Mark Del Aguila¹ Ensiyeh Ghavampour ² Brenda Vale³

¹University of South Australia, Australia

²Boffa Miskell, Auckland, New Zealand

³Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

Abstract

Cities are increasingly using place-making as a design tool to improve quality of public spaces. Designers engage stakeholders and align design with stakeholder’s preference using checklists, observations, interviews, and computer software. With this limited temporal interpretation of place, ongoing popularity of public spaces become dependent on marketing and investment to attract reuse and generate new users. Underlying this issue is a failure of theory to articulate linkages between meaning and physical setting for activity in public space. This paper tests the hypothesis that behaviour in public space is described by affective and cognitive images of physical setting. The results of survey of 160 users across four public spaces found that affect framed cognitive evaluations of design elements for anticipated behaviour. This two-stage process suggests design emphases need to shift from articulating preferences to affording opportunities for individual interpretation.

Keywords

Public Space; Place-making; Theory of Place; Affect; Cognition; Behaviour; Facet Theory

Introduction

Cities are increasingly using place-making to improve quality of public spaces and activate spaces fashioned to drive commerce and consumption (Florida 2002; Liu & Freestone, 2016; Wyckoff, 2014). The participation of users and stakeholders is used to align economic activities and design opportunities with preferences of target populations (Cilliers & Timmermans, 2014). With success measured by stakeholders’ support and economic impact, the consultations in the planning and design phase validate the build and ensure acceptance of public expenditure (Carmona, 2010; Strydom & Puren, 2013). However, when designs are anchored at a point in time and activities in the space are regulated by corporate and government interests, the place-making is unauthentic and conscious and users’ scope to transform spaces into places is limited. Thus, akin to art galleries without new exhibitions or theatre halls without new shows, ongoing cycles of investment for (re)development and promotion of activities are required to generate reuse and/or attract new users in urban centres where public space is at a premium and city budgets are limited (Carmona, 2010; Dovey, 2010).

Popularised in the 1990’s, place-making is derived from theory describing a process which occurs authentically and unselfconsciously in the interactions between people and physical environments. In the theory of place, descriptions of place-making, and terminology of placelessness, insideness, outsideness, identity, sense and essence of place, etc., were articulated to enable researchers to improve knowledge of place. This knowledge would then inform methodologies for “… the maintenance and manipulation of existing places and the creation of new places” (Relph, 1976:44). Terminologies developed to drive research have been interpreted as theoretical concepts and the requisite theoretical work on which the place-making design tools depend has not kept pace with the evolving methodologies (Lewicka, 2011; Liu & Freestone, 2016). In the absence of theoretical developments, detailed taxonomies are presented as theory (Carmona 2015) and there “… is no blueprint for planning public places, and no formula for successful participatory processes” (Cilliers & Timmermans, 2014: 427).

Spaces are separated from places through meaningful experiences. Experiences which transform space into place defined by “… a particular system of physical features, activities, and meanings” (Relph 1976:49). Physical setting, concept and activity are the three components of place, emphasizing the importance of experience and choice, and the interaction between components in understanding place (Canter, 1977). More recently, Stedman (2003:671) describes place as a weaving together of “the physical environment, human behaviors, and social and/or psychological processes” and while “place, person, time and act form an indivisible unity” (Wagner, 1972:49), it is not a territory defined by that intersection (Canter, 1997). It is a niche observed within individuals ongoing experiences, shaped by personal, social and cultural histories. Identities frequented and placeless spaces, defined in time (Canter, 2008; Motloch, 2000) with “… as many identities of place as there are people…” (Narin 1965:78 cited in Relph 1976:45) who recognize the space as a separate entity.

“Physical appearance, activities, and meanings are the raw materials of the identity of places, and the dialectical links between them are the elementary structural relations of that identity” (Relph, 1976:48).

Identity “… in the experience, eye, mind, and intention of the beholder as much as in the physical appearance of the city or landscape” and shared (in part) because “… we experience more-or-less the same objects and activities and because we have been taught to look for certain qualities of place emphasised by our cultural groups” (Relph, 1976:45). But it is within this interaction of physical appearance, activities, and meanings which theory remains un-crystallised.

Stokols and Shumaker (1981) describe a system configuration of place dependence, labelling two components of goal-orientated behaviour: (1) the quality of the place in terms of social and physical resources to satisfy goal directed behaviour, and (2) how it compares to other alternative places (Pretty, Chipuerb & Bramston 2003). Comparisons described as involving both the emotional bonds to and the activities afforded by a setting (Zhang, Matsuoka & Huang 2018) that are not always conscious or continuous but come into play when circumstances heighten awareness (Stokols & Shumaker 1981). Circumstances such as meeting a group of friends in a public space or a decision to spend time in a public space.

“This perspective suggests that the positive affective content of the bond results from successful goal pursuit, the cognitions consist of expectations of goal attainment based on past experiences, the behavior expressed is repeated place use, and the place focus is social or physical, depending on the particular goals sought (e.g., Kyle et al., 2004, Proshansky et al., 1983). This can lead to place dependence, a type of attachment in which individuals value a place for the specific activities that it supports or facilitates (Jorgensen and Stedman, 2001, Moore and Graefe, 1994)” (Scannell & Gifford 2010:6).

This is consistent with Rapoport’s (1982) description of initial interactions with environments as an affective image, an initial feeling which frames subsequent analysis, evaluation and decisions about a physical setting. Something Motloch (2000) referred to as a two-stage process of setting appraisal followed by a second inter-related process of evaluation. The arguments presented by Motlock (2000) and Rapoport (1982) are supported by GIS mapping of behaviour in public space which found materiality of design elements less important than their context indicating decision making, be it affective and or cognitive, is part of actualised behaviour in public space and worthy of further research (Ghavampour et al., 2017). While Kaplan (1987; 1995) reasoned perception is related to mental representation, a gradual process comparing past experiences with the present, studies have found affective images are not preceded by a cognitive process but are precognitive and constitute the initial level of response (Dixon, 1981). Controlled experimentation on preference, attitude and impression formation, decision-making and clinical phenomena indicate that "affective reactions to stimuli are often the very first reactions of the organism ... can occur without extensive perceptual and cognitive encoding, are made with greater confidence than cognitive judgements, and can be made sooner" (Zajonc, 1980:151).

While complexities of methodological innovations are articulated, and observations of place, placelessness, identity and sense of place described, the literature is deficit in research descriptions of how individual and shared meanings of physical spaces are generated. By collating theoretical views on place-making with experimental work in affect and cognition and field research in place dependence, it is reasoned that mental images in the theory of place are comprised of affective and cognitive associations with physical settings and activities in those settings. Within this framework connections between physical settings and behavior are explored with the hypothesis that behaviour in public space is defined by affective and cognitive images of physical settings.

Method

Participants

The participants were 160 stationary users of four public spaces in the city center of Wellington, New Zealand (Ghavampour, 2014). Two participants were excluded with incomplete data. The 158 included respondents compromised 77 male, 78 female and 3 unspecified, aged between 14-64 years with a mean age of 31.8 years. The sample was 61.4% NZ European, 13.9% European, 8.9% Asian, 3.8% Māori, 2.5% American/African, 1.9% Middle Eastern/Latin and 2.5% other ethnicity. The average length of time living in Wellington was 10 years. 67.7% had tertiary education, 6.3% trade qualifications and 23.4% secondary qualifications. 53.8 % work in the city center and 65% use the public space more than 2 or 3 days a week. Times of data collection was spread evenly across the four locations and represented different times of the day (morning, lunchtime, afternoon) split between workdays and weekends.

Questionnaire Design

The research hypothesis identifies affect, cognition, physical setting, and behavior as the four facets to examine the theory of place-making in public space. Facet theory (Hackett, 2014) was used to design the questionnaire. This method for evaluating hypothesised relationships has been used for research in social disciplines and architecture but is not common or widely used in urban design. In a facet theory, the link between theoretically derived hypotheses and empirical research is established through a mapping sentence. This sentence links the theoretically defined facets and specifies the range of response for the population of interest (Borg & Shye, 1995). Each of the four facets identified in the research question and the elements within each facet are defined as follows:

• Physical Setting (2 x 3 = 6 elements): Incorporating natural design elements like grass, trees and water, contributes to activity in small urban public spaces to which people go individually or in groups. In defining the physical setting, material type (natural or artificial) is combined with three representative design elements of public space, furniture, surfaces and features (Motloch, 2000). This combination of material type and design elements defines six elements in the physical setting facet.

• Affect (2 elements): Affect is described on two primary dimensions – pleasantness and arousal (Russell & Pratt, 1980). The combination of pleasantness and arousal gives rise to feeling of excitement while pleasant and low arousal is relaxing. An unpleasant arousal brings distress, with unpleasant low arousal gloomy (Yik, et al., 2011). In public space, relaxing spaces are pleasant, peaceful and tranquil and exciting spaces are interesting and energizing. Based on the work of Russell and Pratt (1980) and Yik, Russell and Steiger (2011), relaxing and exciting were used to define two elements in the affect facet. These elements represent the positive activation of affect with negative deactivations indicated by participant ratings on the response scale.

• Cognition (2 elements): In defining urban cognition Nasar (1989) refers to Lynch’s (1960) concept of imageability through which people build knowledge in public space. The two important cognitive components of imageability are legibility and meaningfulness (Montgomery, 1998; Nasar, 1994, Gifford, 2014). A space is legible when it has an obvious arrangement and clear structure, and meaningful when its identity holds a special character for the person, the clear identity and obvious arrangement of public space defined the two elements of the cognitive facet.

• Behaviour (2 elements): Gehl (1987) and Lennard and Lennard (1995) categorized activity in in public space, with being alone or being with friends and family the two extended types of activity. Gehl (1987) sorted activities in terms of intensity, from simple non-communal contacts (being alone and seeing and hearing people) to complex and emotionally involved connections (being with friends and family). Similarly, Lennard and Lennard (1995) grouped social life in public place through connections to others without speech and being in public in a group. For the behaviour facet, behavior is divided into two types, whether the behavior is undertaken alone, or with a group.

Specific examples of design elements or behaviour are excluded from the facets to reduce the influence of individual differences in preferences. For example, if natural is tropical for one person and a manicured garden to another, inclusion of specific examples would confound the results. The first would prefer small urban public spaces with lush tropical vegetation and not be interested in meeting friends or going alone to a space with organized gardens. The decision-making process of each user would be the same, but the outcome of the process in a specific context would be different. A positive affect in one context would frame the cognitive appraisal and preference for the space while a negative affect in another space would result in a lower preference for that space. This pattern would reverse for the second respondent. The process would be consistent, but the data different. By using sparse descriptions, respondents drew on their experience to answer each question and the group average results are indicative of a consistent process used by each participant.

The second step in the questionnaire design is construction of a mapping sentence to link the facets with empirical research. The inter-relationships between behaviour, physical setting and mental image is defined for the population of interest, users of small urban public spaces, with affect and cognition represented by separate facets of mental image.

The mapping sentence (Figure 1) specifies 48 items in a 2x (2x3) x2 x 2 combination of elements in facets. A typical item is: “When I spend time with my friends in public spaces, I prefer places with wood and stone furnishings because the place is relaxing and has a special character”. The 48 items were presented in two sections of 24 items in the questionnaire as specified by the behaviour facet (being alone or with friends). Written instructions explaining this division were provided. Responses to each of the 48 items was indicated on a seven-point likert scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree.

Data Analysis

The influence of individual differences in experience is controlled in the present research by interviewing stationary users of public space with a generic questionnaire. The questionnaire does not ask them about the public space, their current activity or indicate what they might do if meeting friends or spending time in a public space. Their presence indicates a shared preference for using public space in the urban core. The group average response is analyzed using non-metric Multi-Dimensional Scaling (MDS) with each item represented as a point in a multidimensional Euclidean space. Within this space, items having similar response patterns are grouped closer together with the relative locations of items providing a graphical representation of the similarity or dissimilarity of each item to all other items. Regions within the spatial representation are defined by elements which share similar item response patterns. This visual description of data structure is further informed using mean preference ratings for each item and non-parametric statistical tests (Friedman’s χ²) to assess differences between regions (Groves & Wilson, 1993).

Results

The two-dimensional spatial representation of 48 questionnaire items is described by the naturalness or artificiality of design elements (Figure 2). With the artificial design elements, the 24 items depict three sub-groupings: artificial furnishing (plastic, metal), artificial surfaces (painted, concrete or tiled) and artificial features (sculpture, artefacts, decorative). There is a separation between being alone or with friends with artificial furnishings and artificial surfaces. The eight items relating to artificial features are proximal to the 24 natural items. With the natural items, the separation between design elements, and the separation between being alone or with friends, not as distinct with natural surfaces (grass, stone, wood) and natural features (trees, water, plants) inter-related.

Figure 2: Two-dimensional spatial representation of 48 items (stress=0.07, N=158)

The preference ratings of natural and artificial design elements, broken down by behaviour and site (Table 1) indicated a preference for natural design elements (median = 130.5) over artificial design elements (median = 96) (Friedman χ² = 131.9, df = 1, N = 158, p < 0.000). This preference for natural design elements was significant on weekdays (χ² = 72.053, p < 0.000), weekends (χ² = 60.266, p < 0.000), if alone (χ² = 134.427, p < 0.000) or with friends (χ² = 120.695, p < 0.000).

With both the natural and artificial design elements, features receive the highest preference, followed by surfaces, with furnishings given the lowest rating. This result is observed overall and in 30 of the 32 ratings on workdays and weekends for each site. Artificial surfaces and artificial furnishings receive an overall negative rating (i.e., means ˂ four).

• A significant difference between natural features (median = 48), surfaces (median = 44), and furnishings (median = 40) (χ² = 122.015, df = 2, N = 158, p < 0.000). Post-hoc pairwise comparisons using Wilcoxon found the median preference for natural features was significantly greater than the median preferences natural surfaces (p < 0.000) and furnishings (p < 0.000), and the median preference for natural surface significantly greater than the median preference for natural furnishing (p < 0.000).

• With artificial design elements, a significant difference was found between artificial features (median = 40), surfaces (median = 31.5), and furnishings (median = 28) (χ² = 149.247, df = 2, N = 158, p < 0.000). Post-hoc pairwise comparisons using Wilcoxon found the median preference for artificial feature was significantly greater than the median preference for surface (p < 0.000) and furnishing (p < 0.000), and the median preference for surface significantly greater than the median preference for furnishing (p < 0.000).

With the overall preference for natural design elements over artificial elements and statistical difference between types of design elements, separate analyses were conducted for natural and artificial elements. In the two-dimensional spatial representation of the 24 natural design elements (Figure 3), behaviour is described by mental image (affect, cognition) and type of design element. The spatial representation of data points from upper left to lower right reflects overall preferences with natural features preferred, followed by natural surfaces and natural furnishings (Table 1). Within this ordering, design elements are distinguished by mental image. Three regions are evidenced: (1) Natural design elements that have a ‘relaxing and special character’ (lower left), an intertwined middle grouping of ‘relaxing and clear structure’ and ‘exciting and special character’, and (3) design elements ‘exciting and clear structure’ (upper right). Although preferences for natural features, surfaces and furnishings were found to be different (Table 1), natural design elements with ‘relaxing and special character’ are preferred for solo and group activity. Natural design elements with an ‘exciting and clear structure’ are less preferred than natural design elements that have an ‘exciting and special character’ or ‘relaxing and clear structure’ (Table 2). Nested within this two-dimensional mental image of natural design features, the separation between the four affective-cognitive combinations for solo activity is greater than the separation between design elements for group activity.

Figure 3: Two-dimensional spatial representation of 24 natural design elements classified by design feature, behaviour and cognitive-affective affordance (stress=0.14, N=158)

In the analysis of the 24 artificial design elements, differences between features, surfaces and furnishings are greater than mental images (affective, cognitive) of solo or group activity (Figure 4). The mean preference ratings decrease left to right and there is no separation within artificial furnishings and artificial surfaces based on their affective-cognitive evaluations. With artificial features which received positive preference ratings (Table 1) and were closer to the natural design elements in the overall analysis (Figure 2), artificial features with a ‘special character’ are preferred to those with a ‘clear structure’.

Discussion

In theory, place is defined by an alignment of mental image, behaviour and physical setting. A model within which mental image has an implicit temporal dimension where past experience is reflected in the affective and cognitive response to physical settings at a present point in time. Within this framework, it was hypothesized that anticipated behaviour in public space can be described by affective and cognitive responses to the physical settings and the design elements in those settings. Mental image (affect, cognition), anticipated behaviour and design elements of public space were defined from previous research and mapped using facet theory to represent the hypothesised configuration. The research conducted in four public spaces found that the affective and cognitive processing of natural and artificial design elements in public space described preferences for solo and group activity in public space. That relaxing spaces with natural design elements are preferred when individuals anticipate meeting friends in public space or spending time in public space. While artificial surfaces and furnishings received negative evaluations, artificial features with special character are a positive focus for individual and group activity. For solo users, the experience is important. Within the preference for relaxing natural design elements, the character of space is more important than its structure. When meeting friends, usability and functionality of the space is evaluated, with furniture and elements with character and structure preferred. These findings evidence Rapoport (1982) and Mortlock’s (2000) arguments, and research on place dependence that both affective and cognitive process are involved, with the affective image providing a gateway to the physical setting for cognitive appraisal of design elements for anticipated behaviour. Mental image is pivotal to use and non-use of public space, subspaces within, and design elements within subspaces. A theoretical conceptualization of place-making framed from the perspective of past experience. Experiences which include social, cultural and educational contexts, are reflected in measurement of affective responses and cognitive evaluations.

The description of physical settings and behaviour defined and measured using a mapping sentence described a system operating as if these linguistic constructs exist and interact. An interpretation of a system configuration which argued theoretically is evidenced through results of data (Norman, 1986). An evidence base that is predicated by the assumption that measurement of the hypothesis is achieved with the linguistic manipulations. This is an assumption of not only the present research, but also of surveys that permeate place-making design tools, and more generally in studies of people environment interactions using questionnaire items. Research on manipulations of linguistic scales (e.g. likert type scales) which assess affective and cognitive responses to physical settings have found evaluations are consistent within each task and systematically different between tasks (Ward & Russell, 1981). The differences in response patterns within tasks are treated as errors of measurement and average response patterns are presented as indicative of the sampled population’s mental image. While Ward and Russell (1981) argued that mental representation is complex, Daniel and Ittelson (1981) noted that these tasks "consistently reproduce their own a priori semantic structure" (p. 153). That is, a within group consistency which is an artefact of the measurement task. Words defined, and definitions commonly understood, a top-down cognitive constraint activated by the linguistic manipulations. However, when multivariate analyses compared individual response patterns, affect scales where the one exception to the within task consistency evidenced using verbal and also non-verbal scaling techniques (Groves, 1992; Groves & Clutton, 1990). With non-verbal sorting tasks and pairwise comparisons, similar response patterns appear to be driven by matching similarities between physical settings. The constraints of an affect response task used in research direct individuals to draw on lived experience. With the affect evaluations, the individual differences within task are greater than the within task similarities. Pleasant, relaxing, exciting, etc., are linguistic categories defined through idiosyncrasies of lived experiences with the response scale enabling individuals express their accumulated experience. Experiences which can overlap with shared cultural, social and educational histories, experiences which can be influenced by marketing, but experiences which are lived uniquely and are ongoing.

Through affect response scales place-making has a methodological window to access an underlying process where individual differences exist. A window to articulate temporal dimensions of mental images which define how goals are satisfied in physical settings. However, whether settings are pleasant, relaxing, exciting or unpleasant might be less important than the comparisons and insights the scales provide.

“…the degree to which a person feels attached to, or dependent on, a place is a function of how well his or her needs, goals, or motivations are satisfied or how positive he or she perceives his or her experiences to be in that location” (Norsidah & Khalilah, 2014:712).

Too often designers rely on a checklist of design attributes, counts of movement patterns, or surveys of stakeholders and users of public space, rather than an interpretation of data grounded in theory. The place-making becomes an artifact of the methodology used. A clear alignment of theory and practice is required to use knowledge of authentic and conscious place-making to provide a more sustainable approach to design of public space. Place-making in practice needs to expand the focus of design beyond a build of person-environment fit where behaviour and physical settings are a temporary alignment. A shift from aligning design with measurements at a point of time to focus on dynamic physical settings within which opportunities can evolve and spaces are “… far more than interesting groups of buildings, or well-formed street spaces, or just foci of social and economic enterprises” (Relph, 1993:37). Design tools which transform spaces into places from the inside out, providing scope for “…modifications, additions and changes in social behaviour” (Relph 1993:36). Places where possibility exists for territories of meaning that will grow and evolve in support of chosen activities. Place as a fundamental expression of human-environment interactions, a socio-spatial concept, connecting people individually and personally with space (Dovey, 2016). In this context, designers are required to provide direction and advice and become objective participants in ongoing processes of place-making with skills “… to resolve specific technical matters, overcome parochialism, and see the broader effects and implications of local actions” (Relph 1993:34).

Acknowledgment

An earlier version of this paper was presented at The Future of Place Conference III, June 2015, Stockholm, Sweden [http://futureofplaces.com].

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Borg I, Shye S 1995 Facet theory: Form and content Sage Publications, Inc

Canter D 1977 The psychology of place Architectural Press, London

Canter D 2008 Do we need a meta-theory of the built environment? Building Research & Information 36 663-667

Canter D 1997 The Facets of Place. In Moore GT Marans RW (eds) Toward the Integration of Theory, Methods, Research, and Utilization. Advances in Environment, Behavior and Design, vol 4. Springer, Boston, MA

Carmona M 2010 Public places, urban spaces: the dimensions of urban design (2nd ed.) Architectural Press, Amsterdam; Boston

Carmona M 2015 Re-theorising contemporary public space: a new narrative and a new normative, Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability 8.4 373-405

Cilliers E J, Timmermans W 2014 The importance of creative participatory planning in the public place-making process Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 41.3 413-429

Daniel T C, Ittelson W H 1981 Conditions for environmental perception research: Comment on "The psychological representation of molar physical environments" by Ward and Russell Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 110 153-157

Dixon N F 1981 Preconscious Processing John Wiley & Sons New York

Dovey K 2010 Becoming Places: urbanism/architecture/identity/power Routledge, London; New York

Dovey K 2016 Place as multiplicity in Place and Placelessness Revisited Edited by Freestone and Liu Routledge, New York 257-268

Florida R 2002 The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It's Transforming Work, Leisure, Community, and Everyday Life Basic Books, New York

Gehl J 1987 Life between buildings: using public space Island Press, Washington, DC

Ghavampour E 2014 The contribution of natural design elements to the sustained use of public space in a city centre PhD thesis Faculty of Architecture, Victoria University of Wellington

Ghavampour E Del Aguila M Vale B 2017 GIS mapping and analysis of behaviour in small urban public spaces Area 49.3 349–358

Gifford R 2014 Environmental Psychology Matters Annual Review of Psychology 65.1 541-579

Groves M A 1992 Beyond spatial representation Quality and Quantity 26.1 49-59

Groves M A, Clutton S 1990 Measurement task effects in environmental cognition research People and Physical Environment Research 33 16-21

Groves M A, Wilson V F 1993 To move or not to move? Factors influencing the housing choice of elderly persons Journal of Housing for the Elderly 10(1/2) 33-47

Hackett P M 2014 Facet Theory and the Mapping Sentence: Evolving Philosophy, Use and Application Macmillan, Palgrave

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: towards an integrative framework Journal of Environmental Psychology 15 169–82

Liu E, Freestone R 2016 Revisiting place and placelessness in Place and Placelessness Revisited Edited by Freestone and Liu Routledge, New York 1-19

Lennard S H C, Lennard H L 1995 Livable cities observed: a source book of images and ideas for city officials, community leaders, architects, planners and all other committed to making their cities livable Gondolier Press, Carmel, CA

Lewicka M 2011 Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? Journal of Environmental Psychology 31.3 207-230

Lynch K 1960 The image of the city Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, MA

Motloch J L 2000 Introduction to landscape design (2 ed.) Wiley, New York

Montgomery, J. (1998). Making a city: Urbanity, vitality and urban design. Journal of Urban Design, 3.1 93-116.

Nasar J L 1989 Perception, cognition, and evaluation of urban places. In Altman I, Zube E H (Eds.), Public places and spaces (Vol. 10) 31-56 Plenum Press, New York

Nasar J L 1994 Urban design aesthetics the evaluative qualities of building exteriors Environment & Behavior 26(3) 377-401

Norman D A 1986 Reflections on Cognition and Parallel Distributed Processing. In McClelland J L, Rumelhart D E (eds.), Parallel Distributed Processing (vol. 2) M.I.T. Press, Cambridge Massachusetts

Norsidah Ujang, Khalilah Zakariya (2014) The Notion of Place, Place Meaning and Identity in Urban Regeneration, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 170 ( 2015 ) 709 – 717

Pretty G H, Chipuerb H M, Bramston p 2003 Sense of place amongst adolescents and adults in two rural Australian towns: The discriminating features of place attachment, sense of community and place dependence in relation to place identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 273–287

Rapoport A 1982 The meaning of the built environment: a nonverbal communication approach. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA

Relph E C 1976 Place and placelessness Pion, London

Relph E C 1993 Modernity and the Reclamation of Place in Seamon D (ed.), Dwelling, Seeing and Designing: Toward a Phenomenological Ecology, Albany: State University of New York Press, 25–40

Relph E C 2016 Afterword in Place and Placelessness Revisited Edited by Freestone and Liu Routledge, New York 295-298

Russell J A, Pratt G 1980 A description of the affective quality attributed to environments Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38.2 311-322

Scannell L Gifford R 2010 Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30.1 1-10

Stedman R 2003 Is It Really Just a Social Construction? The Contribution of the Physical Environment to Sense of Place Society and Natural Resource 16 671-685

Stokols D Shumaker SA 1981 People in places: a transactional view of settings in J Harvey (ed.), Cognition, social behavior, and the environment, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ pp. 441-488

Strydom W, Puren K 2013 A participatory approach to public space design as informative for place-making Challenges of Modern Technology 4 33-40

Wagner P L 1972 Environments and Peoples Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs NJ

Ward L M, Russell J A 1981 The psychological representation of molar physical environments Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 110 121-152

Wyckoff M A. 2014 Definition of placemaking: four different types. Planning & Zoning News, 32(3)

Yik M, Russell J A, Steiger J H 2011 A 12-point circumplex structure of core affect. Emotion 11.4 705-731

Zajonc R B 1980 Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences American Psychologist 35(2) 151-175

Zhang H, Matsuoka R H & Huang Y J 2018 How do community planning features affect place relationship of residents? An investigation of place attachment, social interaction and community participation Sustainability 10.8 2726