Assessing the Impact of Design Quality Attributes of Public Open Spaces on Users’ Satisfaction: Insights from a Case Study in Saudi Arabia

Abstract

Public open spaces have recently attracted significant attention in the national development programs aimed at improving urban livability and quality of life in Saudi Arabia. While many studies have examined the design quality of public open spaces in the country, a contextualized evaluation index that takes into account users’ preferences and the nation’s social context is still lacking. This gap calls for additional field studies to better understand users’ needs and their interactions with the current urban design practices of public open spaces. This study provides deeper insights into the design quality of public open spaces in Saudi Arabia. The study first identified 16 attributes of design quality of public open spaces, and then assessed a case study, Alrabie Park in Al-Khobar city, based on field observation and a survey of users’ satisfaction levels in relation to these quality attributes The findings revealed that the average of users’ satisfaction was 3.76 out of 5.0, indicating a neutral to satisfied response. Key strengths were noted in accessibility and users’ comfort, while areas needing improvement included environmental quality and amenities and services. The study recommends the development of a national evaluation index for public open spaces to create inclusive, safe, and vibrant environments that reflect Saudi Arabia’s urban and socio-cultural context. It also emphasizes the importance of community engagement in this regard to ensure that the design of public spaces aligns well with the users’ needs and helps to create sustainable urban spaces in the city.

1. Introduction

Public open spaces play a vital role in our life by making cities healthier and more enjoyable. Public open spaces improve people’s physical, mental, and social health, and determine how individuals experience and engage with a city. Numerous studies have highlighted that the quality of public open spaces is strongly connected to a city’s livability, quality of life, and overall reputation [1,2,3]. The quality of public open spaces is determined by how effectively they meet the needs of people, with high-quality spaces offering accessibility, safety, comfort, walkability, and a sense of enjoyment [4,5]. In this context, sports activities and gathering areas in diverse settings provide unique opportunities for leisure, social engagement, and routine breaks [6,7]. This requires the design of public open spaces with clear criteria and specific indicators. Effective management of these spaces is also essential in this regard [8].

Since the introduction of Saudi Vision 2030, public open spaces have gained increasing attention in various national development programs. This includes the National Transformation Program (NTP), which emphasizes the importance of enhancing the urban landscapes of Saudi cities by improving the availability and accessibility of public open spaces [9]. These spaces are now considered essential to promote community growth, accommodate diverse groups, and enhance quality of life while reflecting the country’s identity [10]. Design improvement of open public spaces in Saudi Arabia is supported by several strength points. This includes cultural and social significance, where public open spaces offer opportunities for community engagement. This also includes the government’s focus on urbanization and the development of mega-projects, which demonstrates a strong commitment to enhancing public open spaces. However, some challenges exist such as climate challenges, where the extreme heat in many regions of Saudi Arabia limits the usability of open spaces, particularly during summer months.

Although numerous studies have addressed the usability and design quality of public open spaces in a variety of contexts, limited research has focused on the urban and climatic context of Saudi Arabia. This study addresses this research gap by identifying the essential attributes that affect the design quality of public open spaces in Saudi Arabia. It also assesses a related case study using a questionnaire of users’ satisfaction with the design of public open spaces coupled with field observation. This could result in a better understanding of people’s needs and expectations, ultimately leading to concluding on several design recommendations in this regard.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Importance of Public Open Spaces

Similarly to the concept of “place”, public open spaces exist on various urban levels, from local neighborhoods and city districts to national parks [11]. Public open spaces are often defined as “places that are publicly owned or for public use, accessible and enjoyable by all, free of charge, and without a profit motive” [12]. Examples include roads, pathways, plazas, playgrounds, gardens, and parking spaces, all of which should be incorporated into the urban planning process. These spaces serve as welcoming, open environments where individuals from diverse backgrounds can gather and interact [13,14].

Public open spaces are essential to urban environments, as they promote social connections, cultural identity, environmental sustainability, and community resilience. They often shape how people view a city by reflecting the social dynamics, economic conditions, and environmental qualities of the urban context they belong to. The importance of public open spaces has become a global issue in the post-pandemic era due to their direct impact on residents’ well-being [15]. These spaces foster social interactions, bring together people from diverse backgrounds, support mental well-being, and encourage physical health [7,16,17]. They are also of great benefit to newcomers to the city, as they can effectively mitigate stress and the sense of loss associated with migration [18]. Additionally, they enhance environmental quality, provide valuable ecosystem services, mitigate the Heat Island Effect, and contribute to place identity [19]. This necessitates the development of informed urban design strategies for public open spaces based on well-defined quality attributes to make them more attractive and successful.

2.2. Design Quality Attributes of Public Open Spaces

Design quality assessment requires the development of a multi-criteria evaluation framework considering a set of key factors and indicators [20,21,22]. Several well-recognized tools exist in this regard such as the UN-Habitat Public Space Assessment [12] and Place Standard Tool [23]. These guidelines provide a comprehensive framework for evaluating and enhancing public open spaces through a localized and participatory approach. The UN-Habitat framework [12] offers valuable guidelines to improve the quality of public spaces at the neighborhood level. The assessment is based on the following five domains: use and user, accessibility, amenities and furniture, comfort and safety, and green environment. These domains are assessed based on 20 indicators and 91 sub-indicators. They emphasize the importance of inclusive, safe, accessible, and vibrant public spaces as fundamental in sustainable urban environments.

The Place Standard tool [23] is based on 14 themes, and each of them includes a main question and additional prompts to guide structured discussions covering both physical features and social factors. The tool uses a scoring scale from 1 to 7, with 1 indicating significant need for improvement and 7 showing that only minimal improvements are necessary. A compass diagram is used to plot these ratings and give an overview of the open space performance, including the following domains: movement, public transport, traffic and parking, streets and spaces, natural space, play and recreation, facilities and amenities, work and local economy, housing and community, social interaction, identity and belonging, feeling safe, care and maintenance, influence, and sense of control. Numerous studies have also identified these attributes in different combinations and prioritized them in various ways to offer a place-specific assessment tool (

Table 1. Quality attributes of public open spaces identified in the literature review.

No.	Author(s) and Date	Citation	Design Quality Attributes
1.	Low & Smith (2005)	[24]	Livability, character and identity, connectivity, personal freedom for inclusivity, and diversity for a mix of people and activities.
2.	Carmona (2010)	[25]	Cleanliness, accessibility, physical comfort, a sense of belonging, personal safety, and the presence of greenery.
3.	Mehta (2014)	[11]	Inclusiveness, pleasurable qualities, meaningful activities, comfort, and safety.
4.	Cilliers et al. (2015)	[26]	Identity, attractions, amenities, flexibility, seasonal, access, and visibility.
5.	Koohsari et al. (2015)	[16]	Sociability, comfort and visual appeal, diverse uses and activities, and easy access with strong connectivity.
6.	Abbasi et al. (2016)	[27]	Cleanliness, safety, environmental features, accessibility, activities, and amenities.
7.	Karacor & Akcam (2016)	[28]	Accessibility, comfort, socialization, and activity.
8.	Kozlova & Kozlov (2017)	[29]	Accessibility, multifunctionality, safety, legibility, sustainability, human scale, identity, interactivity, flexibility, and special unity.
9.	Wojnarowska (2017)	[30]	Accessibility, safety, composition, vitality, fulfillment of needs, esthetics, cleaning, and organized attractions.
10.	Praliya & Garg (2019)	[31]	Accessible and linked, maintenance, attractiveness and appeal, comfort, inclusiveness, activity and uses, purposefulness, and safety and security.
11.	Skaržauskienė & Mačiulienė (2019)	[19]	Access and linkage, comfort and image, uses and activities, and sociability.
12.	Addas (2020)	[32]	Accessibility, safety and security, amenities, esthetic quality, diversity of use, and environmental and maintenance standards.
13.	Addas & Alserayhi (2020)	[7]	Accessibility, spatial distribution, environmental design, safety, social and recreational facilities, and usability and maintenance.
14.	He et al. (2020)	[33]	Inclusion, human scale, social engagement, pedestrian activity, passive engagement, visual attractiveness, proximity, pollution, thermal comfort, lighting, security, and safety.
15.	UN-Habitat (2020)	[12]	Accessibility, use and user, amenities and furniture, green environment, and comfort and safety.
16.	Gao et al. (2021)	[5]	Space form, space function, space comfort, and humanistic environment.
17.	Alnaim & Noaime (2023)	[8]	Accessibility, amenities, safety and security, environmental design, user engagement, and design esthetics.
18.	Alharbi (2024)	[34]	Accessibility, safety, environmental quality, esthetic appeal, cultural sensitivity, amenities, and maintenance.

). This indicates that a good-quality public open space should consider a holistic design approach that identifies how accessible and inclusive the space is. In this regard, fostering a collaborative approach between users and policymakers could significantly improve the design quality of public open spaces.

Accessibility is one of the most commonly considered attributes to ensure that public open spaces are usable by people of all abilities and needs. They should be open to all ages and abilities, free of charge, and without restrictions [12,31]. This promotes inclusiveness, social justice, connectivity, and active pedestrian movement. Accessibility for both vehicles and pedestrians must be ensured, and visitors should feel comfortable and welcome when entering these spaces. Well-designed, accessible, and walkable spaces often offer a variety of opportunities for sitting, resting, and exploring [29]. Another important design aspect is safety and security. Safety reduces physical and social risks, while security provides protection and reassurance, making users feel comfortable in both the physical space and its surrounding environment [11]. Vandalized or neglected spaces may cause users to feel unsafe due to limited visibility, lack of activity, or previous incidents. The availability of activities is also a crucial quality attribute of public open spaces. For a space to be accessible to all, it must be organized with a variety of uses and activities to engage all users. A socially and culturally vibrant public open space with good visibility and flexibility encourages diverse users and activities [3].

Amenities and services are also among the most frequently cited quality attributes in previous research. A well-designed public open space should provide several essential services such as food services, seating areas with different options, proper waste management, and restroom facilities. Visual elements, such as sculptures, should also be incorporated to enhance the esthetics and identity of the space. Attributes of public open spaces also encompass users’ physical and mental comfort, which includes various factors such as thermal and visual comfort. These elements influence the amount of time users spend in a space. Aspects such as the space’s physical condition, identity, sounds, smells, and visual appeal can all significantly impact comfort levels. The presence of natural elements also plays a key role in the design quality of public open spaces. These elements not only improve users’ health and well-being, but also create an eco-friendly atmosphere, promoting a balance between urban development and nature [12,29]. Vegetation, including grass, shrubs, and trees, supports wildlife habitats, lowers air temperatures, enhances air quality, reduces noise pollution, prevents soil erosion, and helps to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

2.3. Previous Studies and Research Gap

The relationship between users’ satisfaction with and the design quality of public open spaces has been the subject of numerous studies. However, empirical, in-depth studies that examine this relationship within the specific socio-cultural and environmental context of Saudi Arabia are still lacking. Several studies could be found in the literature in this regard. These studies used qualitative and quantitative assessments based on field observations, surveys, and geographical analysis. This includes the work of Addas & Maghrabi [10], who assessed the per capita area and accessibility of public open spaces in the cities of Riyadh, Dammam, and Jeddah. Data on users’ preferences for public open space usage was gathered through semi-structured interviews, observations, and an online survey. Alnaim and Noaime [8] evaluated public open spaces using six key dimensions, which are further detailed as eighteen specific attributes. The study combined quantitative and qualitative data, including field observations and user perceptions, to better understand the qualities of these spaces in Hail, Saudi Arabia, which became an attractive tourist destination. The study concluded by identifying challenges in the design and planning of public open spaces, and offered some recommendations in line with Saudi Arabia’s National Transformation Program.

Imam et al. [35] conducted an analysis of open public spaces in Jeddah’s historical district using site visits and surveys. The study considered five main indicators, which were inclusiveness, meaningful activities, comfort, safety, and esthetics. Some identified areas for improvement included inclusiveness due to the limited accessibility and lack of amenities in some spaces, the availability of meaningful activities due to the general lack of engaging activities, and achieving comfort due to inadequate shade, seating, and other amenities. The study confirmed the importance of considering the climatic and socio-cultural context of this historical area in any future development plans to create more vibrant and community-oriented public spaces. Alamasi et al. [36] used a questionnaire survey and direct observation to evaluate users’ experience in Wadi Hanifa Park in Riyadh, a nature-based park in Saudi Arabia. The results showed that although users generally value the park’s greenery and natural integration, its overall efficacy is diminished by inadequate illumination, little vegetation, and a lack of sufficient services and activities.

While the existing literature on public open spaces offers robust theoretical foundations and practical tools for evaluating the design quality of public open spaces, it often falls short in contextualizing these foundations and tools. This includes the Gulf countries, where public life is regulated by conservative norms that should be considered in urban design paradigms. Understanding how people experience and interact with space and place is highly dependent on the socio-cultural context and climatic conditions, which can reveal several urban design insights based on the idea of spatializing culture [37]. This requires diverse context-specific field investigations to demonstrate both the theory and its applications, including the exploration of user-centered satisfaction based on empirical evidence. This could relate to the place, time, and users effectively while evaluating the quality of public open spaces. The place refers to a typical public open space, selected for its relevance to urban design and user engagement practices in Saudi Arabia. The time context captures the daily variations in use patterns, which is critical in a region where the climate significantly affects outdoor activities. The user context encompasses a variety of demographic profiles, allowing for a better understanding of how different groups perceive and interact with the examined design quality attributes. This ensures that interpretations of user satisfaction are tied to real, observable conditions, thereby strengthening the study’s applicability and validity.

This highlights the importance of the current study in Saudi Arabia and other comparable urban environments in the Gulf region. Even though public open spaces and urban development are expanding throughout Saudi Arabia, more assessment is needed to understand how specific quality attributes influence user satisfaction in these spaces in order to make well-informed decisions that truly reflect community needs and preferences. It is essential to conduct this assessment systematically and regularly, recognizing that users’ preferences may evolve over time and vary between locations due to the local socio-cultural dynamics. Thus, this study fills this knowledge gap by offering an in-depth post-occupancy evaluation of a selected case study of public open spaces in Saudi Arabia. This aims to identify and classify several key attributes that could improve the design quality of public open spaces, and to assess users’ satisfaction in relation to these quality attributes using a questionnaire survey and direct observations. This could lead to the conclusion of several design recommendations to improve the design quality of these spaces using this user-centric approach. This contributes to the current research efforts by offering further in-depth insights into the design quality of public open spaces in Saudi Arabia in order to enhance the well-being of residents and livability of Saudi cities.

3. Materials and Methods

The study follows a three-phase methodology, as shown in Figure 1. Phase 1 involves developing the design quality evaluation tool, beginning with a literature review to identify the key quality attributes of public open spaces from various sources. In Phase 2, data collection is conducted through the field observation of Alrabie Park in Al-Khobar City, along with a questionnaire survey of park users to assess their satisfaction with the design of the park. Finally, Phase 3 included data analysis, where both qualitative and quantitative data are examined, leading to the development of urban design recommendations for policymakers.

3.1. Tool Development

3.1.1. Main Domains of the Evaluation

In Phase 1, a comprehensive literature review was conducted to conclude the main categories that could be used to establish the evaluation framework. A search on Scopus was performed using keywords such as “evaluation”, “evaluation techniques”, “public space”, “public open space”, “public space quality”, “quality of life”, and “evaluation frameworks” to gather relevant information. Out of the 173 sources generated by this search, approximately 30 were selected for preliminary review after screening the titles. The inclusion criteria focused on public open space quality indices and types. Articles that addressed concepts like space quality, public open space quality indices, and quality attributes were prioritized for further assessment. Sources that discussed public open space but did not include quality attributes or indices were excluded. Additionally, articles focused on parks, urban parks, open spaces, plazas, and waterfront parks were given preference for further study, while those assessing only streets, pedestrian areas, or bazaars were excluded. The inclusion criteria also covered cities, urban areas, town centers, neighborhoods, and public open spaces designed for community use, while suburban and rural areas were excluded.

Accordingly, 18 papers were shortlisted, and a frequency analysis was conducted to identify the most commonly used attributes for design quality evaluation in public open spaces. As illustrated in Figure 2, several attributes are commonly used such as visual attractiveness, accessibility, safety, and activities. Some of them could be merged such as visual attractiveness and users’ comfort. Thus, five key attributes have been selected for the current study as follows: accessibility, safety and security, environmental quality, amenities and services, and users’ comfort. These key attributes are considered essential for ensuring the functionality and appeal of public open spaces. Accessibility and connections facilitate ease of movement and linkages between spaces, while safety focuses on minimizing risks and ensuring the protection of users. Environmental quality emphasizes the preservation of natural elements, and amenities and services provide spaces for various functions. Comfort enhances users’ physical and thermal well-being, and users’ activities reflect satisfaction with the range of available options.

3.1.2. Detailed Criteria of the Evaluation

As discussed in Section 2.2, several well-established evaluation frameworks already exist in the literature, such as the UN-Habitat framework and the Place Standard tool. However, these tools are usually very detailed and could be resource-intensive, especially when collecting data using questionnaires. For example, UN-Habitat framework [12] includes five domains, 20 attributes, and 91 sub-attributes. This necessitates the use of a short questionnaire approach to measure users’ satisfaction with the design of the examined public open space, where the questionnaire completion time should not exceed 20 min to ensure the accuracy of users’ feedback [38]. Thus, the main 20 attributes in the UN-Habitat framework have been used as a reference for benchmarking with the proposed evaluation framework.

Table 2. Mapping the proposed public open space evaluation framework to the UN-Habitat framework.

The Proposed Framework		UN-Habitat Framework [12]
Code	Evaluation Criteria	Code	Evaluation Criteria
1. Accessibility		1. Use and User
	Ease of access and adequacy of paths		Number and variety of users
	Sufficiency of the signage system		Number and variety of activities
	Availability and condition of parking	2. Accessibility
	Ease of vehicular entry to the park		Inclusive facilities for private vehicles
2. Safety and Security			Inclusive facilities for bikes
	Lighting in the area during nighttime		Inclusive facilities for pedestrians
	Surveillance measures		Inclusive facilities for public transport
3. Environmental Quality		3. Amenities and Furniture
	Vegetation and plant species		Presence and quality of lighting
	Preservation of natural elements		Amenities for recreational structures
	Overall perception of air quality		Presence and quality of seating
4. Amenities and Services			Presence and quality of waste bins
	Sufficiency of recreational facilities		Presence and quality of bike racks
	Quality of the urban furniture		Presence and quality of signage items
	Visitors’ services such as restrooms		Presence and quality of water and toilets
	Public activities and their diversity	4. Comfort and Safety
5. Users’ Comfort			Perception of safety and level of security
	Physical and thermal comfort		Quality of sensorial experience
	Esthetics and visual attractiveness		Overall comfort
	Cleanliness and maintenance		Presence of a public space identity
		5. Green Environment
			Presence and quality of biodiversity
			Environmental and community resilience
			Presence of energy-efficient elements

shows that most of the attributes used in the UN-Habitat framework are covered in the proposed framework, but using different structures and combinations.

The proposed framework includes five key categories and 16 sub-attributes. All attributes will be evaluated using a questionnaire to measure users’ satisfaction, which is supported by field observations wherever needed. Respect for local identity, however, is evaluated using field observation only, because it involves complex cultural, historical, and symbolic meanings and elements that users may not be able to assess objectively. Some attributes that are less related to the investigated urban context were excluded. For example, topography was not considered as a critical attribute, as the assessed park is relatively flat with minimal variations in elevation that would affect accessibility or usability. Public transportation was excluded as well, as it is less commonly used in the surveyed area.

3.2. Data Collection and Analysis

The second and third phases focus on evaluating users’ satisfaction with the design of Alrabie Park. This is an actively used public open space that is located in Al-Khobar city in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. Al-Khobar is a coastal city that has witnessed rapid modernization and urbanization recently. Its urban context is distinguished by a mix of modern residential developments, traditional neighborhoods, and commercial zones mixed often with local parks and leisure plazas [39]. Over the past few decades, Al-Khobar has witnessed a significant rise in both local and international migration, highlighting its growing economic and commercial relevance. Nearly half of its population consists of expatriate workers and their families, including those who work in the oil and petrochemical industries. As a result, the city’s urban population is notably diverse, comprising a blend of Saudi nationals and a wide range of ethnic and cultural communities [40]. However, public space use is greatly shaped by family-oriented lifestyles, privacy issues, and gender standards. Al-Khobar has a dry desert climate, with mild winters and very hot summers [41]. This makes evening and night-time activities more popular.

The selected neighborhood park incorporates several design practices commonly found in Al-Khobar, making it a fairly representative case study for the area. The choice to focus on a single case study was intentional and methodologically appropriate for gaining in-depth, context-specific insights within the unique socio-cultural and environmental setting of Saudi Arabia. While the findings may not be widely generalizable, they provide a valuable foundation for future research and offer practical guidance for urban planners and policymakers aiming to improve public open spaces in similar contexts. The area of the examined case study is about 2.75 ha, and it includes green areas, walking paths, seating areas, sport fields, play zones, and a pedestrian walk (Figure 3) [42]. It is open 24 h, and it attracts residents and visitors seeking leisure or quiet relaxation. The case study was observed over the course of one week, from 22 November to 6 December 2024, primarily during the evening and nighttime, when the neighborhood residents start using the park and when most activities occur.

The sample size was determined using the ABS Sample Size Calculator, resulting in 93 sampling units, with a 95% confidence level and a 0.1 confidence interval [43]. Convenience sampling was employed to select park visitors across different age and gender groups. Participants completed the survey online via Google Forms, accessible through a quick response (QR) code provided to the park visitors. A total of 120 completed responses were collected. The survey consisted of two sections with close-ended questions. The first section gathered demographic data, including age and gender, while the second assessed user satisfaction with the park’s urban design, focusing on the 16 design aspects outlined earlier in Table 2.

The collected data were coded and analyzed using Excel and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS v.16) software. Users’ satisfaction was measured on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from very satisfied to very dissatisfied. The weighted mean was calculated for each design criterion. To ensure the reliability of the questionnaire, Cronbach’s alpha was computed to evaluate the internal consistency of the items. For validity, Pearson correlation was used to assess the strength and direction of the relationships between the variables. To compare the mean satisfaction results across different groups, one-sample t-tests were performed to compare the overall satisfaction mean to the mid value of the scale, while dependent-sample t-tests were used to analyze the significance of the satisfaction difference observed between male and female respondents. Additionally, ANOVA was used to examine the differences in satisfaction across the multiple age groups. The results from these statistical tests provided a comprehensive understanding of the key factors affecting users’ satisfaction with the design of public open spaces in Saudi Arabia. This facilitated identifying their strengths and weaknesses and providing several recommendations for improvement in this regard.

4. Results

4.1. Sample Characteristics

Table 3. Characteristics of the study sample.

Variable	Categories	N	%
Age	16–24 years	15	12.40
	25–32 years	38	31.70
	33–40 years	41	34.20
	41–50 years	17	14.20
	Over 50 years	9	7.50
	Total	120	100
Gender	Male	81	67.50
	Female	39	32.50
	Total	120	100

presents the characteristics of the study sample. The majority of participants fell within the 33–40 years age category, comprising 34.2% of the sample, followed by the 25–32 years age category, representing 31.7% of the sample. The remaining age groups showed smaller representations. This demographic profile indicates a sample with a concentration in young to middle adulthood. In terms of gender distribution, approximately two-thirds of the sample (67.5%) were men, while one-third (32.5%) were women. The gender imbalance in the sample was due to the cultural sensitivities and social norms in Saudi Arabia, where approaching women in public spaces for survey participation is challenging. As a result, opportunities to include female participants were more limited.

4.2. Reliability and Validity Tests

The study assessed the reliability of the questionnaire using Cronbach’s alpha, which compares the covariance between the different satisfaction items to the total variance. Values above 0.7 are generally considered acceptable. A test value of 0.88 was observed, indicating a high level of covariance between the different sub-attributes in relation to the overall variance. This means that the data collection tool is reliable and offers good internal consistency. The study then assessed the validity of the questionnaire using Pearson correlation to verify that each section was strongly correlated with the entire questionnaire. As shown in

Table 4. Validity test results using Pearson correlation.

Category		1	2	3	4	5	Overall Satisfaction
1	Pearson Correlation	1.00	0.597 *	0.110	0.518 *	0.605 *	0.798 *
	Sig. (2-tailed)		0.000	0.233	0.000	0.000	0.000
2	Pearson Correlation	0.597 *	1.00	0.162	0.490 *	0.539 *	0.710 *
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000		0.076	0.000	0.000	0.000
3	Pearson Correlation	0.110	0.162	1.00	0.336 *	0.287 *	0.470 *
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.233	0.076		0.000	0.001	0.000
4	Pearson Correlation	0.518 *	0.490 *	0.336 *	1.00	0.730 *	0.847 *
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000	0.000	0.000		0.000	0.000
5	Pearson Correlation	0.605 *	0.539 *	0.287 *	0.730 *	1.00	0.865 *
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000	0.000	0.001	0.000		0.000
Overall Satisfaction	Pearson Correlation	0.798 *	0.710 *	0.470 *	0.847 *	0.865 *	1.00
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000

* Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

, the correlation coefficients were significant at α ≤ 0.01, confirming the validity of the questionnaire. This suggests that there are significant relationships between the total satisfaction variable and all five categories of satisfaction.

The observed Pearson correlations between satisfaction and the different examined items are all strong and positive, ranging from 0.470 (for category 3) to 0.865 (for category 5), with p-values of less than 0.01. This indicates that these correlations are statistically significant. The results further suggest that most of the correlations between the examined items themselves are significant, with several items showing moderate to strong relationships (e.g., category 1 and category 2 at 0.597 and category 4 and category 5 at 0.730). This confirms the validity of the questionnaire, as the examined items are positively correlated with satisfaction, confirming that they measure aspects related to the satisfaction construct.

4.3. Satisfaction of the Different User Groups

The second section of the questionnaire was designed to evaluate users’ satisfaction with the design of the open public space, focusing on five design domains, including the 16 design attributes presented in Section 3. This was coupled with direct observation of the site to explain and validate users’ feedback. To determine whether there is a statistically significant difference at α ≤ 0.05 between the average overall satisfaction and the neutrality value of 3.0 on the scale, we conducted a one-sample t-test. The results from the one-sample t-test indicated that the average overall satisfaction, estimated at 3.76, was significantly higher than the neutrality value. The t-value was 16.61, with 119 degrees of freedom, and the p-value was 0.00. The group statistics revealed that the mean satisfaction score for males was 3.80, with a standard deviation of 0.540, while for females, the mean score was 3.67, accompanied by a smaller standard deviation of 0.389. This suggests that, on average, males report slightly higher satisfaction than females. To find out if the observed difference is statistically significant or not, we conducted an independent-sample t-test to examine the following null hypothesis: “there is no statistically significant difference between males and females regarding satisfaction with the design of the examined open public space at α ≤ 0.05”.

Table 5. A comparison of the mean overall satisfaction values of male and female respondents using the independent-sample t-test.

	Levene’s Test		t-Test for Equality of Means
	F	Sig.	t	df	Sig. (2-Tailed)	Mean Diff.
Equal variances assumed	0.011	0.918	1.356	118	0.178	0.131
Equal variances not assumed			1.517	100.34	0.132	0.131

shows the results of the independent-sample t-test. Levene’s test for equality of variances showed a p-value of 0.918, which is greater than the significance level of 0.05. This indicates that the assumption of equal variances holds.

The results showed a t-value of 1.356 and a p-value of 0.178, which are not statistically significant. This suggests that there is no statistically significant difference in overall satisfaction between males and females. However, a significant difference between male and female respondents was observed in the fourth category, amenities and services. Male respondents reported a satisfaction score of 3.65 in this category, higher than the 3.15 reported by female respondents. This indicates that more attention should be given to ensuring that female visitors can easily access the services they need in public open spaces. The study also used ANOVA to find out whether there are significant differences in satisfaction scores across the different age groups. The results showed a p-value of 0.109, which is greater than the significance level of 0.05. This indicates that there are no statistically significant differences in satisfaction scores between the different age groups, which was also confirmed by the Scheffe test results (

Table 6. A comparison of the mean satisfaction values of the different age groups using the Scheffe test.

(I) Age	(J) Age	Mean Diff. (I−J)	Sig.	(I) Age	(J) Age	Mean Diff. (I−J)	Sig.
16–24	25–32	−0.208	0.75	41–50	16–24	0.472	0.13
	33–40	−0.229	0.66		25–32	0.264	0.50
	41–50	−0.472	0.13		33–40	0.243	0.57
	50+	−0.313	0.68		50+	0.159	0.96
25–32	16–24	0.208	0.75	50+	16–24	0.313	0.68
	33–40	−0.021	1.00		25–32	0.105	0.99
	41–50	−0.264	0.50		33–40	0.083	1.00
	50+	−0.105	0.99		41–50	−0.159	0.96
33–40	16–24	0.229	0.66
	25–32	0.021	1.00
	41–50	−0.243	0.57
	50+	−0.083	1.00

).

4.4. Satisfaction with the Different Design Attributes

Figure 4 shows the percentages of users’ satisfaction with the examined 16 design quality attributes of the examined public open space, ranging from “very low” to “very high”. In general, higher satisfaction could be observed at the bottom of the graph, which presents the sub-attributes of accessibility and safety and security; and at the top of the graph, which presents the sub-attributes of users’ comfort. More of a tendency towards moderate satisfaction is observed in the middle of the graph. This includes the categories of environmental quality and amenities and services. A detailed evaluation of users’ satisfaction with the examined categories is presented in Figure 5 and

Table 7. Weighted means and rankings of users’ satisfaction with the examined 16 design quality attributes of the examined case study.

Category	Code	Sub-Attributes	Weighted Mean	Rank in Category	Overall Rank
1. Accessibility	1.1	Ease of access	4.29	1	1
	1.2	Sufficiency of the signage system	4.21	3	4
	1.3	Availability of car parking	4.05	4	5
	1.4	The ease of vehicular entry	4.28	2	2
	Weighted Mean of Category		4.21	NA	1
2. Safety and Security	2.1	Lighting conditions	4.23	1	3
	2.2	Surveillance measures	3.92	2	7
	Weighted Mean of Category		4.07	NA	2
3. Environmental Quality	3.1	Vegetation and plant species	3.30	2	13
	3.2	Preservation of natural elements	3.03	3	16
	3.3	Users’ perception of air quality	3.45	1	12
	Weighted Mean of Category		3.26	NA	5
4. Amenities and Services	4.1	Recreational facilities	3.47	2	11
	4.2	Quality of the furniture	3.44	3	14
	4.3	Visitors’ services	3.17	4	15
	4.4	Different user groups’ activities	3.88	1	8
	Weighted Mean of Category		3.49	NA	4
5. Users’ Comfort	5.1	Physical and thermal comfort	3.69	2	9
	5.2	Esthetics and visual attractiveness	3.68	3	10
	5.3	Cleanliness and maintenance	3.99	1	6
	Weighted Mean of Category		3.79	NA	3

, which show the weighted means and ranking of users’ satisfaction. The top-rated sub-attributes were ease of access (4.29) and ease of vehicular entry (4.28), followed by lighting conditions (4.23) and sufficiency and clarity of available signage (4.21). Meanwhile, the lowest-ranking sub-attributes included preservation of natural elements (3.03) and quality of visitors’ services (3.17).

As for the five main categories, the highest satisfaction was observed in the accessibility category, with an overall weighted mean of 4.21 out of 5.0. This was a result of users’ high satisfaction with the ease of access (4.29), vehicular entry (4.28), and signage system (4.21). Safety and security came next, with an overall mean of 4.07. Users’ comfort was ranked third, with an overall weighted mean of 3.79, with cleanliness and maintenance (3.99) receiving the highest satisfaction, while physical and thermal comfort (3.69) and esthetics (3.76) were ranked lower, suggesting room for improvement. The amenities and services category was ranked fourth, with a mean of 3.49. This shows that users are generally satisfied with this category despite the need for some improvements. Lastly, environmental quality received the lowest weighted mean of users’ satisfaction (3.26). The use of natural elements such as palm trees and other plants adds to the park’s visual appeal and creates a pleasant environment for visitors; however, users’ satisfaction with vegetation quality and plant species was 3.30 out of 5.00, which was ranked 14th among the 16 investigated sub-attributes.

4.5. Field Observation Findings

For a better understanding of the observed relatively low satisfaction with certain design attributes, as reported in the previous section, a direct field observation was conducted. A primary concern among users was the preservation of natural elements, which ranked last among the 16 investigated design attributes, followed by vegetation quality, ranked 13th. The field observation revealed a general lack of natural features in the park, including the absence of water bodies and the limited use of natural building materials. As for vegetation, the park includes a variety of tree species, including four weeping fig trees, eight date palm trees, twenty-four Mexican fan palms, one royal poinciana tree, and thirty-eight Peepal trees. Figure 6 lists the advantages of each of these species, especially palm trees, which contribute to the identity of the place. However, richer and more layered landscaping with a greater diversity of hues, textures, and shapes would be recommended in this regard. Additionally, more attention should be paid to the shading plants that have wider dense canopies compared to palm trees.

Another area for improvement is users’ services, which was ranked 15th among the 16 examined design attributes. Field observation showed that there is a need for the diversification of activities and their supporting amenities. For example, the “Power of 10” concept highlights the importance of creating multifunctional spaces within neighborhoods, where each space should offer at least ten engaging activities to attract a diverse range of visitors [26]. The park includes several play facilities for kids, as shown in Figure 7. These are offered in four distinct play areas: two designed for toddlers and two for children aged five and above. For toddlers, the equipment is low to the ground, providing easy access and reducing the risk of falls. For older children, the play equipment is more challenging, offering opportunities for physical development, such as climbing and balancing. The play areas are well connected by wide and clear pathways that allow children to move freely between zones. This layout encourages children to run and engage in physical activities. Sand surfaces are used to reduce the risk of injury from falls. The play equipment is free from sharp edges and hazardous features. The area is also equipped with CCTV cameras, providing an additional layer of security.

The presence of seating areas near the play zones ensures that parents can supervise their children closely. However, one of the key issues observed is the lack of shade in certain areas, which makes play areas uncomfortable for children, particularly in the summer when temperatures can reach extreme levels. Additionally, some small stones are scattered throughout the sand, which could potentially pose a risk to children. The park could also benefit from the addition of sensory play elements, such as textured surfaces, sound-producing equipment, or water features, which would further stimulate the creativity and cognitive development of children. As for the restrooms, the park has separate male and female restrooms, each containing four standard units and one unit for people with disabilities. The number of visitors during peak time was about 300 people. Every 100 individuals needs 2 units in the case of females, and 1.5 units in the case of males, which means that the provided toilets are sufficient [44].

Another area for improvement within the category of amenities and services is the quality of the park furniture. This sub-attribute was ranked 14th among the 16 investigated attributes. Different urban furniture elements could be observed in the site, as illustrated in Figure 7. This includes concrete seats, which could be made more comfortable, lighting elements, which may be re-designed to be more consistent with site character and to offer more diversified lighting levels, and trash cans, which need to be covered and re-designed. The number of service kiosks in the northwest and northeast corners should be increased to better serve park visitors. Their design should also be improved, since they currently detract from the park’s attractiveness, as shown in Figure 7. Improving the availability of some other user-complementary services such as restaurants and coffeehouses is also recommended, as this could significantly improve visitation rate and duration and foster social interaction. This could make the space more active, allowing economic and recreational activities to be integrated with resting and spending time with family.

Even among the design attributes with relatively higher satisfaction levels, opportunities for improvement were observed during the field observation. For example, some potential improvements in the signage system were identified. This includes the assembly point sign, which could only be seen from one direction. This makes it less useful in the case of emergencies. To better guide visitors to the parking places, the two parking signs need to be enlarged, and the pedestrian crosswalk needs to be clearly identified. There is also a lack of signage for the disabled parking, which should be added. Another observation related to safety is the pathway pavement material. Pathways are paved using concrete blocks, which is a common practice in the urban environment of Al-Khobar, to provide a safe slip-resistant walking experience. No substantial variations in flooring materials were observed, which makes the route easily navigable. However, the use of materials with some contrast in color or texture is recommended between the different levels and functions to improve safety. This includes the edge of the site, where the separation of the park from the surrounding streets using detectable warning surfaces is recommended. The use of cool paving is also recommended to reduce the impact of the Heat Island Effect caused by the excessive use of concrete, which makes the pathway system uncomfortable and potentially unsafe [45].

While the park is generally clean, some areas require attention, including the sand areas. Increasing natural and man-made shading elements is also needed to improve users’ thermal comfort. Users’ comfort could also be enhanced through the respect of place identity and its unique cultural, historical, and social characteristics. This could be achieved through thoughtful use of local materials, colors, and artistic elements. Despite these areas for improvement, the park, in general, provides a safe, accessible, and enjoyable environment for children to play, and for other users to relax and spend time. However, the park’s infrastructure requires careful renovation based on a systemic evaluation to improve users’ experience and offer more visually appealing facilities. While users showed a satisfaction level higher than 3.0 in all attributes, there are significant areas for improvement, particularly in visitors’ services and environmental quality. Focused interventions are needed in this regard to create a more balanced and user-friendly environment.

4.6. Correlation Between the Different Design Attributes

The Pearson correlation analysis, presented in Figure 8, was used to provide insights into the linear relationships between the different examined sub-attributes. The different colors represent the strength of the association, with darker blue suggesting stronger positive correlations, lighter blue indicating weaker positive correlations, and red shades representing negative correlations. This shows that enhancements of some qualities are likely to benefit other ones, as evidenced by the fairly strong positive correlation (r = 0.67) between the sub-attributes 1.2 and 1.4, namely the “sufficiency and adequacy of signage system” and “ease of vehicular entry to the park”.

This could also be observed in the moderate positive correlation (r = 0.53) between the sub-attributes 4.2 and 5.2, namely “the quality of furniture” and “the esthetics and visual attractiveness of the park”. This is also true in the relationship between “lighting conditions” and “surveillance measures” and between “users’ physical comfort” and “users’ perception of air quality in the park”. These relationships indicate places where improvements may result in multi-directional significant gains, which should be given priority in any future development plans. A potential trade-off or inverse link between particular features is also implied by negative correlations, such as that between 1.1 and 3.2, namely “ease of access” and “preservation of natural elements”, where a weak negative correlation was observed (r = −0.24).

5. Conclusions

Public open spaces are increasingly recognized as essential components of sustainable urban development, particularly in rapidly urbanizing regions like Saudi Arabia. Public open spaces have recently gained increasing attention in various national development programs in Saudi Arabia to improve the urban quality of Saudi cities. Despite the availability of multiple studies that investigated the design quality attributes of these spaces, a systematic approach to developing a public open space planning approach tailored to user preferences and behaviors, as well as the country’s socio-cultural context, is still needed. This requires intensive field studies in different regions of the country to understand users’ needs and interactions with the current urban design practices. This study contributed to these efforts by offering in-depth insights into the design quality of public open spaces in Saudi Arabia through a user satisfaction questionnaire and field investigation of a real-time case study in Al-Khobar city. The selected case study, Alrabie Park, is a neighborhood park that incorporates several design practices commonly found in Al-Khobar, making it a fairly representative case study for the area.

A review of the existing literature on the design quality attributes of public open spaces revealed that the quality attributes of public open spaces could be evaluated using 16 attributes. These were examined using a questionnaire survey coupled with field observations. The results showed that the weighted mean value of users’ satisfaction levels with these design attributes was 3.76 out of 5.0, which indicates a “neutral to satisfied” overall satisfaction. No statistically significant difference was observed between male and female respondents, except in the case of amenities and services, with female respondents reporting lower levels of satisfaction. As for the detailed design attributes, the highest satisfaction was observed in the following sub-attributes: ease of access (4.29), ease of vehicular entry (4.28), lighting condition (4.23), and the sufficiency and clarity of the signage system (4.21). Meanwhile, the lowest satisfaction was observed in the following sub-attributes: preservation of natural elements (3.03), quality of visitors’ services (3.17), quality of urban furniture (3.44), and vegetation and plant species (3.30) The correlation analysis showed that some sub-attributes are interrelated and mutually reinforcing, which emphasizes the significance of prioritizing them in any future development action plans. Community engagement in this process is recommended, possibly through a QR code leading to an online platform managed by the municipality.

The study concluded on a set of general recommendations to improve design quality and users’ satisfaction in public open spaces located in hot climates, as follows:

• Accessibility: clarity of entry points, sufficiency and maintenance of car parking, universal access, barrier-free paths, adequacy of pathways’ surface materials, and sufficiency and clarity of the signage and wayfinding systems;
• Safety and Security: maintain openness for safety and connected sightlines, lighting during night, surveillance measures such as cameras and security guards, and regular maintenance to reduce physical hazards;
• Environmental Quality: variety of vegetation and plant species including native ones, provision and preservation of natural elements, improvement in air quality, and design strategies that support biodiversity;
• Services and Amenities: adequacy of recreational facilities for the different age groups, shaded recreation areas, food facilities, quality of urban furniture, shaded benches for different usage settings, accessible and sufficient restrooms and fountains, and designs for public activities for user groups, including those with a disability;
• Users’ Comfort: shading enhancement through increased tree canopy, man-made shading elements such as pergolas, cool paving materials to mitigate the Heat Island Effect, noise-reducing design elements, landscape features to enhance visual attractiveness, and water features such as fountains and misting systems to enhance the comfort, cleanliness, and maintenance of the place.

The findings confirm that assessing users’ satisfaction and determining how the design quality of public open spaces could fit their needs and expectations depends on understanding the urban, climatic, and socio-cultural contexts of any specific area. The study recommends that a national evaluation index for the different types of public open spaces should be developed. This can facilitate the creation of inclusive, safe, and vibrant environments that cater to the diverse needs of the community. Users’ engagement and regular feedback are essential in this regard to ensure that public open spaces evolve in response to the changing needs and preferences of the community. The study’s limitations include its focus on a single case study, which may not fully represent the variety of public spaces across the city. The investigation of further case studies considering different types of public open spaces and different periods of time is recommended to build on the findings of this study.