Report by the Institute for Sustainable Systems and

Technologies, University of South Australia to SA Active

Living Coalition

Creating Active Communities: How Can Open and

Public Spaces in Urban and Suburban
Environments Support Active Living?
A Literature Review

Associate Professor Jon Kellett and Dr Matthew W. Rofe

School of Natural and Built Environments
University of South Australia

August 2009
1

This report was prepared by Associate Professor Jon Kellett and Dr Matthew
W. Rofe from the Institute for Sustainable Systems and Technologies,
University of South Australia for the South Australian Active Living
Coalition, a collaborative forum for the planning and coordination of active
living in South Australia.
The Members include representatives from the following organisations:
Heart Foundation (Lead Agency)
Cancer Council of South Australia
Department of Health
Department of Planning and Local Government
Department of Transport and Infrastructure (Office of Walking and
Cycling)
Land Management Corporation
Local Government Recreation Forum
Office of Recreation and Sport
Planning Institute of Australia (SA Division)

Material documented in this publication may be reproduced providing due

acknowledgement is made.

Enquiries about this publication should be addressed to the Secretariat of

the SA Active Living Coalition:
Heart Foundation
155 Hutt Street
ADELAIDE SA 5000
Phone: (08) 8224 2888

Table of contents:
Executive Summary

Creating Active Communities: Introduction

1.2

Aims of the Research

Definition of Terms

2.1

Open Space

2.2

Development Density

10

The Academic Literature on Open Space Provision

13

3.1

Types of Open Space Provision

15

3.1.1

Green space

15

3.1.2

Non-green space

16

3.1.3

Public Open Space: Issues of Access

18

3.2

Uses of Public Open Space:

22

3.2.1

Moderate Activity

24

3.2.2

Vigorous Activity

24

3.2.3

Passive Activity

25

3.3

Location of Open Space

27

3.4

Design and Open Space

30

The Policy Perspective

37

4.1

Open Space Hierarchies

42

4.1.1

Alternative Approaches

44

4.1.2

Current Examples of Space Planning

46

4.2

Open Space in Higher Density Urban Development

48

4.2.1

Transit Oriented Development

49

Conclusions

52

Recommendations

55

Recommendations for Further Work

57

8.

Reference List

58

Acknowledgements

68

List of Tables, Boxes and Figures:

Table 1.1

Indicative measures of residential density

12

Figure 3.1

Reported barriers to walking for people 50 years and

20

above

Figure 3.2

Proximity and Directness in neighbourhood design

28

Table 3.1

Park Types and Descriptions

32

Box 4.1

UK National Playing Fields Association Open Space

Assessment

39

Table 4.1

Open space planning standards in Canberra

41

Table 4.2

Example of an open space hierarchy

43

Table 4.3

Space provision using standards for 6,600 persons at

50

high and low densities

Executive Summary
Open space is an important component of urban areas and may be a key factor in
promoting active living. This report seeks to identify the evidence base in respect
of evaluating the importance of open and public space in supporting active living
through a review of the academic and policy evidence. It begins by defining open
space as space within the urban environment which is readily available to the
community regardless of its size, design or physical features and which is intended
for, primarily, amenity or physical recreation, whether active or passive. The
report addresses the academic literature under four main headings namely, types
of open space, uses of space, location of spaces and design of space. It is clear
that open space covers a broad range of sizes and types of area from small
pocket parks, children s play areas and urban squares to sports fields and
extensive green areas. The evidence indicates that these fulfil a range of
functions in respect of physical activity, from active sports to passive sitting,
picnicking and as a venue for socialising for a range of age groups. Open space
also needs to be viewed as fulfilling multiple urban functions such as amenity,
biodiversity enhancement, flood mitigation and carbon sequestration. Open space
may be located in dense urban centres, suburbs and urban fringe locations and
may serve diverse populations in terms of density, demographics and cultures in
multi ethnic cities. The evidence suggests that the full range of spaces is
significant in promoting physical activity, but the literature tends to focus more on
active pursuits than on the passive.

The evolution of open space policy is charted and common aspects such as open
space hierarchies and open space standards are identified. It is clear that there is
a long legacy of standards and approaches to the provision and design of open
space, which is increasingly open to question and are beginning to change. The
research addresses the issue of open space provision in different densities of
urban development. It identifies a paucity of evidence in respect of the appropriate
provision or design of open space in higher density and transit oriented
developments. The conclusions emphasise the importance of well designed open
space which is part of an interconnected network to promote pedestrian and
bicycle trips between open space destinations. Design guidance recommendations

include distance thresholds for the location of open space in residential areas, the
importance of safety in location and design and the value of needs based
assessments which should include public input.

Creating Active Communities: How Can Open and Public

Spaces in Urban and Suburban Environments Support
Active Living? A Literature Review.
1.

Introduction:

Increasing concern about chronic health problems, such as heart disease,

diabetes, asthma, obesity and depression, in 21st century urban populations has
prompted a debate about the underlying causes of these diseases. A range of
arguments are put forward including environmental factors such as air pollution
from industrial sources and vehicle exhausts, increasing levels of work related
stress and changing personal behaviour patterns, which include the sedentary
nature of many modern jobs and an increased reliance on private cars for a range
of transport needs. Related to these latter aspects it is further argued that the way
we plan and lay out our modern cities is a factor in reducing physical activity,
which has a direct bearing on decreasing levels of public health (Jackson, 2003).
In particular the prevalence of low density residential suburbs, separated from
places of work, shops, community and recreational facilities is seen as a stimulus
to increasing rates of private car use, which in turn reduce opportunities for
walking and cycling, forms of exercise, which to previous generations were an
integral part of daily life. Allied to an increased concern about safety in the urban
environment and an increasing trend towards more sedentary recreational
pursuits, notably computer gaming, it is further argued that increasing levels of
childhood obesity are a result of declining opportunities for outdoor play and
activity, which in part stem from the design decisions of urban planners and
housing developers.

If the nature of urban environments is a factor in the increased prevalence of these

chronic diseases in modern society then a detailed analysis of the relationship
between different types of land use, the density of development, the relative
location of different land uses and crucially, the impact of different land use
patterns on private car usage is required. A number of studies have concentrated

on this latter aspect in particular (Crane and Crepeau, 1998; Crane, 2000; Handy,
1996; Parsons et al, 1996). The evidence is not conclusive. There is no clear
consensus that car trips are reduced and active forms of travel (walking and
cycling) increase as a function of higher density development. Whilst there is
sufficient evidence to argue that higher density forms of development reduce
vehicle passenger kilometres travelled and reduce petrol consumption (Kenworthy
et al, 1999), the scale of such savings is a matter for debate with a number of
commentators suggesting that very large density increases are required to make
appreciable savings in fuel consumption (Gordon, 1997, Troy, 1992, 1996,
Boarnet and Sarmiento, 1998).

A growing number of studies have sought to

identify key relationships between the urban fabric and public health (Hahn and
Craythorn, 1994, Frank, 2000, Baum and Palmer, 2002, Frank et al, 2004, GilesCorti et al, 2007). The main findings and recommendations are diverse and relate
to issues of land use and air quality, land use decision making impacts on water
quality (Jackson and Kochtitzky, 2001), design for pedestrian safety from vehicles
(Crum and Foote, 1996), and urban form and activity patterns (Frank, 2000).
Saelens et al (2003) argue that land use mix which fosters close proximity of
shopping, work and housing appears related to a greater uptake of walking and
cycling amongst residents whilst Bull (2001) points to the research difficulties of
obtaining data and reaching firm conclusions in this area of research. A Canadian
review of evidence (Raine et al, 2008) suggests that walkability is positively
influenced by increased residential density and mixed land use whilst it is
negatively associated with low residential density, uniform land use urban sprawl.
Recent Australian research has emphasised the increasing importance of fostering
active lifestyles as a means of curbing the increase of the diseases referred to
above (Kavanagh et al, 2005, Giles - Corti, 2006, Hume et al, 2007). How this can
be achieved and what are the precise relationships between urban form and active
living is the subject of ongoing research of which this paper forms a part.

1.2

Aims of the Research:

Much of the recent research into the relationship between urban form and active
living focuses on the value of mixing land uses, of locating facilities such as shops,
schools and community facilities within easy walking distance of homes and
8

providing safe and attractive opportunities for walking and cycling. The provision
of open space as a focus for physical activity receives less attention. So the
purpose of the current paper is to explore and review the literature which looks at
the provision of open space within the urban fabric. In particular it seeks to
identify the evidence base in respect of evaluating the importance of open
and public space in supporting active living through a review of the
academic and policy evidence.

The review also focuses on the issue of how increased urban densities may affect
planning for open space in the urban environment. The currently high level of
interest in Transit Oriented Development (TOD) begs the question of the
appropriate level of open space provision. This is a key concern of policy makers
in Australian cities at present and particularly in Adelaide, which has recently
announced a strategy of concentrating on TOD developments within the
metropolitan area in its 30 Year Planning Strategy (Government of South
Australia, 2008). Opportunities for active recreation, playing sport, walking and
cycling are all potential benefits of the provision within urban areas of open space
areas. But how much space is appropriate? What size and designs are most
effective in attracting and promoting active living? What accessibility standards
are required to maximise the utility of open space in urban areas? And does the
open space requirement change as densities increase?

This review seeks to

address these questions through an examination of the evidence base.

2.

Definition of Terms

2.1. Open Space:

It could be argued that any area within the urban envelope not occupied by
buildings constitutes open space. The Plan for London, for example, defines open
space as:
All land use in London that is predominantly undeveloped other than
by buildings or structures that are ancillary to the open space use.

The definition covers the broad range of open space types within
London, whether in public or private ownership and whether public
access is unrestricted, limited or restricted (Mayor of London, 2004).

To employ such a broad definition here may be problematic for a number of

reasons. First our concern is open space that can be used for physical activity of
some kind. Large areas of unbuilt land in cities are given over to vehicle usage as
roads or parking and cannot be considered as available for physical activity apart
from by cyclists.

This in turn begs questions as to whether road verges,

pavements, footpaths, and cycle ways are to be considered as open space since
most of these afford some potential for physical activity. The type of space is
therefore an issue. Scottish planning policy defines open space as including:

green space consisting of any vegetated land or structure, water or

geological feature within and on the edges of settlements including
allotments trees woodland, paths and civic space consisting of
squares, marketplaces and other paved or hard landscaped areas
with a civic function (Scottish Government 2007).

This definition raises issues of whether open space needs to be contained within
the urban areas as opposed to being on its edge and the nature of its surface
treatment, namely, hard or soft. Other commentators present a variety of more
restricted or distinct definitions (UK Department of Communities and Local
Government, 2002, Girling and Helphand, 1994, Woolley, 2003). One concept
which reoccurs is the concept of open space as a "third place" (Oldenburg, 2000,
Baum and Palmer, 2002, Frumkin, 2003) that is neither home nor workplace, but
part of a public realm where social encounter is enhanced. Of course third places
need not be open space. Theatres, bars, restaurants, and sports facilities also
constitute such third places, some but not all of which, have physical activity
connotations.

The concept of third places in turn raises questions about the

distinction between space, which is readily and legally accessible to the public and
private space, most usually in residential settings, in the form of private gardens.
The latter are often valued aspects of the residential environment and a location
for physical activity for both adults, through active gardening, and children, as a
10

venue for play (Cook, 1968, Kellett, 1982, Hall, 1987, Halkett, 1975). There also
exists a range of semi public spaces such as school sports fields and playgrounds
and amenity space dedicated to specific developments e.g. gardens or parks
shared between several dwellings. If we consider the literature which examines
physical activity in the urban environment we see a range of considerations
including parks (predominantly American), recreation space (predominantly UK
based), and studies which focus on physical activity wherever it may take place in
the urban context, including footpaths, trails, stairwells and sports fields.

So

arriving at a definition for open space and public open space is not straightforward.

One approach is to distinguish between

Open space: Green i.e. predominantly soft surfaced space within the urban
environment. This may be legally accessible to all, have partially restricted access
or be private e.g. private gardens attached to dwellings,

And

Public space: Hard surfaced spaces within the urban environment but excluding
the vehicle carriageways of roads and open air surface car parking areas.

Using this approach we primarily distinguish between types of space (i.e. soft or
hard surface) and we ignore any hard surfaced space which is not publicly
accessible to all. On balance it seems more sensible to consider private space,
whether soft or hard separately, and employ one definition of Public Open Space
as:

Space within the urban environment which is readily accessible to the

community regardless of its size, design or physical features and
which is intended for, primarily, amenity or physical recreation,
whether active or passive.

Thus, we exclude cycle-ways, footpaths and pavements which are part of the
urban fabric and attached to roads, even though these may have value for
11

physical activity, but we include nature trails and linear features such as cycle
ways, provided they are physically separated from vehicle carriageways. Finally,
water space is noted in the UK Planning Policy Guidance (Dept of Communities
and Local Government, 2002) and Thompson (2008) as an area that may fall
within an open space definition.

This may include linear waterways such as

canals and creeks as well as reservoirs, lakes and smaller areas of water. We
include water space in our definition.

2.2. Development Density:

In this review we are also concerned with the density of urban development,
specifically in respect of evidence supporting levels of open space provision within
higher density residential areas. Density itself is a simple concept which seeks to
measure the intensity of occupation of the land. Thus we can assess density in
terms of dwellings, floor space, habitable rooms, bed spaces or persons per
hectare.

We might also seek to describe an area in terms of its intensity of

occupation by certain groups, for example children or aged persons per hectare.
None of this is complex, though the actual metrics rely on accurate measurement
and data collection. But what, at first glance, seems a simple concept can become
problematic when we seek to describe densities as low or high. In this sense
density is culturally specific, so what may be seen as high density in an Australian
city would likely be considered as relatively low in an Asian city. Also the actual
measure of density is not always immediately discernible from the characteristics
of an area. Thus, different dwelling forms, single as opposed to two or three
storey, row, detached and semi detached and different spacing conventions
particularly in respect of set back of buildings from the street can produce an
impression of lower or higher density which is not borne out by the actual
calculation of density for the area. These issues have been well illustrated by
Planning SA (2006). A key concern is that it is as much the form and distribution
of space around buildings as the dwelling form, which produces the density
outcome. So a high rise (say 10 storeys) block of apartments may appear to
represent high density living, but if it is widely separated from neighbouring blocks
then it may represent a density of development no higher than the same number
of dwellings in the form of row houses, occupying the same site area. Different
12

forms of dwellings can produce an illusion of density and it can be misleading to

specify building form as a key density indicator. It should also be noted that a
range of types of density measures exist. So we may be concerned with net
residential density, which is the intensity of land use area of land taking only
dwellings and their immediate surroundings into account. Immediate surroundings
are normally taken to include associated garden space and sometimes local
vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation space. Or we may be interested in
defining gross density, which takes other associated uses such as schools,
community facilities such as local shops and recreation parks as well the housing
itself.

Thus for the same general area, gross density measures are always

quantitatively less than net measures.

Australian cities display characteristics which rank them as low density on a

comparative world scale of gross density. Australians have also tended to regard
residential layouts, which are by international standards low density, as the norm.
A net density of 10-15 dwellings per hectare (dph) is fairly typical of suburban
residential layouts developed in the twentieth century in many Australian cities. In
the last twenty years net densities in new developments have tended to increase.
The Mawson Lakes development in Adelaide for example, displays net densities of
between 15 and 20 dph.

Despite representing an increase over previous

suburban densities, the areas of Mawson Lakes being described remain for the
most part, single family detached houses. Inter block spacing is a key factor in
changing density measures. In all developments planning standards, which seek
to ensure vehicle access, privacy and sunlight access to dwellings, determine the
minimum distances between building, fronts, rears and sides. Thus, once these
minima are reached, it is possible to describe the change in dwelling form which is
required to achieve different density thresholds. Table 1 below provides some
indicative measures.

13

Net density
Assessment
Predominant Dwelling form
Less than 17
Very low
Detached
17-33
Low
Detached
34-67
Medium
Semi detached
67+
High
Row houses + apartments
Table 1.1: Indicative measures of residential density 1
Source: Planning SA (2006) Understanding Residential Densities and Kellett J
(1983) Public Policy & the Private Garden, Unpublished PhD Thesis,
Council for National Academic Awards, UK
From Table 1.1 it is clear that in the Australian context, where the majority of the
existing housing stock consists of detached single story dwellings, the limit of low
density is reached at around 30 dph.

Medium density can be viewed as

representing a measure of net density between the low 30s to around 65 dph. This
latter represents a development of row houses with minimum inter block spacing
1

and allotment sizes averaging 150 square meters. Achieving densities above this

level requires a contribution of low rise (normally defined as 5 storeys or less) flats.
Thus, given the predilection of the Australian population for houses as opposed to
apartments, high density in the Australian context could be argued to range from
65 dph upwards.

The threshold at which low rise (5 storeys or less) needs to give way to high rise
(above 5 storeys) is around 220 dph. All of these estimates depend on the
average floor area of dwellings and the generosity of inter block spacing as well as
localised site specific factors such as shape and slope. They should therefore be
viewed as an indicative guide, not as hard and fast rules.
Throughout this document the following terms are defined as follows:

High Density:

Greater than 65 dwellings per hectare

Medium Density:

30 - 65 dph

NB These density calculations use a definition of net density which does not include any public
circulation space. As such they tend to inflate achievable density measures by around 25%.
14

Low Density:

1 - 29 dph

Active Living: A way of life that integrates physical activity into daily routines

3.

The Academic Literature on Open Space Provision:

An exhaustive review of the literature relating to the provision of public open space
and activity was undertaken. These materials represented the diversity of interest
in the topic at hand spanning academic studies, policy documents, advocacy
reports and general community information packages. This section reviews the
academic literature pertaining to the provision of public open space. We classify
academic literature as research papers published in refereed journals of
international standing by professional academics2.

Distinguishing this material

form policy and/or advocacy literature is important for two reasons; first academic
studies are characterised by an objective, inquiry-driven research paradigm and
second publication by a blind expert referee process provides a significant degree
of confidence in the veracity of reported research findings and their interpretation.
Given the complex nature of public open space provision and public health the
core literature sample demonstrated a significant breadth of academic disciplines
and their relevant journals. Urban planning, design and geography journals were
represented within the core sample.

These included internationally prominent

journals such as Landscape and Urban Planning, Journal of Planning Literature

and Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. However, the
majority of the academic literature on the topic was published in the fields of public
health and other health sciences.

Prominent journals addressing public open

space provision and public health included the American Journal of Preventative
Medicine, Journal of Public Health Policy, the American Journal of Health
Promotion, Public Health Reports and Health and Place. In their 2007 review
paper, Kaczynski and Henderson s (2007, p.317) asserted that public health
researchers are at the forefront of research into the public health benefits can be
2

This section includes 2 sources not published in refereed journals; these being Frank and Co (2008) and Thompson, S.
(2008). These have been included in this discussion due to their high quality, the standing of the authors and/or the
existence of a verifiable review process. Frank and Co s (2008) principle author is Dr Lawrence D. Frank who holds the
Professorial Chair in Sustainable Transportation at the University of British Columbia, Canada. Thompson, S. (2008) is
published online at Your Development. Your Development is an Australian online resource organisation promoting
sustainable development. It is a national project in partnership with CSIRO and the Australian department of Environment,
Water, Heritage and the Arts. All papers are reviewed by leading academic experts and/or industry authorities.
15

derived from the provision of public open space. The literature review presented
here validates this observation and, while there appears to be significant research
intersections between the urban planning and public health literatures, suggests
that further attention should be devoted to these issues by planning academics
generally and the publication of and debate over these issues within planning
scholarship. 1998 has been identified as a key year in the development of this
research field (see Kaczynski and Henderson 2007), with a number of
international conferences being held, special editions of journals published (see
Blair and Morrow 1998) and the emergence of what has come to be known in the
United States as the active living movement (see Killingsworth et al. 2003).

In total, over 500 individual items of academic literature were identified. This total
data set was rationalised to a core sample of approximately 100 academic papers.
To ensure the most recent data was examined, the core sample was restricted to
papers published between 1998 and 2009. The core sample was then classified
as those papers reporting the findings of original research and those reviewing the
existing literature. In the interest of presenting a succinct overview of the core
literature this report does not discuss all academic papers reviewed. Rather, it
focuses upon those papers considered to represent exemplary case studies of the
role of public open space in the promotion of physical activity. In total 47 papers
are discussed here in detail.

This review is divided into 4 inter-related sections. The first addresses types of
open space provision addressed and/or discussed within the literature, the
second findings on how open spaces are used, the third on the location of open
spaces and the fourth on the design of open space and its reported impacts on
physical activity. A review of the international literature is provided first and then a
discussion of the Australian literature, where available, is undertaken. Thus, the
Australian situation is contextualised within the wider, internationally-oriented,
literature. A summary of key points is provided at the conclusion of each section.

Key points:

This section investigates academic literature only;

16

Academic literature is classified as research and/or review

papers published in refereed journals;
47 academic papers (1998-2009) are reviewed in this section;
The fields of public health and health sciences are well
represented in the literature;
Scope may exist to strengthen the planning literature in this
field.

3.1. Types of Open Space Provision:

As stated in Section 2, defining open space is a complex undertaking.

To

reiterate, we differentiate between open space and public space, here

understood to be predominantly soft surfaced, green space and hard surfaced, but
excluding carriage ways and open-air car parks, non-green space within the urban
environment respectively.

Considering issues of public accessibility, we also

employ the term public open space, here understood to denote space within the
urban environment which is readily accessible to the community regardless of its
design or physical features and which is intended for amenity or physical
recreation, whether active or passive.

3.1.1 Green space: a considerable literature exists upon the provision of green
space and its impact upon and correlation with increased physical activity. Green
space typically includes parks, both designed for formal and informal physical
activities, playgrounds and nature reserves. Green space may also be informally
created through communities using derelict urban spaces. Community gardens
would constitute one such form of informal green space.

Cohen et al (2009)

provide a valuable typology of green open space (see Section 3.4, Table 3.1).
They categorise green open space according to type, purpose, location/proximity
and provide guidelines for minimum size.

Proximity to and accessibility of green space has been noted as having positive
physical and emotional benefits for community members (see Frumkin 2001; Hill
2002; Jackson 2003).

Further, green space is suggested to constitute an

important aspect in the fostering of social capital and the maintenance of

17

community cohesion (see for example Kuo et al 1998). While not an explicit focus
of this report, it is important to acknowledge the emotional and social benefits
green space can offer.

3.1.2 Non-green space: Providing effective linkages between point of departure,

home or work and open space destinations is a critical aspect of physical activity
inducement.

Jackson (2003, p.195) identifies the footpath as deserving more

intense scrutiny as a critical aspect of neighbourhood design. Jackson proposes

the design of conducive walkways to promote increased physical activity.
Conducive walkways should be designed to offer protection from the main
carriageway, provide views of attractive scenery and meander through mixed-use
areas rather than along main carriage ways and be well lit to provide a sense of
safety (Jackson 2003).

Frumkin (2003) draws a similar conclusion.

Citing

Burden s (1999) Street Design Guidelines of Healthy Neighbourhoods, Frumkin

(2003, p.1453) argues for the provision of
buffers, continuity, and connectivity

sidewalks with sufficient width,

[And] safe cross-walks .

Allied with

narrower streets designed with improved traffic-calming provisions, such as

speed-humps and roundabouts, more conducive walkways are said to be created.

Other forms of hard public open space, such as tennis and basketball courts,
piazzas and squares are also featured in the literature.

Hard surfaced sports

facilities are important sites for physical activity. This is especially the case for
physical activities classified as vigorous (see Section 3.2.2). Piazzas and squares
can be thought of as offering passive activity public open space (see Section
3.2.3). Hard, passive open spaces constitute important gathering places and can
constitute important foci for the public interactions and the development and
enhancement of community cohesion and social capital.

While the activities

undertaken in piazzas and squares does not, necessarily, promote vigorous

physical activity they are a nonetheless important aspect of urban fabric and
community wellbeing.

Access to indoor, non-green space physical activity venues is also reported on in

the literature. Both Brownson et al (2001) and Deiz Roux et al (2007) report that
accessibility to indoor recreation facilities, such as gymnasiums and even
18

shopping malls, were perceived as providing both destinations and sites of

physical activity for respondents. Brownson et al s (2001, p.197) study revealed
that 20% of women and 26% of men sampled indicated that the availability of such
facilities within close proximity to either home or place of work was a factor in their
reported levels of physical activity. It must be noted that this research was based
upon perceived availability of recreation facilities, rather than representing an
objectively, statistically based study of actual physical activity involvement. Having
said this, what the paper reveals is that the perception of access can be
positively associated with physical activity (Brownson et al, 2001, p.199).
Taking a more cautious approach, Diez Roux et al (2007, p.498) assert that
[s]patial accessibility of physical activity resources appears to be a positive, albeit
weak, predictor of activity levels . This finding was drawn from a large-scale, multiethnic sample of 2723 adults (45-84 years) from New York, Baltimore and Forsyth
County in the United States. Such spaces represent a challenge for the creation
of urban development policies that promote the provision of public open space.
Neither gymnasiums nor shopping malls (after Brownson et al 2001 and Diez
Roux et al 2007) are public open spaces. At best they can be considered as
quasi-public spaces. In reality they are private spaces adopting some traits of
public space, but retaining many rights of entry protections.

Entry into these

spaces is monitored and often premised upon the purchasing of membership, as

in the case of gymnasiums, and/or appropriate standards of dress and behaviour.
Thus, many individuals and/or groups find themselves excluded from such spaces.
While this calls into question issues of access the consideration of quasi-public
spaces is important for effective policy formation as such spaces are a common
feature of many new development forms.

In a similar vein, it is important to acknowledge the scope for shared spaces as

sites of physical activity. Shared space may be thought of as private or regulated
space to which wider public access is negotiated. Shared spaces may include
school grounds, church facilities (such as halls etc) and private sporting club
facilities. While negotiated access to these spaces and/or facilities may promote
greater physical activity within the wider community, there are potentially
significant hurdles to overcome. Foremost amongst these are matters of legal
indemnity and insurance. Other concerns may revolve around appropriate times
19

of shared space usage and issues of safety, for example with regards to school
grounds as shared spaces. While we acknowledge the potential for and limitations
of shared spaces for wider physical activity uses, it must be noted that these
issues are not addressed within the accessible literature.

3.1.3 Public Open Space: Issues of Access: Access is a critical issue in the
provision of public open space. Typically, access is considered to be the ability of
an individual to gain access to a facility or service. Foremost in such a definition is
the ability to gain physically access.

At face value this would appear to be

reasonable. However, we are cognisant that accessibility is impinged upon and

influenced by a number of additional factors. These may include issues of socioeconomic status, race, gender, age and disability and how these intersect with
physical ability to and perceptions about gaining access to public open space.

The role of socio-economic status and race in regards to public open space has
been well documented in the North American literature (see for example Huston et
al. 2003; Sallis et al. 2009). Studies indicate that the provision of public open
space in low socio-economic neighbourhoods is extremely poor.

Many such

neighbourhoods are either bereft of public open space or that which is available is
of poor quality. Those spaces that are provided are typically non-green spaces,
thereby depriving such communities of more natural public open spaces with their
reported health benefits. Further, the maintenance of existing spaces is typically
poor rendering them unattractive and, potentially, undesirable places to use. In
effect a lack of open space provision or the nature of those spaces provided,
combined with poor maintenance further impoverish low socio-economic status
communities.

Exacerbating the above issues further, many low socio-economic neighbourhoods

are located in marginal zoning areas within the city. Thus, such neighbourhoods
are commonly situated close to or even bounded by industrial areas.

Such

environments are not conducive to walking due to zoning and design induced
deterrents such as railway lines, major carriage ways and heavy traffic usage.
Such environments do not embody what Jackson (2003) refers to as conducive
walkways.
20

Much has been written about safety in public spaces and the fear of crime.
Specifically, there is a considerable body of knowledge about how perceptions of
risk in the public realm constrain the spatial mobility of women, the elderly and
young children. The literature at hand reflects these concerns. Authors such as
Godbey et al (2005), Powell (2005), Babey, et al (2007), De Vries et al (2007),
Miles (2008) and Babey et al (2008) all stress the importance of safety in
enhancing wider community access to and usage of public open space. Babey et
al s (2008) study into adolescents use of public open space, for example, noted
that access to a safe park was

associated with regular [physical] activity ,

whereas concerns over safety were associated with inactivity. This is interesting,
given that much of the anxiety potentially experienced by other open space users
often relates to the presence of young people.

The geography of women s fear is particularly well documented within the wider
literature (see for example Valentine 1989, 1991). Within the field of planningrelated scholarship generally, the gender bias of planning towards masculine
needs and endeavours is quite well developed. Doreen Massey s (1994) work is
most instructive in uncovering the gendered heritage of planning and the role this
has played in creating gendered landscapes. Massey s (1994) work demonstrates
that simple policy assumptions and design decisions reinforce the common
sense assumption that public space is male space. Questioning the gender base
of planning reveals a

system of gender relations (Massey 1994, p.189) that are

premised on gender inequality.

These insights are echoed by other feminist

scholars such as Greed (1996) and Hayden (2000). However, issues of gender,
perceptions of safety in public open space and how these may influence physical
activity amongst women has not featured significantly in the literature. This is a
striking omission, particularly given the assertion that [p]ublic spaces have the
capacity to become participatory landscapes (Garcia-Ramon et al. 2004, p.216).
In the interests of this project, we would contend that these concerns should be
addressed by planning academics and professionals. Despite this silence, we
would contend that concerns over safety are likely to erode physical activity in
public open space for some members of the community. Strategies to address

21

this are broadly addressed in the urban design literature. A discussion of design
approaches to crime reduction, either real or perceived, is undertaken in Section 5.

Arguing for the need to design neighbourhoods that support aging in place, Frank
and Co (2008) stress the importance of considering the specific needs of the
elderly in the location of public open space. Physical activity, particularly walking,
has been identified in numerous studies as having positive health benefits for
elderly populations (see for example Taylor et al 2003).

While a number of

barriers facing the elderly in gaining access to public open space reflect a number
of core barrier issues, a number are specific to this group.

In their study on

barriers to walking for persons over 50 years of age, Ritter et al (2002, cited in
Frank and Co 2008, p.21) identified the following factors as impinging upon access
to public open space for the elderly (see Figure 3.1):

Figure 3.1: Reported barriers to walking for people 50 years and above
Source: Ritter et al (2002) from Frank and Co (2008, p21).

Further, Frank and Co (2008, p.20) observe that the elderly take longer to walk the
same distance as younger members of the population. They cite elderly walking
22

rates as approximately 0.75m per second as opposed to 1.2m per second for ablebodied adults. Thus, in areas with a high elderly resident population it is advisable
that the distance threshold to public open space been lowered.

Ward Thompson (2002), drawing upon the UK Lord Rogers Urban Task Force
report (DETR,1999), recognises the importance of greater accessibility for persons
with various forms of disability.

Specifically, Rogers (1999, p.47 in Ward

Thompson 2002, p.60) argues the importance of creating inclusive places of

avoiding disparity of opportunity and promoting equity . Golledge (1993, p.63)
understands disability to refer to those situations where an individual is prevented
wholly or partially from performing the full range of actions and activities usually
performed by members of the society or culture in which the person lives . This
may be experienced as a permanent or transitory state. However, the degree of
impairment can have significant implications for the disabled. Golledge (1993,
p.64) is extremely lucid about these implications:

For the disabled

obstacles and barriers not only are multiplied, but

they are expanded well beyond the normal range; gutters become
chasms, sidewalks and streets become treacherous paths, stairs may
be impossible cliffs, distinctive sizes, shapes or colours may lose their
significance, layout becomes a maze, maps and models may be
uninterpretable.

Thus, the disabled live in transformed space even though they occupy the same
places as their able-bodied community counterparts (Golledge 1993, p.64).
Inadequate consideration of the needs of disabled community members
perpetuates at best, creates at worst what Imrie (2001, p.232) refers to as
architectural apartheid.

Addressing these issues is critical for addressing the

specific needs of disabled persons and central to the creation of more inclusive
neighbourhoods and cities.

Baum and Palmer s (2002) Adelaide-based research is most instructive in how the
design and maintenance of public space and its usage shape perception. Drawing

23

on in-depth interviews with 40 residents in an undisclosed suburb or suburbs3,

Baum and Palmer explored perceived hindrances to community participation in
both physical activity and public open space usage. Their results indicated that
homogeneous land use significantly constrained physical activity, most notably
walking. A lack of walkable destinations, such as local shops, was commented on
by numerous respondents. Further, issues of crime or the fear of crime featured
prominently. In the words of one respondent:

this beautiful park

nobody goes there any more now. All the

hoods congregate down there

there

The parents won t let their kids go

in case they pick up a syringe such a beautiful park, a full

block, and nobody [uses it] (in Baum and Palmer 2002, pp.254-255).

Strategies to overcome issues such as those stated above through design are
discussed in Section 5. However, design alone cannot alleviate social problems.

Key points:

The provision of green public open space is reported to have positive

physical and mental health benefits for individual community
members and communities overall.
Non-green open space is critical in providing both spaces for physical
activity in their own right and connectivity with green open space.
Access to public open space is complex and impinged upon by a
number of factors, including yet not limited to age, gender and socioeconomic status.

3.2. Uses of Public Open Space:

Uses of public open space are varied. Indeed, the term physical activity is not
explicitly defined in the vast majority of studies addressed here. One exception to
3

While Baum and Palmer (2002) do not explicitly identify the suburb/s within which they conducted their research, nor
provide a detailed study site justification or discussion, it is apparent that research was conducted in Port Adelaide and
other, unspecified, suburbs in Adelaide s north-western suburbs.
24

this is Kraczynski and Henderson (2007, p.318) who adopt Caspersen et al s

(1985, p.126) definition that physical activity involves

any bodily movement

produced by skeletal muscles that results in energy expenditure .

Such a

definition is, nonetheless, general in the extreme. More specifically, the Healthy
People 2010 report (U.S. Department of Health and Human services, 2000 in
Kaczynski and Henderson 2007, p.316) recommends a minimum of 30 minutes
moderate-intensity physical activity per day.

Moderate intensity is said to be

achieved by walking briskly.

Effective public open space should not be designed for a single physical activity.
Rather, effective public open space should cater for a diverse range of activities
and uses. Several studies have noted a multiplier effect inherent in public space
usage and the uptake of physical activity. Notable amongst these is Cohen et al
(2007) who observe that adults accompanying children to public open space
playgrounds could be encouraged into greater physical activity by the provision of
adult-oriented exercise equipment. They conclude that this could be an effective
may to increase female participation rates in physical activity. An Australian case
study by Baum and Palmer (2002) also noted the role of children in attracting
supervising adults into public open space and, potentially, enhancing their physical
activity.

Further, Baum and Palmer also acknowledge the role of dogs as a

stimulus for human physical activity.

While the health benefits of increased

physical activity facilitated by involvement in play with children and dogs are
evident, there are also increased socialisation opportunities available to adults as
children and dogs are social enablers thereby having potentially positive benefits
for community development and social inclusion.

Physical activity in public open space has been the subject of several large-scale
surveys (for example Hutson et al. 2003; King et al. 2003; Cohen et al. 2007;
Floyd et al 2008). Broadly, these studies classify observed activates as being
either passive (often referred to as sedentary behaviour), moderate (such as
walking) or vigorous (such as running or the playing of team sports). For example,
Cohen et al (2007) found that 66% of persons observed in their study were

25

engaged in sedentary activities, 19% were walking and the remaining 16% were
undertaking vigorous activity.

3.2.1 Moderate Activity: Walking features prominently within the literature as a

key form of physical activity. Lee and Moudon (2004, p.154) assert that [w]alking
is

a preferred form of physical activity

across different gender, age, and

income groups . Walking is considered to be an informal form of physical activity,

not reliant upon organisation such as team sports and not dependant upon
specialised equipment. Thus, walking is an extremely equitable from of physical
activity. King et al s (2003) study into the walking habits of older women found that
high-walking rates were primarily associated with journeys to local shops (25.5%)
and parks (20%). While several studies have noted the role of amenities and
aesthetics in enhancing rates of physical activity (see for example Corti et al.
1997; Booth et al. 2000), Lee and Moudon (2004, p.163) assert that many persons
are not deterred from walking

despite sometimes poor environments . Having

said this, Lee and Moudon agree that the propensity for more people to walk
and/or for people to walk longer can be promoted by improvements in the
destinations themselves and the built landscape connecting destinations. This
reflects, in part, Jackson s (2003) assertion that the creation of conducive
walkways can enhance physical activity.

3.2.2 Vigorous Activity: Vigorous activity is reported as constituting the least

amount of directly observed physical activity reported within the literature.

As

stated previously, Cohen et al (2007) reported that only 16% of observed public
space users were engaged in vigorous activities. These findings are consistent
with other studies. Floyd et al s (2008) study of 9456 persons across 28 parks in
Tampa and Chicago reported only 11% were involved in vigorous activities.
Hutson et al (2003) reported similar findings in their North Carolina study. Of
those engaged in vigorous activity their park usage was focused upon specific
physical activities and related park facilities. Cohen et al (2007, p.511) reported
that 34% of observed vigorous physical activity occurred on multipurpose sports
fields, while 26% was focused on playground facilities. Floyd et al (2008) reported

26

a similar spatial emphasis. Further consistencies between the two studies were
noted on the types of sporting activities undertaken.

Both studies recorded

significant rates of involvement in basketball, tennis and volleyball.

While the literature is unanimous in setting a low spatial threshold as a key

determinant in promoting physical activity in public open space, it must be noted
that proximity does not solely determine usage. Indeed, as Hutson et al (2003)
reflect persons already prone to undertake physical activity display a heightened
awareness of public open space facilities. Barriers exist to the uptake of physical
activity in public open space that effective policy making and urban design alone
cannot overcome. It is important that public awareness of public open spaces be
heightened and the benefits of physical activity be promoted.

Thus, the

management of open space facilities and the coordination of physical activities

within them is a critical factor in improving community participation in physical
activity (see Cohen et al 2007; Cohen et al 2009). Certainly, Cohen et al (2007)
report higher public participation rates in physical activity when organised events
were held. Flowing from this observation, strategies proposed in North American
studies have included the scheduling of formal physical activities, the provisions of
suitably qualified trainers and or activity supervisors and the appointment of fulltime public space managers. The uptake of such initiatives has not been reported
on in the available literature. Further, the highly structured, formal nature of such
proposals would appear to be beyond the scope of many local government bodies
and certainly suggest a more regimented approach to physical activity that may be
culturally unsuitable in the Australian context.

3.2.3 Passive Activity: The assumption that people use public open space for
physical activity is highly problematic. Two prominent North American studies,
these being Cohen et al (2007) and Floyd et al (2008) report high rates of no
physical activity amongst park users (see also McKenzie et al 2006

cited in

Floyd 2008). As noted in Cohen et al s (2007, p.513) North American study, parks
provide an important destination for local residents who were often sedentary after
arriving there .

Their data reveals 66% of observed park-users as being

27

sedentary.

Floyd et al (2008) support this finding.

In their exhaustive

observational study of 9456 persons across 28 parks in Tampa and Chicago, 65%
were observed to be sedentary.

They conclude that while

parks have the

potential to support physical activity, a substantial amount of use can be

sedentary (Floyd et al. p.300). This is extremely important. The provision of
public open space, its location and design may not be enough to promote
strenuous physical activity.

Considering the motivations for open space usage is important. As the central
focus of this report is to evaluate the current literature on the physical activity
opportunities afforded by public open space, the potential exists to equate
sedentary usage of open space as a failure of those spaces. On the contrary,
what is construed as sedentary from a physical activity/exertion perspective alone
ignores the mental health benefits possible through more passive activities. Ward
Thompson (1998) acknowledges that notions of parks as private refuges are
deeply embedded in the Western psyche.

Public open space in this sense

provides a retreat from the pressures of modern life, being seen as more akin to
the rural than the urban. Appreciating these dynamics can avoid the pitfall of
perceiving failure of design intent.

To date there have been few large scale Australian studies akin to the
international studies discussed above. One of the most recent and prominent
Australian studies was conducted by Giles-Corti et al (2005) in Perth and
published in the prestigious American Journal of Preventative Medicine.

This

study combined a quantifiable environmental audit of public spaces in excess of 2

acres in conjunction with an observational survey of physical activity with these
parks with qualitative interviews with 1803 adults in a multimethod approach. In
doing so, the authors were able to explore the intersections between physical
amenities, threshold distances and how these were perceived by and reacted to
by community members. This study concluded that
was

positively

associated

with

accessibility

use of public open space

(Giles-Corti

2005,

p.172).

Significantly, the authors found that park aesthetics and size were also factors
influencing physical activity. Interview respondents with good access to parks that
28

were considered to be attractive and large were found to be twice as likely to

engage in physical activity in public open space.

Key points:

Minimum physical activity is recommended to be 30 minutes of

moderate exertion per day. This is said to be achieved by waking
briskly.
Activity in public open space is classified in three activity categories;
moderate, vigorous and passive activity.
Moderate activity is primarily reported as walking.

Dog walking is

identified as a key moderate activity.

Vigorous activity is primarily reported as engagement in organised
group sports.
Passive activity is primarily reported as sitting in public open space.
Passive activities should not be construed as having little or no
positive health benefits.
Activity categories have important implications for location, size and
design of public open space.

3.3. Location of Open Space:

The international literature is unanimous in the finding that to maximise public

open space usage the distance from place of residence and/or work should be no
more than 1.6-2kms (see for example Cohen et al 2007; Diez Roux et al 2007).
This is considered to represent a walkable distance. However, it must be noted
that this distance cannot be applied in a uniform manner. In an earlier study,
Cohen et al (2006, p.1388) found that distances of less than 1km from place of
residence to public open space correlated with higher physical activity rates. A
distance decay effect is observed as operating for public open spaces that are
further away from place of residence. Cohen et al s 2007 study found that 64% of
park users travelled less than 0.8km to access public open space, while only 13%
has travelled more than 1.6km.

29

The above findings can be considered as representing distance thresholds.

Beyond a given distance threshold the literature advances that willingness to travel
declines with a corresponding impact on physical activity rates. In light of this, the
location of open space can be thought of as a proximity issue (after Frank et al
2004). The greater the proximity to public open space, the greater the likelihood of
physical activity is said to be. This activity may be in the form of journeys to and/or
exercise at open space.

However, it is misleading to assume that proximity

directly equates with physical activity. Proximity must be considered alongside

directness issues.

Directness can be thought of as the physical route of the

journey taken from point of departure to destination. Thus, public open space
facilities that are within the proposed distance threshold can be said to be
proximate to a given place of residence. However, if there is a lack of route
directness to these facilities then the purported benefits of their proximity are
potentially negated. The key is to provide effective connectivity. Connectivity
enhances proximity by emphasising directness.

According to Frank et al,

disconnected neighbourhood design is typical of many low-density suburbs within

Western cities. This relationship is illustrated in Figure 3.2:

Figure 3.2: Proximity and Directness in neighbourhood design

Source: Frank et al (2004, p.89).

Figure 3.2 represents how disconnected neighbourhood design limits proximity to

public open space by stretching out the connection between point of departure and
destination.

Another important aspect of effective neighbourhood design to

30

enhance physical activity is illustrated in Figure 3.2; this being the representation
of distances as both a crow-flies as opposed to a network buffer. The crow flies
buffer represents the much promoted 1km distance to public open space as a
radius from the sample point of departure; in this case a household. While the
crow-flies distance locates public open space within the 1km radius the network
buffer places it further than the recommended 1km distance threshold. This is due
to connectivity, as the network buffer represents a walkable 1km distance as
dictated by street layout and design. Thus, the notion of a 1km threshold must
consider both the physical design of the neighbourhood in question and suburb
density as discussed in Section 2.2.

The planning of new neighbourhood

developments must adopt a more sophisticated notion of design to ensure that

proximity is not reduced to linear distance, but rather reflects the actual journey an
individual would have to make to access public open space.

While the above discussion considers the horizontal scale, it is also important to
consider the influence of the vertical scale. Hilly terrain can be considered as
providing positive health benefits due to increased physical exertion. However,
such terrain can erode the ability or willingness of some community members to
engage in physical activity. This may be related to age or disability as discussed
in Section 3.1.3.

Further, community members with young children may find

negotiating hilly terrain problematic. There is also evidence within the literature
that upper-floor residents of high-rise apartment developments report lower rates
of physical activity engagement (see for example Evans et al 2000; Wells 2000).
An earlier study by Lindheim and Syme (1993, cited in Jackson 2003) identified
mothers with children less than five years of age as most vulnerable to the erosive
impacts of high-rise living with regard to physical activity engagement. Further
research is required in this field. However, anecdotally the need to provide readily
accessible public open space in areas of high-density, apartment development is
apparent.

As noted previously, trips to and physical activity in public open space may be
enhanced by the provision of facilities and/or activities that promote a diverse
range of activities. Diez Roux et al (2007) argued that a higher density of physical
activity facilities in a given area positively influenced public participation and
31

usage.

Stated simply, effective public open space should provide scope for

multiple activities.

Key points:

An accessibility threshold of 1.6km is commonly agreed upon, with an

ideal accessibility distance of 800m being recommended within the
literature.
Accessibility thresholds are typically measured as the crow flies. This
does not adequately account for potential accessibility barriers such
as major road ways etc.
Accessibility should be determined using a connectivity assessment.
Accessibility considerations should take into account site specific
population characteristics.
Accessibility considerations should consider changes over time
within the resident population such as aging and natural population
increase due to child birth.

3.4. Design and Open Space:

Design, either explicitly or implicitly, is central to much of the literature about public
open space and physical activity. The literature is unified in the assertion that
design

approaches

that

create

low-density,

homogeneous

land

use

neighbourhoods increase dependency upon private vehicle usage and actively

discourage physical activity.

Thus, it is asserted that urban sprawl is a key

contributor to declining public health standards. Accepting this argument leads to

the conclusion that much of this public health decline can be stemmed, if not
reversed by more insightful and considered design.

However, as stressed in

Section 1 the empirical evidence for this chain of assertions is not conclusive.

This section considers the literature on design and public space from two
interrelated perspectives.

First, it considers the literature on neighbourhood

design and how this can positively influence physical activity. This discussion is

32

limited as a fuller discussion of broader neighbourhood design is addressed in

Section 4.2, which explores the role of Transit Oriented Design, public space and
physical activity.

Second, it examines issues of the design of specific public

spaces themselves.

After Pollard (2003), it is apparent that the design of public open space is multifaceted due to the array of spaces that are required to enhance access and
physical activity. At the broadest level Pollard (2003, pp.112-113) promotes the
need to provide further and protect existing open space. Pollard (2003, p.112)
advances that two scales of public open space are required, these being:

1. large, regional parks

[that] protect and offer access to natural areas and

provide access to range of activities

2. smaller, neighbourhood parks and connected greenways within walking
distance of most residences ;

Cohen et al (2009), building on their research into physical activity levels

observable amongst public open space user (Cohen et al 2007) (see Section 3.3),
classify public spaces themselves as either active or passive. That is to say, that
they consider the size and design of different forms of public open space to lend
themselves to different types and degrees of usage.

Active spaces typically

provide for organised sporting activities, especially team sports such as soccer
etc. It is important to note that active spaces may also be hard non-green spaces;
for example basketball and tennis courts. Opposing this, passive public open
spaces

promote sedentary activities and light physical activity by providing

lawns, trees, landscaped gardens and shrubbery, lakes, fountains, picnic areas
and/or walking trails (Cohen et al 2009, p.1383). Drawing upon the U.S. National
Recreation and Parks Association data, Cohen et al (2009) identify eight types of
public open space broadly identified as parks.

These classifications are

reproduced as Table 3.1:

33

Park Type
Mini-park

Definition
Addresses limited an/or unique
recreational needs

Location/Proximity
<400m

Size
280-420m2

Central location within

Neighbourhood Park

Recreational/social focus of

400-800m service

neighbourhood. Provides for

area radius,

informal active and passive

uninterrupted by non-

recreation

residential

2-4 ha

roads/barriers

School Park

Community Park

Combines school with public open

Determined by school

space

location

Meets community-based needs of

Determined by quality

Determined by

several neighbourhoods. meets

and suitability of site.

desired uses.

diverse recreation needs and

service area radius of

Typically a

preserves unique landscapes

800m-5km.

12.5-20ha

variable

Determined by

Large Urban Park

Serves broader purpose than

Determined by quality

community parks

and suitability of site

desired uses.
typically a
minimum of
20-32ha

Consolidated site catering for

Sports complex

organised recreational activities.

consists of sporting fields and
complexes

Strategically located,
community-wide

variable

facilities

Land set aside for preservation of

Natural Resource

significant natural resources,

Resource availability

Area

remnant landscapes, open space

and opportunity

variable

and visual aesthetics/buffering

Special Use

Covers a broad range of parks and

Variable, depending

recreation facilities oriented toward

upon specific

single-purpose use.

need/use

variable

Table 3.1: Park Types and Descriptions

Source: After Cohen et al (2009, p.1384).

34

As already discussed in Section 2.3, perceptions of public space are important

determinants in how public space is used. From a design perspective, how people
perceive the physical aspects of public open space is extremely important.
Studies into what local residents want from public open space emphasise the need
for high quality amenities. Indicative of this is Asakawa et al s (2004) large scale
questionnaire survey of local residents in Sapporo, Japan. This study focused
upon resident attitudes to the management and amenity quality of a waterway
green belt. Results revealed that foremost amongst local resident s perceptions
was that green space retains its natural vegetative state. Unsurprisingly, walking
and relaxation were reported as the principle physical activities in this green
space. The results of the Sapporo study are not necessarily directly comparable
with other public open spaces.

Vegetation is a key aspect of green space design.

Kuo et al (1998, p.843)

asserted that vegetation had a positive influence upon community attachment to

public open space. They concluded that [g]reener common spaces appear to
attract people outdoors, increasing opportunity for casual social encounters among
neighbours and fosters the development of neighbourhood social ties (Kuo et al
1998, p.848). Similarly, Crow et al (2006) report that in their Chicago based-study
community members reported an enhanced sense of place and urban quality in
areas with well developed green spaces. Crow et al referred to well maintained
green space attributed positively to the development of a green residential
atmosphere. The importance of such an atmosphere cannot be under estimated.
As previously discussed in Section 3.3, promoting physical activity amongst elderly
residents is considered an important undertaking within the literature. Providing
support for this, Takano et al s (2002, p.916) Tokyo study argued that [w]alkable
green streets and places near the residence significantly and positively influence
the five year survival of senior citizens . Takano et al s findings cannot be directly
attributed to walking alone. However, the literature is adamant that the provision
of attractive, accessible green space
walkways for example

what may be considered conducive

have a positive health benefit for the elderly and other

community members.

35

As discussed in Section 3.3, a number of issues concerning safety impinge upon

public open space usage. While the provision of naturally vegetated green open
space has been documented as having a positive influence on physical activity, it
must also be acknowledged that vegetation can be perceived negatively by some
community members. Vegetation can provide or be seen to provide cover for
persons engaged in anti-social and/or illegal activities, thereby reducing public
open space usage by other community members. Qualitative data reported in
Baum and Palmer s (2002) Adelaide-based study dramatically illustrate this. Thus
it is important that the design of green open space balances the provision of
vegetation with the interests of public safety. Steve Thompson (2008) argues that
the design and

[maintenance of] public open spaces to ensure that public safety

is commensurate to the level of use and targeted user groups is vital. Drawing
upon the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Principles (CPTED),
Thompson (2008) advances four key design principles to enhance public safety:

1.

surveillance;

2.

access control;

3.

territorial reinforcement;

4.

management and maintenance.

Surveillance: good sight lines should be provided to enhance passive

surveillance.

Sight lines can be thought of as both internal and external.

Internally, it is proposed that clear sight be provided between 0.5 and 2m above
ground level. Thus, dense shielding vegetation should be avoided where possible.
This need not compromise vegetation as tree planting provides suitable shade and
visual attractiveness, while providing good lines of sight. External surveillance can
be enhanced by internal areas being visible from outside spaces such as roads
and footpaths.

Access control: public open space can be designed to direct and therefore
control public access. Providing clear and logical entry points and connectivity
helps reduce ad hock entry points. However, this is not to propose limiting the
number of entry/exit points significantly as this could unwittingly create entrapment
zones thereby limiting opportunities to escape danger if required.

Thompson
36

(2008) asserts that the provision of adequate and appropriate signage can assist
in directing public space usage as it provides a sense of the function of space for
users.

Territorial reinforcement: open space boundaries should be clearly identifiable

and distinguishable from surrounding areas, especially adjoining private spaces.
The delineation of space, it is argued, is important in the creation of a sense of
appropriate activities and behaviours in the public realm. Design for territorial
reinforcement needs to consider the aforementioned principles of surveillance and
access control.

Management and maintenance: public open spaces are, typically, not natural
environments and required effective management and maintenance.

Where

possible a diversity of uses should be encouraged to attract a diversity of users.

This is said to enhance usage, thereby enhancing passive surveillance. Further,
ongoing maintenance is required for both hard (non-green) and soft (green) public
open space infrastructure. Here, hard infrastructure may be thought of as play
and/or recreation equipment to ensure safety and the provision of a high quality,
user friendly environment. Soft infrastructure may be thought of as vegetation and
landscaping. The maintenance of soft infrastructure should ensure that vegetation
does not become overgrown, thereby reducing sight lines and/or creating
entrapment zones.

Further, the provision of adequate lighting is vital.

Lighting is important for a

number of reasons. During daylight hours the sheer presence of lighting fixtures is
said to create the impression of good surveillance and management. At night
lighting reduces concealment zones. The later function of adequate lighting is
important even if public open space is not used by community members after dark.
Combined with appropriate external sight lines, lighting can deter anti-social and/or
illegal activities through passive surveillance.

Inherent in the above discussion on CPTED and public open space are issues of
risk. Risk mitigation is an important consideration for the provision of playground
infrastructure for children.

A brief discussion of these issues is considered

37

important. Despite community concerns over injury risk in public open space,
Ball s (2002, 2004) UK research found that playground related injuries were very
low. A detailed analysis of data from the UK health system between 1988 and
2002 revealed that, statistically, only one death occurred every three to four years
(Ball 2002) as a result of playground accidents. While tragic, Ball contextualised
this against the 500-600 accident related child deaths that occurred annually in the
UK during this same period. Further, Ball estimated that approximately 40% of
these accidents were in no way related to the provision or maintenance of
playground infrastructure.

Franklin s (2002) London study, specifically the

boroughs of Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham, supports the findings of Ball

(2002, 2004). This study found that over 50% of injuries reported were related to
tripping and falling rather than inadequacies with playground infrastructure. These
tripping/falling injuries were more serious when they occurred on hard surfaces
such as concrete or bitumen.

This has prompted calls for more suitable,

absorbent surfaces to be provided in children s playgrounds.

However, it is

important to note that safer play spaces may be viewed by children as boring.
Unwittingly, safety may erode children s senses of enjoyment and ultimately
reduce physical activity. Staempfli (2009) emphasises the need to provide play
spaces that balance safety with acceptable risk.

Drawing upon the European

experience of developing adventure playgrounds since the late 1970s, Staempfli

(2009, p.277) argues that
independence

adventure playgrounds reinforce

learning, foster

and offer children the opportunity for testing boundaries and

exploring positive risk . Effective supervision by a parent of guardian is a crucial

aspect of risk minimisation in adventure playgrounds. While not expressly stated
in this paper, engagement in children s play activities offers adults with further
physical activity opportunities.

Key Points:

Design of open public space varies according to size and purpose of

space.
The type of open space provided influences its usage, location and
proximity and size.

38

There is reported to be significant community demand for the

provision of green space with natural vegetation.
CPTED principles are cited as important in the design of public open
space; specifically passive surveillance, access control, territorial
reinforcement and management and maintenance. Lighting is also an
important aspect of CPTED design principles.
Risk mitigation is an important aspect of designing public open space
for children. However, UK data suggests that accidents suffered by
children in public open space are likely to be the consequence of
accidents not involving recreational equipment.

4.

The Policy Perspective:

The provision of urban open space within cities has been a public policy concern
for well over a hundred years. The nineteenth century industrial cities of Europe
and North America were often criticised for the paucity of their public and green
spaces.

Grants of much needed urban space by philanthropic donors in

nineteenth century Britain were viewed as enormously beneficial to urban

conditions at the time.

The urban remodelling of major European cities of

Barcelona (1850s) and Paris (1860s) included major new parks and the City
Beautiful Movement in North America in the late nineteenth century also laid great
emphasis on the provision of parks (Ward, 2002). These were viewed not only as
aesthetic improvements to otherwise drab urban landscapes but as important
areas for recreation and social interaction.

Their health benefits were more

usually seen as relating to the opportunity to breathe fresh air away from the
crowded streets and industrially dominated urban landscape but the benefits of
physical exercise offered by the park were implicit and no less important.

Efforts to define public open space standards began in the USA in 1901 with a
recommendation of 2ha per 1000 population. In the UK in the 1920s the National
Playing Fields Association (NPFA) set down a standard of 6 acres (2.43 ha) per
1000 population, which has remained influential both in the UK and internationally
ever since (Veal, 2008). The origins of this standard lie in an attempt to quantify

39

the space required for participation in recreational activity for all age groups within
reasonable distance of home. All local authorities in the UK were encouraged to
provide 5 acres (2.1 ha) of public open space for every 1000 people, of which at
least 4 acres was to be set aside for team games, tennis and bowls with 1 acre
(0.4 ha) of parks and public gardens. Various amendments to this standard, which
Veal (2008) makes clear were not grounded in any evidence based research on
actual usage rates, adjusted it first to 2.83 ha per 1000 between 1934-38 and
subsequently to 2.43 ha per 1000 population as the space for passive recreation
(0.4 ha) was dropped from the standard. It is clear that the standard derives from
a range of assumptions about the amount of space required for active team sports
and likely participation rates by different age groups. Subsequent reviews of the
standard took rising living standards and changing demographics into account but
failed to make any changes to the standard.

Thompson (2008) provides

corroborative evidence for the 2.83 ha per 1000 standard but further notes that
provision is often split 1.62 ha for active and 1.21 ha for passive open space, citing
Raymond Unwin, the designer of Letchworth garden city and Hampstead garden
suburb as its source. This is exactly the split recommended by Winchester City
Council (2008) in its Open Space Strategy, suggesting that it is well known and
applied in the UK. This suggested standard downgrades the active component of
the NPFA standard to the benefit of the passive. The assessment of open space
needs which underlies the NFPA standard is set out in Box 4.1:

40

The UK National Playing Fields Association calculated that:

For every 1000 population, 500 people were below the age of 40:

Of these it was assumed that 150 would either not want to play sport
or would be unable to because of infirmity;
A further 150 would use school facilities;
So 200 people in every 1000 would need to be catered for.

Given the size of sports teams and frequency of play, it was estimated that
the needs of these 200 people could be accommodated on:

1 senior football pitch 2 tennis courts;

1 junior football pitch 1 children's playground of acre (0.2 ha.);
1 cricket pitch 1 pavilion;
1 three-rink bowling green

These facilities would occupy 6 acres [2.43 ha.].

The standard excluded:

School playing fields military sports grounds;

Verges woodlands;
Commons gardens and parks;
Golf courses large areas of water;
Indoor facilities

The standard was reviewed in 1955, 1971, 1974, 1986, 1989, 1992
Box 4.1: UK National Playing Fields Association Open Space Assessment
Source: Veal A J (2008) Open Space Planning Standards in Australia: In Search of Origins,
Working Paper 5, University of Technology Sydney, School\of Leisure, Sport and Tourism.

41

The NPFA standard of 2.83ha of open space per 1000 population has been widely
applied in Australia. New South Wales continues to apply the standard. Veal
(2008) cites several local council planning documents which specify this standard
and notes that this is particularly important because it gives a legal basis for a
defence of open space requirements demanded from developers.

Thus, it can be argued that this standard, derived from a needs based calculation
of sporting activity rates of the UK population in the 1920s has formed the basis of
open space planning in New South Wales.

Elsewhere in Australia different

standards have been applied. The detailed description of the NPFA standard set
out in the box above illustrates that calculation of the total amount of open space
required by a residential population is complicated by what is included and
excluded. The NPFA standard clearly concentrates on active sporting facilities
such as soccer pitches and bowling greens. Nevertheless, it does not include golf
courses, which because of their usually large space requirement would
significantly increase the recommended area; nor does it include any indoor
facilities such as gymnasia, basketball courts or swimming pools, all of which are
clearly important for physical activity. We have already noted that the area given
over to amenity and passive recreation, (strolling, sitting, picnicking etc) was
removed from the NPFA` standard in the 1930s. So there is potentially significant
scope for an increase in the recommended standard of open space provision.
Furthermore, it is clear that standards relating to physical activity do not
necessarily take into account the provision of urban green space which is
important for biodiversity protection (Angold et al, 2006), sustainable urban
drainage (Girling and Helphand, 1997), carbon sequestration (Nowak and Dwyer,
2007) or general amenity. Veal (2008) cites a number of commentators who have
classified the range of urban open space standards recommended internationally
and in Australia notably Daly (1995) and

(1969).

The National Capital

Development Commission for Canberra set a standard of 4 ha /1000 persons in

1981. This is further subdivided as in Table 4.1 below.

42

Playing fields

1.8 ha / 1000 persons

Local Neighbourhood parks

1.2 ha / 1000 persons

Town and District parks

0.4 ha / 1000 persons

Ancillary space

0.4 ha / 1000 persons

Demand Space

0.2 ha / 1000 persons

Table 4.1: Open space planning standards in Canberra

Source: National Capital Development Commission (1981)

No evidence is provided to support these standards, beyond a reference to

practice in unspecified overseas countries being similar (cited in Veal, 2008).
However, it can be noted that 4 ha/1000 is more generous than the previously
cited 2.43 ha /1000.

The University of Western Australia's Centre for the Built Environment and Health
has produced a large volume of literature on public open space partly via Western
Australia s (WA) Liveable Neighbourhoods Project. The WA government specifies
an open space contribution of 10% of the gross subdivisible area of a conditional
subdivision be donated free for public open space (Planning Western Australia,
undated). This standard derives from the 1955 Stephenson Hepburn plan for the
Perth/Fremantle metropolitan region which demanded 3.3 ha/1000 persons of
public open space (excluding school playing fields). On the basis of a uniform
density of 30 persons per hectare, a standard contribution of 10 percent of the
gross residential area for public open space has been applied since the 1950s.
The policy notes that this requirement remains valid, as gross residential densities
have remained much the same since that time, with smaller lot sizes being offset
by declining household occupancies.

As part of its neighbourhood principles Victoria s Melbourne 2030 plan suggests a

range of open spaces to meet a variety of needs, with links to open space
networks and regional parks where possible Victorian state planning policy seeks
to create walkable neighbourhoods. However, it does not suggest any state wide
standards for neighbourhood space provision beyond pointing out the importance

43

of diversity, good design and spaces appropriate for all age groups in society
(Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2005).

South Australia demands a 12.5% open space contribution for all residential
developments over 20 allotments in size (Government of South Australia, 1993). If
we assume a development for 1000 people, who represent households at the
average size of 2.6 persons then the housing component would require 385
dwellings. This number of dwellings developed at a net density of 20dph requires
19.2 hectares of land. A 12.5% contribution therefore represents 2.4 ha, which is
remarkably close to the well used 2.43 ha per 1000 standard.

4.1.

Open Space Hierarchies

The Greater London Plan of 1944 represents a milestone in public policy making
in respect of urban open space in that it introduced the concept of a public open
space hierarchy and further attempted to identify quantitative open space
requirements set against population levels (Museum of London, 2009).

This

remained an influential standard throughout the second half of the twentieth

century. Crucially the plan set standards not just in terms of the quality of open
space required per 1000 population, but the distribution and accessibility of such
space.

The quantitative space standard set out in the Plan was 4.1 ha/1000

persons. It appears to have been largely based on the NPFA standard in that it
sets out requirements for various types of recreational space, football pitches,
tennis courts and bowling greens that reflect the NPFA scheme but in overall
terms is more generous.

Open space was viewed by Patrick Abercrombie, the plan's principal author as
needing to be organised in a hierarchical fashion with local neighbourhood spaces
at the base and regional open space at the head.

44

Type

Distance from Home Characteristics

Function
Large areas of rural type land, including

Regional Parks, Regional

Wildspace and Green Belt

woodland and agricultural land. Some areas not

Mainly weekend and

occasional visits by car

Up to 8 km

or public transport

publicly accessible. Primarily providing for

informal recreation, but should include a
strategic area for play. Car parking at key
locations.
Large areas of open space. Includes: formal

Mainly weekend and

Strategic Open Space and occasional visits by
Wildspace

cycle, car or public

parks and private open space; land of rural

Up to 8 km

character; and land of nature conservation

value. Should include a strategic area for play.

transport

Adequate car parking and cycle parking.

Landscape setting with a variety of natural
features providing for a wide range of activities;

Mainly weekend and

Town Parks

occasional visits by foot,

cycle, car or public

formal and informal, or of a more specialist

1.2 km

character e.g. nature conservation. The nonspecialist parks should include a neighbourhood

transport

area for play. Size about 15-40 ha. Some car

parking.
Providing for court games, children s play,

District Parks or Large

Open Spaces

For pedestrian visitors

0.4 km

sitting-out areas, and landscaped or natural

environment. Should include a neighbourhood
area for play. Size about 5-15 ha.

Neighbourhood Parks or
Open Spaces

Local Parks and Open

Spaces, Wildspaces,
Public Squares and other
Hard Landscaped Areas

Similar to District Parks, but likely to be

For pedestrian visitors

0.4 km

between 2 and 5 ha in size. Should include a

neighbourhood area for play.
Gardens, sitting-out areas, children's

Local Parks and Open

playgrounds, hard landscaped areas and public

Spaces, Wildspaces,
Public Squares and

up to 0.4 km

other Hard Landscaped

squares, and other areas of a specialist nature,

including nature conservation areas. Should
include a local or neighbourhood area for play,

Areas

depending on size. Size up to 2 ha.

Canal towpaths, paths, disused railways and
other routes, which provide for informal
recreation and/or nature conservation. Often

Linear Open Spaces

Pedestrian visits

0.4 km

areas that are not fully accessible to the public,

but contribute to the enjoyment of the space.
May provide important links in the open space
network.

Table 4.2: Example of an open space hierarchy

Source: Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (undated)
45

This hierarchical concept has been widely applied around the world ever since
(Harnik and Simms, 2004) and continues to be so. The concept is useful in that it
serves two main functions, namely to analyse and categorise existing open space
provision and to guide future provision or enhancement.

Numerous local

authorities in the UK and Australia note the existence of an open space hierarchy
in their development plan policies. The London Borough of Bexley (undated) and
Sandwell (undated) in the West Midlands of England represent two typical
examples. The City of Ballarat (undated) in Victoria and Norwood Payneham and
St Peters Council (undated) in South Australia represent typical Australian
examples. Land Com the NSW state land developer illustrates a hierarchy of
spaces in its open space design guidelines (LandCom, 2008).
4.1.1. Alternative Approaches: Whilst the principles of setting open space
standards and applying these in a hierarchical fashion have proved to be robust
policy tools over a number of decades, current policy advice has shifted away from
such a prescriptive approach. The hierarchical approach has been criticised by
Woolley (2003) who raises concerns about the failure of this approach to
recognise the different experiences that different parks can provide. Instead, a
need based assessment has become a popular alternative to the standards based
approach as part of a large scale review of urban policy, notably in the UK. The
UK Urban Task Force report ( DETR, 1999) notes:

to achieve urban integration means thinking of urban open space not

as an isolated unit

be it a street, park or square but as a vital part

of urban landscape with its own specific set of functions. Public space
should be conceived of as an outdoor room within a neighbourhood,
somewhere to relax, and enjoy the urban experience, a venue for a
range

of

different

activities,

from

outdoor

eating

to

street

entertainment; from sport and play areas to a venue for civic or

political functions; and most importantly of all a place for walking or
sitting-out. Public spaces work best when they establish a direct

46

relationship between the space and the people who live and work
around it.

Following on from this policy advice, public open space provision in the UK now
rests on four principles, namely,

1. Local needs which are likely to vary considerably from one place to another,
even within a single local authority area,

2. A multi- disciplinary approach across different local authority departments to

the provision of a network of high quality, sustainable open spaces and
sport and recreation facilities

3. Improving and enhancing the accessibility and quality of existing provision

as well as new provision where needed.

4. The value of open spaces or sport and recreation facilities, irrespective of

who owns them, depends primarily on two things: the extent to which they
meet clearly identified local needs and the wider benefits they generate for
people,

wildlife,

biodiversity

and

the

environment

(Department

of

Communities and Local Government, 2002)

Two major changes in the approach to planning for open space provision are
apparent from this advice. First local needs must be assessed. These may vary
depending on socio-demographic and cultural factors as well as the number of
visitors to the area. This advice implies that different areas may require different
levels, distributions and types of open space provision. The importance of
community participation in this process is stressed by CABE (2005). Ensuring
effective public involvement early in the development or regeneration process is a
frequent observation of the CABE case studies. These further stress the likely
reduction in ongoing maintenance costs of spaces which suit local needs and in
which local residents feel a sense of ownership. Secondly, the function and value
of open space in the urban environment needs to be viewed from a variety of
standpoints rather than purely from a local recreational needs perspective. In
47

essence open space needs to work harder and provide for a more complex set of
urban and environmental needs which include, but extend beyond, local
recreational provision. This in turn, may impact on the design and management
strategies for open space. The emphasis in policy terms has also shifted towards
the provision of green space networks, which can provide enhanced access for
populations whose open space provision is inadequate and also enhance
biodiversity (Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, 2002).
The concept spaces, which are interconnected by green corridors or walking and
cycle routes, is a recurrent theme in recent literature (Pollard, 2003, Sallis,
Bauman and Pratt, 1998, Barton and Tsourou, 2000) and in UK and US policy, but
appears less prevalent in Australian policy documents. Nevertheless there are
exceptions. The Victorian advice stresses interconnections, as does Gold Coast
City Council, which is actively supporting a Green Ways and Walkable
Neighbourhoods Plan (Gold Coast City Council, 2009).

4.1.2: Current Examples of Space Planning: Western Australia s Liveable

Neighbourhoods Code (WAPC, 2009) is a good example of current policy in
regard to public open space in Australia. It provides detailed advice on a range of
factors which go towards making high quality walkable neighbourhoods in new
subdivisions. Public open space is viewed as a hierarchy of spaces which ranges
from small local parks (maximum area 3000 square meters), through
neighbourhood local parks to district playing fields which are located between
neighbourhoods and envisaged as being shared between them. A developer's
contribution of 10% of gross space is required but local government is noted as
being in the best position to decide on the size and distribution of open space
provision. Sunarja et al (2008) have produced useful guidelines on design of open
spaces based on the Liveable Neighbourhoods Code.

These are again

hierarchical. The advice provides graphical examples of good practice design

components of different types of space and a matrix of standards in respect of a
range of factors such as walking, cycling, active play, formal sports and relaxation
and picnicking taking different age groups into account. Whilst this advice is a
clear step forward from previous standards based assessment elsewhere, in that it
notes a clear evidence base where this exists, it could be argued that it lags
behind UK and US policy particularly in respect of assessment of local needs and
48

in that it does not argue for connectivity of green spaces throughout the
neighbourhood and beyond. Emphasis is clearly placed on the appropriateness of
space and its design for various activities in a safe and pleasant environment, but
it has little to say about the cultural diversity of needs for space or multi purpose
space which takes

biodiversity,

water catchment,

sustainability objectives into account.

and management

or

Barnett (2001) also notes the lack of

attention given to ecosystem services such as the role of trees and vegetation in
attenuating micro climate in open spaces in the Liveable Neighbourhoods policy.

Probably the most thorough analysis of open space in the urban environment has
been carried out by the UK based Commission for Architecture and the Built
Environment (CABE, 2005). The CABE Space Project was set up to champion
excellence in the design and management of parks streets and squares in towns
and cities. It argues that appropriate, high quality public space contributes to both
the sustainability and success of place making. The scope of the project extends
well beyond physical activity. For example, it argues that high quality green space
is positively related to increased house values and has a role in tackling anti-social
behaviour. It uses a series of examples from the UK and mainland Europe to
illustrate the role of open space in reducing flood risk, linking communities,
enhancing biodiversity and transforming the image of a region.

The health

benefits of open space receive less emphasis. Whilst the thrust of much of the
discussion relates to the use of open space and the need to engage communities
in planning and designing their local spaces, the value of physical exercise within
such spaces is not made explicit. Either it is taken as a given that use of space
carries health benefits or the issue is seen as less pressing than in Australia
because the nature of urban development in the UK and Europe is more mixed
use and higher density, thus encouraging walking for local trips.
In Australia the most comprehensive work on the relationship of public open space
to the surrounding urban environment and PA levels is the RESIDE project. This
is a five year research project that aims to evaluate the impact of urban design on
health. In particular, the impact of urban design on walking, cycling, use of public
transport and sense of community is studied. The neighbourhood questionnaire
includes walking and cycling to parks, ovals, bushland both within the
neighbourhood and outside the neighbourhood. It also includes general questions
49

about the amount of moderate and vigorous physical activity (Giles-Corti et al,
2007).

4.2.

Open Space in Higher Density Urban Development

It is often argued that a diverse land use mix which contains both homes and jobs
within close proximity is a useful strategy for reducing commuter car trips,
promoting alternative healthier modes of travel and incidentally improving public
health through promoting more physical activity.

Settlements and suburbs

designed along such lines have been a consistent theme in planning literature
ever since the late nineteenth century when a number of private sector industrial
developers first built new towns (the so called industrial philanthropists) and the
garden city movement advocated by the English reformer Ebenezer Howard called
for such "balanced" communities (Howard, 1902). However, it is important to be
precise in terms of scale when discussing these concepts. All of the examples
cited above relate to areas with a population measured in hundreds or a few
thousand.

The maximum size for Howard's garden city was 32,000, which

translated into spatial area using the traditional garden city density measure of 12
dwellings per acre (30 dph) net, produces a town which can readily be crossed by
a pedestrian in under one hour. Furthermore the city centre is accessible to the
majority of households in 20 minutes or less on foot. It is often asserted that a
distance of around half a kilometre or 5 minutes is the maximum walking trip
acceptable to the majority of able bodied people (Ker and Ginn 2003). However, a
recent review of evidence suggests that there may be more variability in behaviour
than previously thought (McCormack et al, 2008). Thus acceptable walking
distance to a range of facilities including open space is an important consideration
when formulating policy. Effective policy in this regard requires an evidence base
but also demands a consideration of density.

The policy direction of many Australian cities towards urban consolidation and a
more diverse mix of land uses raise questions about the nature of open space
provision in such new and denser neighbourhoods. To date urban consolidation
has meant different things in different locations. Suburban consolidation within
existing low density neighbourhoods has often meant the insertion of low rise
50

group dwellings on windfall sites, which are often limited in area. Typically they
might consist of a large suburban allotment (800

2000 square meters) which is

subdivided into two or more units of accommodation.

Here there is often no

attempt to introduce a mix of uses, so whilst the net density increases, cars
generally remain the usual transport mode for trips to shops and other facilities.
Similarly, larger scale developments within or adjacent to existing suburbs are
often entirely residential in form. Whilst some show an increase in net density
over earlier types, usually as result of smaller allotment sizes, they still often
cannot be classified as high density and again there are few incentives for
increased physical activity levels as result of the built form. In the urban core, the
last fifteen years or so have witnessed some major steps towards a form of living
that may be described as high density.

Multi story apartment blocks, either

conversions of existing buildings or new structures, have increased the population

density of a number of urban centres (Adelaide is a good example). In such
locations the availability of open space to resident populations is potentially an
important issue which needs to be addressed. International examples of high
density urban cores which lacked public open space point to the need to provide
adequate levels of open space for dense urban populations. The city of Barcelona
is a leader in this field. As its inner city industrial sites became redundant in the
1970s and 1980s it pioneered the introduction of new urban spaces at different
scales ranging from small childrens play spaces to major new urban parks (eg
Parc Industriel). Around 200 hectares of new public open space was thus created
in a very dense urban environment (Gehl and Gemzoe, 2008).

The city of

Amsterdam is a further example of this approach, which in this case was led by
local citizen action in the Westerpark district as was the city of Malmo in Sweden
with its Vastra Hamnen regeneration project (CABE, 2005).

4.2.1: Transit Oriented Development: Two key questions which face Australian
cities such as Adelaide with its stated intention of developing around a dozen high
density TODs are;

at what density will these schemes be developed and

how will the open space needs of their residents be catered for?

51

Approaches to open space provision which rest on a set proportion of the

development being set aside for open space may not be appropriate where high
density schemes produce large populations on small sites. For example ,as Table
4.3 demonstrates, a requirement for 12.5% open space in a development for 6,600
people on a

30 hectare site (gross density 220 persons per ha) would yield

3.75ha of open space.

The same number of people housed at typical low

Australian densities (15 dph or 30 people ph) would be provided with 27.5 ha of
space. Similarly, if we apply the NPFA standard of 2.43 ha/1000 persons then in
both cases we would expect an open space allocation of 16 ha. In the latter case
the actual space allocation exceeds that required under the NPFA standard by
over 10 ha, or 0.66 ha /1000 persons.

Development

Gross

Gross

12.5% space Space /1000 NPFA

site

Density

contribution

persons

Standard

area
High Density

30 ha

110 dph

3.75 ha

0.56 ha

16 ha

Low Density

220 ha

15 dph

27.5 ha

4.1 ha

16 ha

Table 4.3: Space provision using standards for 6,600 persons at high and low
densities
NB Table 4.3 assumes an average household size of 2 persons in each case

This comparison graphically demonstrates the problem with applying blanket

standards in a range of situations. Using the example of Georgian squares, CABE
(2005) points out how effectively a small amount of well designed green space can
contribute to the urban environment. The report also points to the large amounts
of amenity green space that often accompanied high rise housing developments in
1960s Britain. Often this space was little used, unattractive in appearance, a focus
for antisocial behaviour and expensive to maintain. On the basis of these and
similar examples CABE presents a persuasive argument for assessing open
space needs and providing well designed open space which fits the demographic,
cultural and behavioural characteristics of the local population. CABE provide a
set of useful guidelines for making such open space audits and assessments as
well as providing advice on community involvement and design principles (CABE,
2004). Another key aspect in respect of open space provision in higher density
52

developments is noted by the US Local Government Commission (LGC, 2003).

This report advocates the benefits of high density residential developments using
case studies to demonstrate that all facilities such as local shops, supermarkets,
schools, bus stops, jobs and parks are significantly closer to home and more
walkable in higher density developments.

The nearest park in a 48 dph

development is noted as 106m from the typical dwelling as opposed to 216m in a

development at 15 dph.

Land Com (2008) has produced guidelines for open space provision in new
developments. These contain a number of similar arguments to those put forward
by CABE. For example Land Com place emphasis on community participation in
identifying open space requirements, on the need for interconnectivity between
spaces and communication routes, especially walking and cycling paths and the
complex use of space, for example for water sensitive urban design and wildlife
corridors.

Multi functionality, especially of sporting facilities is considered

important as is the need to locate open spaces close to compatible facilities such
as indoor sports venues, schools and community buildings with a view to
maximisation of joint use opportunities. Stress is also placed on the importance of
high quality space design which takes natural topography and features into
account as well as using local materials and designs which are sensitive to local
character. The Land Com guidelines also suggest that diversity of space types
and provision is valuable as is recognition that local needs vary and change over
time. Adaptability of space needs to be incorporated into designs. Health and
well-being merit a section in the guidelines, which covers issues relating to
designs which promote activity for all age groups, respond to changing seasonal
characteristics and enhance personal security and safety. However, the issue of
how much space to provide is less well documented. A good practice example of
a 6 hectare park including a range of facilities is shown but this is not related to
any specific population or density figure. Several of the examples clearly relate to
medium to high density development types but there is no discussion of varying
open space levels according to varying density.

Advice on public space provision which is specific to TODs and higher

development densities appears to be scarce in the health and physical activity
53

related literature. As discussed in Section 3.4, there is evidence that high rise
living, particularly for residents on upper floors, is associated with lower levels of
physical activity (Jackson, 2003), but this does not extend to any policy
recommendations.

Western Australian development control policy (2006)

suggests that:

land extensive/low intensity elements of schools and other similar

public uses, for example playing fields should not be dominant
elements within walkable catchment of transit facilities (Planning
Western Australia, 2006).

However, Calthorpe (1990), in a review of design considerations in TODs, argues

that:

parks and plazas in TODs act as neighbourhood meeting places

recreational activity centres child care facilities and lunchtime picnic
spots. Because their function is primarily public activity they are most
appropriately located central to residential or core areas.

Thus, the general approach seems to recommend larger areas of open space on
the fringe of the TOD and smaller areas of intense activity space in central
locations. Either hard surfacing or a combination of hard and soft treatment is
Calthorpe s recommended design approach for central; area open space.

No

recommendations for open space standards within TODS were sourced in the
literature.

5.

Conclusions

While there is a significant body of work exploring the value of mixing land uses, of
locating facilities within easy walking distance of homes and providing safe and
attractive opportunities for walking and cycling, there is a relative paucity of work
exploring the relationship between urban form and active living particularly in
respect of providing an evidence base. The purpose of this research review paper
was to explore and review the literature which looks at the provision of open space
54

within the urban fabric. In particular this review paper sought to identify the
evidence base in respect of evaluating the importance of open and public space in
supporting active living through a review of the academic and policy evidence.
This has been undertaken through an exhaustive review and discussion of both
the international and Australian based academic and policy literatures.

This

review has revealed a burgeoning academic and policy literature. As encouraging

as this is, we note that much of the thinking on the provision of public open space
and its relationship with and impact upon physical activity is premised on a
common-sense approach rather than being founded on empirical evidence. The
genesis of that evidence base is apparent. However, further research is required
to fully reveal the intricacies of public open space provision and physical activity.

With the above in mind, we wish to advance a series of concluding comments.

These comments are not considered to represent definitive end-points. Rather,
we present them as salient observations drawn from the review and presented to
stimulate further thought and discussion. Thus, the following comments represent
a summary, not intended to end discussion, but rather to invite it by acting as
points of departure.

The literature review presented here reveals that the evidence base for the
provision of public open space and its benefits for promoting physical activity
are primarily emerging from the health sciences literature, particularly the
field of public health.

While there appear to be significant research

intersections between the urban planning and public health literatures, further
attention should be devoted to these issues

within planning scholarship.

The linkages between these fields are apparent, but greater integration is not
only desirable, it is essential.

Access to public open space, be it green or non-green, is a critical issue in

promoting physical activity.

However, the notion of access is complex.

Access may be thought of is a spatial sense and measured in both distance

and time. More nuanced considerations of access must address a diverse
range of social factors (socio-economics, gender, age, culture, disability for
example) and how these intersect with spatial determinants.
55

The effective provision of public open space is not solely a public health
issue, but equally an equity issue.

There is no comprehensive justification for the open space standards which

have historically been widely applied in Australia
Quasi-public spaces, especially in new developments, present complex
issues with regard to the equitable provision of public open space.
Effective public open space should not, where possible, be designed for a
single physical activity. Rather, effective public open space should cater for a
diverse range of activities and uses.

Open space needs to be considered as fulfilling a range of functions, not just

recreation and physical activity. For example it may have biodiversity value,
flood mitigation value, carbon sequestration value.
While the health benefits of moderate and vigorous physical activity are
laudable, the benefits of activities in public open space classified in the
literature as being passive should not be under-estimated.

The planning of new neighbourhood developments must adopt a more

sophisticated notion of design to ensure that proximity is not reduced to linear
distance (as the crow-flies), but rather reflects the actual journey an individual
would have to make to access public open space (using a directness
calculation).
CPTED principles are said to enhance safety in public open space, thereby
improving usage rates.

Walkability thresholds are recommended as being no further than 1km.

56

Using fixed percentage standards for open space provision my not be a

practical approach in situations where a range of development densities are
envisaged

It is possible to provide too much open space as well as too little. Too much
space may negatively impact on the amenity of an area, be a focus for anti
social behaviour and represent a sub optimal use of land with negative
impacts on property values

Open space allocation is best arrived at through a detailed audit of existing

provision in an area allied to a needs assessment of the local population.
Whilst it is recognised that needs might change and therefore some flexibility
is necessary over time, a blanket standards based approach is not the best
mechanism.

A linked series of spaces in the form of a network should be a basic aim of

planning for open space provision. This open space framework is best seen
as a starting point for the structure of a new development

The detailed design of open space is a crucial issue and needs to be done
carefully, in consultation with users and to a very high standard.

Flexibility and adaptability are important aspects of design strategy.

There is no evidence of prescriptive standards for open space provision in

high density or transit oriented developments. However location and design
guidelines for such developments are available.
6.

Recommendations:

Many of the points noted above provide important guidance for designers and
developers of open space. The following summary list sets out the basic
components of good open space design to foster active living.

57

Open space provision is best viewed as a primary initial consideration in the

design process. It can form the framework around which the rest of the
layout can be formulated.

The nature, extent and location of open space is best determined in

consultation with existing and future residents and should take into account
the demographics of the local population.

A needs based assessment of open space requirements is generally

preferable to a standards based approach.

Where

councils choose to adopt a standards based approach to open

space provision, particularly when this consists of a fixed percentage of the

development area, it is important that they recognise and are prepared to
modify the resulting open space requirement in relation to the density of the
development.

Designers should always aim to produce high quality spaces. Whilst

development and maintenance costs are important considerations, reducing
costs at the expense of the attractiveness, durability, quality of finish or
suitability to use of space is not advisable.

A network of spaces is preferable to stand alone spaces. The connectivity

of spaces is a crucial factor in fostering active living.

Accessibility to open space networks is crucial. Residences should be

located no more than 10 minutes walk from open space networks. The
functionality and attractiveness of the walk to open space networks is very
important to fostering physical activity.

Users of open space need to feel safe regardless of sex or age. Designs
should take account of CPTED principles to ensure security.

58

Open space designs should take account of the variety and intensity of
potential uses. This is particularly important in higher density developments
where space may be restricted.
7

Recommendations for Future Research:

Qualitative assessment of user opinions of space to provide an alternative

to observational studies of user behaviour.

Analyse variation in policy frameworks between councils.

Examine

potential for an integrated approach to policy on open space.

Examine application of developer contributions mechanism. How does it

work in practice? Are there alternative models? How well will it work with
more variation in the density of development?

Analyse notions of integrated design for open space. For example the use
of rooftop space, semi private and restricted access space. How can we
quantify/assess their contribution to the total urban development?

Analysis of open spaces that do not function well. eg Spaces that meet
CPTED standard but are not regarded as successful.

Could this

analysis assist in the generation of future policy standards and inform on

the relative importance of different aspects of provision?

Can we define a South Australian set of design principles which distinguish

urban spaces from the European tradition of green space?

Are there tensions and contradictions within the concept of multi functional
space? Eg WSUD and child safety; biodiversity and public access?

Is it possible to define an appropriate level and type of open space provision

for a transit oriented development?

59

8.

Reference List:

Angold P, Sadler J, Hill M, Pullin A, Rushton S, Austin K, Small E, Wood B,

Wadsworth R, Sanderson R and Thompson K (2006) Biodiversity in Urban
Habitat Patches, Science of the Total Environment, 360 1-3 pp 196-204
Asakawa, S., Yoshida, K. and Yabe, K. (2004) Perceptions of urban stream
corridors within the greenway system of Sapporo, Japan, Landscape and
Urban Planning, 68/2-3, pp.167-182.
Babey, S., Brown, R. and Hastert, T. (2007) Access to safe parks helps increase
physical activity among teens, UCLA Centre for Health Policy Research,
University of California, Los Angeles, paper 48.
Babey, S., Hastert, T., Yu, H. and Brown, E.R. (2008) Physical activity among
adolescents: when do parks matter? American Journal of Preventative
Medicine, 34/4, pp. 345-348.
Ball, D. (2002) Playgrounds: Risks, Benefits and Choices. HSE Books: Middlesex
University.
Ball, D. (2004) Policy issues and risk-benefit trade-offs of safer surfacing for
children s playgrounds, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35/4, pp.417-422.
Barnett G (2001) Liveable Neighbourhoods (2nd Edition), Landscape and Urban
Planning, vol. 55, pp. 67-72.
Baum F and Palmer C (2002) Opportunity structures : urban landscape, social
capital and health promotion in Australia , Health Promotion International,
17, (4), pp. 351-361.
Blair, S.N. and Morrow, J.R. (1998) Cooper Institute and the American College of
Sports Medicine 1997 Physical Activity Interventions Conference, American
Journal of Preventative Medicine, 15/4, pp.255-256.
Boarnet M. and Sarmiento S (1998) Can Land Use Policy Really Affect Travel
Behavior? A Study of the Link Between Non-work Travel and Land Use
Characteristics, Urban Studies 35(7), pp.1155-69.
Booth, M.L., Owen, N., Bauman, A., Clavisi, O. and Leslie, E. (2000) Socialcognitive and perceived environment influences associated with physical
activity in older Australians, Preventative Medicine, 31/1, pp.15-22.

60

Brownson, R.C., Baker, E.A., Housemann, R.A., Brennan, L.K. and Bacak, S.J.
(2001) Environmenta policy determinants of physical activity in the United
States, American Journal of Public Health, 91/12, pp.1995-2003.
Bull (2001) Active landscapes

challenges in developing the evidence on urban

environments to achieve a more active nation, International Conference:

Innovative Approaches to Research Excellence in Landscape and Health,
19-21 September, 2001, Edinburgh, Scotland, Viewed 10 April 2009,
http://www.openspace.eca.ac.uk/conference2007/PDF/Summary_Paper__Fi
ona_Bull.AB_edit.LAST._W-out_trackg..pdf
CABE Space (2004) Green Space Strategies: A Good Practice Guide,
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, UK.
CABE SPACE, (2005), Start with the Park Creating Sustainable Urban Green
Spaces in Areas of Housing Growth and Renewal, Commission for
Architecture and the Built Environment, UK.
Calthorpe Associates (1990) TOD Design Guidelines for Sacramento County,
Viewed

28

May

2009

http://www.planning.saccounty.net/general-

plan/docs/pdf/GP-Elements/TOD-Design-Guidelines.pdf
City

of

Ballarat

(undated)

Open

Space

Strategy,

http://www.ballarat.vic.gov.au/library/scripts/objectifyMedia.aspx?file=pdf/64/
54.pdfandsiteID=1andstr_title=BOSS%20%20Hierarchy%20and%20Category.pdf Viewed 25 May 2009
City of Norwood, Payneham and St Peters (undated) Hierarchy of Open Space
http://www.npsp.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Map_2.pdf

Viewed

25

May 2009
Cohen, D., Ashwood, J.S., Scott, M.M., Overton, A., Evenson, K.R., Sttaen, L.K.,
Porter, D., McKenzie, T.L. and Catellier, D. (2006) Public parks and physical
activity among adolescent girls, Paediatrics, 1/5, pp.1381-1389.
Cohen, D., McKenzie, T., Sehgal, A., Williamson, S., Golinelli, D. and Lurie, N.
(2007) Contribution of public parks to physical activity, American Journal of
Public Health, 97/3, pp.509-514.
Cohen, D., Sehgal, A., Williamson, S., Marsh, T., Golinelli, D. and McKenzie, T.
(2009) New recreational facilities for the young and the old in Los Angeles:

61

policy and programming implications, Journal of Public Health Policy, 30/1,

pp.248-263.
Cook JA (1968) Gardens on Housing Estates, Town Planning Review 39 (3) pp
217-234
Corti, B., Donovan, R.J. and Holman, C.D. (1997) factors influencing the use of
physical activity facilities: results from qualitative research, Health Promotion
Journal of Australia, 7, pp.16-21.
Crane R (2000) The influence of urban form on travel: an interpretive review
Journal of Planning Literature 15 (1), pp.3-23.
Crane, R. and Crepeau, R. (1998) Does neighbourhood design influence travel?
A behavioral analysis of travel diary and GIS data, Transportation Research
Part D: Transport and Environment, 3, pp. 225-238.
Crow, T., Brown, T. and De Young, R. (2006) The Riverside and Berwyn
experience: constraints in landscape structure, perceptions of the urban
landscape and their effect on people, Landscape and Urban Planning, 75/34, pp.282-299.
Crum S, Foote KE (1996). Environmental and architectural barriers: How
accessible

is

the

urban

environment?

Viewed

30

May

2009,

http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/warmup/barriers/barriers.html
Daley J (2000) Recreation and Sport Planning and Design, 2nd Ed, Champaign IL:
Human Kinetics
De Vries, S., Bakker, I., Van Mechelen, W. and Hopman-Rock, M. (2007)
Determinants of activity-friendly neighbourhoods for children: results from the
SPACE study, American Journal of Health Promotion, 21/4, supplement,
pp.312-316.
Department of Communities and Local Government (2002) Assessing Needs and
Opportunities: A Companion Guide to PPG17, HMSO
Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (1999) Urban Task Force:
Towards and Urban Renaissance, HMSO
Department of Sustainability and Environment (2005) Melbourne 2030, viewed
30th May 2009
http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/melbourne2030online/content/policies_initiatives/05e_p
olicy55.html

62

Dept of Communities and Local Government, (2002) Planning Policy Guidance

Note 17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation, HMSO
Diez Roux, A.V., Evenson, K., McGinn, A.P., Brown, D.G., Moore, L., Brines, S.
and Jacobs, D.R. (2007) Availability of recreational resources and physical
activity in adults, American Journal of Public Health, 97/3, pp.493-499.
Evans, G.W., Wells, N.M., Chan, H.Y.E. and Saltzman, H. (2000) Housing quality
and mental health, Journal of Consulting Clinical Psychology, 68/3, pp.526530.
Floyd, M., Spengler, J., Maddock, J., Gobster, P. and Suau, L. (2008) Park-based
physical activity in diverse communities of two US cities, Journal of
Preventative Medicine, 34/4, pp. 299-305.
Frank L and Engelke P (2002) The Built Environment and Human Activity
Patterns: Exploring the Impacts of Urban Form on Public, Journal of Planning
Literature, 16, pp202-218
Frank, L, Andersen, M and Schmid, T, (2004), Obesity relationships with
community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars , American
Journal of Preventative Medicine, vol. 27, issue 2, pp. 87-96.
Frank, L. and Co. (2008) The Built Environment and health: A Review, Final
Report, prepared for the City of Calgary, viewed on 10 April 2009
http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/BU/planning/pdf/plan_it/health_and_wellnes
s_reports.pdf>
Frank, L., Kerr, J., Chapman, J. and Sallis, J. (2007) Urban form relationships with
walk trip frequency and distance among youth, American Journal of Health
Promotion, 21/4, supplement, pp.305-311.
Franklin, A. (2002) Accidents, Risk and Play in Adventure Playgrounds in
Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham. National Child s Bureau: London.
Frumkin, H, 2003, Healthy places: exploring the evidence , American Journal of
Public Health, 93/9, pp. 1451-1456.
Frumkin, H. (2001) Beyond toxicity: human health and the natural environment,
American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 20/3, pp.234-240.
Garcia-Ramon, M.D., Prtiz, A. and Prats, M. (2004) Urban planning, gender and
the use of public space in a peripheral neighbourhood of Barcelona, Cities,
21/3, pp.215-223.

63

Gehl J and Gemzoe L (2008) New City Spaces, Danish Architectural Press,
Copenhagen
Giles-Corti B (2006) The impact of urban form on public health, paper prepared for
the 2006 Australian state of the Environment Committee, Department of the
Environment

and

Heritage,

Canberra,

http://www.deh.gov.au/soe/2006/emerging/public-health/index.html
Giles-Corti, B, Broomhall, M, Knuiman, M, Collins, C, Douglas, K, Ng, K, Lange, A
and Donovan R, 2005, Increasing walking how important is distance to,
attractiveness, and size of public open space? , American Journal of
Preventative Medicine, vol. 28, supplement 2, pp.169-176.
Giles-Corti, B, Knuiman, M, Pikora, T, Van Neil, K, Timperio, A, Bull, F, Shilton, T
and Bulsara, M, (2007), Can the impact of health of a government policy
designed to create more liveable neighbourhoods be evaluated? An overview
of the RESIDential environment project , NSW Public Health Bulletin, 18 (1112), pp. 238-242.
Girling, C & Helphand, K, (1994) Yard, street, park: the design of suburban open
space, J. Wiley, New York.
Girling, C, and Helphand, K, (1997) Retrofitting Suburbia: Open Space in Bellevue
Washington, USA, Landscape and Urban Planning 36, (4) pp 301-313
Godbey, G., Caldwell, L., Floyd, M. and Payne, L. (2005) Contributions of leisure
studies and recreation and park management research to the active living
agenda, American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 28/S2S, pp.150-158.
Gold Coast City Council (2009) Active Parks, Viewed 4 June 2009,
http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/t_standard2.aspx?pid=4291
Golledge, R.G. (1993) Geography and the disabled: a survey with special
reference to vision impaired and blind populations, Transactions of the
Institute of British Geographers, 18, pp.63-85.
Gordon I (1997) Densities, urban form and travel behaviour Town and Country
Planning 66 (9) pp. 239-241.
Government of South Australia (1993) Development Act Section 50 (1)
Government of South Australia (2008) 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide, Viewed
30 May 2009, http://www.planning.sa.gov.au/index.cfm?objectid=51468526F203-0D46-A43E1AD10A6E3C89

64

Greed, C. (1996) Promise or progress: women and planning, Built Environment,

22/1, pp.9-21.
Hahn A and Craythorn E (1994), Inactivity and the Physical Environment in Two
Regional Centres. Health Promotion Journal of Australia 4 (2), pp. 43-5.
Halkett I (1975) An Analysis of the Use and Design of Residential Gardens in
Adelaide, South Australia, PhD Thesis (unpublished), Australian National
University, Canberra
Hall A C (1987) The Provision of Private Open Space for Dwellings; An
Assessment of the Policies of Local Planning Authorities, Town Planning
Review, 58 (2) pp183-197
Handy, S. (1996) Understanding the Link Between Urban Form and Nonwork
Travel Behavior,

Journal of Planning Education and Research 15, pp.183-

98.
Harnik, P and Simms, J (2004) How Far is the Nearest Park from your Home: Can
you walk there? American Planning Association.
Hayden, D. (2000) What should a non-sexist city be like? Speculation on housing,
urban design, and human work, in Stimpson, C.R. (ed.) The City Reader,
pp.503-518.
Hill, K. (2002) Design and planning as healing arts: the broader context of health
and environment, in: Johnson, B.R. and Hill, K. (Eds) Ecology and Design:
Frameworks for Learning, pp.203-214. Island Press: Washington DC.
Howard E (1902) Garden Cities of Tomorrow, Faber and Faber
Hume, C, Timpero, A, Ball, K, Salmon, J, Andrianopoulos, N and Crawford, D,
Public open spaces

what features encourage children to be active?, Centre

for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research, Deakin University, Victoria,

viewed 14 April

http://www.deakin.edu.au/hmnbs/cpan/summaries/spaces-

encourage-activity.pdf >
Huston, S., Evenson, K., Bors, P. and Gizlice, Z. (2003) Neighbourhood
environment, access to places for activity, and leisure-time physical activity in
a diverse North Carolina population, American Journal of Health Promotion,
18/1, pp. 58-69.
Huston, S.L., Evenson, K.R., Bors, P. and Gizlice, Z. (2003) Neighbourhood
environment, access to places for activity and leisure-time physical activity in

65

a diverse North Carolina population, American Journal of Health Promotion,

18/1, pp.58-69.
Imrie, R. (2001) Barriered and bounded places and the spatialities of disability,
Urban Studies, 38/2, pp.231-237.
Jackson and Kochtitzky (2001) Creating a Healthy Environment: The Impact of the
Built Environment on Public Health, Sprawlwatch Clearinghouse Monograph
series, Viewed 30 May 2009, www.sprawlwatch.org
Jackson L (2003) The relationship of urban design to human health and condition,
Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 64, pp. 191-200.
Jackson, L.E. (2003) The relationship of urban design to human health and
condition, Landscape and Urban Planning, 64, pp.191-200.
Kacczynski, A.T. and Henderson, K.A. (2007) Environmental correlates of physical
activity: a review of evidence about parks and recreation, Leisure Sciences,
29, pp.315-354.
Kavanagh A, Goller J, King, T, Jolley D, Crawford D, and Turrell G (2005) Urban
area disadvantage and physical activity: a multilevel study in Melbourne,
Australia, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59, pp 934-940.
Kellett J (1982) The Private Garden in England and Wales, Landscape Planning,
9, pp105-123
Kenworthy J R and Laube F(1999) Patterns of automobile dependence in cities:
an international overview of key physical and economic dimensions with
some implications for urban policy, Transportation Research Part A: Policy
and Practice 33 (7-8), pp 691-723.
Ker, L. and Ginn, S. (2003) Myths and realities in walkable catchments: the case
of walking and transit, Road and Transport Research Journal, 12/2, pp.69-80.
Killingsworth, R., Earp, J. and Moore, R. (2003) Supporting health through design
challenges and opportunities, American Journal of Health Promoting, 18,
pp.1-2.
King, W.C., Brach, J.S., Belle, S., Killingsworth, R., Fenton, M. and Kriska, A.
(2003) the relationship between convenience of destinations and walking
levels in older women, American Journal of Health Promotion, 18, pp.74-82.
Kuo, F.E, Sullivan, W.C, Coley, R.L. and Brunson, L. (1998) Fertile ground for
community: inner-city neighbourhood common spaces, American Journal of
Community Psychology, 26/6, pp.823-851.
66

Land Com (2008) Open Space Design Guidelines, LandCom

Lee, C. and Moudon, V.A. (2004) Physical activity and environment research in
the health field: implications for urban and transportation planning practice
and research, Journal of Planning Literature, 19/2, pp.147-181.
Lindheim, R. and Syme, S.L. (1993) Environments, people and health, Annual
Review of Public Health, 4, pp.335-359.
Local Government Commission (in Co-operation with US EPA) (2003) Creating
Great Neighbourhoods: Density in Your Community, National Association of
Realtors.
Massey, D. (1994) Space, Place and Gender, Polity, Cambridge.
Mayor of London (2004) The London Plan, Greater London Authority
McCormack, G.R., Giles-Corti, B. and Bulsara, M. (2008) the relationship between
destination proximity, destination mix and physical activity behaviour,
Preventative Medicine, 46, pp.33-40.
Miles, R. (2008) Neighbourhood disorder, perceived safety, and readiness in
encourage use of local playgrounds, American Journal of Preventative
Medicine, 34/4, pp.275- 281.
Museum

of

London

(2009)

Abercombie

Plan,

Viewed

30

May

2009,

http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/English/Collections/OnlineResources/X2
0L/Themes/1337/1075/
National Capital Development Commission (NCDC) (1981) Urban Open Space,
Guidelines. Technical Paper 21, Canberra, ACT: NCDC.
Nowak and Dwyer (2007) Understanding the Benefits and Costs of Urban Forest
Ecosystems in Kuser J, Urban and Community Forest in the North East,
Springer, Netherlands.
Oldenburg R, (2000) Celebrating the Third Place Inspiring Stories About the
Great Good Places at the Heart of Our Communities, NY: Marlowe & Co,
New York.
Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade and Douglas, Inc., Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and
Calthorpe Associates (1996) Transit, Urban Form and the Built Environment:
A Summary of Knowledge. Transit Cooperative Research Program. Project
H-1.
Planning SA (2006) Understanding Residential Densities, Viewed 30 May 2009,
http://www.planning.sa.gov.au/go/strategy/land-use-planning-strategy-for67

sa/metropolitan-adelaide/understanding-residential-densitieshandbook/understanding-residential-densities-handbook
Planning Western Australia (2006) Development Control Policy 1.6 Planning to
Support Transit Use and Transit Oriented Development, viewed 30 April
2009,
http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/Plans+and+policies/Publications/741.aspx
Pollard, T. (2003) Policy prescriptions for healthier communities, American Journal
of Health Promotion, 18/1, pp.109-113.
Powell, K. (2005) Land use, the built environment and physical activity a public
health mixture; a public health solution, American Journal of Preventative
Medicine, 28/S2S, pp.216-217.
Raine K, Spence J, Church J, (2008) State of Evidence Review on Urban Health
Healthy Weights, Canadian Population Health Initiative, Canadian Institute
for Health Information, Ottowa
Saelens B, Sallis J, Black, J and Chen D (2003) Neighbourhood-based differences
in physical activity a environment scale evaluation, American Journal of
Public Health, 93 (9) pp. 1552-1558.
Sallis, J.F., Saelens, B.E., Frank, L.D., Conway, T.L., Slymen, D.J., Cain, K.L.
Chapman, J.E. and Kerr, K. (2009) Neighbourhood built environment and
income: examining multiple health outcomes, Social Science and Medicine,
68, pp.1285-1293.
Sandwell

Metropolitan

Borough

Council

(undated)

Open

Space

http://sandwelludp.wisshost.net/text/text7.htm Viewed 25 May 2009

Simpson A E (1969) Park Standards for Australia, Australian Parks 6(1), pp12-16
Staempfli, M.B. (2009) Reintroducing adventure into children s outdoor play
environments, Environment and Behavior, 41, pp.268-280.
Sunarja A, Wood G and Giles-Corti B, (2008) A fact sheet on healthy public open
space design for multi-users and multi-uses, The Centre for the Built
Environment and Health, University of Western Australia, Perth, Viewed 10
April 2009, <http://www.sph.uwa.edu.au/go/c_beh/projects/post
Takano, T., Nakamura, K. and Wantabe, M. (2002) Urban residential
environments and senior citizens

longevity in megacity areas: the

68

importance of walkable green spaces, Journal of Epidemiology and

Community Health, 56, pp.913-918.
Taylor, L., Whittington, F., Hollingsworth, C., Ball, M., King, S., Patterosn, V.,
Diwan, S., Rosenbloom, C. and Neel, A. (2003) Assessing the effectiveness
of a walking program on physical function of residents living in an assisted
living facility, Journal of Community Health and Nursing, 20/1, pp.15-26.
The Scottish Government (2007) Scottish Planning Policy 11 Open Space and
Physical

Activity,

Viewed

14

April

2009

<http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/11/12152424/0
Thompson, S, 2008, Design for Open Space, Fact Sheet, Your Development,
viewed 14 April 2009 <http://yourdevelopment.org/factsheet/view/id/72
Troy P (1992). The New Feudalism, Urban Futures 2 (2), pp. 36-44
Troy P (1996). The Perils of Urban Consolidation. Sydney, Federation Press
UK Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, (2002) Green
Spaces, Better Spaces, The Final Report of the Urban Green Spaces
Taskforce, DTLR
Valentine, G. (1989) The geography of women's fear, Area, 21, pp.385--90.
Valentine, G. (1991) Women's fear and the design of public space, Built
Environment, 18, pp.288--303.
Veal, A.J (2008), Open Space Planning Standards in Australia: in Search of
Origins School of Leisure, Sport and Tourism working Paper 5, Lindfield
NSW:

University

of

Technology,

Sydney,

<

http://www.business.uts.edu.au/lst/downloads/open_space_standards_2008.
pdf
Ward S (2002) Planning the Twentieth Century City- The Advanced Capitalist
World, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester
Ward Thompson, C. (1998) Historic American parks and contemporary needs,
Landscape Journal, 17/1, pp.1-25.
Ward Thompson, C. (2002) Urban open space in the 21st century, Landscape and
Urban Planning, 60, pp.59-72.
Wells, N.M. (2000) At home with nature: effects of greenness on children s
cognitive functioning, Environmental Behaviour, 32/6, pp.775-795.
Western Australian Planning Commission (2009) Liveable Neighbourhoods Code,
Department for Planning and Infrastructure
69

Winchester City Council, (2008) Open Space Provision, Viewed 3 May 2009
http://www.winchester.gov.uk/General.asp?id=SX9452-A782C290 and Open
Space

Strategy

http://www.winchester.gov.uk/EnvironmentAndPlanning/Planning/Landscape
AndCountryside/OpenSpaceDevelopment/OpenSpaceStrategy/
Space,

Sports

and

Recreation

and

Open
Study

http://www.winchester.gov.uk/EnvironmentAndPlanning/Planning/Landscape
AndCountryside/OpenSpaceDevelopment/OpenSpaceSportsAndRecreation
Study/
Woolley, H (2003) Urban Open Spaces, Spon Press, New York.

9. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the generous support of the Adelaide
Active Living Coalition for funding this project and Kirsty Kelly for her valuable
work on the initial literature review.

70