Analysis on Motives of Urban Park User and Influence of Socio-Demographics on Motives ( a case study : Residents of Gorgan City)

Document Type : Research Paper


Today, urban parks play an important role in sustainability cities. Urban parks also provide environments for recreation, activity, and enjoyment and have an important role in people’s health. Therefore, it is crucial to investigate people’s motivation and preference for visiting urban parks and to consider their needs in park designs. Thus, this study presented two objectives: 1) to identify and to prioritize people’s motivation to urban park use 2) to compare people’s motivations in tern of demographic variables. In this study a survey was conducted among 300 visitors selected by random sampling from visitors of two urban parks in the city of Gorgan in Iran. Visitors respond to a questionnaire about people’s motives for use of urban parks. The seven-point Likert scale was used to assess opinions. The result of factor analysis on people motivation also released five factors: mental health, involvement to nature, social interaction, calming and physical activity. The factors accounted for 61.38 % of the variance. The first factor (mental health) was the most important people’s motivation for urban park use. A significant different in involvement to nature in term of marital and social interaction in term of gender was found. Married respondents were more desired about involvement to nature and social interaction than single. The results also indicated to men were more desired to physical activity than women. Finding also showed that 36-50 age groups have more willing to involvement to nature and social interaction than younger group, 26-35 age groups. This result contributes notions towards significantly impacting design of urban parks and their facilities that designers and decision makers should manage those facilities to satisfy the users’ needs.


  1. حمید، نجمه و محمد بابا میری. 1391. بررسی فضای سبز و سلامت روان، مجله­ ارمغان، دوره 17، شماره 4، صص 309-316.
  2. قربانی، رسول و راضیه تیموری. 1389. تحلیلی بر نقش پارک‌های شهری در ارتقای کیفیت زندگی شهری با استفاده از الگوی Seeking- Escaping، پژوهش‌های جغرافیایی انسانی، شماره ۷۲، صص 47-62.
  3. کوکبی، لیلا؛ حسن ایزدی خرامه؛ رحمت­الله عبدالهی و رقیه سلیمانی. ۱۳۹۱. حیات جمعی در فضای عمومی سبز راه، نگرشی بر تنوع فرهنگی اجتماعی استفاده از فضا (مطالعه­ی موردی: پارک خطی باغ بلند شیراز)، مجله پژوهش و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، دوره 11، شماره 3، صص 97-114.
  4. لاهیجانیان، اکرم­الملوک و شادی شیعه بیگی. 1389. رویکردی تحلیلی به طراحی و مدیریت پارک‌های شهری و رابطه­ آن با سلامت شهروندان، نشریه هویت شهر، سال 7، صص 95-104.
  5. محمدی، جمال؛ مصطفی محمدی ده چشمه و منصور ابافت یگانه. 1386. ارزیابی کیفی نقش فضاهای سبز شهری و بهینه‌سازی استفاده از آن در شهرکرد، محیط‌شناسی، سال 33، شماره 44، صص 95-104.

6.مجنونیان، هنریک. 1374. مباحثی پیرامون پارک‌ها، فضای سبز و تفرجگاه‌ها، سازمان پارک‌ها و فضای سبز شهر تهران، شماره ۲۳، صص 23-38.

  1. Abkar, M., Kamal, M.S.M., Mariapan, M., Maulan, S., and Sheybani, M. 2010. The Role of Urban Green Spaces in Mood Change. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 4(10): 5352-5361.
  2. Burgess, J., Harrison, C.M., and Limb, M. 1988. People, parks and the urban green: a study of popular meanings and values for open spaces in the city. Urban studies, 25(6): 455-473.
  3. Bonnes, M., Carrus, G., Bonaiuto, M., Fornara, F., and Passafaro, P. 2004. Inhabitants' Environmental Perceptions in the City of Rome within the Framework for Urban Biosphere Reserves of the UNESCO Programme on Man and Biospherea. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1023(1): 175-186.
  4. Bullock, C.H. 2008. Valuing urban green space: hypothetical alternatives and the status quo. Journal of environmental planning and management, 51(1): 15-35.
  5. Cecily, M,. Townsend, M., and Leger, L.S. 2009. Healthy Parks, Healthy People: The Health Benefits of Contact with Nature in a Park Context. The George Wright Forum, 26(2): 51-83.
  6. Chiesura, A. 2004. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(1): 129-138.
  7. Daneshpour, Z.A., and Mahmoodpour, A. 2009. Exploring the people's perception of urban public parks in Tehran.
  8. Dunnett, N., Swanwick, C., Woolley, H., and Britain, G. 2002. Improving urban parks, play areas and green spaces, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions London.
  9. Hartig, T., and Staats, H. 2006. The need for psychological restoration as a determinant of environmental preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26(3): 215-226.
  10. Jim, C.Y., and Chen, W.Y. 2006. Recreation-amenity use and contingent valuation of urban greenspaces in Guangzhou, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 75(1): 81-96.
  11. Kahn, P.H., Friedman, B., Gill, B., Hagman, J., Severson, R.L., Freier, N.G., Feldman, E.N., Carrere, S., and Stolyar, A. 2008. A plasma display window?—The shifting baseline problem in a technologically mediated natural world. Journal of Environmental Psychology.
  12. Kaplan, R., and Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective, Cambridge University Press.
  13. Khosravaninezhad, S., Abaszadeh, Z., Karimzadeh, F., and Zadehbagheri, P. 2009. Parks and an Analysis of their Role in Improving the Quality of Urban Life, Using Seeking-Escaping Model. Proceedings REAL CORP 2011 Tagungsband.
  14. Kyle, G.T., Absher, J.D., Hammitt, W.E., and Cavin, J. 2006. An examination of the motivation-involvement relationship. Leisure sciences, 28(5): 467-485.
  15. Makinen, K., and Tyrvainen, L. 2008. Teenage experiences of public green spaces in suburban Helsinki. Urban forestry and urban greening, 7(4): 277-289.
  16. Matsuoka, R.H., and Kaplan, R. 2008. People needs in the urban landscape: Analysis of "Landscape and Urban Planning"contributions. Landscape and Urban Planning, 84(1): 7-19.
  17. Özgüner, H. 2011. Cultural Differences in Attitudes towards Urban Parks and Green Spaces. Landscape Research, 36(5): 599-620.
  18. Pretty, J., Peacock, J., Hine, R., Sellens, M., South, N., and Griffin, M. 2007. Green exercise in the UK countryside: Effects on health and psychological well-being, and implications for policy and planning. Journal of environmental planning and management, 50(2): 211-231.
  19. Purcell, A.T., and Lamb, R.J. 1998. Preference and naturalness: An ecological approach. Landscape and Urban Planning, 42(1): 57-66.
  20. Roovers, P., Hermy, M., and Gulinck, H. 2002. Visitor profile, perceptions and expectations in forests from a gradient of increasing urbanisation in central Belgium. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59(3): 129-145.
  21. Sanesi, G., and Chiarello, F. 2006. Residents and urban green spaces: the case of Bari. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 4(3): 125-134.
  22. Tyrvainen, L., Makinen, K., and Schipperijn, J. 2007. Tools for mapping social values of urban woodlands and other green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79(1): 5-19.
  23. Van den Berg, A.E., Hartig, T., and Staats, H. 2007. Preference for nature in urbanized societies: stress, restoration, and the pursuit of sustainability. Journal of social issues, 63(1): 79-96.
  24. Yuen, B., Kong, L., and Briffett, C. 1999. Nature and the Singapore resident. Geo Journal, 49(3): 323-331.