Urban Green Areas – their functions under a changing lifestyle of ...
Urban Green Areas – their functions under a changing lifestyle of ... Urban Green Areas – their functions under a changing lifestyle of ...
others 1% Family 12% alone 41% Friends/ colleagues 46% Figure 4.15: Share of accompanied status. (Own survey, 2010- 2011) Only 12 % of park visitors go with the family (see figure 4.15). As family plays an important role in Vietnamese society in terms of taking care of the children (see BINH 2012:187-231) this low share of family visitors is surprising. It might be that visiting a park is not of highest priority as a “family activity” or the parks are not adequately equipped or designed for families or there are “other” barriers which hinder families using public parks. One expert for instance mentioned that he does not encourage his children to go to parks, because of the negative (risky) aspects of existing public parks. The size of a park seems to influence if people go alone or with other people (see figure 4.16). 100% 80% 60% 1.1 2.2 0.1 0.9 38.7 33.4 47.6 48.6 others alone 40% 20% 0% 48.6 49.5 40.9 36.0 Friends/ colleage 11.5 14.9 11.3 14.4 Family Thong Nhat Bach Thao Bo Ho Le Nin (park) (N= 2143) Figure 4.16: Share of accompanied status among the parks (own survey, 2010- 2011) Indeed, there is a higher rate of people who visit the smaller parks (Bo Ho and Lenin) alone than the larger parks (Thong Nhat and Bach Thao). Conversely the rate of people who go with friends or colleagues is higher in larger parks (48.6 % and 49.5 % respectively). 87
Regarding the age of visitors it can be noticed that old people represent the majority (40.9 %; see table 4.8) of people going to parks alone, while the highest rate in the group “going with friends colleagues” is young people, at 75.2 %. Table 4.8: Accompanied status by age group age group going with friends/ colleges (%) going alone to parks (%) 10-14 2.6 0.6 15-29 75.2 35.4 30-54 9.9 23.1 55+ 12.3 40.9 Source: Own survey 2010-2011 4.4.3 Frequency and Length of stay How long people stay in parks is determined on the one hand by the quantity of their free time and on the other hand on how well a park serves their demands. The topic of this thesis deals with the latter issue which will be displayed here by two indicators, frequency and length of stay. 4.4.3.1 Frequency of visiting the park Figure 4.17 shows that high-frequency park users accounted for a large share of the park users: 39 % of the park visitors go to parks daily and more than a half (55 %) use the park at least one time each week. The share of very infrequent park users (some times per year to very rarely) made up nearly one third of the park users. 32% 39% daily >3 times per week 1-3 times per week 13% 1-3 times per month 5% 11% some times per year Figure 4.17: Frequency of park users (Own survey, 2010- 20011) There are no significant differences regarding gender: Park visiting frequency is very similar between men and women. Regarding age, however, it can be stated that most of the young people use the parks only a few times per year, whereas most elderly people visit the park daily (see table 4.9). Variation among the four investigated parks is very small: In each park the quota of “at least one time per week” visitors is higher than 50 % (see figure 4.18). The lowest quota of frequent visitors is at Bach Thao park (51.5 %) and the highest share is at Lenin park (56.9 %). 88
- Page 57 and 58: In the early modern period, the spr
- Page 59 and 60: esponsible administrative level, et
- Page 61 and 62: As showing in the Figure 2.1, some
- Page 63 and 64: and quantity of the available trees
- Page 65 and 66: surround. That is most intensive fo
- Page 67 and 68: First, rubbish accumulates in ill m
- Page 69 and 70: There are several approaches to con
- Page 71 and 72: Table 2.3: Publications about urban
- Page 73 and 74: BINH 2012). In 1986, Vietnamese gov
- Page 75 and 76: impact on the thinking and behaviou
- Page 77 and 78: The resulting homogeneous social st
- Page 79 and 80: for further understanding of lifest
- Page 81 and 82: y religion, e.g.: catholic lifestyl
- Page 83 and 84: some aspects of their lifestyle as
- Page 85 and 86: low-income and immigrant communitie
- Page 87 and 88: observe is activity of people. Ther
- Page 89 and 90: eality, each activity is done to sa
- Page 91 and 92: 4 Recent utilization of parks and g
- Page 93 and 94: (% of the time) 70 60 50 40 30 20 1
- Page 95 and 96: area (m 2 ) The collected data by t
- Page 97 and 98: (% of the entire week) 4.1.5 Expert
- Page 99 and 100: share of park users every hour 16%
- Page 101 and 102: These findings can be understood by
- Page 103 and 104: Social statuses of the visitors mig
- Page 105 and 106: Others, 5.8% from work/ school/ uni
- Page 107: Share of means of transportation 10
- Page 111 and 112: less frequent park users are higher
- Page 113 and 114: People walking (13 % of observed ac
- Page 115 and 116: From the point of view of park user
- Page 117 and 118: Figure 4.25 shows the high priority
- Page 119 and 120: missing entertainment facilities. m
- Page 121 and 122: 4.5.2 Troubles / Disturbances It se
- Page 123 and 124: 5 Expected future demand of urban g
- Page 125 and 126: ights (e.g. regarding urban plannin
- Page 127 and 128: Picture 5.1 c: Skating (Own picture
- Page 129 and 130: But urban areas are meanwhile total
- Page 131 and 132: organize activities and sports whic
- Page 133 and 134: As the economy grows - Vietnam’s
- Page 135 and 136: countries, the result is that lifes
- Page 137 and 138: media”, like newspapers, take inf
- Page 139 and 140: environmental functions cause costs
- Page 141 and 142: Yes, the demand of public UGAs in i
- Page 143 and 144: Such a master plan has to clarify t
- Page 145 and 146: 7 Summary As a booming city, Hanoi
- Page 147 and 148: among both countries’ parks and V
- Page 149 and 150: Reference ABKLAR, Mahdieh; KAMAL, M
- Page 151 and 152: COCKERHAM, William; RUTTEN, A.; ABE
- Page 153 and 154: GIDDENS, Anthony (1991). Modernity
- Page 155 and 156: Department of Psychology, Universit
- Page 157 and 158: LUONG, Le To; STEINGRUBE, Wilhelm (
others<br />
1%<br />
Family<br />
12%<br />
alone<br />
41%<br />
Friends/<br />
colleagues<br />
46%<br />
Figure 4.15: Share <strong>of</strong> accompanied status.<br />
(Own survey, 2010- 2011)<br />
Only 12 % <strong>of</strong> park visitors go with the family (see figure 4.15). As family plays an<br />
important role in Vietnamese society in terms <strong>of</strong> taking care <strong>of</strong> the children (see BINH<br />
2012:187-231) this low share <strong>of</strong> family visitors is surprising. It might be that<br />
visiting a park is not <strong>of</strong> highest priority as a “family activity” or<br />
the parks are not adequately equipped or designed for families or<br />
there are “other” barriers which hinder families using public parks.<br />
One expert for instance mentioned that he does not encourage his children to go to<br />
parks, because <strong>of</strong> the negative (risky) aspects <strong>of</strong> existing public parks.<br />
The size <strong>of</strong> a park seems to influence if people go alone or with other people (see figure<br />
4.16).<br />
100%<br />
80%<br />
60%<br />
1.1 2.2 0.1 0.9<br />
38.7 33.4<br />
47.6 48.6<br />
others<br />
alone<br />
40%<br />
20%<br />
0%<br />
48.6<br />
49.5<br />
40.9 36.0<br />
Friends/ colleage<br />
11.5 14.9 11.3 14.4<br />
Family<br />
Thong Nhat Bach Thao Bo Ho Le Nin (park)<br />
(N= 2143)<br />
Figure 4.16: Share <strong>of</strong> accompanied status among the parks (own survey, 2010- 2011)<br />
Indeed, there is a higher rate <strong>of</strong> people who visit the smaller parks (Bo Ho and Lenin) alone<br />
than the larger parks (Thong Nhat and Bach Thao). Conversely the rate <strong>of</strong> people who go<br />
with friends or colleagues is higher in larger parks (48.6 % and 49.5 % respectively).<br />
87
Change language