Models of Community-Friendly Recreational Public Space in Warsaw Suburbs. Methodological Approach
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Context and Aim of the Research
1.2. Theoretical Framework
1.2.1. Publicness of Space
1.2.2. Utility Value of Space
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Measuring the Publicness of Recreational Public Spaces
2.3. Measuring the Utility Value of Recreational Public Spaces
2.4. Developing Models of Recreational Public Space Dedicated to Suburbs
3. Results
4. Conclusions
5. Discussion
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Stanilov, L.; Sýkora, L. Confronting Suburbanization: Urban Decentralization in Post-Socialist Central and Eastern Europe; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Hirt, S. Iron Curtains: Gates, Suburbs and Privatization of Space in the Post-Socialist City; Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK; Malden, MA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Kajdanek, K. Suburbanizacja w polsce—pejzaż społeczno-przestrzenny [Suburbanization in Poland—a social and spatial landscape]. Przegląd Socjol. 2011, 60, 303–320. [Google Scholar]
- Mantey, D. Żywiołowość Lokalizacji Osiedli Mieszkaniowych na Terenach Wiejskich Obszaru Metropolitalnego Warszawy [Spontaneity of Location of Housing Estates in Rural Areas of the Metropolitan Area of Warsaw]; Uniwersytet Warszawski Wydział Geografii i Studiów Regionalnych: Warsaw, Poland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Zimnicka, A.; Czernik, L. Kształtowanie Przestrzeni wsi Podmiejskiej. Raport z Badań Obszaru Oddziaływania Miasta Szczecin [Shaping the Space of a Suburban Village. Report on the Study of the Area of Impact of the City of Szczecin]; Hogben: Szczecin, Poland, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Solarek, K. Struktura Przestrzenna Strefy Podmiejskiej Warszawy: Determinanty Współczesnych Przekształceń [Spatial Structure of the Warsaw Suburban Zone: Determinants of Contemporary Transformations]; Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Warszawskiej: Warsaw, Poland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Kajdanek, K. Pomiędzy Miastem a Wsią. Suburbanizacja na Przykładzie Osiedli Podmiejskich Wrocławia [Between the City and the Village. Suburbanization on the Example of Wrocław Suburban Housing Estates]; NOMOS: Kraków, Poland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Mantey, D. Wzorzec Miejskiej Przestrzeni Publicznej w Konfrontacji z Podmiejską Rzeczywistością [A Model of Urban Public Space in Confrontation with Suburban Reality]; WUW: Warsaw, Poland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Mantey, D. The ‘publicness’ of suburban gathering places: The example of Podkowa Leśna (Warsaw urban region, Poland). Cities 2017, 60, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benn, S.; Gaus, G. Public and Private in Social Life; Croom Helm: London, UK, 1983. [Google Scholar]
- Németh, J.; Schmidt, S. The privatization of public space: Modeling and measuring publicness. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2011, 38, 5–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kohn, M. Brave New Neighborhoods: The Privatization of Public Space; Routledge: London, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Marcuse, P. The Threats to Publicly Usable Space in a Time of Contraction. Public Space Time Shrinkage 2003, 8. Available online: https://www.cloud-cuckoo.net/openarchive/wolke/eng/Subjects/031/Marcuse/marcuse.htm (accessed on 21 July 2020).
- Mitchell, D.; Staeheli, L. Clean and safe? Property redevelopment, public space and homelessness in Downtown San Diego. In The Politics of Public Space; Low, S., Smith, N., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2006; pp. 143–175. [Google Scholar]
- Van Melik, R.; Van Aalst, I.; Van Weesep, J. Fear and fantasy in the public domain: The development of secured and themed urban space. J. Urban Des. 2006, 12, 25–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment [CABE]. Spaceshaper. A User’s Guide. Available online: https://zora-cep.ch/cmsfiles/spaceshaper-a-users-guide_1.pdf (accessed on 21 July 2020).
- Varna, G.; Tiesdell, S. Assessing the publicness of public space: The star model of publicness. J. Urban Des. 2010, 15, 575–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Langstraat, F.; Van Melik, R. Challenging the ‘end of public space’: A comparative analysis of publicness in British and Dutch urban spaces. J. Urban Des. 2013, 18, 429–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Project for Public Spaces. How to Turn a Place Around: A Handbook for Creating Successful Public Spaces; PPS: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Y.; Chen, J. Does the rise of pseudo-public spaces lead to the ’end of public space’ in large Chinese cities? Evidence from Shanghai and Chongqing. Urban Des. Int. 2018, 23, 215–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehta, V. Evaluating public space. J. Urban Des. 2014, 19, 53–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zamanifard, H.; Alizadeh, T.; Bosman, C.; Coiacetto, E. Measuring experiential qualities of urban public spaces: users’ perspective. J. Urban Des. 2019, 24, 340–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lopes, M.; Santos Cruz, S.; Pinho, P. Revisiting publicness in the assessment of contemporary urban spaces. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2019, 145, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Madanipour, A. Public and Private Spaces of the City; Routledge: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- De Magalhaes, C. Public space and the contracting-out of publicness: A framework for analysis. J. Urban Des. 2010, 15, 559–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carmona, M. Contemporary public space, part two: Classification. J. Urban Des. 2010, 15, 157–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Magalhães, C.; Trigo, F.S. Contracting out publicness: The private management of the urban public realm and its implications. Prog. Plan. 2017, 115, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carr, S.; Francis, M.; Rivlin, L.G.; Stone, A.M. Public Space; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Köksal, I. Activist intervention: Walking in the city of London. Soc. Mov. Stud. 2012, 11, 446–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dines, N.; Cattel, V.; Gesler, W.; Curtis, S. Public Spaces, Social Relations and Well-Being in East. London; Joseph Rowntree Foundation: York, UK, 2006; Available online: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/public-spaces-and-social-relations-east-london (accessed on 21 July 2020).
- Wang, Y. A critique of the socio-spatial debate and the publicness of urban space. Nor. Geogr. Tidsskr. Nor. J. Geogr. 2018, 72, 161–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gibson, J. The theory of affordances. In Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing. Toward an Ecological Psychology; Shaw, R., Bransford, J., Eds.; LEA, Publishers: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1977; pp. 67–82. [Google Scholar]
- Gibson, J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception; Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA, USA, 1979. [Google Scholar]
- Montgomery, J. Making a city: Urbanity, vitality and urban design. J. Urban Des. 1998, 3, 93–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gehl, J. Public Spaces, Public Life; The Danish Architectural Press: Copenhagen, Danish, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Mehta, V. Lively streets: Determining environmental characteristics to support social behaviour. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2007, 27, 165–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacobs, J. The Death and Lives of Great American Cities; Random House: New York, NY, USA, 1961. [Google Scholar]
- Punter, J. Participation in the design of urban space. Landsc. Des. 1991, 200, 24–27. [Google Scholar]
- Carmona, M.; Tiesdell, S.; Heath, T.; Oc, T. Public Places, Urban. Spaces. The Dimensions of Urban. Design, 2nd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Hajmirsadeghi, R.S.; Shamsuddin, S.; Lamit, H.; Foroughi, A. Design’s factors influencing social interaction in public squares. Eur. Online J. Nat. Soc. Sci. 2013, 2, 556–564. [Google Scholar]
- Whyte, W.H. The Social Life of Small Urban. Spaces; Project for Public Spaces: New York, NY, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Gehl, L.; Svarre, B. How to Study Public Life; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Gehl, J. Life between Buildings: Using Public Space; Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York, NY, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Cohen, D.A.; McKenzie, T.L.; Sehga, A.; Williamson, S.; Golinelli, D.; Lurie, N. Contribution of public parks to physical activity. Am. J. Public Health 2007, 97, 509–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, J.; Ruggeri, K.; Steemers, K.; Huppert, F. Lively social space, well-being activity, and urban design: findings from a low-cost community-led public space intervention. Environ. Behav. 2017, 49, 685–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mantey, D.; Sudra, P. Types of suburbs in post-socialist Poland and their potential for creating public spaces. Cities 2019, 88, 209–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolańska, T. Leksykon. Sport Dla Wszystkich—Rekreacja Ruchowa [Lexicon. Sport for Everyone–Physical Recreation]; Wydawnictwo AWF: Warsaw, Poland, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Moore, R.; Cosco, N. What makes a park inclusive and universally designed? A multi-method approach. In Open Space: People space; Thompson, C.W., Travlou, P., Eds.; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2007; pp. 85–110. [Google Scholar]
- Goličnik-Marušić, B.; Marušić, D. Behavioural maps and GIS in place evaluation and design. In Application of Geographic Information Systems; Alam, B.M., Ed.; IntechOpen Limited: London, UK, 2012; pp. 113–138. [Google Scholar]
- Knox, P.; Pinch, S. Urban. Social Geography; Pearson Prentice Hall: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Kępkowicz, A.; Mantey, D.; Lipińska, H.; Wańkowicz, W. Club landscape as a manifestation of substitutive public spaces in suburbs. Archit. Kraj. 2014, 3, 56–71. [Google Scholar]
- Kellett, J.; Rofe, M.W. Creating Active Communities: How can Open and Public Spaces in Urban and Suburban Environments Support Active Living? A Literature Review; Report by the Institute for Sustainable Systems and Technologies; University of South Australia to SA Active Living Coalition: Adelaide, Australia, 2009; Available online: https://www.healthyactivebydesign.com.au/images/uploads/Creating_Active_Communities_electronic_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 8 July 2020).
- Abdul Malek, N.; Mariapan, M.; Shariff, M.K.M. The making of a quality neighbourhood park: A path model approach. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 49, 202–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Worpole, K.; Knox, K. The Social Value of Public Spaces. Available online: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/social-value-public-spaces (accessed on 21 July 2020).
- Franck, K.; Paxson, L. Women and urban public space. In Public Places and Spaces. Human Behavior and Environment. Advances in Theory and Research; Altman, I., Zube, E.H., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA USA, 1989; Volume 10, pp. 121–146. [Google Scholar]
- Stodolska, M.; Shinew, K.J.; Acevedo, J.C.; Izenstark, C. Perceptions of urban parks as havens and contested terrains by mexican-americans in chicago neighborhoods. Leis. Sci. 2011, 33, 103–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehta, V. The continued quest to assess public space. J. Urban Des. 2019, 24, 365–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Model | Criteria of Publicness |
---|---|
”Tri-axial” model of Németh and Schmidt [11] | ownership, management, uses/users |
”Cobweb” model of Van Melik, Van Aalst, and Van Weesep [15] | criteria of secured public space: surveillance, restraints on loitering, regulation; criteria of themed public space: events, funshopping, pavement cafés |
”Spider” diagram of the Spaceshaper by The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) [16] | access, use, other people, maintenance, environment, design and appearance, community, you |
”Star” model of Varna and Tiesdell [17] | ownership, control, civility, animation, physical configuration |
‘OMAI’* model of Langstraat and Van Melik [18] | ownership, management, accessibility, inclusiveness |
Place diagram of Project for Public Spaces (PPS) [19] | sociability, access and linkages, comfort and image, uses and activities |
Public space index (PSI) by Mehta [21] | inclusiveness, meaningful activities, safety, comfort, pleasurability |
Public space experiential quality index (PSEQI) by Zamanifard et al. [22] | comfort, diversity and vitality, image and likeability, inclusiveness |
The Publicness Evaluation Model (PEM) by Lopes et al. [23] | urban life, physical design, human connection, management |
Dimensions | Indicators | Scale | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 Low Level of Publicness | 2 | 3 | 4 High Level of Publicness | ||
Diversity (D) | IU Intended users a | users with strictly defined needs (e.g., religious) or specific recreational preferences (e.g., professional skateboarding) | mainly children, but also their carers | different age groups (older children and youth, working adults, seniors) except for small children | everyone, regardless of age and recreation preferences |
DU Diversity of uses | equipment for one type of intended activity; no space to take up spontaneous behavior; no secluded corners | equipment for one type of intended activity; the space for spontaneous behavior, or the presence of secluded corners | equipment for two or more types of intended activities that significantly differentiate users in terms of age or recreational preferences; no space to take up spontaneous behavior; no secluded corners | equipment for two or more types of intended activities that significantly differentiate users in terms of age or recreational preferences; space for spontaneous behavior, or the presence of secluded corners | |
Management (M) | ME Managing entity | 1) fragments of the space leased to private sector, or 2) space belonging to the church that operates like a private owner | space formally belonging to the municipality, but appropriated (used and maintained) by a narrow group of users | space managed and maintained by public service providers (nongovernmental organizations, cultural institutions, schools, railways) | space managed and maintained by the municipality |
C Form of control | space supervised by the owner, manager, or security guard | visible regulations of using the space that entitle you to reprimand someone who breaks the rules or ask them to leave the space | 1) only fragments of the space covered by the regulations of use (those equipped with recreational facilities or private subspaces), or 2) blurred/destroyed boards with regulations of using the space, or 3) no regulations, but visible information about monitoring | 1) no control, or 2) hidden monitoring cameras | |
Accessibility (A) | TLA Time limits in access | available to the public at selected times of the day; at least half of the space gives priority to organized, previously scheduled groups | available to the public at selected times of the day | available all day, but closed at night or after dark | unlimited access at any time of the day or night |
L Location b | space at some distance from residential building and nodes of activityc, located somewhere “off-the-beaten-track” | 1) space at some distance from nodes of activityc (at least 500 m), deprived of safe pedestrian access, or 2) space at the edge of the suburb | space at some distance from nodes of activityc and not in the highest concentration of houses, but, with safe pedestrian access | space nearby a node of activityc with safe pedestrian access |
Dimensions | Indicators | Scale | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 Low Utility Value | 2 | 3 | 4 High Utility Value | ||
Vitality (V) | NP Number of people who appeared in a given space | on average up to 5 people on a working day | on average 6–20 people on a working day | on average 21–40 people on a working day | on average more than 40 people on a working day |
IU Intensity of use | low intensity of use; there are visits when nobody appears in a given space; intensive use results from a very specific situation | place in use during every visit but never with high intensity (most of the benches, facilities, and spaces are not used) | place used intensively during one visit (most of the benches, facilities, and spaces are used); there are visits when no users are present | place in use during every visit; most of the benches, facilities, and spaces are used during at least one visit | |
Integration (I) | HU Heterogeneity of users a | representatives of one gender or one age group predominate (≥80%) | users represent at least two age groups; no group predominates (≤80%); representatives of at least one age group are missing | users represent different age groups; no group predominates (≤80%); there is no visit during which all groups would meet | users represent different age groups, including senior citizens; representatives of all age groups meet at least during one visit |
IG Integration in groups | predominance of lone users (≥50%) | predominance of people forming two-person groups or slightly larger family groups (≥50%) | predominance of people forming multiperson groups representing more than one family (≥50%), among which organized groups predominate (≥80%), i.e., groups under the care of a teacher, event leader, or animator | predominance of people forming multiperson groups representing more than one family (≥50%), among which nonorganized groups predominate (≥80%), or the proportion of multiperson nonorganized groups and family groups is similar (40%–50%) | |
Activity (A) | TB Type of behavior | predominance of necessary behaviors (transit, shopping, waiting for a train) (≥70%) or users who stand (≥50%) | recreational behaviors almost exclusively; transit accounts for not more than 5% | all kinds of behaviors, including transit above 5%; one kind of recreational behavior predominates: physical activity or passive leisure (≥80%) | all kinds of behaviors, both passive leisure and physical activity account for less than 80% |
TC Type of contact | predominance of accidental or short-lasting contacts or persons who do not seek contact with others | intragroup contacts dominate; if there is more than one group, groups ignore one another, or it is impossible to establish eye contact with all groups | besides contacts within groups, most groups maintain longer-lasting eye contact with one another (mutual observation); eye contact can result from the movement of the groups; groups tend not to mix | besides contacts within groups, some groups establish verbal contact with each other; some groups move and mix; it happens that most users visually form one group |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Mantey, D.; Kępkowicz, A. Models of Community-Friendly Recreational Public Space in Warsaw Suburbs. Methodological Approach. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6764. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176764
Mantey D, Kępkowicz A. Models of Community-Friendly Recreational Public Space in Warsaw Suburbs. Methodological Approach. Sustainability. 2020; 12(17):6764. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176764
Chicago/Turabian StyleMantey, Dorota, and Agnieszka Kępkowicz. 2020. "Models of Community-Friendly Recreational Public Space in Warsaw Suburbs. Methodological Approach" Sustainability 12, no. 17: 6764. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176764