A systematic review to determine the role of public space and urban design on sense of community

DOI: 10.1111/issj.12472 ARTICLE A systematic review to determine the role of public space and urban design on sense of community Ignacio Ramos-Vidal1Elsy Domínguez de la Ossa2 1Departamento de Psicología Social, Facultad de Psicología, Instituto Universitario de Estudios sobre América Latina, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain 2Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Tecnológica de Bolívar, Ciudad Bolívar, Bolivar, Colombia Correspondence Ignacio Ramos-Vidal, Departamento de Psicología Social, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad de Sevilla, Instituto Universitario de Estudios sobre América Latina, Calle Ramón y Cajal s/n, Sevilla 41018, Spain. Email: [email protected] Abstract The aim of this research is to determine the effect that the physical characteristics of public spaces and their perceived quality have on residents’ sense of community (SoC). A systematic review was carried out following the protocol of the PRISMA guidelines; a systematic search was conducted in the Web of Science Core Collection, resulting in the retrieval of 637 records. After several screenings, 23 studies were identified. The results suggest that the perceived quality of public spaces exerts positive effects, but of moderate intensity, on SoC (range =0.13–0.4, Mβ=0.24, SD =0.1), as does the possibility of walking to public spaces within the neighbourhood (range =0.02–0.57; Mβ=0.22; SD =0.21). The results indicate that designing public spaces that facilitate social interaction is the main factor for enhancing SoC. The main findings of this review justify the design of public spaces and built environments that favour interpersonal relationships between residents, serve as contexts for socialization and community participation and can be used to celebrate cultural and recreational events for promoting social capital in urban contexts. 1INTRODUCTION For decades, those responsible for urban planning have sought to reinforce social cohesion through the design of public spaces. According to Friedkin (2004), ‘Groups are cohesive when group-level conditions are producing positive membership attitudes and behaviors and when group members“ interpersonal interactions are operating to maintain these group level conditions.” (p. 410). The social doctrine of new urbanism (Katz, 1994) has been one of its principles facilitating social interaction and social cohesion, with the objective of reversing the decline of social capital (Cabrera, 2013) and strengthening the notion of community. From this perspective, social capital is conceptualized as the This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. © 2023 The Authors. International Social Science Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Int Soc Sci. 2024;74:633–655. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/issj 633 634 RAMOS-VIDAL AND DE LA OSSA set of norms and collaboration networks that support civic engagement (Putnam, 1993). As Talen (1999, p. 1362) pointed out, the roots of the new urbanism are based on designing public spaces that become settings of interaction capable of promoting Sense of Community (SoC). The most widespread definition of SoC is the one proposed by McMillan (1976), who pointed out that SoC is A feeling that members have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faith that members’ needs will be met through their commitment to be together. (McMillan, 1976, cited in McMillan & Chavis 1986,p.9) The interest in designing public spaces that facilitate interaction can be explained by different disciplines such social psychology, anthropology and urban studies. First, the empirical evidence shows that interpersonal relationships, even those considered weak (Granovetter, 1973; Sandstrom & Dunn, 2014), in an aggregate way, strengthen social cohesion in within geographically defined communities (Riger & Lavrakas, 1981). Second, when the design of public space offers opportunities to strengthen social ties, this increases the levels of social support, improving the subjective well-being and mental health of the population (Fleming et al., 1985). Finally, gentrification and increases in high rise apartments and population density contribute to the perception of anomie and social isolation (Fischer, 1973). A first assumption regarding to new urbanism consists of promoting open and accessible spaces that allow interaction, interpersonal proximity and different types of social exchange (Fleming et al., 1985; Talen, 2000). Thus, public spaces go from being considered mere architectural constructions to becoming behavioural settings (Barker, 1978), where the social fabric is born and reproduced (Netto, 2017). When public spaces facilitate social contacts, interaction between neighbours is increased, and a network of intra-community relations is woven, producing a social structure that constitutes an essential requirement for the emergence of social capital. The social capital that flourishes from intra-community relations is called bonding and is based on interpersonal trust, commitment, reciprocity, respect for norms and networks that articulate civic participation (Putnam, 1995; p. 67). A latent construct shared by social capital and SoC is participation. Considering that social relations affect the SoC and that this in turn acts as a catalyst for community participation (Chang et al., 2022; Talò et al., 2014), it is accepted that public spaces that facilitate social interaction will reinforce the SoC, pro-sociality and social capital. A second assumption that underlies the social doctrine of new urbanism emphasizes the effect that the design of public space exerts on psychosocial well-being and mental health to the extent that the configuration and accessibility of spaces facilitate interaction and emotional connection with the physical environment (Audirac, 1999). There are many studies that show that social support is a crucial factor in the promotion of positive mental health (Harandi et al., 2017). Therefore, designing public spaces that facilitate social interaction and that, in parallel, reinforce SoC is a key element for physical and mental health (Hooper et al., 2020; Michalski et al., 2020). At the same time, the positive relationship between SoC and subjective well-being has been consistently identified in the literature (Prati et al., 2016), which suggests that the design of public spaces that promote SoC is a prominent way to promote psychosocial well-being. Since the end of the 1960s, several disciplines have sought to understand the individual consequences attributed to living in large cities. The mobility processes that occurred in previous decades produced increases in population density and increases in the size and complexity of cities. The eminent social psychologist Stanley Milgram (Milgram, 1970) highlighted that the increase in the size of cities, population density and heterogeneity of inhabitants increased cognitive demands and caused overlapping of social roles acting as psychosocial stressors. Recently, there has been an increasing social perspective in the way of understanding the experience of urban life, assuming that designing public spaces that include green areas, parks and spaces for socializing contributes to improving psychological health (Hartig & Kahn, 2016). This fact is confirmed in studies that show that designing neighbourhoods that facilitate social interaction impacts the well-being of residents 14682451, 2024, 252, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/issj.12472 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [04/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License PUBLIC SPACE AND SENSE OF COMMUNITY 635 (Ige-Elegbede et al., 2022) and in the SoC that they experience with respect to territorial setting (Francis et al., 2012). The third assumption is based on the idea that the current structure of cities, characterized by the high concentration of population in residential blocks and by the relative scarcity of spaces for recreation and interaction, contributes to the perception of social isolation (Fischer, 1973). In fact, in densely populated areas where the interpersonal distance that separates individuals is reduced, psychological distance tends to increase, affecting the feeling of loneliness (Lai et al., 2021). Therefore, the characteristics of public space determine behaviour patterns and social dynamics (Mehta, 2019). A natural way to combat the perception of social isolation is to design accessible public spaces such as parks, squares and green areas that are suitable for social exchange. This allows expanding the network of contacts within the community setting and contributes to strengthening the SoC and responsibility towards the community itself. Activating interpersonal relationships by creating public spaces that become settings of pro-social behaviour makes it possible to reduce the perception of isolation and reinforce the affective and emotional dimensions of attachment to the place, which are essential to consolidating the SoC (Glynn, 1986; McCunn, 2020; Plas and Lewis, 1996; Riger & Lavrakas 1981; Talen, 1999). Several studies have evidenced the importance of experience feeling of membership towards social groups. Individuals satisfy affiliative needs through ongoing positive interactions with other members of the community. But social contacts simultaneously constitute social support resources that contribute to improving quality of life and subjective well-being and reduce the perception of loneliness (Chung & Kim, 2022). When people interact frequently with their neighbours, social cohesion is reinforced, and opportunities to satisfy social, material and emotional needs are amplified. This phenomenon produces direct and indirect effects on physical and mental health, and recent studies even show that the SoC contributes to making people feel happy (Ross et al., 2019). The founding principle of the new urbanism social doctrine is that the design of buildings, public spaces and walkable areas should favour interpersonal contact between community members (Katz, 1994; Kim & Kaplan, 2004). Urban planning can contribute in multiple ways to the activation and intensification of social exchanges, which, in turn, will strengthen the SoC. From this perspective, a recent study showed that when the design of neighbourhoods includes transit zones that facilitate walking between areas of interest in the community, interpersonal relationships are promoted, increasing the sense of belonging to the community (Carson et al., 2023). Another recent proposal found that communities that have friendly public spaces for children to play foster relationships between parents and neighbourhood cohesion and the SoC are strengthened (Ross et al., 2020). Finally, recent research suggests that public spaces can become contexts for artistic co-creation with the potential to publicize community demands, give voice to underrepresented groups and promote community resilience. Thus, the work developed by Robazza (2020) points in that direction, showing that art is a powerful instrument for appropriating public space, increasing the sense of belonging to the community. Although scientific literature highlights positive associations between features of urban physical environment and the SoC, this evidence is commonly fragmented and arises from different academic disciplines. This fact makes difficult to identify a precise picture about how public spaces and physical environments shape social interaction patterns, and in turn, the experience of being a member of a broader community. For example, studies from community psychology point out the cognitive, attitudinal and behavioural dimensions that are associated with the SoC (Davidson & Cotter, 1986; Doolittle & MacDonald, 1978). Studies adopting this perspective exhibit the effects of neighbourhoodlevel variables on SoC and frequently include community-level variables related to the characteristics of the urban design, neighbourhood heterogeneity and the utilization of public space for community initiatives (Davidson & Cotter, 1986; Douglas, 2022; Nasar & Julian, 1995). A key goal of this line of studies is to understand how public spaces trigger participatory behaviours in community action. On the other hand, urban planning research mainly focuses on the impact that built environment produce on population health indicators, social behaviour and perceptions about urban design (Cattell et al., 2008; Hooper et al., 2020). 14682451, 2024, 252, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/issj.12472 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [04/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 636 RAMOS-VIDAL AND DE LA OSSA A second aspect is referred to how is conceptualized and measured the SoC. Research framed in community psychology tends to use the theory of SoC (McMillan, 1976;2011) as a central axis. From this approach, the SoC is understood as a multidimensional construct (McMillan & Chavis, 1986), and its measurement is carried out using standardized instruments capable of evaluating the compositional dimensions of the SoC (Douglas, 2022; Peterson et al., 2008). Studies applying this type of instrument are capable of accurately capturing the behavioural, emotional, attitudinal and instrumental factors that characterize the SoC. On the other hand, research that falls within urban design and planning tends to use adaptations of instruments designed to capture the sense of belonging, attachment to place or neighbourhood cohesion (French et al., 2014; Hooper et al., 2020; Kim & Kaplan, 2004) that can be considered approximations to the SoC but differs in the foundational roots of the SoC. Studies that fall within this tradition sometimes use a single dimension or to assess the SoC and some even use a single item to assess the sense of belonging to the neighbourhood as a measurement system for the SoC (Whalen et al., 2012). Considering jointly the heterogeneity observed in the studies that examine the impact that the characteristics of public space and urban design produced in the SoC, it seems justified to study the accumulated empirical evidence to know the procedures, measurement instruments and the main findings reported in the research that explores the relationships between urban design and public space features and a sense of belonging to geographically delimited communities. The SoC is considered a value itself and a core point for enhancing multiple domains of social life. At individual level, the feelings of being part of a broader community allows one to satisfy affiliative needs which are essential for subjective well-being and mental health (Hooper et al., 2020; Rugel et al., 2019; Terry et al., 2019). At group level, the SoC allows one to reinforce social cohesion, reciprocity in social exchanges and respect for shared norms and values that serves for maintaining groups together (Wilkinson, 2007). At community level, the SoC serves as social ‘glue’ for communities and for the society. At this level, many studies find out that the SoC is closely related to social capital (Perkins et al., 2002), and when people feel that members of upper order collectivities are willing (a) to engage in social actions (Terry et al., 2019); (b) to invest their time and efforts for the community benefit (Taló et al., 2014); (c) to feel responsibility regarding to other community members (McMillan, 2011); and (d) to fight against external threats (Boyd & Martin, 2022). Taking together all these elements, understanding the environmental factors, such as evaluated in this work, that are contributing to explain the variability of the SoC constitutes a pertinent task for community development and for the promotion of social capital. To date, no systematic review has compiled all peer-reviewed evidence related to the impact of the perceived quality and existence of public spaces on SoC. The objective of this review is to compile that evidence, assess its quality and summarize the findings of that evidence. Based on the antecedents presented and taking as reference the behavioural settings theory (BST) (Barker 1978) and the theory of SoC (McMillan 2011; McMillan & Chavis 1986), the objective is to determine the impact that perceived quality and existence of public spaces on the SoC that residents experience with respect to the residential setting. To achieve this objective, a systematic review of the empirical evidence was carried out following the procedure of the PRISMA guidelines (Liberati et al., 2009). 1.1 Definition of concepts relevant to this review First, it is necessary to conduct a brief analysis of the term community. In general, the scientific community assumes that the notion of community includes both geographically delimited communities (neighbourhoods and cities) and the links that shape social groupings regardless of the place in which such relationships take place (McMillan & Chavis, 1986, p. 8). However, it is not mutually exclusive (Gusfield, 1975, p. 16); in contrast, to the extent that physical spaces facilitate social interaction, and on other occasions, the relational communities, for example through associations, are the ones that contribute to modifying the physical environment to facilitate interpersonal relationships. 14682451, 2024, 252, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/issj.12472 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [04/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License PUBLIC SPACE AND SENSE OF COMMUNITY 637 McMillan and Chavis (1986) developed the four-factor model formed by the fulfilment of needs, membership, influence and shared emotional connection. The fulfilment of needs examines the extent to which communities facilitate the adjustment between the individual and the setting of interaction that guarantees that the subjects can fulfil different types of needs. Membership refers to the degree to which individuals are integrated into a higher order social structure. This dimension describes the investment of time and resources that people dedicate to the community and implies an implicit differentiation of the members of the community from those who are not. Influence explores the degree to which members of the community perceive that they can influence social dynamics, and at the same time, they become aware that they are also susceptible to being influenced by other members. Finally, shared emotional connection is based on the individuals’ contacts and the perceived quality of the interactions and on the number of social events that facilitate interpersonal proximity. The dialectical relationship between SoC and participation has been demonstrated through the metaanalytic review carried out by Talò et al. (2014), in which data from 106 studies were included. The results showed that the relationship between SoC and participation is positive, statistically significant, and strong in the case of the adult population. Similar results have been identified in studies conducted in populations with mental health problems (Terry et al., 2019), university students (Procentese et al., 2019) and populations in situations of forced mobility (Ramos-Vidal, 2017,2018). 1.2 The impact of public space on SoC The BST first developed by Barker (1978) proposes that individuals tend to exhibit similar behaviours in certain locations within neighbourhoods and cities. This behavioural similarity describes the degree to which people who coincide in the same physical space tend to adopt the same social role. This assumes that although the people who occupy a physical space are different at each moment and in each interaction, social roles tend to be reproduced without appearing to be an implicit norm that determines the behaviour of the actors who coincide in those spaces. Figure 1describes the suggested theoretical model. The BST suggests that the repetition of social roles and behaviour patterns are largely due to the characteristics and how the settings in which socialization occurs are perceived. Other authors suggest that social regularities that tend to (re)produce systematically in different settings constitute vehicles for collective action (Seidman, 2012). The additional value of public spaces, when they become settings of behaviour that promote social interaction, is precisely their ability to mobilize collaborative action (Carmona, 2019). Although public spaces can become behavioural settings, there are few studies that identify the characteristics of these settings and establish typologies. Among the rare exceptions to this assumption is the early work of Price and Blashfield (1975), which proposes a taxonomy of behavioural settings based on different variables such as the size, frequency and duration of interactions, the type of users and the volume of people gathered (Price & Blashfield 1975, p. 345). In this preliminary study, the authors identify as behavioural setting organizational environments that it is not common to include within the category ‘public space’, for example educational centres and local businesses, but they do include other environments that fit within the category of public space, such as green areas and recreation areas where neighbourhood gatherings are held. There are studies that examine the role of public space in the SoC (Audirac, 1999; Francis et al., 2012; French et al., 2014; Glynn, 1986; Talen, 2000). The study developed by Audirac (1999)showed that residents who live in urban settings that have walkable, safe and passable sidewalks that connect subjects with places of interest, such as shopping centres, schools and areas for sports practice, tend to experiment higher SoC. In another proposal, French et al. (2014) demonstrated that the ease of walking to the means of transport and the positive perception of the quality of public space act as predictors of SoC. In contrast, the same study identified negative associations between demographic density and SoC. 14682451, 2024, 252, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/issj.12472 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [04/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 638 RAMOS-VIDAL AND DE LA OSSA FIGURE 1 Illustration of the proposed theoretical model. Source: Own elaboration based on Baker (1978) and Talen (1999, 2000). The authors conceive of public space in a differential way; however, the definitions share a common denominator that public space should facilitate interpersonal relationships. Talen (2000, p. 346) used the term ‘public realm’ to identify physical spaces in geographic settings that are open and physically accessible and that provide opportunities for contact, interpersonal proximity and the appropriation of these spaces by users. This definition is inspired by the literature on social support, emphasizing the role that physical spaces play in the establishment of affective bonds that can contribute to improving psychosocial well-being and mental health (Cattell et al., 2008; Fleming et al., 1985). Other authors argue that public spaces reinforce intra-community cohesion and social justice (Latham & Layton 2019). Public spaces can become settings to expose, make visible and defend social rights through the mobilization of collective action, positively affecting perceived social justice (Mitchell, 2003). The objective of this review is to compile evidence related to the impact of the perceived quality and existence of public spaces on SoC, assess its quality and summarize the findings of that evidence. 2MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic review of the scientific literature that adheres to the principles of the PRISMA guidelines was carried out (Liberati et al. 2009). The protocol of the systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO repository (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews under the Pre-register identification code: CRD 42022306972). The search for manuscripts was performed in the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection, Current Content Connects, SciELO Citation Index, MEDLINE, KCI-Korean Journal Database and Russian Science Citation Index which are considered relevant databases to develop systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Pranckut˙ e, 2021). Following the recommendations of previous studies (Dickersin et al., 1994), a complementary hand search was per- 14682451, 2024, 252, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/issj.12472 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [04/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License PUBLIC SPACE AND SENSE OF COMMUNITY 639 TABLE 1 Search terms and identified records. Search terms Records identified ‘SENSE OF COMMUNITY’ AND ‘PLANNING’ 169 ‘SENSE OF COMMUNITY’ AND ‘PUBLIC SPACE’ 29 ‘SENSE OF COMMUNITY’ AND ‘BUILT ENVIRONMENT’ 77 ‘SENSE OF COMMUNITY’ AND ‘URBAN DESIGN’ 25 ‘SENSE OF COMMUNITY’ AND ‘ARCHITECTURE’ 37 ‘SENSE OF COMMUNITY’ AND ‘PUBLIC REALM’ 8 ‘SENSE OF BELONGING’ AND ‘PLANNING’ 152 ‘SENSE OF BELONGING’ AND ‘PUBLIC SPACE’ 48 ‘SENSE OF BELONGING’ AND ‘BUILT ENVIRONMENT’ 38 ‘SENSE OF BELONGING’ AND ‘URBAN DESIGN’ 16 ‘SENSE OF BELONGING’ AND ‘PUBLIC REALM’ 3 ‘SENSE OF BELONGING’ AND ‘ARCHITECTURE’ 35 Total 637 Note: Only search terms that return any results are included in the table. formed in the first twenty journals within the categories ‘Urban studies’ and ‘Social psychology’ of the WoS, introducing the same search terms, and in the most relevant Environmental Psychology journals identified by the Canadian Society of Psychology (https://cpa.ca/sections/environmentalpsychology/ publications/). Various combinations of search terms were introduced (e.g. ‘SENSE OF COMMUNITY’ and ‘PUBLIC SPACE’). The search terms used and the results obtained with each combination of words are available in the protocol registered in the PROSPERO repository (ID: CRD42022306972). The WoS categories included in this review are Environmental Science Ecology, Geography, Architecture, Psychology, Urban Studies, Sociology, Social Science, Public Administration, Public Environmental Occupational Health, Anthropology, Behavioural Sciences and Social Issues. The application of these criteria was done to identify research items that fall into the objective of this study. To select the manuscripts finally included after the initial screening, the following selection criteria were considered. Only empirical studies that (a) apply quantitative methodology; (b) use some standardized measure to assess the SoC; and (c) incorporate a description of the built environment (i.e. the characteristics, the perceived quality and the frequency of use of public spaces) in urban settings were included. This decision was made considering the basic principles of the new urbanism social doctrine and the research background that addresses the effect that the architectural environment produces on psychosocial processes (Evans, 2003; Katz, 1994; Talen, 1999;2000). Table 1shows the search terms included and the records retrieved. The synthesis of the data will include the extraction of the reference indicators (odds ratio, standardized beta coefficients). Only those studies that include sample sizes that guarantee the adequacy of the analyses will be included in the descriptive analyses will be evaluated. Sample size, number of public space features included in the analysis, range for public space use frequency, odds ratios, confidence intervals, p-values and beta coefficient standardized. Regarding risk bias and study quality assessment, the research team examined whether the studies include control variables, moderating or mediating variables in the analyses. Also was examined if the size of the sample is adequate to carry out the analyses described. After the research team agreed on the inclusion criteria (e.g. that they are empirical studies), two evaluators independently carried out an analysis of the articles that the initial search yielded (N=637). The level of inter-judge agreement was evaluated using the Cohen kappa index (Landis 14682451, 2024, 252, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/issj.12472 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [04/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 640 RAMOS-VIDAL AND DE LA OSSA & Koch, 1977), which yielded acceptable values ranging between 0.4 and 0.6. The following section presents the screening process of the articles and the characteristics of the studies that met the inclusion criteria. 3 RESULTS The systematic search in the databases yielded an initial result of 637 records. Once different screenings were performed, the sample was reduced to 316 records from which the abstract, the methodology section and sometimes the results were reviewed to verify if they met the inclusion criteria. After this second screening process, 23 records were identified that met the inclusion criteria and constituted the sample of this research (see Figure 2). Once the studies that met the inclusion criteria were identified, the information of the selected studies was systematized in the following sections: (a) participants and study setting; (b) research design and statistical analysis; (c) instrument used to measure SoC; and (d) main results and conclusion of the research. The presentation of the results will follow the same sequence that has just been mentioned. Table presents the information of the analysed articles. The participants of the studies examined respond to different profiles. Although studies conducted with the general adult population older than 18 years (n=16) predominate, studies focused on the population older than 55 years (n=5) and, to a lesser extent, the youth population (n=2). The average number of participants in each study was 989.6 (SD =899.8), although there was wide variability in the sample sizes. Four studies have representative samples at the regional level, and one has a representative sample at the national level. The rest of the studies either do not indicate the sampling strategy or apply simple random sampling. Most of the research is conducted in North America (six in the United States and three in Canada) and Asia (n=8) and, far behind, comes research conducted in Australia (n=4), in Europe (n=1) and in Africa (n=1), and no investigations with samples from South America were found. The geographical distribution of the research reflect the settings in which the social doctrine of new urbanism expanded more rapidly (Grant 2005); however, few empirical studies are identified in the European context, whereas the large number of studies developed in Asia, and to a lesser extent in Australia, showing a growing interest in determining the effect that the characteristics of the physical setting produce on SoC in those latitudes. The large number of studies from the Asian setting may be due in part to the interest in understanding the effect that the perception regarding the quality and use of public space produces on SoC, particularly in older people. 3.1 Research design and statistical analysis All the studies examined present cross-sectional designs so that, although it is possible to establish covariant relationships between the characteristics of public spaces or how it affects the perception of the quality of these spaces on SoC, it is not possible to establish causal relationships. Most studies use multivariate statistics, among which different types of regression analysis (n=16) and structural equation models (n=7) stand out. A small proportion of studies (n=3) combined multivariate statistics with geographic positioning techniques. Only one investigation uses multi-case analysis, one of which is an experimental investigation with manipulation of variables. 3.2 Instruments applied to measure SoC A wide variety of instruments are used to evaluate SoC. Several studies (n=10) use different versions of the SCI. This scale evaluates the four dimensions of the McMillan and Chavis (1986) seminal work, 14682451, 2024, 252, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/issj.12472 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [04/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License PUBLIC SPACE AND SENSE OF COMMUNITY 641 TABLE 2 Analysis of the articles included in the sample (n=23). Author(s) and year of publication Participants and study setting Research design and statistical analysis Instrument used to measure SoC Main results and conclusion Abdullah et al. (2021) 255 subjects (53.7% men) with a mean age of 46.67 years (SD =16.22) residing in a neighbourhood of the city of Penang (Malaysia) Cross-sectional study using partial least squares structural equation modelling To evaluate SoC, a one-dimensional Likert-type scale of six items developed by the same authors of the research was used. The scale presents an acceptable reliability (α=0.70) The main result of the research is that the quality of neighbourhood maintenance positively affects the residents’ SoC (β=0.137, p<0.05; CI: 90%: −0.009, 0.260). The study shows that SoC is affected by the characteristics of the physical environment, and that maintaining the neighbourhood in adequate conditions inhibits criminal and antisocial behaviour Du Toit et al. (2007) 2194 participants aged between 20 and 65 years living in 32 communities in Australia Cross-sectional study that uses a multilevel regression model to examine the relationships between the ease of walking to public spaces and sociability SoC scale consisting of three items that are evaluated with a five-point Likert scale according to the degree of agreement. It has a low reliability (α=0.65) No significant interaction effects were observed between the socio-demographic variables and the ease of walking on SoC, informal social control and local social interaction. A significant but small interaction effect was observed within the traceability of walking around the neighbourhood on SoC (β=0.002; p=0.013) Filipovi´ c(2008) Representative sample of 4009 subjects (67.6% women) aged between 15 and 65 years residing in Slovenia Cross-sectional study that applies logistic regressions A Likert-type scale of five questions was used that examines three dimensions of SoC that measure social interaction, attachment to place and community identity. Reliability is not reported Regression analyses indicate that the low perceived quality of neighbourhoods and public spaces negatively affects SoC (β=−0.150, p<0.001). The authors conclude that characteristics of the physical environment, in particular the height of buildings, have a negative impact on SoC (β=−0.62, p< 0.001) aFrancis et al. (2012) 911 participants (62.5% women) older than 18 years residing in the metropolitan area of Perth (Australia) Cross-sectional study, using linear regressions and multivariate models Sense of community index (SCI) of 12 items (Chavis et al. 1986). Presents optimal reliability (α=0.80) SoC was higher in people who lived less than 5 min from their park and who reported a high quality of the public space (p<0.001). The relationship between SoC, the subjective perception of the public space and the quality of the shops showed significant values (p<0.01). The objective evaluation of public space was not significantly associated with SoC. Using the public space to relax was the only activity that remained positively associated with SoC (p< 0.05) (Continues) 14682451, 2024, 252, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/issj.12472 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [04/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 648 RAMOS-VIDAL AND DE LA OSSA Considering that most studies use different versions of the SCI, it can be assumed that the predominant theoretical model to evaluate SoC is the most accepted in community and environmental psychology, which makes it the reference model to understand the role that the characteristics of public spaces perform in the configuration of SoC. The studies that indicate the reliability of the scales (n=14) report optimal indices, generally above 0.70. However, a considerable number of studies that apply scales to measure SoC (n=6) do not report the reliability of the instruments, which can constitute a serious validity problem considering that these are the studies in which the authors make adaptations of other instruments or develop their own scales, in several cases without starting from a previous theoretical model on SoC. 3.3 Main results of the studies reviewed One of the studies (Jaafar et al., 2015) identified negative effects of the perceived quality of public space on SoC, whereas the study by Yu (2021) showed that the perceived quality of public spaces does not affect SoC. The rest of the studies suggest that the characteristics and the positive perception regarding the attributes of the physical space produce positive effects on SoC. Given the diversity of methods, it has only been possible to quantify the variability of the effect on SoC in the cases in which the studies indicate the standardized regression coefficients (β), the pvalue and in specific cases the adjusted R2value. In the rest of the cases, approximations are made based on the statistical procedure developed. The first factor that produces effects on SoC is the perceived quality of the physical characteristics of public spaces (e.g. design, aesthetics and accessibility). In this sense, several studies were identified (n=8). On average, a statistically significant effect is observed, but of a slight intensity of the perceived quality of public space on SoC (range =0.13–0.4; Mβ=0.24; SD =0.1). This finding indicates that the perception that residents develop regarding the physical qualities of the neighbourhood, and particularly, of public spaces, acts as an explanatory factor of SoC. The second element examined is that the physical setting of the territorial unit has an infrastructure that facilitates walking to public spaces and areas of interest of the community. Several studies (n=7) are identified that demonstrate significant effects of moderate intensity of the possibility of walking on SoC (range =0.02–0.57; Mβ=0.22; SD =0.21). These results support the thesis that the ease of walking facilitates the possibilities of regular encounters among residents, which allows strengthening interpersonal bonds and simultaneously reinforcing SoC (Audirac 1999; Wood et al. 2010) and the bonding social capital. Two studies are identified that examine the role played by the frequency of use of public space on SoC. It is necessary to take these results with caution as they have only been reported in two studies. However, the reported effect is of a wide magnitude (range =0.31–0.69; Mβ=0.5; SD =0.26), which seems to indicate that making frequent use of public spaces and the possibilities of increasing the frequency of social interaction in these spaces can be a powerful precursor of SoC. Table 2synthetizes the main findings of the studies reviewed. 4 DISCUSSION In general, the results of the studies examined are in-line with the theoretical expectation, showing that the characteristics of public spaces and their perceived quality produce positive and statistically significant effects on SoC. Social doctrine of the new urbanism is based on designing residential areas and creating inserted public spaces that build community (Katz, 1994; Talen, 1999), with the objective of reversing the generalized decline of social capital that has been taking place in developed countries for several decades (Putnam, 1995). Facilitating social interactions between inhabitants of residential areas becomes a central objective to strengthen social cohesion, combat the anomie produced by the population density of large cities, improve psychosocial well-being and reinforce SoC. In short, the 14682451, 2024, 252, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/issj.12472 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [04/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License PUBLIC SPACE AND SENSE OF COMMUNITY 649 new urbanism aims to rebuild the community fabric by promoting social exchange that the architectural design prior to this trend has limited by not considering the relational needs of the population and the impact of intra-community links on the generation of social capital. What has just been mentioned to some extent explains the interest on the part of urban planning experts in evaluating the impact that the design of the physical setting exerts on the promotion of SoC (Audirac, 1999; French et al., 2014; Glynn, 1986; Hooper et al., 2020; Kim & Kaplan, 2004). The empirical evidence indicates that the key to creating community is to facilitate that the inhabitants (a) recognize each other; (b) maintain regular pro-social interactions; (c) strengthen social ties and (d) have greater provision of social support (Fischer, 1973). The research included in this review offers evidence that supports to some extent the postulate of new urbanism, having identified in most studies that the characteristics – objective and perceived – of public spaces that favour social interaction have a positive and significant influence on SoC. However, it is necessary to point out different theoretical, methodological and applied considerations to be able to make an adequate appropriation of the results of this review. 4.1 Theoretical aspects Many of the studies reviewed use the concept of SoC in a generic and often biased way and sometimes use other definitions, such as ‘sense of place’, ‘residential attachment’ or ‘neighbourhood cohesion’, to refer to this construct that present some similarities that do not fully respond to SoC theory (McMillan, 1976,2011; McMillan & Chavis, 1986), which is widely accepted by the scientific community. For this reason, it is advisable to clearly define the concept of SoC, preferably from a multidimensional perspective, which includes the evaluation of subjective membership, the needs fulfilment, or the perceived quality of the links with other community members. Another theoretical consideration that must be addressed with care in this type of study is the definition of the concept of community. It is observed that many studies make a diffuse use of the construct, which is not clearly established if the term refers to geographically defined communities (e.g. a neighbourhood), communities of interests (e.g. associations) or relationships that are maintained within geographically delimited communities (e.g. the links with neighbours of the same neighbourhood). Although previous studies (Gusfield, 1975) justify that SoC can be evaluated with respect to local and relational communities, it is necessary that the studies clearly explain which is the reference unit with respect to which SoC is being evaluated, something that would contribute to differentiate this construct from other concepts with which SoC may share some aspects. The last theoretical point has to do with the role social relationships play in the operationalization of SoC and with the function that public spaces unfold as behavioural settings facilitating interpersonal contact (Barker, 1978). SoC theory (McMillan & Chavis 1986, p. 13) explicitly alludes to the quantity and perceived quality of social contacts on shared emotional connection dimension. Given that social doctrine of the new urbanism seeks to promote socialization by creating public spaces that act as (pro)social behaviour settings where social fabric is reproduced, to verify the effectiveness of these actions, it is essential to be able to objectively evaluate social networks that emerge in these settings. From this approach, it is recommended to include methods of social network analysis capable of capturing both the links that the subjects establish with the behavioural settings, as well as the relationships that are maintained with other users in those settings. The incorporation of this perspective would make it possible to obtain an in-depth view of the role that public spaces play in socialization and the effect that this produces on psychosocial well-being, social support and SoC. 4.2 Methodological factors The diversity of instruments used to evaluate both the characteristics of public spaces and SoC makes it difficult to establish comparisons among the studies identified. However, the inclusion of variables 14682451, 2024, 252, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/issj.12472 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [04/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 650 RAMOS-VIDAL AND DE LA OSSA that measure the objective elements of the physical space, their perceived quality, the frequency of use and the type of use that they are given can be an adequate strategy to highlight the variety of dimensions that configure these spaces. In this review, five studies are identified in which the aspects are combined, whereas the rest of the proposals focus on exploring how the objective characteristics of public spaces affect SoC. To determine the effect that public space exerts on SoC, it is necessary to incorporate not only variables that show the objective characteristics and the pattern of use of these spaces but also the perception that residents have of these, because regardless of whether they are active users, developing a positive perception of the physical setting of the neighbourhood seems to positively affect psychosocial well-being and SoC (Guo et al., 2021). The instruments used to evaluate SoC are equally heterogeneous and in many cases are limited to using a small number of questions to evaluate SoC. To measure the complexity and richness of the construct, it is necessary to use instruments that are adapted to each population and each setting but at the same time present optimal psychometric properties. This would allow the research replicability and the development of comparative studies to determine how different characteristics of public spaces can produce variable effects in different populations. This recommendation is necessary to broaden and generalize the findings and endorse social function derived from new urbanism social doctrine (Talen, 1999, 2000). Finally, some considerations should be made about the methodological designs of the studies reviewed. First, no studies have been detected that apply longitudinal designs, so that, although covariance relationships can be established between the variables, it is not possible to establish causal relationships. Second, it is necessary to develop methodological triangulations that contribute to interpreting the results, particularly in the case of the subjective experience of SoC experienced by residents and how this experience varies depending on the objective characteristics, perception, frequency or type of use made of public spaces. Finally, the complete description of the characteristics of the physical settings evaluated in the reviewed investigations contrasts with the summary and description of the characteristics of the participants. Considering that the new urbanism is based on the result of the interaction between the subjects and the physical space they inhabit (Grant, 2005; Katz, 1994), both elements should deserve the same attention. 4.3 Practical implications From the studies analysed, recommendations can be extracted to inform the design of public spaces that become behavioural settings that facilitate sociability and strengthen SoC. One of the most relevant findings is how important the walkable route to public spaces and recreational areas of the neighbourhood is, as well as the objective characteristics, the perception or the use made of them. Several studies show that the mere fact of being able to travel to the areas of interest of the community in alternative ways to the car (walking or cycling) increases the opportunities to interact with neighbours and produces positive effects on SoC (Audirac, 1999). In addition to designing public spaces that adequately fulfil their social function, it is necessary that, in parallel, resources are invested in creating walkable paths that allow moving towards them without the need to use the car or public transport (French et al., 2014). A second recommendation has to do with the location and characteristics of public spaces within each local setting. Some of the studies reviewed show that it is advisable to include multiple smaller public spaces that are easily accessible to each other (a feature of the new urbanism), instead of large spaces located in the centre of neighbourhoods (Kim & Kaplan 2004). This recommendation is since having comparatively small spaces can facilitate social interaction between residents who live near said space, strengthening the bonding social capital. The existence of a certain variety of mutually accessible public spaces can favour intra-community mobility, increasing recognition among neighbours who live in different locations, which would strengthen social cohesion of the neighbourhood to some extent. Regarding the characteristics of the spaces, it is necessary that they present different 14682451, 2024, 252, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/issj.12472 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [04/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License PUBLIC SPACE AND SENSE OF COMMUNITY 651 characteristics (e.g. versatility, accessibility and comfort) that guarantee the satisfactory development of positive interactions (Carmona, 2019). Involving the community in the design of public spaces is considered a good practice to promote the use of these spaces by residents and that decision-making regarding the design of these spaces considers the preferences and needs of the residents. For example, an experience developed in the metropolitan area of Barcelona (Spain) has shown that actions related to co-creation and using public space to carry out artistic activities foster community participation and identification with the community (Remesar, 2021). In recent years, movements have been developed that are committed to activating the participation of neighbourhood residents to design public spaces and streets that are more accessible, safe, and walkable, and that reduce travel times within and between residential communities. A recent experience developed in a neighbourhood located in the north of Milan (Italy) serves as an example to illustrate the positive impact produced by the involvement of the community in the design of public spaces and walkable areas. The work documented by Moro (2022) shows that the organization of artistic and educational micro-activities serves to take advantage of abandoned public spaces, improving neighbourhood safety and increasing the use of green areas and gardens by disadvantaged groups. This type of pilot project contributes to simultaneously increase social exchange, community participation and favours the creation of social networks among community members, which is a sign of the genesis of social capital. The objective characteristics of public spaces, the perception of their quality, the frequency, the type of use made of them and the possibility of walking towards them are factors related to the physical characteristics of residential areas that have a positive, significant and moderate impact on SoC. Consequently, the results of this review offer partial support for the role played by social doctrine of new urbanism in combating the decline of social capital. However, to understand the relationship between public spaces and the creation of community, it is necessary to carry out longitudinal studies, clearly define the concept of community, properly operationalize SoC variable and facilitate the replication of research in different geographical and cultural settings and with heterogeneous populations. This work has some limitations that must be pointed out. First, the search was carried out in a single database, so it is possible that this decision prevents the identification of research that falls within the framework of the review. Second, the review is focused on quantitative studies, so it is possible that this decision excludes relevant research that uses qualitative or even mixed methods. Finally, most of the research identified corresponds to studies conducted in the United States, Australia and Asia. Due to this fact, it is difficult to extrapolate the results and recommendations to the European, Latin American and African context. CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT None. DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in Web of Science Core Collection at https://urldefense.com/v3/ https://www.recursoscientificos.fecyt.es/ __;!!N11eV2iwtfs!t1zsvROCFPD1eHQal4ndhjT0P_XFe0X0-Q5CljO7mB6Yn7pZNAlVsmhZ- TFkVNVgan2KJc52W1Rqf9XX0CP1sUXZ$ PEER REVIEW The peer review history for this article is available at https://publons.com/publon/10.1111/issj.12472. ORCID Ignacio Ramos-Vidal https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1840-0761 Elsy Domínguez de la Ossa https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7918-9982 14682451, 2024, 252, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/issj.12472 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [04/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 652 RAMOS-VIDAL AND DE LA OSSA REFERENCES *Abdullah, A., M. Safizadeh, M. Hedayati, and M. J. Maghsoodi. 2021. “The Mediating Role of Sense of Belonging in the Relationship between the Built Environment and Victimisation: A Case of Penang, Malaysia”. Open House International 46(2): 173–88. https://doi.org/10.1108/OHI-11-2020-0164 Audirac, I. 1999. “Stated Preference for Pedestrian Proximity: An Assessment of New Urbanist Sense of Community.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 19(1): 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x9901900105 Barker, R. G. (Ed.). 1978. Habitats, Environments, and Human Behavior: Studies in Eco-Behavioral Science from the Midwest Psychological Field Station. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Boyd, N. M., and E. C., Martin. 2022. “Sense of Community Responsibility at the Forefront of Crisis Management.” Administrative Theory & Praxis 44(1): 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2020.1765288 Cabrera, J. F. 2013. “New Urbanism and Selection Bias in the Formation of Social Capital.” Housing Policy Debate 23(2): 376–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2013.766626 Carmona, M. 2019. “Principles for Public Space Design, Planning to Do Better.” Urban Design International 24: 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41289-018-0070-3 Carson, J. R., T. L. Conway, L. G. Perez, L. D. Frank, B. E. Saelens, K. L. Cain, and James F. Sallis. 2023. “Neighborhood Walkability, Neighborhood Social Health, and Self-Selection among US Adults.” Health & Place 82: 103036. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2023.103036 Cattell, V., N. Dines, W. Gesler, and S. Curtis. 2008. “Mingling, Observing, and Lingering: Everyday Public Spaces and Their Implications for Well-Being and Social Relations.” Health & Place 14(3): 544–61. Chang, K. C., H. S. Chen, and C. M. Hsieh. 2022. “Effects of Relational Capital on Relationship between Place Attachment and Resident Participation.” Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 32(1): 19–41. Chung, S., and M. Kim. 2022. “Age-Friendly Environment, Social Support, Sense of Community, and Loneliness among Middle-Aged and Older Adults in Korea.” Aging & Mental Health 27: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2022.2116395 Davidson, W. B., and P. R. Cotter. 1986. “Measurement of Sense of Community within the Sphere of City 1”. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 16(7): 608–19. Dickersin, K., R. Scherer, and C. Lefebvre. 1994. “Systematic Reviews: Identifying Relevant Studies for Systematic Reviews.” BMJ 309(6964): 1286–91. Doolittle, R. J., and D. MacDonald. 1978. “Communication and a Sense of Community in a Metropolitan Neighborhood: A Factor Analytic Examination.” Communication Quarterly 26(3): 2–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463377809369297 Douglas, E. 2022. “An Improved Test for Neighborhood Sense of Community.” Journal of Community Psychology 50(7): 3252–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22836 *Du Toit, L., E. Cerin, E. Leslie, and N. Owen. 2007. “Does Walking in the Neighbourhood Enhance Local Sociability?” Urban Studies 44(9): 1677–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980701426665 Evans, G. W. 2003. “The Built Environment and Mental Health.” Journal of Urban Health 80: 536–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/ jurban/jtg063 *Filipovi´ c, M. 2008. “Influences on the Sense of Neighborhood: Case of Slovenia.” Urban Affairs Review 43(5): 718–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087407309586 Fischer, C. S. 1973. “On Urban Alienations and Anomie: Powerlessness and Social Isolation.” American Sociological Review 38: 311–26. Fleming, R., A. Baum, and J. E. Singer. 1985. “Social Support and the Physical Environment.” In Social Support and Health, edited by S. Cohen and S.L. Syme, 327–45. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. *Francis, J., B. Giles-Corti, L. Wood, and M. Knuiman. 2012. “Creating Sense of Community: The Role of Public Space.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 32(4): 401–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.07.002 *French, S., L. Wood, S. A. Foster, B. Giles-Corti, L. Frank, and V. Learnihan. 2014. “Sense of Community and Its Association with the Neighborhood-Built Environment.” Environment and Behavior 46(6): 677–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0013916512469098 Friedkin, N. E. 2004. “Social Cohesion.” Annual Review of Sociology 30: 409–25. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.30. 012703.110625 Glynn, T. J. 1986. “Neighborhood and Sense of Community.” Journal of Community Psychology 14(4): 341–52. Granovetter, M. S. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 78(6): 1360–80. https://doi.org/10.1086/ 225469 Grant, J. 2005. Planning the Good Community: New Urbanism in Theory and Practice. Thames, UK: Routledge. *Guo, Y., Y. Liu, S. Lu, O. F. Chan, C. H. K. Chui, and T. Y. Lum. 2021. “Objective and Perceived Built Environment, Sense of Community, and Mental Wellbeing in Older Adults in Hong Kong: A Multilevel Structural Equation Study.” Landscape and Urban Planning 209: 104058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104058 Gusfield, J. R. 1975. Community: A Critical Response.NewYork:Harper&Row. Harandi, T. F., M. M. Taghinasab, and T. D. Nayeri. 2017. “The Correlation of Social Support with Mental Health: A Meta- Analysis.” Electronic Physician 9(9): 5212–22. https://doi.org/10.19082/5212 Hartig, T., and P. Kahn Jr. 2016. “Living in Cities, Naturally.” Science 352(6288): 938–40. 14682451, 2024, 252, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/issj.12472 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [04/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License PUBLIC SPACE AND SENSE OF COMMUNITY 653 *Hooper, P., S. Foster, M. Knuiman, and B. Giles-Corti. 2020. “Testing the Impact of a Planning Policy Based on New Urbanist Planning Principles on Residents’ Sense of Community and Mental Health in Perth, Western Australia.” Environment and Behavior 52(3): 305–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916518798882 Ige-Elegbede, J., P. Pilkington, J. Orme, B. Williams, E. Prestwood, D. Black, and Laurence Carmichael. 2022. “Designing Healthier Neighbourhoods: A Systematic Review of the Impact of the Neighbourhood Design on Health and Wellbeing.” Cities & Health 6(5): 1004–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2020.1799173 *Jaafar, M., S. M. Noor, and S. M. Rasoolimanesh. 2015. “Perception of Young Local Residents Toward Sustainable Conservation Programmes: A Case Study of the Lenggong World Cultural Heritage Site.” Tourism Management 48: 154–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.10.018 *Jabareen, Y., and O. Zilberman. 2017. “Sidestepping Physical Determinism in Planning: The Role of Compactness, Design, and Social Perceptions in Shaping Sense of Community.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 37(1): 18–28. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0739456x16636940 Katz, P. 1994. The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community. New York: McGraw Hill. *Kim, J., and R. Kaplan. 2004. “Physical and Psychological Factors in Sense of Community: New Urbanist Kentlands and Nearby Orchard Village.” Environment and Behavior 36(3): 313–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916503260236 Lai, K. Y., C. Sarkar, S. Kumari, M. Y. Ni, J. Gallacher, and C. Webster. 2021. “Calculating a National Anomie Density Ratio: Measuring the Patterns of Loneliness and Social Isolation Across the UK’s Residential Density Gradient using Results from the UK Biobank Study.” Landscape and Urban Planning 215: 104194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104194 Landis, J. R., and G. G. Koch. 1977. “An Application of Hierarchical Kappa-Type Statistics in the Assessment of Majority Agreement among Multiple Observers.” Biometrics 33(2): 363–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529786 Latham, A., and L. Layton. 2019. “Social Infrastructure and the Public Life of Cities: Studying Urban Sociality and Public Spaces.” Geography Compass 13(7): e12444. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12444 *Li, X., Z. Li, T. Jia, P. Yan, D. Wang, and G. Liu. 2021. “The Sense of Community Revisited in Hankow, China: Combining the Impacts of Perceptual Factors and Built Environment Attributes.” Cities 111: 103108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities. 2021.103108 Liberati, A., D. G. Altman, J. Tetzlaff, C. Mulrow, P. C. Gøtzsche, J. P. Ioannidis, Mike Clarke, Philip J. Devereaux, Jos Kleijnen, and David Moher. 2009. “The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies that Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration.” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 62(10): e1–e34. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006 McCunn, L. J. 2020. “The Importance of Nature to City Living during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Considerations and Goals from Environmental Psychology.” Cities & Health 5(1): S223-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2020.1795385 McMillan, D. W. 1976. Sense of Community: An Attempt at Definition [Unpublished Manuscript]. Nashville, TN: George Peabody College for Teachers. McMillan, D. W. 2011. “Sense of Community, A Theory Not a Value: A Response to Nowell and Boyd.” Journal of Community Psychology 39(5): 507–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20439 McMillan, D. W., and D. M. Chavis. 1986. “Sense of Community: A Definition and Theory.” Journal of Community Psychology 14(1): 6–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629(198601)14:1⟨6::AID-JCOP2290140103⟩3.0.CO;2-I Mehta, V. 2019. “Streets and Social Life in Cities: A Taxonomy of Sociability.” Urban Design International 24: 16–37. https:// doi.org/10.1057/s41289-018-0069-9 Michalski, C. A., L. M. Diemert, J. F. Helliwell, V. Goel, and L. C. Rosella. 2020. “Relationship between Sense of Community Belonging and Self-Rated Health across Life Stages.” SSM-Population Health 12: 100676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph. 2020.100676 Milgram, S. 1970. “The Experience of Living in Cities.” Science 167: 1461–70. Mitchell, D. 2003. The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space. New York City: Guilford Press. Moro, A. 2022. “Co-Design of Public Spaces for Pedestrian Use and Soft-Mobility in the Perspective of Communities Reappropriation and Activation.” Transportation Research Procedia 60: 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2021.12.006 Nasar, J. L., and D. A. Julian. 1995. “The Psychological Sense of Community in the Neighborhood.” Journal of the American Planning Association 61(2): 178–84. Netto, V. M. 2017. “‘The Social Fabric of Cities’: A Tripartite Approach to Cities as Systems of Interaction.” Area Development and Policy 2(2): 130–53. *Pendola, R. and S. Gen. 2008. “Does “Main Street” Promote Sense of Community? A Comparison of San Francisco Neighborhoods.” Environment and Behavior 40(4): 545–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916507301399 Perkins, D. D., J. Hughey, and P. W. Speer. 2002. “Community Psychology Perspectives on Social Capital Theory and Community Development Practice.” Community Development 33(1): 33–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330209490141 Peterson, N. A., P. W. Speer, and D. W. McMillan. 2008. “Validation of A Brief Sense of Community Scale: Confirmation of the Principal Theory of Sense of Community.” Journal of Community Psychology 36: 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20217 Plas, J. M., and S. E. Lewis. 1996. “Environmental Factors and Sense of Community in a Planned Town.” American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 109–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02511884 Pranckut˙ e, R. 2021. “Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World.” Publications 9(1): 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9010012 14682451, 2024, 252, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/issj.12472 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [04/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 654 RAMOS-VIDAL AND DE LA OSSA Prati, G., C. Albanesi, and L. Pietrantoni. 2016. “The Reciprocal Relationship between Sense of Community and Social Well- Being: A Cross-Lagged Panel Analysis.” Social Indicators Research 127(3): 1321–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015- 1012-8 Price, R. H., and R. K. Blashfield. 1975. “Explorations in the Taxonomy of Behavior Settings: Analysis of Dimensions and Classification of Settings.” American Journal of Community Psychology 3(4): 335–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00880776 Procentese, F., F. Gatti, and A. Falanga. 2019. “Sense of Responsible Togetherness, Sense of Community and Participation: Looking at the Relationships in a University Campus.” Human Affairs 29(2): 247–63. https://doi.org/10.1515/humaff-2019- 0020 Putnam, R. D. 1993. “The Prosperous Community: Social Capital and Public Life.” American Prospect 4(13): 1–12. Putnam, R. D. 1995. “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital.” Journal of Democracy 6(1): 65–78. Ramos-Vidal, I. (2017). “Dinámicas comunitarias en desplazados y no desplazados residentes en zonas de exclusión social en Barranquilla (Colombia).” Revista de Estudios Sociales, 60, 49–61. https://doi.org/10.7440/res60.2017.04 Ramos-Vidal, I. (2018). “Desplazamiento forzado y adaptación en el contexto de destino: El caso de Barranquilla.” Perfiles Latinoamericanos 26(51), 301–28. http://doi.org/10.18504/pl2651-012-2018 Remesar, A. 2021. “Co-Design of Public Spaces with Local Communities.” In The Palgrave Handbook of Co-Production of Public Services and Outcomes, edited by E. Loeffler and T. Bovaird, 335–51. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-030-53705-0_17 Riger, S., and P. J. Lavrakas. 1981. “Community Ties: Patterns of Attachment and Social Interaction in Urban Neighborhoods.” American Journal of Community Psychology 9: 55–66. Robazza, G. 2020. “Build Art, Build Resilience: Co-Creation of Public Art as a Tactic to Improve Community Resilience.” The Journal of Public Space 5(4): 283–300. doi: 10.32891/jps.v5i4.1388. *Ross, A., and M. Searle. 2019. “A Conceptual Model of Leisure Time Physical Activity, Neighborhood Environment, and Sense of Community.” Environment and Behavior 51(6): 749–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517751582 Ross, A., C. A. Talmage, and M. Searle. 2019. “Toward a Flourishing Neighborhood: The Association of Happiness and Sense of Community.” Applied Research in Quality of Life 14: 1333–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-018-9656-6 Ross, A., L. Wood, and M. Searle. 2020. “The Indirect Influence of Child Play on the Association between Parent Perceptions of the Neighborhood Environment and Sense of Community.” Health & Place 65: 102422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. healthplace.2020.102422 *Rugel, E. J., R. M. Carpiano, S. B. Henderson, and M. Brauer. 2019. “Exposure to Natural Space, Sense of Community Belonging, and Adverse Mental Health Outcomes across an Urban Region.” Environmental Research 171: 365–77. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.01.034 *Saadallah, D. M. 2020. “Utilizing Participatory Mapping and PPGIS to Examine the Activities of Local Communities.” Alexandria Engineering Journal 59(1): 263–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2019.12.038 Sandstrom, G. M., and E. W. Dunn. 2014. “Social Interactions and Well-Being: The Surprising Power of Weak Ties.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 40(7): 910–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214529799 Seidman, E. 2012. “An Emerging Action Science of Social Settings.” American Journal of Community Psychology 50(1): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-011-9469-3 *Stroope, J. 2021. “Active Transportation and Social Capital: The Association between Walking or Biking for Transportation and Community Participation.” Preventive Medicine 150: 106666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106666 Talen, E. 1999. “Sense of Community and Neighbourhood Form: An Assessment of the Social Doctrine of New Urbanism.” Urban Studies 36(8): 1361–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098993033 Talen, E. 2000. “Measuring the Public Realm: A Preliminary Assessment of the Link between Public Space and Sense of Community.” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 17(4): 344–60. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43030552 Talò, C., T. Mannarini, and A. Rochira. 2014. “Sense of Community and Community Participation: A Meta-Analytic Review.” Social Indicators Research 117(1): 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0347-2 Terry, R., G. Townley, E. Brusilovskiy, and M. S. Salzer. 2019. “The Influence of Sense of Community on the Relationship between Community Participation and Mental Health for Individuals with Serious Mental Illnesses.” Journal of Community Psychology 47(1): 163–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22115 *Toohey, A. M., G. R. McCormack, P. K. Doyle-Baker, C. L. Adams, and M. J. Rock. 2013. “Dog-Walking and Sense of Community in Neighborhoods: Implications for Promoting Regular Physical Activity in Adults 50 Years and Older.” Health & Place 22: 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2013.03.007 *Trawalter, S., K. Hoffman, and L. Palmer. 2021. “Out of Place: Socioeconomic Status, Use of Public Space, and Belonging in Higher Education.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 120(1): 131. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000248 *Whalen, K. E., A. Páez, C. Bhat, M. Moniruzzaman, and R. Paleti. 2012. “T-Communities and Sense of Community in a University Town: Evidence from a Student Sample Using a Spatial Ordered-Response Model.” Urban Studies 49(6): 1357–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098011411942 Wilkinson, D. 2007. “The Multidimensional Nature of Social Cohesion: Psychological Sense of Community, Attraction, and Neighboring.” American Journal of Community Psychology 40: 214–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9140-1 *Wood, L., L. D. Frank, and B. Giles-Corti. 2010. “Sense of Community and Its Relationship with Walking and Neighborhood Design.” Social Science & Medicine 70(9): 1381–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.01.021 14682451, 2024, 252, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/issj.12472 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [04/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License PUBLIC SPACE AND SENSE OF COMMUNITY 655 *Yu, A. 2021. “Open Space and Sense of Community of Older Adults: A Study in a Residential Area in Hong Kong.” Archnet- IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research 15(3): 539–54. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-11-2020-0260 *Yu, R., M. Wong, and J. Woo. 2019. “Perceptions of Neighborhood Environment, Sense of Community, and Self-Rated Health: An Age-Friendly City Project in Hong Kong.” Journal of Urban Health 96(2): 276–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-018- 00331-3 *Zhang, F., B. P. Loo, and B. Wang. 2022. “Aging in Place: From the Neighborhood Environment, Sense of Community, to Life Satisfaction.” Annals of the American Association of Geographers 112(5): 1484–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452. 2021.1985954 The asterisk are used to identify manuscripts that are included in the systematic review. How to cite this article: Ramos-Vidal, Ignacio, and Elsy Domínguez de la Ossa. 2024. “A Systematic Review to Determine the Role of Public Space and Urban Design on Sense of Community.” International Social Science Journal 74: 633–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/issj.12472 14682451, 2024, 252, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/issj.12472 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [04/12/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License