Observation of Place and Theory of Place
in Small Urban Public Spaces
Ensiyeh Ghavampour, Brenda Vale & Mark Del Aguila
Address for Correspondence: Ensiyeh Ghavampour, Reset Urban Design, 147 Quay Street, Auckland,
New Zealand. eghavampour@gmail.com
INTRODUCTION
In urban environments where space is at a premium and compatibility of design attributes and
activities pre-requisite, design increasingly relies on place-making to ensure public space is well
used. Historically, these spaces have incorporated natural elements from the local cultural context in
their construction and composition. Naturalness of design elements has been associated with
positive affect and meaning in public space. Incorporating elements such as trees and water, with
the presence of street furniture, increases activity and encourages people to spend more time
outside. Contributes to the sociability of places for individuals or groups, male and female, and
people from different age groups. Literature on natural design elements is reviewed and two
research studies investigating this issue from observational and theoretical perspectives are
discussed.
In the first study, natural design elements were identified in subspaces of four small urban public
spaces. Photographic records of stationary user’s behaviour were mapped into GIS (Geographic
Information System) with additional information on age, gender, group size, and length of stay.
Analyses indicate that natural design elements are related to social activity, however, the affordance
of design elements is dependent on the design context. Non-used natural elements like vacant grass
or vacant natural edges indicate designs should include aesthetic and functional values which relate
to local contexts.
Observations of person environment interactions are important to identify activity and functions
associated with design elements in physical settings. But how users of physical settings identify
suitable design elements for chosen behaviour relies on explication of a process which remains
uncrystallised in both place-making and the theory of place from which place-making is derived.
Using the framework of the theory of place, the second study examines behavioural preferences as a
function of affective and cognitive processing of natural design elements in small urban public
spaces. The results indicate that behavioural opportunities in public space form from an affective
image and cognitive focus. The implications of a process where preferences are idiosyncratic is of
relevance not only to place-making, but also to recent planning initiatives to improve place-making
decisions through communication with users of public space using GIS.
NATURAL DESIGN ELEMENTS IN THE CITY
Green space in the city has a long history going back to the ancient hunting gardens of Humana Park
(2000BC). In ancient Greece, gardens were gathering places to enhance social life, for Romans
gardens were places to create entertainment for social happiness (Jones &Wills, 2005) while
Chinese, Japanese and Persians used symbolic landscapes for religious spirituality (McIntosh, 2005).
In contrast to this harmony with nature, Italian terrace gardens and large French gardens represent
authority (McHarg, 1969). Private residential squares in 18th century England introduced rural nature
to the city for aesthetic and social function (Lawrence, 1993; Chadwick, 1966; Longsaffe-Gowan,
2012).
1
Public green spaces began to appear in the 19th century in response to working class demands for
recreation and green space in city. The countryside was too far away and took too long to access
(Chadwick, 1966; Jones & Wills, 2005). As a result, large parks were created to provide relaxing
spaces and make cities more livable (Dempsey, 2012; Seymour, 1969). In the 20th century, parks
were modernized and used by groups for social functions (Cranz, 1978; Young, 1995) and more
recently celebrating cultural diversity and improved sustainability in cities (Thompson, 2002).
Industrialization and urbanization transformed rural populations into urban residents, separating
people from nature (Mckibben, 1989, UNDoE, 2006). Large green spaces were created for their
ecological benefit and sustainability (Bettencourt et al., 2007; Chiesura, 2004; Forsyth et al., 2005;
Lapage, 2007). With the growth of cities and increased value of land, expensive maintenance, and
increased distance from where people live, these large spaces have a diminished importance in
everyday life (Migge, 2013; Seymour, 1969). In contrast, small urban green spaces are more
integrated with the social and ecological needs of urban residence (Gold, 1977; Peschardt &
Stigsdotter, 2013). In the context of 21st century sustainability, natural design elements in small
urban public spaces are a crucial part of compact cities.
STUDY ONE
Observations of Behaviour in relation to Natural Design Elements in
Small Urban Public Spaces
Successful public spaces are those that attract people, individually or in groups, from different ages,
genders, and cultural backgrounds (Carr et-al, 1992; Gehl, 1987; Whyte, 1980). In these spaces,
natural elements have been found to enhance social activity, to be aesthetic, safe and comfortable
(Carr et al, 1992; Kaplan, 1983; Mehta, 2006; Sheets & Manzer, 1991; Ulrich, 1986). Well maintained
grass is perceived positively and trees attract larger groups for longer times (Coley et al., 1997;
Huang, 2006; Kuo et al., 1998). Trees have been found to create territory and provide a sense of
enclosure (Lang, 1994).
Water is another natural design element that has found to be visually aesthetic (Sherrod & Down,
1974; Nasar, 1994). Although there are a number of studies linking nature and social activity, there is
a lack of research investigating the role of natural design elements in combination with other design
elements in these small urban public spaces. To address this issue, behaviour was mapped in four
small public spaces in the urban center of Wellington, NZ.
Behaviour Mapping
Behaviour mapping (Ittelson, Rivlin & Proshansky, 1970) is a method for documenting how designs
work by linking human activity with physical settings (Bechtel & Zeisel, 1987). In buildings and
spaces, the number of users, the busy and quiet times, frequency of movement, and stationary
behaviour have been recorded using counters, pencil and paper, behaviour matrices and marking up
printed maps (Golicnik & Marusic, 2012). If the space is large or crowded, new behaviours can be
missed and the details of observed activity limited. Film and time-lapse photography enables the
researcher to record and understand if a behaviour does or does not fit in a physical setting (Marcus
& Francis, 1998). Observable aspects of behaviour can be captured without any loss, the process is
quick and a skilled observer is not needed to record behaviour in physical settings. Still photographs
have been used as an intermediary step to record information for paper based mapping (Rostami,
2013) and paper based records have been mapped in GIS (Golicnik, 2011). GIS is increasingly being
used to capture, store, manipulate, analyse, manage, and present geographical data (Golicnik &
2
Marusic, 2012; Van Andel, 1984). A GIS record of a physical space can include multiple sources of
data and be updated with more information as it becomes available. Use of GIS enables the
researcher to have insights into the different dimensions of the usage stage, including how often a
certain activity has happened at a particular location, how intensively it has occurred per temporal
unit, and how the patterns of each activity can be differentiated with regard to the presence of
others (Golicnik & Marusic, 2012).
In the detailed analysis of the small and sometimes crowded urban public spaces, observations have
to capture linkage between design elements and behaviour, such as type of activity, duration, the
direction participants are facing, etc. There is a need for new, reliable tools for describing use of
public space (Forsyth, Musacchio & Fitzgerald, 2005; Golicnik & Thompson, 2010; Porta el al., 2008,
2009). Data need to be sufficiently detailed for analysis of each space and to enable comparisons
between spaces for natural elements like sun and shade. Considering the research needs, a
combination of still photographs and GIS (Geographic Information System) coding of photographic
records were used to record and map behaviour.
Procedure
For the observation of natural design elements in the context of other design elements, each space
was divided in subspaces by form, function, and access. Observation points were identified to cover
the subspaces in each location and be far enough from activities and people to not attract attention
(Figure1).
Figure 1: Glover Park subspaces and observation points
The four locations were photographed on sunny days at 12 minute intervals from 8.00 to 17.00
(Figure 2). A total of 3088 photos were taken across the four days. Data were transferred to GIS,
using Arc GIS 10, with each dot represents one group of users. Each dot had an attached table to it
3
with age, gender, type of activity, first time that observed, and last time that group was observed as
it columns. Data of each 5 round formed map for one hour observation that was valuable document
to study order of occupancy and preferred subspace in each hour.
Figure 2: One round of photography, (12 minutes) March 2013, Glover Park from 12:36-12:48
Result
The data analyses were divided into two parts: (1) Comparison between subspaces within each site,
and (2) comparison between similar subspaces across sites. Number of users, age, gender, and
length of stay, and occupancy maps ae presented.
Glover Park
Glover Park is an open space situated close to the main pedestrian street. It has several mature trees
which create shade for terraced grasses. Benches in the main walkway with a sculpture in the middle
are the main non- artificial subspaces. Natural elements form more than 70% of the park and all
were heavily used. Grassed area, spaces under trees and sitting wall close to grass were preferred
locations. Trees not only enhanced use of grassed areas but also influenced use of benches and
sitting walls. Benches under shade of trees were used constantly while others show decreased use.
The sitting wall adjacent to trees was used from early morning when sun may be more pleasant.
Apart from the grassed areas which evidenced increased use in the afternoon, other spaces
evidenced a decrease in use after lunch time (peak use of park) (Table1). Sun had a positive impact
on use, sunny grassed areas and areas shaded by trees were used well, whereas grass under shade
of building was left vacant. Review of the occupancy maps found the grassed area accommodated
more groups of larger size for longer periods of time. Teenagers and young adults were the main
users. Edges and the entrance were only used at lunch time. Males and females visited the park
equally.
4
Table 1: Number of users during one day of observation, Glover Park
(Colours have been added to indicate intensities of use at a glance)
Subspace use as percentage
of MO during the day
A-code 1-1- grass
08.00- 09.00- 10.00- 11.00- 12.00- 13.00- 14.00- 15.00- 16.00Total
09.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00
N
1
0
0
6
16
14
16
20
9
%
5.00
0.00
0.00
30.00
80.00
70.00
80.00
100
45.00
N
0
2
2
0
13
8
4
5
1
%
0.00
15.38
15.38
0.00
100
61.54
30.77
38.46
7.69
N
2
4
1
13
22
21
6
13
10
%
9.09
18.18
4.55
59.09
100
95.45
27.27
59.09
45.45
N
0
1
1
1
7
8
1
4
1
%
0.00
12.50
12.50
12.50
87.50
100
12.50
50.00
12.50
N
2
0
0
8
8
4
1
3
2
%
25.00
0.00
0.00
100
100
50.00
12.50
37.50
25.00
N
0
0
0
3
2
1
2
2
0
%
0.00
0.00
0.00
100
66.67
33.33
66.67
66.67
0.00
N
1
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
%
33.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
100
0.00
33.33
0.00
0.00
N
6
7
4
31
71
56
31
47
23
%
8.45
9.86
5.63
43.66
100
78.87
43.66
66.20
32.39
82
100
0
A-code 1-2- sitting wall
35
100
0
A-code 2- bench
92
100
0
B-code 3-ouside edge
24
100
0
B-code 4- edge passageway
28
100
0
C-code 6- around sculpture
10
100
0
D-code 7- entrance
5
100
0
Total Park
276
100
0
MO: Maximum occupancy
N: Number of users
%: Percentage of MO
Te Aro Park
In contrast with Glover Park, Te Aro is an island between two roads, has a triangular shape with only
one mature tree that is a home of birds which causes some maintenance issues. It is surrounded by
bars and pubs with a public toilet in the vicinity. The park was designed by an artist and has few
subspaces, with grass, water, and trees dominate natural design elements. The most popular
subspaces are the benches, a siting wall next to the grass and seating around a water feature.
Interestingly, the people seated around the water feature faced toward the road, a more interesting
visual landscape. The grassed subspace is exposed to the road frontages, lacked natural shade and
was left vacant mostly (Figure 3). The outside edge was used by smokers for short breaks. The
triangle benches proved more popular spots in the park, although they are fixed, the design provides
5
an opportunity for multiple users to face different directions. Larger groups used multiple benches
to face each other and solo users sat at different angles to avoid direct eye contact with people
beside them. The activities in Te Aro Park were not diverse as Glover Park and more than 70% of
users spent less than 12 minutes in the park. The number of female users was less than males.
Figure 3: Use of benches and grass in Te Aro
Midland Park
Midland Park is located on the main shopping street of Wellington, with lots of food and cafés
around, highly visible; this place attracts many people every day. Midland Park has a variety of
subspaces, with mature trees around its edge and a water feature in the middle. Benches and sitting
walls are spread throughout the park and there are also some shelters to protect users from sun and
rain. Midland Park attracted the most users of the four parks, with sitting walls and sheltered spaces
the two most used subspaces, though use of these areas decreased after lunch time. Preference of
natural shade over artificial is not clear here as user of passageway and sheltered subspaces were
different. In the later shelter was preferred over sitting wall by grass and in the former, natural
shade over artificial. Grassed areas were not as popular as sitting walls and mostly used in the
afternoon by groups of teenagers. Edges and entrance received the most users at lunch time. There
is no difference between the numbers of males and females in the park. In contrast with Glover Park
here there is no clear line between use of natural and artificial elements. The space is overcrowded
with most users coming here in their short lunch break.
Civic Square
Civic Square has a built character with only 20% soft landscape. It has a large paved area in the
middle that is used for public gatherings and festivals and serves as a path connecting the city to the
waterfront. It lacks mature trees and its two large grassed areas are under shade of buildings.
Between the natural subspaces, only the sitting wall by grass is well used, with grass the least used
space. The grassed areas were used for extended periods of time in the afternoon when they get
some sunshine space, either by groups for a chat or solo users to rest. The sunny wall with its
recesses was fully occupied at lunch time and the entrance and benches were constantly occupied
from early morning (Figure 4). Similar to Glover Park and Midland Park, grass were territory of
teenagers and young adults. Benches were always occupied and the square were used by both
genders in equal number.
6
Comparison of similar subspaces
Comparison of similar subspaces across the four data collection sites indicates that use behaviour in
relation to natural design elements, particularly grass, is dependent on its combination with other
features. Sitting walls next to grass were well used across all sites and only in Glover Park grass was
used more than the sitting wall. Benches were occupied in most locations. Compare to grass,
benches attract fewer groups and for shorter stay except, triangle benches in Te Aro. Uses of seating
around water was not a great success. Water in Midland Park had some visitors but compared to
other subspaces was not well populated. The Te Aro Park water feature also failed to be an
attractive environment. Use of other subspaces was mostly depended on the time of the day, edges
had their peak at lunch time and were preferred for short breaks.
Figure 4: Total use of Civic Square
Study One Findings
The relationship of natural design element with social use of public space was observed, considering
number of users, diversity in age, and gender, and activity, size of groups and length of stay. The
Result indicates that success of natural design elements depends on the context with the connection
between natural elements and with non–natural subspaces an important influence for use of small
urban public spaces. Grassed areas are used for the extended stay, enhance social activity and are
attractive to groups (Coley et al., 1997). Trees and their natural shade also encourage longer length
of stay (Huang, 2006; Kuo et al., 1998). However, trees need to be mature to provide territory (Lang,
1994) and grass has to be well maintained (Kuo et al., 1998). Immature trees provide insufficient
enclosure and shelter, and small grass or grassed areas with irregular shape are not used by groups.
The presence of water features conflicts with studies which claim water is an attraction small urban
public spaces (Sherrod & Down, 1974; Nasar, 1994). Water fountains that allow for experience were
found to be more successful than decorative ones.
7
The results present a positive link between natural elements and social use of small urban public
spaces, but this is dependent on the combination of elements. GIS mapping of photographic records
provided a valuable method for observation and allowed for a comprehensive analysis. The use of
small urban spaces is more than the number of users, the context of design elements influences how
space is used. Although natural design elements appear to have an important connection with the
use of small urban public space, the reason for this preference is unclear. Is there a theoretical
explanation for this association?
STUDY TWO
Theory of Place in Public Space
Implementation of theory of place in urban design, place making, is being increasingly used in design
of public spaces. Matches between behaviour and design have been found to produce successful
public spaces (Francis, 2003; Lang, 1994). However, over time wants and needs change, user
population’s change and public spaces designed from market surveys leave placeless public spaces in
need for regeneration (Beer, 1991; Carr et al., 1992; Francis, 2003).
The place-making approach evolved from Barker’s (1968) behaviour setting concept which includes a
physical pattern and a standing pattern of behaviour that both work as a unit in a period of time.
Observation is used to describe preferences. The 1970’s saw this concept expanded to include the
individual perspective of the user’s experience. Place identity is described by an inter-relationship
between materiality (physical setting), meaning (concept), and activity (Relph, 1976; Canter 1977;
Tuan, 1977). However, how the relationship between mental image (meaning, concept) and the
physical setting influences behaviour in small urban spaces is left undefined (Lewicka, 2011).
Addressing this issue, in the meaning of the Built Environment, Rapoport (1982) claimed that
individual decision and behaviour form from the affective image of the environment which also
shape people initial feeling. While Kaplan (1987) and Motloch (2000), described perception as a
mental representation that is mostly forms after the first impression, others (Ittelson, 1973; Ulrich,
1983; Zajonc, 1980) argued that the affective reaction is a pre-cognitive evaluation and usually occur
sooner. Using the framework of the theory of place, the second study examines preferences as a
function of affective and cognitive processing of natural design elements in small urban public
spaces.
Questionnaire design
The questionnaire was designed using a facet theory (Guttman, 1954, 1965) which has been
previously used to examine the components of place (Canter, 1982, 1983, 1997). In a facet theory
questionnaire, the link between theoretically derived hypotheses and empirical research is
established through a mapping sentence (Table 2). Each mapping sentence has two main parts, the
facets which have to be defined and a verb which connects these facets. Four facets are defined for
the present investigation.
Material (2) x design element (3) = 6 elements
The physical setting facet is defined by the combination of type of material from which it is
constructed and three representative design elements. Materials are divided into two categories of
natural and artificial. Three design elements which have been found to influence preferences in the
form of furniture, surface and features are examined (Nasar, 1989; Ulrich, 1983; Motloch, 2000). The
combination material and design element defined six categories (Table2).
8
Affective (2elements) and Cognitive (2 elements)
Meaning in the environment is a function of affective and cognitive processes, each of which is
defined separately. Based on the work of Russell and Pratt (1980) and Yik, Russell and Steiger (2011),
relaxing and exciting were chosen here to represent the positive activation and deactivation of an
affect. Two important cognitive components of setting are legibility and imageability (Lynch, 1960;
Montgomery, 1998; Nasar, 1994, Gifford, 2014). A place is legible when it has an obvious
arrangement and clear structure, and meaningful when its identity holds a special character for the
person.
Behaviour (2 elements)
With respect to the physical environment, Gehl (1987) and Lennard and Lennard (1987, 1995)
categorized activity in terms of intensity, with being alone or with friends and family the two
extended types of activity in public space. Thus being alone or with friends in a group are two
variables of behaviour facet.
Table 2: Mapping sentence
Behaviour
When
I
spend
Design Elements x Materials
in public
with my
friends
by myself
time
spaces,
I prefer
places
with
wood and stone furnishings
plastic and metal furnishings
grass, stone or wooden surfaces
painted, concrete or tiled surfaces
trees, water and plant features
sculptures, artefacts and decorative features
Affect
because the place is
relaxing
exciting
Cognition
and has a
clear identity
obvious arrangement
The mapping sentence specifies 2x (2x3) x2 x 2 = 48 questions from the combination of defined
facets. A typical question is: “When I spend time with my friends in public spaces, I prefer places
with wood and stone furnishings because the place is relaxing and has a special character”. The
range of possible responses to each of the 48 items was indicated on a seven-point scale ranging
from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree.
Data collection & Analyses:
To enable a comparison with study one, stationary users in the same four locations were responded
to the questionnaire Data was collected in different times (morning, lunch time, afternoon) and both
weekdays and weekend. In total 160 participants agreed to fill the questionnaire, 40 from each site.
Two questionnaires were deleted because of incomplete data. The 158 participants included 77
male and 78 female, and 3 who did not specify gender, aged between 14-64 years with a mean age
of 31.8 years. In terms of living in Wellington, 10 years was the average period. The 158 participants
were composed of 61.4% NZ European, 13.9% European, 8.9% Asian, 3.8% Maori, 2.5%
American/African, 1.9% Middle Eastern/Latin and 2.5 % other ethnicity. Of the sample, 67.7% had
tertiary qualifications, 23.4% secondary and 6.3 % trade qualifications 1.3% less than that and 1.3%
9
did not answer this question. From the sample of 158 people, 53.8% work in the city centre and 65%
use public space more than 2 or 3 days a week.
The data is analysed using ordinal Multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) available in the SPSS Alscale
package. MDS represents the location of each item as a point in a multidimensional Euclidean space
in such a way that variables that have higher similarity are closer together (Gutman, 1968). A
graphical representation of similarity or dissimilarity to all other items enables visual exploration of
data structure. The non-parametric Friedman’s χ² statistic is used to assess differences between
regions.
Results
The two dimensional spatial representation of the 48 questions in the survey splits into two separate
regions according to the artificiality (24 items) or naturalness (24 items) of design elements. While,
in natural region feature and surfaces are more interrelated, the artificial region consists of three
separate subgroups of furniture, surfaces and feature, with artificial features close to the natural
region (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Two dimensional spatial representation of 48 items (stress=0.07, N=158)
An inspection of the means for natural and artificial furnishings, surfaces and features broken down
by site and behaviour (Table 3) indicates:
 A preference for natural elements over artificial elements across sites, on weekdays and
weekends, and whether alone or with friends. A Friedman test (df = 1, N = 158) of the
differences between natural (median = 130.5) and artificial (median = 96) was significant (χ² =
131.9, p < 0.000) represent a higher preference for natural elements.
 Artificial surfaces and artificial furnishings receive negative preference ratings (i.e., means 
four).
 The preference for natural furnishings is consistently higher when with friends than when alone.
10
Table 3. Mean preference of natural and artificial design elements.
Alone
Natural
With Friends
Artificial
Natural
Artificial
Workdays Weekends Workdays Weekends Workdays Weekends Workdays Weekends
Midland Park
Furnishings
Surfaces
Features
4.86
5.49
5.99
4.93
5.56
6.30
3.76
4.10
5.19
2.76
3.39
4.96
5.35
5.63
5.96
5.60
5.85
6.23
3.76
3.96
5.11
2.81
2.95
5.06
5.45
5.60
4.35
3.70
5.65
5.89
4.28
3.61
4.86
5.42
5.68
4.74
5.41
6.06
3.32
3.53
4.80
2.34
2.83
5.08
5.21
5.34
5.86
4.77
5.35
5.40
3.34
3.93
4.87
2.46
3.40
5.06
5.32
5.40
3.88
3.41
5.47
5.17
4.05
3.64
5.01
5.50
5.87
4.91
5.29
6.03
3.63
3.54
5.08
3.23
3.87
4.61
5.00
5.43
5.82
5.05
5.49
5.50
3.49
3.70
5.34
3.04
3.89
4.71
5.46
5.41
4.08
3.90
5.42
5.35
4.18
3.88
4.76
5.56
5.79
4.79
5.60
5.48
3.33
3.92
5.00
3.33
3.59
4.87
4.96
5.60
6.00
5.06
5.43
5.66
3.06
3.95
5.19
3.61
3.75
5.09
5.37
5.29
4.08
3.93
5.52
5.38
4.07
4.15
4.87
5.49
5.83
4.84
5.47
5.97
3.51
3.78
5.02
2.91
3.42
4.88
5.13
5.50
5.91
5.12
5.53
5.70
3.41
3.89
4.96
2.98
3.50
4.98
5.40
5.42
4.10
3.74
5.51
5.45
4.14
3.82
Glover Park
Furnishings
Surfaces
Features
Civic Square
Furnishings
Surfaces
Features
Te Aro Park
Furnishings
Surfaces
Features
Overall
Furnishings
Surfaces
Features
Analyses of natural design elements indicate a preference for feature over surface, and both over
furniture. Another recognizable pattern in this region is affect and cognitive. There are three
different subgroups for mental image of relaxing and having a special character, an intertwined
group of relaxing and having a clear structure with exciting and having a special character, and a
group of exciting and having a clear structure. The affective-cognitive ratings move from lower left to
upper right (Figure6). The preference for natural elements is linked to their higher sense of
relaxation and giving specific character to the space and is ranked lower for their exciting character
and their effect on the legibility of place. In contrast, no significant difference is observed between
mental images for artificial design elements.
11
Figure 6. Two dimensional spatial representation of 24 natural design elements classified by
design feature, behaviour and cognitive-affective affordance (stress=0.14, N=158)
Study Two Findings
The second study investigated the connections of behaviour and mental image with natural and
artificial design elements in public space within the framework of the Theory of Place. The results
indicate that natural elements incorporated in the design of features, surfaces, furnishings, are
related to social activity in small urban public spaces and the mental image of small urban public
spaces. A link between natural elements and behaviour was evidenced in Study One. This link was
mediated by the context of natural elements with other design elements. Study Two found that
physical setting and behaviour are matched through affective and cognitive processes. This result
could explain the non-use of some natural elements in study one, e.g., grass with artificial shade. In
Study Two, natural and artificial are used in general terms while in study one behaviour is observed
in context with preferences derived from affective and cognitive processes which consider the
design elements in a larger context.
The lower preference for artificial design elements both when alone and with friends is consistent
with the observations of behaviour and evidences the contribution of mental image in the
evaluation of and interaction with physical settings. Preferences were found to be a function of the
affective and cognitive processing of design elements incorporated into features, surfaces and
furnishings of small urban spaces in a city centre. Relaxing spaces are preferred if alone or with
friends, with character more important than structure when alone, and the furnishings more
important when with friends. Artificial design features with a special character are a positive focus
for both user groups, with artificial surfaces and furnishings negatively evaluated. These results
indicate that opportunities afforded in public space are formed from a combination of affective
response and a cognitive focus. If alone, a relaxing space with exciting features is preferred. With
friends, a relaxing space and furnishings are important. This is consistent with Rapoport’s (1982)
argument that affect primes cognitive process in that the required affect is a necessary pre-requisite.
In addition, it also indicates that cognitive focus on physical spatial elements is influenced by
anticipated behaviour. To expand Mortlock (2000), the mental image connecting physical setting and
12
behaviour is a sequence of affective appraisal followed by cognitive evaluation defined by user’s
anticipated needs.
DISCUSSION
This affective appraisal of settings as relaxing, exciting, etc., reflects individual preferences defined
from histories of experience. Sonnenfeld (1966) found cultural groups and persons with overlapping
experience express similar preferences for familiar landscapes with different preferences related to
different histories of experience (Taylor, Zube & Sell, 1987). This is consistent with experimental
research which has demonstrated that stimuli are preferred if they have previously experienced,
even though the individual may not be consciously aware of that experience. The greater the
frequency of previous exposure, the stronger the preference and if the exposure is related to any
form of prior experience, then any subsequent interaction will reflect this (Zajonc, 2001). [In the
present research, individual differences were not analysed as participants indicated similar
preferences through their choice to use the public spaces.] The extension that different experiences
can generate idiosyncratic preferences is the recognition of a distinction between the process of
preference formation and preferences that are manifestations of that process. This distinction has
important implications for place-making design and the mapping of public space.
Place-making
Designs based on preference surveys capture a particular point in time and will align with shared
perspectives at that time, but the process which generates these shared preference can also
generate change over time. This can result in successful spaces evolving into placeless spaces and
placeless spaces being populated. By understanding the distinction between the process of
preference formation and the recording of preferences at a particular point in time, which is the
manifestation of a process, the emphasis shifts from designing spaces based on preferences. The
commonality users of public space exhibit is a lifetime spent defining and re-defining preferences
from dynamic interactions with physical settings. Preferences and choices are idiosyncratic, they
may overlap, but in the process that precipitates diversity, a similarity exists.
Students of Architecture learn about structures, people, history, art, etc., or what is generally
referred to as design. Although this focused experience is a necessary pre-requisite for professional
participation, it also a process that individually and collectively develop an aesthetic that can diverge
from population preferences. A design professional’s aesthetic environment may not be shared by
future user’s personal experiences. Therefore, it is necessary to expand the focus of design beyond
the build of person-environment fit, to the creation of possibility. Dynamic spaces within which
individual opportunities evolve.
Affordance of Place
The description of experiential knowledge is also an important topic for planners using Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) mapping of public space. To describe activities and functions users
associate with physical settings, digital maps of physical space are being softened using the
affordance of place (ElGindy and Abdelmoty, 2014; Jordan et-al, 1998; Goodchild, 2011; Scheider &
Janowicz, 2014). As with place theory, affordance theory (Gibson, 1966; 1977; 1979) describes
interactions between setting, mental image (perceived opportunities for action) and behaviour
(actualized affordances). The difference being, affordances are defined as properties of the setting
identified by the individual, “… a pairing of an organism (and by extension, its potential or realized
behaviour) with specific environmental features, embedded in a situation or context” (Jenkins,
2008:44). An interaction with motivation and capacity, and social and cultural factors prerequisite
13
for actualization (Greeno, 1994; Heft, 2003; Kyttä, 2004; Stroffregen, 2003; Zebrowitz & Collins,
1997). ElGindy and Abdelomty (2014) suggested capture of place semantics by adding qualities that
make places different, including vernacular place names, place types and activities people
participate in, events, as well as personal opinions. Scheider and Janowicz (2014) filled the gap
between human conceptualization and machine representation proposing “a formal theory about
relevant types of activities and their involved participants” (page 97).
The promise of participatory (Carver et al., 2001; McCall, 2003) and soft (Goodchild, 2011; Kyttä etal., 2013; Rantanen & Kahila, 2009) GIS is improved communication between planners and users of
public space that results in improved decision making. To achieve this, a mapping of dynamic
possibilities which are not the property of physical settings, but reside within the experiential
knowledge of the individual users is required. This knowledge is not geographically referenced, it is
used within geographic references in an interactive dynamic. For GIS mapping of place to become an
effective predictive tool for planning and place-making, a focus on individual map overlay in spaces
consistent with the dynamic nature of individual preferences is required.
POSTSCRIPT ON RESEARCH & MEASUREMENT
Measurement tasks such as Study Two, contain a multitude of differentiating influences. Although
these influences are interactive in their effect, it is assumed that as the location of data collection,
the task and response method remain constant, differences between individuals will be reflected in
the data. When the data is analysed, evaluations which are consistent across individuals and
systematically different between tasks are observed (Ward & Russell, 1981). Small differences are
treated as errors of measurement and the average response presented as indicative of population
preferences. However, task constraints focus respondent’s attention on shared aspects of prior
experience. The salient characteristics of non-verbal scaling tasks (Groves & Thorne, 1988) and
verbal scaling techniques "consistently reproduce their own a priori semantic structure" (Daniel &
Ittelson, 1981: 153). That is, the internally consistent result observed in each evaluation task are an
artefact of task’s constraints. If group average data is re-analysed using comparisons between
individual respondents, the within task consistency in non-verbal and verbal scaling techniques is
again evidenced, but with one notable exception. Individual differences are observed in affect
evaluations (Groves & Clutton, 1990; Groves, 1992). It is argued that individual differences in affect
evaluations emerge because the task enables respondents to access their entire history of
experience relevant to the setting.
Place and the affordance of place, affect and cognition, are measured as if they exist and behaviour
is observed as if it is (at least partially) afforded by design. However, these observations and
measurements are an interpretation of the person’s configuration. At any point in time, the
observations and measurements reflect the individual’s accumulated interactions with physical
settings and interactions within/between their mental processes. This process is dynamic in the
sense that ongoing activations result in modifications or formation of possibly new positions. A
framework within which on-going experience is experienced, interpretations delineated, and itself
influenced with on-going experience. A system which behaves as if schemas, prototypes, categories,
variable classifications, scripts, exemplars, etc., exist. However, in reality these concepts are “... the
theorist's interpretation of the system configuration” (McClelland & Rumelhart, 1986; Rumelhart &
McClelland, 1986; Norman, 1986: 537).
14
REFERENCES
Barker, R. (1968). Ecological Psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the environment of
human behavior. California: Stanford University Press.
Bechtel, R. B., & Zeisel, J. (1987). Observation: The world under a glass. In R. B. Bechtel, R. W. Marans
& W. M. Michelson (Eds.), Methods in environmental and behavioral research (pp. 11-40). New
York: Van Nostrand.
Beer, A. R. (1991). Urban design: The growing influence of environmental psychology. Journal of
environmental psychology, 11(4), 359-371.
Bettencourt, L. M., Lobo, J., Helbing, D., Kühnert, C., & West, G. B. (2007). Growth, innovation, scaling,
and the pace of life in cities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(17), 7301-7306.
Canter, D. (1977). The psychology of place. London: Architectural Press.
Canter, D. (1982). Facet approach to applied research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 55(1), 143-154.
Canter, D. (1983). The potential of Facet Theory for applied social psychology. Quality & Quantity,
17(1), 35-67.
Canter, D. (1997). The facets of place. In G. T. Moore & R. W. Marans (Eds.), Toward the integration of
theory, methods, research and utilization (Vol. 4, pp. 110-145). New York: Plenum Press.
Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L., & Stone, A. (1992). Public space. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University
Press.
Carver S., Evans A., Kingston R., Turton, I. (2001). Public participation, GIS, and cyberdemocracy:
evaluating on-line spatial decision support systems. Environment and Planning B: Planning and
Design 28: 907-921.
Chadwick, G. F. (1966). The park and the town. London: Architectural Press.
Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning,
68(1), 129-138.
Coley, R. L., Sullivan, W. C., & Kuo, F. E. (1997). Where Does Community Grow? The social context
created by nature in urban public housing. Environment and behavior, 29(4), 468-494.
Cranz, G. (1978). Changing roles of urban Parks - from pleasure ground to open space. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 22(3), 9-18.
Daniel, T. C., & Ittelson, W. H. (1981). Conditions for environmental perception research: Comment
on "The psychological representation of molar physical environments" by Ward and Russell.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110(2), 153-157.
Dempsey, N. (2012). Neighbourhood Design: Green Space and Parks. In S. J. Smith (Ed.), International
Encyclopedia of Housing and Home (pp. 12-20). San Diego: Elsevier.
ElGindy E, Abdelmoty E. (2014). Capturing Place Semantics on the GeoSocial Web. Journal on Data
Semantics 3:207–223
Forsyth, A., Musacchio, L., & Fitzgerald, F. (2005). Designing small parks: a manual addressing social
and ecological concerns. New Jersy: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Francis, M. (2003). Urban open space: Designing for user needs (Vol. 3). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Gehl, J. (1987). Life between buildings: Using public space. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Gibson J.J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Gibson J.J. (1977). The theory of affordances. Hilldale, USA.
15
Gibson J.J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Gold, S. M. (1977). Neighborhood Parks the nonuse phenomenon. Evaluation Review, 1(2), 319-328.
Golicnik, B. (2011). Analysis of patterns of spatial occupancy in urban open space using behaviour
maps and GIS. Urban Design International, 16(1), 36-50.
Golicnik, B., & Marusic, D. (2012). Behavioural maps and GIS in place evaluation and design. In B. M.
Alam (Ed.), Application of Geographic Information System (pp. 113-138).
Golicnik, B., & Thompson, C. W. (2010). Emerging relationships between design and use of urban park
spaces. Landscape and Urban Planning, 94(1), 38-53.
Goodchild M.F. (2011). Formalizing place in geographical information systems. In LM Burton, SP Kemp,
MC Leung, SA Matthews & DT Takeuchi (Eds.) Communities, neighborhoods, and health: Expanding
the boundaries of place. Springer: New York, pp. 21–35.
Greeno J.G. (1994). Gibson's affordances. Psychological Review 101:336-342.
Groves, M.A., & Clutton S. (1992). Measurement task effects in environmental cognition research.
People and the Physical Environment Research, 33: 16-21.
Groves M.A. (1992). Beyond spatial representation. Quality and Quantity, 26: 49-59.
Groves, M. A., & Thorne, R. (1988). Aspects of Housing Preference: Revisiting a Cross-Cultural Study
with the Hindsight of Improved Data Analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 8, 45-55.
Guttman, L. (1954). A new approach to factor analysis: The radex. In P. F. Lazarsfeld (Ed.),
Mathematical Thinking in the Social Sciences (pp. 258-348). New York: Free Press.
Guttman, L. (1965). A faceted definition of intelligence. Scripta hierosolymitana, 14, 166-181.
Guttman, L. (1968). A general nonmetric technique for finding the smallest coordinate space for a
configuration of points. Psychometrika, 33(4), 469-506.
Heft H. (2003). Affordances, dynamic experience, and the challenge of reification. Ecological
Psychology 15(2):149-180.
Huang, S.-C. L. (2006). A study of outdoor interactional spaces in high-rise housing. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 78(3), 193-204.
Ittelson, W.H. (1973). Environment perception and contemporary perceptual theory. In W.H. Ittelson
(Ed.), Environment and cognition (pp. 141-154). New York: Seminar Press.
Ittelson, W. H., Rivlin, L. G., & Proshansky, H. M. (1970). The use of behavioral maps in environmental
psychology. In W. H. Ittelson, L. G. Rivlin & H. M. Proshansky (Eds.), Environmental psychology: Man
and his physical setting (pp. 658-668). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Jenkins H.S. (2008). Gibson’s “affordances”: Evolution of a pivotal concept. Journal of Scientific
Psychology 12:34-45.
Jones, K., & Wills, J. (2005). The invention of the park: Recreational landscapes from the garden of eden
to disney's magic kingdom. Cambridge: Polity.
Jordan T, Raubal M, Gartrell B & Egenhofer M. (1998). An affordance-based model of place in GIS. In
T Parker & N Chrisman (Eds.) Eight International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling. Vancouver,
Canada, pp. 98-109.
Kaplan, R. (1983). The role of nature in the urban context. In I. Altman & K. Christensen (Eds.),
Environment and behavioural studies (Vol. 6, pp. 127-161). New York: Plenum Press.
Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition environmental preference from an evolutionary
perpective. Environment and behavior, 19(1), 3-32.
16
Kuo, F. E., Sullivan, W., Coley, R., & Brunson, L. (1998). Fertile Ground for Community: Inner-City
neighborhood common spaces. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26(6), 823-851.
Kyttä M. (2004). The extent of children's independent mobility and the number of actualized
affordances as criteria for child-friendly environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology
24:179–198.
Kyttä M., Broberg A., Tzoulas T., Snabb K. (2013). Towards contextually sensitive urban densification:
Location-based softGIS knowledge revealing perceived residential environmental quality.
Landscape and Urban Planning 113:30-46.
Lang, J. (1994). Urban design: The American experience. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Lapage, W. (2007). Parks for life: Moving the goal posts, changing the rules, and expanding the field.
State College, Pennsylvania: Venture Publishing, Inc.
Lawrence, H. W. (1993). The greening of the squares of London: transformation of urban landscapes
and ideals. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 83(1), 90-118.
Lennard, S. H. C., & Lennard, H. L. (1987). Livable Cities: People and Places: Social and Design Principles
for the Future of the City. New York: Gondolier Press
Lennard, S. H. C., & Lennard, H. L. (1995). Livable cities observed: A source book of images and ideas
for city officials, community leaders, architects, planners and all other committed to making their
cities livable. Carmel, CA: Gondolier Press.
Lewicka, M. (2011). Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? Journal of
environmental psychology, 31(3), 207-230.
Longstaffe-Gowan, T. (2012). The London Square: Gardens in the midst of town. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Marcus, C. C., & Francis, C. A. (1998). People places: Design guidelines for urban open space (2nd Ed.).
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
McCall, M. K. (2003). Seeking good governance in participatory-GIS: a review of process and
governance dimensions in applying GIS to participatory spatial planning. Habitat International, 27,
549-573.
McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1986). Parallel Distributed Processing (vol. 2). Cambridge,
Massachusetts: M.I.T. Press.
McHarg, I. L. (1969). Design with nature. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
McIntosh, C. (2005). Gardens of the gods: Myth, magic and meaning. London: I. B. Tauris.
McKibben, B (1989). The end of nature. New York: Random House
Mehta, V. (2006). Lively streets: Exploring the relationship between build environment and social
behaviour. (PhD), University of Maryland.
Migge, L. (2013). Garden culture of the twentieth century. Translated and edited by D. H. Haney.
Washington, D.C.: Harvard University press.
Motloch, J. L. (2000). Introduction to landscape design (2 ed.). New York: Wiley.
Nasar, J. L. (1989). Perception, cognition, and evaluation of urban places. In I. Altman & E. H. Zube
(Eds.), Public places and spaces (Vol. 10, pp. 31-56). New York: Plenum Press
Nasar, J. L. (1994). Urban design aesthetics the evaluative qualities of building exteriors. Environment
and behavior, 26(3), 377-401.
17
Norman, D. A. (1986). Reflections on Cognition and Parallel Distributed Processing. In J.L. McClelland
& D.E. Rumelhart (eds.), Parallel Distributed Processing (vol. 2). Cambridge, Massachusetts: M.I.T.
Press.
Peschardt, K. K., & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2013). Associations between park characteristics and perceived
restorativeness of small public urban green spaces. Landscape and Urban Planning, 112, 26-39.
Porta, S., Crucciti, P., Latora, V. (2008). Multiple centrality assessment in Parma: a network analysis of
paths and open spaces. Urban Design. 13, 41–51.
Porta, S., Latora, V., Wang, F., Strano, E., Cardillo, A., Scellato, S., Iacoviello, V., Messora, R. (2009).
Street centrality and densities of retails and services in Bologna, Italy. Environment and Planning.
B. 36, 450–465.
Rantanen H., Kahila M. (2009). The SoftGIS approach to local knowledge. Journal of Environmental
Management 90:1981-1990.
Rapoport, A. (1982). The meaning of the built environment: A nonverbal communication approach.
Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Relph, E. C. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion.
Rostami Bookani, S. (2013). Exploring the effect of changing public transit on users’ behaviour in Saint
George’s square. (M A thesis), The University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1986). Parallel Distributed Processing (vol. 1). Cambridge,
Massachusetts: M.I.T. Press.
Scheider S, Janowicz K. (2014). Place reference systems: A constructive activity model of reference to
places. Applied Ontology 9:97–127.
Seymour, W. N. (1969). An introduction to small urban spaces. In W. N. Seymour (Ed.), Small urban
spaces: the philosophy, design, sociology, and politics of vest-pocket parks and other small urban
open spaces (pp. 3-10). New York: New York University Press.
Sheets, V. L., & Manzer, C. D. (1991). Affect, cognition, and urban vegetation: Some effects of adding
trees along city streets. Environment and Behaviour, 23(3), 285-304.
Sherrod, D. R., & Downs, R. (1974). Environmental determinants of altruism: The effects of stimulus
overload and perceived control on helping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10(5), 468479.
Sonnenfeld J. (1966). Variable values in space and landscape: An inquiry into the nature of
environmental necessity. Journal of Social Issues 22: 71-82.
Stroffregen T.A. (2003). Affordances as properties of the animal-environment system. Ecological
Psychology 15(2):115-134.
Taylor J.G., Zube E.H., Sell J.L. (1987). Landscape assessment and perception research methods. In RB
Bechtel, RW Marans and W Michelson (Eds.), Methods in Environmental and Behavioral Research.
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co, pp 361-393.
Thompson, C. W. (2002). Urban open space in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60(2),
59-72.
Tuan, Y. F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to the natural environment. In I. Altman & J. F.
Wohlwill (Eds.), Human Behavior and Environment: Advances in Theory and Research (Vol. 6, pp.
85-125). New York: Plenum Press.
18
Ulrich, R. S. (1986). Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning,
13, 29-44.
UNDoE (2006). World population prospects: The 2004 Revision: Volume I: comprehensive tables.
United Nations Publications, 244-246
Van Andel, J (1984). Effects on children's behaviour of physical changes in a Leiden neighbourhood.
Children's Environments Quarterly. 1 (4), 46-54
Ward, L. M., & Russell, J. A. (1981). The psychological representation of molar physical environments.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110(2), 121-152.
Whyte, W. H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. Washington, D.C.: Conservation Foundation.
Young, T. (1995). Modern urban parks. Geographical Review, 85(4), 535-551.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist,
35(2), 151.
Zajonc, R. B. (2001). Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal. Current directions in psychological
science, 10(6), 224-228.
Zebrowitz, L. A., & Collins, M. A. (1997). Accurate social perception at zero acquaintance: The
affordances of a Gibsonian approach. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1(3), 204-223.
19