Public space quality evaluation: prerequisite for public space management

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Cover image: Schouwburgplein in Rotterdam. Picture by Eric Fecken
PDF
Published: May 31, 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.32891/jps.v4i1.667
Keywords:
public spaces quality Indian cities attributes evaluation management

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Seema Praliya
Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
Pushplata Garg
Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee

Abstract

Public spaces are an important part of cities as they contribute to improvements in liveability, environmental quality and sustainability. Despite these conditions of public spaces in cities in developing countries like India, are far from desirable in terms of quantity as well as quality.  Though considerable research has been done on successful public open spaces to identify quality attributes/criteria and their evaluation in the context of developed countries, much of this has been primarily aimed at providing design guidelines/solutions. Besides, the  role of proper management in ensuring quality and overall success of public spaces has also been assessed. However, not much research has been done in this regard in Indian context, where there is a considerable difference between the norms and provision of public spaces; the usage of public spaces and their quality from those in developed/rich countries This demands an in-depth understanding of the problems and issues surrounding public spaces, the criteria for quality in public spaces, and development of an evaluation framework, so that appropriate management strategies can be framed for their improvement.


In view of the above, the study investigates public spaces in the context of three Indian cities and identifies the quality attributes/criteria based on a survey of users’ opinion and observational studies of selected public spaces. Further, a framework for the evaluation of the quality of public spaces employing the Public Space Quality Index (PSQI), has been developed and applied in selected public spaces. Using the above methodology, public spaces in a city with different performance levels, and factors responsible for the same can be identified, which can then become the basis for formulating appropriate management strategies for their improvement and comparing performances of public spaces in specific areas of a city/different cities to encourage competitiveness among cities to improve the quality of their public realm.

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

How to Cite
Praliya, S. and Garg, P. (2019) “Public space quality evaluation: prerequisite for public space management”, The Journal of Public Space, 4(1), pp. 93–126. doi: 10.32891/jps.v4i1.667.
Issue
Vol. 4 No. 1 (2019)
Section
Systems

The Authors retain copyright for articles published in The Journal of Public Space, with first publication rights granted to the journal.
Articles in this journal are published under the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial Licence (CC-BY-NC) - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
You are free to:
• Share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
• Adapt - remix, transform, and build upon the material
Under the following terms:
• Attribution - You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
• NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.

 

Author Biographies

Seema Praliya, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee

Seema Praliya is an architect, and she has completed her Bachelors in Architecture (B-Arch) and Masters in Building Engineering and Management (M.B.E.M) from the School of Planning and Architecture (S.P.A.) in Delhi, India, in 2007 and 2009 respectively. She has work experience of two years, working as an architect and project manager with reputed project management firms; Synergy Property Development Pvt. Ltd, Cushman and Wakefield and IREO Management Pvt. Ltd. Currently she is pursuing her Ph.D from Department of Architecture and Planning at Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee (IITR) and has submitted her thesis on topic “Strategies for Successful Public Spaces of Indian Cities – A Management Perspective” for the award of degree.

Pushplata Garg, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee

Pushplata is Professor and former Head in the Department of Architecture and Planning at the Indian Institute of Roorkee, India. Currently she is also the Chairperson of All India Board of Architecture (AICTE). She is an architect, urban designer with Ph.D on Urban Design Matrix for Hill Towns. She has an academic experience of thirty six years at Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, during which she has developed courses on Urban Public Spaces, Urban Design and Research in Architecture, and guided number of doctoral and graduate research. She is a member of several academic and research committees in the country.

References

Baycan-Levent, T., Nijkamp, P. (2008) “7 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) in Urban Planning”, Studies in Regional Science, 38:2, 351-371.

Beer, A. R., Delshammar, T., & Schildwacht, P. (2003). A changing understanding of the role of green space in high-density housing: A European perspective. Built Environment, 29(2), 132-143.

Cackowski, J. M., &Nasar, J. L. (2003). The restorative effects of roadside vegetation implications for automobile driver anger and frustration. Environment and Behaviour, 35(6), 736-751.

Carmona, M., & De Magalhaes, C. (2006). Public space management: present and potential. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 49(1), 75-99.

Carmona, M. (2010). Contemporary public space, part two: classification. Journal of Urban Design, 15(2), 157-173.
Carr, S. (1992). Public space. Cambridge University Press.

Celik, Z., Favro, D., & Ingersoll, R. (1996). Streets: critical perspectives on public space. Univ of California Press.
Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and urban planning, 68(1), 129-138.

Dempsey, N., & Burton, M. (2012). Defining place-keeping: The long-term management of public spaces. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11(1), 11-20.

De Sousa, C. A. (2003). Turning brownfields into green space in the City of Toronto. Landscape and urban planning, 62(4), 181-198.

Emmanuel, R. (1997). Urban vegetational change as an indicator of demographic trends in cities: the case of Detroit. Environment and Planning B, 24, 415-426.

Ewing, R., & Clemente, O. (2013). Measuring urban design: Metrics for livable places. Island Press.

Ewing, R., & Handy, S. (2009). Measuring the unmeasurable: urban design qualities related to walkability. Journal of Urban design, 14(1), 65-84.

Forsyth, A., Musacchio, L., & Fitzgerald, F. (2005). Designing small parks: a manual for addressing social and ecological concerns. John Wiley & Sons.

Fyfe, N. (1998). Images of the Street. London and New York: Routledge.

Gehl, J. (1987). Life between Buildings. New York: Van Nostrand-Reinhold.

Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G. W. (1991). Restorative effects of natural environment experiences. Environment and behaviour, 23(1), 3-26.

Iverson, L. R., & Cook, E. A. (2000). Urban forests cover of the Chicago region and its relation to household density and income. Urban Ecosystems, 4(2), 105-124.

Jacob, A. (1993). Great streets. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA.

Jim, C. Y. (2004). Green-space preservation and allocation for sustainable greening of compact cities. Cities, 21(4), 311-320.

Jacobs, J. (1992). The death and life of great American cities. 1961. New York: Vintage.

Kaplan, R. (2001). The nature of the view from home psychological benefits. Environment and behaviour, 33(4), 507-542

Keil, R. (2003). Urban Political Ecology. Urban Geography, 24(8), 723-738.

Korpela, K. M., Hartig, T., Kaiser, F. G., & Fuhrer, U. (2001). Restorative experience and self-regulation in favourite places. Environment and behaviour, 33(4), 572-589.

Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Environment and crime in the inner city does vegetation reduce crime?. Environment and behaviour, 33(3), 343-367.

Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Aggression and violence in the inner city effects of environment via mental fatigue. Environment and behavior,33(4), 543-571.

Loukaitou-Sideris, A., &Ehrenfeucht, R. (2009). Sidewalks: Conflict and negotiation over public space. MIT Press.

Low, S. M. (2010). On the plaza: The politics of public space and culture. University of Texas Press.

Low, S., & Smith, N. (Eds.). (2013). The politics of public space. Routledge.

Luttik, J. (2000). The value of trees, water and open space as reflected by house prices in the Netherlands. Landscape and urban planning, 48(3), 161-167.

Madanipour, A. (1996). Design of urban space: An inquiry into a socio-spatial process. John Wiley & Son Ltd.

Madanipour, A. (1999). Why are the design and development of public spaces significant for cities? Environment and Planning B, 26(6), 879-892.

Marcus, C. C., & Francis, C. (Eds.). (1997). People places: Design guidelines for urban open space. John Wiley & Sons.

Mehta, V. (2013). The street: a quintessential social public space. Routledge.

Morancho, A. B. (2003). A hedonic valuation of urban green areas. Landscape and urban planning, 66(1), 35-41.

Moudon, A. V. (Ed.). (1987). Public streets for public use. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Pauleit, S., Slinn, P., Handley, J., & Lindley, S. (2003). Promoting the Natural Green structure of Towns and Cities: English Nature's" Accessible Natural Green space Standards" Model. Built Environment (1978- ), 157-170.

Praliya, S, Pushplata, 2012. Issues of Public Spaces in Small Cities in India: Case study Roorkee. Fourth IJAS Conference At Cambridge, USA, 27 - 31May 2012.

Praliya, S., Pushplata, 2016. Public Open Spaces in Indian Small Cities: A case of Roorkee. SPACE, 20 (3-4), pp.57-70.

Project for Public Spaces (Ed.). (2000). How to turn a place around: a handbook for creating successful public spaces. Project for Public Spaces Incorporated.

Robbins, P., Polderman, A., &Birkenholtz, T. (2001). Lawns and toxins: an ecology of the city. Cities, 18(6), 369-380.

Rodenburg, C., Baycan-Levent, T., van Leeuwen, E., &Nijkamp, P. (2001). Urban economic indicators for green development in cities. Greener management International, 2001(36), 104-119.

Rossman, B. B., &Ulehla, Z. J. (1977). Psychological Reward Values Associated with Wilderness Use A Functional-Reinforcement Approach. Environment and Behaviour, 9(1), 41-66.

Smith, T., Nelischer, M., & Perkins, N. (1997). Quality of an urban community: a framework for understanding the relationship between quality and physical form. Landscape and Urban Planning, 39(2), 229-241.

Stanford, A. (1978). On Streets. Cambrigde, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Swanwick, C., Dunnett, N., & Woolley, H. (2003). Nature, role and value of green space in towns and cities: An overview. Built Environment, 29(2), 94-106.

Swyngedouw, E., &Heynen, N. C. (2010). Urban political ecology, justice and the politics of scale. The Blackwell City Reader, 79.

Taylor, A. F., Wiley, A., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (1998). Growing up in the inner city green spaces as places to grow. Environment and Behaviour, 30(1), 3-27.

Ulrich, R. S. (1981). Natural versus urban scenes some psychophysiological effects. Environment and behaviour, 13(5), 523-556.

Ulrich, R. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery. Science, 224(4647), 224-225.

Whyte, W. H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces.