Observation of Place and Theory of Place in Small Urban Public SpacesEnsiyeh Ghavampour, Brenda Vale & Mark Del AguilaAddress for Correspondence: Ensiyeh Ghavampour, Reset Urban Design, 147 Quay Street, Auckland, New Zealand. eghavampour@gmail.com

INTRODUCTIONIn 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 CITYGreen 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

1

to the city for aesthetic and social function (Lawrence, 1993; Chadwick, 1966; Longsaffe-Gowan, 2012).

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 ONEObservations of Behaviour in relation to Natural Design Elements in Small Urban Public SpacesSuccessful 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 MappingBehaviour 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

2

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 & 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

3

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 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 12:36-12:48Result 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

08.00-09.00

09.00-10.00

10.00-11.00

11.00-12.00

12.00-13.00

13.00-14.00

14.00-15.00

15.00-16.00

16.00-17.00 Total

A-code 1-1- grass

050

100

N

%

1

5.00

0

0.00

0

0.00

6

30.00

16

80.00

14

70.00

16

80.00

20

100

9

45.00

82

A-code 1-2- sitting wall

050

100

N

%

0

0.00

2

15.38

2

15.38

0

0.00

13

100

8

61.54

4

30.77

5

38.46

1

7.69

35

A-code 2- bench

050

100

N

%

2

9.09

4

18.18

1

4.55

13

59.09

22

100

21

95.45

6

27.27

13

59.09

10

45.45

92

B-code 3-ouside edge

050

100

N

%

0

0.00

1

12.50

1

12.50

1

12.50

7

87.50

8

100

1

12.50

4

50.00

1

12.50

24

B-code 4- edge passageway

050

100

N

%

2

25.00

0

0.00

0

0.00

8

100

8

100

4

50.00

1

12.50

3

37.50

2

25.00

28

C-code 6- around sculpture

050

100

N

%

0

0.00

0

0.00

0

0.00

3

100

2

66.67

1

33.33

2

66.67

2

66.67

0

0.00

10

D-code 7- entrance

050

100

N

%

1

33.33

0

0.00

0

0.00

0

0.00

3

100

0

0.00

1

33.33

0

0.00

0

0.005

Total Park

050

100N

%

6

8.45

7

9.86

4

5.63

31

43.66

71

100

56

78.87

31

43.66

47

66.20

23

32.39

276

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

5

triangle benches proved more popular spots in the park, although they are fixed, the design provides 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 SquareCivic 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 subspacesComparison 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 FindingsThe 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 TWOTheory of Place in Public SpaceImplementation 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 Design Elements x Materials

When

I

spend

time

in public

spaces,

I prefer

places

with

Affect Cognition

because the place is and has a

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

wood and stone furnishingsplastic and metal furnishings grass, stone or wooden surfacespainted, concrete or tiled surfaces trees, water and plant featuressculptures, artefacts and decorative features

with my friends

by myself

clear identityobvious arrangement

relaxingexciting

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).

10

The preference for natural furnishings is consistently higher when with friends than when alone.

Table 3. Mean preference of natural and artificial design elements.

Alone With Friends

Natural Artificial Natural Artificial

Workdays Weekends Workdays Weekends Workdays Weekends Workdays Weekends

Midland Park

FurnishingsSurfacesFeatures

4.865.495.99

4.935.566.30

3.764.105.19

2.763.394.96

5.355.635.96

5.605.856.23

3.763.965.11

2.812.955.06

5.45 5.60 4.35 3.70 5.65 5.89 4.28 3.61

Glover Park

FurnishingsSurfacesFeatures

4.865.425.68

4.745.416.06

3.323.534.80

2.342.835.08

5.215.345.86

4.775.355.40

3.343.934.87

2.463.405.06

5.32 5.40 3.88 3.41 5.47 5.17 4.05 3.64

Civic Square

FurnishingsSurfacesFeatures

5.015.505.87

4.915.296.03

3.633.545.08

3.233.874.61

5.005.435.82

5.055.495.50

3.493.705.34

3.043.894.71

5.46 5.41 4.08 3.90 5.42 5.35 4.18 3.88

Te Aro Park

FurnishingsSurfacesFeatures

4.765.565.79

4.795.605.48

3.333.925.00

3.333.594.87

4.965.606.00

5.065.435.66

3.063.955.19

3.613.755.09

5.37 5.29 4.08 3.93 5.52 5.38 4.07 4.15

Overall

FurnishingsSurfacesFeatures

4.875.495.83

4.845.475.97

3.513.785.02

2.913.424.88

5.135.505.91

5.125.535.70

3.413.894.96

2.983.504.98

5.40 5.42 4.10 3.74 5.51 5.45 4.14 3.82

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 FindingsThe 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

12

expand Mortlock (2000), the mental image connecting physical setting and behaviour is a sequence of affective appraisal followed by cognitive evaluation defined by user’s anticipated needs.

DISCUSSIONThis 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-makingDesigns 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 PlaceThe 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 et-al., 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 & MEASUREMENTMeasurement 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

REFERENCESBarker, 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.

15

Gibson J.J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Gibson J.J. (1977). The theory of affordances. Hilldale, USA.

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.

16

Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition environmental preference from an evolutionary perpective. Environment and behavior, 19(1), 3-32.

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 HouseMehta, 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

17

Nasar, J. L. (1994). Urban design aesthetics the evaluative qualities of building exteriors. Environment and behavior, 26(3), 377-401.

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), 468-479.

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.

18

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.

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