Advertisement

URBAN DESIGN International

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 280–295 | Cite as

Eating outdoors: an inscription–prescription analysis of user behaviour in public spaces

  • Jihyun KimEmail author
Original Article
  • 69 Downloads

Abstract

This paper examines how public spaces deal with users’ demand for eating food under the framework of inscription–prescription (Akrich, in: Law and Bijker (eds) Shaping Technology/Building Society: studies in socio-technical change, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1992), which is based on actor-network theory (ANT). This concept approaches to a physical setting of space working for eating activity, and reveals the social–material interactions in public space. The empirical research was conducted in two small public spaces in London—Fortune Street Park and Kingston Ancient Market. This research reveals (1) the detailed inscription (materialisation) process from the social interests connected with eating to the physical objects in public space; (2) the different relational dynamics between various actors in the prescription for eating; and (3) how the eating prescriptions in each case respond to the other activities. These findings demonstrate the effectiveness of the prescription framework as an empirical tool for exploring diverse public space issues.

Keywords

Public space Inscription Prescription Actor-network theory User behaviour Affordance 

Notes

References

  1. Akrich, M. 1992. The Description of Technical Objects. In Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Socio-technical Change, ed. J. Law and W.E. Bijker, 205–224. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Akrich, M., and B. Latour. 1992. A Summary of a Convenient Vocabulary for the Semiotics of Human and Nonhuman Assemblies. In Shaping Technology/Building Society Studies in Sociotecnical Change, ed. J. Law and W.E. Bijker, 259–264. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Alexander, C. 1979. The Timeless Way of Building. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Batty, M., 2003. Agent-Based Pedestrian Modelling. Working Papers Series, Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, University College London, paper 61.Google Scholar
  5. Carmona, M., C. de Magalhães, and L. Hammond. 2008. Public Space: The Management Dimension. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carmona, M., and F.M. Wunderlich. 2013. Capital Spaces: The Multiple Complex Public Spaces of a Global City. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cerdá, I. 1867. Teoría general de la urbanización, y aplicación de sus principios y doctrinas a la reforma y ensanche de Barcelona, Imprenta Española.Google Scholar
  8. Chemero, A. 2003. An Outline of a Theory of Affordances. Ecological Psychology 15 (2): 181–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Franck, K., and Q. Stevens. 2006. Loose Space: Possibility and Diversity in Urban Life. Abington: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gaisbauer, C. and A.U. Frank. 2008. Wayfinding Model for Pedestrian Navigation. In 11th AGILE International Conference on Geographic Information Science 2008. University of Girona, Spain.Google Scholar
  11. Gehl, J., and J. Koch. 2001. Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. Copenhagen: Arkitektens forlag.Google Scholar
  12. Gibson, J.J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Mifflin and Company.Google Scholar
  13. Gottdiener, M., and A.P. Lagopoulos. 1986. The City and the Sign: An Introduction to Urban Semiotics. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Greeno, J.G. 1994. Gibson’s Affordances. Psychological Review 101 (2): 336–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hartson, R. 2003. Cognitive, Physical, Sensory, and Functional Affordances in Interaction Design. Behaviour & Information Technology 22 (5): 315–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jacobs, J. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  17. Jencks, C. 1980. The Architectural Sign. In Signs, Symbols and Architecture, ed. G. Broadbent, R. Bunt, and C. Jencks, 107–110. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Krampen, M. 1979. Meaning in the Urban Environment. Thousand Oaks: Pion.Google Scholar
  19. Latour, B. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Latour, B. 1992. Where are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artifacts. In Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, ed. J. Law and W. Bijker, 225–258. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Latour, B. 1994. On Technical Mediation. Common Knowledge 3 (2): 29–64.Google Scholar
  22. Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  23. Loveland, K.A. 1991. Social Affordances and Interaction II: Autism and the Affordances of the Human Environment. Ecological Psychology 3 (2): 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Norman, D. 2004. Affordances and design. Unpublished article. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265618710_Affordances_and_Design. Accessed 18 Sept 2019.
  25. Ozbil, A., J. Peponis, and B. Stone. 2011. Understanding the Link Between Street Connectivity, Land Use and Pedestrian Flows. Urban Design International 16 (2): 125–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rapoport, A. 1982. The Meaning of the Built Environment: A Nonverbal Communication Approach. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  27. Salingaros, N.A. 1999. Urban Space and Its Information Field. Journal of Urban Design 4 (1): 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sauter, D., and M. Huettenmoser. 2008. Liveable Streets and Social Inclusion. Urban Design International 13 (2): 67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schelhorn, T. et al. 1999. Streets: An Agent-based Pedestrian Model. Working Papers Series, Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, University College London, paper 9.Google Scholar
  30. Stoffregen, T.A. 2003. Affordances as Properties of the Animal-Environment System. Ecological Psychology 15 (2): 115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Turner, A. 2003. Analysing the Visual Dynamics of Spatial Morphology. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 30: 657–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Turvey, M.T. 1992. Affordances and Prospective Control: An Outline of the Ontology. Ecological Psychology 4 (3): 173–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Whyte, W.H. 1980. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Washington, DC: Conservation Foundation.Google Scholar
  34. Ye, L., W. Cardwell, and L.S. Mark. 2009. Perceiving Multiple Affordances for Objects. Ecological Psychology 21 (3): 185–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zacharias, J. 2001. Pedestrian Behavior Pedestrian Behavior and Perception in Urban Walking Environments. Journal of Planning Literature 16 (1): 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zimring, C., et al. 2005. Influences of Building Design and Site Design on Physical Activity: Research and Intervention Opportunities. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 28 (2 Suppl 2): 186–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bartlett School of PlanningUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations