Drivers of Residents’ Participation in Urban Neighbourhood Public Space Maintenance

Public participation is increasingly recognised as a strategic approach to improving the quality and long-term upkeep of neighbourhood public spaces. Beyond reducing maintenance costs, participation strengthens the relationship between residents and their shared environment, fostering a sense of civic responsibility. However, resident involvement in neighbourhood public space maintenance remains limited in Malaysian urban neighbourhoods, where such responsibilities are typically viewed as the domain of local authorities. This study examines the factors that influence residents’ willingness to engage in the maintenance of neighbourhood public spaces in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. A structural equation model was developed to assess the causal relationships among three key drivers of participation: Personal Motivation, Place Attachment, and Neighbourhood Ties. Findings reveal that Neighbourhood Ties significantly encourage participation, but their influence operates indirectly through the mediating effects of residents’ attachment to place and individual motivation to maintain their surroundings. These results highlight the importance of strengthening social connections and emotional bonds within neighbourhoods to promote collective action in public space stewardship. The study contributes to a deeper understanding of urban resident participation and provides insights for designing community-based maintenance strategies that complement formal public space management in Malaysian cities.

urban neighbourhoods, public space maintenance, community participation, social capital, place attachment, civic motivation, collective action

1. Abdul Rahman, A., Omar, W. M. W., & Salleh, S. (2012). Neighbourhood design and urban quality: A review of the concept and planning approaches. Asian Journal of Environment-Behaviour Studies, 3(5), 1–12. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Altman, I., & Low, S. M. (1992). Place attachment. Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Au-Yong, C. P., Gan, X. N., Azmi, N. F., Zainol, R., & Mat Radzuan, I. S. (2023). Maintenance priority towards the features and facilities in Malaysian public parks: Visitors’ perspective versus actual [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. experience. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 14, Article 102133. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2023.102133 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Azmi, A., & Abdul Karim, N. (2012). Assessing accessibility of neighbourhood facilities in Malaysian residential areas. Planning Malaysia, 10(2), 1–14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Brodie, E., Cowling, E., Nissen, N., Paine, A., Jochum, V., & Warburton, D. (2019). Understanding participation: A literature review. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 30(5), 1018–1037. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-018-00182-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Brodie, E., Cowling, E., Nissen, N., Paine, A. E., & Jochum, V. (2011). Understanding participation: A literature review. National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Brown, K., & Keast, R. (2020). Social capital and community engagement in urban neighbourhoods. Journal of Urban Affairs, 42(5), 713–729. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2019.1640134 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Bruyere, B., & Rappe, S. (2007). Identifying the motivations of environmental volunteers. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50(4), 503–516. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560701402034 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Burgess, E., McKenzie, R. D., & Park, R. E. (1988). The city. University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Carmona, M. (2021). Public places urban spaces: The dimensions of urban design (3rd ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Carmona, M., & Magalhães, C. (2006). Public space management: Present and potential. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 49(1), 75–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560500369095 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Clary, E. G., & Snyder, M. (1992). Motivations for volunteering: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(5), 1516–1530. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.5.1516 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., & Ridge, R. D. (2020). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: Revisiting the Volunteer Functions Inventory. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 30(2), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2420 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Council of Europe. (2000). European Landscape Convention. Strasbourg. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Delshammar, T. (2020). Urban green space management: From technical routines to sustainable landscape governance. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 54, 126759. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126759 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Department of Town and Country Planning. (2013). National Physical Plan: Policy on open space allocation. Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Malaysia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Department of Town and Country Planning. (2021). Garis Panduan Perancangan Kawasan Lapang / Planning Guidelines for Open Spaces. Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Malaysia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Fischer, K. (2019). Urban planning and social integration in Malaysia: Case studies in Kuala Lumpur. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Flora, C. B. (2020). Social capital and collective action in communities. Community Development Journal, 55(3), 400–419. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsy037 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Guest, A., Brunton, S., & Considine, B. (2016). Dimensions of neighbourhood ties: Interaction, organisation, and familiarity. Urban Studies, 53(12), 2567–2583. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098015601130 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Gustavsson, E., Jansson, M., & Mattsson, L. (2020). Urban green space management: Integrating ecological, social, and technical perspectives. Landscape Research, 45(3), 275–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2019.1678703 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Hernandez, B., Hidalgo, M. C., & Ruiz, C. (2020). Place attachment and urban sustainability: Understanding residents’ bonds to local environments. Sustainability, 12(14), 5652. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145652 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Ibrahim, R., Clayden, A., & Cameron, R. (2020). Tropical urban parks in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Challenging the attitudes of park management teams towards a more environmentally sustainable approach. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 49, 126605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126605 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Jansson, M., Gustavsson, E., & Mattsson, L. (2019). Community involvement and co-production in urban landscape management. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 62(15), 2663–2682. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2018.1551982 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Jansson, M., & Lindgren, P. (2012). User participation in landscape management: Experiences from urban green spaces. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11(2), 127–135. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2012.01.006 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Jansson, M., & Lindgren, P. (2019). User participation in landscape management: Experiences from urban green spaces. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 42, 126–135. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126135 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Jansson, M., & Randrup, T. B. (2020). Urban open space governance and management. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 49, 126640. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Jansson, M., & Randrup, T. B. (2020). Urban green space management: A global perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning, 199, 103817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103817 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. King, N., & Shackleton, C. (2020). Maintenance and sustainability of green infrastructure. Urban Ecosystems, 23(5), 965–981. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Landscape Observatory. (2010). Participatory approaches in urban landscape management. European Commission. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Lewicka, M. (2011). Place attachment and community engagement: A review of recent research. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(3), 207–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.12.008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Mad Lazim, N., Mohd Yunos, M. Y., & Mohd Nor, M. R. (2019). Urban park maintenance and community engagement: A Malaysian perspective. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 42, 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126123 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Magalhães, C., & Carmona, M. (2009). Dimensions and models of contemporary public space management. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52(2), 111–129. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560802666552 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Manzo, L. C. (2019). Place attachment and participatory urban planning: Social and psychological perspectives. Cities, 90, 143–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.01.018 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Manzo, L. C., & Perkins, D. D. (2020). Understanding place attachment and its role in local community engagement. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 70, 101458. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101458 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Mohd Yunos, M. Y., Mad Lazim, N., & Hassan, A. (2020). Public participation in urban landscape planning: The role of citizen engagement in Malaysia. Journal of Urban Design, 25(3), 345–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2020.1723689 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Moore, R. L., & Graefe, A. R. (2020). Attachments to recreation settings and place identity: Revisiting a classic model. Leisure Sciences, 42(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2018.1522901 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Nguyen, T. H., Ho, T. T., & Tran, H. T. (2019). Social interactions and cultural diversity in urban public spaces. Journal of Urban Studies, 56(14), 2980–2998. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098019852201 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Parker, J., & Bryan, H. (1989). The cost of landscape maintenance in urban areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 17(1), 1–12. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2018). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Academic Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Perry, C. A. (1929). The neighbourhood unit: A scheme of arrangement for the family-life community. Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Praliya, S., & Garg, P. (2019). Public spaces and urban vibrancy: A review of factors. Journal of Urban Management, 8(1), 1–12. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(1), 57–83. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S02724944(83)80021-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Rai, A. (2020). Understanding citizen participation in urban public space management: Pathways and motivations. Sustainability, 12(15), 6102. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156102 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003066X.55.1.68 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2017). The dimensions of place attachment: Understanding the person, process, and place framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 51, 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.01.006 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Solecki, W., & Welch, R. (1995). Urban environmental management: Linking theory and practice. UNDP. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Tan, L. C., & Abdul Aziz, N. (2021). Community participation in urban green space management in Malaysia: Challenges and opportunities. Planning Malaysia, 19(3), 155–168. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. The Landscape Observatory. (2010). Public space management: Challenges and perspectives. Florence. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. Thompson, C. W. (2002). Urban open space in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60(2), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00062-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. UN-Habitat. (2020). Global public space programme: Annual report. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. United Nations. (2017). New Urban Agenda. Habitat III Secretariat. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. Uzochukwu, B., & Thomas, J. (2020). Co-production in urban public services: Citizen engagement and participatory governance. Cities, 96, 102443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102443 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. Uzochukwu, U., & Thomas, T. (2020). Co-production in public services: A review of current evidence. International Journal of Public Administration, 43(3), 247–259. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2019.1647602 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. Vallerand, R. J. (2004). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport and exercise: A review using the hierarchical model of motivation. In M. R. Weiss (Ed.), Developmental sport and exercise psychology: A lifespan perspective (pp. 59–83). Fitness Information Technology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. Vallerand, R. J. (2018). The psychology of passion: A dualistic model. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. Vaske, J. J., & Kobrin, K. C. (2020). Place attachment and environmentally responsible behavior in public spaces: Recent advances. Journal of Environmental Management, 261, 110208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110208 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

72. Yeo, O. T. S., Mohd Yusof, M. J., Maruthaveeran, S., Saito, K., & Abu Kasim, J. (2022). Green infrastructure transitional management: Sphere analysis of policies and regulations in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Planning Malaysia, 20(2), 61–73. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

73. Yuhertiana, I., Rosman, M. Y., & Hassan, N. (2022). The relevance of gotong-royong in contemporary community development in Malaysia. Journal of Community Development, 57(4), 879–896. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

74. Zhu, W. (2020). Social capital and civic engagement in urban neighbourhoods: Evidence from recent studies. Cities, 98, 102594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102594 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Impact of Ownership Structure on Dividend Payout Policy of Listed Plantation Companies in Sri Lanka
• Urban Sustainability in North-East India: A Study through the lens of NER-SDG index
• Performance Assessment of Predictive Forecasting Techniques for Enhancing Hospital Supply Chain Efficiency in Healthcare Logistics
• The Fractured Self in Julian Barnes' Postmodern Fiction: Identity Crisis and Deflation in Metroland and the Sense of an Ending
• Impact of Flood on the Employment, Labour Productivity and Migration of Agricultural Labour in North Bihar