Contents lists available at ScienceDirect City, Culture and Society journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ccs Understanding the process of parks’ attachment: Interrelation between place attachment, behavioural tendencies, and the use of public place Amine Moulay a , Norsidah Ujang a,* , Suhardi Maulan a , Sumarni Ismail b a Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Design and Architecture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia b Department of Architecture, Faculty of Design and Architecture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Place attachment Liveability Behaviour Neighborhood park ABSTRACT Developing cities in the world are facing the threat of rapid urbanization. Creating liveable neighborhood has become a new urban agenda for the coming decades. Public spaces, including neighborhood parks, play a sig- nificant role in improving the social life of a community since they are considered the backbone of the urban park systems. However, there are many underutilized parks. In the past, this issue was mainly considered in terms of physical and social attributes. Less attention was directed to the psychological attachment process of park users. This is due to the multifaceted, multidisciplinary, multidimensional, and multi-paradigmatic nature of research on place attachment, which has led to an accumulation of concepts and definitions. To this end, and within the growing influence of environmental psychology on urban design, the immensity and complexity of place attachment literature can be difficult to navigate and time-consuming. This paper reviews various con- ceptualisations of place attachment and use, the process of attachment towards places, and the behaviour commitment of users towards parks. This analysis provides further insight into the psychological process of park attachment to encourage holistic approach, underpin innovative concepts, deepen reflection on research para- digm, and guide empirical studies. The central message of this paper is that integrating the psychological aspect of place attachment in the place-making process will help transform values of places into a responsive social environment. 1. Introduction Cities and urban design are intimately linked to liveability goals. Physical and social characteristics should cooperate to enhance citizens' quality of life. In this regard, shared public spaces are crucial for sociability and the foci of entire communities (Ellis & Roberts, 2016; Hagerty, Cummins, & Ferriss, 2001). 50% of the global population lives in urban places, a figure expected to rise to 70% by 2050 (UN report, 2015). This alarming situation constitutes an unprecedented challenge for urban designers, planners, and architects. According to the UN Habitat III Report on housing and sustainable urban development (Habitat III, 2016), one of the primary outcomes of the new urban agenda for the next two decades regarding urban planning and design is to emphasize the provision of public places in terms of responsiveness and inclusiveness. Despite being regarded as fundamental social spaces in city planning, neighborhood parks in the context of planned re- sidential areas are not fully utilized to the benefits of the users (Azmi & Karim, 2012; Moser, 2010; Moulay & Ujang, 2016; Moulay, Ujang, & Said, 2017; Neutens, Farber, Delafontaine, & Boussauw, 2012; Peters, Elands, & Buijs, 2010). Such conditions deprive residents of the opportunity to socialize, which is considered a crucial human need (Ellis & Roberts, 2016; Kazmierczak, 2013). This paper reviews related theories on place attachment and behavioural tendencies to understand what may cause the lack of park's attachment in the urban design context. The issue of underutilized parks has been the focus of discussion for decades. In understanding what contributes to the problems and how to mitigate them, many dwell on the physical and social attributes of parks. These include commuting distance between work and home (Christian, 2012; Delmelle, Haslauer, & Prinz, 2013; Hopkins & Williamson, 2014) leading to the need for compact mixed use, mixed- income neighbourhoods of walkable social networks (Alexander, Ishikawa, & Silverstein, 1977; Gehl, 2011; Nelson, 2013). Some have also highlighted the influence of socio-demographics, park sizes, and facilities (Averill, Stanat, & More, 1998; Cascetta & Cartenì, 2014; Cohen, Han, & Derose, 2012, 2016; Droseltis & Vignoles, 2010; Giles- Corti et al., 2005). Accessibility, proximity, location, permeability, legibility, comfort, quality, congestion level, maintenance, aesthetic, density of the population, and perceived safety have been examined in relation to social activities and general satisfaction (Jorgensen & https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2017.12.002 Received 25 March 2017; Received in revised form 26 November 2017; Accepted 8 December 2017 * Corresponding author. E-mail address: norsidah@upm.edu.my (N. Ujang). City, Culture and Society xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx 1877-9166/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Please cite this article as: Moulay, A., City, Culture and Society (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2017.12.002