Articles Published 31 July 2018

Personal and Environment Factors Associated with Attraction to Tropical Urban Parks in Peninsular Malaysia

Huda Farhana Mohamad Muslim
Social Forestry Programme, Research Planning Division
Noor Azlin Yahya
Ecotourism and Urban Forestry Programme, Forest and Environment Division, Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), 52109, Kepong, Selangor Darul Ehsan
Mohd Parid Mamat
Social Forestry Programme, Research Planning Division
Full text
PDF View full text 1 MB · 16 pages XML JATS full text 49 KB · machine readable
DOI 10.32890/jbma2018.8.2.8805 Cite this article
Citations
4
OpenAlex, highest of the sources checked
Reads
426
Abstract + full text
Downloads
385 +2
PDF and XML
Percentile
89th
By citations, works of the same year

Article

Abstract

There is increasing demand for urban parks as recreational areas amidst urbanization in Malaysia. Urban parks are the most readily accessible resource for interactions with nature across multi groups in many urban cities, including tropical cities. This paper reports a research conducted in 2013/2014 to determine the overall quality of visits and park users’ level of motivations in selected six public parks in Peninsular Malaysia. The result of this study which examined 2,139 park users’ in 2013/2014 level of motivation and overall quality of visit in selected six public parks in Peninsular Malaysia and the result shows that about three quarter of the users are youths between 17 and 36 years old. For the quality of visit attributes, park users rated “nature and environment†as the highest dimensions with mean score (M = 4.11). The statistical analysis showed that element of shadiness as an important factor for nature motivation. The common shadiness element experienced by urban park users were considered to be unique landscape and significantly different from Western and developed countries

Keywords
Public parks satisfaction nature attractions users leisure

How to Cite

How to Cite

Personal and Environment Factors Associated with Attraction to Tropical Urban Parks in Peninsular Malaysia. (2018). Journal of Business Management and Accounting, 8(2), 49-64. https://doi.org/10.32890/jbma2018.8.2.8805

Metrics & impact

Citations by source

Harvested 02-09-2026

Counts differ by index because each source crawls a different corpus. Crossref counts only registered reference lists; Google Scholar includes theses, preprints and grey literature.

OpenAlex
4
Open corpus, updated daily View →
OpenCitations
4
Open references only View →
Crossref
3
Deposited reference lists only View →
Scopus
0 Not indexed
Indexed titles only View →
Google Scholar
Publishes no citation count that can be read automatically.
Includes theses and preprints Search →
Dimensions
Publishes no citation count that can be read automatically.
Includes policy documents Search →

Citations over time

New citations recorded in each year, as reported by OpenAlex.

1
2
1
0
0
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Reads & downloads

Abstract views 426
PDF downloads 385
XML downloads 0
Counted under COUNTER Release 5 rules; known robots excluded.

Attention beyond citation

Citation percentile 89th
Field-weighted citation impact 0.00
Works this article cites 46

From OpenAlex. A field-weighted impact of 1.00 is the world average for work of the same field, type and year. No Altmetric key is configured, so news, policy and social attention are not shown.

Identifiers
DOI · 10.32890/jbma2018.8.2.8805
OpenAlex · W4320301678

References

References 44
Deposited to Crossref with the article DOI
  1. Abdullah, S. A. & Hezri, A. A. (2008): From forest landscape to agricultural landscape in the developing tropical country of Malaysia: Pattern, process, and their significance on policy. Environmental Management, 42(5), 907–917.
  2. Abdul Aziz, N. A., Van den Bosch, K. & Nillson, K. (2018). Recreational use of urban green space in Malaysian cities. International Journal of Business and Society, 19(S1). 1-16.
  3. Abdul Malek, N. and Mariapan, M. (2009). Visitors perception on vandalism and safety issues in a Malaysian urban park. Theoretical and Empirical Researchers in Urban Management, 4(13).
  4. Ayeni, D. A. (2012). Enhancing and developing sustainable tourism through landscaping in Nigeria. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). De Montfort University, Leicester, United Kingdom.
  5. Ballouard, J. M., Brischoux, F., & Bonnet, X. (2011). Children prioritize virtual exotic biodiversity over local biodiversity. PLoS ONE, 6(8). http://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0023152.
  6. Berggren-Bärring, A.-M., Grahn, P. (1995). Grönstrukturens betydelse för användningen. Rapport 95:3. Sveriges Lant-bruksuniversitet, Alnarp (in Swedish).
  7. Bjerke T., Østdahl T., Thrane C., Strumse E. (2006). Vegetation density of urban parks and perceived appropriateness for recreation. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 5, 35–44.
  8. Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68,129-138.
  9. Cohen, P., Potchter, O., & Schnell, I. (2014). A methodological approach to the environmental quantitative assessment of urban parks. Applied Geography, 48, 87-101.
  10. Cornelis, J., & Hermy, M. (2004). Biodiversity relationships in urban and suburban parks in Flanders. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(4), 385–401. doi:10.1016/j. landurbplan.2003.10.038.
  11. Dallimer M., Davies, Z. G., Irvine, K. N., Maltby, L. L., Warren, P. H., Gaston, K. J., & Armsworth P. R. (2014). What personal and environmental factors determine frequency of urban greenspace use? International Journal Environmental Research Public Health, 11, 7977–7992.
  12. Dwivedi, P., Rathore, C. S., & Dubey, Y. (2009). Ecological benefits of urban forestry: The case of Kerwa Forest Area (KFA), Bhopal, India. Applied Geography, 29(2), 194-200.
  13. Fainstein, S. S., (2005). Cities and diversity. Urban Affairs Review 41, 3-19.
  14. Fatin, M. R., Siti Sarah, A., L. Aniza, A. A., and Philips, L. E. (2013). A study on potential application and people awareness on green infrastructure for Boulevard: A case study of Putrajaya Boulevard. Seminar Proceeding, UMRAN 2013, International Islamic University Malaysia, Selangor.
  15. Flocks J, Escobedo F, Wade J, Varela S, Wald C (2011). Environmental justice implications of urban tree cover in Miami-dade County, Florida. Environ Justice 4, 125–134.
  16. Gobster P (2002). Managing urban parks for a racially and ethnically diverse clientele. Leis Sci 24, 143–159.
  17. Grimm, N. B., Foster, D., Groffman, P., Grove, J. M., Hopkinson, C, S., Nadelhoffer, K, J., Pataki, D, E., & Peters, PC, D. (2008). The changing landscape: Ecosystem responses to urbanization and pollution across climatic and societal gradients. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6(5), 264-272.
  18. Home R, Hunziker M, Bauer N. (2012). Psychosocial outcomes as motivations for visiting nearby urban green spaces. Leis Sci, 34(4), 350–365.
  19. Jim, C. Y., & Shan, X. (2013). Socioeconomic effect on perception of urban green spaces in Guangzhou, China. Cities, 31, 123–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cities.2012.06.017.
  20. Jorgensen, A., Hitchmough, J., Calvert, T. (2002). Woodland spaces and edges: Their impact on perception of safety and preference. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60, 135–150.
  21. Kaplan, R. (2004). The social values of forests and trees in urbanized societies. In C. C. Konijnendijk, J. Schipperijn and K. H. Hoyer (Eds.). Forestry serving urbanised societies. Vienna, Austria: IUFRO World Series 14. 167-178.
  22. Karuppannan S, Baharuddin Z. M, Sivam A., Daniels C. B. (2014). Urban green space and urban biodiversity: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Journal of Sustainable Development, 7(1), 1–16.
  23. Laing, R., Davies, A. M., Miller, D., Conniff, A., Scott, S., Morrice, J. (2009). The application of visual environmental economics in the study of public preference and urban green space. Environment and Planning, 36(2), 355–375.
  24. Lindsey, G., Maraj, M., & Kuan, S. (2001). Access, equity, and urban greenways: An exploratory investigation. Professional Geographer, 53(3), 332–346.
  25. Lofland, L. H., (1998). The Public Realm: Exploring the City’s Quintessential Social Territory. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.
  26. Lo, A. Y. H., & Jim, C. Y. (2012). Citizen attitude and expectation towards greenspace provision in compact urban milieu. Land Use Policy, 29(3), 577–586. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.09.011.
  27. Matsuoka, R. H., & Kaplan, R. (2008). People needs in the urban landscape: Analysis of landscape and urban planning contributions. Landscape and Urban Planning, 84(1), 7-19.
  28. Mohamad Muslim H. F., Yahya N. A., Numata S., Hosaka T. (2018). Ethnic Differences in Satisfaction with the Attractiveness of Tropical Urban Parks. McLellan B. (eds) Sustainable Future for Human Security. Springer, Singapore. Pp 147-159. ISBN 978-981-10-5432-7. DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-5433-4_10.
  29. Noralizawati, M., and Noriah, O. (2010). Push and pull factor: Determining the visitors’ satisfactions at urban recreational area. Journal of Environment-Behaviour Studies, 78-84.
  30. Oguz, D., 2000. User surveys of Ankara’s urban parks. Landscape Urban Plan, 152, 165–171. O¨zgüner H. (2011). Cultural Differences in Attitudes towards Urban Parks and Green Spaces. Landsc Res, 36(5):599–620. O¨zgüner, H., Kendle, A. D. (2006). Public attitudes towards naturalistic versus designed landscapes in the city of Sheffield (UK), Landscape and Urban Planning 7, 139–157.
  31. Peters K., Elands B., Buijs A. (2010). Social interactions in urban parks: Stimulating social cohesion? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 9, 93–100.
  32. Real, E., Arce, C., Sabucedo, J. M. (2000). Classification of landscapes using quantitative and categorical data, and prediction of their scenic beauty in north-western Spain. Journal of Environmental Psychology 20, 355–373.
  33. Salina, M. A and Abdul Hadi, N. (2006). Factors that influence users’ satisfaction on urban parks. Built Environment Journal, 3(2). ISSN 1675-5022.
  34. Shan, X.-Z. (2014). The socio-demographic and spatial dynamics of green space use in Guangzhou, China. Applied Geography, 51, 26–34. doi:10.1016/j. apgeog.2014.03.006.
  35. Shanahan, D. F., Lin, B. B., Gaston, K. J., Bush, R., Fuller, R. A. (2015). What is the role of trees and remnant vegetation in attracting people to urban parks? Landscape Ecology, 30, 153–165.
  36. Sherer, P. M. (2006). The benefits of parks: Why America needs more city parks and open space. San Francisco, CA: The Trust for Public Land.
  37. Sreetheran, M. and Van den Bosh, C. K. (2015): Fear of crime in urban parks: What the residents of Kuala Lumpur have to say?: Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 14, 702–713.
  38. Vagias, Wade M. (2006). Likert-type scale response anchors. Clemson International Institute for Tourism & Research Development, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management. Clemson University.
  39. Weber, D & Anderson, D. H. (2010). Contact with nature: Recreation experience preferences in Australian parks. Annals of Leisure Research, 13(1), 46-69.
  40. Yaakob, U. Masron, T. and Masami, F. (2010): Ninety years of urbanization in Malaysia : A geographical investigation of its trends and characteristics. Journal of Ritsumeikan Social Sciences and Humanities 4(3), 79–101.
  41. Yamane, T. (1967). Elementary sampling theory. p 886. Prentice-Hall.
  42. Yuen, B. (1996). Use and experience of neighborhood parks in Singapore. Journal of Leisure Research, 28(4). 293-311.
  43. Zengel, R. & Turkseven Dogrusoy, I. (2014). The importance of sociocultural habits in park design, leisure behaviour and user satisfaction. A Comparative Study on Two Parks in İzmir, Turkey. Journal of Settlements and Spatial Planning, 5(2). 107-117.
  44. Zhang, H., Chen, B., Sun Z., Bao, Z. (2014). Landscape perception and recreation needs in urban green space in Fuyang, Hangzhou, China. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12, 44–52.