Investigating Space, Activities and Social Dynamics

  • Belinda YuenEmail author
  • Parvathi Nair


The On-site Observation, one of three Urban Audit tools, observed and recorded the various ways in which a range of public outdoor spaces are used by older and other users from the community through a weekday and weekend day. Interest is with investigating the relationship between spatial characteristics, activity patterns and the social dynamics of urban public spaces in residential neighbourhoods. The analysis showed that design features and time of day could impact the activity patterns of these public spaces.


Public spacesPublic Space observationObservation Weekend Day Void Deck Hard Court 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We gratefully acknowledge the following for their generous support and assistance with the On-Site Observation Survey: all students at Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) including Architecture and Sustainable Design (ASD) 2015 class of 20.016 Urban Analysis who helped us record the observations at the four sites of study; student intern, Lim Aunn Ning, for meticulously compiling the observation data digitally; our colleagues Cheong Sue Wei and Emily Yongxu Soh for verifying the data entry; Laura Jasmine for coordinating the observation data collection and Adithi Moogoor for assisting with the photo presentation in this Chapter.


  1. Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977). A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction. USA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Carmona, M. (2010). Public places, urban spaces. Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Carmona, M., Tiesdell, S., Heath, T., & Oc, T. (2010). Public places urban spaces. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  4. DeWalt, K. M., & DeWalt, B. R. (2002). Participant observation: A guide for fieldworkers. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  5. Gehl, J. (1987). Life between buildings. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  6. Goličnik, B. (2011). Analysis of patterns of spatial occupancy in urban open space using behavior maps and GIS. Journal of Urban Design International, 16(1), 36–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lefebvre, H. (1947). The critique of everyday life. Paris: Grasset.Google Scholar
  8. Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Madanipour, A. (Ed.). (2010). Whose public space? International case studies in urban design and development. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Mandanipour, A., Cars, G., & Allen, J. (1998). Social exclusion in European cities: Processes, experiences and responses. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Mean, M., & Tims, C. (2005). People make places. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  12. Pinto, J., & Remesar, A. (2012). Public space networks as a support for urban diversity. Open House International, 37(2), 15–23.Google Scholar
  13. Project for Public Spaces. (2009a). What makes a successful place? Accessed April 20, 2016.
  14. Project for Public Spaces. (2009b). What is placemaking? Accessed July 11, 2017.
  15. Tate, A. (2015). Great City Parks. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. WallJasper, J. (2007). The great neighbourhood book. Canada: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Whyte, W. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation.Google Scholar
  18. World Health Organisation. (2007). Global age-friendly cities: A guide. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Singapore University of Technology and DesignSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations