Ensuring communication-friendly green and public spaces for sustainable cities: Sustainable Development Goal 11

Abstract

Purpose

In this commentary article, we explore the needs of people with communication disability in relation to sustainable and inclusive communities. More green and public spaces is one strategy identified by the United Nations in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for creating sustainable and inclusive communities. We argue that through thoughtful design, these spaces could address the needs of people with communication disability and foster greater social interaction thereby supporting mental well-being. We present a model related to planning and design of green and public spaces that may provide a useful framework for considering the communication needs of people with a communication disability.

Result

Creative and practical approaches to planning green and public spaces, in consultation with local community members with lived experience of communication disability, helps to ensure inclusive meeting spaces that encourage connection over isolation.

Conclusion

Well-designed green and public spaces provide opportunities for natural communication for people with communication disability and may decrease their sense of isolation, thereby reducing the risk of concomitant mental health problems. Future research is needed to explore how stakeholder consultation could enhance planning processes and address the specific needs of people with communication disability. This commentary focuses on sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11) and also addresses good health and well-being (SDG 3) and partnerships for the goals (SDG 17).

Keywords:

• Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
• communication disability
• social connection
• mental health
• green and public spaces
• good health and well-being (SDG 3)
• sustainable communities (SDG 11)
• partnerships for the goals (SDG 17)

Introduction

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted by the United Nations (2015) is an agenda of action targeting “areas of critical importance to humanity and the planet”. Half the world’s population lives in cities, and the United Nations anticipates that these urban areas will grow to house two-thirds of the population by 2050 (United Nations, 2018). Sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11) highlight that this expansion of the built environment negatively impacts both the environment and the general health of communities. Within SDG 11, target 11.7 states, “By 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces, in particular for women and children, older persons and persons with disabilities.” This target highlights the role of green and public spaces in delivering significant environmental and economic benefits for communities. Green and public spaces are also linked to improved health outcomes by providing opportunities for physical activity and social connection (Rojas-Rueda et al., 2019) and therefore connect with and support SDG 3, which targets good health and well-being. There has been much research into designing green and public spaces that accommodate the needs of people who face the issue of physical accessibility (Gleeson, 2001). However, these spaces play an equally important role in social connection (Gehl, 2010), which is established and maintained largely through communication. In this commentary, we consider how planning and design of green and public spaces may address the needs of people with communication disability, to ensure active and successful engagement with others in such spaces.

The importance of public spaces

Public spaces, such as parks and streets, are “critical to cities’ productivity and the social and health dimensions of their populations” (United Nations, 2015). Based on data collected from 911 cities around the world in 2020, it was estimated that these public spaces average 16% globally, with streets accounting for three times as much as open spaces such as parks (United Nations, 2021). In contrast, the United Nations has set a target of 30% of urban areas allocated to streets and 10−15% designated as open spaces (United Nations, 2021). SDG 11, target 11.7 focuses attention specifically on the important role of “green and public spaces” in urban areas, and the need to raise the current allocation of around 4% (United Nations, 2015) to the targeted goal of 10−15%.

The function of green and public spaces falls into three categories: (a) environmental, (b) economic and aesthetic, and (c) social and psychological (Haq, 2011). In a systematic review of longitudinal studies investigating the benefits of green and public spaces, Rojas-Rueda et al. (2019) found that increasing increments of green and public spaces in residential areas was significantly associated with reducing the risk of all causes of mortality. They recommended future interventions related to urban planning of green and public spaces consider the whole spectrum of positive outcomes, not simply ecological benefits. Indeed, they viewed increasing green spaces as a strategic public health intervention. A review by James et al. (2015) found growing evidence that green and public spaces influence health by promoting physical activity, social contact, and decreasing stress, with strong, positive associations found between green spaces and physical activity. More recently, in a public online survey studying the impact of lockdown measures during the COVID-19 pandemic, residents across several European countries listed exercising outdoors and talking to others as things they missed most in relation to accessing green spaces (Ugolini et al., 2020).

The link between green and public spaces and general well-being speak directly to issues faced by people with communication disability or communication support needs. Although difficult to summarise the prevalence literature, it is estimated that internationally, up to 20% of the population have communication support needs (See Law et al., 2007 for discussion). People living with communication disability are vulnerable to isolation with many likely to experience mental health problems during their lifetime (Dubois et al., 2020; Conti-Ramsden & Botting, 2008; Im-Bolter & Cohen, 2007). Snow et al. (2012) have called communication disability a hidden disability, highlighting how co-morbid emotional, social, and behavioural difficulties often obscure underlying language problems. This association suggests that both communication and mental health needs should be considered when supporting people with communication disability. From this perspective, green and public spaces may play an important role in supporting people’s communication and mental health needs. However, closer consideration needs to be given to the planning and design processes of green and public spaces in order to address the diverse yet specific needs of people with communication disability.

Ideally, when considering the access needs of people with communication disability to converse with others in green and public spaces, input from people with lived experience should be sought from the beginning of the planning and design process. In SDG 17: partnerships for the goals, such consultation has been promoted, emphasising the need for multi-stakeholder partnerships. For example, Carroll et al. (2018), emphasised the importance of involving people with communication disability in each phase of their project to educate and provide tools for catering staff in restaurants to assist people with communication disability.

Renowned urbanist, Jan Gehl (2010) emphasised the need for greater focus on the needs of people who use urban spaces in general, to achieve lively, safe, sustainable and healthy cities. Although his work focuses broadly on principles underlying urban planning, he specifically described 12 quality criteria for developing public spaces. It is acknowledged that resources available to communities to meet such standards will vary depending on economic feasibility or competing priorities, such as providing areas for public housing. However, Gehl’s principles are considered universal, applicable to urban centres everywhere, and guide communities that are planning green and public spaces. Table I presents Gehl’s 12 quality criteria with examples of factors that Gehl suggested for consideration in urban planning processes. Gehl (2010) focused attention on the role of green and public spaces not just in providing an area for physical activity but also for social connection through the concept of “talkscapes.” Gehl’s talkscapes consider the physical, environmental and sensorial aspects of a public space which negatively or positively impact the activities of talking and listening and are clearly reflected in the 12 quality criteria, listed under three categories: (a) protection, (b) comfort and (c) delight. While the first two categories focus on what users experience in a green and public space, the third category addresses how users experience these spaces. These quality criteria provide a useful framework when considering the suitability and design of green and public spaces in terms of access and participation for people with communication disability. Table II presents example questions that could be asked in relation to each of these categories to assist urban planners in considering the needs of people with communication disorders.

Table I. Gehl’s (2010) 12 quality criteria for pedestrian public spaces.

Quality criteria	Examples of factors to be considered^a
Protection
Protect against:
1. Traffic and accidents (safety)	Pedestrian-focused
2. Crime and violence (security)	Lighting
3. Unpleasant sensory experiences	Climate, weather
Comfort
Opportunities to:
4. Walk	Paving
5. Stand, stay	Physical accessibility
6. Talk and listen	Obstacles
7. Sit	Attractiveness
8. See	Views
9. Play and exercise	Noise levels
	Options
	Variety of activities
Delight
10. Human scale	Sun and shade
11. Enjoyment of climate	Breeze
12. Positive sensory experiences	Greenness (trees, plants) and water

Note. ^aOnly a summary of examples from Gehl’s work are listed in the table.

Table II. Gehl’s (2010) qualitative criteria and associated questions to consider in relation to Talkscapes.

Criteria and planning questions
Protection (i.e. safety, security and unpleasant sensory experiences)
Are there zones where people can escape the “busy-ness” of the public areas but still feel protected within the space?
Are there semi-private spaces where people can meet to talk?
Are there group meeting spaces where noise levels are reduced?
Are there all-weather spaces?
Comfort (i.e. opportunities to walk, stand and stay, talk and listen, sit, see, play and exercise)
Does the public space offer options for those who wish to talk and listen?
Are paths wide enough for 2–3 people to walk-and-talk?
Are shoulders of paths wide enough for faster individuals to pass slow-moving groups?
Are paths well-surfaced so that walking does not detract from attention that is needed for communicating?
Are “talkscapes” responsive to social and cultural differences?
Do “talkscapes” provide options (sit, stand, or walk) responsive to individual variations?
Do seated zones provide options; some offering more privacy while others are more open and inviting for individuals to connect?
Can opportunities for play and activity be created in ways that encourage turn-taking and conversation between people?
Are green and public spaces designed to accommodate different age groups?
Delight (i.e. human scale, enjoyment of climate and positive sensory experiences)
Are zones for talking and listening planned to optimise the positive aspects of climate (e.g. warmth and breeze), while reducing negative impacts (e.g. noise and glare)?
Are “talkscapes” protected from noise and overly distracting surroundings?
Has the range of sensory experiences (visual, auditory, smell and touch) that may prompt conversation been considered for prompting conversation?
If there are limited interesting views, have other options been explored as possible talking spots (e.g. use of sculpture and plants of distinct foliage)?
Are there zones that can be used for sport and games?
Are there tables to physically support communication devices between communication partners?

Protection

In the first category of Protection, Gehl (2010) considers safety and security as crucial elements of green space design. Communication disability can be isolating, arising from barriers of access and participation and leading to social and emotional concerns (Law et al., 2007). Safety and security are key principles in mental health interventions, such as attachment theory (Hughes, 2004). In attachment theory, mental health clinicians advocate that children and adults with social and emotional concerns must feel safe and secure before interventions can be effectively engaged (Hughes, 2004). It follows that safety and security are important if we are considering green and public spaces in relation to their potential for supporting social communication opportunities. Reducing unpleasant sensory experiences is also important for meeting the needs of people with communication disability. For example, ambient noise level greater than 72 dB will be disruptive of speech communication (Tuomainen et al., 2019), potentially creating a barrier for people with communication disability in green and public spaces.

Comfort

Comfort focuses on ensuring green and public spaces offer opportunities for activities. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations, 2006) outlines “universal design” whereby services and environments are accessible to all. It encourages a considered approach that focuses on the user’s experience. Various strategies exist in urban planning for addressing the physical access needs of people with physical and visual disability (Gleeson, 2001). Modifications to improve accessibility, such as ramps, wide and level pathways, hand railings and signs in symbols or Braille have become standard in many countries. Solarsh and Johnson (2017) have highlighted the need to address the barriers that limit social interaction for people with communication support needs. Although Solarsh and Johnson focused on businesses and organisations, similar principles apply to the needs of people with communication disability to effectively participate within Gehl’s “talkscapes”. For example, Gehl (2010) pointed out that benches arranged in parallel are less conducive to conversation, than those positioned at angles to each other. Plinth style seating that lacks backrests is equally unappealing (Gehl, 2010). Additionally, paths in green and public spaces need to be wide enough and well maintained so that users can walk and talk together. For example, well-maintained paths without obstructions are important for people with disorders such as Parkinson’s Disease who experience communication and physical disabilities as they are at an increased risk of falls due to the impact of cognitive loading, when they walk and talk (LaPointe et al., 2010).

Delight

A key goal of Gehl (2010) is to raise awareness of the “human dimension” (p. 3) of urban planning by decreasing emphasis on designing public spaces around traffic and increasing consideration of urban spaces from the human perspective. Factors, such as sun, shade, heat, breeze, and glare, have been considered in relation to people’s physical and visual access needs in green and public spaces (Gleeson, 2001; Law et al., 2007). However, zones for talking and listening where people are likely to stop and stay are particularly susceptible to these elements of climate. Good design should take such factors into consideration, striking a balance between enjoyment and protection.

As Gehl quotes, “man is man’s greatest joy” (Havamal, quoted in Gehl, 2010, p. 23), reflecting that people are inherently interested in other people and are therefore attracted to places that are busy with people rather than traffic. Green and public spaces that are designed to be people-busy, incorporating areas or zones that suit different activities, such as playgrounds, sports fields, meeting spaces, and areas for music and entertainment will attract people to engage in social connections. A recent study by Darcy et al. (2022) examined projects aimed at involving people with disability in participating in beach and surf activities. Darcy et al. found that participants described being socially isolated and feeling intimidated by social activity. The participants further reported their need to feel valued and socially accepted. To simply provide opportunities for sporting and physical activities, games, playgrounds or other activities in green and public spaces does not address this need for social acceptance. Community stories shared on internet sites describe the installation of large and colourful communication boards in parks and playgrounds to support communication access. However, delight in these spaces is enhanced through the human interaction, and so some organisations describe also including information for communication support partners to assist accessing these playground boards. Similarly, providing small tables between seating arrays allows convenience for supporting communication devices, further aiding social interaction.

Summary

SDG 11 focuses on sustainable cities and communities. Within this goal, target 11.7 aims to ensure that green and public spaces are designed and maintained to be inviting and inclusive for all, specifically highlighting women and children, older persons and persons with disabilities. In this commentary, we have highlighted the importance of considering the needs of people with communication disability to facilitate connecting socially in green and public spaces. Future research needs to identify features that make green and public spaces more inclusive for people, no matter gender, age or ability. Specifically, research in urban planning processes is needed, that explores how the needs and preferences of people with communication disability can be accommodated in novel ways. Two strategies are recommended. First, we suggest that when planning new or enhancing existing green and public spaces in urban areas, stakeholder consultation should involve a diverse range of people, including people with a lived experience of communication disability in their design. Second, Gehl’s (2010) three criteria (protection, comfort and delight) can be applied to consider the specific needs of individuals with communication disability. Potential benefits may help to optimise green and public spaces in such a way as to support opportunities for talking and listening and in return promote general health and mental well-being.

Declaration of interest

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).