Chapter 6

Urban Psychology
of Smart
Sustainable Cities

Sander van der Ham - Thuismakers Collectief, Amsterdam, The

Netherlands
 Abstract
Urbanization is increasing. Economic, social and cultural motives drive
people to cities. In the context of this rapid urbanization, a new field within
the environmental psychology has emerged: the urban psychology. The
massive migration to urban environments asks for a new perspective on
urban life. One that provides better insight into people’s motivations to live
in cities, and also provides new approaches to understanding the relation-
ship between design of urban environments and people’s behaviour and
cognitive experiences. This chapter provides an overview of the emergence
of urban psychology and its role in creating better urban environments. A
conceptual model is proposed, consisting of six basis human needs: the
need for overview, control, proximity, belonging, distraction, and relax-
ation. The model provides a framework to understand peoples needs in
both existing and new urban environments, and provides suggestions for
design. An overview of urban psychological tools is provided to analyse the
six needs, ranging from self-reporting methods to the use of Virtual Reality.
To exemplify the opportunities and restrictions of the conceptual model
and the tools a case study is presented in southern Rotterdam, working
with residents on improving their shared entrances during a co-creation
process. In the case study there was an experimental group and a control
group. The case study showed the need for proper analysis, before starting
the design process. Using the conceptual model, the spaces that needed
improvement were identified and proper design interventions were discov-
ered during the co-creation process. Residents reported a greater sense
of safety, more ownership, more social interaction and a bigger sense of
belonging, and more emotional attachment to the shared entrances.

Learning outcomes
• Describe the contribution of urban psychology to the creation of
pleasant, human-scaled urban environments for living, working and
recreating.
• Apply a variety of tools, such as observations, mapping, self-reporting
and Virtual Reality to investigate human behaviour in urban settings.
• Analyse the urban environment by applying the conceptual model of
six basic human needs and use this for designing interventions in the
public space.

74
 6
6.1 Introduction
Up until 2005, urban psychology was not mentioned separately in the field
of psychology. With cities growing denser and bigger, more and more
psychologists started paying specific attention to the urban environment.
Urban living influences all aspects of life, including health, employment and
income, social status and social interaction, and personal development.
Size, density, and configuration of the urban physical environment affect
the psychological and social experiences and behaviours of people living
in urban areas (APA, 2005). Yet, that only scratches the surface. How do we
deal with diversity, poverty, inequality, crime, violence, and gentrification?
In addition, on a much smaller scale, how do buildings, street design, and
even façade gardens affect our sense of privacy, possibilities of social inter-
action, and our sense of home?
In recent decades mental well-being has become an important part
of city-making. It has led to the desire to build cities where people feel
comfortable and where people’s needs are met. In order to build these
human-scaled cities, planners, architects, designers, policymakers, and
others involved in city-making, require a better understanding of the basic
conditions needed for people to live happily and feel at home in their urban
environments. It also requires an understanding of environmental aspects,
such as personal space, territoriality, privacy, and crowding (Gifford, 1997).
Urban psychology provides the tools and methods to create this under-
standing of people’s needs. This chapter describes the contribution of
urban psychology to creating pleasant, human-scaled urban environments
for living, working and visiting. A conceptual model is presented, based on
six basic human needs, that functions as a framework to understand any
urban environment from a human perspective.

The decrease and rise of cities’ popularity

Cities have become immensely popular over the past decades. All over the
world people are moving to urban areas. The year 2008 stood out in the
popularity surge of cities. In this year, for the first time in human history, more
than half of the world’s population lived in urban areas. This number is still
growing and is expected to reach nearly 70% by the year 2050, according
to the United Nations. Currently, most of urban growth happens in Asia and
Africa. Urban areas provide better economic conditions, which attracts
people from rural areas looking for a better future for themselves and their
families. People experience better living conditions, better job opportunities
and higher incomes than their counterparts in rural areas (Saunders, 2010).
By 2050, another 2.5 billion people are expected to be living in urban areas.
The urban growth in India, China and Nigeria alone will account for 35% of
this growth (UN, 2018). This growth comes in different forms. China is rapidly
building new, dense cities, cities for millions of people in a matter of years.
In countries such as India and Nigeria urbanization leads to an increase

Urban Psychology of Smart Sustainable Cities 75

 of informal settlements, or slums. The urban growth in Western countries is
smaller, because the move to urban areas already picked up pace in the
late 1990s and early 2000s. In Western cities most growth happens within
the existing boundaries, resulting in densified and increasingly crowded
urban environments.
Economic motives are important reasons for people all over the world to
move to cities. Although, in Western cities, the economic motives are just
one amongst other motives such as social, cultural and creative motives.
Cities have always been bustling with human interaction. They are melting
pots of diversity, and thrive in arts, entertainment and culture, cities bring
people together (APA, 2005; West, 2017). Cities “bring both ends of almost
any continuum, such as excitement and boredom or safety and danger”
(Bell et al., 2001). The buzz in cities, the many possibilities to be part of
different social networks, the endless choices for leisure, and the many
different living environments are among the things that attract people to
live in urban areas.
This is not to ignore the many challenges of urban life. Poverty, inequality,
homelessness, crime, drug abuse, and mental health issues are all part of
urban life (APA, 2005). Nor is it to disregard the economic push-effect of
unemployment in rural areas, as an important motivation to move to cities.
It is, however, to show the enormous complexity and diversity of urban
living, and the positive and negative effects urban life can have on mental
well-being. Especially with urban areas growing in size and density, the
effects on psychological well-being could increase. Yet, our understanding
of these effects is based on an outdated view of cities. This outdated view
of cities dates back to the 1970’s and 1980’s, when Western cities were in
decline due to the disappearance of industry and economic decline. Social
unrest led people to prefer rural areas to live in.
The current popularity of cities all over the world and the projected growth
of people living in urban environments, ask for an updated view of urban
life. It was not until 2005 that ‘urban psychology’ was officially mentioned
in a research report by the American Psychological Association (APA, 2005).
Since then, environmental psychologists have been catching up, forming a
more positive and balanced view of urban life.

Towards a more balanced and positive view of urban life

In the 1970s and 1980s cities were seen as dangerous places, that “seem to
attract crime, avarice and noise” (Bell et al., 2001). Urban areas and neigh-
bourhoods were seen as disorganized places, ridden with crime, poverty
and mental illness. Even though many of the negative consequences of
living in cities have been highlighted over the years, a growing number of
social scientists point out the positive factors that draw people to densely
populated areas (APA, 2005). Some even question the causal relationship

76
 between urbanization on the one hand and mental health and social
6
deviancy on the other (Marsella, 1998).
The tide is turning, and social scientists argue that urban residents (even
those of less economic means) are survivors and thrivers, instead of victims.
They cope with the urban environment and transcend the stressors. Life in
urban settings can even generate resilience and other positive outcomes
and urbanization does not automatically result in disorganization (Saegert
& Winkel, 1996). Living in cities can be just as fulfilling and rewarding as
living in rural areas. Residents in urban environments, for example strongly
identify with their neighourhoods. To many people it is even a source of
informal and formal social relationships. Even dense, urban neighbour-
hoods can have a high degree of social organization, such as community
groups, social clubs, and political organizations.
Of course, living in cities can be stressful and sometimes even dangerous,
but for the majority of people living, working and visiting cities is an exhila-
rating experience. So much so, that by 2018, 55% of the world’s population
have made cities their daily habitat. Besides dealing with the negative
effects of urban living, the question becomes more and more how the
positive effects can be increased. A new perspective is needed on living in
cities. Urban psychologist, alongside other social scientists, play a pivotal
role in creating this perspective.
An important part of this new perspective are the Social Development Goals
(SDG’s). SDG 11 (Sustainable cities and communities) specifically focuses on
creating urban environments that are socially inclusive, equal and resilient,
economically viable and sustainable. Other SDG’s apply as well, such as
SDG 3 (Good health and well-being), SDG 8 (Decent work and economic
growth) and SDG 10 (Reduced inequalities). Urban psychologist can con-
tribute to this agenda, by helping understand the environment-behaviour
relationship and creating psychologically pleasant and healthy urban
environments. In the next part, the urban psychology is more thoroughly
discussed.

6.2 Urban psychology: studying behaviour in urban

environments
Urban psychology is an extension of the idea that our environment has
specific psychological implications, an idea which has a history in psychol-
ogy (Bonnes & Secchiaroli, 1995). The idea had not been thoroughly and
systematically researched until the 1950s, when the field of environmental
psychology started to take shape. Even though the effect of the environ-
ment had been studied and reported on since the early 20th century, most
of these studies focused on single environmental factors and did not sys-
tematically approach the interaction between environment and behaviour
(Bell et al., 2001).

Urban Psychology of Smart Sustainable Cities 77

 This changed in the 1950s, when more systematic research was done on
different environmental topics. Barker and his colleagues (1964), for example,
compiled results on the interactive relationship between environment and
behaviour, such as the effect of school size on student performance and
the effect of classroom design on student listening and studying behaviour.
They called it “ecological psychology”. This science, that studies life in its
(natural) environment, advocates the view that human behaviour – psy-
chological, social, cultural, economic and historical – is always a central
aspect of every ecosystem (Bonnes, 1984). Ecological psychology became
the fundament of environmental psychology studies. It aimed at gaining a
better understanding of the relationship between human behaviour and
the physical environment (Craik, 1970).
At first, environmental psychology focused on the spatial-physical dimension
of the environment. Research was mainly done on spatial behaviour, such
as children’s behaviour in schools, and patients’ behaviour in psychiat-
ric wards. At this time architects, planners, designers and environmental
psychologists began to work together in an effort to design buildings and
spaces that facilitate specific behaviour (Bell et al., 2001). With time, more
research was done on other topics such as crowding. It became clear
that just about everything was context dependent in one way or another
(Rosnow & Rosenthal, 1989).
Later on, cognition and emotional attachment to environments became
part of research. People’s previous experiences and their mood started to
play a role in how people feel and behave in certain situations and envi-
ronments. Urban (residential) environments were no longer a neutral back-
ground for human behaviour (Lawrence, 1987). People can feel emotionally
attached to environments. They become attached to them, feel at home in
them and they might even become essential in experiencing happiness
(Morgan, 2010).
To understand people’s behaviour in specific urban environments, it is
required to study that behaviour in a specific environment. Herein lies the
contribution of urban psychologists to psychologically healthy urban ex-
periences. In the next section the focus lies on a theoretical framework for
such analysis.

6.3 A theoretical framework: six psychological needs for

urbanites
To better understand the emotional relation with residential environ-
ments Thuismakers Collectief has been working on several projects with
residents in their neighbourhoods. The goal of these projects has been
two-sided. First, to better understand the emotional attachment people
have with their home and neighbourhood and how this attachment forms
and changes over time. Second, to help residents get more attached to

78
their living environments, based on their ideas and desires. We mainly
6
achieved this through co-creation. The projects have produced a model
based on six psychological needs, which helps to observe and analyse
the environment-behaviour interdependency, but it also helps to ask the
right questions during interviews and shape co-creative processes. Below
follows a description of each need in the model.

The need for overview

The need for overview relates directly to our sense of safety. This need
was first defined by Jay Appleton in his prospect-refuge theory. This theory
states that people seek places that satisfy their desire to review a place
based on the opportunities (prospects) and the safety (refuge) the place
provides (Appleton, 1975). In other words, we seek places that at the same
time provide safety and opportunities.
Appleton’s theory stems from an evolutionary perspective. When people
were still hunters and gatherers, they tried to find places that provided a
good overview to see predators from a distance and at the same time be
able to see potential sources of food or water (Keedwell, 2017). The edges
of the forest, for example, provided both. Although times have significantly
changed, even in urban environments the need for prospect and refuge is
present and also visible. During spring and summer, when the weather is
good, people like to sit outside of their homes, in front of their doors. You
will find many people sitting on their benches or dragging a chair outside.
Practically everyone will sit with their backs against the façade, reviewing
the street, greeting passers-by, while enjoying a glass of wine and a good
book. Research even shows that this behaviour increases the feeling of
privacy in the home, a sense of control, and the amount of social interaction
(Ulden et al., 2015).
In public space people use prospect and refuge to assess if a place satisfies
the need for overview. For example, when picking a seat on a terrace you
will probably choose a place close to the wall instead of closer to the public
sidewalk. Or, when you are in the park, you might want to sit close to the
edge or with your back against a tree. This has consequences for design.
Back to the home, when the windows are too big, you will likely experience
too little refuge which can make you feel uncomfortable. At the same time,
windows that are too small provide too little prospect (Keedwell, 2017). The
need for overview also has consequences for ceiling height and the overall
complexity of an urban environment (Dosen & Ostwald, 2013).

The need for control

Places that provide overview from the prospect-refuge perspective also
contribute to the need for control. This second need is important, because
research shows that a general sense of control is better for our mental
health and even our sense of happiness (Reed, 1989). This need comes from

Urban Psychology of Smart Sustainable Cities 79

 the research done by psychologist Martin Seligman on, what he called,
‘learned helplessness’. The psychologist Martin Seligman performed ex-
periments on dogs to find out more about classical conditioning (Seligman,
1965). In the experiments, Seligman put dogs in cages and gave them
short electrical shocks. After time, the dogs that had no way of escaping the
electrical shocks passively underwent them. This behaviour remained even
when the dogs were placed in a different cage where they were able to
escape the shocks. Seligman concluded that the dogs had lost their sense
of control over the shocks.
Although Seligman did not follow up on the mental state of the dogs after
the experiments, he did conclude that this behavioral pattern is not limited
to dogs. People who do not experience control become stressed and could
start to show learned helplessness behaviour. In the long term this can
lead to physical and mental health issues, such as depression. People’s
first response to losing control is to regain control, called psychological
reactance (Bell et al., 2001).
There are three tactics to (re)gain control. The first tactic is through
behaviour. For example, turning off a loud noise. The second tactic is
through cognition. By processing information about the environment and
the situation, something that you perceived as threatening might turn out
to not be threatening at all. The third tactic is called decisional control, for
example when you have a choice between several options. For example,
choosing to live in a rural area where it’s quieter, instead of in the city center
where it is noisier. In situations where these methods to regain control have
no effect, a situation of learned helplessness is likely (Bell et al., 2001).
The more ownership you have (or experience), the more control you
perceive. In your home you are much more likely to experience a large
sense of control, while in public space you will experience much less control.
Yet, people will always try to gain a sense of control, sometimes through
even the smallest behavioural actions. In his public space experiments,
William Whyte (2007) noticed that on squares with movable chairs people
tend to just slightly move the chair before sitting down. This action leads
to a greater sense of perceived control. This is also why movable chairs in
public space are more intensively used than fixed benches.
A sense of control also means that urban environments need to have a
certain predictability (Mineka & Hendersen, 1985). Of course, it is fun and
necessary for urban environments to change now and then, and to have
things happening in them. Yet, a sense of predictability contributes to mental
comfort. People heavily depend on routines and rituals to experience
control. Research into the neurological effects of routines and (religious)
rituals even shows that they can release serotonin (Tiger & McGuire, 2010).
This is the neurotransmitter responsible for mood regulation. In other words,
routines and rituals actually make us feel happier.

80
 6
The need for proximity
The third need is to create personal distances to others. The distance
depends on the social relation we have towards others (Hall, 1966). The
better you know someone, the shorter the distance. There are four distances
(or circles). The first distance is between 0-45 cm and is for intimate contacts
only. Think of a partner, family or very close friends. The second distance
is between 30-120 cm and is considered personal space that is only ac-
cessible to people we know well to moderately well. The third distance is
named social space and is between 120-350 cm. We keep this distance in
more formal contacts (such as business contacts and with people we do
not know, such as in urban environments). The fourth and final distance is
from 350 cm and further. This is the distance people keep at public events,
such as a speaker and the audience.
These distances are flexible, also because the environment sometimes
does not allow to keep more distance. Crowded shopping streets usually
do not allow to keep at least 120 cm of distance to other. This might lead to
a loss of control and therefore a stress reaction. As described in the need
for control, there are tactics to overcome this loss of control, for example
avoiding a busy street or cognitively accepting that the crowdedness is an
inherent part of a busy shopping street.
In urban environments the need for social distance is visible. As described in
the first need, people seek out the edges of public places to sit. In residential
areas people claim parts of the space in front of their homes, usually picking
places where they can sit with their backs to the wall. Research on the use
of the private sidewalk (stoop) also shows that people feel most satisfied
with a zone at least 120 cm deep, measured from the façade (Ulden et al.,
2015). This corresponds with the third distance, the social distance.

The need for belonging

Social belonging matters. How much so, is shown by research into social
capital of a neighbourhood. Social capital can be seen as a resource in
social interactions and communities, which can be used to facilitate collec-
tive action in social structure and creates a mutual benefit. Social capital
can be measured through aspects as reciprocity between people, trust,
norms, and participation in social networks. Research shows that the higher
the social capital in a neighbourhood or community, the lower the mortality
rate by both violence and heart failure. Social capital predicts mortality in
neighbourhoods better than the amount of wealth (Lochner, 2003).
While residing on the private sidewalk it is easy to greet people passing by
and to chat with the next-door neighbour. Research shows that people who
use their private sidewalk more often to sit on, more often know their neigh-
bours by name and have more social interaction in the street. These people
even meet more regularly with their neighbours in their homes, sometimes

Urban Psychology of Smart Sustainable Cities 81

 making plans for improving the street (Ulden et al., 2015). Most importantly,
it shows that people value the small and short social interactions.
These interactions are not only fun, but they are also good for your health,
as demonstrated by the longitudinal research by Berkman and Syme
(1979). For 8 years they asked 7.000 residents from Alameda County in the
United States to regularly fill in questionnaires about their health and their
social networks. Results showed that the people with solid face-to-face
relationships had the largest chance to live a long and healthy live. These
people usually had a diverse social network. They were married, met with
friends and family regularly, belonged to a religious group, or had regular
social interactions, such as a hiking group, they were in a choir, or went to
a bridge club. Each of these social ties individually predicted the mortality
rate. Interestingly, the lack of one social tie could be replaced by a different
social tie. In other words, if you do not have a partner, you can make up for
this by having many friends to hang out with.
To understand communities and neighbourhoods it is necessary to look into
the strength of social networks and how they help people attain a sense
of belonging. Space can facilitate the formation of social networks. Close
to the home, this can be done by designing pleasant, shared spaces and
transition zones between public and private space, that people can claim.
But, also in public space, designers can help build places where people feel
comfortable and are likely to meet friends, and maybe even meet people
they do not know yet.

The need for (environmental) distraction

We know by now that how people behave in urban space is greatly influ-
enced by the environment. The warmer it gets, the more aggressive people
will become. The harder the wind blows, the more we blink our eyes and
the less we are aware of our environment (Bell et al., 2001). And, the more
horizontal lines in buildings, the faster we tend to walk (Laven et al., 2017).
Gehl et al. (2006) even talk of slow and quick architecture. They refer to the
vertically orientated architecture that slows us down and the horizontally
orientated architecture that speeds us up. The quick architecture mainly
refers to the modernist architecture, where the ground floors of buildings
and the street are disconnected, and where streets are devoted to cars.
Well-designed buildings and public space can help people to slow down
and become more aware of our social environments. The plinths of buildings
are especially important when it comes to this. It is said that the plinth only
makes up 10% of a building, but determines 90% of our experience at street
level (Karssenberg et al., 2016). In general, the more interesting the plinth, the
more activity there is. Up to 7 times as much then in front of boring plinths.
People stop more and turn their head more when they pass by interesting
plinths (Gehl et al., 2006). People slow down, which helps to become more

82
aware of the urban environment. Being more aware increases the chance
6
of social connection and affiliative behaviour.
In recent years the discussion about the modernist city design has been
more important than ever. The dominance of cars in public space has
become an issue in ever bigger and denser cities. Not only is the devotion
of large parts of public space to cars, not sustainable and smart, it is also
unhealthy. Other modes of transport (strong public transport infrastructure,
cycle paths and pedestrian walkways) are more sustainable towards the
urban future and are healthier to urbanites as well. Less space for cars
means an increased amount of space for pedestrians and cyclists. Besides,
it also makes urban spaces more interesting to be in.
This relates to the need for (environmental) distraction. Urban life can be
anonymous and this has consequences for affiliative behaviour. Research
shows that in urban areas we are less likely to help people we do not know
(Bell et al., 2001). This is especially true in cases where we feel rushed. In
an experiment, Darley & Batson (1973) showed that students that were told
they were late for a presentation, were much less likely to help a person
lying on the ground asking for help. In some cases, students stepped over
the person to proceed their way to the classroom. Interestingly, these
theology students had just prepared a short presentation about the good
Samaritan. Even being primed by the story of someone helping a person in
need, was not enough to suppress the feeling of being rushed.

The need for relaxation

The final need is that of relaxation and quietness. At first this might seem con-
tradictory to urban life. Living in cities is usually associated with sounds (and
noises) and with busy, bustling streets. The liveliness of cities is something
that tends to attract people. From a psychological perspective, the need for
quietness and the ability to find solitude and relaxation is nevertheless just
as important. No matter if you live downtown or in a rural area, in times of
stress you need to be able to relax and restore your energy levels.
This need for relaxation has been a well-researched topic in environmen-
tal and urban psychology. Environmental psychologists have shown that
especially nature has the ability to restore energy and health. Ulrich (1979),
for example, has shown that students viewing nature scenes had reduced
stress levels. Kaplan & Kaplan (1989) took this a step further by developing
the Attention Restoration Theory (ART). In this theory a division is made
between directed attention and effortless attention. Directed attention
happens when you are studying for example. It requires you to focus and to
delay the expression of emotions or actions and to prevent being distracted
by other things. This requires mental energy, which you eventually run out
of. In order to recharge, you need involuntary attention that requires little
effort. Natural settings have been shown to possess this effortless attention

Urban Psychology of Smart Sustainable Cities 83

 quality. Nature provides many fascinating scenes, such as clouds, sunsets
and flickering leaves. They require hardly any effort, but do attract the eye.
Urban life has become increasingly busy. More activities are happening
and more people are drawn to the city. Also, available public space in many
cases gives way to other developments, such as the increasing demand of
housing. This leaves very little space to developed green and quiet places.
To keep the balance between lively places and places for relaxation is a
big urban challenge. From a design perspective there are possibilities,
such as creating housing with a quiet side, or creating inner courtyards
that can be planted with trees. In public space, the focus should be on
adding parks, green strips and green routes between these places. In the
parks, specific areas should be designed for relaxation and quietness. Also,
in public space itself there could be more focus on the need for relaxation.
As we have seen already, being able to sit at the edge of a street or square,
facing public space can give great comfort and relaxation. More of these
places are needed as well.

6.4 Urban psychological tools: researching the needs

The needs described above form a conceptual model of analysing and
interpreting people’s behaviour as part of the spatial layout of the urban
environment. These needs can be researched in the field by using different
methods. This section describes these methods.
Bell et al. (2001) state that behaviour has to be researched in the environ-
ment it occurs in. One of the main consequences to urban psychological
work is that research is hard to do in a laboratory setting, because urban
environments are so complex that they cannot be replicated. This is why
most urban psychological research takes place in the actual urban setting.
Urban psychologists use a variety of tools, such as observations, mapping,
self-reporting and Virtual Reality.

Observations
Understanding a place usually starts with observations on both the char-
acteristics of the environment. This helps to identify possible challenges
and opportunities in the environment and gain knowledge of the way
people behave in that setting. Where are benches placed? How high are
the buildings? How is the ground floor (plinth) of the building designed?
How much space is there for walking, cycling and cars? How much
green is there? How is it placed? The next step in observation is people’s
behaviour. Where do people walk, sit, talk, sleep or stand? What activities
are happening? How many people walk in certain places? How many
cars and bikes pass by? All these behaviours can be written down on a
coding form, in order to standardize the observations as much as possible.
It is important to determine, beforehand, which observations should be

84
measured. Alongside, it helps to visualize the observations by drawing the
6
situation and marking the behaviour on the map.
This mapping has been done numerous times, also by architects and urban
planners. Architect Jan Gehl, for example, drew maps of streets he observed
to visualize how people used the sidewalk (Gehl & Svarre, 2013). Donald
Appleyard made elaborate observations on the social interaction on
streets, trying to determine the influence of car traffic on the amount, type
and location of social interaction between people living in the streets. He
concluded that the busier the traffic, the less social interaction and meeting
points were observed in streets (Appleyard, 1981). Observations can also be
done in different ways. Urban planner William Whyte recorded time-lapse
videos of public streets and squares to understand how design of public
spaces can influence people’s behaviour. This study led to the re-evalu-
ation of public space and its design worldwide. More recent methods of
observational mapping are through GPS-trackers and even through Wi-
Fi-points or Google Maps Timeline. These can provide great insights into
people’s behaviours and choices in public space. Recently it has become
more challenging to gather such data due to privacy regulations.

Self-report measurement
Observations are a useful method to start understanding the environ-
ment-behaviour relationship. Self-report measurements are a logical
addition to better understand decision making, cognitive processes,
attitudes, and moods. Self-report can be done through questionnaires
or interviews and are a great combination with on-site observations.
Self-report can also be done outside of the urban setting. A special form of
self-report, for example, is Kevin Lynch’s method of cognitive mapping. The
method is based on his research on people’s perception of cities and how
they mentally map information (1960). This technique is a visual form of
self-report, because it heavily relies on people’s ability to remember infor-
mation and situations and could be coloured by biases. Nevertheless, these
techniques are useful to gain a better understanding of specific spaces and
people’s perception of it in relation to design.

Psychogeography
Urban psychologists have been using new technologies as well to measure
people’s responses to urban environments. Urban psychologist Collin Ellard
(2015) also has been interested in cognitive mapping, asking people to
walk around specific urban areas with their phones and wearing tools to
measure physical responses, such as heart rate. Ellard calls this psychoge-
ography. At specific locations he asked people to fill in questions about their
experiences and make pictures of what they were looking at. This provided
lots of data, sometimes showing that people say they experience one thing,
while the physical measurements tell something different (Battersby, 2015).

Urban Psychology of Smart Sustainable Cities 85

 Virtual Reality and Neurofeedback
These findings have been further researched using Virtual Reality (VR).
The advantage of VR is that it bridges the ‘future-perspective’ of designers
and planners and the ‘past-present-perspective’ of urban psychologists.
A well-modelled VR-environment can, to a person, feel as if it is real. This
makes it possible to research people’s actual responses (conscious and
unconscious) when walking through an urban setting that has not been
built yet. It provides architects and urban planners the chance to change
elements in their design that feel unpleasant or do not work well. On top
of that, VR provides the opportunity to simulate the complex urban envi-
ronments in a laboratory setting. Making it possible to more systematically
research people’s experience in complex urban environments
Even more recently, researchers have been using neurofeedback in combi-
nation with VR, for example to determine how people respond to different
street-lighting scenarios. With neurofeedback it is possible to measure
brainwaves and determine the neurological response to situations, besides
the physical reaction and people’s interpretation of it.
These techniques - observations, mapping, self-reporting and Virtual
Reality - contribute to making better urban environments, better public
spaces. With the development of cities, this is a necessity. With the amount
of public space decreasing, it is essential that buildings and public space
are designed in such a way that they contribute to psychological well-be-
ing. With these research methods and the model of the six needs in mind,
let’s find out how this can work in a Dutch neighbourhood.

6.5 Case study: feeling at home in the neighbourhood

Like many Dutch and European cities, Rotterdam has an abundance of
modernist buildings. Especially in the south of Rotterdam the urban renewal
(Stadsvernieuwing) of the sixties, seventies and eighties has produced
many of these building blocks. Large, stacked building blocks, with shared
entrances and an abundant amount of green space in between. The
modernist design tradition promoted freedom, space, and healthy envi-
ronments. It can be traced back to the emergence of garden cities, later
adapted to urban settings by Le Corbusier, for example.
These neighbourhoods promised a better future after the war. Due to the
housing shortage, many young people (sometimes newlyweds) were still
living with their parents (in law). The spacious apartments in the neigh-
bourhoods provided a new perspective and a bright and healthy future.
Inner city living was not particularly healthy either. From the late sixties
new families started moving into the neighbourhoods of Lombardijen.
Living there is a blessing to many of them, who make new friends, spend
their summer days on the green patches of grass between the apartment

86
buildings, and enjoy the sense of community in the many community
6
homes, at their children’s schools and in self-organized clubs and networks.
Over time all this changed. Slowly at first, but in the past two decades these
neighbourhoods have taken a turn for the worst. Homes were noisy and
poorly insulated and became less sought after. Nowadays, most of the
homes are amongst the cheapest social housing in the city, attracting a wide
variety of people with low income, (mental) health issues, poor education,
and from a diversity of cultural backgrounds. Many people only speak
their native language, causing a gap between the original residents in the
neighbourhood and the many newcomers. On top of that, in recent years,
many small, family-owned and local neighbourhood stores have disap-
peared and have been replaced by either corporate stores (supermarkets)
or family-owned stores from different cultures (many Turkish bakeries and
supermarkets). These changes reflected the socio-demographic transition
in the neighbourhood.
At the same time, this transition also reflected the changes in the social
fabric. New networks flourished, which also created a large group of dissat-
isfied and worried current residents, who saw their trusted social networks
disappear. Together with the dwindling social capital in the neighbourhood,
criminality rose. This varied from burglaries and break-ins to incidents on
the streets involving knives and guns. With the reputation of the neighbour-
hoods worsening, the social housing corporation Havensteder wanted
to figure out what was needed to improve the social and psychological
attachment to home and neighbourhood. They received many complaints
from residents (mostly noise complaints), saw an increase of people only
living there for a short period of time, and received signals that people
were becoming more and more detached from their living environment.

The location: Lombardijen

The location of the case study was Lombardijen, one of the districts in the
south of Rotterdam. The district consists of 14.000 residents living in five
neighbourhoods. Two neighbourhoods mainly have social housing, while
the others are mixed. For this case study, Thuismakers Collectief worked
in one of the social housing neighbourhoods, consisting of apartment
buildings with, in total, 65 shared entrances, see Figure 6.1. Each of these
connects to eight homes. For this case study, we focussed on 20 of these
shared entrances. The housing corporation owns all of the homes in these
apartment buildings. In 4 shared entrances we chose to work with residents
actively and intensively in a co-creation process (experimental group) to
make plans to increase the feeling of home in the shared entrance. After
the plans were carried out and the shared entrances were improved, we
performed an after measurement. In the other 16 shared entrances we only
performed a baseline measurement and an after measurement (control
group). These shared entrances were improved as well. Residents were

Urban Psychology of Smart Sustainable Cities 87

 given an individual choice between three colour compositions. No inter-
views or workshops were organized in these shared entrances.
Figure 6.1: Apartment buildings Figure 6.2: Residents’ favourite quotes
in the case study about feeling at home

Source: Sander van der Ham.

The process
The case study consisted of two parts: on the one hand working with
residents to come up with a plan to improve living conditions, according
to the model of the six needs, and on the other hand, to perform research
to understand the impact of the actions taken and the chosen process. As
a team we chose to split the project into two phases: an analysis phase
(including the set-up of a baseline for the research) and a co-creation
phase.
For the analysis phase we took two steps. Since there were more apartment
buildings than we could involve in the research, we first had to make a
selection. For this we gathered information to select the apartment buildings
where we would perform the research. We spatially assessed the spaces
in and around the apartment buildings and the shared entrances. We
created a booklet to systemically observe the entrances. For each space
(public space, building, and shared entrance) we identified aspects to
survey and observe, such as the cleanliness, the quality of the lighting, the
maintenance, broken windows, doors, or mailboxes. We also focused on
the ownership issues, such as personal items placed in the shared spaces
and signs of ownership (and control) on the streets. The survey led to spider
graphs of each building and its surroundings, allowing us to assess the
places most in need of improvement. Based on the outcomes, we selected
one apartment building where we actively worked with residents.
On top of that we wanted to gather data to better understand the compo-
sition of the neighbourhood, the strength of the social capital and peoples’
attitudes towards the neighbourhood. In practice it turned out to this data
was not available at the apartment building level. The housing corpora-

88
tion hardly had any usable data. The municipality did have data, but only
6
on district (and sometimes) neighbourhood level. This data showed, for
example, a decrease in social capital over the past years, an increase in
feelings of unsafety and criminality in the neighbourhood, and a lack of trust
between people. To translate these data to the apartment building level,
we interviewed professionals working with residents in these building. This
gave good insights and allowed us to choose the apartment buildings that
were fit for the research. In this case we choose those apartment buildings
that, according to the observations and in the opinion of the interviewees,
did have structural issues, but could be improved by working with residents.
Apartment buildings with bigger social challenges, such as criminal activi-
ties, were not selected for two reasons. First, because it would become hard
or even impossible to interpret the research data. Second, because we did
not believe such challenges can be alleviated by social projects such as this
case study. Other types of interventions, such as an eviction of a terrorizing
neighbour or the closing of a drug home, were to be executed first to regain
a basic level of living quality.
After selecting the 20 apartment buildings for this case study, the second
step was to interview participants and ask them to fill in a questionnaire.
We constructed a semi-structured interview based on the six needs model.
The interview revolved around the concept of feeling at home, because
we wanted to better understand residents’ emotional relationship with
their living environment. Therefore, the interview started with each resi-
dent’s personal story of why they came to live in the neighbourhood and
their experiences in the neighbourhood. From there on we assessed the
extent to which residents felt the six types of needs were met in and around
their apartment building. For example, we extensively asked about their
need for social interaction, who they met on a daily basis, where they met
people and if all this satisfied their need for belonging. We did the same
for the other needs, such as control, where we asked about their expe-
rience of privacy and the need to claim parts of the shared entrance for
personal expression. In total, we interviewed 25 of the 32 residents living in
the apartment building. The response to the questionnaire was 25 in the
experimental group and 36 in the control group. The control group only
received a questionnaire and no interview.
The results from the analysis phase were used in the co-creation process.
Quickly it became clear that, to improve sense of place and feelings of
home, the shared entrance had to be improved drastically. This matched
with the results of the spatial survey that most attention should be paid to the
shared entrance spaces. They were not well maintained, socially uninviting
and did not allow for any personal ownership. As a result, we designed a
process that revolved around the residents’ wishes, consisting of four steps:
(1) a design workshop in the shared entrances, (2) discussing the first design
draft of the shared entrance (3) implementing the design with residents in
their shared entrance space, and (4) celebrating the design intervention.

Urban Psychology of Smart Sustainable Cities 89

 The process was focused on giving residents as much control as possible
over the design choices. We did this in order to make sure psychological
needs were met as much as possible in the design, while at the same time
creating social connections which contributed to the need for belonging.

The results
The co-creation process delivered a very visible outcome: a completely
renovated shared entrance. Working with residents put considerable
pressure on the housing corporation to fix this shared space. The housing
corporation managed to push the renovation of the entrances two years
forward. Residents decided (within certain financial boundaries) in which
colour the entrance would be painted and which materials would be used
(i.e. for the floor). Also, the mailboxes were renewed.
On top of these basic renovations, we asked residents to consider if and
how they wanted to take ownership of the shared space, how they wanted
to socially interact with their neighbours and how the shared space could
contribute to their sense of home. In the end, residents chose to improve
the shared space by adding plants and to add stickers with residents’
favourite quotes about feeling at home, see Figure 6.2. Because the texts
were placed on the wall between two homes, they were designed in such a
way that residents could collaborate with their neighbours to come up with
a text they were both content with.
Analyzing the research results, comparing the after measurement with
the baseline measurement, we noticed big changes. In general, by ren-
ovating the shared entrance, the connection between the homes and the
neighbourhood had been restored. Before, people only used the shared
entrance functionally, and therefore did not feel at home there. It was not a
social space or a place to form any emotional attachment with. By deciding
on the physical appearance of the shared entrance, and by organizing
the living room in the shared space and setting up social interaction, a
new emotional bond had formed. This bond became the foundation to feel
more at home in the shared space and in the neighbourhood. The results
show that in the experimental group residents feel considerably more
at home in the shared space afterwards than the control group did (see
Figure 6.3). Restoring this feeling also led to a different attitude towards the
neighbourhood. This shows in the results that residents in the experimental
group are less inclined to move than the control group (see Figure 6.4).
A relationship between shared entrance spaces and the neighbourhood
seems to exist on a psychological and social level.
Looking at the six needs, the following conclusions can be drawn. Concern-
ing the first need, that of overview, the results clearly showed that working
on the shared entrance improved the sense of safety (see Figure 6.5). During
the interviews and in the questionnaires, people mentioned feeling unsafe
beforehand. This was due to the lighting condition and the fact that groups

90
Figure 6.3: Feeling at home in Figure 6.4: Desire to relocate.
6
the shared space.

Figure 6.5: Feeling safe in the shared space.

of local youth sometimes held themselves up at the front door of the shared
entrance. This invoked fear by many residents, even though nothing had
ever happened. Residents experienced a lack of overview (lighting) and a
lack of refuge (could not get inside without fear). By improving the lighting
inside the shared entrance and outside at the door, this improved. Also, by
redesigning the mailboxes the entrance felt cleaner, which influenced the
experience of safety.
When it comes to the need for control, residents clearly mentioned at the
start of the project they felt no control at all. Some residents wanted to
take control, by placing personal items in front of their doors (doormat,
flowers, etc.). Yet, they were convinced these items would be stolen. Six
months after the project, there were clear signs of residents taking control
and ownership. People placed personal items together with the plants in
the shared entrance and maintained plants together. One resident even
used the shared entrance to store clothes she collected to give out to poor
residents in the neighbourhood. Something she would never have done
before, since she was afraid things might get stolen.
On the need for proximity and belonging, we noticed a strong self-reported
effect on social interaction (see Figure 6.6). Residents in the experimental
group clearly state that they have built up social ties in the past year, more
so than the control group did. This does not necessarily mean that residents

Urban Psychology of Smart Sustainable Cities 91

 felt a sense of belonging. That is why we also asked them if they help each
other out when needed. The results show that residents in the experimen-
tal group help each other much more than residents in the control group
(see Figure 6.7). Proximity had not necessarily changed. There was enough
space for people to pass and socialize. Only at the front door, the situation
had spatially improved the need for proximity. On a more sociological
aspect, residents had familiarized much more which led to a better under-
standing of each other’s needs.

Figure 6.6: I have established contacts Figure 6.7: Residents help each other if
with my neighbours. needed.

The need for environmental distraction changed considerably as well.

Before, residents wanted to move through the shared space as fast as
possible. Now, they reported to be less hurried and took more time to
socialize with neighbours. Beforehand, people preferred not to socialize
at all. Whether this is due to environmental distraction or the increased
social interaction is hard to determine. A possible explanation is also that
residents’ feeling of home was prolonged, because they invested time in
the design process of their shared space. Making it an extension of their
home, giving them more control over the space.
Lastly, the need for relaxation has not been extensively researched in this
case study. The shared entrance had no specific function in this need,
probably because residents’ homes were connected to it. The housing cor-
poration did receive many noise complaints, which they reported did drop
in number during the project and shortly afterwards. This might be due to
the fact that residents were more familiar with each other. Residents in the
experimental group more often reported talking to a neighbour causing
noise first, before calling the housing corporation. The shared entrance did
not play a role in the need for relaxation directly. But, because of the res-
toration between the home and the neighbourhood, residents used social
places in the neighbourhood more often and became more active them-
selves. The experimental group reported to be four times more active in the
neighbourhood in the after measurement. The control group reported to be
just as active before as afterwards.

92
 This case study shows the need for proper analysis to understand how
6
residents perceive and use space. Doing that helps to identify the spaces
that need improvement and have the most effect on people’s psychological
needs. In this case study it led to a greater sense of safety, more ownership,
a bigger sense of belonging and, most importantly, to a different emotional
attachment to the shared entrance. As said earlier, we form affective at-
tachments with a multitude of places. A shared entrance, such as this one,
is particularly important because residents use this space on a daily basis.

6.6 Strengths, weaknesses and alternatives

Evaluating the conceptual model, several pros and cons for using the model
can be named. The first strength is that the conceptual model provides
insight into basic human needs, as seen in the case study. The model can
be used as a framework to both observe behaviour in public and semi-pri-
vate spaces, and to construct interviews based on the needs. Altogether
it provides enough elements for design. Second, the conceptual model
functions well as a co-creation tool. This seems to be due to the fact that the
model is more a flexible framework than a fixed model. Meaning, it is not a
normative model, saying something is right or wrong. It merely provides a
framework to understand behavioural choices. Third, the conceptual model
allows a great deal of methods to be used, ranging from observation to VR.
There are also weaknesses. First, the six needs presented make up a great
deal of human behaviour in urban environments, but most definitely not
all. Needs might be excluded, that are useful to understanding human
behaviour and choices. Second, because the model merely provides a
framework for understanding behaviour, it being non-judgemental, no
direction is given to design. It does not show which design intervention works
better and under which circumstances. Third, the conceptual model does
not provide a clear working process. It leaves open which steps should be
taken. The case study provides just one scenario for a process. Even though
this process can be replicated in different buildings or areas, it might not
lead to the same results. Fourth, even though the model incorporates many
methods, most of them are unavailable in many cases. VR, for example, is
expensive and cannot be used in all circumstances. The model, therefore,
heavily relies on self-report. A method that is not necessarily objective and
could lead to contamination through suggestive questioning during inter-
viewing.

Urban Psychology of Smart Sustainable Cities 93

 6.7 Exercises
Exercise 1
The experience of urban life
Interview three people of different groups (i.e. students, people with
children living in cities, elderly, people living in rural areas, etc.) on their
experience in urban environments. What do they experience in different
places (inner-city, neighbourhoods, parks, etc.), and how do they cope with
urban challenges (noise, crowdedness, distances, etc.)?

Exercise 2
Observing public behaviour
Observe peoples’ behaviour in a public place, such as a square, a park or a
busy shopping street. Use an observation form to collect your observations,
based on the psychological needs. After the analysis think of design inter-
ventions that could make the place feel more pleasant.
To create an observation form or map take the following steps. First, define
your research question. For example, the effect a well-designed ground
floor on the behaviour of people passing-by. Second, define the specific
behaviour you wish to observe (walking speed, number of times people stop,
number of times people interact, the number of people listening, number
of people donating money, etc.). Put these in a matrix, with the behaviour
observations in the columns and for each participant a new row. Third, add
things such as day of the week, time of day, weather conditions, etc. to the
matrix. Fourth, define your measuring tools. Number of people could be
counted, while walking speed can be measured by stopwatch. Additionally,
you can observe situations with multiple observers, each having a separate
task. One observer could be gathering quantitative data, while the other
could be gathering qualitative data. The fifth, and final step, is to put the
data together and make an analysis.

Exercise 3
Mapping social behaviour: belonging in an urban context
Urban environments are said to be anonymous. Yet, many people start
friendships in cities and become part of social networks. Observe in public
space how social groups use space, and how individuals engage in social
contact. Follow the same steps as in Exercise 2, but now use a map instead
of a form. If possible, also interview people about your observations to
determine how if they recognize those and how they might affect their
sense of belonging in public space.

94
 6
Exercise 4
Emotional attachment to urban space
Interview people about their emotional attachment to urban spaces. Start
with their behaviour and thoughts in certain spaces (i.e. the street they live
in compared to a square they often visit), and try to identify the anchors
in space that people have emotional associations with. Anchors can be a
variety of things, such as a tree or a building that brings up memories.

6.8 Assignment
Analyse, compare and define interventions for public spaces
The assignment is to observe and analyse two urban environments (a
public place and a residential place), and to compare the differences.
• Define two places. This could be a public place such as a square, a
park or a shopping street, or a residential place such as a street, a cul-
de-sac or a residential square.
• Form two groups and assign each group to one of the places.
• Create an observation form based on the six needs model. Observe
for both places where people sit, for how long, how people walk, how
often they socialize and where, how often they turn their heads, what
activities they employ, etc. Use at least two different techniques, such
as mapping, counting, performing street-interviews, etc.
• Each group visits their site for at least one day, during different times,
to make observations and to interview people. If there is time to gather
more data, visit the site multiple times during a longer period.
• Visualize the observations for each place on a map and draw conclu-
sions about peoples’ behaviour.
• Compare the findings with the findings of the other group. Determine
the similarities and differences, and discuss those.
• Collectively think of design interventions that could improve the place.

References
APA (2015). Towards an urban psychology: Research, Action, and Policy.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Appleyard, D. (1981). Livable Streets. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Barker, R.G. (1964). Big school, small school: High school size and student
behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Urban Psychology of Smart Sustainable Cities 95

 Battersby, S.J. (2015). This is your brain on urban design. https://www.
thestar.com/news/gta/2015/09/22/this-is-your-brain-on-urban-
design.html.
Bell, P.A., T.C. Greene, J.D. Fisher, A.B. Baum (2001). Environmental Psychol-
ogy. New York, NY: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Berkman, L.F., S.L. Syme (1979). Social networks, host resistance, and
mortality: a nine-year follow-up study of Alameda County residents.
American Journal of Epidemiology, 109 (2), pp. 186-204.
Bonnes, M. (1984). Mobilizing scientists, planners, and local community in a
large scale urban situation: The Rome case study. In: F. di Castri, F.W.
Baker, M. Hadley (Eds.), Ecology in practice (pp. 57-62).
Bonnes, M., G. Secchiaroli (1995). Environmental psychology: A psycho-so-
cial introduction. London: Sage.
Craik, K.H. (1970). Environmental Psychology. In: K.H. Craik, R. Kleinmuntz, R.
Rosnow, R. Rosental, J.A. Cheyne, R.H. Walters (Eds.), New directions
in psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 1-122). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Darley, J.M., C.D. Batson (1973). From Jerusalem to Jericho: A study of sit-
uational and dispositional variables in helping behaviour. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 27, pp. 100-108.
Ellard, C. (2015). Places of the Heart: The Psychogeography of Everyday
Life. New York City, NY: Bellevue Literary Press.
Gehl, J., J.L. Kaefer, S. Reigstad (2006). Close encounters with buildings.
Urban Design International, 11, pp. 29-47.
Gehl, J., B. Svarre (2013). How to Study Public Life. Washington: Island Press.
Gifford, R. (1997). Environmental psychology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hall, E.T. (1966). The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday.
Karssenberg, H., J. Laven, M. Glaser, M. Van ’t Hoff (2016). The City at Eye
Level: Lessons for street plinths, second and extended version. Delft:
Eburon Academic Publishers.
Keedwell, P. (2017). Headspace: The psychology of city living. London:
Aurum Press.
Laven, J., S. Van der Ham, S. Veelders, H. Karssenberg (2017). The City at
Eye Level in the Netherlands. Wageningen: Uitgeverij Blauwdruk.
Lawrence, R. (1987). Housing, dwellings, and homes: Design theory,
research and practice. Chichester, England: Wiley.
Lochner, K.A., I. Kawachi, R.T. Brennan, S.L. Buka (2003). Social Capital
and Neighbourhood Mortality Rates in Chicago. Social science &
medicine, 56, pp. 1797 – 1805.

96
Lynch, K. A. (1960). The Image of the City. Cambridge: MIT Press.
6
Marsella, A.J. (1998). Urbanization, mental health and social deviancy: A
review of issues and research. American Psychologist, 53, pp. 621-623.
Mineka, S., R.W. Hendersen (1985). Controllability and predictability in
acquired motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 36, pp. 495-529.
Morgan, P. (2010). Towards a developmental theory of place attachment,
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), pp. 11-22.
Reed, L. (1989). Is feeling ‘in control’ related to happiness in daily life? Psy-
chological Reports, 64 (3), pp. 775-784.
Rosnow, R., R. Rosenthal (1989). Statistical procedures and the justification
of knowledge in psychological science. American Psychologist, 44,
pp. 1276-1284.
Saegert, S., G. Winkel (1996). Paths to community empowerment: Organiz-
ing at home. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24(4), pp
517-550.
Saunders, D. (2010). De trek naar de stad. Amsterdam: De Bezige Bij.
Seligman, M. (1965). Learned Helplessness. Annual Review of Medicine, 23,
pp 407-412.
Tiger, L., M. McGuire (2010). God’s Brain. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Ulrich, R.S. (1979). Visual landscapes and psychological well-being.
Landscape research, 4, pp. 17-23.
United Nations (2018). https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/
population/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html.
Van Ulden, E., D. Heussen, S. Van der Ham (2015). De Stoep: Ontmoetingen
tussen huis en straat. Rotterdam: NAi Booksellers.
West, G. (2017). Scale: The universal laws of life, growth, and death in
organisms, cities and companies. New York, NY: Penguin Book.
Whyte, W. H. (2007). Introduction, ‘The life of plazas’, ‘Sitting space’, and
‘Sun, wind, trees, and water’. The urban design reader, 348-63.

Urban Psychology of Smart Sustainable Cities 97