Sustainability in Public Space and the Changing View of Nature

Ensiyeh Ghavampour

Victoria University of Wellington

E:eghavampour@gmail.com

Brenda Vale

Professorial Research Fellow

Victoria University of Wellington

E:brenda.vale@vuw.ac.nz

Paper presented at the

6th Making Cities Liveable Conference, in conjuction with the Sustainable Transformation

Conference, Melbourne (VIC), 17-19 June 2013

1

Sustainability in Public Space and the Changing View of Nature

Abstract: Across disciplines, the concept of sustainability is not a new view of nature but an

integration of past views. People have changed nature since they started raising crops, but

with increased urbanisation, the changes people make and continue to make, are not like

changes people experienced in the past. The increasing scale of global modification has

given rise to issues of sustainability. There is need for an evolution of thought and practice

from fragile models of environmental impact to a strong model of progress and balance in

sustainable development.Sustainable development is seen as an unending process with a

balance between the three main dimensions of environment, culture and economy, addressing

present needs and the needs of the next generation. With on-going changes in physical,

cultural and economic contexts, adaptability and flexibility are used to evaluate success.

In the design of small urban public spaces, an emphasis on the physical environment needs to

take account of causality. Over time, the adaptability and flexibility of popular and successful

public spaces ensures continuity of their contribution to social life. They are and should

continue to be attractive to different people and changing lifestyles. However, modern

thinking has led to their being viewed negatively in terms of their social role. This has led to

attempts to define criteria for making sustainable public space. The model of place making

argues that physical setting, conception or image of space and activity work together with

sense of place, consequently linking the three components. This paper argues that these

aspects need to be balanced using the approach of the strong model of sustainability to

create sustainable public space. An urban design that substitutes each for the other assumes

a weak model of sustainable public space. The comparison suggests a framework for

sustaining public space, proposes a new representation for place theory and concludes with

the suggestion small green urban spaces accord with the suggested model.

Keywords: Sustainability, Place making, Small public space, Adaptability, Nature

2

Introduction

Modern thinking has brought industrialization and urbanization. It sees nature and man

separately and has excluded nature from the social life of urban residents Modern thinking

also sees nature as material to be used (Figure1).

Figure 1: Modern thinking and its influence on the design of open space ( 2010)

In response to this problem is the idea of sustainability – being in harmony with nature

and natural ecosystems – which has stressed the use of nature in urban areas. Urban planning

policies that attempt to preserve untouched areas often create large green open spaces and

urban parks in order to solve ecological concerns and enhance people’s wellbeing (Chiesura,

2004). However, these may not be achieving a real balance between the elements that create a

sense of place, and hence successful public space. Large parks are usually low on activities

for instance. They also need a large budget for their upkeep, are not necessarily accessible for

all residents, and are mostly only used in the holidays or at weekend. They can also work as

barriers, dividing residential areas and communities (Mumford, 1969, Solecki and Welch,

1995) (Figure2).In turn, these are spaces which, because of limited land in growing cities and

increasing land prices, are less likely to survive.

The fact people tend to use nearby open places in their everyday life for social

interaction, the need to be in contact with nature and the lack of land, arises a need for

changing view to urban green spaces.

3

Figure2: large park as a barrier (2012)

This paper investigates the core concept of sustainability and its similarity with models of

place making theory in urban studies to define sustainability in public space. It goes on to

suggest that small green urban spaces are places that are in accord with the aims of

sustainability.

Sustainability and nature

The concepts of nature and sustainability are misunderstood terms. It is, therefore important

to begin by stating the meaning of these terms in the context of this paper.

The human perception of nature is based on the belief of each individual, influenced by

where they live, and their knowledge, giving different meanings that change over time.

Williams (2005) simplified these into three main ideas: intrinsic in the 13th century, universal

from the 14th century on and exclusive nature from the 17th century, acknowledging that there

is always an overlap. In the core of his discussion he questioned the place of people in the

three main ideas, as for him it was hard to imagine nature without human activity. “If we

alienate the living processes of which we are apart, we end, though unequally, by alienating

ourselves” (Williams, 2005). Castree (2005), Cronon (1995), Smith (1994) and Harvey

(1996) used a Marxist approach and defined nature as social construction. They stated nature

and culture are not separate and the human understanding of nature is entangled with the

values of each individual. Glacken (1967) reinforced this view, stating that from the time

people started raising crops and domesticating animals they modified nature. Consequently

there is no untouched nature.

4

Collingwood (1945) distiguished three philosophies in the history of European thought

to show differences in the perception of nature: from ancient Grece until the 16th century

nature is the character of everything; in the 16th – 17th centuries the Renaissance view of

nature saw it as a universe with inherent force; and after the 17th century and in modern

thinking nature is the material ouside society.

McHarg (1992) by accepting the idea of constructed nature reviewed the man/nature

relationship and showed how people represent their power over land in different cultures and

at different periods. He considered the Renaissance as the turning point in the representation

of humanity’s power over land when it rejected the cosmology of the golden age. In his view

primitive society respected natural laws and was aware of the environment, this being

intertwined in their religion and life, but after the 16th century, with the idea of showing

power, this rule began to be ignored and nature was seen as material to be used.

In the 19th and 20th centuries human beings changed nature through using larger tools.

They also created nature because there was no nature in cities, and brought nature into cities

for their own benefit. Today the concern is for the balance between nature and the built

environment and this is a worldwide issue because of loss of that balance. This again echoes

the goal of sustainability which seeks to achieve a balance between what global ecosystems

can provide and what humanity takes from these same ecosystems.

McKibben (1989) in The End of Nature argues that with rapid worldwide urbanization

“true nature” has been replaced by “artificial nature” (the world as people make it). Changes

people make today and continue to make are not like changes people experienced in the past,

as those made in past did not have a global effect. Rolston et al. (1999) claim that nature

never ends but is in a state of being managed or mismanaged. They believe nature is ever

present, and there needs to be a change from the dualistic thinking where nature and culture

are contrasted, to a state which senses culture as part of nature. Meanwile, humanity must

also be aware of natural forces, as something around everyone which cannot be controlled.

Thus sustainability is not about recapturing a lost natural world but rather accepting that

humanity has changed this natural world, and there has to be a decision regarding how much

humanity and how much of the remaining natural world can be supported within the

resources of a single planet. At present humanity is using more resources than the planet can

5

generate because it is using the stored reserves of fossil fuels, hence the idea that the planet is

in global overshoot (Meadows et al., 1992).

This is the veiwpoint that generated the idea of sustainable development, which the

World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) reported as “development that

meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet

their own needs.” In their view, sustainable development should be a process that integrates

environmental, economic and social considerations while respecting the fact that global

resources are limited, and that this may affect the type of economy and the resultant lifestyle.

Thus sustainable integration of envrionment, economic and social goals may mean change,

especially in the latter two, for many in the world. Currently the developed world, which lives

beyond its natural boundaries (Wackernagel and Rees, 1996) is doing so at the expense of the

developing world, where many people have very low impact on their natural envrionment

(Pamungkas, 2013).

However there are two models for representing the meaning of sustainability—the

weak and strong models (Nourry, 2008, Vale and Vale, 2009). In the first model,

environment, economy and society are represented as three intersecting circles of equal size.

This model assumes one can be substituted for the others, while in the strong model,

environment is more important and encompasses society and economy (Vale and Vale,

2009). In this model maintenance of the environment function is essential for the life of an

ecosystem. Figure 3 presents the two models of sustainability.

Figure3: Comparison of weak and strong models of sustainability (Vale and Vale, 2009)

Weak model Strong model

The strong model of sustainability encompasses all three views of nature discussed here. It is

similar to universal nature which accepts society as part of the environment. It is also similiar

to the period in which humanity saw itself as seperate from nature, made beautiful gardens,

Economy

Environment Society

Environment

Economy

Society

6

showed its power to mould nature in the way it wanted, and also aknowledged that nature has

force that it is not changable. Combinations of the different views of nature are shown in

table 1, although,there is no clear line between them and they overlap in history

Table 1: Comparing different views of nature from hunter-gathering until the 20th century with

sustainability theory

Sustainability and Public space

Early urban open spaces were used for many activities with a different focus;

community, religious, commercial gathering, and were not put aside for one activity, except

in Middle eastern cities, where the temple square and market square were separated (Crouch,

1981). In Greek cities the mixed use of public spaces made them a place for common life.

Open spaces in Roman cities were built in three forms; spaces with enclosed edges where

offices, temples and other spaces were situated behind rows of columns; streets with cafés,

houses, fountains, and shops that contributed to the social life; and recreational open spaces

like baths, theatres, and stadia which were for the public and often had gardens linked to

them. After the collapse of Rome social life was reconstituted in the northern part of Europe.

Religion and trade came together in the cathedral square, and not only the exterior square but

also some of the interior part of the church worked as a space for gathering

In the Renaissance open space again became a place for social life. Zucker (1970)

argues public spaces in Italy and France with their climate and temperamental attitudes of

Rome, “led to a form of public life, and life in public, which made street and square the

natural locale for community activities and representation.” By the 1600s public spaces

Period of history

Perception

of nature

Intrinsic

nature

External

nature

Universa

l nature

Awarness

of power to

change

Harmony

with nature

Hunter gathering x Low High

Greek thinking x Moderate High

Renaissance thinking x x Moderate Moderate

Modern thinking x High Low

Sustainability theory x x x Hight High

7

started to lose their role in public life (Sitte, 1986, Sennett, 1992). There is another change

with the growing cities of the 1700s as being seen and seeing strangers became a major social

activity in cities. By the mid-1800s (industrial revolution) parks and gardens were created and

used by the public, especially the poor, to bring fresh air into the crowded cities, but lost their

social function. Eventually this led to a change in definition of public space with most spaces

being defined as the left over parts of the city. Along with this change, privatization and new

lifestyles affected the use of public spaces. This has been noted by many people who argue

social life has been transferred from public places to elsewhere in the city, or even out of it in

a virtual world (Brill, 1989). Chidister (1998) concludes that privatization has led to spaces

being used by only one segment of the population, or their function being limited to use by

office workers at lunch time. However some argue that public activities have moved and new

type of spaces are developing, as use of places like festival markets or shopping malls

indicates interest in public space in social life (Gehl and Gemzoe, 1996).

Sustainable public space

There is no doubt that high-quality built environments have places where social activity and

behaviour occurs, thus contributing to the everyday life of people (Dempsey, 2008, Gehl,

1996). Carmona (2010) defined three traditions of thought which have influenced the criteria

for high quality urban spaces; the visual-artistic tradition, the social-usage tradition, and the

place making tradition. It is the latter that here is argued to be close to emerging ideas of

sustainable urban spaces.

Followers of visual-artistic view note that the perceived visual experience of an

environment creates character in a place, and emphasise the role of local architectural styles

and materials. Camillo Sitte (1889) claimed spaces should be arranged based on visual

experience. Following him Gordon Cullen (1961) in Townscape argues that visual expression

and sense of place influence attachment and belonging to the space. Dempsey (2008) defined

three visual features for a high quality built environment; visual attractiveness, visual

complexity, and perceived visual experience.

The social-usage tradition focused on how people use space. However there are two

strands to this tradition. The first strand has a focus on psychology of place and states people

rely on their sense and internal guide to help them define places as safe, comfortable, and

quiet, while recognising that spaces need activities. Alexander el al (1977) and Lynch (1960)

8

claim people’s image of the city is related to memories and meaning. In second strand, Ghel

(1996), Jacobs (1961) and Whyte (1980) place more emphasis on activity stating that places

are meaningful because of the activities that take place in them. Where the quality of spaces

is poor the social activities decline or disappear. They state the level of activity both produces

and mirrors quality in the built environment (Montgomery, 1998).

A third view, or place making, attempts to synthesise both traditions. Here the meaning

of the environment leads to attachment to the place. So some places with poor quality in

design but stronger feeling of attachment attract more people. Physical space, sensory

experience and activity making must combine to produce successful space.

These three traditions of thought have interrelationship and overlaps and suggest there is a

broad and complex framework for the effects of quality of environment on social quality of

life (Table 2).

Table 2: Comparison of different views of what makes a good public space

Place making and models for sustainable place

In the theory of place making Relph (1976) suggests three components of place: physical

setting, activities and meaning. His relational view of place sees it not as a bounded territory

but as a unit that is shaped by the social, cultural and economic context. For him sense of

place arises from human feelings and their interaction with physical spatial elements.

Canter as a psychologist considered action, conception and physicality as the three

main elements for place-making. The model he offered shows that place is a consequence of

the relationship between action, conception and physical attribute (1977) (figure 4).

Urban tradition of thouugh

Main focus

Physicall

setting

Image

( concept) Activity

Visual-artistic tradition x

Social-usage tradition (first strand ) x x

Social-usage tradition (second strand) x x

Place making x x x

9

Figure 4 Canter’s diagram of perception of space

This figure has interesting similarities with the weak model of sustainability, which

suggests that sustainability occurs at the overlap, or integration point of economy, society,

and environment. In the same way a successful public space is only achieved at the point of

integration of how it is perceived, which in turn relates to memory and experience, the

activities the space contains, and its design or physical attributes. Cresswell saw place as a

combination of materiality, meaning and practice (Cresswell, 2009). Punter (1991) created a

further diagram and defined the attributes of each component (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Punter’s diagram suggesting sense of pace is created by a balance between activity, physical

setting and meaning

Montgomery (1998) suggested another diagram which can be used to enhance the identity of

place (Figure 6).

Place

Conception

Activity Physical

attribute

Meaning

Physical

setting Activity

Sense of

place

10

Figure 6: Montgomery’s diagram illustrates how urban design actions can contribute to, and enhance,

the potential sense of place (Montgomery, 1998)

With similar approach to Relph, Agnew (1987) also identified three components of

place: locale, the setting in which social relationships are constituted; location, the

geographical area encompassing the setting for social interaction; and sense of place, the

local structure of feeling. He emphasised that in order to fully capture the meaning of place

all these three elements should be taken into account. Thus, meaningful places emerge in a

social context and through social relations, they are geographically located and at the same

time related to their social, economic, and cultural surroundings, and as such they give

individuals a sense of place. This view of place is more related to the strong model of

sustainability where at least equal importance must be given to the three aspects of economy,

society and environment, but without the idea of nesting these in terms of their

interdependence. However, since there cannot be place without geographical location, this

view could be represented as geographical location, within which are locale and sense of

place.

Sustainable public space: a comparison of sustainability theory and place theory

As suggested above, successful public spaces which are recognised as having a sense of place

depend on achieving a balance between several criteria and not just on the design of the

space. Of equal importance are what happens in that space and how this leads to a set of

memories that invest the space with meaning. Here some useful comparison can be made

Place

Image

Activity

Form

11

with the theoretical sustainability model. There has to be a balance between the three issues

of environment, society and economy. Sustainability will not be achieved by preservation of

the environment, even if this were possible. Equally, sustainability will not be achieved

unless the economy is in balance with what the resources of the planet can sustain. Moreover

society has to change in response to this need for balance. It is not possible to continue

‘business as usual’ and think this will lead to sustainability. Equally, this balance is also

always changing. Sustainability is not a fixed state but a goal, as stated earlier, of all

humanity living with the resources of what the ecosystems of the planet can provide, which

will change as nature changes

Comparison with this idea leads to a new proposed model of place theory (figure 7). In

this new view, public spaces are a geographical location, within which people’s image of

place is shaped through their interaction with the physical setting and sense of place arises as

a consequence of the link between these three. Here the components of place are independent.

A positive image of place increases the level of physical involvement and creates strong

attachment to the place. Thus sustainable spaces are those which meet human needs and are

in harmony with their social and physical context in order to contribute to the social life of

people. They are adaptable and flexible, because of the nature of their changeable

components.

Figure 7: Proposed model for sustainable public space

Small green spaces and sustainability

To achieve the goal of sustainability, make cities habitable both for those who live in them

today and for the inhabitants of tomorrow, a new city form is needed. Sustainability stresses

the need to bring nature into the city in balance with the built infrastructure. Sustainability

Environment

Concept

Activity

12

also raises issues of equity in terms of access to resources, and similarly access to nature in

the city needs to be on an equitable bases. The model of sustainable space also stresses the

social role of place and its contribution to the everyday life of people. This suggests the

creation of small green urban spaces will be a vital and living component of the sustainable

city. A comparison between large and small green spaces demonstrates the difference

between the weak and strong models of both sustainability and place making theory (Figures

8 &9)

Figure 8: The contribution to everyday life of a small park (2013)

Figure 9: An inbalance between nature and infrastructure ( copyright, Hari Isowoyo, 2013)

13

References

Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S. and Silverstain, M. (1977) A pattern language: towns, buildings, construction, New York: Oxford University Press.

Brill, M. (1989) 'Transformation, nostalgia, and illusion in public life and public place' In Altman, I. & Zube, E. H. (eds.) Public places and spacee, pp:7-28, New York: Plenum Press.

Canter, D. (1977) The psychology of place, London: Architectural Press.

Carmona, M. (2010) Public places, urban spaces: the dimensions of urban design, Amsterdam; Boston: Architectural Press/Elsevier.

Castree, N. (2005) Nature, London; New York: Routledge.

Chiesura, A. (2004) 'The role of urban parks for the sustainable city'. Landscape and Urban Planning,Vol. 68: 129-138.

Collingwood, R. G. (1945) The idea of nature, Oxford: Clarendon press.

Cresswell, T. (2009) 'Place' In: Rob, K. & Nigel, T. (eds.) International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Oxford: Elsevier.

Cronon, W. (1995) Uncommon ground: toward reinventing nature, New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

Crouch, D. P. (1981) 'The historical development of urban open space' In Taylor, L. (ed.) Urban open spaces. New York: Rizzoli.

Cullen, G. (1961) Townscape, London: Architectural Press.

Dempsey, N. (2008) 'Quality of the built environment in urban neighbourhoods' Planning, Practice & Research, Vol .23: 249-264.

Gehl, J. (1996) Life between buildings: using public space, Copenhagen: Arkitektens Forlag.

Gehl, J. & Gemzo, L. (1996) Public spaces-public life, Copenhagen: Arkitektens Forlag.

Glacken, C. J. (1967) Traces on the Rhodian shore; nature and culture in Western thought from ancient times to the end of the eighteenth century, Berkeley: University of California Press.

Harvey, D. (1996) Justice, nature and the geography of difference, Cambridge: Mass., Blackwell Publishers.

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

Lynch, K. (1960) The image of the city, Cambridge: Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

Mcharg, I. L. (1992) Design with nature, New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Mckibben, B. (1989) The end of nature, New York: Random House.

14

Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L. & Randers, J. (1992) Beyond the limits: global collapse or a sustainable future, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company

Montgomery, J. (1998) 'Making a city: urbanity, vitality and urban design' Journal of Urban Design, 3: 93-116.

Mumford, L. (1969) 'The Philosophy of Urban Oplen Space' In Seymour, W. N. & Seymour, W. N. (eds.) Small urban spaces: the philosophy, design, sociology, and politics of vest-pocket parks and other small urban open spaces. New York: New York University Press.

Norry, M. (2008) 'Measuring sustainable development: Some empirical evidence for France from eight alternative indicators' Ecological Economics, Vol.67: 441-456.

Pamungkas, G.( 2013) 'Kampung Naga, Indonesia' In: Vale, B. & Vale, R. J. D. (eds.) Living Within a Fair Share Ecological Footprint. London: Earthscan: Routledge.

Punter, J. (1991) 'Participation in the design of urban space' Landscape Design,Vol. 200: 24-27.

Relph, E. C. (1976) Place and placelessness, London: Pion.

Rolstone, H., Banchetti-Robino, M. P., Marietta, D. E. & Embree, L. (1999) 'A managed earth and the end of nature?' Research in Philosophy and Technology, Vol.18, 143-166.

Sennent, R. (1978) The fall of public man, New York: Vintage Books. Sitte, C. (1986) City planning according to artistic principles, New York: Rizzoli.

Smith, D. M. (1994) Geography and social justice, Oxford: Blackwell publisher.

Solecki, W. D. & Welch, J. M. (1995) 'Urban parks: green spaces or green walls?' Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol.32, 93-106.

Vale, R. & Vale, B. (2009) Time to eat the dog? the real guide to sustainable living, London: Thames & Hudson.

Warckernagel, M. & Rees, W. E. (1996) Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on earth, New Society Pub.

Williams, R. (2005) 'Ideas of nature'. In: Williams, R. (ed.) Culture and Materialism. 2nd ed. London, New York: Verso.

World commission on environment and development. (1987) Our common future, Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Zucker, P. (1970) Town and square, from the agora to the village green, Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.