24
Anya Diamond
Does Good Design Promote Use of Public Space?
USP 187 Senior Research Project
Anya Diamond
February 2014
TA: Kathryn Dove
University of California, San Diego
Abstract:
Recent growth in the field of environmental psychology is producing innovative inquiry into how the built and natural environment contributes to the psychology and behavior of its human users. As a public university, UCSD needs gathering spaces that can be used effectively by staff, students, and faculty seeking to collaborate together on academic ventures or to increase their social capital. Through observation, this study investigates whether public gathering spaces at UCSD which have design features that would predict high levels of use of the space, actually influence human behavior and lead to increased activity in those locations. This study found that on the whole, users of the best-designed spaces dramatically outnumbered the users of the spaces with poorest design. However, food provision correlates exactly to heavy space usage. This fact, along with other field observations on usage patterns, lead to the conclusion that more than the presence of specific design features, the most heavily used public spaces are those with design responsive to users’ needs. This study concludes that collaborative “placemaking” processes would be valuable at UCSD to simultaneously create useful public spaces and grow public life on campus.
Keywords: environmental psychology, human-centered design, institutional design, UCSD master planning
Introduction:
My research question is “How have urban design principles shown to promote use of public space been applied in the construction of public gathering spaces at UCSD, and how successful are they?” The research took part in two phases: phase one consisted of mapping UCSD’s main gathering spaces according to the metric I developed based on urban design elements which are theorized to promote social interaction. Phase two was to measure the actual social life in the spaces where theory would predict high and low amounts of usage. UCSD was selected as the case for this study because of the campus’s architectural tradition. Design and construction of the main campus began in the 1960’s, and the modernist aesthetic of that period is evident in the design of both older and newer campus buildings. Modernist architecture, with its emphasis on stark, imposing structures and minimalist aesthetics, can produce an alienating built environment. In this study I examine whether public spaces have been created at UCSD whose design would mitigate this alienating effect by promoting lively public life on campus, and whether these spaces are used by the members of the campus community.
Good design is proposed to create a variety of positive outcomes for users, such as increased learning in schools, improved physical health, and the ability to create a strong sense of community in neighborhoods (Temple 2008, Ulrich 1984, Pendola and Gen 2008). But in an era of tight budgets, it is important to know whether investing in well-designed spaces actually creates any measurable return. Would a concrete patio with a few lawn chairs and card tables see as much traffic as a well-designed plaza in the same location, with thoughtful seating, protection from the elements, and trees? Especially in public higher education, where public-sector funding is rapidly shrinking, it is important to have data on what goods and services – design efforts included – merit investment.
To that end, this study seeks to map and measure whether public gathering spaces built according to design principles that predict high levels of public use actually deliver the results that conform to theory. I have chosen to measure use of public spaces as an approximator of sense of community. My original research design sought to measure the success of plaza designs that theoretically should produce a heightened sense of community among its users. However, though there are many theories about what designs of physical space promote community, there is little empirically tested evidence to prove the theoretical linkages. There is, conversely, a robust literature surrounding design elements that promote use of public spaces. Where sense of community is a psychological concept founded on individuals’ feelings about a place and the people who inhabit it, human presence in public space is a behavioral phenomenon that can be measured clearly and objectively (Pendola and Gen 2008, 548).
There is a concept called “neighboring” which measures the quantity of social interactions in a locale. Much of the community psychology literature argues that sense of community is founded on the quality of social interactions that take place (Pendola and Gen 2008). Though prior research has disproven that a high quantity of social interactions correlates to a strong sense of community, it is a key assumption of this study that quality social interactions need somewhere to take place, and that the design of those places may be important to the number and type of interactions that occur. I expect to see larger numbers of people present in the locations with design features amenable to human presence than in the spaces without them.
Literature Review
What is environmental psychology?
My research falls under the discipline of environmental psychology – the study of how environmental cues impact human emotions and behavior. Environmental psychology measures how psychological factors such as “mood, behavior, productivity, effectiveness, and happiness” change in response to the built and natural environments (Moses 2012, 1; “About”). This reveals why environmental psychology is such a complex field – because the experience and study of psychological behavior and emotion can be highly subjective, dependent on a multitude of factors (Burns 2000). Thus, academics concerned with environmental psychology are quick to point out how the subjectivity of human experience necessarily makes measuring the quality of that experience as it relates to the built environment a complicated field of study (DeBotton 2006, Gallagher 1993).
Because of this complexity, studies of the built environment and its impact on human behavior have often concentrated on outcomes that are easier to measure quantitatively. Many prior studies have measured health benefits of design, such as the effect of hospital rooms that have windows with views positively impacting patient recovery times (Ulrich 1984). Studies have also been done in other institutional settings such as university dorms, where, for example, actual use of space versus intended use of space has been analyzed (Deasy 1985).
However, environmental psychology, and the study of harder-to-quantify effects of the environment on human behavior, is gaining recognition as an important discipline in terms of design of the built environment. In December 2012, the American Institute of Architects’ magazine featured environmental psychology as:
“The field [that] calls for architects to look though another lens, and examine more strategically the inner lives of the people who use their buildings. “The goals are to integrate environmental factors such as HVAC, illumination, color, art, and ergonomics into the unconscious minds, so that one’s perception is positive; which in turn shall motivate one to be more effective in academia, in the community, and in the workforce” ” (Moises 2012, 1).
Understanding how design elements which have measurable impacts on human behavior are used in the built environment is crucial to evaluating and improving the quality of design. But because studying subjective emotional responses to the environment such as sense of community is still an emerging field, there is not agreement on trusted methodological approaches to measure those responses. Therefore, my study will adhere to the convention of measuring an observable human behavior, presence in a space. Hopefully, this study’s evidence of the ways design influences behavior provides justification for future, more nuanced, studies measuring the impact of design on internal psychological processes. In the sections below, I describe the qualities of the built environment that have the strongest theoretical foundation for creating an impact on human behavior.
Key design features that impact perception of place
Design and planning professionals have identified a number of conditions of physical place that influence human psychology. These elements are generally agreed on as important characteristics of a physical location, meaning that there is agreement in the literature that they provoke significant psychological response (Whyte 1980, Deasy 1985, Horayangkura 2012). However, there is no consensus regarding which of these elements produce which responses – it is widely accepted that a multitude of factors influence our emotions and behavior at any one time, and that isolating the discrete impacts of one element of the built environment is a difficult, if not impossible, task (Ewing 2009). Below, I have described those major elements of urban design generally agreed to have significant impacts on human experience of a place.
a) Basic comfort and safety concerns of the environment
Comfort and safety are frequently are identified in the literature as essential to human experience of place (Ewing 2009, Whyte 1980, Deasy 1985, Horayangkura 2012). Comfort describes both emotional and physical comfort. Places are emotionally comfortable when they do not induce excessive stress; bright light, loud noises, bright colors, strong or unpleasant smells, and crowding are the principle environmental stressors (Deasy 1985, Gallagher 1993). The presence of any or all of these conditions makes being in a place a psychologically stressful experience. Basic protection from the elements and from extreme temperatures are the necessary attributes for physical comfort (Whyte 1980).
The subject of safety also deals with the basic requirements needed to avoid the stress of dangerous situations. Minimizing collision hazards, the presence of hazardous objects, and dangerous pathways such as steep or uneven stairways minimizes stress and creates usable spaces (Deasy 1985).
b) Wayfinding capability and location
The concept of wayfinding describes how one finds one’s way to and from a place. Wayfinding is comprised of both explicit instructions for locating a place – in the form of signs and useful symbols – as well as the visual cues we use when we approach a space. Signs can be used in a variety of ways – providing complexity to the streetscape, for example – but their most crucial function is to provide location instruction (Ewing 2009, Deasy 1985). The subtler visual cues used to identify a what a place is, whether we’ll be well-received there, and how to enter can be just as important as explicit signage in human wayfinding (Deasy 1985). The quality of information we receive about a place and its approach in our effort to spatially and psychically locate it determine how accessible we think the place is. Explicit signage and implicit environmental cues can facilitate entry into a space, or they can become barriers to access.
Location mainly describes convenience – how close is the space to major circulation routes? Does it provide a shortcut to or from places that people want to go? Is it close to places that people like to shop, stroll, go to work, or otherwise access in their daily lives (Deasy 1985, Ewing 2009)? Public spaces that are built to be used should be located near major thoroughfares, because this encourages usage and positive perceptions of the space (Deasy 1985). The central concept of this element is very straightforward: public space will be more heavily used when it is in a convenient location.
c) Amenities
What does a space offer? The amenities available and the convenience of the location in relation to what surrounds it represent other crucial aspects of human experience with place. “Amenities” is the catch-all term I am using for a variety of fixtures common in the urban landscape. Outdoor eating facilities, courtyard space, and park space are examples of amenities found in the literature (Ewing 2009). Seating is one factor that has been studied as a key amenity. William H. Whyte, in his landmark study of New York City plazas, found seating to be the greatest predictor of the use and frequency of use of Manhattan plaza space. Though sun exposure, food provision, and quantity of trees were found to be significant in measuring the quality of a plaza, seating was determined to be the most crucial factor in whether a plaza is a successful public space (Whyte 1980). Whyte goes on to describe how physically (armrests, backrests, seat shape) and socially (choice in who and where and how close you sit in relation to other people) comfortable seating is important, but that above all, “People tend to sit where there are places to sit” (Whyte 1980, 28). Whyte’s study is the most straightforward and conclusive that I have read in terms of how a single characteristic of a space influences human behavior.
None of these elements alone is a crucial determinant of human behavior, but I argue that together they can have important influence on our actions. The literature reviewed above provides the foundation for my research design, which is discussed in the next section.
Research Design and Methods
My research was conducted in two phases. First I mapped gathering spaces at UCSD according to whether theory predicts their design should encourage high or low levels of use, and then I observed the actual usage of a select number of the mapped spaces. Observation was a clear choice of method because of the nature of my question. I sought to discover how design impacts usage, so I had to get out into the field to observe the UCSD community using our public spaces.