Description
In this project we want to investigate a park’s perception of safety and pleasantness in relation to different target groups. Because of a Park’s divergent perception (e.g., from leisure during the day to potential illegal activities at night), public parks occupy a special role in the public eye. Inspired by citizen science methodologies, the research emphasizes an inclusive and playful approach to public park design by harnessing the motivational pull of video games as a starting point. For example, we will utilize a digital city-building game, so that each study participant can design their own "perfect” park. The goal is to evaluate individual approaches to designing subjectively safe and appealing public spaces. Depending on the individual’s characteristics (e.g., gender, physical capabilities, past experiences, being a parent) different aspects of park-design can be in focus. Based on these results we will extract general design-guidelines and rules that we can use to design “prototypically safe” parks for each perspective.
This project is divided into three distinct project phases, each with their respective results and outputs for the next phase. At the end of the project, we will hold a workshop including municipalities and safety workers to discuss the potential real-world implications of our results.
The goal of the first phase is to evaluate individual approaches to designing subjectively safe and appealing public spaces. We expect to uncover notable differences between what is perceived safe and appealing in a densely populated city environment such as Amsterdam vs. the more rural Enschede. Based on these results we will extract general design-guidelines and rules that we can use to design “prototypically safe” parks for each perspective. Following this in phase 2, we will generate “prototypical safe” park designs which will be evaluated again by the participants. This step is crucial to assess and refine the design-guidelines. We expect to be able to present a set of park-design rules that lead to a safe and appealing park for a sample similar to the one gathered in Phase 1. These prototypically safe parks will be discussed with stakeholders form municipalities, citizens and emergency services to get their input on the peoples’ opinions. In a final application step, we will use the extracted rules to classify and rate existing parks in Amsterdam and Enschede. This requires the analysis of satellite imagery as well as actually visiting the parks in person. In the end, a list of parks in the cities will be compiled together with their respective scores. This list will be discussed with stakeholders form municipalities, citizens and emergency services.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: This project will have you work with other students and colleagues across the University of Twente as well as collaborate with colleagues from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. This is part of the ongoing project into “Safe & Pleasant Parks - Exploring the Power of Games for Co-Design and Perspective Taking “ funded by a VU-UT Grant.
Research Questions
Below some exemplary research questions but you specific RQ depends also on your interest! Make the project your own.
(1) What drives the perception of safe and pleasant parks in different populations?
(2) How can a game such as city skylines or the sims be used to (co-)design parks?
(3) Does the perception of a park depend on the surroundings and the location within the country?
Type of Research
Mixed-methods research. Data analysis will involve both qualitative (e.g., via the thinking-aloud method) and quantitative data (e.g., gathered via questionnaires). Research may involve the use of phsyical props, going on-location or video games.
Key words
Co-Design, Gamification, Interviews, City Planning, Perceptions of Safety, Third Spaces
Information
Please contact Steven Watson (s.j.watson@utwente.nl) when you are interested in this assignment.
Start
Start is flexible.
This assignment can be coupled with a previous internship. If the internship route is chosen a more elaborate setup is expected to be developed and piloted.
Literature
- Van Melik, R., Van Aalst, I., & Van Weesep, J. (2007). Fear and fantasy in the public domain: the development of secured and themed urban space. Journal of urban design, 12(1), 25-42.
- Byrne, J., & Sipe, N. (2010). Green and open space planning for urban consolidation–A review of the literature and best practice. Issues Paper, 11.
- Varna, G., & Tiesdell, S. (2010). Assessing the publicness of public space: The star model of publicness. Journal of Urban Design, 15(4), 575-598.
- Low, S. (2020). Social justice as a framework for evaluating public space. In Companion to public space (pp. 59-69). Routledge.
- Holden, G. (2019). Eyes on the street: the role of ‘third places’ in improving perceived neighbourhood safety. In Rethinking Third Places (pp. 95-115). Edward Elgar Publishing.
- Van Melik, R. (2009). Visualising the effect of private‐sector involvement on redeveloped public spaces in the Netherlands. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 100(1), 114-120.
- Vrancken, E. (2020). Investigation in how the personal perceived safety in city parks is influenced, by its characteristics, in the city Groningen (Doctoral dissertation).
- Barker, A., Holmes, G., Alam, R., Cape-Davenhill, L., Osei-Appiah, S., & Warrington Brown, S. (2022). What Makes a Park Feel Safe or Unsafe? The views of women, girls and professionals in West Yorkshire.