The Improvement of User Satisfaction for Two Urban Parks in Dubai, UAE: Bay Avenue Park and Al Ittihad Park

Abstract

The population of Dubai has increased dramatically in the last 40 years. Along with social changes, neighborhood parks are becoming increasingly important for enhancing the residents’ quality of life. This study aims to evaluate the physical environment of parks and investigate park users’ satisfaction in neighborhood parks of Dubai. After defining the park and surrounding environment for access, a field survey was performed at Bay Avenue Park and Al Ittihad Park. The data for analysis were collected from the Department of Geographical Information System (GIS) Center at Dubai Municipality. The results show that the standard duration was 60–90 min, and the walking/driving time was 10–20 min. “Children Facility” and “Various Attractions” were low in both parks. The statistical results of multiple regression analysis of the derived factors and satisfaction show that Bay Avenue Park influenced satisfaction in the surrounding environment for access, pedestrian space, park facility, convenience and comfort of the park, and various attractions and activities. Furthermore, Al Ittihad Park influenced satisfaction in pedestrian space, green landscape, surrounding environment for access, park facilities, and safe access. Therefore, factors such as park facilities, surrounding environment for access, and pedestrian space were analyzed to affect satisfaction in both parks. The analysis of the surrounding environment for access factors using GIS would methodologically help determine priorities for future improvements around parks. However, this study is limited by the scope and investigation period of the target parks, and detailed factors related to the surrounding environment for access are also not evaluated.

1. Introduction

Since the 1980s, Dubai has experienced rapid economic growth in the gross domestic product (GDP) from 29.57 billion USD in 1980 to 401.51 billion USD in 2020 [1,2]. Dubai’s population expanded from 254,400 in 1980 to 2,921,376 in 2020 [3]. Such an unprecedented development and urban expansion have increased personal income and more comfortable lifestyles in tax-free cities [4,5]. However, the lack of urban open space with the green area, even though Dubai is a planned city from the initiation compared to other metropolitan cities in the Middle East, created the unprecedented unbalance in the life of Dubai residents. Thus, Dubai residents are looking for spaces that will allow them to engage in relaxing leisure activities [6]. Previously, most leisure activities took place in desert parks far away from residences and theme parks in the outskirts, so activities were concentrated on such facilities [7,8]. The high frequency of use resulted in great congestion and damage to the natural environment [9]. Currently, neighborhood parks have become necessary for Dubai residents to satisfy their resting and recharging needs [10].

The importance of parks within walking distance has been recognized in the past, and parks have been placed in easily accessible locations where residents can conveniently use them in real life [11,12,13]. Furthermore, efforts are being made to increase the park utilization rate by reflecting the diverse needs of the citizens in major global cities [14]. For example, 96% of New Yorkers enjoy the benefits of parks within a 10-min walk [15]. Despite its many urban problems, New York City has become one of the most desirable cities to live in [16]. Accordingly, the importance of neighborhood parks within walking or short driving distance is gradually increasing in Dubai as it improves the quality of life among urban residents [17,18]. Furthermore, in recent years, parks have served as a place to maintain a lasting relationship with society by providing a pleasant environment, revitalizing the residents’ activity through walking, and promoting walking activities for the elderly [19]. However, even though neighborhood parks near their residence are helpful for the residents, it is challenging to expand new parks due to economic problems such as non-profitability and difficulty purchasing land [20].

Most of the current neighborhood parks, initially established as urban parks, within walking distances consist of spatial composition and facilities that provide green resting areas [21]. However, in reality, the utilization rate is decreasing because these parks do not reflect the actual needs of the modern citizens, such as sports-related facilities, walking/jogging tracks, and bicycle tracks [22]. The social function of parks needs to adapt to the changes in society and lifestyles. Evaluation of the users’ satisfaction and needs is essential to improve parks for the use of residents and improve their quality of life through these parks [23]. In addition, unlike urban and regional parks, in the case of parks located within walking distances, the surrounding environment for access to the park can directly affect the park’s utilization rate, considering that it is intended for use by foot [24,25].

Most of the plans focus on improving the environment inside the park, which can lead to a decreased actual utilization rate after the park is built [26,27]. In other words, it is crucial to improve the surrounding environment for access from the residence to the parks so that the people can recognize it as a suitable facility in their locality and use it to their satisfaction [28]. Therefore, to improve the satisfaction levels and increase the utilization rate of neighborhood parks, measures to enhance the internal environment and access to parks reflecting modern city residents’ park usage patterns are recommended [29,30].

Various studies to improve parks have been continuously conducted by analyzing users’ behavior and satisfaction [31,32]. Plunz et al. (2019) [33] argued that urban parks should be created as resident-friendly parks to increase their efficiency as a comfortable resting space for people using the city park. Turan et al. (2016) classified neighborhood parks in Rize, Turkey according to the type of facilities provided, and suggested improvements for each type. In addition, Zhang et al. (2018) [34] analyzed the satisfaction level of neighborhood parks in China by classifying them into the urban, river, and natural park types and found that users prioritized benefits over facilities or environmental conditions. Chan et al. (2018) [35] mentioned the necessity of creating urban parks using scrap land because residents of areas adjacent to the industrial complex in Hong Kong prefer small parks near their residences. Neckel et al. (2020) [36] suggested that park revitalization should be promoted in connection with the park’s walking and climbing functions, as satisfaction in the use of regional parks increases through mental and physical stability and health promotion in the area. Gholipour et al. (2021) [37] analyzed facility use and satisfaction surveying urban park users. They pointed out that many improvements are needed in the facilities used and convenience facilities such as information facilities and parking lots. However, previous studies aimed to suggest improvement plans and their effects on parks as open spaces in the city, rather than focusing on the accessibility of these parks [38]. As such, there have been many studies on the level of satisfaction, problems, and space required by park visitors, but there are insufficient studies on user behavior and satisfaction of urban parks within walking or short driving distance for residents, and the necessary facilities and directions for improvement [39,40]. Ayala-Azcárraga et al. (2019) [41] analyzed the relationship between the perceived spatial characteristics such as size, number, and distance to the park, infrastructure, and environmental components of three size-categories of urban parks in Mexico City and their use. They analyzed the use of these spaces to promote well-being, considering the relationship with three dimensions (health, community, and satisfaction with life) to recover from stress and fatigue, encourage physical activity, and facilitate social contact. Anastasiou and Manika (2020) [42] identified the characteristics that affect the residential satisfaction of open urban space in a medium-sized Greek city and the complex patterns between the characteristics elements of these spaces and the visitors’ satisfaction. Liu and Xiao (2021) [43] assigned the potential factors affecting people’s perception of and satisfaction with urban parks based on the online comments data from Dianping and explored the relationship between these factors and people’s satisfaction, and further identified the significant factors. For the next phase of research, after the analysis of user satisfaction by survey or online data, a stimulus-response theory which is an environmental, psychological theory of the process of perception and cognition by which humans respond to environmental stimuli such as Russell and Lanius (1984) [44] and Rapoport (2016) [45] can be used to build qualitative analysis data from Dubai residents.

Neighborhood urban parks have an attraction distance of fewer than 1000 m and a size of more than 30,000 m² [46,47]. It is for the use of those who live within walking or short driving distance [48]. Moreover, residents within the neighborhood should use it without significant restrictions in terms of time and space [49]. Although the impact of having proper accessibility from the residential areas to the park is essential, most park satisfaction studies are limited to the evaluation of the park’s internal facilities and physical environment [50]. Improving Park utilization by enhancing accessibility has not been considered [51]. Accessibility considers the travel time and the characteristics of the destination, such as the presence or absence of sidewalks, provision of shade by trees, and pedestrian obstacles [52]. In particular, these characteristics can be considered essential variables that can affect the satisfaction level with a park accessible by foot [53].

This study investigates neighborhood parks within walking or short driving distances that are advantageous to residents. In addition, a satisfaction analysis is conducted regarding the accessibility factors that have not been dealt with thus far, and the difference in influence between internal and external environments is analyzed to provide a holistic review for satisfaction improvement. Finally, the study aims to provide data for park creation and reorganization to improve future utilization rates by statistically determining the effects of these internal and external environments on user satisfaction to the Dubai Municipality since there is no previous research for urban parks in metropolis with the similar development pace of urban expansion or similar hot desert climate urban context.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Target Sites

For the spatial scope of the study, parks satisfying each criterion were selected in the following order, as shown in

Table 1. List of Neighborhood Parks in Dubai (* = Neighborhood Parks between 30,000 m² and 100,000 m²).

#	Name	Location	Area	Features
1	Al Barsha Pond Park	Al Barsha	210,400 m2	- Park House/Café - Kiosk/Toilets/Pond/Solar-powered boats
2	Al Ittihad Park *	Palm Jumeirah	98,200 m2	- Shops/Restaurants - Playgrounds/Water features/Toilets
3	Al Khazzan Park	City Walk	15,200 m2	- Shaded Playgrounds - Toilets
4	Al Sufouh Park	Al Sufouh	14,000 m2	- Coffee shop - Sports facilities/Toilets
5	Al Wasl Park	Jumeriah 1	14,800 m2	- Shaded Playgrounds - Toilets
6	Bay Avenue Park *	Business Bay	35,000 m2	- Shaded Playgrounds/Skate Park - Toilets
7	Dubai Creek Park	Dubai Creek	960,000 m2	- Barbeques/Picnic Area/Playgrounds - Coffee shop/Toilets
8	Dubai Hills Park	Dubai Hills	180,000 m2	- Splash Park/Skate park/Ice rink/Dog park - Playgrounds/Toilets
9	Dubai Miracle Garden *	Al Barsha South	72,000 m2	- Flower gardens/Restaurants - Toilets
10	JLT Park *	JLT	35,000 m2	- Restaurants/Coffee shop - Toilets
11	Jumeirah Beach Park *	Umm Suqeim 2	35,100 m2	- Barbeques/Food kiosks - Toilets
12	Love Lake Dubai	Al Qudra Lake	105,500 m2	- Barbeques/Coffee shop - Toilets
13	Mamzar Beach Park	Al Mamzar	1,060,000 m2	- Chalets/Swimming pool/Sports courts - Barbeque area/Restaurants/Toilets
14	Mushrif Park	Al Khawaneej	5,250,000 m2	- Restaurants/Sports fields/Bike track - Toilets
15	Nad Al Sheba Cycle Park *	Nad Al Sheba	60,000 m2	- Change Rooms - Toilets
16	Quranic Park	Al Khawaneej	600,000 m2	- Shaded seating/Playgrounds - Toilets
17	Al Safa Park	Al Safa	640,000 m2	- Cafeterias/Theater/Track and Field courts - Toilets
18	The Block	Dubai Creek	25,500 m2	- Sports facilities/Climbing walls /Cafes - Toilets
19	Umm Suqeim Park	Umm Suqeim 1	28,000 m2	- Cafes - Toilets
20	Zabeel Park	Zabeel	475,000 m2	- Barbeques/Picnic Area/Playgrounds - Restaurants/Toilets

. First, by referring to the park status of Dubai Municipality in 2021 [54], 20 neighborhood parks were identified (summarized in Figure 1) [55,56]).

Next, neighborhood parks with an area of 30,000 m² or more, which is the legal standard for neighborhood parks within walking or short driving distance in Dubai Municipality regulation, and smaller than 100,000 m², the minimum area of an urban neighborhood park in Dubai Municipality regulation was selected. It was found that 6 out of 20 neighborhood parks met this requirement (Figure 1) [57].

Finally, a 1000 m park attraction distance was set from the park boundary to select a park with a high park utilization rate. Then, the area percentage of the high-rise residential areas in the zone was calculated for each park. The higher density within a 1000 m radius, the more residents use the parks. Compared to other park areas with low-rise villa and townhouses, the area percentage of the high-rise residential areas in the zone of Bay Avenue Park (12.8%) and Al Ittihad Park (9.6%) showed the highest ratios in that order since both parks are in high-density family-oriented apartment areas.

Bay Avenue Park’s first target site is Al A’amal Street in Business Bay (Figure 2). It can be easily accessed from the Business Bay Metro Station by a short 15-min walk. A convenient Bay Avenue parking area is available for those who come by car [58]. The Business Bay district is known for its commercial development and high-rise office towers. However, it also contains urban parks, which offer a wide variety of physical activities. Dubai Properties developed Bay Avenue Park in 2014 as an addition to the Bay Avenue project, including a retail shopping center [59]. It covers an area of 35,000 m² and is in the heart of the Business Bay area. It features a large green area along with a jogging track (Figure 3), two outdoor gyms, and other recreational facilities, such as one of the best skate parks in Dubai and two playgrounds to entertain children [60].

These amenities are ideal for the 191,000 residents of Business Bay, especially those living in the Executive Towers complex [61]. Bay Avenue Park also has coffee shops, a dancing fountain, and a jogging path that runs for 1 km around the park. Park users enjoy the area’s landmarks, such as Burj Khalifa and Zaha Hadid’s Opus building, while walking or jogging in the park.

The second target site, Al Ittihad Park, is located in Palm Jumeirah (Figure 4). It is easily accessible through the Palm Monorail (Al Ittihad Park station), and the lifted monorail track runs through the park [62]. It is a tranquil park spread across 98,200 m². The word Ittihad (union in Arabic) implies the ethos of living together in harmony [63]. The most iconic feature of this park is its range of trees and plants. Al Ittihad Park was inaugurated in 2012 on the UAE’s 41st National Day. It is located adjacent to the Golden Mile Galleria Mall and Shoreline Apartments complex and provides residents with a walking distance place to spend their leisure time [64]. One of the main features is the 3.2-km jogging track, one of the best places in the city for an outdoor run, brisk walk, or a casual stroll in the park (Figure 5). It has 60 varieties of plants and trees indigenous to the region; it is home to over 600 palm trees planted on the edges of the running track. It also has a play area for children with swings, slides, and other fun rides.

2.2. Survey Method

The survey was divided into a preliminary and the main questionnaire to select the objective criteria. The questionnaires consisted of main categories on user behavior, satisfaction with the internal environment and accessibility to the park, and personal characteristics. Regarding accessibility from the residence to the park, based on the literature related to the pedestrian environment, an objective analysis was conducted to determine the subjective view of the difficulties in surrounding environment for access. Items related to satisfaction with the park environment were organized by extracting indices based on previous studies.

Among preliminary variables, a total of 25 critical variables was extracted via four zoom brainstorming sessions between 10 June 2021 and 24 July 2021 with nine professionals with more than 20 years of experience in their fields (2 urban design professors from the University of Sharjah and Ajman University, two landscape architecture professors from UAE University and Ajman University, two architecture professors from UAE University and Ajman University, two urban design department managers from Dubai Municipality, and one general manager from landscape design firm in Dubai) (

Table 2. Survey Questionnaire Structure.

Main Categories		Questions	Evaluation
Park User Behavior		1. Frequency of Visit, 2. Duration of Visit, 3. Reason for Visit, 4. Transportation Mode	Multiple Choices Question
		1. Visiting Time, 2. Walking/Driving Time to Access	Short Answers Question
Satisfaction Level	Park Environments	1. The Size of the Park, 2. Green Area, 3. Shades, 4. Trail Length, 5. Trail Width, 6. Lightings, 7. Parking, 8. Resting Place, 9. Public Facility, 10. Children Facility, 11. Sports Facility, 12. Sports Court, 13. Safe Environment, 14. Attractions, 15. Scenery	5-Point Likert Scale Question
	Accessibility to the park	1. Safe Environment, 2. Scenery, 3. Attractions, 4. Tree Shades, 5. Connectivity of Walkway, 6. Level of Slopes, 7. Pedestrian/Car Separation, 8. Lightings, 9. Car Speed, 10. Hindrance	5-Point Likert Scale Question
Surveyor Information		1. Gender, 2. Age, 3. Occupation, 4. Monthly Income Range	Multiple Choices Question

).

A preliminary questionnaire was performed on 1 September 2021, to correct and supplement questions. The survey was conducted at Bay Avenue Park and Al Ittihad Park simultaneously from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM for a total of 10 days, from 6–15 September 2021. The survey was conducted in a face-to-face method by graduate students, who were well aware of the purpose of the research, to ensure the reliability of the survey results. Excluding ten copies that were judged to be insincere, a total of 375 answered questionnaires, 189 from Bay Avenue Park and 186 from Al Ittihad Park, were used for the analysis.

2.3. Analysis Method

The flow of analysis is shown in Figure 6. The environment of each park was investigated through a field survey by graduate students to evaluate the physical environment related to park use. Physical accessibility items were selected based on previous studies related to walking [65]. The analysis data were collected from the Department of Geographical Information System (GIS) Center at Dubai Municipality [66]. Spatial data were constructed for the surrounding environment for access within a straight distance of 1000 m from the park boundary [67]. As for the analysis data, using the facility spatial information DB, GIS data for pedestrian-related sidewalks, pedestrian traffic lights, street trees, bus stops, traffic safety signs, and intersections were constructed and analyzed for each park.

The questionnaires were analyzed using the IBM SPSS Statistics 26 program. First, descriptive statistics and frequency analysis were conducted to understand the general characteristics and satisfaction of the survey subjects. Finally, factor analysis was conducted to identify the variables and factors related to the satisfaction level. Finally, stepwise multiple regression analysis was performed to analyze the effect of the physical environmental factors extracted through factor analysis on each park’s satisfaction level.

3. Results

3.1. Physical Environment & Accessibility Assessment

By examining the status of facilities within the two parks using a field survey, as shown in

Table 3. Physical Environments of Bay Avenue Park and Al Ittihad Park.

Category	Bay Avenue Park	Al Ittihad Park
Physical Environment
Size	35,000 m2	98,200 m2
Resting Places	Coffee shops, 46 Benches, 6 Outdoor cafés	Coffee shops, 118 Benches, 8 Outdoor cafés
Sports Facility	1.0 km jogging track, 2 Outdoor gyms,	3.2 km jogging track
Parking	Parking lot (975), Bicycle racks	Parking lot (1346), Bicycle racks
Landscape	Lawn, Bushes, Dates palm trees (10 varieties of indigenous plants and trees)	Lawn, Bushes, Dates palm trees (60 types of indigenous plants and trees)
Children Facility	Skate parks, 2 Playgrounds, Dancing fountain	Playground with swings, slides, and other fun rides
Commercial Activity	Bay Avenue Mall	Golden Mile Galleria Mall
Sidewalk Area	24,364 m2	19,496 m2
Pedestrian Traffic Lights	28	18
Traffic Safety Signs	84	68
Number of Trees	158	600

, the types and number of landscaping, resting, and convenience facilities were similar. However, there were differences in exercise facilities. Bay Avenue Park has a promenade at its center; hence, many users engage in simple physical activities such as walking and jogging. In Al Ittihad Park, children-friendly facilities were installed in a multipurpose sports space, which many residents used. Further, in Bay Avenue Park, various outdoor exercise equipment was also installed. Still, Al Ittihad Park was found to be slightly deteriorated due to the facilities’ lack of expansion and maintenance.

The data on the approach environment index was constructed by performing a 1 km radius buffer from the park boundary. Dubai residents mostly used the park within 1 km of the attraction distance. The park needs to be within 10 min walking or 5 min driving distance because it needs to be accessible to the residents. In evaluating the pedestrian networks, sidewalks for safety were vital as they affect safe passage from residential areas to parks. The analysis revealed that the sidewalk area of Bay Avenue Park was 24,364 m² and that of Al Ittihad Park was 19,496 m², indicating that the two parks were similar.

Moreover, there were 28 pedestrian traffic lights around Bay Avenue Park and 18 around Al Ittihad Park. Traffic safety signs were analyzed among the 84 around Bay Avenue Park and 68 around Al Ittihad Park. It was confirmed that there was no significant difference in pedestrian safety facilities around the park. However, it was found that the number of street trees and intersections differed within the two parks’ induction zones. In the case of street trees, Al Ittihad Park has 442 more than Bay Avenue Park, despite the similar sidewalks within the shaded area. It means that Al Ittihad Park is relatively better than Bay Avenue Park in terms of comfort, such as green cover and shade provided by trees.

3.2. User Behavior and Satisfaction Assessment

As shown in

Table 4. Demographic Characteristics of Survey Participants.

Category		Bay Avenue Park		Al Ittihad Park
		Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Gender	Male	90	47.6	105	56.5
	Female	99	52.4	81	43.5
	Total	189	100.0	186	100.0
Age Group	10–19	14	7.4	15	8.1
	20–29	18	9.5	33	17.7
	30–39	29	15.3	44	23.7
	40–49	41	21.7	53	28.5
	50–59	30	15.9	18	9.7
	60–69	34	18.0	14	7.5
	Above 70	23	12.2	9	4.8
	Total	189	100.0	186	100.0
Occupations	Students	30	15.9	23	12.4
	Housewives	56	29.6	64	34.4
	Office Workers	46	24.3	55	29.6
	Self-Employed	21	11.1	33	17.7
	Others	36	19.1	11	5.9
	Total	189	100.0	186	100.0
Average Monthly Income (AED)	≤10,000	19	10.2	13	7.0
	10,000–20,000	76	40.6	90	48.1
	20,000–30,000	44	22.5	48	25.9
	30,000–40,000	33	17.6	26	14.1
	≥40,000	17	9.1	9	4.9
	Total	189	100.0	186	100.0

, In terms of the demographic characteristics of park users, particularly gender distribution, the proportion of female users of Bay Avenue Park was more, at 52.4%. However, in Al Ittihad Park, male users were more at 56.5%. In terms of age, 21.7% in Bay Avenue Park were in their 40 s, and 28.5% were in their 40 s at Al Ittihad Park. By occupation, in Bay Avenue Park, housewives accounted for the most at 29.6%, and in Al Ittihad Park, housewives accounted for 34.4%, followed by office workers, self-employed, and students.

In terms of usage patterns, Bay Avenue Park and Al Ittihad Park users were primarily similar in Figure 7. First, looking at the frequency of visits, one time per week was the highest in Al Ittihad Park (38.0%), and more than five times per week was the highest in Bay Avenue Park (27.4%).

Regarding the duration of the visit, the percentage of respondents who used 60 to 90 min for both Bay Avenue Park and Al Ittihad Park was the highest at 32.7% and 45.9%, respectively. This is consistent with research showing that residents spend a relatively shorter duration, amounting to less than two hours when using a nearby park [68].

A high walking rate was seen in terms of means of transportation from the residence to the park. Further, the respondents who said that the walking time was between 10 and 20 min were 37.4% in Bay Avenue Park and 38.1% in Al Ittihad Park. It means that parks are used more by the residents living in the vicinity than those from other areas. Furthermore, 43.4% of Bay Avenue Park users and 29.6% of Al Ittihad Park users mainly used the park for walking and jogging.

3.3. Park Physical Environment & Accessibility Satisfaction Assessment

Table 5. Satisfaction of Park’s Physical Environments (p < 0.05).

Category	Total		Bay Avenue Park		Al Ittihad Park		F Value
	Mean	Standard Deviation	Mean	Standard Deviation	Mean	Standard Deviation
Shades	3.52	0.870	3.50	0.866	3.53	2.876	0.008
Green Area	3.54	0.785	3.53	0.820	3.54	0.749	2.042
The Size of the Park	3.48	0.813	3.48	0.834	3.47	0.792	0.479
Trail Width	3.49	0.790	3.57	0.757	3.42	0.816	0.919
Trail Length	3.40	0.837	3.47	0.815	3.31	0.853	0.118
Parking	2.92	0.880	3.15	0.814	3.32	0.885	3.960
Lightings	3.19	0.906	3.47	0.872	2.69	0.852	3.089
Resting Place	3.15	0.981	3.33	0.962	2.89	0.969	1.895
Public Facility	2.98	1.032	3.34	0.894	2.97	1.031	6.163
Children Facility	2.56	0.883	2.68	0.881	2.60	0.867	0.006
Sports Facility	3.22	0.869	3.48	0.795	2.41	0.865	1.701
Sports Court	3.08	0.902	3.21	0.864	2.95	0.922	0.679
Safe Environment	3.49	0.796	3.72	0.782	3.25	0.739	0.554
Attractions	2.79	0.846	2.90	0.842	2.68	0.837	1.967
Scenery	3.31	0.894	3.40	0.879	3.21	0.902	0.315

shows the results of analyzing the park users’ satisfaction with the physical environment on a 5-point Likert scale. First, looking at the evaluation results of Bay Avenue Park users, satisfaction with most items were found to be higher than that of Al Ittihad Park. Among them, the “Safe Environment” item had the highest average value of 3.72 points, indicating a relatively high level of satisfaction with safety. It is because Bay Avenue Park has the characteristic of an open type, wherein the inside of the park can be seen clearly. This result can be attributed to the various facilities arranged around the linear promenade next to the Bay Avenue mall corridor and its spatial characteristics that enable natural monitoring. Next, satisfaction with the “Trail Width” was relatively high at 3.57 points. The circular walkway with a 5 m or more width inside Bay Avenue Park is highly satisfactory because it provides a smooth environment for users to walk and jog.

When looking at user satisfaction with the environment of Al Ittihad Park, the average value of satisfaction for “Green Area” was the highest at 3.54 points, followed by “Shades” at 3.53 points, “The Size of the Park area” at 3.47, “Trail Width” at 3.42, and “Trail Length” at 3.31. This is because Al Ittihad Park is rich in natural elements such as green space and trees, and the trail has more than 600 vernacular trees, so users can experience nature, which is rarely obtained in city life. However, satisfaction with “Public Facility”, “Lightings” and “Parking” was low, which could be because most users have to commute on foot from their apartment in Palm Jumeirah due to limited parking space near the park. It is also because of the increasing demands of Dubai residents looking for parks that are easily accessible in their daily lives and provide various activities and facilities. Therefore, these factors should be reflected in the improvement of park facilities.

Table 6. Satisfaction of Accessibility (p < 0.05).

Category	Total		Bay Avenue Park		Al Ittihad Park		F Value
	Mean	Standard Deviation	Mean	Standard Deviation	Mean	Standard Deviation
Level of Slopes	3.78	0.888	3.92	0.933	3.64	0.819	0.153
Safe Environment	3.72	0.886	3.89	0.871	3.54	0.869	5.687
Scenery	3.53	0.896	3.73	0.857	3.33	0.893	0.391
Attractions	2.88	0.865	3.04	0.858	2.72	0.845	1.399
Tree Shades	3.44	0.934	3.46	0.913	3.43	0.957	0.356
Connectivity of Walkway	3.58	0.833	3.66	0.817	3.51	0.845	0.739
Pedestrian/Car Separation	3.63	0.868	3.76	0.890	3.50	0.826	0.151
Lightings	3.31	0.935	3.48	0.931	3.41	0.911	2.011
Car Speed	3.32	0.821	3.46	0.808	3.18	0.814	1.751
Hindrance	3.43	0.964	3.61	0.943	3.24	0.949	0.000

shows the results of analyzing the satisfaction levels of park users for the items related to accessibility from their residence to the park. Looking at the satisfaction evaluation results, it was found that Bay Avenue Park users were generally more satisfied with the surrounding environment for access than Al Ittihad Park users. This is because Bay Avenue Park was better than Al Ittihad Park regarding the number of plantings and intersections related to comfort and accessibility among the pedestrian-related environments in the park’s attraction area. However, users’ satisfaction with “Attractions” was evaluated as the lowest among the park surrounding environment for access, with a score of 3.04 at Bay Avenue Park and 2.72 at Al Ittihad Park. This is due to the locational characteristics of the two parks, which are located inside a grid-type residential block composed of high-rise houses. It results from the lack of consideration for creating a street environment that can revitalize the individuality and culture of the region in urban planning; thus, the characteristic street landscape for each area has not been formed. Therefore, in future street environment improvement projects, it is necessary to change the landscape in consideration of regional characteristics through changes in street tree patterns. Thus, it is possible to improve the satisfaction with the access road to the park by adding exciting sights to the pedestrian environment and applying attractive environmental color schemes for buildings and outdoor advertisements.

3.4. Factoring of Physical Environment Variables

Regarding Bay Avenue Park, factor analysis was conducted to identify the inter-relationship among the 25 physical environmental variables related to park user satisfaction and the intrinsic factors. If the correlation between each variable and element is low, the reliability of the analysis may be reduced. Therefore, after factor analysis by principal component analysis and the varimax rotation method, insignificant variables were excluded through factor loadings.

All 25 variables showed a factor loading of ≥0.5, and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value was high at 0.912. Bartlett’s sphericity test found no problem with fit within the significance level of 1%. There were five extracted factors, and the cumulative explanatory power was approximately 64.18% (

Table A1. Result of Factor Analysis for Satisfaction with Bay Avenue Park.

Variables	Factors
	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3	Factor 4	Factor 5
Safe Environment	0.788	0.206	0.104	0.109	0.192
Level of Slopes	0.756	0.217	0.046	0.184	0.174
Lightings on the Access Roads	0.668	−0.021	0.381	0.283	0.076
The hindrance on the Access Roads	0.628	0.123	0.291	0.149	−0.011
Car Speed on the Access Roads	0.612	0.093	0.312	0.381	0.078
The scenery on the Access Roads	0.521	0.359	−0.120	0.220	0.344
The Size of the Park	0.128	0.818	0.179	0.115	0.076
Trail Length	0.283	0.747	0.278	0.087	0.031
Trail Width	0.105	0.742	0.044	0382	0.088
Parking	0.092	0.595	0.334	0.005	0.222
The scenery in the Park	0.172	0.545	0.215	0.383	0.354
Public Facility	0.082	0.182	0.688	0.297	0.163
Lighting Facility	0.316	0.223	0.675	0.183	−0.022
Children’s Facility	0.170	0.331	0.616	0.021	0.265
Sports Facility	0.214	0.236	0.563	0.091	0.346
Safe Environment	0.342	0.182	0.555	0.293	0.199
Connectivity of Walkway	0.308	0.121	0.102	0.681	0.209
Green Area	0.135	0.381	0.205	0.679	0.000
Tree Shades in Sidewalk	0.349	0.080	0.132	0.666	0.242
Shades in the Park	0.261	0.347	0.337	0.657	0.013
Pedestrian/Car Separation	0.486	0.056	0.128	0.576	0.210
Sports Facility	0.044	0.324	0.186	0.060	0.685
Sports Court	0.218	0.067	0.502	0.074	0.608
Attractions on the Access Roads	0.253	−0.068	0.079	0.344	0.586
Attractions in the Park	0.114	0.455	0.323	0.201	0.521
Eigenvalue	4.309	3.591	3.262	3.258	2.262
Percentage of Variance (%)	16.573	13.813	12.547	12.537	8.703
Cumulative Variance (%)	16.573	30.388	42.937	55.476	64.181
Sampling Adequacy by KMO Measure	0.912
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity	p = 0.000

).

The first factor included variables related to the safe environment of the access road, level of slopes, lighting facilities, car speed, hindrance, and surrounding environment. This was associated with the overall environment of the access road to the park; hence, it was named “surrounding environment for access”. The second factor was the park’s size, the length and width of the trail, and the scenery. Most of the variables referred to concepts related to the space for walking; thus, it was named “pedestrian space”. The third factor was named “park facility” because it was related to its facilities, such as resting places, lighting facilities, public facilities, and individual sports facilities. The fourth factor included variables associated with the connectivity of walkways, pedestrian/car separation, the amount of green area within the park, and the amount of shade inside and outside the park. This concept encompassed the convenience of accessing the park and the comfort of green spaces inside and outside the park. Thus, it was named “convenience and comfort of the park”. The fifth factor included variables such as children’s and group sports facilities in the park and attractions inside and outside the park. It was named the “various attractions and activities” factor because it referred to users’ demands for various interests and activities.

The results of the analysis of Al Ittihad Park show that factor analysis was conducted for a total of 25 variables, except for the factor loading of 0.5 or less in the “attractions on the access roads”. The KMO value, which indicates the adequacy of the factors, was found to be as high as 0.885. The Bartlett sphericity test value satisfied the significance level of 0.01; therefore, the factor analysis result was statistically significant. There were a total of five extracted factors, the eigenvalue of each factor was over 1.0, and the cumulative explanatory power was approximately 63.09% (

Table A2. Result of Factor Analysis for Satisfaction with Al Ittihad Park.

Variables	Factors
	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3	Factor 4	Factor 5
Children’s Facility	0.818	−0.078	0.071	0.040	0.052
Sports Facility	0.699	0.130	0.073	0.307	−0.177
Sports Court	0.672	−0.002	0.204	0.214	0.033
Attractions in the Park	0.651	0.086	0.122	0.216	0.028
Lighting Facility	0.634	0.297	0.118	0.095	0.111
Parking	0.564	0.134	0.330	−0.264	0.138
Public Facility	0.558	0.043	0.204	0.175	0.398
Resting Place	0.527	0.118	0.452	0.134	0.234
Safe Environment	0.509	0.093	0.302	0.176	0.354
Lightings on the Access Roads	0.222	0.808	0.041	0.077	0.085
Pedestrian/Car Separation	−0.078	0.753	0.271	0.265	0.078
Car Speed on the Access Roads	0.125	0.698	0.095	0.094	0.280
Connectivity of Walkway	0.042	0.598	0.189	0.432	0.042
The hindrance on the Access Roads	0.080	0.532	0.354	0.053	0.452
The scenery on the Access Roads	0.053	0.510	0.324	0.124	0.453
The Size of the Park	0.249	0.161	0.796	0.203	0.092
Trail Length	0.265	0.217	0.765	0.164	0.015
Trail Width	0.296	0.261	0.757	0.214	0.038
Tree Shades in Sidewalk	0.182	0.292	0.053	0.723	0.193
Shades in the Park	0.205	0.102	0.346	0.631	0.304
Green Area	0.199	0.068	0.396	0.625	0.297
The scenery in the Park	0.425	0.114	0.244	0.605	0.004
The scenery on the Access Roads	0.242	0.378	0.076	0.535	0.292
Safe Environment	0.119	0.254	0.081	0.209	0.712
Level of Slopes	0.010	0.246	−0.097	0.424	0.668
Eigenvalue	4.286	3.302	3.041	2.948	2.186
Percentage of Variance (%)	17.151	13.211	12.173	11.801	8.749
Cumulative Variance (%)	17.151	30.363	42.538	54.338	63.091
Sampling Adequacy by KMO Measure	0.885
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity	p = 0.000

).

The first factor was analyzed to include children’s facilities, individual sports facilities, sports courts, the scenery in the park, lighting facilities, parking, public facilities, and other places in the park, and was named “park facilities”. The second factor was called “surrounding environment for access”, It was related to the lighting facilities from the residence to the park, pedestrian/car separation, car speed, connectivity of pedestrian walkway, and the overall environment of the approach to the park as a hindrance. The third factor was named “pedestrian space” because it was related to the park’s area and the length and width of the park trail. The fourth factor included the amount of shade in the park, access road, and beautiful scenery. It was named “green landscape” because it is related to the provision of shade and landscape creation by greenery. The fifth factor is associated with the access road’s safety and stability from the residence to the park, including the slope level. It was named “safe accessibility.”

3.5. Analysis of Factors Affecting User Satisfaction

Multiple regression analysis was performed using a stepwise selection method with the factors extracted by factor analysis as the independent variable and park use satisfaction as the dependent variable to determine the relationship between the physical environment and satisfaction related to park use. The tolerance values of all variables were above 0.1, and the regression model was found to be suitable (=99.566 (<0.01)). The five input factors affected the satisfaction of using Bay Avenue Park at a significance level of 1%. The contribution rate was 0.724, which explained 72.4% of the total variance (

Table 7. Multiple Regression Analysis for Satisfaction with Bay Avenue Park (* = p < 0.01).

Factors	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	R2	F
	B	Standard Error	Beta
Factor 1. Surrounding environment for access	0.343	0.023	0.548	14.317 *	0.723	99.564 *
Factor 2. Pedestrian Space	0.243	0.023	0.356	9.308 *
Factor 3. Park Facility	0.221	0.023	0.354	9.251 *
Factor 4. Convenience/Comfort of the Park	0.214	0.023	0.342	8.927 *
Factor 5. Various Attractions & Activities	0.154	0.023	0.244	6.391 *

).

After examining standardized regression coefficient values, surrounding environment for access, pedestrian space, park facility, convenience and comfort of the park, and various attractions and activities appeared in that order. “Surrounding environment for access” was analyzed to have the most significant influence on the satisfaction of using Bay Avenue Park. The “surrounding environment for access” factor’s relative importance was about 1.5 times higher than other factors. In the case of high satisfaction with the environment, such as Bay Avenue Park, the “surrounding environment for access” should be considered to improve user satisfaction.

The results of the factor analysis show that rather than the improvement of the park environment, if the safe environment, level of slopes, lightings, removal of hindrance, and car speed on the access roads included in “surrounding environment for access” is improved and supplemented, it will be able to enhance user satisfaction significantly. Next, “pedestrian space”, “park facility” and “convenience and comfort of the park” were analyzed as critical environmental factors in using the park, in that order. Given that Bay Avenue Park users’ satisfaction with related aspects was relatively high, it is judged that maintenance and management are necessary. In addition, in terms of “various attractions and activities”, it is possible to improve user satisfaction by installing more facilities for children and organizing various events to reflect users’ needs.

The results of the multiple regression analysis using each factor of Al Ittihad Park as the independent variables are as follows. It was found that there was no problem of multicollinearity, and the regression model was found to be suitable at 61.942. In addition, the contribution rate of all factors was 0.627, explaining 62.7% of the total variance (

Table 8. Multiple Regression Analysis for Satisfaction with Al Ittihad Park (* = p < 0.01).

Factors	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	R2	F
	B	Standard Error	Beta
Factor 3. Pedestrian Space	0.248	0.026	0.413	9.122 *	0.626	61.941 *
Factor 4. Green Landscape	0.226	0.026	0.376	8.336 *
Factor 2. Surrounding environment for access	0.222	0.026	0.369	8.166 *
Factor 1. Park Facilities	0.210	0.026	0.349	7.736 *
Factor 5. Safe Access	0.148	0.026	0.249	5.510 *

).

The results of looking at the standardized regression coefficient values are as follows. It was found that pedestrian space, green landscape, surrounding environment for access, park facilities, and safe access affected satisfaction in that order. This is because Al Ittihad Park has the advantage of abundant natural greenery through the promenade of more than 600 trees. Consequently, it is evaluated that the “pedestrian space” and “green landscape” factors showed a high proportion as the determinants of satisfaction.

These results show that, in the case of urban parks with great natural environments as significant resources such as Al Ittihad Park, it is necessary to focus on the continuous maintenance and management of the natural environment inside and outside the park to satisfy the urban residents’ desire to be in nature. Next, in terms of “surrounding environment for access”, it is possible to increase user satisfaction by improving the lighting facility on the access roads, pedestrian/car separation, car speed on the access roads, and connectivity of walkway included in the environmental factors of Al Ittihad Park. In terms of “park facilities”, user satisfaction was low. Therefore, the satisfaction level can be increased by replacing and maintaining facilities.

Factor and regression analyses were performed on Bay Avenue Park and Al Ittihad Park, and the results are as follows. The three factors of “park facilities”, “surrounding environment for access” and “pedestrian space” appeared to be the common denominator factors affecting user satisfaction despite the differences in the types of the two parks. This is an essential factor to consider, especially among various internal and external environments related to the satisfaction of using a neighborhood park within walking or short driving distance.

However, in Bay Avenue Park, “convenience and comfort of the park” and “various attractions and activities” factors affected satisfaction, and in Al Ittihad Park, “green landscape” and “safe access” factors affected satisfaction. This is considered the result of the differences in an urban context. In other words, it is possible to improve the park by its characteristics by enhancing the different environments for each park. In addition, it will contribute to the improvement of user satisfaction.

4. Discussion & Conclusions

This study targeted neighborhood parks located within walking distances that have characteristics that can be used conveniently in the daily life of Dubai residents. The results of this empirical study on the satisfaction of park users are summarized as follows.

First, as a result of analyzing the usage behavior of the park, the standard usage time for Bay Avenue Park and Al Ittihad Park was less than 60–90 min, and the walking/driving time to access was about 10–20 min. For use, walking and jogging showed the highest ratios. However, there was a difference in the frequency and duration of use.

Second, the results of the comparative analysis between the field survey on the park environment and the satisfaction analysis results are as follows. Although the number of facilities in the two parks was similar, Al Ittihad Park showed lower satisfaction with the facilities than Bay Avenue Park. Therefore, we evaluate that an overall overhaul of the Al Ittihad Park facility is required. Furthermore, users’ satisfaction with natural elements such as green spaces, trees, and trails was high in Al Ittihad Park. Accordingly, it seems that continuous protection and management of natural environmental resources, such as green areas and abundant street trees, should be carried out. The items that showed low satisfaction in both parks were “children’s facility” and “various attractions”. Despite the recent increase in leisure activities for families with children in parks near their homes, the facilities for this social phenomenon are insufficient. Therefore, to increase the desire of Dubai residents to visit parks, this should be considered when improving neighborhood park facilities within walking distance.

Third, the results of the GIS analysis by building data on the external environment of the park are as follows. The number of pedestrian traffic lights and traffic safety signs related to pedestrian safety and the area of sidewalks within a distance of 1 km was similar between the two parks. However, in the pedestrian environment, the number of street trees related to comfort and intersections related to accessibility was higher in Bay Avenue Park than in Al Ittihad Park. The surrounding environment for access to the park was better at Bay Avenue Park. The survey’s analysis of the surrounding environment for access shows that satisfaction with “Scenery” was the lowest in the two parks. It resulted from lacking considerations in urban planning for street environment creation that can preserve the region’s individuality and culture; thus, a unique streetscape for each area has not formed.

Fourth, factor analysis was conducted for each environmental variable to analyze the determinants that affect the satisfaction level with parks within walking or short driving distance. The results of the multiple regression analysis of the derived factors and satisfaction are as follows. Bay Avenue Park affects satisfaction in the surrounding environment for access, pedestrian space, park facility, convenience and comfort of the park, and various attractions and activities. On the other hand, Al Ittihad Park affects satisfaction in pedestrian space, green landscape, surrounding environment for access, park facilities, and safe access. In particular, factors such as “park facilities”, “surrounding environment for access” and “pedestrian space” were found to affect satisfaction in both parks commonly. It could confirm the importance of the surrounding environment for access within the lien and the facility aspect within the park.

Thus, this study investigates the user behavior of neighborhood parks within walking or short driving distance. Given the dramatic social changes from the unprecedented fast urban expansion in Dubai, neighborhood parks are becoming critically important in enhancing the quality of life among Dubai residents. This study has academic significance as it statistically clarifies that the surrounding environment for access is an essential factor influencing the park users’ satisfaction. Since there are no similar cities with an unprecedented fast urban expansion like Dubai, Dubai has its problems. Therefore, this research may not be transferable to other international metropolises other than urban parks in Dubai and Abu Dhabi in U.A.E.

As described in above first to the fourth point, practical directions were presented on which areas should be improved, maintained, and managed to improve the satisfaction of park users such as (1) more walking and jogging tracks, (2) continuous protection and management of natural environmental resources, such as green areas and street trees, (3) more “children’s facility” and “various attractions” to support leisure activities, and (4) the urban planning for a unique streetscape that can preserve the individuality and culture of the region.

The scope of the target parks limits the study, and thus it could not deal with the types and characteristics of various neighborhood parks within walking distance. In addition, the study had a limited investigation period, and detailed factors related to the surrounding environment for access were not evaluated. Moreover, the limitation of this study is only focusing on the users’ satisfaction with the physical environments. Therefore, future study should focus more on the analysis of the relationship between physical characteristics such as spatial characteristics such as size, number, and distance to the park, infrastructure, and environmental components and qualitative factors such as health, community, and satisfaction with life to recover from stress and fatigue, encourage the physical activity, and facilitation of social contact. Besides the park survey, the analysis method could be enriched with the online comments data.

For the future planning of urban parks in Dubai, including the government policy, vision, and urban planning implementation, this research can be used as primary data for improving parks towards a more greening cities approach by conducting research on more diverse types of parks in the future, greening strategies, and detailing surrounding environment for access factors, such as the width of sidewalks and types of pavement materials.