IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Particle image recognition in the
Condition of urban park infrastructure in the measurement of workpiece cleanliness
Zhiqiang Long, Jiangang Wang, Fengqin
context of perceived security of park users He et al.

- Cleanliness assessment of Lake Toba

tourist attractions from stakeholders’
To cite this article: P Polko and K Kimic 2021 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 900 012036 perspective
H Khair, R Utami, G Lordye et al.

- Comparative analysis of requirements for

industrial cleanliness in mechanical
engineering
View the article online for updates and enhancements. Alexey G Amosov

This content was downloaded from IP address 27.125.242.152 on 31/07/2023 at 14:48

Advances in Environmental Engineering IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 900 (2021) 012036 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/900/1/012036

Condition of urban park infrastructure in the context of perceived

security of park users

P Polko¹ and K Kimic²

¹Security Sciences Department, Faculty of Applied Sciences, WSB University, Poland,

Cieplaka Street 1c, 41-300 Dąbrowa Górnicza, Poland
² Department of Landscape Architecture, Institute of Environmental Engineering,
Warsaw University of Life Sciences – SGGW, Nowoursynowska Street 166, 02-787
Warsaw, Poland

Abstract. Personal security is one of the key aspects affected by the perception of urban
greenery, which plays an important role for city dwellers. The survey conducted in Poland in
2020 (N=394) aimed to check how important for park users in context of perceived security are
selected factors related to maintenance of different types of park infrastructure (condition of
equipment and pavement, also condition of greenery), level of park cleanliness (filling of the
rubbish bins, litter on the ground, and graffiti on different types of facilities), and elements
related to the use of park space (paths, varied topography, functional aids, and water). The
condition of equipment was assessed as a factor of high impact (average of 4.13 in 5-point Likert
scale), as well as the presence of park paths (4.02). The results indicate that all 10 of the examined
factors are recognized as important (3 and higher). They also show that both women (compared
to men) and older respondents (compared to those under 60) assessed higher the importance of
factors related to the condition of elements of infrastructure and pavement, as well as the level
of cleanliness in urban parks in shaping their personal sense of security.

1. Introduction
Urban greenery plays an important role in increasing the quality of urban life due to the positive impact
of contact with nature on human health and well-being [1,2]. Urban parks, appreciated as extensive
green enclaves in highly urbanized areas, are the most popular and frequently visited public spaces by
users. Their role is growing especially as areas which provide a range of ecosystem services, e.g. they
are counteracting negative climate changes [3,4] and at the same time providing the place for recreation
for city dwellers, regardless of their gender or age [5]. Against all the positive aspects, some negative
factors may have an impact on the perception of urban greenery, e.g. fears and threats. In this context,
the high level of a personal sense of security may be considered as one that is key in determining the
quality and attractiveness of urban parks [6]. An accumulation of negative factors may directly reduce
the use of urban parks, and thus limit the contact with nature for city dwellers [7].
The interest in the sense of security of individuals in the public space is the result of the development of
the personal security category after adopting the human security approach in security research. The term
‘human security’ which entered public discourse through the United Nations Development Programme
(1994) is defined as people’s ‘safety from chronic threats and protection from hurtful disorders in the
patterns of daily life’. Perceived security (perceived safety) is the result of a subjective assessment of
the safety condition by an individual.

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
Advances in Environmental Engineering IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 900 (2021) 012036 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/900/1/012036

The threats as themselves have an objective and subjective dimension. The objective dimension
concerns phenomena that actually occur and that may have real negative effects. The subjective
dimension, in turn, focuses on the perception and interpretation by an individual or social group of
phenomena that the individual or group considers dangerous [8]. An objective approach to threats should
characterize entities and formations responsible for security and public order and be based on knowledge
and experience. The subjective approach to threats, in turn, is typical of individuals or social groups who
usually do not have this knowledge and experience [9]. This does not mean, however, that it is irrelevant,
on the contrary: it enriches security with psychological issues and is as important as an objective,
scientific analysis.
The image of ‘safe’ urban parks, which are often visited by users spending optional time engaged in
various activities, is the aim of the management process [10]. The nature of perceived security is always
the result of the intersection of features of the individual and the environment to which each person is
exposed in all types of public spaces. In the case of urban parks, it also depends on their characteristic
attributes including both environmental and physical [11], as well as their diversity [12,13]. Physical
attributes include the maintenance of park elements, cleanliness of the space and physical incivilities,
e.g. signs of undesirable behaviours such as vandalism, trash or graffiti [11]. The maintenance of urban
parks, which is related to the condition of their facilities, has impact on the perception of security by
park users. The low level of condition of infrastructure is making it dangerous for use (e.g. damaged
equipment items and buildings, damaged pavement). Also a bad condition of greenery (e.g. trees, shrubs,
grass) [14,15] suggests that parks are out of control and possibly unsafe [10,16]. The low level of
cleanliness, which is related to the presence of much litter in rubbish bins or on the ground, as well as
graffiti on different types of park facilities, reduce the quality and attractiveness of green areas [17,5,18].
Other important factors which impact the safety of park users are also those related to the use of space.
The lack of paths or their poor quality [19], as well as varied topography requiring the application of
different types of functional aids (e.g. ramps and lifts) to facilitate overcoming level differences, are
crucial for the availability of many places in the park [20,21]. Their inadequate planning may
significantly hinder movement and discourage visiting green areas by people, but also reduce the sense
of security [22,23], especially among the elderly and disabled [24,25,26]. The perception of safety may
be also related to the presence of water elements in urban parks [27] – negative aspects include the low
quality of water such as pollution or dirt [28].

2. Material and methods

The main objective of the research was to investigate how factors such as gender and age differentiate
the perception of safety in urban parks. The research was conducted in the period from March to August
in 2020 on a group of 394 randomly selected adult park users in Poland as an online survey. The sample
differed in terms of gender (F=257/65,17%; M=137/34,85%) and age (<60=325/82,5%;
>60=69/17,5%). The research focused on 10 factors related to the maintenance of different types of
infrastructure and pavement, as well as a level of park cleanliness: condition of equipment items,
pavement condition, condition of greenery, level of filling of the rubbish bins, level of litter, graffiti on
park facilities, park paths, functional aids (ramp, lift), varied topography, water (ponds, lakes, brooks).
The questionnaire asked the survey participants to rate each of the above-mentioned factors in terms of
perceived security on the 5-point Likert scale [29], where 1 meant that the factor has very little impact
and 5 – very high. PS Imago Pro 6.0 was used to analyse the collected data. The reliability of the ratings
of the factors was tested with a Cronbach Reliability Test and yielded a relatively high Cronbach’s Alpha
= 0.816.

3. Results
The impact of all 10 factors on the perception of security was assessed by park users differently – two
of them were rated above 4.0 and only one under 3.0. The rest of them obtained results over 3.0 but
under 4.0 (see Table 1).

2
Advances in Environmental Engineering IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 900 (2021) 012036 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/900/1/012036

Condition of equipment items was indicated as the most important factor (4,13) while presence of graffiti
– as the less important (2,95). Pavement condition and presence of functional aids such as ramps or lifts
were assessed as a factor of slightly higher impact on the sense of security than other 3.0 plus factors.
They obtained 3.91 and 3.90 scores respectively. The results obtained of the examined factors indicate
that most of them are recognized as important, but not crucial for the sense of security by park users.

Table 1. Factors related to different types of infrastructure and perception of security.

factor rating scale mean standard

perceived deviation
1 2 3 4 5 security
ratings
N N N N N

% % % % %
condition of equipment items 16 17 67 96 200 4.13 1.091
4.04% 4.29% 16.92% 24.24% 50.51%
pavement condition 20 32 75 106 163 3.91 1.174
5.05% 8.08% 18.94% 26.77% 41.16%
condition of greenery 35 50 90 87 132
3.59 1.305
8.9% 12.7% 22.8% 22.1% 33,5%
level of filling of the rubbish 53 63 103 95 82 3.23 1.305
bins 13.38% 15.91% 26.01% 23.99% 20.71%
level of litter 22 41 74 120 139 3.79 1.189
5.56% 10.35% 18.69% 30.30% 35.10%
graffiti on park facilities 83 76 88 78 71 2.95 1.394
20.96% 19.19% 22.22% 19.70% 17.93%
park paths 21 26 70 89 190 4.02 1.181
5.30% 6.57% 17.68% 22.47% 47.98%
functional aids 32 25 78 81 180 3.90 1.268
8.08% 6.31% 19.70% 20.45% 45.45%
varied topography 60 63 100 70 103 3.24 1.388
15.15% 15.91% 25.25% 17.68% 26.01%
water 68 59 125 72 72 3.05 1.317
17.17% 14.90% 31.57% 18.18% 18.18%

A T-student test was used to show the significance of differences in responses between men and women
(p<0.05). In the analysed group there is no statistically significant difference in the general perception
of individual’s own safety in public parks in the general dimension (p=0.915, mean perceived security
ratings for male respondents: 4.04, for female – 4.08). However, regarding 10 analysed factors, in 9 of
them differences in responses between men and women were statistically significant (see Table 2). Only
graffiti on park facilities doesn’t differentiate male and female respondents.

3
Advances in Environmental Engineering IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 900 (2021) 012036 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/900/1/012036

Table 2. Mean perceived security ratings by park users’ gender.

mean perceived security

factor ratings t-value significance
M F
condition of equipment 3.92 4.26 -2.754 significant p<0.01
items
pavement condition 3.75 3.98 -2.055 significant p<0.01
condition of greenery 3.24 3.77 -3.493 significant p<0.001
level of filling of the 2.83 3.44 -4.312 significant p<0.001
rubbish bins
level of litter 3.51 3.94 -3.803 significant p<0.001
graffiti on park 2.83 3.01 -1.248 not significant p =0.212
facilities
park paths 3.67 4.19 -4.335 significant p<0.001
functional aids 3.31 4.01 -2.517 significant p<0.05
varied topography 2.98 3.35 -2.729 significant p<0.01
water 2.72 3.23 -3.645 significant p<0.001

As in the case of gender, a T-student test was also used to show the significance of differences in
responses between respondents under and over 60 years old (p<0.05). It showed a statistically significant
difference in general perception of personal safety in public parks among these groups (p<0.01, mean
perceived security ratings for under 60 - 4.01, 60 plus - 4.33). 9 of 10 analysed factors showed a
statistically significant difference in context of perceived security among older and younger park users
(see Table 3).
Table 3. Mean perceived security ratings by park users’ age.

mean perceived security

factor ratings t-value significance
under 60 60 plus
condition of equipment 4.06 4.51 -4.703 significant p<0.001
items
pavement condition 3.79 4.46 -5.304 significant p<0.001
condition of greenery 3.45 4.23 -4.957 significant p<0.001
level of filling of the 3.16 3.51 -2.590 significant p<0.05
rubbish bins
level of litter 3.72 4.10 -2.363 significant p<0.05
graffiti on park 2.87 3.33 -2.510 significant p<0.05
facilities
park paths 3.93 4.42 -3.665 significant p<0.001
functional aids 3.77 4.51 -4.984 significant p<0.001
varied topography 3.10 3.91 -4.832 significant p<0.001
water 3.05 3.10 -0.131 not significant p
=0.896

4
Advances in Environmental Engineering IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 900 (2021) 012036 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/900/1/012036

The results show that both women (compared to men) and older respondents (compared to those under
60) assessed higher the importance of factors related to different types of infrastructure, pavement
condition and level of cleanliness in urban parks in shaping their personal sense of security.

4. Conclusions
Both gender and age factors differentiate the perception of the maintenance of park infrastructure
(condition of equipment items and pavement), and a level of cleanliness in the context of its safety. At
the same time, the above-mentioned factors are much more important for women and the elderly than
for men and younger people. Programs supporting the safety of both groups with a lower sense of
security should therefore take into account activities such as improving the condition of different
elements of infrastructure, pavement, presence of functional aids and cleanliness of the park related to
elimination of litter and graffiti. Creation of urban parks, in particular their infrastructure, in the way of
increasing the sense of personal security of users should be consciously used in the planning, designing
and management processes of urban greenery. It also applies to the creation of age-friendly and inclusive
public spaces in cities. Ensuring the good condition of the existing infrastructure, taking care of the
functional aids and the condition of the pavement as well as the cleanliness of parks are activities that
contribute to increasing the sense of security of urban greenery users.
Factors related to the condition of infrastructure and cleanliness in urban parks are recognized as
important in shaping the sense of security of park users. Therefore, they should be taken into account in
the planning process of urban greenery in the context of its safety. This is in line with the Broken
Windows Theory [30,31], which indicates that neglected parts of cities (where the eponymous broken
windows can be found) are over time abandoned by the middle-class inhabitants and become places
exposed to the development of misdemeanours and offenses, and then turned into areas of organized
crime.

References
[1] Wolch J R, Byrne J and Newell J P 2014 Urban green space, public health, and environmental
justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’ Landscape and Urban Planning 125
pp 234–244
[2] Kuo F E, Bacaicoa M and Sullivan W C 1998 Transforming inner-city landscapes Environment
and Behaviour 30 pp 28–59
[3] Chiesura A 2004 The role of urban parks for the sustainable city Landscape and Urban Planning
68 pp 129–138
[4] Mexia T, Vieira J, Príncipe A, Anjos A, Silva P, Lopes N, Freitas C, Santos-Reis M, Correia O,
Branquinho C and Pinho P 2018 Ecosystem services: Urban parks under a magnifying glass
Environmental Research 160 pp 469–478
[5] Bedimo-Rung A L, Mowen A J and Cohen D A 2005 The significance of parks to physical activity
and public health: a conceptual model American Journal of Preventive Medicine 28 2 pp 159–
168
[6] Birenboim A 2018 The influence of urban environments on our subjective momentary
experiences Environment and Planning B-Urban Analytics and City Science 45 pp 915–932
[7] Liu R and Xiao J 2020 Factors Affecting Users' Satisfaction with Urban Parks through Online
Comments Data: Evidence from Shenzhen China International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health 18 1 253
[8] Prońko J 2007 Bezpieczeństwo państwa. Zarys teorii problemu i zadań administracji publicznej
(Bielsko-Biała: WSPiA)
[9] Cieślarczyk M and Kuriata R 2005 Kryzysy i sposoby radzenia sobie z nimi (Łódź: Wydawnictwo
Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Kupieckiej)
[10] Hilborn J 2009 Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks. Problem-Oriented Guides for
Police Response Guides Series 9 (Washington: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services)

5
Advances in Environmental Engineering IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 900 (2021) 012036 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/900/1/012036

[11] Maruthaveeran S and Konijnendijk van den Bosch C C 2015 Fear of crime in urban parks – what
the residents of Kuala Lumpur have to say? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 14 pp 702–713
[12] Mahrous A M, Mustafa Y M and Abou El-Ela M A 2018 Physical characteristics and perceived
security in urban parks: Investigation in the Egyptian context Ain Shams Engineering Journal 9
4 pp 3055–66
[13] Mak B K L and Jim C Y 2018 Examining fear-evoking factors in urban parks in Hong Kong
Landscape and Urban Planning 171 pp 42–56
[14] Kimic K and Polko P 2021 Perception of natural elements by park users in the context of security
Public recreation and landscape protection – with sense hand in hand! Conference proceedings
10th-11th May 2021, Křtiny ed J Fialová (Brno: Mendel University in Brno) pp 354–357
[15] Suchocka M and Kimic K 2019 Management of urban forest to ensure the safety of touristic use
on the example of Warsaw Public recreation and landscape protection – with sense hand in hand!
Conference proceeding, 13th-15th May 2019, Křtiny ed J Fialová (Brno: Mendel University in
Brno) pp 236–239
[16] Wolfe M and Mennis J 2012 Does vegetation encourage or suppress urban crime? Evidence from
Philadelphia, PA Landscape and Urban Planning 108 pp 112–122
[17] Corti B, Donovan R and Holman C 1996 Factors influencing the use of physical activity facilities:
results from qualitative research Health Promotion Journal of Australia 6 1 pp 16–21
[18] Zhang R, Wulff H, Duan Y and Wagner P 2019 Associations between the physical environment
and park-based physical activity: A systematic review Journal of Sport and Health Science 8 pp
412–421
[19] Gearin E and Kahle C 2006 Teen and adult perceptions of urban green space Los Angeles
Children, Youth and Environments 16 pp 25–48
[20] Rasidia M H, Jamirsahb N and Saidc I 2012 Urban Green Space Design Affects Urban Residents’
Social Interaction Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 68 pp 464–480
[21] van Vliet E, Dane G, Weijs-Perrée M, van Leeuwen E, van Dinter M, van den Berg P, Borgers
A, Chamilothori K., 2021, The Influence of Urban Park Attributes on User Preferences:
Evaluation of Virtual Parks in an Online Stated-Choice Experiment International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health 18 1 212
[22] Park K 2017 Psychological park accessibility: a systematic literature review of perceptual
components affecting park use Landscape Research 42 5 pp 508–520
[23] Lis A, Pardela Ł, Can W, Katlapa A and Rąbalski Ł 2019 Perceived Danger and Landscape
Preferences of Walking Paths with Trees and Shrubs by Women Sustainability 11 4565
[24] Cohen D A, McKenzie T L, Sehgal A, Williamson S, Golinelli D and Lurie N 2007 Contribution
of public parks to physical activity American Journal of Public Health 97 3 pp 509–514
[25] Kaczynski A T, Potwarka L R and Saelens B E 2008 Association of park size, distance, and
features with physical activity in neighborhood parks American Journal of Public Health 98 8 pp
1451–56
[26] Onose D A, Ioja I C, Nita M R, Vânau G O and Popa A M 2020 Too Old for Recreation? How
Friendly Are Urban Parks for Elderly People? Sustainability 12 790
[27] Shepley M, Sachs N, Sadatsafavi H, Fournier C and Peditto K 2019 The Impact of Green Space
on Violent Crime in Urban Environments: An Evidence Synthesis International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health 16 5119
[28] Taylor L, Leckey E H, Lead P J and Hochuli D F 2020 What Visitors Want From Urban Parks:
Diversity, Utility, Serendipity Frontiers in Environmental Science 8 595620
[29] Likert R 1932 A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes Archives of Psychology 140 pp 1–
55
[30] Wilson J Q and Kelling G L 2010 Broken Windows Theory Encyclopedia of Criminological
Theory 1 ed F T Cullen and P Wilcox (London: SAGE Publications) pp 1019–22
[31] Kelling G L and Coles C M 1997 Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime
in Our Communities (New York: Simon and Schuster)