Assessing Utility of Parks: A Study of Parks in Raipur, India

Year : 2026 | Volume : 04 | Issue : 01 | Page : 42 57
    By

    Kukil Sharma,

  • Khushboo Sharma,

  • Vivek Agnihotri,

  1. Student, Department of Architecture, National Institute of Technology Raipur,, Chhattisgarh, India
  2. Student, Department of Architecture, National Institute of Technology Raipur,, Chhattisgarh, India
  3. Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, National Institute of Technology Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India

Abstract

With the rapid growth of urbanization in India, urban parks are taking center stage as vital recreational spaces and community gathering spots. As cities continue to densify and open spaces shrink, public parks increasingly serve as essential infrastructure that supports physical health, social interaction, and environmental well-being. In addition to offering leisure and recreation, urban parks contribute to urban resilience by improving microclimatic conditions and enhancing the overall quality of life. Numerous developed nations have recently acknowledged the vital role of multi-functional public parks in fostering sustainable city development. Conversely, many existing public parks in developing nations suffer neglect or underuse. This study aims to evaluate the usability of parks and examine the determinants affecting the utilization of public parks in Raipur, India. It is a rapidly growing mid-sized city, presenting an appropriate context to assess how urban parks function within evolving urban environments. Parks were chosen based on their location, size, and amenities offered to ensure a representative assessment of different typologies of public open spaces. A total of three parks were examined, and an empirical study was conducted to determine variations in physical occupancy rates. We employed the System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities (SOPARC) at the chosen park sites to collect data on the number of users, physical activity levels, and estimated ages. Through systematic observation and comparative analysis, this paper emphasizes vital factors in designing excellent public spaces for urban environments and offers a framework for creating successful public space designs. The designs that can encourage inclusivity, active use, and long-term sustainability in rapidly urbanizing cities.

Keywords: Design, environment, public park, urban planning, utility

[This article belongs to International Journal of Urban Design and Development ]

How to cite this article:
Kukil Sharma, Khushboo Sharma, Vivek Agnihotri. Assessing Utility of Parks: A Study of Parks in Raipur, India. International Journal of Urban Design and Development. 2026; 04(01):42-57.
How to cite this URL:
Kukil Sharma, Khushboo Sharma, Vivek Agnihotri. Assessing Utility of Parks: A Study of Parks in Raipur, India. International Journal of Urban Design and Development. 2026; 04(01):42-57. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/ijudd/article=2026/view=239927


References

  1. Aram F, Solgi E, Holden G. The role of green spaces in increasing social interactions in neighborhoods with periodic markets. Habitat Int. 2019;84:24–32. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2018.12.004.
  2. Neema MN, Maniruzzaman KM, Ohgai A. Greenery-based model of green urbanism for developing a sustainable healthy livable city – Dhaka city perspective. In: Apduhan B, Nguyen HQ, Misra S, Taniar D, Gervasi O, Murgante B, editors. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computer Science and Its Applications; 2013; pp. 207–211.
  3. Collomb N. The governance and management of public green spaces. In: Sinnett D, Smith N, Burgess S, editors. Handbook on green infrastructure. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2015. p. 337–353. doi:10.4337/9781783474004.00027.
  4. Larson LR, Jennings V, Cloutier SA. Public parks and wellbeing in urban areas of the United States. PLoS One. 2016;11(4):e0153211. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0153211.
  5. Chu YT, Li D, Chang PJ. Effects of urban park quality, environmental perception, and leisure activity on well-being among the older population. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(21):11402. doi:10.3390/ijerph182111402.
  6. Carr S, Francis M, Rivlin LG, Stone AM. Needs in public space. In: Tiesdell S, Carmona M, editors. Urban Design Reader. London: Routledge; 2007. p. 11. doi:10.4324/9780080468129.
  7. Hami A, Maulan S, Mariapan M, Shahhosseini H. Users’ preferences of usability and sustainability of old urban park in Tabriz, Iran. Aust J Basic Appl Sci. 2011;5:1899–1905.
  8. Lahoti S, Lahoti A, Saito O. Benchmark assessment of recreational public urban green space provisions: A case of a typical urbanizing Indian city, Nagpur. Urban For Urban Green. 2019;44:126424. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126424.
  9. Biernacka M, Kronenberg J, Łaszkiewicz E. An integrated system of monitoring the availability, accessibility and attractiveness of urban parks and green squares. Appl Geogr. 2020;116:102152. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2020.102152.
  10. Mahmoudkhani M, Feghhi J, Makhdoum M, Bahmani O. Evaluation of the recreational capability and designing of the woodsy promenade. Environ Dev Sustain. 2020;23:8062–8075. doi:10.1007/s10668-020-00947-z.
  11. Dade MC, Mitchell MGE, Brown G, Rhodes JR. The effects of urban greenspace characteristics and socio-demographics vary among cultural ecosystem services. Urban For Urban Green. 2020;49:126641. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126641.
  12. Ewing R. Can the physical environment determine physical activity levels? Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2005;33(2):69–75. doi:10.1097/00003677-200504000-00003.
  13. Bedimo-Rung AL, Mowen AJ, Cohen DA. The significance of parks to physical activity and public health: A conceptual model. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(Suppl 2):159–168. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.024.
  14. McCormack GR, Rock M, Toohey AM, Hignell D. Characteristics of urban parks associated with park use and physical activity: A review of qualitative research. Health Place. 2010;16(4):712–726. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.03.003.
  15. Slater S, Pugach O, Lin W, Bontu A. If you build it will they come? Does involving community groups in playground renovations affect park utilization and physical activity? Environ Behav. 2016;48:246–265. doi:10.1177/0013916515614368.
  16. Sia A, Tan PY, Kim YJ, Er KBH. Use and non-use of parks are dictated by nature orientation, perceived accessibility and social norm which manifest in a continuum. Landsc Urban Plan. 2023;235:104758. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104758.
  17. Gearin E, Kahle C. Teen and adult perceptions of urban green space in Los Angeles. Child Youth Environ. 2006;16(1):25–48. doi:10.1353/cye.2006.0037.
  18. Zhao J, Xu W, Li R. Visual preference of trees: The effects of tree attributes and seasons. Urban For Urban Green. 2017;25:19–25. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2017.04.015.
  19. Gatalska N, Oleksiichenko N. Methodological approaches to assess the aesthetics of park environment. 2019.
  20. Konijnendijk CC, Annerstedt M, Nielsen AB, Maruthaveeran S. Benefits of urban parks: a systematic review. Copenhagen & Alnarp: International Federation of Parks and Recreation Administration (IFPRA); 2013.
  21. Subramanian D, Jana A. Design dichotomy: Impact of design intervention on the recreational open spaces of urban India – A photo essay. Berkeley Plan J. 2018;30:118–127. doi:10.5070/BP330137637.
  22. Jogdande A, Bandyopadhyay A. Identification of relationship between the quality and uses of public parks in India. Civ Eng Archit. 2023;11(1):142–158. doi:10.13189/cea.2023.110112.
  23. McKenzie TL, Cohen DA, Sehgal A, Williamson S, Golinelli D. System for observing play and recreation in communities (SOPARC): Reliability and feasibility measures. J Phys Act Health. 2006;3 Suppl 1:S208–S222. doi:10.1123/jpah.3.s1.s208.
  24. Jayantha K, Ariyawansa RG, Kumara UA. Park (Uyana): Conceptualization. Sch J Arts Humanit Soc Sci. 2021;9(5):144–157. doi:10.36347/sjahss.2021.v09i05.002.
  25. Dong J, Guo R, Guo F, Guo X, Zhang Z. Pocket parks: A systematic literature review. Environ Res Lett. 2023;18(8):083003. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ace7e2.
  26. Abdelhamid MM, Elfakharany MM. Improving urban park usability in developing countries: Case study of Al-Shalalat Park in Alexandria. Alex Eng J. 2020;59(1):311–321. doi:10.1016/j.aej.2019.12.042.
  27. Parra DC, McKenzie TL, Ribeiro IC, Ferreira Hino AA, Dreisinger M, Coniglio K, et al. Assessing physical activity in public parks in Brazil using systematic observation. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(8):1420–1426. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.181230.
  28. Li J, Fu J, Gao J, Zhou R, Wang K, Zhou K. Effects of the spatial patterns of urban parks on public satisfaction: evidence from Shanghai, China. Landsc Ecol. 2023;38:1265–1277. doi:10.1007/s10980-023-01615-z.
  29. Ministry of Urban Development. Urban and regional development plans formulation and implementation (URDPFI) guidelines. Volume 1. New Delhi: Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India; 2014.
  30. Town and Country Planning Organisation. Urban Greening Guidelines, 2014. New Delhi: Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India; 2014.
  31. Delhi Development Authority. Master Plan of Delhi 2021. New Delhi: Delhi Development Authority; 2007.
  32. Bureau of Indian Standards. National Building Code of India 2005. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards; 2005.
  33. Ministry of Urban Development. Revised City Development Plan for Raipur. New Delhi: Government of India; 2014. p. 1–151.
  34. Ministry of Urban Development. Advisory on Conservation and Restoration of Water Bodies in Urban Areas. New Delhi: Government of India; 2013.
Regular Issue Subscription Original Research
Volume 04
Issue 01
Received 28/07/2025
Accepted 02/01/2026
Published 10/02/2026
Publication Time 197 Days
9

Login


My IP

PlumX Metrics