International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 8, Issue 3 (March 2021), Pages: 40-50

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

 Title: New assessment tool to evaluate Khartoum parks

 Author(s): Mohamed Ahmed Said 1, 2, *

 Affiliation(s):

 1Architectural Department, College of Engineering, Hail University, Hail, Saudi Arabia
 2College of Architecture and Planning, Sudan University of Science and Technology, Khartoum, Sudan

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5118-5821

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2021.03.006

 Abstract:

The result of this study is the outcome of the exploration of a tool to assess parks in Khartoum town in Sudan. Different tools were used to formulate the new tool. The purpose of this assessment tool is to evaluate parks that can help both the manager and the user. Knowing the location, considering literature and through the survey of parks in Khartoum, the tool is prepared. It is based on two main items, accessibility, and physical components. The accessibility includes welcoming, physical access, location with respect to street and parking, whereas the physical components are comprised of shelter and shade, landscape, green space and lawn, services and facilities, paths, water feature, and playground. As well as those, two minor variables were also measured: aesthetic and quality and personal security. After the tool was prepared, the evaluation of the open space characteristics was done by seven architects in selected six parks, either knew or had designed the spaces. The evaluation concluded that open spaces in Khartoum town lack proper facilities and appropriate features, and that makes their evaluation low. 

 © 2020 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords: Parks, Assessment tool, Physical characteristics, Khartoum town

 Article History: Received 19 July 2020, Received in revised form 25 October 2020, Accepted 10 November 2020

 Acknowledgment:

To The Deanship of Scientific Research of the University of Hail, Saudi Arabia, funded this research.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

  Said MA (2021). New assessment tool to evaluate Khartoum parks. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 8(3): 40-50

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8 Fig. 9 Fig. 10 Fig. 11 

 Fig. 12 Fig. 13 Fig. 14 Fig. 15 Fig. 16 Fig. 17 Fig. 18 Fig. 19 

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3

----------------------------------------------

 References (17)

  1. Awad ZE (2018). Evaluating neighborhoods developed open spaces in Khartoum-Sudan. Civil Engineering and Architecture, 6(6): 269-282. https://doi.org/10.13189/cea.2018.060601   [Google Scholar]
  2. Awad ZE (2019). Comparing Urban Sustainability in Two Neighborhoods in Khartoum-Sudan. International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, 9(4): 8-14.   [Google Scholar]
  3. Azish M (2015). The effect of architectural space in enhancing the quality of life of the elderly. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 2(11): 7-11.   [Google Scholar]
  4. Bedimo-Rung AL, Mowen AJ, and Cohen DA (2005). The significance of parks to physical activity and public health: A conceptual model. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2): 159-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.024   [Google Scholar] PMid:15694524
  5. Berridge WJ (2015). Civil uprisings in modern Sudan: The 'Khartoum springs' of 1964 and 1985. Bloomsbury Academic, London, UK.   [Google Scholar]
  6. Byrne J and Sipe N (2010). Green and open space planning for urban consolidation–A review of the literature and best practice. Urban Research Program, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.   [Google Scholar]
  7. Cavnar MM, Kirtland KA, Evans MH, Wilson DK, Williams JE, Mixon GM, and Henderson KA (2004). Evaluating the quality of recreation facilities: Development of an assessment tool. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 22(1): 96-114.   [Google Scholar]
  8. Giles-Corti B, Broomhall MH, Knuiman M, Collins C, Douglas K, Ng K, and Donovan RJ (2005). Increasing walking: How important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2): 169-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.018   [Google Scholar] PMid:15694525
  9. Gisev N, Bell JS, and Chen TF (2013). Interrater agreement and interrater reliability: Key concepts, approaches, and applications. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 9(3): 330-338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2012.04.004   [Google Scholar] PMid:22695215
  10. Glavič P and Lukman R (2007). Review of sustainability terms and their definitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(18): 1875-1885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.12.006   [Google Scholar]
  11. Hamid GM and Bahreldin IZ (2013). Environmental sustainability in Greater Khartoum between natural assets and human interventions. International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development, 4(2): 100-110. https://doi.org/10.1080/2093761X.2013.801804   [Google Scholar]
  12. Kottner J and Dassen T (2008). Interpreting interrater reliability coefficients of the Braden scale: A discussion paper. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45(8): 1238-1246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2007.08.001   [Google Scholar] PMid:17892881
  13. Saelens BE, Frank LD, Auffrey C, Whitaker RC, Burdette HL, and Colabianchi N (2006). Measuring physical environments of parks and playgrounds: EAPRS instrument development and inter-rater reliability. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 3(s1): S190-S207. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.3.s1.s190   [Google Scholar] PMid:28834520
  14. Shuaibu JA and Kara C (2019). Evaluating suitability for sustainable urban growth of Abuja by using MCE and GIS. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 6(7): 68-76. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2019.07.009   [Google Scholar]
  15. Steinijans VW, Diletti E, Bömches B, Greis C, and Solleder P (1997). Interobserver agreement: Cohen's kappa coefficient does not necessarily reflect the percentage of patients with congruent classifications. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 35(3): 93-95.   [Google Scholar]
  16. Turel HS, Yigit EM, and Altug I (2007). Evaluation of elderly people's requirements in public open spaces: A case study in Bornova District (Izmir, Turkey). Building and Environment, 42(5): 2035-2045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.03.004   [Google Scholar]
  17. Zhang J, Long Y, Wang L, Dang Z, Zhang T, Song X, and Pei X (2018). Consensus genetic linkage map construction and QTL mapping for plant height-related traits in linseed flax (Linum usitatissimum L.). BMC Plant Biology, 18: 160. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-018-1366-6   [Google Scholar] PMid:30086718 PMCid:PMC6081803