Research Paper | Interaction: Effective Design of Public Spaces to Enhance Urban Happiness

Izmir University of Economics

INTERACTION: EFFECTIVE DESIGN OF PUBLIC SPACES TO ENHANCE URBAN HAPPINESS

Ayça Özüm Sevinç

January 2020

INTERACTION: EFFECTIVE DESIGN OF PUBLIC SPACES TO ENHANCE URBAN HAPPINESS By

Ayça Özüm Sevinç

A Research Paper submitted to the Faculty of Fine Arts and Design, Izmir University of Economics

Department of Architecture In partial fulfilment of the requirements of ARCH 472 Advanced Academic Research and Writing

2020

ii

Interaction: Effective Design of Public Spaces to Enhance Urban Happiness

By Ayça Özüm Sevinç

Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Aslı Ceylan Öner Architecture

January 2020, 50 pages

ABSTRACT The paper aims to purpose effective design solutions of public spaces in order to enhance psychological well-being of citizens, in other words “urban happiness”, using social interaction as a criterion. The methodology in this research is based on understanding how people think of the concept of happiness in public spaces. To measure this, a qualitative methodology is used by designing an online survey based with the participation of 535 respondents on open and closed questions.

Keywords: urban happiness, psychological well-being, parks, squares, public space design

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Effective Design of Public Spaces to Enhance Urban Happiness..................................................... ii Abstract………………………………………………………………...........................................iii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................... iv List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................... v List of Graphs .................................................................................................................................... vi Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Importance of Public Space Design and Urban Happiness ................................................. 1 Chapter 2 PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING OF CITIZENS AND PUBLIC SPACE .............. 2 2.1. Psychological Well-being and Urban Happiness ................................................................. 2 2.2. Public Space .......................................................................................................................... 4 2.2.1. Effective Design for Well-being and Use of Public Spaces ...……………………...5 2.3. Concluding ............................................................................................................................ 6 Chapter 3 RESEARCH ...................................................................................................................... 7 3.1. Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 7 3.2. Survey Result......................................................................................................................... 7 3.2.1. Demographic Questions ...……………………………………………………….....8 3.2.1.1. Profile of the Respondents …..……………………………………………...16 3.2.2. Questions about Public Spaces..…………………………………………………...16 3.2.3. Questions about Squares..………………………………………………….............23 3.2.4. Questions about Urban Parks...…………………………………………….............27 Chapter 4 CONCLUSION...……………………………………………………………………...30 4.1. Summary............................................................................................................................ ..30 4.2. Discussion of Findings ........................................................................................................ 31 REFERENCE LIST .......................................................................................................................... 34 APPENDIX - Survey Questions ...................................................................................................... 36

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Number

Page

Figure 1. Public space with greenery and activity node (LDA Design Website) ............ 17 Figure 2. Public space with dominantly natural elements (ny.curbed.com) .................... 17 Figure 3. Public space with activity nodes (earthtrakkers.com) ....................................... 17 Figure 4. Public space with dominantly paved elements (Arkitera Website) .................. 17 Figure 5. Stairs as transmutable sitting opportunity (depositphotos.com) ....................... 19 Figure 6. Movable sitting elements (smartcitiesdive.com) ............................................... 19 Figure 7. Fixed sitting elements (Toronto Public Consultation Unit- Flickr) .................. 19 Figure 8. Natural sitting opportunities (pixabay.com) ...................................................... 19

LIST OF GRAPHS

Number

Page

Graph 1. Age Ranges (Google Forms) ................................................................................ 8 Graph 2. Gender Identities (Google Forms) ....................................................................... 9 Graph 3. Comparison of Residence as Turkey and Abroad ............................................... 9 Graph 4. Comparison of Residence as cities in Turkey .................................................... 10 Graph 5. Comparison of Residence as cities abroad......................................................... 10 Graph 6. Working Status (Google Forms) ........................................................................ 11 Graph 7. Comparison of Occupation as occupational groups .......................................... 11 Graph 8. Disability Status (Google Forms)....................................................................... 12 Graph 9. Status of Having a Child (Google Forms) ......................................................... 13 Graph 10. Comparison of Number of Children Respondents Have ................................. 13 Graph 11. Age Ranges of Children Respondents Have (Google Forms) ........................ 14 Graph 12. Gender Identities of Children Respondents Have (Google Forms) ................ 14 Graph 13. Disability Status of Children Respondents Have (Google Forms) ............... 15 Graph 14. Public Space Choice – with a company (Google Forms) .............................. 17 Graph 15. Public Space Choice - alone (Google Forms) ................................................. 18 Graph 16. Sitting arrangement choices (Google Forms) ................................................. 19 Graph 17. Comparison of choices for essential qualities in a public space ................... 20 Graph 18. Comparison of choices for annoying elements in public spaces................... 22 Graph 19. Frequency of Spending Time in a Public Space (Google Forms)................. 23 Graph 20. Comparison of the Main Reasons for visiting a square ................................. 24 Graph 21. Comparison of Reasons of Happiness in a square ......................................... 26 Graph 22. Comparison of the Main Reasons for visiting an urban park ........................ 28 Graph 23. Comparison of Reasons of Happiness in an urban park ................................ 29

vi

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1.

Importance of Public Space Design and Urban Happiness

The paper aims to purpose effective design solutions of public spaces in order to enhance psychological well-being of citizens using social interaction as a criterion. The research question emerged with the statement by Sarkis (2019) for the Venice Biennale 2020: “We need a new spatial contract. In the context of widening political divides and growing economic inequalities, we call on architects to imagine spaces in which we can generously live together: together as human beings who, despite our increasing individuality, yearn to connect with one another and with other species across digital and real space.” In this statement Sarkis questions how people from different backgrounds can live together. According to this statement, enhancing social interaction in the cities is the most effective solution. In this paper, public spaces as parks and squares are the focus of research due to their huge potential of being a meeting and sharing point, as well as their multifunctionality. Public spaces attract many people for social interaction and activity provided they offer a pleasant environment. As people from diverse backgrounds, we use public spaces for different activities, and we tend to be in the spaces in which we feel happy and safe. Therefore, the practice of designing public spaces can contribute to psychological well-being of the users with respect to their type of activity and they have a great impact on living together for people.

The thesis questions the ways that public spaces contribute to the psychological well-being of the users. Within this question, the thesis acknowledges the diverse backgrounds of the users regarding the type of activities they perform in public space. Psychological well-being is connected to the urban happiness concept, which is a growing literature in fields related to architecture and urban studies. The intended audience of this paper is architects, urban designers, planners, sociologists, psychologists and anyone responsible for designing public spaces. Contemporary cities accommodate many people with increased level of individuality and distinctness. Thus, the design of public spaces will be very important for future generations to build psychologically healthy urban environment. Aim of this paper is to bring questions in terms of how socially and psychologically strong urban spaces can be designed and created for a more in-depth approach of understanding design of public spaces.

1

The thesis clinches the argument by a broad literature review which is divided into two key topics: urban happiness and public space. Definitions of the terms according to several sources as well as qualitative and quantitative measures of the urban happiness are explained. In addition to that, arguments in relation to effects of interaction on psychological well-being is analyzed and examined.

Definition of the public space and effective design methods for public spaces are addressed, together with its possible activities and types of users. Main criterion is determined as social interaction together with sub criteria which are some design principles that can help to enhance psychological well-being of citizens, according to the answers by random selection of people to an online survey conducted for this research. The thesis is concluded with a summary of the outcomes and determined design principles for future public spaces.

CHAPTER 2 PHYSCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING OF CITIZENS AND PUBLIC SPACE

Regarding the literature of how urban happiness is related to use of public space, two topics are deemed important: psychological well-being of urban citizens and public space. In this context, public spaces are determined as squares and parks since they are substantially multi-functional spaces. To understand the factors that contribute to the psychological well-being of people using public space, the important issues will be to understand what public space is and how the design of efficient public spaces should be. In addition, we need to examine the activities that take place in squares and parks, the types of their users as well as the resulting urban happiness contributing to psychological well-being and its measures.

2.1.

Psychological Well-being and Urban Happiness

There are varied explanations of definition of psychological well-being on the literature.

According to the definition of Pringle (2018), urban happiness is a field of research dealing with urban landscapes that foster positive emotions in users and visitors. Sepe (2016) defines the term urban 2

happiness as a concept that gives people positive perception based on their interaction with each other and assures that users either stay there or would like to come back. Happiness of the citizens are highly related with the design of the public spaces which are the gathering space for all community as well as interactions in the built environment. Thus, architects and city planners should consider the key elements of urban design that can enhance human experience and facilitate the road towards human happiness and well-being (Qun 2017).

In the literature, there are both qualitative and quantitative measurement methods found for urban happiness. According to Habtour (2016) research rely on four main approaches for measuring happiness: neuroscience by measuring physiological responses to stimuli, psychology by surveying immediate happiness of people, psychology by surveying a person’s overall sense of fulfillment and happiness in life and economics by concept of utility that is an assumption that the more people get what they want, the happier they will be. In the latest survey done by Benita et al (2019), they practiced an empirical process to measure happiness by placing sensors on ten to thousand students from Singapore for one week to be able to capture their happy moments and take geospatial and environmental data throughout the country. Besides these quantitative collections of knowledge, there are also some attempts to collect the data from qualitative measurements. Sepe (2016) uses a five-phased method called ‘Happy Place Mapping’ that consist of steps in order: selection and definition of the study area, making three surveys concerning activities, perceptions and elements that contribute to the perception of happiness, questionnaire to the users of the site, analysis of cartography and construction of the map of happiness with the identification of spaces and features that give the perception of happiness to the people who use that place. Preffier (2016) clarified in her article “Planning for Happy Neighborhoods” that some studies search about people’s momentary subjective well-being and other studies are concerned about general happiness such as physical and emotional health, access to basic needs and quality of life. In both approaches, most common methods are observation, questionnaires and surveys.

In other respects, this concept could be understood as an individual concern, but it has great influence on public and political realm. Measuring happiness is essential for cities to be able to understand their success of managing cities. Policy makers are increasingly concerned with the subjective well-being of a society as a measure for its success (Leyden 2011). Along the same line, Aristotle stated that “the best form of government is that under which the body politic is happiest”.

3

Accordingly, it is relevant to state that, the success of the cities, in terms of easy transportation access, cultural and leisure amenities or being a good place to raise children, is also a type of measurement for psychological well-being of citizens.

Social interaction is an inevitable experience in cities due to communal living. Based on the statement by Sarkis (2019), to be able to live together in the future with our increasing individuality, enhancing social interaction in cities is the pointed-out solution. Cattell (2008) states that social interaction can provide relief from daily routines, create bonding lines between people, empower people’s sense of community, influence tolerance and raise people’s spirit. This built-up networks and opportunities immediately effect people’s psychological well-being positively. According to Leyden (2011), in addition to the usual correlates, such as income and health, city residents appear to be happier when they feel connected to the people and to the places of their cities. Along the same line, Putnam (2000) argues that “happiness is best practiced by the breadth and depth of one’s social connections.”

Also, in the work of Layard (2005), one of the seven big factors of happiness are connectivity with community and friends. According to previous research, people feel good when they are shown a small gesture -a smile or greetings- or when they have opportunities to meet with peers and get new friends.

Vital places to best observe this kind of strong social dimensions are public spaces such as parks and squares due to their multifunctionality and openness to everybody. To meet the needs of citizens in terms of social interaction, the design of the public spaces in cities is crucial.

2.2.

Public Space

The meaning of the term public space itself comprise of many concepts such as interaction, accessibility, common use, movement, multifunctionality and personality. Public spaces are great social interaction points and source of community sense for the citizens. It is clarified by Cattell (2008) that ordinary public spaces are significant for both individuals and communities because of their ability to provide relief from daily routines, create familiarity for people from different backgrounds, form a shared space to bond users and influence tolerance. Since they are open to all individuals from diverse backgrounds, they are the common ground for the people with ethnic, gender, age, race and class differences. There are different meanings assigned to the term “public space”, yet in the context of the research question, description of public space by American Planning Association stating that public 4

space is the space located “within the public realm that helps promote social interaction and a sense of community” is found to be much more relevant. Additionally, Gehl (1987) describes public space as “the life between buildings” as an abstract approach (Kaiserman 2017), which also clarifies the importance of social interaction with other people and the environment. Though there are wide range of types of public spaces, in this paper, public spaces are limited to squares and urban parks.

2.2.1. Effective Design for Well-being and Use of Public Spaces Public spaces are places that are open to all type of people such as locals, visitors, professionals without regarding distinctive characteristic and background of people. They service for all citizens from different age groups, ethnics and social status indiscriminatingly, also without considering their disability or amount of money they earn in a month. A public space could serve a wide variety of activities within it. According to Hanzl (2013), activities which are performed in public spaces are classified into two main categories: movement and transportation, and interpersonal communication and social activities. When it is privatized for urban parks and squares, movement and transportation which are comprised of flows and concentrates, stand for basic level elements of transmitting people one point to another, such as pavements, cycling ways and all the elements accompany these such as sidewalk trees. All other activities relating enjoyment or work, that depend on people’s individual tendencies such as reading book under a tree or interpersonal interactions for instance conversation between to mother while watching their kids playing. On the other hand, Gehl (2011) categorizes outdoor activities in public spaces into three: necessary activities that people must engage through the public space all over the year under nearly all conditions such as walking to school or shopping for a food, optional activities that users can choose in appropriate time and place such as sitting in a café or standing around, and lastly social activities that depend on existing people in public space such as discussion between people or children at play.

Effectiveness of the public space on psychological well-being of citizens depends on the free use of the users according to their own will, broadly. People tend to re-visit the spaces which are mostly safe, allow multifunctionality, commutative and dynamic. In the book “Social Life of Small Urban Spaces”, Whyte (1980) demonstrated that effective design of public spaces is considered with sitting 5

opportunities provided by benches and transmutable elements such as movable chairs and steps as sitting areas (Whyte 1980). Freedom is a way of enhancing interaction within the urban space between people as well as between people and built environment. Sepe (2016) referred to freedom as ability to use of place by people of different age groups, presence of different activities in different times and performing actions that normally are not permitted such as walking barefoot in the designated public areas. Other important quality for an effective urban space is to have an identity that makes it characterized in citizens’ eyes so that people always remember and want to go back such as a smell or a view. Lynch (1960) defines the term “identity of a place” as a set of characteristics that make the place unique and recognizable is given by urban and architectonic elements and by elements connected to the perceptions.

In addition, Sepe (2016) emphasizes on existence of nature to achieve a successful design for a happy place. According to him, besides having nature as in the shape of flora and fauna, it is needed to provide natural lighting, presence of water, naturally occurred smells (e.g. wood, grass, sea) and direct contact with natural materials. Yet, he claims that adequate state of cleanliness, security and minimizing noises generated by public transport are other core characteristics that a space should have to be make its users happier.

2.3.

Concluding

Public spaces have strong ability to enhance urban happiness for citizens due to their openness, multifunctionality and way of creating social interaction between people. They allow to gather people from different background - the age groups, activities they perform in a public space and the time that they visit places are different – so that public spaces allow social interaction in urban environment.

Social interaction provides reliefs and networks which enhance psychological well-being of people.

Therefore, public spaces need to be designed as revealing this ability in the best manner. To create urban happiness in public spaces, these landscapes should provide people a positive emotion so that they can remember these places and want to come back again. This is also related with “identity” quality and remindful mean of the space as Lynch (1960) clarified, which can be created by a view, a smell or placing a valuable landmark. Besides, considering the broad literature review, there are major reasons that people can feel happy in a public space such as freedom. They feel free when they take off their shoes to step on bare lawn area, rotate their chair to the sun or use urban stairs as their resting point.

6

When people feel free in a public space, according to Sepe (2016), they feel happier. One other major reason is integrating nature. Nature can be integrated into the urban areas by creating a relation with plants or animals or providing natural lighting, water presence or natural materials used in design.

Finally, cleanliness and security are the other major reasons of citizen’s happiness.

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH 3.1. Methodology The methodology in this research is based on understanding how people think of the concept of happiness in public spaces. To measure this, a qualitative methodology is used by designing an online survey based on open and closed-ended questions in both English and Turkish. Questions were selected aiming to determine effective square and urban park design principles that can enhance psychological well-being of the citizens. The survey starts with demographic questions to understand the personal background and activity level of the responders. Then, the survey continues with general questions about public spaces and specific questions to determine the behavior of choice in relation to squares and urban parks. According to the given answers, responses were compared and placed to a comprehensive table that show all numbers and relations.

3.2 Survey Results The survey consisted of 29 questions. The questions were grouped into demographics, general public space, squares and urban parks. Questions were answered by 535 participants from different backgrounds. Each question, their answers and findings are discussed in the following sections.

7

3.2.1. Demographic Questions In this section, there were 6 main questions and according to the given answers there were 7 subquestions. In the first four questions age range, gender, place of residence and working status information were collected from participants. Age ranges were defined as 18-29, 30-44, 45-59 and above 60 to compare with gathered literature review. If respondents answered as working, their occupation was asked them to get a general information about their life standards. Then, to analyze disability convenience in public spaces, participants were asked whether or not they have disability and what kind of disability they have. Having a child is a determinant factor mostly using public spaces so that last main question and its sub questions are addressed in this issue. If participants had kids, their age, old and disability were asked.

Questions and their results can be graphically depicted as follows.

1)

How old are you?

a)

18-29

b)

30-44

c)

45-69

d)

Over 60

Graph 1 –Age Ranges

8

2)

What is your gender?

a)

Famele

b)

Male

c)

Other

Graph 2 – Gender Identities

3)

Which city and district do you live in? (open-ended question)

Graph 3 – Comparison of Residence as Turkey and Abroad

9

Graph 4 – Comparison of Residence as cities in Turkey

Graph 5 – Comparison of Residence as cities abroad

10

4)

What is your working status?

a)

Student

b)

Working

c)

Retired

Graph 6 – Working Status

Participants who answered as “Working” were directed to the 5th question. Others continued with 6th question.

5)

What is your occupation? (open-ended question)

Graph 7 – Comparison of Occupation as occupational groups

11

6)

Do you have any disability?

a)

Yes

b)

No

Graph 8 – Disability Status

Participants who answered as “Yes” were directed to the 7th question. Others continued with 8th question.

7)

What kind of disability do you have? (open-ended question)

The question was answered by 6 people. Respondents specifies their disability as follows:

-

incapability of walk or standing for long time due to meniscus,

-

cardiac disease,

-

above left knee amputation,

-

orthopedic,

-

multiple skleroz and difficulty in walking,

-

diabetes.

12

8)

Do you have kids?

a)

Yes

b)

No

Graph 9 – Status of Having a Child

Participants who answered as “Yes” were directed to the 9th question. Others were completed this section.

9)

How many children do you have? (open-ended question)

Graph 10 – Comparison of Number of Children Respondents Have

13

10)

Please select age ranges of your children.

a)

0-10

b)

11-18

c)

Above 18

Graph 11 – Comparison of Age Ranges of Children Respondents Have

11)

Please select genders of your children.

a)

Famele

b)

Male

c)

Other

Graph 12 – Comparison of Gender Identities of Children Respondents Have

14

12)

Does your child have any disability?

a)

Yes

b)

No

Graph 13 – Disability Status of Children Respondents Have

Participants who answered as “Yes” were directed to the 13th question. Others were completed this section.

13)

What kind of disability does your child have?

The question was answered by 5 people as “Autism”.

15

3.2.1.1. Profile of the Respondents

The majority of the respondents’ age are between 45-59 and the minimum number of participants are above 60. Male respondents are 7,4 % more that female respondents. Survey questions were answered by people from wide range of cities both in Turkey and abroad. Most of the participants are live in Izmir, Turkey, followed by Istanbul and Ankara. According to the responses, there are 19 people from different countries such as Cyprus, Hungary and Germany who contributed to the online survey. Number of people who are student, worker and retired are nearly even with a small dominance of workers. The majority of the workers have an occupation in the field of education with their description of jobs: academicians, lecturers and teachers. It is followed by government officials and engineers. People who have been placed in the group named “Other” describe their jobs as technician, businessman, manager, archaeologist, interpreter, contractor, psychologist, painter, secretary, sportsman and social media specialist.

The greater part of the participants doesn’t have any disability. Predominantly, people have two kids who are above 18, mostly female and don’t have any disability.

3.2.2. Questions about Public Spaces

This section consisted of general questions about all public spaces in relation their usage. There were 8 questions. Criteria aimed to measure participant’s use of public spaces according to frequency of use, their company, sitting arrangements in public spaces and participant’s priorities in a public space in terms of negative and positive means. Only pictures were shown and explanation of the pictures that are in italics were not given to the respondents.

Questions and their results can be graphically depicted as follows.

16

14)

In which one do you prefer spending your free time with your friends or family?

a)

Figure 1 - Public space with greenery and activity node

b)

Figure 2 - Public space with dominantly natural elements

c)

Figure 3 - Public space with activity nodes

d)

Figure 4 - Public space with dominantly paved elements

Graph 14 – Public space choice - with a company

17

15)

In which one do you prefer spending your free time alone?

a)

Figure 1 - Public space with greenery and activity node

b)

Figure 2 - Public space with dominantly natural elements

c)

Figure 3 - Public space with activity nodes

d)

Figure 4 - Public space with dominantly paved elements

Graph 15 – Public space choice - alone

18

16)

Which sitting arrangement do you prefer in squares and urban parks?

a)

Figure 5 - stairs as transmutable sitting opportunity

b)

Figure 6 - movable sitting elements

c)

Figure 7 - fixed sitting elements

d)

Figure 8 – natural sitting opportunities

Graph 16 – Sitting arrangement choices

19

17)

What are the qualities that are essential in a square or urban park for you? Please select 5 of them according to your priorities. o

Food opportunities

o

Sitting opportunities

o

Shopping areas

o

Restrooms

o

WIFI

o

Shaded areas

o

Disabled access

o

Animal-friendly

o

Playground for kids

o

Activities

o

Easy access

o

Natural elements

o

Lighting at night

o

Security cameras

Graph 17 – Comparison of choices for essential qualities in a public space

20

18)

If there are other qualities that are essential in a public space for you, could you please share with me? If there is nothing, please write NA.

The question is answered by 96 people. Most of the respondents emphasized on maintenance and cleanness of the space. According to them, frequently placed rubbish bins, cleaning and presence of recycle bins are essential in a public space. It is followed by the need of security staffs, presence of a water element and sport areas. Participants also mentioned that there needs to be more trees and green areas, kiosks for basic needs, historical objects, street animals, music and emergency health service in a square or an urban park.

19)

What makes you annoyed in a public space the most? Please select 3 of them according to your priorities. o

Unsafe zone

o

Garbage around

o

Traffic jam around the space

o

Noise of people

o

Difficulty in wayfinding

o

Lack of green

o

Weak accessibility

o

Crowded

21

Graph 18 – Comparison of choices for annoying elements in public spaces

20)

If there are other problems of public spaces that make you annoyed, could you please share with me? If there is nothing, please write NA.

The question was answered by 92 people. A great majority of the respondents answered this question as drunk, dangerous and unrespectful people in a public space. Machine, car noise and loud music, smell of garbage and exhaust, animal droppings, insufficient toilets or toilets that are closed at night and insufficient sitting areas are also problems that make participants annoyed mostly.

In addition to that, some of the respondents were mentioned that the green areas turned into concrete or barbeque places is one of the biggest problems in the cities.

22

21)

When was the last time you enjoyed spending time in a square or urban park? (Please select the nearest option.)

a)

Yesterday

b)

Previous week

c)

A month ago

d)

Six month ago

e)

A year ago

f)

More than a year ago

g)

I don’t even remember!

Graph 19 – Frequency of Spending Time in a Public Space

3.2.3. Questions About Squares The section consisted of 2 checkbox and 2 open ended questions. Firstly, participants were asked about their aim of the use of squares. Then, to determine their sources of urban happiness, they were asked to name a square in which they feel happy or they think that they will feel happy if they visit there. In the next question, responders were wanted to select the possible reasons that they feel happy there and given a chance to add more opinion to express themselves easily. Also, in the last question was an open-ended question asked the negative characteristics of the named square at the beginning.

Questions, choices and results can be graphically depicted as follows.

23

22)

What are the main reasons that you visit a square? Choose all that apply. o

Access to transportation

o

Walking

o

Resting

o

Shopping

o

Waiting for somebody

o

Moving from one area to another

o

Socializing

o

Eating or drinking

o

Studying or reading book

o

Activities – dance shows, musicians or playground for kids

o

Walking the pet

o

I don’t visit a square.

o

Other

Graph 20 – Comparison of the Main Reasons for visiting a square

In addition to the Graph 20, some of the people filled “Other” choice as having a good time, historical buildings, biking, visiting different places, listening bird voices and similar sounds.

24

23)

Name a real square which you are happy to be there or would like to go in the future? If you don't find any answer, please write NA.

The question aimed to make participants think a real square in which they felt happy or might feel happy to base the reasons of happiness to determinated space. The majority of people answered the question either as NA or mentioned a space which is not a square, instead a street, urban park or a city itself. Most common responses are Times Square in New York, Taksim Square in Istanbul, Red Square in Moscow, Trafalgar Square in London, Piazza Navona in Rome, Tracodero Square in Paris, Piazza del Duomo in Milano, Cumhuriyet Square in Izmir and Kadikoy Pier Square in Kadikoy.

24)

What makes you happy when you are in the square you selected or what do you think it will make you happy there? Choose all that apply. o

I couldn’t find any answer to the previous question.

o

Landmark

o

Smell of the place – trees, flowers etc.

o

Sounds – if you like its silence or contrary the noises belong there

o

Sitting arrangement

o

Activities taking stage

o

Weather – if it is fresh or contrary warm that exactly you want it to be

o

Materials and textures around

o

Presence of water

o

Lights – if the place takes a good sunlight, contrary if it is shaded as you want or has good lighting at night

o

Design – if it is modern or contrary nostalgic

o

Opportunities – food, restroom etc.

o

Memories

o

Other

25

Graph 21 – Comparison of Reasons of Happiness in a square

In addition to the Graph 21, some of the people filled “Other” choice as colors, resting, movement, people walking around, historical qualities, person besides me, curiosity and enough car parking space.

25)

If there is a negative characteristic about the square you selected, could you please write it here? If there is nothing, please write NA. (ex. it is nice but there are not enough rubbish bin etc.)

The majority of the people responded to the question as crowd, dirtiness (people who don’t take care of the square and throw litter, not enough rubbish bins etc.) and inadequate green space or green spaces turned into concrete areas. Moreover, some of the people stated that insufficient sitting areas, noises, unrespectful people and insecurity have also negative effect on their perception and use of squares.

26

3.2.4. Questions About Urban Parks The section, as the section of square questions, consisted of 2 checkbox and 2 open ended questions. In a similar way, first participants were asked about their aim of the use of urban parks and same questions were asked as previous section. Some of the choices were changed due to the difference of squares and urban parks.

Questions, choices and results can be graphically depicted as follows.

26)

What are the main reasons that you visit an urban park? Choose all that apply. o

Getting in touch with nature

o

Walking

o

Resting

o

Walking the pet

o

Waiting for somebody

o

Moving from one area to another

o

Socializing

o

Eating or drinking

o

Studying or reading book

o

Activities – dance shows, musicians or playground for kids

o

I don’t visit a square.

o

Other

27

Graph 22 – Comparison of Main Reasons for visiting an urban park

27)

Name a real urban park which you enjoy being there or would like to go in the future? If you don't find any answer, please write NA.

The question aimed to make participants think a real urban park in which they felt happy or might feel happy to base the reasons of happiness to determinated space. The majority of people answered the question either as NA or mentioned a space which is not an urban park, instead a square, botanical garden, forest, wildlife park, garden or a city itself. Most common responses are Central Park in New York, Hyde Park in London, Kulturpark in Izmir, Segmenler Park in Ankara, Macka Park in Istanbul, Vondelpark in Amsterdam, Tiergarten in Berlin, Gulhane Park in Istanbul and Kugulu Park in Ankara.

28

28)

What makes you happy when you are in the urban park you selected or what do you think it will make you happy there? Choose all that apply. o

I couldn’t find any answer to the previous question.

o

Plat types, variety

o

Smell of the place – trees, flowers etc.

o

Sounds – if you like its silence or contrary the noises belong there

o

Sitting arrangement

o

Activities taking stage

o

Weather – if it is fresh or contrary warm that exactly you want it to be

o

Materials and textures around

o

Presence of water

o

Lights – if the place takes a good sunlight, contrary if it is shaded as you want or has good lighting at night

o

Design – if it is modern or contrary nostalgic

o

Opportunities – food, restroom etc.

o

Memories

o

Other

Graph 23 – Comparison of Reasons of Happiness in an urban park

29

29)

If there is a negative characteristic about the urban park you selected, could you please

write it here? If there is nothing, please write NA. (ex. it is nice but there are not enough rubbish bin etc.)

The majority of the people responded to the question as how they respond the same question for squares. According to participants, dirtiness is the foremost negativity for an urban park. Most of the respondents are disturbed because of garbage around, insufficient rubbish bins and unrespectful people who throw litter or make barbeque. Also, insufficient greenery and concretion are one of the biggest problems for them. Moreover, some of the people stated that neglection, beggars and street sellers, unwanted noises, too much flyings, mud and insecurity have also negative effect on their perception and use of urban parks.

CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSION

4.1. Summary Two topics are deemed important for the research: psychological well-being of urban citizens and public space. Meaning of the urban happiness and measurement methods for psychological well-being of citizens are explained and the importance of social interaction for urban happiness and effects on use of public spaces are stated with respect to previous studies. Besides, the definition of public space, its qualities, activities that take place in them and some of the effective design solutions to enhance urban happiness were clarified in the previous chapters. In the thesis, it is questioned that how can design of public spaces can contribute to the psychological well-being of the citizens from diverse background with respect to their type of activity. It is aimed to purpose effective design principles for squares and parks due to their multifunctionality and the characteristics of being a gathering point in the built environment, to enhance urban happiness in the cities. To reach to the aim, an online survey conducted for this research with the participation of random people from different backgrounds.

30

4.2. Discussion of Findings First of all, the study found that nature penetrated in the public spaces are highly important for citizens. According to answers to the survey, the majority of the respondents tend to go to a public space with dominantly natural elements instead of activity nodes, when they are both alone and with a company. The fact remains that, people prefer to visit green areas to spend their time, mostly when they are alone. Likewise, most of the people want to sit on the grass which has much more freedom compared to benches, movable chairs or stairs. 249 participants marked “natural elements”, when they are asked about their priority for essential qualities in the public spaces. In addition to this, 270 people stated that lack of green in public spaces is annoying. They clarified their annoyance due to concretion and usage of the green areas as barbeque place.

Secondly, maintenance and cleanness of the space is essential for the subjective happiness of the citizens. “Cleanness” was not a choice for the question about essential qualities in a square or urban park, none the less the majority of the people mentioned it when the other qualities were asked. In addition to that, garbage in and around the public space is the most annoying situation for the answerers.

Some of the people mentioned that they are also annoyed with the presence of people who throw litter in the public spaces. Moreover, when responders were asked about negative characteristics of their happy squares and urban parks, most of them answered as lack of rubbish bins.

According to the answers given to the survey questions, presence of restrooms is one of the essential opportunities in a square or an urban park. As well, insufficiency of restrooms, their dirtiness and closing times are one of the annoying situations as participants stated. However, presence of restrooms has minor effect on responders’ happiness. It could be deducted that people perceive basic needs such as eating, need to use the toilet etc. as only needs and a must; their presence doesn’t change their mood, but their deficiency could create annoyance. Similarly, easy access is one of the core opportunities in the public spaces regarding the survey results. However, at the same time, weak accessibility is not found annoyed by responders.

One other finding is on the topic of sitting opportunities. The majority of the people indicated that sitting opportunities is an essential factor in public spaces. Most of the people complain about

31

insufficient or not shaded sitting areas. On the other side, the study found that sitting arrangement have minimum effect on the happiness of people in a public space.

Yet another important point is security. The minority of the participants were stated that security cameras are needed in a square and urban park. However, most of the people mentioned to the need of security staff in the public spaces. According to the people, safety is crucial for use of a square or an urban park, but it needs to be protected by security staffs or by itself without needed anything or anybody.

According to the answers that were given to the 14. and 15. questions, people tend to spend their time in public spaces which can provide activities for the citizens. However, public spaces covered with dominantly paved elements are unpreferable considering responders’ answers. Participants concentrated on either public space with only activity zone or public space with dominantly natural elements instead of a public space with both greenery and activity node.

First five qualities which are the most essential for the responders are sitting opportunities, restrooms, shaded areas, easy access and natural elements. Also, the study found that, WIFI in public spaces is not essential for the citizens. Nevertheless, presence of shopping areas, security cameras and activities are not much important considering responses of the participants.

According to responders’ priorities, first three features which are the most annoying are unsafe zone, garbage around and traffic jam around the space. Besides, difficulty in wayfinding, weak accessibility and noise of people don’t affect people that much.

Participants visit squares mostly for walking, resting, eating or drinking, access to transportation and waiting for somebody and they like the smell of the place (trees, flowers, etc), its landmark and design. Similarly, they visit urban parks mostly for getting in touch with nature, walking, resting, socializing and eating or drinking and they like the smell of the place, plant types and variation and sounds.

The study also found that, most of the people don’t know what square or urban park is. The majority of the responders confused with squares and famous streets, urban parks or cities itself. Along similar lines, predominantly people confused with urban parks and botanical gardens, forests and

32

wildlife parks. In addition to that, when participants were asked a square and an urban park in which they felt happy or they might feel happy, majority of them couldn’t find an answer.

Another finding is about memories. The survey proved that memories have an important power on psychological well-being of people and the identity of the public space. Great number of participants expressed that memories are one of the reasons that can make them happy in that place. Also, under favour of memories, they can remember the space as it is or with the qualities that responders like.

Lastly, social interaction has great effect on usage of public spaces by citizens. The better part of the responders visits urban parks for socializing. Also, they mentioned that it is nice to watch people and talk to them. Half of them likes to be in crowd but for them the problem is confined spaces which can not carry so many people.

33

REFERENCE LIST

Ballas, Dimitris. 2013. “What makes a happy city?” Elsevier: Cities 32, 39-50.

Bansal, Garvit, Bige Tuncer, and Francisco Benita. 2019. “Public Spaces and happiness: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment.” Health & Place 56, 9-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.01.014 Bartetzky, Arnold. 2009. Urban Planning and the Pursuit of Happiness: European Variations on a Universal Theme in the 18th-20th Century. Edited by Marc Schalenberg. Berlin: Jovis Diskurs.

Brouwer, Ronald. 2004. Happy: Cities and Public Happiness in Post-War Europe. Edited

by Michelle Provoost, Kristin Feireiss and Cor Wagenaar. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers.

Button, Alain De. 2008. The Architecture of Happiness. New York: Vintage Books.

Cattell, Vicky, Nick Dines, Wil Gesler, and Sarah Curtis. 2008. “Mingling, observing and lingering: Everyday public spaces and their implications for well-being and social relations.”

Health & Place 14, 544-561.

Elsamahy, Eslam, and Rana Abd El-Fattah. 2018. “Designing Non-stressed Psychological Public Spaces.” BAU Journal: Health & Well-being, special edition, 121-132.

Gehl, Jan. 2011. Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. Washington: Island Press.

Goregenli, Melek. 2010. Çevre Psikolojisi; 1-11, 97-113, 171-221. Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi Universitesi Yayinlari Habtour, Rebecca. 2016. “Designing Happiness: Architecture and Urban Design for Joy and Well-being.” Master of Architecture diss., University of Maryland.

Hampson, Sarah. 2012. “How space and architecture influence happiness.” The Globe and Mail, March 18, 2012. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/how-space-andarchitecture-influence-happiness/article4095979/ 34

Kaiserman, Joanna. 2017. “Urban Nature for Well-being: Design Recommendations for Psychological Benefits in Urban Public Spaces.” Master of Urban Planning diss., University of Washington.

Leyden, Kevin M., Abraham Goldberg, and Philip Michelbach. 2011. “Understanding the Pursuit of Happiness in Ten Major Cities.” Urban Affairs Review 47 (6): 861-888.

Montgomery, Charles. 2013. Happy City: Transforming Our Lives Through Urban Design.

New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Okulicz-Kozaryn, Adam. 2015. Happiness and Place: Why Life is Better Outside of the City. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Pfeiffer, Deirdre, and Scott Cloutier. 2016. “Planning for Happy Neighborhoods.” Journal of the American Planning Association, 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2016.1166347 Qun, Lee Chao. 2017. “A Place between Architecture and Happiness: Urban Design for Joy and Well-being.” Master of Architecture diss., University of Strathclyde.

Ricci, Natalie. 2017. “The Psychological Impact of Architectural Design.” Senior diss., Claremont McKenna College.

Rong, Lim Wan. 2018. “Architecture for Urban Happiness: Creating a New Positive Typology.” Master of Architecture diss., Singapore University of Technology and Design.

Sepe, Marichela. 2016. “The Role of Urban Space to Achieve Urban Happiness.” In Urban Regeneration & Sustainability, edited by C.A. Brebbia, A. Galiano-Garrigos, 364-372.

Wernick, Jane. 2008. Building Happiness: Architecture to Make You Smile. London: Black Dog Publishing.

35

APPENDIX Survey Questions

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50