Increasing the Livability of Open Public Spaces during Nighttime: The Importance of Lighting in Waterfront Areas

Abstract

The contemporary way of life influences the forms and time framework of outdoor activities in open public spaces, shifting their focus to nighttime usage. The aim of this study is to demonstrate the limits of existing outdoor lighting design standards and recommendations in terms of livability. As an exploratory case study, the Sava waterfront in New Belgrade, Serbia was chosen. The methodology consisted of theoretical research and specific analysis, which included: (1) mapping the spatial distribution of users during several periods of the day; (2) criteria and indicator network analysis of outdoor lighting quality, and (3) a survey with a questionnaire conducted among the users of the waterfront area. The results showed that lighting design can influence overall open public space usage during nighttime through its parameters. It can affect the spatial distribution of users and their sense of safety and comfort, as well as the duration, frequency, and manner of usage. This study could improve planning and design practices regarding outdoor lighting, enabling more active and inclusive usage of open public spaces, thus increasing the overall livability of spaces and their social sustainability.

Socially inclusive Lighting Design: exploring a method to enhance freedom of movement for marginalised groups.

“…This finding corresponds with other recent studies [10]. It contradicts most of the research on perceived safety, concluding that uniformed urban areas with white-coloured lighting appear to be the safest [44], [45]. Although non-uniformity was only one of the findings from the field study, the need for visible surroundings was also an important theme.…”

Factors Affecting Pedestrians’ Perceptions of Safety, Comfort, and Pleasantness Induced by Public Space Lighting: A Systematic Literature Review

“…As indicated in Appendix A, most studies (25)—all conducted since 2012—referred to LED lights (e.g., Haans & de Kort, 2012; Markvica et al, 2019; Nikunen et al, 2014; nine addressed HPS lamps (e.g., Boyce et al, 2000; Peña-García et al, 2015; Rea et al, 2009); and eight studies—most of them performed during the 2000s—addressed MH sources (e.g., Boyce et al, 2000; S. A. Fotios & Cheal, 2007; Hamsa et al, 2009; Rakonjac et al, 2022). In additional, latest smart-technologies may change place perception by introducing variable light- and temporal distribution, for example by dimming according to pedestrians’ locations or by the time of night.…”

“…Regarding age, Knight (2010), Johansson et al (2011), and Rahm and Johansson (2021) found no correlation with perceived safety. As to the influence of gender, the reviewed studies show inconsistent results, where Knight (2010) reported no influence on perceived safety, Haans and de Kort (2012) discovered that perceived safety depends on the perception of attractiveness-to-criminal activity rather than on gender; Rakonjac et al (2022) found that young women felt safer and more comfortable than men, and Loewen et al (1993) found that women tend to fear dark more than men.…”

“…As Table 3 shows, age and gender were the most mentioned, as well as sampled, subtopics in the reviewed studies. However, the influence of gender on PSL perception was actually tested only in five studies (Boomsma & Steg, 2014; Haans & de Kort, 2012; Johansson et al, 2011; Knight, 2010; Rakonjac et al, 2022). Most reviewed studies also tried to represent age variability—10 of which specifically controlled for elders (e.g., Rahm & Johansson, 2018; Svechkina et al, 2020).…”

“…The analysis focuses on the following types (subtopics) of response to PSL: safety, comfortableness, pleasantness, and discomfort. Safety, which encompasses danger, reassurance, and brightness (used as a safety proxy), was addressed in 36 of the publications (e.g., Boyce et al, 2000;Liu et al, 2022;Portnov et al, 2021); comfortableness, encompassing satisfaction, preference, willingness to stay, and adequacy was explored in 28 studies (e.g., Nikunen & Korpela, 2012;Portnov et al, 2020;Rakonjac et al, 2022); (c) pleasantness, including quality, attractiveness, and restorativeness, was explored in 25 studies (e.g., Nikunen & Korpela, 2009;Rahm & Tested-factors that were actually examined for influence. Johansson, 2021;Rakonjac et al, 2022); and (d) discomfort, corresponding to glare or flicker perceptions, was explored in 13 studies (e.g., Heo et al, 2021;Zhu et al, 2013).…”