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

Figures & data

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?

Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for people. Washington, DC: Island Press.

 Google Scholar