20
Interior People Places: The Impact of the Built Environment on the Third Place Experience

Dana Vaux

Introduction

This study provides through example an application of research methods to interior design topics. The purpose of this study is to establish a better understanding of how students and faculty on college campuses utilize public interior plazas for social gathering, and to identify the design attributes and properties of those spaces most widely used. The author viewed these third places in the context of sense of community and place attachment theories to determine the impact of the built environment on present-day socializing trends and preferences. As a non-participant observer, the author conducted two series of observations on two sites of a state university campus, one urban and one rural, over a five-month period. The study was qualitative in nature and included non-participant observation and behavioral mapping techniques. The objective of this study was to further the understanding of design attributes that were most common, deriving design guidelines for other such spaces.

Overview

Among public interior plazas on college campuses with high levels of public use, the physical environment affects behavior (Jarrett 2006). More than the physical structures that fill locations, the built environment is also a setting where emotional ties bind and build community relationships. The theoretical framework established by McMillan and Chavis defines sense of community as a process that provides opportunity for membership, power to influence, an environment of reciprocity, and “shared emotional ties and support” (McMillan and Chavis 1986).

As designers, we have the capacity to create built environments that support community. However, all too often the built environment instead becomes a barrier to community. In their 1986 study, Chavis and Newbrough ask if community psychologists – psychologists whose focus of study and practice is the dynamics of interactions between people within the context of community – can afford to overlook the potential of “intentional development of community” as a primary contributor to human health and well-being (Chavis and Newbrough 1986). As designers, we may need to be asking ourselves a similar question: Can designers afford to overlook intentional design of environments that support community?

Along with a sense of community, stronger relationships result in places where people establish attachment. Place attachment is the emotional connection of a person to a specific physical environment as the result of personal experience (Low and Altman 1992). Research suggests that people–place bonding is interconnected (Riley 1992) and that place attachment enhances the cultural identity of people and groups (Low 1992).

While the importance of place attachment and sense of community appear clearly significant to human well-being, the loss of the ability for people to connect on a community level continues to be a concern of social scientists. Many social researchers contend that the “disappearance” of public life and resulting loss of community is a consequence of the privatization of American society (Chidster 1988; Jacobs 1961; Putnam 2000). Sociologists Oldenburg and Brissett claim that loss of community is in actuality a loss of opportunity for “social relationships and experiences with a diversity of human beings.” They maintain that third places provide the opportunities for community experiences that have been lost in present-day society (Oldenburg and Brissett 1982).

Third places, defined as “the utilization and personalization of places outside the workplace and home” (Oldenburg and Brissett 1982), provide opportunities for social relationships and experiences in settings other than those two primary environments. Oldenburg describes them as contemporary counterparts to the informal social gathering places of the past. They are environments accessible to home and work, yet separate from them.

Third places as described by Oldenburg are models based on typologies that industrialized cultures have relied upon for centuries: English pubs, Viennese coffee houses, French cafés, and Main Street, USA. Oldenburg looks to successful social spaces in past generations, arguing that creating similar contemporary environments provides a viable present-day solution to loss of social connection. More likely, with American society moving beyond a post-industrial era to global economies, a new paradigm needs to be addressed. As modern life has become more privatized and socialization takes place more within the private and micro-environments of society, a need arises to look more closely at design factors that contribute to or detract from the existing social environment. For designers, these factors raise questions and opportunities for design research and practice.

Research studies relate design factors to human health (Evans and McCoy 1998), work environments (Kupritz 1998), educational environments (Abu-Ghazzah 1999), and housing for the elderly (Zaff and Devlin 1998). The fields of urban planning and landscape architecture offer extensive research on connections between the physical environment and community (Handy, Sallis, Weber, Maibach, and Hollander 2008; Jacobs 1961; Katz 1994; Lund 2002; Marcus and Francis 1998), yet a literature search reveals little available information that focuses on interior spaces. This gap in the literature offers tremendous research opportunities. For example, designers need information about where people are socializing, where they find settings to form informal relationships, and what attributes and properties make these environments social settings.

The study presented in this essay was conducted to further the understanding of design attributes that are common among public interior plazas on college campuses with high levels of public use. Nearly every college campus building has interior public spaces with casual seating, in essence public interior plazas. A “public interior plaza” is defined as those spaces within the interior of public buildings intended to provide opportunities for gathering, socializing, and respite – an interior counterpart to exterior plazas. While not “away from work and home” as Oldenburg would describe third places, they are away from the classroom, library, and home.

Some of these spaces are always full of people with lively activity. Others remain vacant. Why? What design attributes and properties are common among the well-used interior plazas? Are those same attributes and properties missing in the less used interior plazas? Can a design language be developed that will aid designers in creating third-place spaces where people want to be? The design intent of the study was to determine design criteria for a social gathering space on a college campus that might serve as a third place and to provide design guidelines for other such spaces. The objective of the study was to determine if there are common design attributes among public interior plazas on college campuses. The results of the study revealed that several design attributes do exist in common among social gathering places on college campuses.

Literature Review

This study viewed third places in the context of sense of community and place-attachment theories in order to consider the impact of the built environment on present-day socializing trends and preferences. Researchers exploring sense of community study the relationship between people in the context of community, while those studying place attachment consider the relationship between people and place in community settings. Both are important components of third places because these social gathering places are environments that rely on people-to-people interaction as well as people-to-place association. Availability of research on sense of community and place attachment is extensive, while literature on interior social gathering places and third places is limited.

Sense of Community

As social scientists became concerned about loss of community in America, community psychologists began to examine ways to measure the degree to which a person feels a sense of connection to their community, or a “sense of community”. McMillan and Chavis developed a theory and definition, providing four descriptors to measure sense of community: membership (sense of belonging), influence (empowerment within the community), reciprocity (fulfillment of needs), and collective experiences (McMillan and Chavis 1986).

These four categories of definition were later reinterpreted by McMillan as spirit, trust, trade, and art (McMillan 1996). Each of these attributes, as measured by the Sense of Community Index (SCI) developed by Chavis, Hogge, McMillan, and Wandersman, combines to create a shared sense of community in a setting (Chavis et al. 1986). Together they enable individuals to form a “system of friendship, kinship & associational networks,” defined by Kasard and Janowitz as community (Kasard and Janowitz 1974).

Three themes emerge in reviewing the literature on sense of community: psychological environments, social environments, and physical environments. Some overlap occurs, but a gap exists in connections between all three (Waxman 2006). If, as Oldenburg contends, third places are a means to promote community, then sense of community is an important aspect to consider (see Figure 20.1).

In addition to dozens of seminal research projects that explore, establish, and define “sense of community theory,” other studies speak to psychological aspects and include research, indicating that sense of community is a pathway to wellness (Herrero and Gracia 2007), creates a sense of mutual aid (Unger and Wandersman 1985), emotional safety (McMillan and Chavis 1986), and an increase in confidence levels among parents of small children (Martinez, Black, and Starr 2002). Those addressing the social environment suggest that sense of community contributes to social and political participation (Chavis and Wandersman 1990), neighborhood satisfaction (Martinez et al. 2002), and residents' commitment to sustainable practices (Valeria and Guardia 2002). Additionally, findings are positively associated between sense of community and community interventions to generate opportunities for social life, which consequently promote social integration (Gracia and Herrero 2004). Clearly, the research supports the conclusion that a strong sense of community enhances personal and social well-being.

Research also supports the hypothesis that the design of the built environment can assist individuals within communities in developing a sense of community. While most studies identify variables that contribute to the psychological or social aspects of sense of community without consideration of the contextual setting, researchers suggest that sense of community is largely “setting-specific” (Hill 1996). In fact, Hill proposes that because sense of community includes variables beyond individual relationships and behavior, the most effective studies will combine research of sense of community with research of a particular setting. Puddifoot's findings that sense of community relates not only to the individual but to the shared aspects of community as well, supports Hill's suggested approach (Puddifoot 2003). Additional studies on public spaces in rural environments (Salamon 2003) and garden-style apartments in housing for the elderly (Zaff and Devlin 1998) confirm this combined research approach. Research suggests a strong sense of community enhances social and personal well-being, as well as a relationship between physical design of the built environment and sense of community. Addressing the two issues in the context of one another is important when considering design of social spaces.

Place Attachment

Place attachment is the emotional connection of a person to a specific physical environment as the result of personal experience (Low and Altman 1992). Place is different from space in that it refers to a specific context rather than a general environment. Research reveals that it contributes to well-being and life satisfaction (Gustafson 2001) and differs according to individual experience (Ryan 2005).

Studies of place attachment in the context of the built environment suggest place attachment affects behavior and that the built environment affects place attachment. Recent research positively correlated place attachment to concern and care of the local environment (Vorkinn and Hanne 2001), demonstrated connections between physical factors of the built environment and place attachment (Sugihara and Evans 2000), and revealed a relationship between transit-oriented developments and higher levels of neighborhood satisfaction and place attachment among riders (Brown and Werner 2009). With these connections, it is important to understand the role place attachment plays in integrating the individual into community life. Place attachment is integral to community and self-identity, providing individuals with stability and security (Brown and Perkins 1992). A review of McMillan and Chavis' descriptors for sense of community reveals a connection between place attachment and sense of community. (McMillan and Chavis 1986). The security provided by place attachment contributes to an individual's ability to trust or mutually influence, and to trade or experience a reciprocal integration and fulfillment of needs. The ability to establish self-identity within community aids in membership and sharing of experiences, a key component of sense of community (see Figure 20.2).

Place attachment is similar to sense of community. Both theories deal with psychological aspects relating to people and place, yet place attachment refers to the relationship “between” people and place while sense of community deals with the relationship between people in the context of place (see Figure 20.3).

Because third places rely on people-to-people interaction as well as people-to-place association, both sense of community and place attachment are important components of third places (see Figure 20.4).

Third Places

Oldenburg and Brissett argue that it is not the loss of community in American society as much as the conditions of social life resulting in a lack of availability of social experiences that adversely affect socialization (Oldenburg and Brissett 1982). They offer the “third place” as a solution. Third places, by definition, possess the following qualities: diversity and novelty, spontaneous “free-wheeling” social experiences, an encouragement of emotional expressiveness, and “color,” defined as “the familiar and personal backdrop against which new experience is made meaningful.”

Central to the definition is the idea that the major activity of a third place is conversation, and that the main reason for frequenting it is socializing, particularly within the context of a localized setting. Additionally, third places are described as a public gathering place, an informal venue, away from home and work, that accommodates the infrastructure capable of facilitating social attachments. To Oldenburg, a lack of purpose, other than establishing and supporting friendships, is also a requirement, and no formal membership requirements exist (Oldenburg 1989). The third place is “the antithesis of a group therapy session,” yet offers the same opportunities for “sharing of problems or elations.” Individuals meet spontaneously, without requirements of membership or performance. The benefits attributed to third places include a social support network developed through friendships, essentially a place of sociability.

In a study on third-place coffee shops, Waxman found positive correlation between the length of coffee-shop patronage and sense of community (Waxman 2006). Results also suggested that physical factors influence place attachment in coffee shops. Patrons attributed trust, support, sense of ownership, and personal growth to a positive social environment, while properties such as cleanliness, adequate lighting, views, aroma, and comfortable furniture contributed to attachment. However, contrary to Oldenburg's definition of a third place, Waxman found that many patrons were content to sit alone, not needing to participate in conversation to feel connection to the social atmosphere.

Recent studies look at new types of venues for third places, including those relating virtual space to third places (Ducheneaut and Moore 2007; Hampton and Gupta 2008; Soukup 2006). Researchers also studied grower-only markets (Tiemann 2008) restorative environments chosen by urban elementary teachers (Gulwadi 2006) and libraries as third places (Harris 2007; Lawson 2004), discussing ways they contribute to social capital and sense of community. Glover and Parry studied a non-institutional setting designed for people with cancer, Gilda's Club of Toronto, in relationship to its function as a third place (Glover and Parry 2009).

While aspects of these environments contradict Oldenburg's definition, the researchers regard them as legitimate third places because of the ways the social environment reflects third-place characteristics. For example, Gilda's Club is not a place away from home and work, but rather a place away from home and hospital and is somewhat exclusive, not a public gathering place. The obvious hindrance of considering cyberspace in the realm of third places is that it is not a “place” with physical properties. Nevertheless, these venues serve as informal gathering places, encourage friendship, focus on sociability, and allow people to “check their troubles at the door” or “confront common problems” with a community of support (Oldenburg 2003).

While each of these environments is beyond the boundaries of Oldenburg's paradigm for third places, the literature supports the conclusion that these settings may act as present-day third places. As a new generation creates “virtual communities and home [pages] in cyberspace” (Lawson 2004) the concept of expanding the definition of third places is one that deserves significant attention.

Several seminal works on the relationship of the design of the built environment to human behavior are informative to our understanding of social gathering spaces. Alexander et al. published a collection of design patterns based on their observations of human interaction with the designed environment (Alexander et al. 1977). Designers across disciplines consider these patterns as recommendations for creating optimal spaces for human use. Sociologist William H. Whyte studied urban plazas in New York City in order to understand user preferences (Whyte 1980). Through observations, he discovered that the plazas most widely used had similar design characteristics. The results are largely transferable to interior public plazas. Marcus and Francis (1998) furthered Whyte's research on plazas by outlining design guidelines for urban outdoor spaces (Marcus and Francis 1998). However, an extensive literature search revealed only two studies that related physical factors of the built environment to third places, with only one of these suggesting connections to place and community theory in interior environments.

Although the literature suggests third places are positive for reinforcing a sense of community, clearly several gaps exist in the literature. While we know that sense of community is multidimensional, with numerous personal, interpersonal, and situational variables (Herrero and Gracia 2007; Tartaglia 2006) we do not know how those factors integrate in public gathering spaces. In addition, research has not shown that third places enhance sense of community or that place attachment is necessary to connect the two; findings only suggest it. Considering the potential of the interaction between place and community theory and the design of the built environment, the need for further studies relating the three is apparent.

Research Overview

Several exploratory research studies were conducted on two different campuses at the same university, one rural campus and one urban campus. The objective was to determine if common design attributes existed among public interior plazas on two college campuses. In the first study, non-participant observation, behavior mapping, and visual documentation techniques were used to document the total number of people entering two locations over a one-hour period, the activities they engaged in, how long they stayed, and how they interacted with the designed environment. A floor-plan diagram of each setting that included permanent and semi-permanent design features was created to document the observations.

A second observational study of three interior gathering places was completed in one-hour segments over a three-month period at the urban campus. The one-hour segments of activity were recorded on behavioral maps. In addition, the number of people using the space and their locations within the space were recorded in 10-minute increments. Diagrams noted the furniture layout, window placement in relationship to seating, seating arrangement, lighting, entrances, and amenities of the space. The results of the studies revealed that several design attributes did exist in common among social gathering places on the two college campuses.

Non-participant observation was selected as the primary research tool for all the studies. This allowed for observations to occur of the behavior of individuals in the natural setting (public gathering spaces) without risk of the subjects altering their behaviors. Further, non-participant observation allowed for the identification and recording of individuals' routine paths, actions, interactions, and responses to the built environment without interference.

The Studies

Study 1

The first study was conducted in four different venues on a rural university campus. Two of the venues were centrally located on campus and two were within a short walking distance of the campus. The two on-campus locations were interior plazas of buildings frequented by students. One was an open area designated by a coffee bar, tables, and chairs. The other was in a central location easily accessed from several entrances with food nearby. The two off-campus locations were coffee shops – one an international chain and one locally owned. All four sites had internet access, although only one – the locally owned coffee shop – offered access free to all patrons. The role of technology as a place of sociability was also examined in this study through connections with Facebook.

Results of Study 1

Table 20.1 provides an overview of the results of Study 1. The results of the study suggest that some of Oldenburg's criteria may not fit present-day socializing trends, in particular those of campus social spaces. Oldenburg believed that true third places did not have technology of any kind available because it detracted from the social environment. However, the results of this study suggest that technology plays an important role in 21st-century socializing, and therefore access to technology may be an important criterion of contemporary third places. (See Table 20.1 for comparison results.)

Study 2

The second study was completed on the urban campus and focused on three interior plazas. Over a three-month period, behavioral maps were used to record the number of people and the activities taking place in each of the interior gathering places during one-hour increments. Diagrams noted the furniture style and layout, window placement in relationship to seating, seating arrangement, electric lighting design, availability of natural light, entrances, and amenities the space provided. Two of the spaces are located in a building dedicated to the study of design and night courses. The third space is in a separate building used primarily by health sciences students and faculty. The campus is wireless throughout, so computer use is available to students in all three.

Interior Plaza 1. In this plaza the seating arrangement, style, and lack of variety make it difficult to be “alone in a crowd” or to gather as a group. Additionally, the poor lighting, both electric and natural, minimizes the ability to accomplish student-related tasks such as reading and computer use – an important part of campus life. While food is available nearby, it is not visible from the seating area and the facility is only open for a few hours in the early evening. Food was therefore not considered to attract users, and was determined as one of the unsuccessful characteristics (see Figure 20.5).

c20-fig-0005 — Figure 20.5 Plazas 1 and 2.

Interior Plaza 2. While Plaza 2 is centrally located and the furniture is moveable, the lighting is poor and the furniture uninviting causing the space to be rarely used as a social gathering space. Also, with no food available other than from vending machines, there is nothing to encourage students to gather and stay in the space (see Figure 20.5). This examination implies that students will use spaces that are less than optimal when there are no others available, but choose differently when they can.

Interior Plaza 3. Despite the fact that food was not available in close proximity to this space, it appeared to be widely used by students. The comfortable, moveable seating that can be rearranged by students to optimize their socializing needs, as well as the ample natural and artificial lighting, contribute to the attraction of this interior plaza as a social space (see Figure 20.6).

Results of Study 2

Seven design criteria for successful social gathering spaces were developed from the literature review and compared to the results of this study. The data derived from the observations were first analyzed within the context of each setting to determine which physical attributes were present or not. The successful features are noted in Table 20.2 with a “yes” and the unsuccessful features are noted with a “no”.

These seven design features were then compared to the criteria established in four seminal publications dealing with the design of public social spaces: William Whyte's The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (1980), Marcus and Francis' People Places: Design Guidelines for Urban Open Spaces (1990), Christopher Alexander's A Pattern Language (1977), and Oldenburg's (1989) third place theory as described in The Great Good Place. The results of this comparison can be seen in Table 20.3.

Table 20.3 Results of Study 2 comparison

Interestingly, the criteria that emerged from the observations as important to the success of a public space for social gathering coincide with the design guidelines outlined in the four publications. For example, although the language is slightly different – Whyte says southern sun exposure is important and Marcus and Francis recommend maximizing sun year-round – the observational studies confirmed that these general design principles are transferable to widely used public interior plazas. A final analysis was made comparing the design features established in the literature and the results of this study to Oldenburg's social criteria for third places. The results of this analysis are seen in Table 20.4.

Although some of Oldenburg's criteria are still relevant, this analysis reinforces the suggestion that present-day socializing trends represent a different paradigm for third places. In keeping with Oldenburg's criteria, an environment with a playful mood that is a “home away from home” and accessible with regulars remains is an important aspect of a third place. However, 21st-century third places appear to be multi-purpose with many activities, including technology. Evidence also reveals that current third places are often purpose-driven, intentionally designed spaces, which are not necessarily public. Additionally, today's third places appear to be seen as appropriate for both socializing as well as being alone in a crowd.

Emergence of Design Criteria

Seven design criteria emerged from the studies conducted for evaluating social gathering spaces: location, entrance, path, seating, food, and lighting. The following list provides relevant questions and considerations for application of these criteria:

Location. Is the space centrally located and casually encountered daily by many potential users? The location of an interior plaza is of primary importance. It must be central to activities and accessible to all (Alexander et al. 1977; Oldenburg 1989).
Path. Is the space “on the path” without being too open or too closed? In order for a space to attract occupants, they must first be aware it is there, and then encounter it often on their daily path. The more accessible it is without effort, the more likely people are to occupy it (Alexander et al. 1977). “Sightlines are important. If people do not see a space, they will not use it” (Whyte 1980).
Entrance. Can a person assess the room and the people in it without first making a commitment to enter? The entrance of a space is a key to success or failure (Whyte 1980). Ideally, the transition from the path to the space should be indistinguishable. Marcus and Francis state, “A plaza must be perceived as a distinct place, and yet it must be visible and functionally accessible to passers-by” (Marcus and Francis 1998). This leads to the ability for a person to first assess the environment without committing to enter and then do so “without” having made a conscious decision” (Whyte 1980).
Seating. Is it sociopetal or sociofugal? Comfortable and moveable? Are there varied types available? Research shows that successful plazas have seating that is comfortable, moveable, and varied in type. Marcus and Francis found that large open spaces without clear subdivisions are intimidating to most people, causing them to pass through quickly or not enter. They found that subtle subdividing of the space encouraged use (Marcus and Francis 1998).
Food. Is there food available within the space or nearby? Whyte states, “If you want to seed a place with activity, put out food” (Whyte 1980). Marcus and Francis also suggest that to increase the liveliness of a plaza is to provide food (Marcus and Francis 1998).
Lighting. Is there adequate and appropriate artificial light and natural daylight? Just as use increases in outdoor plazas south-facing with sun (Marcus and Francis 1998; Whyte 1977), people gravitate to rooms with natural light (Alexander et al. 1977). In addition, adequate and appropriate electric light attracts users.
Technology. Is its use acknowledged and encouraged through the design? As noted in the research, technology is an important part of American social life in the 21st century. Successful third places incorporate technology, and this is especially important on a college campus.

These seven criteria, along with the results of the research studies conducted, provide guidelines for the design of a third place as a social gathering space.

As demonstrated by these studies, third places can and should be part of college campuses. Interior public plazas can provide venues for social connection, providing college students and faculty with a sense of community and place attachment. Additionally, students as well as professional designers can easily transfer the guidelines to other venues.

When designers create barriers instead of bonds in social environments, it is often because they do not design with information. If Putnam and Oldenburg are right that American communities are experiencing a loss of social capital and need new ways to provide connections among individuals, then understanding how design decisions impact those spaces can only aid the process. Understanding connections between sense of community and place attachment in the context of third places could assist designers in creating social environments that promote human well-being by providing venues for social connection.

Social scientists and community psychologists have increased awareness of the need for social capital and community in American public life. Americans need public environments where they can make informal social connections and build social networks (Putnam 2000). Studies connecting sense of community to social spaces suggest a relationship between the physical design of the built environment and sense of community, yet researchers have noted the disparity of research relating these two factors (Hill 1996; Lund 2002; Sugihara and Evans 2000; Waxman 2006).

Research on sense of community suggests a strong connection between the environment and sociability. The connection needs verification by more research within the context of specific environments (Hill 1996). Understanding how the built environment enhances people-to-people connection and consequent application in the built form begins with understanding human use and preferences, allowing those understandings to inform design, resulting in more venues for social connection. Designing environments, in particular social gathering spaces, to augment social connections is a valuable pursuit. Waxman states that “designers should consider the value the built environment holds for creating community-gathering places that enhance the ability of people to connect with their community” (Waxman 2006).

Third places, as a current and future social trend, provide a viable venue for exploring the design of social spaces. As designers, we have the capability to design spaces that promote human well-being as well as places where people want to live, work, and play – or not. The potential for designers to contribute to the enhancement of settings that support community through intentional design – interior people places – and consequently enhance people-to-people connections deserves attention.

References

Abu-Ghazzah, T. M. 1999. “Communicating behavioral research to campus design: factors affecting the perception and use of outdoor spaces at the University of Jordan,” Environment and Behavior 31(6): 764–804.
Alexander, C. et al. 1977. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Brown, B. and Werner, C. M. 2009. “Before and after a new light rail stop: resident attitudes, travel behavior, and obesity,” Journal of the American Planning Association 75(1): 5–12.
Brown, B. B. and Perkins, D. 1992. “Disruptions in place attachment,” in I. Altman and S. Low (eds.), Place Attachment. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 279–304.
Chavis, D. M., Hogge, J. H., McMillan, D. W., and Wandersman, A. 1986. “Sense of community through Brunswick's lens,” Journal of Community Psychology 14: 24–40.
Chavis, D. M. and Newbrough, J. R. 1986. “The meaning of ‘community’ in community psychology,” Journal of Community Psychology 14(4): 335–340.
Chavis, D. M. and Wandersman, A. 1990. “Sense of community in the urban environment: a catalyst for participation and community development,” American Journal of Community Psychology 18: 55–79.
Chidster, M. 1988. “Reconsidering the piazza: dramatic changes in city form and living require new design models and inspirations for public experience,” Landscape Architecture 78(1): 40–43.
Ducheneaut, N. and Moore, R. J. 2007. “Virtual third places: a case study of sociability in massively multiplayer games,” Journal of Collaborative Computing 16(1–2): 129–166.
Evans, G. W. and McCoy, J. M. 1998. “When buildings don't work: the role of architecture in human health,” Journal of Environmental Psychology 18: 85–94.
Glover, T. D. and Parry, D. C. 2009. “A third place in the everyday lives of people living with cancer: functions of Gilda's Club of Greater Toronto,” Health & Place 15: 97–106.
Gracia, E. and Herrero, J. 2004. “Determinants of social integration in the community: an exploratory analysis of personal, interpersonal and situational variables,” Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 14(1): 1–15.
Gulwadi, G. B. 2006. “Seeking restorative experiences: elementary school teachers' choices for places that enable coping with stress,” Environment and Behavior 38: 503–520.
Gustafson, P. 2001. “Roots and routes: exploring the relationship between place attachment and mobility,” Environment and Behavior 33(5): 667–686.
Hampton, K. N. and Gupta, N. 2009. “Community and social interaction in the wireless city: wi-fi use in public and semi-public spaces,” New Media & Society 10(6): 831–850.
Handy, S., Sallis, J., Weber, D., Maibach, E., and Hollander, M. 2008. “Is support for traditionally designed communities growing? Evidence from two national surveys,” Journal of the American Planning Association 74(2): 209–221.
Harris, C. 2007. “Libraries with lattes: the new third place,” Australian Public Library Information Services 20(4): 145–152.
Herrero, J. and Gracia, E. 2007. “Measuring perceived community support: factorial structure, longitudinal invariance and predictive validity of the PCSQ (Perceived Community Support Questionnaire),” Journal of Community Psychology 35(2): 197–217.
Hill, J. L. 1996. “Psychological sense of community: suggestions for future research,” Journal of Community Psychology 24(4): 431–438.
Jacobs, J. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.
Jarrett, C. 2006. “Is there a psychologist in the building?,” The Psychologist 19(10): 592–594.
Kasard, J. and Janowitz, M. 1974. “Community attachment in mass society,” American Sociological Review 39: 328–329.
Katz, P., ed. 1994. The New Urbanism: Towards Architecture of Community. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kupritz, V. W. 1998. “Privacy in the workplace: the impact of building design,” Journal of Environmental Psychology 18: 341–356.
Lawson, K. 2004. “Libraries as virtual third places,” New Library World 105(3/4), 125–130.
Low, S. 1992. “Symbolic ties that bind: place attachment in the plaza,” in I. Altman and S. Low (eds.), Place Attachment. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 165–184.
Low, S. and Altman, I. 1992. “Place attachment: a conceptual inquiry,” in I. Altman and S. Low (eds.), Place Attachment. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 1–12.
Lund, H. 2002. “Pedestrian environments and sense of community,” Journal of Planning Education and Research 21(3): 301–312.
Marcus, C. C. and Francis, C. 1998. People Places: Design Guidelines for Urban Open Spaces. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Martinez, M. L., Black, M., and Starr, R. H. 2002. “Factorial structure of the Perceived Neighborhood Scale (PNS): a test of longitudinal invariance,” Journal of Community Psychology 30(1): 23–43.
McMillan, D. 1996. “Sense of community,” Journal of Community Psychology 24(4): 315–325.
McMillan, D. and Chavis, D. M. 1986. “Sense of community: a definition and theory,” Journal of Community Psychology 14: 6–23.
Oldenburg, R. 1989. The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons and Other Hangouts at the Heart of the Community. New York: Marlowe.
Oldenburg, R. 2003. “Third places,” in K. Christenson and D. Levinson (eds.), Encyclopedia of Community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 1373–1376.
Oldenburg, R. and Brissett, D. 1982. “The Third Place,” Qualitative Psychology 5(4): 265–284.
Puddifoot, J. E. 2003. “Exploring ‘personal’ and ‘shared’ sense of community identity in Durham City, England,” Journal of Community Psychology 31(1): 87–106.
Putnam, R. D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Riley, R. B. 1992. “Attachment to the ordinary landscape,” in I. Altman and S. Low (eds.), Place Attachment. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 13–32.
Ryan, R. L. 2005. “Exploring the effects of environmental experience on attachment to urban natural areas,” Environment and Behavior 37(1): 3–42.
Salamon, S. 2003. “From hometown to nontown: rural community effects of suburbanization,” Rural Sociology 68(1): 1–24.
Soukup, C. 2006. “Computer-mediated communication as a virtual third place: building Oldenburg's great good places on the world wide web,” New Media & Society 8(3): 421–440.
Sugihara, S. and Evans, G. 2000. Place attachment and social support at continuing care retirement communities. Environment and Behavior 32(3): 400–409.
Tartaglia, S. 2006. “A preliminary study for a new model of sense of community,” Journal of Community Psychology 34(1): 25–36.
Tiemann, T. K. 2008. “Grower's only farmer's markets: public spaces and third places,” The Journal of Popular Culture 41(3): 467–487.
Unger, D. G. and Wandersman, A. 1985. “The importance of neighbors: the social, cognitive, and affective components of neighboring,” American Journal of Community Psychology 13: 139–169.
Valera, S. and Guardia, J. 2002. “Urban social identity and sustainability: Barcelona's Olympic Village,” Environment and Behavior 34(1): 54–66.
Vorkinn, M. and Hanne, R. 2001. “Environmental concern in a local context: the significance of place attachment,” Environment and Behavior 33: 249–263.
Waxman, L. 2006. “The coffee shop: social and physical factors influencing place attachment,” Journal of Interior Design 31(3): 35–53.
Whyte, W. H. 1980. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Washington DC: Conservation Foundation.
Zaff, J. and Devlin, A. S. 1998. “Sense of community in housing for the elderly,” Journal of Community Psychology 26(4): 381–398.