An assessment of the social value of public spaces.
The rejuvenation of public spaces is a key policy concern. This report considers the social value of spaces, drawing on qualitative research in a multi-ethnic area of East London.
As well as green spaces, the study looks at those everyday spaces not usually highlighted in research or policy. The report:
The findings have particular implications for 'Cleaner, Safer, Greener', 'Community Cohesion', 'Sustainable Communities' and 'Choosing Health' policies.
Download as PDF, 4 pages, 0.08 MB
The liveability of public spaces is a key policy concern. This report draws on qualitative research in a multi-ethnic area of East London to look at how public spaces are experienced. The study examined the role of public spaces as social arenas, and their potential for enabling social contact between different ethnic groups and enhancing individual well-being. As well as green spaces, spaces not usually highlighted in research or policy were considered. The study, by Nick Dines, Vicky Cattell and colleagues at Queen Mary, University of London, found that:
How important are public open spaces for everyday lives? Rejuvenation of public spaces is a key concern in the Government's 'Cleaner, Safer, Greener' policy agenda, with particular emphasis on improving the design and management of spaces. However, do public spaces have implications for social relations, community cohesion and our sense of well-being? This qualitative study was set in Newham, a London borough characterised by a diverse range of ethnic groups. To explore the social value of public spaces in greater depth, the research used discussion groups with residents and community activists, observation of key sites (two markets, two parks and two main shopping streets) and in-depth interviews in a mixed residential part of Newham.
Differing levels of commitment to the local area often influenced people's experience of public spaces. Positive perceptions of public spaces and the opportunities they afforded for casual social encounters - exchanges at the local market, the hustle and bustle of shopping streets, conversations on residential streets or while jogging in the park - were often a key element in people's attachment to the locality and an influence on their desire to stay. The few people who described their experiences of public spaces in categorically negative terms appeared to have fewer contacts with local people and generally less attachment to their local area.
For many people, 'hard' spaces such as streets or markets were as, or more, important as social places than green spaces.
Local people often used ethnic labels to describe places, because of facilities such as 'ethnic' shops, the perceived predominance of particular ethnicities among users of the space, or a space being in a residential area considered to be dominated by a particular group.
Certain spaces played a positive role in promoting identity or a sense of pride, or supporting ethnic networks. Many first-generation Asians described Green Street and Queens Market shopping areas as places they felt comfortable using because there were people they identified with, few language barriers, and direct reminders of their countries of origin. However, many second- or third-generation Asians did not consider these spaces as important social arenas. Other people indicated inter-generational or inter-gender tensions. A young Pakistani mother, for example, complained about older Pakistani men who rarely helped her as she negotiated Green Street with her shopping and pushchair.
Public spaces provided an important arena for experiencing ethnic diversity. Certain places provided opportunities for dissimilar people to mix, and were recognised as settings for developing tolerance. For example:
"Next to the Bengalis selling biscuits is a Jewish guy selling curtains. They would never have met a Jewish bloke […], it's most unlikely they'd find themselves in a colleague situation where they can ask questions, they can joke with him… I can't see another space where that could possibly happen. You could set up a society to bring Jews and Muslims together: he wouldn't turn up and they wouldn't turn up, because these sorts of outfits attract special people."
Such exchanges were important because they were part of everyday urban experience. However, while many members of ethnic minority groups felt comfortable in Newham, a few recently arrived refugees reported experiencing prejudice. As a result, some of them avoided neighbourhood spaces, though not more populated mixed spaces such as main streets and markets, where they felt more at ease. More commonly, however, public spaces fostered inter-ethnic understanding by providing informal opportunities for people to meet.
Current policy agendas recognise the role played by the environment in health and well-being, but the therapeutic properties of public open spaces are not restricted to design, nature or aesthetics. They include social elements through shared and collective use. What goes on in a space is important, but public spaces can also possess subjective meanings that accumulate over time.
Many people felt that public spaces enhanced their well-being. These spaces provided a range of therapeutic functions, both directly and through their role in bringing people together.
Queens Market, a busy, long-established street market, had evolved to reflect the new populations arriving in Newham, and exemplified many of the desirable features of public spaces. It was perceived, for example, as:
However, many younger people and children criticised the market, describing it as "rubbish" or "smelly". They were far less interested in it as a social space.
Queens Market is the site of proposed regeneration. The redevelopment plans have become a major focus of local public debate and have raised public space consciousness in Newham.
The planned redevelopment raises key issues about the role of public open space in urban regeneration. Firstly, the economic focus of regeneration can undermine the social value of public spaces, including their role in creating people's sense of attachment to a place and their contribution to community cohesion. Secondly, the emphasis on design criteria in policy debates about what constitutes good-quality public space means that the important role played by 'unexceptional' public spaces in people's everyday lives can be overlooked. For example, a white British man insisted that Queens Market's nondescript architecture did not diminish the market's important role in community relations.
People need a variety of public open spaces within their local area to meet a range of everyday needs: spaces to linger as well as spaces of transit; spaces that bring people together as well as spaces of retreat. Green spaces have been a key focus of policy research over recent years. This study indicates that the multiple uses and benefits of hard spaces such as streets and markets also need to be more widely acknowledged. In particular, the research suggests that their importance in providing opportunities for casual social encounters has implications for various policy arenas. These include the Government's 'Cleaner, Safer, Greener' policies for public spaces, and the wider 'Community Cohesion' and 'Sustainable Communities' agendas. For communities to be sustainable and inclusive, the use of public spaces and contact between different members of the community need encouragement. A shift of emphasis in 'Community Cohesion' policies towards promoting positive social relations would be welcome. Ordinary public spaces can also help to support 'Choosing Health' objectives for encouraging exercise and healthier diets. In Newham, such spaces are important for recreation, while markets - as providers of cheap, healthy food - are an invaluable asset in poorer areas.
Public spaces are a significant resource for individuals and communities. Policy approaches could recognise and build on their social and therapeutic properties.
This study is part of a Joseph Rowntree Foundation programme aiming to improve understanding of how people use public spaces. The research involved a scoping exercise to gather information about Newham, seven discussion groups, observation of six sites, in-depth interviews with 24 people in a small residential area, and interviews with key people working in the area. The informants reflected a broad cross-section of ethnic backgrounds.