes
the idea that evaluation is also a means to learn from good practices and mistakes, proposing
that evaluation should be “viewed as a process to improve rather than prove or disprove”. As an
example, Bryant Park, in New York, re-designed in the beginning of the 90’s from a decrepit site
and described by William H. Whyte (Tate, 2001, p 25) as “the territory of dope dealers and
smugglers” has become, we would assert, a very pleasant park.
A post-occupancy evaluation (Goličnik & Ward Thompson, 2010; Marcus & Francis, 1997;
Moore & Cosco, 2010; Nager & Wentworth, 1978) is a multi-method approach to the evaluation
of a built environment, consisting of the appreciation of its performance. Cooper Marcus and
Francis (1998, p 345) explain it as “a systematic evaluation of a designed and occupied setting
from the perspective of those who use it”. It has been used to evaluate different issues and
types of open spaces and frequently includes methods of observation and behaviour mapping,
surveys and interviews.
This paper aims to look at the results of a post-occupancy evaluation (POE) of five green urban
parks, in order to explore common broader lessons about the Portuguese particularities of park
use, preferences and needs. The study that led to this paper is part of a wider doctoral research
on the evaluation of contemporary green urban parks in Portugal, explored from the points of
view of experts and users. It addresses the following questions, considering a selection of
Portuguese green urban parks, created under the Polis programme: How are parks being used?
Are they successful from the user’s point-of-view?
In order to obtain valid data for a user-led approach on Polis parks evaluation, a selection of five
case-studies allow a focus on the particularities of an individual park yet retains the possibility to
look at emerging broader patterns (Yin, 1994; Francis, 1999, 2003; Loures, 2011). An early
phase of profiling the Polis parks led to that selection, from an list of 31 green spaces produced
after consultation with the 28 municipalities which were funded by the first stage of the Polis
programme. The selected parks are inside the urban perimeter, allow free public access, and
range in size from 8 to 20 hectares. The selection also represents the wide geographical cover
of the programme. A POE was carried out on this sample to test user’s preferences, needs and
satisfaction levels. This examination incorporated methods of observation of use, activity and
behaviour mapping and on-site structured interviews.
The observations and behaviour mapping were conducted during spring and summer 2011. The
fieldwork was organized by sets of three observation sessions for each of four periods of the
day (morning, noon, afternoon and evening). This resulted in 12 sessions per park and, at least,
one round per session, depending on user’s frequency and recording speed. In total, 12 to 27
rounds of 18 to 25 minutes were carried out in each of the five parks. The data recording
system was developed under this research and makes use of a Asus multitouch PC T91MTTM to
operate the geographic information generated in QuantumGISTM software. The input of data is
facilitated by a user interface form, developed in the Qt designerTM programming application.
The computer allows operating in tablet mode, using a pen, and has proved to be very quick
and more reliable than the conventional paper-based system. A total of 4797 users were
mapped and profiled according to their gender and age group, social interaction, level of activity
and type of behaviour.
Figure 1 - Active use map on St. António Park (PSACC), in Costa da Caparica (n=1188), discriminating 263 (star)
users involved in playing with or without ball (map on the right). Map of the general pattern of user's
occupation (n=1790) at PSACC (map on the left). The main concentration of users is signed by red lettering: (a)
pine wood playground, bar and esplanade; (b) open playground with slide; (c) open playground for younger
age groups; (d) sparse pine wood with free lawn; (e) ways to the beach. ( North)
The on-site interviews were conducted between summer and autumn 2012. There were both
closed and open questions organized into 3 blocks. The first block was intended to differentiate
the pattern of use of the park by the respondent, the second block on the user’s evaluation and
the third collected demographic information of the respondent. The data collection was carried
out both on a paper form and on a map. The form was designed to record text answers, such
like the answer to “What are your two main reasons for visiting this park?”. A map under an
acrylic cover, was developed in order to record geo-referenced answers to questions such as
“Which place in the park do you like the most?” or “Which route do you usually take inside the
park?”. 351 interviews were conducted, which v ary from 60 to 70 per park. A quota by gender
and age-group was pre-defined, taking in consideration the results from the behaviour mapping.
Figure 2 - Chart of the user's evaluation using a likert scale (1-5), considering global satisfaction levels,
aesthetic appreciation, evaluation of the maintenance and care, evaluation of safety and security, and the
response to the respondent needs.
SYNTHESIS AND FINAL COMMENTS
Preliminary findings show that users find the sampled parks to be pleasant and attractive in
general, yet, many negative aspects emerge. Generally, users point out the lack of trees and
shade, the lack of care, the excess of constructed elements and car parking areas, and
unfinished places as the main negative aspects of the parks. Conversely, playgrounds, circular
pathways and shady settings seem to be very much appreciated. Overall, users tend to be more
critical about maintenance and safety issues, finding them more important than the visual
qualities and the park response to social and their own needs. Even so, their suggestions
towards the improvement of the park seem to point mostly to aspects related to the usability.
Corraliza (2000) advocates than in many Mediterranean countries promenades and streets are
meeting points and support social interaction. This fact appears to deny the role of parks, but it
actually supports the results obtained from the observations and interviews, placing the pathway
routes (especially when forming circuits) as one of most preferred element of park use. It
showed also that there is quite a high level of social interaction along these routes, i.e., walking
is not at all a solitary activity. The same happens with playgrounds which show high levels of
social interaction, whether among children or parents.
The majority of the park users are essentially involved in physical activity, which is consistent
with the fact that the most occupied areas in the entire park are playgrounds and pathways. In
St. António Park, in Costa da Caparaica (fig. 1), for example, the shady pine wood playground
is clearly the favourite, in spite of the tempting toys offered by the other playgrounds situated in
the sun. The presence of trees and shade opportunities seem to be seen as one of the greatest
benefits of the parks.
Parks with river margins also show great preference both for active and passive recreation.
Even the water margins are a place to social interaction, as opposed to solitary contemplation.
The sitting areas, especially when they are not in the shade, seem to be less preferred than the
places by the water, where meeting opportunities are far more recurrent.
Water, green and shade emerged as the most relevant reasons to explain preferred places so
as to improve the quality of fruition in summer. The contact with water and its contemplation and
the need for a cooler and thermally comfortable outdoor environment are seen as two of the
most pursued characteristics, which is perhaps in evidence throughout the history of garden art
in societies with arid and Mediterranean climates..
Open lawns and meadows showed low useage. The sedentary users seem to prefer the sitting
areas by the water; under the trees, which provide appealing shades; or those by the pathways.
These results differ from Goličnik & Ward Thompson’s (2010) who have applied similar methods
to parks in Edinburgh and Ljubljana finding that the sedentary and passive use of the open
meadows is otherwise very significant, concluding that it occurs especially when a certain
“edge-effect” (idem, p 45) accommodates users in this areas.
The Portuguese hot summer is a very important reason for the lower occupation of the
meadows; nevertheless, the use of lawns is quite popular whenever there are shade trees
dotted about. Despite these findings, whether the lawns are entirely open or providing enough
shade, the need for lawns is a very important matter and, when these are missing, users usually
identify them as a priority to improve the park. Mature sparse woods in transition, partially
covering the clearings, seem to be the best combination in order to maximize multifunctionality
and recreation in the meadows, while still preserving enough open land to respond to prospect
needs, which evokes Appleton’s (1975) theory of Prospect-Refuge.
These assumptions of the scattered woodland recall psycho-evolutionary theories, such as the
Habitat theory and the savannah hypothesis (Orians & Heerwagen, 1993, 1992; Balling & Falk,
1982; Orians, 1980), which suggest that people favour savannah-like landscapes. These claim
that since Man has lived most of his evolutionary time in the African eastern-savannah, we
maintain the memories of these preferred environments, an intrinsic predisposition to favour
these models of landscape (Balling & Falk, 1982), which affects our biological-emotional well-
being (Ulrich, 1983, 1986).
From the enclosures and deer parks to the Arcadian and pastoral landscapes styles moved to
the aristocratic formality of beauty, thence to park systems and recreation planning, and to the
contemporary distinct views. Whether aligned with the city form or seeking nature as inspiration,
functionally homogeneous or individually inclusive, the park should perhaps be the beautiful
place of freedom, recreation and restoration, grounded in local realities, cultural and
ecologically-oriented, open to the city and to everyone.
This is an exploratory study and thus it requires development. Further analysis of the data and
the particularities for each of the parks as well as further fields of research, such as expert
evaluation, will allow a more in-depth tracing of the qualities of the parks and needs and
preferences of users in Portugal, and also in developing a comparative analysis with findings
from other similar research.
REFERENCES
Antrop, M. (2005). Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 70(1–2), 21–34.
Appleton, J. (1975). The experience of landscape. Wiley.
Augustin, S., & Coleman, C. (2012). The Designer’s Guide to Doing Research: Applying
Knowledge to Inform Design. John Wiley & Sons.
Balling, J. D., & Falk, J. H. (1982). Development of Visual Preference for Natural Environments.
Environment and Behavior, 14(1), 5–28.
Cooper, C. C. (1975). Easter Hill Village: Some social implications of design. Free Press.
Cooper Marcus, C., Miller Watsky, C., Insley, E., & Francis, C. (1998). Neighborhood parks. In
People Places: Design Guidlines for Urban Open Space (Clare Cooper Marcus e Carolyn
Francis.). Wiley.
Corraliza, J. (2000). Landscape and social identity: the construction of territorial identity. In
Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the International Association for People–Environment
Studies, Paris.
Correia Guedes, M., Pinheiro, M., & Manuel Alves, L. (2009). Sustainable architecture and
urban design in Portugal: An overview. Renewable Energy, 34(9), 1999–2006.
Cosco, N. G. (2006). Motivation to Move: Physical Activity Affordances in Preschool Play Areas
(PhD).
Cranz, G., & Boland, M. (2004). Defining the Sustainable Park: A Fifth Model for Urban Parks.
Landscape Journal, 23(2), 102–120.
Farinha-Marques, P. (2006). New Parks for the Porto Region. Topos, (55), 78–81.
Francis, M. (1987). Some Different Meanings Attached to a City Park and Community Gardens.
Landscape Journal, 6(2), 101–112.
Francis, M. (1999). A Case Study Method for Landscape Architecture. Landscape Architecture
Foundation.
Francis, M. (2003). Urban Open Space: Designing For User Needs. Island Press.
Francis, M., Cashdan, L., & Paxson, L. (1984). Community Open Spaces: Greening
Neighborhoods Through Community Action and Land Conservation. Island Press.
Friedmann, A., Zimring, C., & Zube, E. H. (1978). Environmental design evaluation. Plenum
Press.
Gehl, J. (2008). Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. Island Press.
Geuze, A. (1993). Moving beyong Darwin. In Modern Park Design - Recent Trends (Martin
Knuijt, Hans Ophuis, Peter van Saane.). Amsterdam: Thoth.
Goličnik, B. (2005). People in place: a configuration of physical form and the dynamic patterns
of spatial occupancy in urban open public space (PhD Thesis). Edinburgh, Heriot Watt
University, Edinburgh College of Art, Edinburgh.
Goličnik, B., & Ward Thompson, C. (2010). Emerging relationships between design and use of
urban park spaces. Landscape and Urban Planning, 94(1), 38–53.
Huet, B. (1993). Park design and urban continuity. In Modern Park Design - Recent Trends
(Martin Knuijt, Hans Ophuis, Peter van Saane.). Amsterdam: Thoth.
Hussein, H. (2012a). Affordances of Sensory Garden towards Learning and Self Development
of Special Schooled Children. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 4(1), 135–149.
Hussein, H. (2012b). The Influence of Sensory Gardens on the Behaviour of Children with
Special Educational Needs. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 38, 343–354.
Joardar, S. D., & Neill, J. W. (1978). The subtle differences in configuration of small public
spaces. Landscape architecture, 68(11), 487–491.
Koh, J. (1982). Ecological design: a post-modern design paradigm of holistic philosophy and
evolutionary ethic. Landscape Journal, 1(1), 76–84.
Kostof, S. (1992). The city assembled: The elements of urban form through history. Thames
and Hudson.
Loures, L. (2011). Planning and design in postindustrial land transformation: east bank Arade
river, Lagoa - case study (PhD Thesis). Universidade do Algarve.
Louwerse, D. (1993). Why talk about park design? Em Modern Park Design - Recent Trends
(pp p.9–16). Rotterdam: Thoth.
MAOT. (2000). Programa Polis - Programa de Requalificação Urbana e Valorização Ambiental
das Cidades (Relatório do Grupo de Trabalho para a preparação do «Programa Cidades»).
Ministério do Ambiente e Ordenamento do Território.
Marcus, C. C., & Francis, C. (Eds). (1997). People Places: Design Guidlines for Urban Open
Space, 2nd Edition (2nd ed). Wiley.
Marcus, C. C., & Francis, C. (1998). Post-Occupancy Evaluation. Em People Places: Design
Guidlines for Urban Open Space (2nd Edition.). Wiley.
Meireles-Rodrigues, F. (2007). Algumas reflexões, sobre alguns espaços, algures no mundo,
acerca da qualidade do exterior urbano. Em Espaços Verdes na Qualidade de Vida.
Apresentado na Seminário Espaços Verdes na Qualidade de Vida, CESPU Vila Nova de
Famalicão: CESPU Vila Nova de Famalicão.
Moore, R. C., & Cosco, N. G. (2010). Using behaviour mapping to investigate healthy outdoor
environments for children and families: conceptual framework, procedures and applications. In
Innovative approaches to Researching Landscape and Health (Catharine Ward Thompson,
Peter Aspinall & Simon Bell.). Edinburgh: Routledge.
Nager, A. R., & Wentworth, W. R. (1978). Urban park evaluation. Em Environmental design
evaluation (Friedman, A., Zimring, C. and Zube, E., pp pp.155–165). London: Plenum Press.
Olin, L. (2007). Forward. Em Open Space: People Space (Catharine Ward Thompson and
Penny Travlou.). Edinburgh: Taylor & Francis Ltd.
Ophuis, H. (2002). Un-common spaces. Topos, (39), 6–12.
Orians, G. H. (1980). Habitat selection: General theory and applications to human behavior. Em
The evolution of human social behavior. Elsevier Science Ltd.
Orians, G. H., & Heerwagen, J. H. (1992). Evolved responses to landscapes. Em J. H. Barkow,
L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation
of culture (pp 555–579). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.
Orians, G. H., & Heerwagen, J. H. (1993). Humans, habitats, and aesthetics. Em The Biophilia
Hypothesis. Island Press.
Pardal, S. (2006). Parque da cidade Porto: ideia e paisagem. Porto: Câmara Municipal.
Partidário, M. do R., & Nunes Correia, F. (2004). POLIS – The Portuguese programme on
urban environment. a contribution to the discussion on European urban policy. European Urban
Studies, 12(3), 409–424.
Rutledge, A. J. (1975). A pilot study in post construction evaluation : First National Bank Plaza,
Chicago, Illinois (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Dept. of Landscape Architecture.).
Urbana : The Department.
Shaffer, R. (2006). The meaning of parks. Topos, (55), 21–25.
Sommer, R. (1983). Social Design: Creating Building with People in Mind. Prentice-Hall.
Swaffield, S., & Deming, M. E. (2011). Research strategies in landscape architecture: mapping
the terrain. Journal of Landscape Architecture, 6(1), 34–45.
Tate, A. (2001). Great City Parks. Taylor & Francis.
Theobald, W. F. (1979). Evaluation of recreation and park programs. Wiley.
Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. Human Behavior
& Environment: Advances in Theory & Research, 6, 85–125.
Ulrich, R. S. (1986). Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 13(0), 29–44.
Ward Thompson, C. (2002). Urban open space in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 60(2), 59–72.
Ward Thompson, C. (2010, Novembro 26). Experience of landscape: understanding responses
to landscape design and exploring demands for the future.
Whyte, W. H. (1980). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Conservation Foundation.
Worpole, K. (2000). Regaining an interior world. Landscape Design, (289), 20–22.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
FIGURE’S CREDITS
(C) Frederico Meireles Rodrigues 2013
