Research on the relationship between space and social interaction has focused on indoor spaces, such as museums and offices. However, empirical evidence on the connection between the intensity of social interaction and outdoor public spaces is still lacking. Applying machine learning algorithms to a 9-hour time-lapse video of an urban park, we decipher the effects of two spatial features, edges, and landmarks, on visitors’ activities. We identified dynamic visitor groups in the videos through a graph-based method and mapped the clustering pattern of interaction activities over time and space. In parallel, we used a computer vision algorithm to delineate fixed objects (notably the harbourfront, landside park boundary, a carousel, four benches, three pavilions, and four heart-shaped seating) and dynamic edges (formed by moveable furniture as park visitors repositioned them) onsite. We found that dynamic edges formed by moveable furniture and the fixed edge of a visual landmark consistently attracted more social interaction and group activities. In designing public spaces that encourage group activities, urban planners and designers can leverage the combination of fixed objects and flexible furniture to maximise the choices for visitors and curate a more engaging public open space.
AtheySFergusonBGentzkowM, et al. (2020) Experienced segregation (No. w27572. National Bureau of Economic Research. DOI: 10.3386/w27572.
2.
BirchCPOomSPBeechamJA (2007) Rectangular and hexagonal grids used for observation, experiment and simulation in ecology. Ecological Modelling206(3–4): 347–359.
3.
FestingerLSchachterSBackK (1950) Social Pressures in Informal Groups; a Study of Human Factors in Housing. Harper
4.
FischerCS (1982) To Dwell Among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5.
GansHJ (1961) Planning and social life: friendship and neighbor relations in suburban communities. Journal of the American Institute of Planners27(2): 134–140. DOI: 10.1080/01944366108978443
6.
GehlJ (1971) Life between Buildings: Using Public Space Copenhagen. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danish Architectural Press.
7.
GeWCollinsRTRubackRB (2012) Vision-based analysis of small groups in pedestrian crowds. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence34(5): 1003–1016. DOI: 10.1109/TPAMI.2011.176
8.
GirshickR (2015) Fast r-cnn. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision: 1440–1448.
9.
HallET (1963) A system for the notation of proxemic behavior. American Anthropologist65(5): 1003–1026.
10.
HillierBHansonJ (1989) The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11.
HillierBPennAHansonJ, et al. (1993) Natural movement: or, configuration and attraction in urban pedestrian movement. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design20(1): 29–66. DOI: 10.1068/b200029
12.
HunterRFGarciaLde SaTH, et al. (2021) Effect of COVID-19 response policies on walking behavior in US cities. Nature Communications12(1): 3652. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-23937-9
13.
JacobsAB (1993) Great streets. ACCESS Magazine1(3): 23–27.
14.
LimLKanferRStroebelRJ, et al. (2022) Beyond co-location: visual connections of staff workstations and staff communication in primary care clinics. Environment and Behavior54(1): 3–35. DOI: 10.1177/0013916520950270
15.
LinT-YMaireMBelongieS, et al. (2014) Microsoft coco: common objects in context. European Conference on Computer Vision: 740–755.
16.
LooBPY (2021) Walking towards a happy city. Journal of Transport Geography93: 103078. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103078
17.
LooBPYLamWWYMahendranR, et al. (2017) How is the neighborhood environment related to the health of seniors living in Hong Kong, Singapore, and Tokyo? some insights for promoting aging in place. Annals of the American Association of Geographers107(4): 812–828. DOI: 10.1080/24694452.2016.1271306
18.
Loukaitou-siderisA (2003) Children’s Common Grounds: A Study of Intergroup Relations Among Children in Public Settings. Journal of the American Planning Association69(2): 130–143. DOI: 10.1080/01944360308976302
19.
McDonaldNYuanQNaumannR (2019) Urban freight and road safety in the era of e-commerce. Traffic Injury Prevention20(7): 764–770. DOI: 10.1080/15389588.2019.1651930
20.
MehtaVBossonJK (2010) Third Places and the social life of streets. Environment and Behavior42(6): 779–805. DOI: 10.1177/0013916509344677
MoroECalacciDDongX, et al. (2021) Mobility patterns are associated with experienced income segregation in large US cities. Nature Communications12(1): 4633. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-24899-8
23.
NiuTQingLHanL, et al. (2022) Small public space vitality analysis and evaluation based on human trajectory modeling using video data. Building and Environment225: 109563. DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109563
24.
OldenburgRBrissettD (1982) The third place. Qualitative Sociology5(4): 265–284. DOI: 10.1007/BF00986754
PanWGhoshalGKrummeC, et al. (2013) Urban characteristics attributable to density-driven tie formation. Nature Communications4(1): 1961. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms2961
27.
RenZLeeYJRyooMS (2018) Learning to anonymize faces for privacy preserving action detection. Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV): 620–636.
28.
RiveraETimperioALohVH, et al. (2021) Important park features for encouraging park visitation, physical activity and social interaction among adolescents: A conjoint analysis. Health & Place70: 102617. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2021.102617
29.
Schmitt-GrohéSTeohKUribeM (2020) Covid-19: testing inequality in New York City (No. w27019. National Bureau of Economic Research. DOI: 10.3386/w27019.w27019.
30.
SchubertESanderJEsterM, et al. (2017) DBSCAN revisited, revisited: Why and how you should (still) use DBSCAN. ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS)42(3): 1–21.
31.
SimmelG (1971) On Individuality and Social Forms. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Chicago.
Simões AelbrechtP (2016) ‘Fourth places’: The contemporary public settings for informal social interaction among strangers. Journal of Urban Design21(1): 124–152. DOI: 10.1080/13574809.2015.1106920
34.
SmallML (2009) Unanticipated Gains: Origins of Network Inequality in Everyday Life. London: Oxford University Press.
35.
SmallMLAdlerL (2019) The role of space in the formation of social ties. Annual Review of Sociology45(1): 111–132. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-soc-073018-022707
36.
SpillaneJPShirrellMSweetTM (2017) The elephant in the schoolhouse: the role of propinquity in school staff interactions about teaching. Sociology of Education90(2): 149–171. DOI: 10.1177/0038040717696151
37.
TurnerJH (1988) A Theory of Social Interaction. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
38.
VeitchJBallKRiveraE, et al. (2022) What entices older adults to parks? Identification of park features that encourage park visitation, physical activity, and social interaction. Landscape and Urban Planning217: 104254. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104254
39.
WhyteWH (1980) The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Otjiwarongo, Namibia: Conservation Foundation.
40.
WilkersonACarlsonNEYenIH, et al. (2012) Neighborhood physical features and relationships with neighbors: Does positive physical environment increase neighborliness?Environment and Behavior44(5): 595–615.
41.
WilliamsSAhnCGuncH, et al. (2019) Evaluating sensors for the measurement of public life: A future in image processing. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science46(8): 1534–1548. DOI: 10.1177/2399808319852636
42.
WojkeNBewleyAPaulusD (2017) Simple online and realtime tracking with a deep association metric. IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP). 3645–3649 DOI: 10.1109/ICIP.2017.8296962
43.
YuFLiWLiQ, et al. (2016) Poi: Multiple object tracking with high performance detection and appearance feature. European Conference on Computer Vision: 36–42.
44.
ZakiMHSayedT (2018) Automated analysis of pedestrian group behavior in urban settings. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems19(6): 1880–1889. DOI: 10.1109/TITS.2017.2747516
45.
ZhangFLooBPYWangB (2021) Aging in place: from the neighborhood environment, sense of community, to life satisfaction. Annals of the American Association of Geographers112: 1484–1499.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
