Assessment of User Perception on Public and Private Spaces within Urban Context
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11113/ijbes.v9.n2.938Keywords:
Urban Public Space, User Perception, Ownership, Access ControlsAbstract
Public spaces are vital features in the urban context which offers inclusive environment for everyone in the society. Traditionally, urban public spaces (UPS) were developed by the government intended for places of interaction with the aims of social welfare and public health. In the recent past, private sector involvement in the public space provision was visible with significant changes in the form and functions influenced by market-based motives. Although commercialization or privatization aspects of public space was often debated, the user perception of the use of public spaces from ownership and access control aspects were less studied in the context of developing countries. This study aimed at identifying the attributes for which people differentiate and experience in four public spaces owned and operated by the government and private sector in the city of Colombo, Sri Lanka. The study used 35 semi-structured interviews and 119 online questionnaire surveys to identify the user defined features of ownership and access control for public space use. The results revealed that government owned and operated spaces were preferred by the users due to easy access and freedom for activities while privately owned spaces were preferred due to better infrastructure, safety, and security within. Also, each public space offered benefits to specific user profile regardless its ownership or access controls. However, the freedom and openness provided by government owned spaces were identified as important in comparison with the restrictions imposed by private sector operated public spaces. This study provides key insights for urban planners and policy makers to identify the role of private sector in the provision of effective urban spaces in the fast-growing cities as well as possible pitfalls and negative externalities created by unregulated spaces
References
Aguila, M. D., Ghavampour, E., & Vale, B. (2019). Theory of Place in Public Space. Urban Planning, 249-259.
Bandara, V., de Silva, V., & Navarathna, D. B. (2013). Perception of “publicness” of the public spaces with special reference to public parks in colombo and sri jayewardenapura. Cities, People Places, 1-25.
Bandara, V., Silva, V. D., & Navarathna, D. (2013) . Perception of “publicness” of the public spaces with special reference to public parks in colombo and sri jayewardenapura. Cities, People Places, 1-25.
Byers, J. (1998). The Privatization of Downtown Public Space: The Emerging Grade-Separated City in North America. Journal of planning education and knowledge, 189-205.
CABE. (2007). Spaceshaper A user’s guide. London: The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment.
Carmona, M. (2018). Principles for Public Space Design, Planning to Do Better. Urban Design International, 47-59.
Carmona, M., Magalhães, C. d., & Hammond, L. (2008). Public Space- The management dimension. New York: Taylor & Francis e-Library.
Chandrasekera, T. (2015). Rejuvenating Dysfunctional Public Spaces Using Augmented Reality Systems (ARS). American Journal of Mobile Systems, Applications and Services, 1: 64-76.
Crouch, D. (2006). Geographies of leisure. A handbook of leisure studies, 125-139.
Daily News. (2020). Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd. Retrieved from www.dailynews.lk: http://www.dailynews.lk/2020/07/08/law-order/222677/five-suspects-remanded-harassing-female-russian-tourist Access Date: October 12, 2021
Deutsche, R. (1992). Art and public space: Questions of democracy. Social Text, 33: 34-53.
Franck, K., & Paxson, L. (1989). Women and urban public space. Public places and spaces, 121-146.
Gehl, J. (1971). Life between buildings: using public space. Island press.
Glover, T., & Burton, T. (1998). A model of alternative forms of public leisure services delivery. Leisure management: Issues and applications, 139-155.
Harvey, K., & Martin, S. (1973). Ephemeral active regions 32: 389-402.
Henry, S. (2008). Convivial urban spaces: creating effective public places. London: Earthscan.
Ho, D. C., Lai, L. W., & Wang, A. (2021). The effects of ‘publicness’ and quality of publicly accessible open space upon user satisfaction. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 48(4): 861-879.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Vintage.
Jalaladdini, S., & Oktay, D. (2012). Urban Public Spaces and Vitality: A Socio-Spatial Analysis in the Streets of Cypriot Towns. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 35: 664-674. Famagusta: Elsevier.
Johnson, A., & Glover, T. (2013). Understanding Urban Public Space. Leisure Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, 190-197.
Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and behavior, 19(1): 3-32.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of environmental psychology, 15(3): 169-182.
Karunananda, S., Rajapakse, A., & Rathnayaka, R. (2018, February 1). Ascertaining the Sense of Safety in Urban Neighborhood Streets: The case of Kotahena, Sri Lanka. Preprints, 1-17. doi:doi:10.20944/preprints201801.0282.v1
Kettaf, F., & Moscarelli, F. (2004). Understanding Public Space Concepts as Key Elements of Sustainable Urban Design. Sustainable Architecture and Urban Development, 229-244.
Kilian, T. (1997). Public and Private, Power and Space. Rowman & Littlefield, 1997.
Ling, G. H. T., Ho, C. S., Tsau, K. Y., & Cheng, C. T. (2019). Interrelationships between Public Open Space, Common Pool Resources, Publicness Levels and Commons Dilemmas: A Different Perspective in Urban Planning. International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability, 6(2): 13-21.
Leclercq, E., Pojani, D., & Bueren, E. V. (2020). Is public space privatization always bad for the public? Mixed evidence from. Elsevier, 1-11.
Lefebvre, H. (1978). De l'état (Vol. 4). Paris: Union générale d'éditions.
Lefebvre, H., & Nicholson-Smith, D. (1991). The production of space (Vol. 142). Blackwell.
Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city (Vol. 11). MIT press.
Mandeli, K. (2019). Public space and the challenge of urban transformation in cities of emerging economies: Jeddah case study. Elsevier, 1-11.
Mantey, D., & Kępkowicz, A. (2018). Types of public spaces: The polish contribution to the discussion of suburban public space. The Professional Geographer, 70(4), 633-654.
Minton, A. (2006). The privatisation of public space. London, UK: The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
Mitchell, D. (1995). The end of public space? People's Park, definitions of the public, and democracy. Annals of the association of american geographers, 85(1), 108-133.
Nambuge, G. S., Peiris, M. T., & Kalugalla, K. G. (2020). Assessment of Urban Public Spaces within Shopping Malls: Youth Perspective in the City of Colombo. International Journal of Real Estate Studies, 14(2): 28-38.
Németh, J., & Schmidt, S. (2011). The privatization of public space: modeling and measuring. Environment and Planning: Planning and Design, 38, 5-23.
Oldenburg, R. (1999). The great good place: Cafes, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community. New York: Da Capo Press.
Project for Public Spaces. (2000). How to turn a place around: a handbook for creating successful public spaces. New York: Project for Public Spaces Incorporated.
Pussella, P. (2017). Is Colombo City, Sri Lanka Secured for Urban Green Space Standards? Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 1789-1799. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1503_17891799
Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. 67. London: Pion.
Roberts, P., & Sykes, H. (1999). Urban regeneration: a handbook. London: Sage Publications.
Schmidt, S., & Németh, J. (2010). Space, Place and the City: Emerging Research on Public. Journal of Urban Design, 15: 453-457.
Sennet, R. (1974). The Fall of Public Man . New York: WW Norton & Company.
Slack, T. (1999). Changing boundaries and new management implications for leisure organizations. Leisure studies: Prospects for the 21st century, 399-434.
Torbati, H. E. (2018). The role of environmental graphic in the identification of urban public spaces. Civil Engineering Journal, 4(8): 1949-1954.
Ujang, N. (2012). Place Attachment and Continuity of Urban Place Identity. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 156-168.
Varna, G., & Tiesdell, S. (2010). Assessing the publicness of public space: The star model of publicness. Journal of Urban Design, 15(4): 575-598.
Walzer, M. (2006). Public space-pleasures and costs of urbanity. Dissent, 33(4): 470-475.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright of articles that appear in International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability belongs exclusively to Penerbit Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (Penerbit UTM Press). This copyright covers the rights to reproduce the article, including reprints, electronic reproductions or any other reproductions of similar nature.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- This Journal applies Creative Commons Licenses of CC-BY-NC-SA
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
