**4.2 Impact of perceived psychological comforts (social cohesion, safety, perceived benefits) on green space usability**

Some studies, as discussed below show the resident's perception or urge for green space usability. In this the primary emphasis is on social interaction spaces along with accessibility, aesthetical design consideration, and maintenance factors. The theory of reasoned action states that of the two perspectives of individual psychological comfort for using the green space (as shown in **Figure 3**), one is personal in nature, and the other reflects social influences. One particular factor is the individual's positive or negative evaluation of performing the behavior.

That's why usage of green space depends on personal reasoning or following others aspiration. On the contrary, the socio-ecological model developed by Giles-Corti et al. [10] gives a comprehensive model, which explains in detail the various

**Figure 3.** *Theory of reasoned action. Source: redrawn by author.*

### *Role of Green Spaces for Maintaining Well-Being in Residential Community Development DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97681*

environments required for any green space usage including user characteristics as shown in **Figure 4**. The facilities available within green space also impacts on perceived environment like safety, accessibility and comfort. Green Space with a variety of attractive attributes such as landscaped features, ponds, trees, and lakes can encourage higher levels of use.

Similar views have been projected by Cohen et al. [12] in which primary emphasis is given to social cohesion and safety factors in a green space. The initial research was developed into a manual for addressing social and ecological concerns. It further emphasizes the positive association between neighborhood features and the ability of residents to interact positively. Another study investigate three parameters, i.e. human-nature interaction, humanhuman interaction and perceived benefits.

The result shows the major indicators under all the three parameters were; contact with nature, esthetic preference, recreational and play, social interaction, citizen participation, sense of community unity with nature, solidarity with myself and freedom. All the three studies above show the parallel approach as also validate the socio-economic model. Peeping into the evidence-based studies about accessibility to residential green space clearly state that only physical proximity is not sufficient for proper usage of it. Arguably, accessibility to urban green space, including parks, is said to contribute to community well-being and a healthier city lifestyle. Past studies reveal that accessibility variable is not much beneficial when measured with quantitative spatial measures.

The theory of urban park indicates that both distance and green space size exert an impact on the diverse usability. Yet when empirically tested, the theory found a relatively weak relation between distance and park value. It indicated that accessibility is a much more complex construct. Similar studies also suggested the difference between geographical and subjective accessibility and its impact on green space usability. The geographical accessibility showed poor consistency with subjective-measured accessibility. It recommends that green space planning should

#### **Figure 5.**

*Conceptual model for perceived park accessibility extended planned behavior framework to explain open space use. Source: Dong Wang, 2013 [14] (redrawn by author).*

go beyond physical indicators to gain more understanding about the diversity of users' preference [13].

A conceptual model for perceived park/green space accessibility as shown in **Figure 5** depicts that the socio-personal dimension, i.e. accessibility to for people's green space is one of the important factors. Out of which, factor of safety is the prime indicator. Increasing fear and crime in urban areas arouse the importance of security while accessing any green space by residential users. Hence a need is felt for spatial location criteria to be addressed as a serious concern, to offer green space under natural surveillance or visual access. A few past studies also substantiate the above said fact. Maas, J et al. [15] study investigated upon the fact that how green space in living environment associated with people's feeling of social safety in a closed and open green space and later discussed on Safety on parks and recreation. The recent studies by Xiaoping Li et al. [16], states that visibility of green vegetation also plays a major role in increasing perceived safety in urban areas. The above discussion shows that two parallel constructs for green space exists in theory, one emphasizing the physical accessibility and characteristics of green space for its use and the other emphasizing physical and VA along with green space characteristics for its use in general.

## **5. Paradigm shift in concept of accessibility**

Accessibility, however, is a complex concept. It is difficult to define and more difficult to measure. While accessibility has now evolved into a multidimensional construct, current open space planning models still use physical proximity to an open space area as proxy variable to evaluate 'accessibility.' This approach, however, tends to overlook the complexity of the 'accessibility' concept [14].

The dependency on quantitative standards in planning practices for the provision of green space had developed a few limitations in its usability. This approach is unable to address the complexity of the accessibility concept. These quantitative

*Role of Green Spaces for Maintaining Well-Being in Residential Community Development DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97681*

measures are relatively easy in operational and practice level, but inadequate to address the complex nature of people's perception regarding green space accessibility.

Almost all prevailing space standard models comprises of quantitative measures, which indicate relation between population sizes in the target area. And these quantitative measures provide the minimal amount of green space for the target population. This model is accepted worldwide due to its simplicity in operation, but later on has been criticized for its disregard of complex social systems. The park system model brought new approach, i.e. systems approach towards green space planning. The park system model holistically considers the interrelationship of parks and gardens that supports continuous movement within the system. Beyond quantitative standards, park system model emphasizes proximity to users and the variety of user experiences in different types of urban open spaces, from small community gardens to large metropolitan parks. On the contrary, contemporary green space models address the question of how much, what type of and where to provide green space should be given. (See **Table 2** for the comparative summary of the key criteria used by the three models). However, in present context, due to increasing crime and fear, there is an urge for safety, which these standards were unable to address. Hence, it reveals that quantitative measures like population size, spatial location, and distance are the most common parameters considered. But somehow in present context only these variables failed to address the people's perspective like social cohesion and perceived benefits etc. Thus it generates demand to analyze other factors which are responsible for enhancing people's need with respect to their green space. Hence need to examine qualitative aspects which needed to be incorporated in regulatory framework.
