Public space in towns and cities is known to be linked to wellbeing, but most of the research looks at green spaces, such as parks, or ‘blue’ spaces, such as an urban stream or canal. What about ‘hard’ spaces: town squares, playgrounds, skate parks, and pedestrianised areas?
We used Understanding Society data, with data on open spaces in London from Greenspace Information for Greater London (GiGL), to see if hard-surfaced outside space was linked to subjective wellbeing. The answer was that the relationship was less straightforward than it is for green space, and depends on how safe the neighbourhood is.
How we used the data
We used Wave 6 of Understanding Society, the most recent year available in which participants were asked about neighbourhood attitudes such as how safe their local area feels. Using a Special Licence, we were able to link respondents to the electoral ward they lived in. At an average of 2.5 square km, these are a suitably small size to study, and we matched each open space to one of these wards. We focused on London, because it’s the only UK city for which detailed data are available on hard-surfaced public space.
The GiGL data had information on over 12,000 spaces in London, including 1,600 with hard surfaces, and over 5,600 green spaces, including parks, green corridors, and community gardens. Of the 625 wards in London, 219 had no hard-surfaced public space, compared to just 14 with no green space.
We controlled for factors such as people’s gender, ethnicity, employment and age, and for area factors including average income, unemployment rate and crime rate.
What we found
One of the first things to note is that different types of outside space are largely separate from each other, with green spaces mostly outside the centre of London, and hard spaces more common in the centre.
Looking at simple correlations, green space was positively linked to wellbeing, and hard space had a negative effect – possibly because hard spaces are also associated with wards with high levels of unemployment, while the reverse is true for green space. This suggests that there tends to be more green space in more affluent areas, while hard space is more common in more deprived neighbourhoods.
When we carried out Ordinary Least Squares regression – to look at the relationship between different variables – we again found that green space is positively associated with wellbeing, but hard space showed no significant relationship. However, when we included another variable – the perceived safety of a neighbourhood – things changed significantly. Green space is good for wellbeing regardless of the safety of the neighbourhood, but hard space is good for wellbeing in wards in which people feel safe, and it lowers wellbeing in areas where they don’t.
We also looked at housing tenure to compare the results for homeowners, private renters and social renters. For homeowners, green space was still positively associated with wellbeing, but hard space had no effect either way – possibly because of a smaller sample size, or it may be that this group is more alike socioeconomically, and that other variables therefore have less effect on their wellbeing. Private renters didn’t show any links between outside space and wellbeing, but for social renters, the safety of the neighbourhood was significant: hard-surfaced public space has a greater positive association in wards that feel safe, but a greater negative association in unsafe wards.
What do these results mean?
It seems that green space’s link to wellbeing is relatively straightforward: parks and other such places allow people to exercise outside, enjoy the natural environment, or just have some peace and quiet. For hard spaces, though, the relationship with wellbeing is more complicated.
Green spaces (on average 5.69 hectares) tend to be larger than hard ones (average 0.65ha), so people can spread out more, while hard spaces encourage people to congregate and interact. This is perhaps why the safety of the neighbourhood is a factor. If the area feels safe, people can come together happily, but if unsafe, a civic space could become a site of antisocial or criminal activity, or a place where people fear harassment.
The results relating to social renters are interesting, suggesting that social housing residents, like other vulnerable groups, are particularly sensitive to antisocial behaviour. The social capital created in safe wards is especially valuable for low-income groups, who are less likely to have other kinds of capital. It may also be that hard space tends to be concentrated in deprived areas, and is therefore more visited by people on low incomes.
We only used one wave of Understanding Society, so it was difficult to determine causation. We can’t see whether public space improves wellbeing, or if people with greater wellbeing tend to live in areas with more public space – however, the fact that findings hold for social renters, who do not get to choose explicitly where they live, suggest the former.
We also couldn’t examine the design and quality of the public spaces themselves: did they have benches and wildlife, and how did they sit in relation to local housing? Public space is not either good or bad, but sits on a continuum from low to high quality – so this is something that needs to be explored further.
What does this mean for policy?
We believe policymakers should think about both hard space and green space when planning, and bear in mind that each type of outside space may have different effects on wellbeing. It’s not enough to simply create outside space – policy has to take into account the area’s characteristics and needs. Also, more public space may not be the answer. If a hard space works by bringing people together, having more of them could spread people out too thinly.
Local authorities should aim to create green spaces in all neighbourhoods – because green space is good for wellbeing regardless of the area’s safety – but build hard spaces in safe areas. Providing hard space should be done hand-in-hand with other interventions to address the socioeconomic factors which make areas unsafe in the first place.
Authors
William Holy-Hasted
William Holy-Hasted graduated from the Faculty of Human, Social and Political Sciences University of Cambridge, and works at Algebris Investments
Brendan Burchell
Brendan Burchell is Professor in the Social Sciences at the University of Cambridge
