A framework for enhancing social 
sustainability through the planning of 
Third Places: a South African approach 
 
 
Z Goosen 
orcid.org 0000-0002-4795-1802 
 
 
Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the 
degree Doctor of Philosophy in Town- and Regional Planning 
at the North-West University 
 
 
Promoter:  Prof EJ Cilliers 
 
Graduation May 2019 
22095128 
 
.
 i 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
My saviour and heavenly Father. Thank you for showing me the light and the way. 
A sincere thank you to: 
My mentor and supervisor, Professor EJ Cilliers, who has become a friend. Your never-ending 
incentive, assistance, mentorship, input and motivation throughout this research project has 
been invaluable. Thank you for inspiring my mind and challenging my abilities daily. 
To my parents, Johann and Annette, and sibling Charné, your continued support and motivation 
throughout my studies have been tremendous. Thank you for being my rock. 
Jean, your motivation and support has always been unlimited. Thank you. 
A word of appreciation to the North-West University and the staff of its Potchefstroom Campus, 
specifically the Ferdinand Postma Library, for the excellent academic support provided. Further 
appreciation is extended towards Dr Erika Fourie of the Statistical Consultation Services of the 
North-West University.  
The financial assistance of the National Research Foundation (NRF) towards this research is 
hereby acknowledged. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the author 
and are not necessarily attributed to the NRF. Parts of this research has been published as 
academic papers. A research paper, forming the first part of a series of papers to be published 
from this PhD study, has been submitted for reviewing. 
Finally, sincere gratitude is extended to the editor, Gerdus Senekal. 
  
 ii 
ABSTRACT  
Social sustainability, a dimension of sustainable development, has become increasingly 
influential in the urban planning context. However, there is limited research to guide urban 
planning approaches towards enhanced social sustainability, especially within the South African 
context. Although existing policy and legislative frameworks support the notion of sustainable 
development in South Africa, specific implementation strategies are absent. The lack of practical 
application of planning approaches has resulted in the widening of the theory-practice gap and 
alternative approaches should be considered to enhance social sustainability within the urban 
fabric.  
This research reflects on the importance of social sustainability in the urban context and the role 
of the Third Place in facilitating social sustainability. The concept of Third Places, established by 
Oldenburg (1999:16), is considered and introduced as any space other than our homes (First 
Place) or work (Second Place), manifesting as a component of well-defined public places 
designed to enhance civic identity, quality of life, social capital and community revitalisation, 
whilst improving economic development (Alidoust et al., 2015:2; Camp, 2015:2; Liu et al., 
2007:1). 
The Third Place concept is thus introduced in this research as an umbrella concept combining 
the physical realm and design of the social space. This research considered the notion of Third 
Places from the perspective of three purposefully selected planning approaches, including the 
place-making approach, the lively planning approach and the green urbanism approach. These 
approaches were collectively employed as part of a qualitative enquiry to inform a theory-based 
framework to enhance social sustainability through the planning of Third Places. The three 
approaches were selected based on their responses to social problems in the urban context, 
emerging from the policies that the physical environment can positively influence well-being and 
quality of life (De Jong, 2014:84, 127-130; Karacor, 2014:253).  
Theory-based sampling was applied and involves selecting cases according to the extent to 
which they represent a particular theoretical construct. Purposive sampling (Palys, 2008:297) 
was in addition applied as the population of the particular theoretical construct is difficult to 
determine, as in this case referring to limited theoretical guidance on the planning of Third 
Places. The proposed framework was refined through qualitative and quantitative empirical 
approaches and translated to the South African planning context. The first phase of the 
empirical investigation reflected on five international case studies to identify best practices 
relating to the planning of Third Places for enhanced social sustainability. The second phase 
 iii 
comprised of an expert-survey, including the views of 30 purposefully selected experts relating 
to the planning of Third Places and the importance thereof within the South African context. The 
data of the expert-survey was statistically analysed and interpreted to inform a framework for 
enhancing social sustainability through the planning of Third Places in South Africa.  
This research contributes to the academic discourse on social sustainability by reflecting on the 
role of Third Places to augment objectives of social sustainability. A contribution of new 
knowledge is evident in terms of the proposed framework for enhancing social sustainability 
through the planning of Third Places in the South African context. 
Keywords: Social sustainability, Third Places, place-making, South African framework  
 iv 
OPSOMMING  
ʼn Raamwerk vir die verbetering van sosiale volhoubaarheid deur Derde Plek-beplanning: 
ʼn Suid-Afrikaanse benadering 
Sosiale volhoubaarheid, 'n geïntegreerde konsep van volhoubare ontwikkeling, het toenemend 
belangrik geword in die stedelike beplanningskonteks. Daar is egter beperkte navorsing ten 
einde stedelike beplanningbenaderings tot beter sosiale volhoubaarheid op te hef, veral binne 
die Suid-Afrikaanse konteks. Alhoewel bestaande beleidsraamwerke en wetgewing die konsep 
van volhoubare ontwikkeling in Suid-Afrika ondersteun, is spesifieke implementeringstrategieë 
afwesig. Die gebrek aan praktiese toepassing van beplanningsbenaderings het gelei tot die 
uitbreiding van die teorie-praktykgaping en al dus moet alternatiewe benaderings oorweeg word 
ten einde sosiale volhoubaarheid binne die stedelike opset te verbeter. 
Hierdie navorsing weerspieël die belangrikheid van sosiale volhoubaarheid in die stedelike 
konteks en die rol van die Derde Plek in die fasilitering van sosiale volhoubaarheid. Die konsep 
van Derde Plekke, gevestig deur Oldenburg (1999:16), word beskou as enige ruimte uitsluitend 
woonhuise (Eerste Plek) of werkplek (Tweede Plek), wat vertoon as 'n komponent van goed 
gedefinieerde openbare plekke wat ontwerp is ten einde burgerlike identiteit, lewenskwaliteit, 
sosiale welstand en gemeenskapsvernuwing te verbeter, terwyl ekonomiese ontwikkeling 
bevorder word (Alidoust et al., 2015:2; Camp, 2015:2; Liu et al., 2007:1). 
Die Derde-plek-konsep word dus in hierdie navorsing as 'n alomvattende konsep voorgestel wat 
die fisiese gebied en die ontwerp van die sosiale ruimte kombineer. Hierdie navorsing het die 
aspek van Derde Plekke oorweeg vanuit die oogpunt van drie doelgerigte geselekteerde 
beplanningsbenaderings, insluitend die plekskepping-benadering (place-making), die lewendige 
beplanningsbenadering (lively planning) en die groen stedelike benadering (green urbanism). 
Hierdie benaderings is gesamentlik oorweeg as deel van 'n kwalitatiewe ondersoek ten einde 'n 
teorie-gebaseerde raamwerk daar te stel ten einde sosiale volhoubaarheid te bevorder deur die 
beplanning van Derde Plekke. Hierdie drie benaderings is van toepassing gemaak op hierdie 
studie vanweë hul invloed op sosiale probleme in die stedelike konteks, wat voortspruit daaruit 
dat fisiese omgewing welstand en lewenskwaliteit positief kan beïnvloed (De Jong, 2014:84, 
127-130; Karacor, 2014:253). 
Teorie-gebaseerde steekproefneming is toegepas. Dit behels die keuse van gevalle volgens die 
mate waarin hulle 'n bepaalde teoretiese konstruksie verteenwoordig. Doelgerigte 
steekproefneming (Palys, 2008:297) is ook toegepas daar die bevolking van die bepaalde 
teoretiese konstruksie moeilik is om te bepaal, soos in hierdie geval daar verwys word na 
 v 
beperkte teoretiese leiding ten opsigte van die beplanning van Derde Plekke. Die voorgestelde 
raamwerk is aangepas deur kwalitatiewe en kwantitatiewe empiriese benaderings vir die Suid-
Afrikaanse beplanningskonteks. Die eerste fase van die empiriese ondersoek sluit vyf 
internasionale gevallestudies in ten einde beste praktyke te identifiseer wat verband hou met 
die beplanning van Derde Plekke vir verbeterde sosiale volhoubaarheid. Die tweede fase 
bestaan uit 'n kundige opname, insluitend die opinies van 30 doelgerig gekose kundiges wat 
verband hou met die beplanning van Derde Plekke en die belangrikheid daarvan binne die 
Suid-Afrikaanse konteks. Die data van die kundige opname is statisties ontleed en 
geïnterpreteer ten einde 'n raamwerk vir die verbetering van sosiale volhoubaarheid daar te stel 
deur die beplanning van Derde Plekke in Suid-Afrika. 
Hierdie navorsing dra by tot die akademiese gesprek oor sosiale volhoubaarheid deur te besin 
oor die rol van Derde Plekke ten einde doelwitte van sosiale volhoubaarheid uit te brei. 'n 
Bydrae van nuwe kennis blyk uit die voorgestelde raamwerk vir die bevordering van sosiale 
volhoubaarheid deur die beplanning van Derde Plekke in die Suid-Afrikaanse konteks. 
Sleutelwoorde: Sosiale volhoubaarheid, Derde Plekke, plekskepping, Suid-Afrikaanse 
raamwerk 
  
 vi 
TABLE OF CONTENTS  
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................... I 
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................. II 
OPSOMMING .......................................................................................................................... IV 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 
1.1 Unpacking the title of this research ................................................................ 1 
1.2 Research orientation and point of departure .................................................. 2 
1.3 Problem statement motivating this research .................................................. 3 
1.4 Research question............................................................................................ 4 
1.4.1 Research aim and objectives .............................................................................. 4 
1.5 Research methodology .................................................................................... 4 
1.5.1 Methodology for literature investigation .............................................................. 4 
1.5.2 Methodology for empirical investigation .............................................................. 5 
1.5.2.1 Phase 1: Case study review ............................................................................... 6 
1.5.2.2 Phase 2: Expert-survey ...................................................................................... 7 
1.6 Ethical considerations ..................................................................................... 8 
1.7 Literature statement ......................................................................................... 9 
1.8 Research limitations ......................................................................................... 9 
1.9 Structure of the research and chapter division .............................................. 9 
CHAPTER 2: CONSIDERING SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY AND THE NOTION OF THIRD 
PLACES ................................................................................................................................. 13 
2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 13 
2.2 The notion of sustainable development ........................................................ 14 
 vii 
2.3 Dimensions of sustainable development ...................................................... 15 
2.3.1 Social dimension of sustainability ..................................................................... 16 
2.3.2 Economic dimension of sustainability ............................................................... 17 
2.3.3 Environmental dimension of sustainability ........................................................ 18 
2.4 The spatial interpretation of sustainable development................................ 19 
2.4.1 Planning for sustainable communities ............................................................... 22 
2.5 Emphasising social sustainability ................................................................. 24 
2.6 Urban space as host for social sustainability .............................................. 26 
2.7 Revisiting the notion of Third Places ............................................................ 30 
2.7.1 Characteristics of Third Places ......................................................................... 31 
2.7.2 Third Places in relation to sustainable development ......................................... 31 
2.8 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 35 
CHAPTER 3: THE PLANNING OF THIRD PLACES FOR ENHANCED SOCIAL 
SUSTAINABILITY ................................................................................................................... 38 
3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 38 
3.2 Planning approach: Place-making ................................................................ 39 
3.2.1 Place-making planning scales .......................................................................... 41 
3.2.1.1 Urban or city plan scale of place-making .......................................................... 42 
3.2.1.2 Neighbourhood or site plan scale of place-making ............................................ 42 
3.2.1.3 Human or people plan scale of place-making ................................................... 42 
3.2.2 Planning and design considerations of place-making........................................ 43 
3.3 Planning approach: Lively planning ............................................................. 49 
3.3.1 Planning and design considerations of Lively planning ..................................... 50 
 viii 
3.4 Planning approach: Green urbanism ............................................................ 52 
3.4.1 Planning and design considerations of green urbanism .................................... 53 
3.5 Theory-based framework to inform the planning of Third Places ............... 55 
3.6 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 63 
CHAPTER 4: REFLECTING ON THE SOUTH AFRICAN PLANNING REALITY FROM A 
SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY PERSPECTIVE ........................................................................... 65 
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 65 
4.2 Local urban realities and challenges ............................................................ 65 
4.3 Local planning policy and legislative frameworks ....................................... 68 
4.3.1 Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996) .......................... 69 
4.3.2 National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (NEMA) ........................ 71 
4.3.3 Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 (MSA) ......................................................... 72 
4.3.4 National Urban Development Framework (2009) (NUDF) ................................. 73 
4.3.5 Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act 16 of 2013 (SPLUMA) .......... 73 
4.3.6 National Strategy for Sustainable Development and Action Plan 2011-2014 
(NSSD) ............................................................................................................. 75 
4.3.7 National Development Plan 2030 (NDP) ........................................................... 75 
4.3.8 Evaluation matrix of South African policy and legislative framework ................. 77 
4.4 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 82 
CHAPTER 5: EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION .......................................................................... 83 
5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 83 
5.2 Phase 1: Case study reviews ......................................................................... 84 
5.2.1 Case 1: The case of Las Ramblas Boulevard, Barcelona, Spain ...................... 85 
 ix 
5.2.1.1 Location overview ............................................................................................. 85 
5.2.1.2 Planning principles employed in Las Ramblas Boulevard ................................. 85 
5.2.1.3 Visual illustrations of Third Place planning in Las Ramblas Boulevard .............. 89 
5.2.1.4 Case study review for best practices in Las Ramblas Boulevard ...................... 90 
5.2.2 Case 2: The case of Bryant Park, New York, United States of America ............ 94 
5.2.2.1 Location overview ............................................................................................. 94 
5.2.2.2 Planning principles employed in Bryant Park .................................................... 94 
5.2.2.2.1 Parks, open spaces and recreational facilities ............................................. 95 
5.2.2.2.2 Active design guidelines, promoting physical activity and health in 
design .............................................................................................................. 96 
5.2.2.3 Illustrations of Third Place planning in Bryant Park ........................................... 98 
5.2.2.4 Case study review for best practices in Bryant Park ......................................... 99 
5.2.3 Case 3: The case of the High Line, New York, United States of America........ 102 
5.2.3.1 Location overview ........................................................................................... 102 
5.2.3.2 Planning principles employed in the High Line ................................................ 103 
5.2.3.3 Visual illustrations of Third Place planning in the High Line ............................ 105 
5.2.3.4 Case study review for best practices in the High Line ..................................... 106 
5.2.4 Case 4: The case of Noriega Street Parklet, San Francisco, California .......... 109 
5.2.4.1 Location overview ........................................................................................... 109 
5.2.4.2 Planning principles employed in Noriega Street Parklet .................................. 110 
5.2.4.3 Illustrations of Third Place planning in Noriega Street ..................................... 112 
5.2.4.4 Case study review for best practices in Noriega Street Parklet ....................... 112 
5.2.5 Case 5: The case of Perth Cultural Centre, Perth, Western Australia ............. 115 
 x 
5.2.5.1 Location overview ........................................................................................... 115 
5.2.5.2 Planning principles employed in Perth Cultural Centre ................................... 115 
5.2.5.3 Illustrations of Third Place planning in Perth Cultural Centre .......................... 117 
5.2.5.4 Case study review for best practices in Perth Cultural Centre ......................... 118 
5.2.6 Collective case study review and interpretation .............................................. 121 
5.3 Phase 2: Expert-survey ................................................................................ 123 
5.3.1 Expert-survey results ...................................................................................... 124 
5.3.1.1.1 Third Place importance within spatial planning ............................................... 127 
5.3.1.1.2 Improvement of social sustainability through Third Places .............................. 128 
5.3.1.1.3 Third Places to create a sense of place and community ................................. 128 
5.3.1.1.4 Importance of public participation in Third Place planning .............................. 128 
5.3.2 Expert-survey review and interpretation .......................................................... 128 
5.4 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 130 
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................. 132 
6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 132 
6.2 Conclusions drawn with regard to research objectives ............................ 132 
6.2.1 Conclusion 1: The planning of Third Places can enhance social 
sustainability ................................................................................................... 132 
6.2.2 Conclusion 2: A compilation of socially orientated planning approaches can 
inform the planning of Third Places as point of departure. .............................. 135 
6.2.3 Conclusion 3: International best practices can be translated to the local 
context, in line with guiding policy and legislative frameworks ........................ 137 
 xi 
6.2.4 Conclusion 4: Local perspectives can contribute to enhance social 
sustainability through the planning of Third Places within the South African 
context ............................................................................................................ 139 
6.2.5 Conclusion 5: Social sustainability can be enhanced through a refined 
framework facilitating the planning of Third Places in South Africa ................. 140 
6.3 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 143 
CHAPTER 7: RECOMMENDATIONS TO ENHANCE SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY 
THROUGH THIRD PLACE PLANNING ................................................................................ 147 
7.1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 147 
7.2 Planning recommendations ......................................................................... 147 
7.2.1 Planning recommendation 1: Enhance social sustainability within 
sustainable development approaches ............................................................. 148 
7.2.2 Planning recommendation 2: Emphasise the planning of Third Places within 
broader spatial planning approaches .............................................................. 151 
7.2.3 Planning recommendation 3: Transform current urban spaces to Third 
Places to enhance broader social sustainability objectives ............................. 152 
7.2.4 Planning recommendation 4: Enhance social sustainability within policy and 
legislative frameworks to support the planning of Third Places ....................... 153 
7.2.5 Planning recommendation 5: Employ a framework to enhance social 
sustainability within the South African context through focussing on the 
planning of Third Places ................................................................................. 155 
7.2.5.1 Social inclusivity: Setting of a social stage ...................................................... 158 
7.2.5.2 Multi-functionality: Diversity for regularity ........................................................ 158 
7.2.5.3 Accessibility: Pedestrian-orientated ................................................................ 159 
7.2.5.4 Perceptibility: Sense of place .......................................................................... 159 
7.2.5.5 Marketability: LQC strategy to enhance social sustainability ........................... 159 
 xii 
7.2.5.6 Environmental sensitivity: Nature-based solutions .......................................... 160 
7.2.5.7 Adaptability: Transformation of existing open spaces to Third Places ............. 160 
7.2.5.8 Intrinsic connectivity: Focused participatory planning ...................................... 160 
7.3 Opportunities for future research ................................................................ 161 
7.4 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 161 
CHAPTER 8: CONTRIBUTION TO NEW KNOWLEDGE ..................................................... 162 
8.1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 162 
8.2 New framework to enhance social sustainability through the planning 
of Third Places within the South African context ....................................... 162 
8.3 Key generalisations confirmed and new contributions made ................... 164 
8.4 Closing remarks ........................................................................................... 166 
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................... 167 
ANNEXURE 1: EMPIRICAL RESEARCH, PHASE 1 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE .............. 193 
ANNEXURE 2: EMPIRICAL RESEARCH, PHASE 2 CROSS-TABULATION ...................... 203 
ANNEXURE 3: LANGUAGE EDITING CERTIFICATE ......................................................... 208 
ANNEXURE 4: PROOF OF SUBMISSION OF ARTICLE, JOURNAL OF APPLIED 
RESEARCH IN QUALITY OF LIFE ....................................................................................... 210 
  
 xiii 
LIST OF TABLES 
Table 1-1: Unpacking the title of this research ................................................................ 2 
Table 1-2: Case study selection approach and strategy .................................................. 6 
Table 1-3: Phase 1 input, methods and output ................................................................ 7 
Table 1-4: Phase 2 input, methods and output ................................................................ 8 
Table 2-1: Main characteristics and goals of a sustainable community ......................... 23 
Table 2-2: Conceptual comparison of space and place ................................................. 28 
Table 2-3: Direct and indirect benefits of Third Places .................................................. 33 
Table 2-4: Interface between the drivers of social sustainability and characteristics 
of Third Places ............................................................................................. 36 
Table 3-1: Key attributes, intangibles and measurements developed by PPS ............... 44 
Table 3-2: Place-making principle strategies and considerations .................................. 45 
Table 3-3: Place-making design considerations and elements ...................................... 48 
Table 3-4: Lively planning design considerations .......................................................... 51 
Table 3-5: Green urbanism design considerations and elements .................................. 54 
Table 3-6: Collective consideration of the three purposefully selected planning 
approaches .................................................................................................. 56 
Table 3-7: Recoded design considerations for the theory-based framework ................. 60 
Table 3-8: Theory-based framework ............................................................................. 62 
Table 4-1: Identified policy and legislative frameworks for review ................................. 69 
Table 4-2: Three-tier evaluation matrix ranking system of the identified policy and 
legislative frameworks .................................................................................. 77 
Table 4-3: Evaluation matrix of purposefully selected policy and legislative 
frameworks .................................................................................................. 79 
 xiv 
Table 5-1: Success factors of Las Ramblas Boulevard ................................................. 88 
Table 5-2: Case 1 review and best practice identification .............................................. 92 
Table 5-3: Success factors of Bryant Park .................................................................... 97 
Table 5-4: Case 2 review and best practice identification ............................................ 100 
Table 5-5: Success factors of the High Line ................................................................ 104 
Table 5-6: Case 3 review and best practice identification ............................................ 107 
Table 5-7: Success factors of Noriega Street Parklet .................................................. 111 
Table 5-8: Case 4 review and best practice identification ............................................ 113 
Table 5-9: Success factors of Perth Cultural Centre .................................................... 116 
Table 5-10: Case 5 review and best practice identification ............................................ 119 
Table 5-11: Collective case study review and interpretation .......................................... 122 
Table 5-12: Needs and preferences in the Third Place ................................................. 125 
Table 5-13: Importance of the quality of characteristics in Third Places ........................ 126 
Table 5-14: Cross-tabulations results of the expert-survey ............................................ 127 
Table 5-15: Expert-survey review and interpretation ..................................................... 129 
Table 6-1: Interface between the drivers of social sustainability and the 
characteristics of Third Places ................................................................... 134 
Table 6-2: Theory-based framework for enhanced social sustainability through the 
planning of Third Places ............................................................................. 136 
Table 6-3: Considerations for the refining of the framework for the South African 
context ....................................................................................................... 138 
Table 6-4: Refined framework for enhanced social sustainability through the 
planning of Third Places in South Africa ..................................................... 142 
Table 6-5: Key generalisations confirmed and new contributions made by this 
research ..................................................................................................... 144 
 xv 
Table 6-6: Research contribution in line with the respective research objectives......... 146 
Table 7-1: Planning recommendations derived from this research .............................. 148 
Table 7-2: Interface between the design considerations and social sustainability 
drivers ........................................................................................................ 150 
Table 7-3: The South African Third Place focus and approach integrated in the 
refined framework ...................................................................................... 157 
Table 8-1: Refined framework to enhance social sustainability through the planning 
of Third Places ........................................................................................... 163 
Table 8-2: Key generalisations confirmed and new contributions made by this 
research ..................................................................................................... 165 
  
 xvi 
LIST OF FIGURES  
Figure 1-1: Chapter 1 structure ........................................................................................ 1 
Figure 1-2: Research structure ....................................................................................... 10 
Figure 2-1: Chapter 2 structure ...................................................................................... 14 
Figure 2-2: Nested versus overlapping dimensions of Sustainable Development ........... 16 
Figure 2-3: Sustainability as the intersection of the three dimensions of sustainable 
development ................................................................................................ 19 
Figure 2-4: From Garden Cities to Sustainable Development Goals............................... 21 
Figure 2-5: Place attachment ......................................................................................... 29 
Figure 3-1: Chapter 3 structure ...................................................................................... 39 
Figure 3-2: Collaborative place-making process ............................................................. 41 
Figure 3-3: Place-making planning scales ...................................................................... 42 
Figure 3-4: Three purposefully selected planning approaches informing the theory-
based framework ......................................................................................... 55 
Figure 4-1: Chapter 4 structure ...................................................................................... 65 
Figure 5-1: Chapter 5 structure ...................................................................................... 83 
Figure 5-2: Location pin of identified international case studies ...................................... 84 
Figure 5-3: Las Ramblas Boulevard illustrations of Third Place planning ....................... 90 
Figure 5-4: Bryant Park layout ........................................................................................ 94 
Figure 5-5: Bryant Park illustrations of Third Place planning .......................................... 99 
Figure 5-6: Layout of the High Line .............................................................................. 103 
Figure 5-7: The High Line illustration of Third Place planning ....................................... 106 
 Figure 5-8:  Layout of Noriega Street Parklet ............................................................... 110 
 xvii 
Figure 5-9: Noriega Street Parklet visual illustrations of Third Place planning .............. 112 
Figure 5-10: Perth Cultural Centre illustrations of Third Place planning .......................... 118 
Figure 5-11: Profession of survey participants ................................................................ 123 
Figure 5-12: Survey participants’ highest level of planning education ............................. 124 
Figure 7-1: Chapter 7 structure .................................................................................... 147 
Figure 7-2: Questionnaire survey of participant familiarity regarding Third Places ........ 151 
Figure 7-3: Transforming space to place ...................................................................... 153 
Figure 7-4: Hierarchy of plans with focus area ............................................................. 154 
Figure 7-5: SPLUMA context with focus area ............................................................... 155 
 
 
  
 xviii 
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS  
LQC: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . Lighter, quicker, cheaper 
NEMA: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . National Environmental Management Act 
NSDP: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . National Spatial Development Perspective 
NUFD: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . National Urban Development Framework 
NDP: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . National Development Plan 
OECD: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 
PPS: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Project for Public Spaces 
SACPLAN: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . South African Council for Planners  
SDG: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sustainable Development Goal 
SPLUMA: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act 
UNDP: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Nations Development Program 
WCED: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . World Commission on Environment and Development 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 xix 
LIST OF DEFINITIONS  
The following are important definitions of applicable terminology that were used in this research.  
Green spaces  
 
Land in natural or un-built condition that is proximate and easily 
accessible to residences and work places, serving as recreational paths 
for people, and is protective of natural habitat (Atiqul & Shah, 2011:601; 
De Jong, 2014:97). 
Mixed-use 
development  
Mixed-use development locates residential, commercial and industrial 
land-use in close proximity to one another (Designing Buildings Wiki, 
2017). 
Municipality  
 
An administrative entity with a clearly defined territory and population, 
governed by the local authorities or local government (English Oxford 
Living Dictionaries, 2018). 
Open space Undeveloped land (Al-Hagla, 2008:164), in this research also referred 
to as unused space. 
Public places An indoor of outdoor public area to which the public have access (US 
Legal, 2016), in this research also referred to as public spaces. 
Third Places Any space other than our homes (First Place) or work (Second Place), 
manifesting as a component of well-defined public places designed to 
enhance civic identity, quality of life, social capital and community 
revitalisation, whilst improving economic development (Alidoust et al., 
2015:2; Camp, 2015:2; Liu et al., 2007:1; Oldenburg, 1999:16).  
Urban area A city, town or node of activity with a very high population density, 
compared to the surrounding area (The World Bank, 2015). 
Source: Authors own construction based on Al-Hagla (2008:164); Alidoust et al. (2015:2); Atiqul 
and Shah (2011:601); Camp (2015:2); De Jong (2014:97); Designing Buildings Wiki (2017); 
English Oxford Living Dictionaries (2018); Liu et al. (2007:1); Oldenburg (1999:16); The World 
Bank (2015); US Legal (2016)  
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 
Chapter 1 provides the introduction and contextualisation of this research. Figure 1-1 represents 
the structure of Chapter 1. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1-1: Chapter 1 structure   
1.1 Unpacking the title of this research 
This research reflected on social sustainability and the notion of Third Places from a spatial 
planning perspective. 
Problem statement motivating 
this research 
Research question, aim and 
objectives 
Ethical considerations 
 
Research methodology 
Literature statement  
 
Unpacking the title of this research 
Research orientation and point of departure 
 Methodology for 
literature investigation 
Research limitations 
Structure of the research and 
chapter division 
 Methodology for 
empirical investigation 
CHAPTER 1: Introduction 
 2 
The title of this research, “A framework for enhancing social sustainability through the planning 
of Third Places: a South African approach” is unpacked in Table 1-1 as point of departure.  
Table 1-1: Unpacking the title of this research 
Framework The framework provides structure, in this research, as support of the 
theory of the research study (Collins Dictionary, 2018). 
Enhancing Intensify, increase, or further improve the quality, value or extent of 
(English Oxford Living Dictionaries, 2018). 
Social 
sustainability 
The fulfilment of participation, a shared sense of place, social 
interaction, and improved quality of life in terms of all segments of 
the population through human well-being (Biart, 2002:6; Littig & 
Griebler, 2005:72; Sachs, 1999:27). 
Planning The process of constructing strategies, approaches, thoughts and 
concepts (English Oxford Living Dictionaries, 2018). For purposes of 
this research, implying spatial planning. 
Third Places The social surroundings separated from one’s home (First Place) or 
work (Second Place). A public place where people choose to gather 
and interact based on the social stage created (Oldenburg, 1999:41). 
Approach To attempt (Your Dictionary, 2018). For purposes of this research, 
implying the perspective, point of view or outlook. 
Source: Authors own construction based on Biart (2002:6); Collins Dictionary (2018); English 
Oxford Living Dictionaries (2018); Littig and Griebler (2005:72); Oldenburg (1999:41); Sachs 
(1999:27); Your Dictionary (2018) 
1.2 Research orientation and point of departure 
This research reflected on social sustainability, by considering Oldenburg’s (1999:16) Third 
Place concept within the urban context. The notion of Third Places was considered from the 
perspective of three purposefully selected planning approaches, including place-making, lively 
planning and green urbanism. Theoretical sampling (Bagnasco et al., 2014:6), where employed 
to collect data and generate theories (Charmaz, 2014:106; Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to inform a 
collective consideration of the three planning approaches. Theory-based sampling involves 
selecting cases according to the extent to which they represent a particular theoretical 
 3 
construct. Purposive sampling (Palys, 2008:297) was applied as the population of the particular 
theoretical construct is difficult to determine, as in this case referring to limited theoretical 
guidance on the planning of Third Places. 
The collective consideration of the three approaches informed the compilation of a theory-based 
framework for enhanced social sustainability through the planning of Third Places. The theory-
based framework was further refined as part of the empirical investigation, in context of five 
international case studies, to identify best practices to guide the planning of Third Places, and in 
context of an expert-survey, exploring viewpoints of 30 experts relating to the planning of Third 
Places in the local South African context (detailed methodology to be explained in Section 1.5).  
The purpose of this research was to 1) reflect on sustainable development with the emphasis on 
social sustainability and the linkages with the Third Place concept; 2) to develop a theory-based 
framework as point of departure, for the planning of Third Places through a qualitative enquiry 
into three purposefully selected planning approaches; 3) to consider the notion of Third Places 
from international and local perspectives, in line with guiding policy and legislative frameworks; 
and 4) to create a framework, based on the literature and empirical investigation, to enhance 
social sustainability through the planning of Third Places, applicable to the South African 
context. This contributes to the research objectives set out in Section 1.4.1. 
1.3 Problem statement motivating this research  
The concept of “sustainability” has become increasingly influential in the urban planning 
discipline (Levent et al., 2004:2). This is mainly due to an emphasis on the quality of urban life 
(Levent et al., 2004:2) and social well-being within urban areas.  
Sustainability was put forward as a creator and maintainer of the conditions under which 
humans and nature can exist in productive harmony that permits fulfilling the social, 
economic and environmental requirements of present and future generations (Al-Hagla, 
2008:162-163; Wolch et al., 2014:234). As public life is an essential part of the broader social 
structure, the notion of Third Places (Oldenburg, 1999:16) could be considered as a facilitator in 
fuelling public life (Camp, 2015:ii), especially in terms of the direct (economic) and indirect 
(environmental and social) benefits provided by Third Places (as will be explained in Section 
2.7.2).  
The reality in South Africa suggests that little attention is given to public environments (Parker, 
2014; Southworth, 2007:4), due to challenges faced in terms of limited basic services 
(Southworth, 2007:4), housing backlogs, growing populations (Pacione, 2005:127) and budget 
constraints. Therefore, this research revisited the Third Place concept (Oldenburg, 1999:16), in 
 4 
an attempt to create a framework to enhance social sustainability through the panning of Third 
Places in South Africa. Currently, no framework exists within broader spatial planning 
approaches in South Africa to guide the planning of Third Places.  
1.4 Research question 
The main research question of this thesis is articulated as follows: How can the notion of Third 
Places contribute to enhance social sustainability, especially in the South African context?  
1.4.1 Research aim and objectives 
The primary aim of this research was to create a framework for enhancing social sustainability 
through the planning of Third Places in the local South African context.  
The research objectives include to: 
• reflect on sustainable development, with the emphasis on social sustainability and the 
linkages with the Third Place concept; 
• develop a theory-based framework for enhancing social sustainability through a qualitative 
enquiry into three purposefully selected planning approaches relating to the planning of 
Third Places; 
• consider international case studies and identify best practices relating to the planning of 
Third Places, in an attempt to refine the proposed framework in line with guiding policy and 
legislative frameworks;  
• capture the local interpretation of planning for Third Places from a professional perspective 
and to statistically interpret findings to inform the proposed framework; and 
• recommend a framework to enhance social sustainability through the planning of Third 
Places, translating literature and empirical investigation findings to the South African 
context. 
1.5 Research methodology 
1.5.1 Methodology for literature investigation   
A broad theoretical base for understanding the importance of Third Places in modern society 
exists, but relatively few studies have put forward approaches for planning Third Places as part 
of a broader spatial planning approach within urban areas of South Africa, especially from the 
point of departure to enhance social sustainability (Crick, 2011:2; Jeffres et al., 2009:334; Stein, 
2003:4).  
 5 
As part of a qualitative inquiry to inform a theory-based framework for the planning of Third 
Places within the local South African urban context, three purposefully selected planning 
approaches were considered in this research, including the place-making approach, the lively 
planning approach and the green urbanism approach. The three approaches considered in this 
research were selected based on their responses to social problems in the urban context, 
emerging from the policies that the physical environment can positively influence well-being and 
quality of life (De Jong, 2014:84, 127-130; Karacor, 2014:253).  
Theoretical sampling (Bagnasco et al., 2014:6), which is a unique feature of grounded theory 
(Butler et al., 2018:1; Draucker et al., 2007:1137), where employed to collect data and generate 
theories (Charmaz, 2014:106; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Theory-based sampling involves 
selecting cases according to the extent to which they represent a particular theoretical 
construct. Purposive sampling (Palys, 2008:297) was applied as the population of the particular 
theoretical construct is difficult to determine, as in this case referring to limited theoretical 
guidance on the planning of Third Places. 
Upon completion of the qualitative enquiry into the respective planning approaches, a self-
evaluation was applied to evaluate the policy and legislative frameworks applicable to social 
sustainability. Self-evaluation, which is formative (Black & Wiliam, 1998:7-8) in this research, 
comprised of two key elements (Boud & Falchikov, 1989:529). Firstly, the identification of 
criteria (ranking scale) of the evaluation, and secondly the motivation of the ranking allocated. 
The evaluation was based on a three-tier ranking system pertaining to the tier to which 
sustainable development, social sustainability and public place planning is dealt with within 
each respective policy or legislative framework. The results of the evaluation of the policy and 
legislative frameworks contributed in establishing the comparison between the grounded theory 
and the status quo in South Africa regarding the need for Third Place planning to enhance 
social sustainability.  
1.5.2 Methodology for empirical investigation  
The empirical investigation of this research comprised of two phases: 1) a case study review 
aiming to identify international best practices (qualitative research approach), and 2) a 
structured expert-questionnaire (quantitative research approach) that identified the local 
interpretation towards social sustainability and the planning of Third Places. Both phases 
informed the refinement of the proposed framework for the South African context.  
The dual approach employed in the empirical investigation (inclusion of both qualitative and 
quantitative research) enhanced triangulation (Bryman, 2012) of the findings.  
 6 
1.5.2.1 Phase 1: Case study review  
Phase 1, the case study review, reflected on international case studies to identify best practices 
relating to the planning of Third Places. The sample size consisted of five purposefully selected 
international case studies, where each case study was reviewed in terms of the theory-based 
framework for Third Places, compiled in Chapter 3 of the literature section of this research. The 
sample of five case studies was neither a comprehensive sample nor was it representative of 
Third Place planning approaches. It was rather an informative sample, providing insight into the 
application of the notion of Third Places and the planning thereof (Kim & Skinner, 2013:385). 
Although case study research does not allow findings and conclusions to be generalised to all 
other cases (for example those with different contexts), it did allow generalisation to theory and 
the formulation of theoretical propositions, in this case the identification of best practices relating 
to the planning of Third Places. The case study review contributed to the refinement of the 
proposed framework for the local South African context by drawing on best practices related to 
the spatial planning context.  
The case study selection was strategic, as explained in Table 1-2 referring to the case study 
selection approach and strategy. 
Table 1-2: Case study selection approach and strategy 
TYPE OF 
SELECTION 
(APPROACH) 
STRATEGY 
PURPOSE OF 
SELECTION 
CASE 
TYPE 
IDENTIFYING 
GUIDELINES 
Purposefully 
selected 
cases.  
Cases were 
identified 
based on 
expectations 
regarding their 
informational 
content and 
relevancy to 
Third Place 
planning. 
To obtain information on 
how a variable affects 
case process and 
outcome, e.g. five 
international cases which 
vary greatly in variables 
(size, location, scale etc.) 
and have one aspect in 
common: providing a 
Third Place in an urban 
environment. 
International • Project for 
Public Spaces 
(PPS) 
 
• Theory of Ray 
Oldenburg on 
Third Places 
 
 
 7 
The five purposefully selected case studies included Las Ramblas Boulevard in Barcelona, 
Bryant Park in New York City, The High Line in New York City, Noriega Street Parklet in San 
Francisco and Perth Cultural Centre in Perth. Table 1-3 illustrates the inputs, methods, and 
output related to Phase 1. 
Table 1-3: Phase 1 input, methods and output 
 INPUT METHODS OUTPUT 
• Theory-based framework 
compiled in Section 3.5 
for review of each 
international case study. 
• Five purposefully selected 
international case studies 
to be reviewed. 
• Research 
• Investigation 
• Review 
• Identification 
• Illustration  
 
• International best 
practices identified to 
form part of a refined 
framework facilitating the 
planning of Third Places 
for the South African 
context. 
 
Phase 1 was designed to consider each purposefully selected international case study in terms 
of its location, principles and guidelines applicable in the planning of the Third Place, visual 
material, and finally best practices related to the theory-based framework (as will be explained 
in Section 3.5).  
The case study review concluded with a collective review of the five case studies, considering 
the possibilities of translating international best practices to the South African context.  
1.5.2.2 Phase 2: Expert-survey 
Phase 2 of the empirical investigation consisted of a structured expert-survey to capture 1) the 
opinions of experts relating to the planning of Third Places, 2) the importance of planning for 
these places within the South African context and 3) the anticipated social sustainability impact 
that Third Places might provide to the local context.  
Participants were purposefully selected in terms of their specialisation, experience and 
knowledge of Third Place planning, green planning, urban development, public spaces and 
lively places. The participants included Professional Planners as per the South African Council 
for Planners (SACPLAN) criteria (both public and private sector), Candidate Planners 
(SACPLAN criteria) and academic researchers. Based on the advantages regarding cost 
efficiency, practicality, scalability, user anonymity and immediate results, a e-questionnaire was 
sent to 162 candidates and a total of 30 participants (n=30) completed a valid questionnaire. 
The e-questionnaire response rate (n=30) was regarded as sufficient due to the overall research 
 8 
topic and title remaining a fairly new planning approach within the South African context. This 
response rate could conceivably have been increased by implementing strategies including the 
optimization of the survey for different devices, survey repetition or follow up methods and by 
shortening the survey to ensure the most relevant questions are answered and addressed 
through the expert perspectives. 
Table 1-4 illustrates the inputs, methods and output employed in Phase 2 of the empirical 
investigation. 
Table 1-4: Phase 2 input, methods and output 
 INPUT METHODS OUTPUT 
• Expert participants 
completed an 
e-questionnaire based on 
Third Place relevancy and 
literature investigation. 
• Frequency evaluation 
• Cross-tabulation 
• Quantified results of the 
expert perspectives on 
enhancing social 
sustainability through the 
planning of Third Place 
within South Africa. 
The data was captured by the North-West University Statistical Consultation Services in terms 
of frequencies and cross-tabulations (refer to Annexure 2) where Cramer’s V illustrated the 
practical significance between two variables (symbolised by V: large effect or practical 
significant association V ~ 0,5; a medium effect or practical visible significant association V ~ 
0,3; and a small effect or practical non-significant association V ~ 0,1) (Ellis and Steyn, 
2013:52). P-values were reported for the sake of completeness but were not interpreted since a 
convenience sample instead of a random sample was applied. The data was interpreted to 
provide valuable supportive information on the local perspective pertaining to Third Place 
planning.  
1.6 Ethical considerations 
This research conformed to the ethical guidelines of the North-West University’s Unit for 
Environmental Sciences and Management. Phase 2 of the empirical investigation relied on 
informed consent provided by all participants, with specific reference to voluntary participation. 
Participants granted permission to be included in this research by virtue of completion of the e-
questionnaire. Participation were handled confidentially to protect the identity of the participants 
and therefore the results in this research referred to broader categories of participants and does 
not reflect any personal details of the participants. The e-questionnaire (refer to Annexure 1) 
distributed to the purposefully identify participants implied that the researcher had no direct 
 9 
contact with the participants, but only through online portals where participation was voluntary. 
No vulnerable groups were included, and no questions of a personal nature were posed. The 
data was statistically analysed to present a quantitative view of the expert perspectives, thus not 
pertaining to individual viewpoints.   
The method of objectivity was applied to enhance the trustworthiness of the data collection, 
where the researcher remained objective in relation to the participants, ensuring a non-
influential approach. The validity of the interpretation of the data results were further confirmed 
due to propositions generated and tested, matching the current conditions that exist as stated in the 
problem statement of this research.  
1.7 Literature statement 
The literature statement for this research is articulated as follows: The planning of Third Places 
within South Africa could enhance social sustainability. Based on contextualised research, 
forming a theory-based framework and the identification of international best practices and 
expert perspectives, a refined framework was developed to enhance social sustainability 
through the planning of Third Paces within the South African context.  
1.8 Research limitations 
Chapter 2 of this research included literature on sustainable development, a complex concept 
(WCED, 1987:54-55) that is widely debated and applied in different contexts. This research 
acknowledged the socio-political aspect relevant within urban planning and sustainability but 
focused on the consideration of the social dimension of sustainability and how such could be 
enhanced from a spatial planning perspective. This research is thus limited to the social 
dimension of sustainable development and considered three purposefully selected planning 
approaches as point of departure to inform a framework for enhanced social sustainability. 
Supplementary planning approaches were recognised but was not considered in this research 
and could be explored as part of future research emerging from this research. 
1.9 Structure of the research and chapter division 
This research was divided into eight chapters. The structure of this research document is 
illustrated in Figure 1-2. 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1-2: Research structure 
Following the preceding sections, the contents of Chapter 1 is evident.  
Chapter 2 of this research set the literature investigation in motion to enhance social 
sustainability through considering the planning of Third Places. The chapter commenced by 
introducing the notion of sustainable development and the concept of sustainability, where after 
the three dimensions of sustainable development were portrayed. The spatial interpretation of 
sustainable development was further explored within Chapter 2, elaborating on the Sustainable 
Development Goals, highlighting Goal 11 (Sustainable cities and communities). Emphasis was 
subsequently placed on social sustainability. Urban space as host for social sustainability was 
further elaborated on, depicting on the difference found within space and place within urban 
areas. The motivation for place attachment was furthermore presented, confirming that place 
Chapter 2: Considering social sustainability and the notion of Third Places  
Literature investigation 
Chapter 3: The planning of Third Places for enhanced social sustainability  
 Chapter 4: Reflecting on the South African planning reality from a social sustainability 
perspective 
Empirical investigation 
Chapter 5: Empirical Investigation 
Chapter 6: Conclusions 
Chapter 7: Recommendations to enhancing social sustainability through Third Place 
planning 
Chapter 8: Contribution to new knowledge 
Chapter 1: Introduction 
 11 
carries more value than space within urban areas. Finally, the notion of Third Places was 
introduced and elaborated on with reference to the specific characteristics of Third Places and 
the relation to sustainable development.  
Chapter 3 continued with the literature investigation by portraying three purposefully selected 
planning approaches (place-making, lively planning and green urbanism) in facilitating the 
planning of Third Places to enhance social sustainability. Each planning approach towards Third 
Places were put forward by highlighting specific design considerations and elements to 
formulate a theory-based framework based on the three purposefully selected planning 
approaches. 
Chapter 4 concluded the literature investigation by reflecting on the South African planning 
reality, local challenges, and applicable policy and legislative frameworks. After elaborating on 
the current urban realities and challenges faced within South Africa, applicable policy and 
legislative frameworks were portrayed and expanded on, concluding with an evaluation matrix 
on these frameworks. Chapter 4 of this research, forming part of the literature investigation, 
played a vital part in establishing the comparison between the grounded theory and the status 
quo in South Africa concerning the need for Third Place planning to enhance social 
sustainability.  
Chapter 5 consisted of the empirical investigation of this research and contained two phases. 
Phase 1 was put forward as the qualitative approach. This phase included a case study review 
conducted on five purposefully selected international case studies on successful Third Places in 
order to identify best practices and concludes with a collective case study review. Phase 2, the 
quantitative approach, included a survey which portrayed expert opinions on the planning of 
Third Places to enhance social sustainability specifically within the local South African context.  
Chapter 6 of this research consisted of the conclusion. The concluding remarks formulated 
within Chapter 6 were based on the research objectives of the main research question put 
forward in Section 1.4 of Chapter 1. Integrating the literature and empirical investigation put 
forward, a refined framework for enhanced social sustainability through the planning of Third 
Place in the local South African context was proposed. Chapter 6 concluded with the key 
generalisations confirmed and new contributions made within this research. 
In Chapter 7 planning recommendations were proposed for the enhancement of social 
sustainability through the planning of Third Places for the local South African context. 
Opportunities for future research were also identified.  
 12 
Chapter 8 reflected on the contribution made towards new knowledge, highlighting the 
proposed framework compiled to enhance social sustainability through the planning of Third 
Places in the local South African context.   
 13 
CHAPTER 2: CONSIDERING SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY AND THE 
NOTION OF THIRD PLACES 
2.1 Introduction 
As urbanisation and the functional changing of cities continue to increase, realities concerning 
sustainable development also rise (Phuttharak & Dhiravisit, 2014:70; Reddy & Thomson, 
2015:6). Spatial planning is regarded as the management of change, a political process by 
which a balance is sought between public and private interests, to resolve conflicting demands 
on space. With constantly changing societal needs (Barendse et al., 2007:3), along with 
population growth and increasing urbanisation pressures, open public spaces are constantly 
competing against other land-uses and often these open public spaces are sacrificed to 
accommodate the increasing urban pressures. Societies and cities call for an approach to 
reclaim public space for public use, to provide opportunities for people to meet and interact, and 
to develop a sense of belonging to a place. Social sustainability is becoming a crucial 
consideration within the urban context (Woodcraft et al., 2011:9), seeking balance between 
economic developments, environmental challenges and the demands and preferences of 
modern societies. The question, of how to create the ideal public place (Lynch, 1960), where 
public space is reclaimed for public use, remains challenging. This research revisited the Third 
Place concept (Oldenburg, 1999:16) and reflected on sustainable development with the 
emphasis on social sustainability and the interface with the Third Places concept. 
Chapter 2 of this research considered social sustainability as a point of departure in the 
discourse on the planning of sustainable cities and communities, as accentuated in Sustainable 
Development Goal 11 (United Nations, 2017). The interface between social sustainability and 
the notion of Third Places were accordingly discussed, referring to the direct (economic) and 
indirect (social and environmental) benefits that such spaces could provide, as well as its 
contribution towards broader sustainable development objectives. Figure 2-1 outlines the 
structure of Chapter 2.  
 
 
 
 
 
 14 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2-1: Chapter 2 structure 
2.2 The notion of sustainable development 
The concept ”sustainable development”, originally coined by the International Union for 
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources in their World Conservation Strategy of 1980, 
was redefined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising 
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Al-Hagla, 2008:163; Harris, 2003:1; 
Kates et al., 2005:9-10; WCED, 1987:54). The integration of the drive for socioeconomic 
development and the need to limit its harmful impacts on the physical environment (WCED, 
1987:48-57) led to this redefinition. The concept and meaning of sustainable development 
were expanded on and developed into a more complex concept, implying that sustainable 
development does imply limits, not absolute limits but limitations imposed by the present state of 
technology and social organization on environmental resources and by the ability of the 
biosphere to absorb the effects of human activities. However, technology and social 
CHAPTER 2: Considering social sustainability and the notion of 
Third Places 
Emphasising social 
sustainability 
Urban space as host for 
social sustainability 
The notion of sustainable development Dimensions of sustainable development 
The spatial interpretation of sustainable development 
Revisiting the notion of Third Places 
Conclusion 
 15 
organization can be both managed and improved to make way for a new era of economic 
growth.  
Sustainable development is not a fixed state of harmony but rather a process of change in 
which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological 
development, and institutional change are made consistent with future as well as present needs 
(WCED, 1987:54-55).  
Sustainable development is the pathway to sustainability (Feil & Schreiber, 2017:667-668; 
Giddings et al., 2002:188). Coined in forestry, sustainability implies never harvesting more 
than what the forest yields in new growth (Wiersum, 1995:321-329), thereby maintaining 
well-being over a long, perhaps even indefinite, period of time (Kuhlman & Farrington, 
2010:3441). Simon and Bird (2008:4) furthermore refer to sustainability, in the general sense, 
as the ability to eternally maintain a given process or desired state. As a result, sustainability 
is found on the fundamental principle of “everything that we need for our survival and well-
being depends, either directly or indirectly, on our natural environment” (United States 
Environmental Protection Agency, 2012). “Sustainability thus creates and maintains the 
conditions under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony that permits 
fulfilling the social, economic, environmental and other requirements of present and future 
generations” (Al-Hagla, 2008:162-163; Wolch et al., 2014:234). To achieve sustainable 
development, the needs of future generations depend on how well the social, economic and 
environmental dimensions of sustainable development are balanced in decision-making today.   
2.3 Dimensions of sustainable development  
Sustainable development comprises of three widely recognised dimensions which include 
environmental, social and economic objectives (Mubarak, 2016:15).  
According to theory, sustainability will be achieved (European Union, 2010:48; Palacky et al., 
2015:1) when the three dimensions (social, environmental and economic) are balanced and in 
equal harmony (Al-Hagla, 2008:162-163; Cilliers, 2010:9; Cowley, 2015:5; Harris, 2003:1; 
Schilling, 2010:22; Wolch et al., 2014:234). Such balance is either an overlapping or nested 
illustration (Thatcher, 2014:749-750), as illustrated in Figure 2-2, capturing the overlapping 
model versus the nested model in terms of the dimensions of sustainable development. The 
overlapping equal circles model acknowledges the intersection of economic, environmental and 
social sustainability factors (Lozano, 2008:1841; Thatcher, 2014:750-751). The size of each 
circle is often resized, depending on an individual’s approach thereto. This illustrates that one 
factor is leading in terms of another (Moir & Carter, 2012:1480; Thatcher, 2014:749-750). The 
 16 
nested circle model reflects the co-dependent reality of human society being a wholly-owned 
subsidiary of the environment (Thatcher, 2014:750). It is important to understand that the 
economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development are not 
independent of one another. However, the interlinkages between these three dimensions and 
their specific concepts are where the focus should be placed.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2-2: Nested versus overlapping dimensions of Sustainable Development 
Source:  Thatcher (2014:749-250) and Willard (2010) 
Each of the three dimensions are considered accordingly to contextualise the notion of 
sustainability within the theme of this research.  
2.3.1 Social dimension of sustainability 
History has shown that the long-term social needs of communities have often been deserted 
(Colantonio, 2009:865; Woodcraft et al., 2011:11; Vallance, 2011:342), with the significance of 
social sustainability only receiving precedence after the turn of the millennium. This could be 
due to social sustainability being harder to quantify than that of economic growth or 
environmental impact, resulting in shared themes associated with social sustainability rather 
than one overarching definition (Vifell & Soneryd, 2012:23).  
Social sustainability is directly related to the leisure and recreational aspect of a place and 
should achieve and provide opportunity, equity and participation, as evident in an attempt to 
define social sustainability by Colantonio (2009:872) as: “Concerning how individuals, 
communities and societies live with each other and set out to achieve the objectives of 
Economic 
Society  
Environment  
Nested circles 
Economic Society  
Environment  
Overlapping equal circles 
 17 
development models which they have chosen for themselves, also taking into account the 
physical boundaries of their places and planet earth as a whole.  At a more operational level, 
social sustainability stems from actions in key thematic areas, encompassing the social realm of 
individuals and societies, which ranges from capacity building and skills development to 
environmental and spatial inequalities. In this sense social sustainability blends traditional social 
policy areas and principles, such as equity and health, with emerging issues concerning 
participation, needs, social capital, the economy, the environment, and more recently, with the 
notions of happiness, wellbeing and quality of life”.  
Five facets to be addressed for a community to be socially sustainable includes, but are not 
limited to, participation, community stability, pride and sense of place, and safety and security. 
All of these factors influence social well-being (Dempsey et al., 2011:293-294). A sense of 
security is furthermore provided, fostering social interaction, child development, human health 
(physical, mental and psychological) and improving social equality and stability through quality 
living space and urban liveability (Alidoust et al., 2015:2; Atiqul & Shah, 2011:602; Oldenburg & 
Brissett, 1982:273; Camp, 2015:18; Commissioner for Children and Young People, 2011:4; 
Hickman, 2013:25; Jeffres et al., 2009:336; McAllister, 2008:48; Oldenburg, 1999:6-10; 
Rudofsky, 1969:16). Refer to Section 2.5 of Chapter 2 where social sustainability was 
emphasised and discussed in depth. 
2.3.2 Economic dimension of sustainability  
The economic dimension of sustainable development is directly related to economic and 
financial gain. When referring to the economic sustainability in planning practice, it is meeting 
the urban service needs of the general public (Basiago, 1999:151). A community is regarded as 
economically sustainable when there are adequate job and livelihood opportunities, with 
economic growth and an increase in prosperity (Reddy & Thomson, 2015:8). This leads to 
economic security. As stated by Basiago (1999:150) “The ‘sustainability’ that ‘economic 
sustainability’ seeks is the ‘sustainability’ of the economic system itself”. Basiago (1999:148) 
further defines economic sustainability as “the potential to reach qualitatively a new level of 
socioeconomic, demographic and technological output which in the long run reinforces the 
foundations of the urban system”.  
The economic growth of recent decades has come at the expense of the environment, the 
extent of environmental damage has reached the point where it threatens the progress made in 
terms of social indicators (The World Bank, 2012:2). It is for this reason that rapid economic 
growth is a factor hindering sustainability (The World Bank, 2012:5). It is proposed that 
economic growth should be both socially inclusive and ensure that the earth’s natural resources 
 18 
are able to adequately provide for future development. The sustainability of economic growth is 
enhanced when there is efficient, clean, resilient and inclusive use of natural resources (The 
World Bank, 2012:5).  
2.3.3 Environmental dimension of sustainability 
Environmental sustainability originated due to social concerns (Goodland & Daly, 1996:1003), 
as societies and economies could not function without a sustainably productive environment 
(Morelli, 2011:3). This dimension of sustainability seeks to improve social sustainability and 
human welfare through the protection of natural resources used for human needs (Goodland & 
Daly, 1996:1003; Reddy & Thomson, 2015:6). Lexicon (2018) defines environmental 
sustainability as “a state in which the demands placed on the environment can be met without 
reducing its capacity to allow all people to live well, now and in the future”.  
Environmental sustainability suggests a process which allows society to exist within the limits of 
the natural environment, as it plays a key role in enhancing biodiversity and ensuring a healthy 
environment for people. Accordingly, Basiago (1999:148) attempts to relate environmental 
sustainability to that of sustainable community development by advocating for the pursuit of an 
urban form which synthesises land development and nature preservation. In order to establish 
environmental sustainability, communities should start to live within the boundaries of the 
environment, as a provider of natural resources limiting waste. Literature refers to environmental 
benefits of reduced air, noise and water pollution (Atiqul & Shah, 2011:602; Harris, 2003:1; 
Hickman, 2013:2; Mensah, 2014:1; Ranjha, 2016:1). Ecological diversity, biodiversity and 
ecosystem conservation are also enhanced and restored. This results in an increase in wildlife 
habitat, protects native plant gene pools and halts invasion of non-native species, while 
mitigating the situation of heat island effects. 
Sustainability thus lies in the fine balance between the three dimensions and the overlapping 
objectives of social responsibility, environmental stewardship and protection of resources 
(Ocampo & Clark, 2015:43) as illustrated in Figure 2-3. 
 19 
 
Figure 2-3: Sustainability as the intersection of the three dimensions of sustainable 
development 
Source: Adapted from Rosen and Kishawy (2012:156)  
2.4 The spatial interpretation of sustainable development 
Sustainability as a universal ambition recently became a land-use issue, encapsulated in the 
United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 11, calling for inclusive, safe, resilient and 
sustainable cities and human settlements (United Nations, 2017). However, many milestones 
have marked the advances of sustainable development since 1962, with the concept of 
sustainable development changing as humanity continues to face an overwhelming array of 
challenges (United Nations, 2017:v). The changes and evolution made to establish the 
Sustainable Development Goals (Busco et al., 2017; International Institute for Sustainable 
Development, 2018; United Nations, 2017:v) since the Garden City model (initiated in 1898 by 
Sir Ebenezer Howard) are illustrated in the timeline captured in Figure 2-4, where the key 
events thereof are elaborated on. At the start of 2016, the Sustainable Development Goals went 
into effect and many countries are now fully engaged in the implementation of these goals. 
In 1983 the United Nations General Assembly created the United Nations Commission on 
Environmental and Development (also known as the Brundtland Commission), publishing the 
 20 
Brundtland Report in 1987, which provides one of the most popular definitions of sustainable 
development. During 1997 the Global Reporting Initiative was formed, and by 2000 the world 
leaders agreed to the time bound and measurable United Nations Millennium Development 
Goals to be achieved by 2015. The World Summit held in Johannesburg in 2002 extended on 
the definition of “sustainable development”, whereby the Sustainable Accounting Standards 
Board (SASB) was created to develop and disseminate the Sustainability Accounting Standards 
in 2011. During 2012 one of the first of the Millennium Development Goal targets was achieved, 
in advance of the 2015 deadline. The International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) released 
its framework based on the concept of multi-capitals to support the integration of financial and 
pre-financial data during 2013 and the United Nations General Assembly adopted the 2030 
Agenda for Sustainable Development, accompanied by a list of Sustainable Development 
Goals. Finally, during 2016, the seventeen Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda 
for Sustainable Development came into force. 
 
 
  
 21 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2-4: From Garden Cities to Sustainable Development Goals 
Source:  Author’s own construction based on Busco et al. (2017); International Institute for Sustainable Development (2018)   
1
8
9
8
 
The Garden City model 
initiated by Sir Ebenezer 
Howard, a method of 
urban planning in which 
self-contained communities 
are surrounded by 
"greenbelts" 
 
United Nations General 
Assembly creates the 
United Nations Commission 
on Environment and 
Development, otherwise 
known as the Brundtland 
Commission 
 
1
9
8
3
 
1
9
8
7
 
The United Nations 
Brundtland Report, 
providing one of the most 
popular definitions of 
sustainable development 
 
1
9
9
7
 
The Global Reporting Initiative is 
formed by the United States-
based non-profit organisation 
Ceres (formerly the Coalition for 
Environmental Responsible 
Economies) and Tellus Institute 
with the support of the United 
Nations Environment Programme  
 
2
0
0
0
 
World leaders agree to 
the timebound and 
measurable United 
Nations Millennium 
Development Goals to 
be achieved by 2015 
 
2
0
0
2
 
The World Summit in 
Johannesburg extends the 
definition of “sustainable 
development” to embrace 
not only environmental 
aspects but also social 
inclusion and economic 
development 
 
2
0
1
1
 
2
0
1
2
 
2
0
1
3
 
2
0
1
5
 
2
0
1
6
 
The Sustainable Accounting 
Standards Board (SASB) is 
created to develop and 
disseminate sustainability 
accounting standards 
 
One of the first of the Millennium 
Development Goal targets is 
achieved, in advance of the 2015 
deadline. 
Rio+20: Securing agreement on 
“greening” world economies 
through a range of smart 
measures for clean energy, 
decent jobs and fairer and more 
sustainable use of resources 
 
 
The International Integrated 
Reporting Council (IIRC) 
releases its framework based on 
the concept of multi-capitals to 
support the integration of 
financial and pre-financial data 
 
The United Nations General 
Assembly adopts the 2030 
Agenda for Sustainable 
Development, accompanied by a 
list of Sustainable Development 
Goals, consisting of 17 objectives 
and 169 targets 
 
The seventeen Sustainable 
Development Goals of 
the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable 
Development come into force as 
adopted by world leaders 
in September 2015 
 22 
Officially published under the title “Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable 
Development”, seventeen global goals were set as a framework to improve overall sustainable 
development (United Nations, 2017:3). Leaders from 193 countries shared in their visions for an 
improved future. The ambitious plan of the seventeen Sustainable Development Goals were 
created, with the United Nations Development Program being one of the leading organisations 
working towards achieving the goals by 2030. 
The seventeen Sustainable Development Goals put forward were intended to be universal, 
focussing on priority areas. The vision for these goals were for them to be “action-orientated, 
concise and easy to communicate, limited in number, aspirational, global in nature and 
universally applicable to all countries”. This was envisioned whilst taking different realities and 
challenges, level of development and specific policies and priorities of the different countries 
into account (Osborn et al., 2015:3).  
More than half of the world’s population reside within urban areas, and this increases daily 
(Svetlana, 2013:72). This rapid population growth within cities has led to the booming effect of 
megacities, where cities are forced to expand, creating extreme concentrated poverty and slum 
conditions due to governments struggling to accommodate and provide to the rising population. 
Goal 11 of the Sustainable Development Goals highlighted the importance of making cities and 
human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. As Goal 11 is primarily focused on 
urban planning approaches and the spatial interpretation of sustainability, it was emphasised in 
this research, although the remaining goals are recognised as integral in realising sustainable 
development.  
2.4.1 Planning for sustainable communities 
A sustainable community is defined by Bridger and Luloff (1999:381) as one which “seeks to 
maintain a balance and improve the economic, environmental and social characteristics of an 
area so its members can continue to lead healthy, productive and enjoyable lives there”. A 
sustainable community meets the needs of its residents, enhances and protects its 
environment, and promotes a more humane local society. The development of an ideal 
sustainable community can then be defined along five identified dimensions (Bridger & Luloff, 
1999:383; United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2012), including local economic 
diversity increase, self-reliance, recycling of waste and reduction in energy consumption, 
protection of biodiversity, and stewardship of natural resources and social justice. A sustainable 
community furthermore underwrites objectives reflecting mutual respect in terms of the natural 
environment, as well as human nature (Geis & Kutzmark, 2006:44), and should essentially 
strive to achieve specific characteristics and goals as reflected in Table 2-1. 
 23 
Table 2-1: Main characteristics and goals of a sustainable community  
CHARACTERISTIC GOAL 
Place a high value on 
quality of life 
A sustainable community recognises that communities are first 
and foremost for people, with the primary objective of the planning 
process to improve the quality of life (socially, economically, 
psychologically and spiritually) of its residents. 
Respect for the natural 
environment 
A sustainable community regards nature’s systems and 
components as essential to its well-being and provides access to 
nature through metropolitan parks, open space zones, and urban 
gardens. The sensitive interface between the natural and built 
environment is also understood, where these communities 
develop in a way that will support and complement nature, 
avoiding ecological disasters. 
Infuse technology with 
purpose 
A sustainable community uses appropriate technology, while 
ensuring that technology in the built environment is a means to an 
end, rather than an end unto itself. Emphasising learning and 
understanding how existing and new technology can serve and 
improve communities, sustainable communities set clear and 
measurable goals for what technology should achieve. 
Optimise key resources A sustainable community takes inventory of its human, natural, 
and economic resources, understanding their finite quality. It 
ensures that forests are not overused, people are not 
underemployed, and the places of the built environment are not 
stagnant and empty, while reducing waste and reusing resources 
create conditions in which all these resources can be used to their 
fullest and best potential without harming or diminishing them. 
Maintain scale and 
capacity 
A sustainable community recognises the importance of scale and 
capacity regarding the natural and human environment, ensuring 
that the environment is not overdeveloped, overbuilt, overused or 
overpopulated. It recognises the signs of tension that indicate 
when the environment is overstressed and can adjust its demands 
on the environment to avoid pollution, natural disaster and social 
disintegration. 
Source: Author’s own construction based on Geis and Kutzmark (2006:44); Schlebusch 
(2015:62) 
 24 
Urbanisation and city growth as transformative forces for development are recognised and 
motivates the endorsing of sustainable development goal (Goal 11) to make cities and human 
settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. These elements have a direct impact on 
the social well-being of the residents within urban areas. When cities are safe, resilient and 
inclusive, an element of welcoming, sense of belonging, community cohesion and freedom arise 
within the people who dwell within these cities. From a spatial planning perspective, the 
connections between social sustainability and the opportunities provided by the physical 
environment are becoming more apparent as land-use management is set to guide urban 
growth to provide high-quality living environments. 
2.5 Emphasising social sustainability 
Social sustainability forms an integrative part of sustainable development (cross-reference to 
Section 2.3). Although limited research to guide urban planning approaches towards enhanced 
social sustainability exist, this dimension of sustainable development has become increasingly 
influential in the urban planning context.  
Sachs (1999:16) stated that it is still unclear whether the concept of social sustainability implies 
the social preconditions for sustainable development or the need to sustain specific structures 
and customs in communities and societies. While there exists various social research studies 
and policy documents, these have rarely been integrated into sustainability frameworks. This 
results in the concept of social sustainability often being under-theorised or oversimplified, with 
few attempts in defining social sustainability as a dimension of sustainable development, 
consequently allowing for an unclear relationship between the different dimensions of 
sustainable development (Colantonio, 2009:866). Assefa and Frostell (2007:65) argue that 
social sustainability is concerned with the finality of sustainable development, while economic 
and environmental sustainability has to do with the goals and instruments of achieving 
sustainable development. Hardoy et al. (1992) contribute to this statement by interpreting social 
sustainability purely as the social condition necessary to support environmental sustainability.  
Adding to Assefa and Frostell (2007:65) and Hardoy et al. (1992), a strong definition of social 
sustainability is given within a society when specific arrangements satisfy a specific set of 
human needs. These needs and arrangements should be shaped in a way where reproductive 
capabilities are preserved over a long period of time. Social sustainability rests on the fulfilment 
of participation, a shared sense of place, social interaction, and improved quality of life in terms 
of all segments of the population through human well-being (Biart, 2002:6; Littig & Griebler, 
2005:72; Sachs, 1999:27). Social sustainability within urban areas, forming part of the broader 
sustainable development principle, does however not solely rest on the planning of idyllic public 
 25 
places that provide human and environmental quality and encourage sociability by setting a 
social stage that is safe, integrated and accessible.  
Social sustainability has furthermore been encapsulated in the concepts of social cohesion and 
social capital as two interrelated ideas (Carrasco & Bilal, 2016:127), and although various 
authors have engaged the concepts of social cohesion and social capital, definitions have 
remained ambiguous and questioned (Cloete, 2014:6; Spicker, 2014:95). Social cohesion is 
defined as the extent to which a society is socially just, coherent, united and functional, 
providing positive social relationships within a bonded network and environment that allows its 
members to flourish in solidarity (Cortese et al., 2013:2052; Carrasco & Bilal, 2016:128). 
Referred to as “the glue that holds society together” (Janmaat, 2011:61), or a society that 
“works towards the well-being of all the members, fights exclusion and marginalisation, creates 
a sense of belonging, promotes trust and offers members the opportunity of upward social 
mobility” (OECD, 2011:51). 
Social capital, on the other hand, is defined as a resource produced by participating in social 
networks and civic institutions (Stone & Hughes, 2002:62). It is supported by trust that 
accommodates shared exchanges, mutual support, social networks and collective action to 
achieve communal objectives (Kawachi, 1999:121; Putnam, 2000:21; Matthews & Besemer, 
2015:189; Carrasco & Bilal, 2016:128). Mainly influenced by the work of Pierre Bourdieu (1985), 
James Coleman (1988, 1990) and Robert Putnam (1993, 2000), social capital is referred to as a 
range of resources available to individuals thanks to their participation in social networks 
(Herreros, 2004:6). Two approaches are highlighted within the concept of social capital (Bartkus 
& Davis, 2009:4). Firstly, the functional approach, which describes social capital as the “features 
of social organizations, such as trust, norms and networks that can improve the efficiency of 
society by facilitating coordinating actions”. Secondly, the descriptive approach (Nahapiet & 
Ghoshal, 1998:243), referring to social capital as “the sum of actual and potential resources 
embedded within, available through and derived from the network of relationships possessed by 
individuals or social unit”. It is evident from the literature defining social capital that the concept 
is not an individual endeavour, it is however the sum of efforts by individuals that participate 
together in any form of social network to create or build social capital, resulting in public or 
common good. 
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD 2011:53) draws 
attention to this narrow understanding of social cohesion as social capital, emphasising that it is 
a broad concept that covers several dimensions at once, like a sense of belonging, active 
participation, trust, exclusion and mobility. The difference found between social capital and 
social cohesion (OECD, 2011:53) then agrees with the following definition, where social capital 
 26 
refers to a group of individuals whilst social cohesion includes the entire society: “Social capital 
is an individual’s sacrifices (time, effort, and consumption) made in an effort to co-operate with 
others’, whilst social cohesion on the other hand refers to ‘a characteristic of society which 
depends on the accumulated social capital” (Oxoby, 2009:1136). 
This research defines social sustainability in terms of key elements that are drawn from the 
literature in terms of a sustainable community. Due to social activity being interconnected with 
the physical context in which it transpires, the connections between social sustainability and the 
opportunities provided by the physical environment become apparent. Poor conditions incite 
anti-social behaviour, automatically fuelling a negative impact on social sustainability (Nash & 
Christie, 2003:47). Chan and Lee (2008:245) therefore argues, for a project to be socially 
sustainable, the creation of a harmonious living environment, improving the general quality of 
life and reducing social inequality should be evident. Social sustainability, however, is enhanced 
through social capital, social cohesion, a sense of community, networks and interactional 
platforms (Cloete, 2014:1-2). To enhance social sustainability, a platform should be created for 
community cohesion and social inclusion. This opportunity is provided within the public spaces 
of urban areas. Public space could be regained for public use, enhancing the public dimensions 
of space, understood primarily in terms of formal access by citizens, and the extent to which the 
formal space and behaviour within it are visible to all (Cowley, 2015:7).  
2.6 Urban space as host for social sustainability 
An ongoing subject of the concept, role, definition and value of urban space and place 
resurfaced within academic, political and professional debates (European Union, 2010:48; 
Harrison & Dourish, 1996:3; Lefebvre, 1991:1; PPS, 2015) and has been widely discussed and 
theorised by many researchers spanning disciplinary bounds (see Cresswell, 2004; De Certeau, 
1988; Lefebvre, 1991:1). As portrayed in existing literature and policy documents, the distinction 
between “space” and “place” is rather difficult to establish. The terms “space” and “place” are 
often used interchangeably (Smith, 2000:45) as seen in the following definition of “public space” 
extracted from the 2013 Charter of Public Space, an important reference guide adopted in 2014 
by UN-Habitat, the United Nations Human Settlements Programme: “Public spaces are key 
elements of individual and social well-being, the places of a community’s collective life, 
expressions of the diversity of their common natural and cultural richness and a foundation of 
their identity”. 
Cresswell (2004:8) states “the concept of space is more abstract than that of place. When we 
think of space, we tend to think of the outer space, or the geometric space, areas and volumes”. 
Furthermore, as argued by Lefebvre (1991:1) and Massey (2005:23), space cannot be 
 27 
contemplated as an existential fact, it is rather a social product that is constantly under 
construction. Space can therefore be thought of in a broader definition, and place as portions of 
space containing meaning within. This is due to place largely existing within space (Agnew, 
2011:6; Harrison & Dourish, 1996:3), whereas space accordingly becomes a place due to the 
space acquiring meaning for an individual (Al-Bishawi & Ghadban, 2011:73; Cho et al., 
2011:393; Harrison & Dourish, 1996:3; Thrift, 2003:95; Tuan, 2005:8).  
It can be accepted that a place is generally a space with meaning added to it. This definition 
sets place apart from, although always connected to, space. Space however includes more than 
its physical nature and is constructed by means of the context in which people live, their social, 
political and visual environment (Schofield & Szymanski, 2011:1-11; Strydom, 2014:23). 
Therefore, space as well as the people within urban areas are two related concepts which 
cannot be separated. It is a mutual process where people create space, whilst space 
simultaneously affects them (Al-Bishawi & Ghadban, 2011:73; Parker, 2014; PPS, 2015). 
It can further be argued that space is attended by humans, but never inhabited by them, 
whereas according to Tuan (2005:8), place is understood as being the space experienced by us 
humans. Space being accordingly a movement and place the pause (Madanipour, 1996:23). 
Harrison and Dourish (1996:1) further opinionated that “space is the opportunity and place is the 
understood reality” and as a result people are located in “space”, but act in “place”. This results 
in space being considered less important than place (Sack 1997:16; Saloojee, 2012:17).  
As place is unique and cannot be duplicated within another setting, place is identified as being 
heterogeneous (Strydom, 2014:23). Place consist of allowing a diverse identity, being abstract 
and having a value-laden character. In contrast to place, space tends to be more uniform in 
terms of its existence, thereby constituting space as homogeneous (Strydom, 2014:23). For this 
reason, space is duplicable within another setting, as it consists of a singular identity, being 
value-free. However, it is argued that space and place are incorporated into one another where 
the one can be identified as the other (Harrison & Dourih, 1996:3; Madanipour, 1996:23; Tuan, 
2005:8).  
Space and place continue to be related notions, and often the closeness of their relationship 
means that there is no clear explication of their difference. The distinction between space and 
place remains an important one, due to place consisting of a specific function and form and the 
potential to enhance social sustainability. Place is space with human value or “meaning” added 
to it, and throughout this research the objective remains that all spaces could become places, 
as place is specific, and space is general. The comparisons existing between space and place 
are illustrated in Table 2-2. 
 28 
Table 2-2: Conceptual comparison of space and place 
SPACE PLACE 
Concrete Abstract 
Objective Subjective 
Three-dimensional Four-dimensional 
Homogeneous Heterogeneous 
Opportunity Reality 
Disconnected Connected 
Duplicable Unique 
Value-free Value-laden 
Common Distinctive 
Uniformity, singular identity Diversity, multiple identities 
Infinite Finite 
Conceptual Tangible 
General Specific 
Source: Author’s own construction based on Harrison and Dourish (1996:3); Strydom (2014:23) 
For the purpose of this research and derived from the various definitions of space and place 
(Agnew, 2011:6; Al-Bishawi & Ghadban, 2011:73; Cho et al., 2011:393; Cresswell, 2004:8; 
Harrison & Dourish, 1996:3; Lefebvre, 1991:1: Massey, 2005:23; Thrift, 2003:95; Tuan, 2005:8), 
space within urban areas is accepted as open pockets of land, planned or unplanned for, 
existing within the urban areas of towns and cities. These spaces are not roofed by any 
architectural structure and contribute to the environment in a diminutive way, being devoid of 
meaning and value these spaces have minimum impacts on their users. A place, on the other 
hand, exists within a space when that space is given meaning and purpose.  
Hendri Lefebvre (1991:190) stated “to change life, we must first change space”. Focusing on 
this statement, the aim is for space to be reclaimed for public use. This is where space is 
transformed by applying various tools, approaches and inputs, modifying the space to ultimately 
become a place. Accordingly, a place is only achieved when movement, interaction (with human 
and nature), activities and a contextual meaning (Trancik, 1986:112) are evident within the 
space. Place is different from space, but simultaneously intertwined with it, providing a person-
place-process attachment as illustrated in Figure 2-5. 
 
 29 
 
Figure 2-5: Place attachment 
Source:  Adapted from Scannell and Gifford (2010:2) 
The attachment to place is highly influenced by an individual in accordance with his or her 
personal experiences (Giuliani, 2003:137-170; Low & Altman, 1992). Emphasising the 
emotional bond between person and place, the three-dimensional person-process-place 
framework can be used to plan and encourage the use of public spaces (Scannell & Gifford, 
2010:1).  
Interpreting Figure 2-5 the dimension of “person” refers to individually or collectively determined 
meaning. This personal dimension of the place attachment occurs at both an individual level 
(involving the personal connections one has to a place) and a group level (where attachment is 
comprised of the symbolic meaning of a place shared among users). While the psychological 
process dimension refers to affect, cognitive and behavioural components, the place dimension 
accentuates the spatial level and the prominence of social or physical elements (Scannell & 
Gifford, 2010:2). The place dimension is perhaps the most important dimension of place 
attachment and has been divided into two levels, social and physical place attachment, at a 
home, neighbourhood and city spatial scale. Both the physical and social attachments of the 
place dimension influence the overall bond, the social ties, sense of belonging to the neighbour-
hood and familiarity. Physical attachment, also referred to as rootedness, is predicted by 
ownership (Mazumdar & Mazumdar, 2004:386; Mesch & Manor, 1998:228). 
 30 
The person-process-place relationship as set out in Figure 2-5 aids in understanding the 
attachment of a place and is extended on through introducing Oldenburg’s (1999:16) Third 
Place concept.  
2.7 Revisiting the notion of Third Places 
This research considers the concept of Third Places (Oldenburg, 1999:16), introduced as any 
space other than our homes (First Place) or work (Second Place), manifesting as a component 
of well-defined public places designed to enhance civic identity, quality of life, social capital and 
community revitalisation, whilst improving economic development (Alidoust et al., 2015:2; 
Camp, 2015:2; Liu et al., 2007:1).Third Places are understood as public places on neutral 
ground where individuals and communities wish to gather and interact, outside of the work or 
home realm (Oldenburg, 1999:41). It is those places of regular, voluntary, informal, and happily 
anticipated gatherings of individuals beyond the realms of home and work. Although Third 
Places are unknown and not necessarily permanent places within urban areas, Third Places are 
known for their qualities that support social ability and place attachment. These Third Places 
serve as central hubs for local social interaction and includes a wide range of places (e.g. cafes, 
parks, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, libraries) (Alidoust et al., 2015:2; Harris, 
2003:3; Oldenburg, 1999:7).  
Oldenburg (1999:16) coined the term Third Place to ideally represent public places where 
regular, voluntary gatherings of individuals take place (Camp, 2015:2). Literature concerning 
this concept has taken Oldenburg’s view on Third Places to new heights. Without having to plan 
or prepare for it, Third Places exist spontaneously where movement occurs in a familiar and 
casual environment (Crick, 2011:1; Mehta & Basson, 2010:780). An informal social platform is 
accordingly created, lending a public balance to informal social interaction and experiences 
without requiring it. Within these Third Places the notion of “being public” is overt and the social 
interaction changes from passive (shared experience where no direct interaction is required) to 
active (direct interaction) (Bernhardt & Stoll, 2010:1).  
Although the literature regarding Third Places (Oldenburg & Brissett, 1982:267-271) involves 
different disciplines, Crick (2011:1) argues that despite the consideration of different types of 
Third Places (the virtual, the spectacular, the commercial), conversation (that is social 
interaction) should remain the main activity. Crick’s conceptualisations of Third Places do not fit 
well with that of Oldenburg’s (1999:16). New physical areas, proposed as potential Third Places, 
should display social niceties, people engaged in casual social interaction, people lingering in 
these areas and people enjoying comfortable seating. These aspects all lead to continued use 
 31 
of a place, creating what is known as regularity, a reoccurrence of people within space (Suire et 
al., 2017:1-2). 
2.7.1 Characteristics of Third Places 
Third Places are portrayed as fostering informal social interaction and consists of numerous 
characteristics (Camp, 2015:15; Crick, 2011:3; Hickman 2013:5; Oldenburg, 1999:20-42), where 
space is the resource in creating the Third Place. Introduced to enhance social sustainability, 
the characteristics compiled by Oldenburg (1999:20-42) include neutral ground, as leveller, 
conversation as the main activity, accessibility and accommodation, the regulars, low profiles, 
playful mood and finally home away from home. 
The first characteristic, providing neutral ground, should offer different settings and experiences. 
These Third Places also serve as levellers, where all people are accepted and on level 
standing. As such, this neutral ground characteristic provides the place, and the levelling aspect 
sets the stage for the main activity of conversation. Due to protection from one’s status, people 
can converse, interact and socialise. The requirement of the Third Place’s low profile allows for 
regulars and patrons to set the tone of the place. Although conversation is the main activity in 
Third Places, the tone of conversation the regulars set is one of playfulness. This playful nature 
of the Third Place is important in terms of comfortability, the unmistakable mark of true 
acceptance in a Third Place is not that of being taken seriously, but being included in play 
(Bernhardt & Stoll, 2010:1-2; Camp, 2015:15-17). Convenience and location are connected to 
the component of accessibility and accommodating. Informal gathering places near one’s 
residence ensure interaction, as one is more likely to encounter familiar faces. An open 
invitation to linger is a critical characteristic of a successful Third Place and encourages 
regularity. Finally, the Third Place should act as a home away from home concerning the 
psychological comfort and support provided.   
Oldenburg (1999:22-42) was explicit in laying out the characteristics of a Third Place. These 
characteristics, reflected above, aid in detailing the sustainable development benefits of such 
Third places.  
2.7.2 Third Places in relation to sustainable development 
Although Third Places serve many functions to individuals and surrounding communities 
(Oldenburg, 1999:7-10), they are defined by regularity and being closely knit with social 
sustainability (Camp, 2015:3). A broad theoretical base for understanding the importance of 
such spaces in modern society calls for specialists to reflect on the social impact through 
 32 
emphasising the benefits Third Places offer to communities and surrounding environments 
(Stein, 2003:4).  
 
Camp (2015:18) and Oldenburg and Brissett (1982:273) contribute to establishing the 
importance of Third Places within urban areas by specifically reflecting on the personal benefits 
of these places. They identify benefits such as novelty, providing something new or interesting, 
perspective, providing people with a healthy mindset and spiritual tonic, inferring that people 
have souls that need to be filled with a form of substance offered within these Third Places. 
Camp (2015:18) continues to argue that the personal benefits identified and detailed by 
Oldenburg are vast. The benefits provided by Third Places to community quality of life are also 
reflected on by Jeffres et al. (2009:336). They reflect on the benefits of a perfect social 
experience within Third Places, mainly sociological benefits, and the degree of positive impacts 
it provides to people. Hickman (2013:2) highlights that the provision of Third Places performs a 
key social function within urban areas through providing a “public” social space. Through these 
public social spaces, the symbolic importance and benefits are recognised as being a market of 
the “health” and “vibrancy” of the urban area (Hickman, 2013:23). Third Places are also 
considered as critical components to diversifying and sustaining a strong local economy, while 
fostering and shaping community cohesion and improving overall economic development and 
social capital (Cabras & Mount, 2017:1). 
 
The social benefits of Third Places are thus directly related to the leisure and recreational 
aspect of space itself. Social contact (communication), health and well-being of communities are 
directly influenced. Third Places also contribute towards environmental and economic benefits 
(Harris, 2003:1; Mensah, 2014:1; Palacky et al., 2015:5; Power, 2004:4; Ranjha, 2016:1). For 
this reason, the benefits put forward in Table 2-3 are divided into direct (economic) and indirect 
(social and environmental) benefits.   
 33 
Table 2-3: Direct and indirect benefits of Third Places 
BENEFIT REFERENCE 
INDIRECT: SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY 
Aid in unifying neighbourhoods Jeffres et al. (2009:336); Oldenburg (1999:6-10) 
Bring youth and adults into association with one another (social stage) Oldenburg (1999:6-10) 
Improve neighbourhood relations to encourage community cohesion:  
- Increased both real and perceived security and safety  
- Pedestrian-friendly areas 
Alidoust et al. (2015:2); Camp (2015:18); Oldenburg (1999:6-10) 
Provides for entertainment Camp (2015:18); Oldenburg (1999:6-10)  
Foster social interaction, integration and civic pride through recreation: 
- Forming friendships 
- Important for retired people 
- Tourist attraction 
- Encourage volunteerism 
Alidoust et al. (2015:4); Oldenburg & Brissett (1982:273); Camp 
(2015:18); Hickman (2013:25) 
Child Development 
- Positive impact on development stages, health and well-being 
- Early interaction enhances social skills and improve confidence levels 
- Identifying future abilities and identities 
Commissioner for Children and Young People (2011:4); McAllister 
(2008:48) 
Human health and well-being (physical, mental & psychological) Atiqul & Shah (2011:602); Oldenburg & Brissett (1982:273); Camp 
(2015:19); Hickman (2013:2) 
Improved quality of life: Urban liveability (quality living space) Jeffres et al. (2009:336);  
Beautification: Sense of Community & Sense of Place Jeffres et al. (2009:336); Rudofsky (1969:16) 
Promoted social equality and stability Atiqul & Shah (2011:602); Camp (2015:19) 
 
 34 
INDIRECT: ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY 
Reduced air, noise and water pollution Atiqul & Shah (2011:602) 
Create, enhance and restore ecological diversity, biodiversity and ecosystem 
conservation: 
• Increases wildlife habitat and saves species from extinction 
• Protects native plant gene pools and halts invasion of non-native species 
• Mitigate the occurrence of heat island effect 
Harris (2003:1); Mensah (2014:1); Ranjha (2016:1) 
Contribution to aesthetic value: Substituting grey infrastructure in urban areas Hickman (2013:2) 
 
DIRECT: ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY 
Increased neighbourhood and property value by increasing attractiveness  Atiqul & Shah (2011:602) 
Increased economic vitality Palacky et al. (2015:5); Power (2004:4); Ranjha (2016:1); Cabras 
(2017:1) 
Support local economies (increased business confidence) 
Vibrant green Third Place and pedestrian-friendly street contributes to 
customer satisfaction, enhancing the economic return of a mixed-use 
development  
Palacky et al. (2015:5); Power (2004:4); Ranjha (2016:1); Cabras 
(2017:1) 
Source: Author’s own construction based on Alidoust et al. (2015:2); Atiqul & Shah (2011:602); Oldenburg and Brissett (1982:273); Cabras and 
Mount (2017:1); Camp (2015:18); Commissioner for Children and Young People (2011:4); Harris (2003:1); Hickman (2013:2); Jeffres et al. 
(2009:336); McAllister (2008:48); Mensah (2014:1); Oldenburg (1999:6-10); Palacky et al. (2015:5); Power (2004:4); Ranjha (2016:1); Rudofsky 
(1969:16) 
 35 
Research conducted on the benefits that Third Places provide suggests that Third Places are 
more critical to the well-being and quality of life of developing countries and the development of 
their communities. 
2.8 Conclusion 
Social sustainability was highlighted in Chapter 2 as one of the three dimensions of sustainable 
development (cross-reference to Section 2.3.1). From a spatial planning perspective, an 
interface is evident between social sustainability and the opportunities provided by the physical 
environment to guide urban growth towards high-quality living (social) environments.  
The notion of Third Place planning was revisited in this chapter and introduced as a solution to 
address complex urban problems from a social sustainability perspective. Although a broad 
theoretical base for understanding the importance and benefits (cross-reference to Section 
2.7.2) of Third Places in modern society exists, the interface between Third Places and social 
sustainability has not been quantified. As Third Places conform to the objectives of sustainable 
development (evident from Table 2-3), it could be a valuable planning approach towards 
realising broader sustainability objectives in the spatial planning context. This interface between 
sustainable development and the notion of Third Places is captured in Table 2-4, illustrating the 
drivers of social sustainability in accordance to the characteristics of Third Places. 
 
 
  
 36 
Table 2-4: Interface between the drivers of social sustainability and characteristics of Third Places  
DRIVERS OF SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY CHARACTERISTICS OF THE THIRD PLACE CONCEPT 
Aid in unifying neighbourhoods Neutral ground; The Third Place as leveller; Conversation is the main activity; Accessibility and 
accommodation; The regulars; A low profile; The mood is playful; A home away from home 
Bring youth and adults into association with one another (social stage) Neutral ground; Conversation is the main activity; Accessibility and accommodation; The regulars; A low 
profile; The mood is playful 
Improve neighbourhood relations to encourage community cohesion:  
- Increased both real and perceived security and safety  
- Pedestrian-friendly areas 
Neutral ground; The Third Place as leveller; Accessibility and accommodation; The regulars; A low profile; 
A home away from home 
Provides for entertainment Conversation is the main activity; Accessibility and accommodation; The mood is playful  
Foster social interaction, integration and civic pride through recreation: 
- Forming friendships 
- Important for retired people 
- Tourist attraction 
- Encourage volunteerism 
Neutral ground; Conversation is the main activity; Accessibility and accommodation; The regulars; The 
mood is playful  
Child Development 
- Positive impact on development stages, health and well-being 
- Early interaction enhances social skills and improve confidence levels 
- Identifying future abilities and identities 
Neutral ground; Conversation is the main activity; Accessibility and accommodation; The mood is playful; A 
home away from home 
Human health and well-being (physical, mental & psychological) Neutral ground; The Third Place as leveller; Conversation is the main activity; The mood is playful; A home 
away from home 
Improved quality of life: Urban liveability (quality living space) Neutral ground; Accessibility and accommodation; The mood is playful; A home away from home 
Beautification: Sense of Community & Sense of Place Accessibility and accommodation; The regulars; A home away from home 
Promoted social equality and stability Neutral ground; The Third Place as leveller; A low profile  
 
  
 37 
Chapter 3 will proceed to consider the notion of Third Places from a social sustainability 
perspective but direct the focus towards planning approaches to guide the planning of Third 
Places. As no framework for the planning of Third Places exists, Chapter 3 will accordingly 
employ a qualitative enquiry into purposefully selected planning approaches to create a theory-
based framework for the planning of Third Places, as point of departure.   
  
 38 
CHAPTER 3: THE PLANNING OF THIRD PLACES FOR ENHANCED 
SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY 
3.1 Introduction 
Research pertaining to Third Place planning is limited (Mehta & Basson, 2010:779), especially 
in terms of enhanced social sustainability within the urban fabric. Chapter 3 employed a 
qualitative inquiry into three purposefully selected planning approaches, namely the place-
making approach, the lively planning approach and the green urbanism approach, as part of a 
theory-based sampling approach to create a framework for the planning of Third Places based 
on these existing planning approaches. The three approaches considered in this research were 
selected based on their responses to social problems in the urban context, emerging from the 
policies that the physical environment can positively influence well-being and quality of life (De 
Jong, 2014:84, 127-130; Karacor, 2014:253).  
Theory-based sampling, applied in Chapter 3, involves selecting cases according to the extent 
to which they represent a particular theoretical construct. Purposive sampling (Palys, 2008:297) 
was applied as the population of the particular theoretical construct is difficult to determine, as in 
this case referring to limited theoretical guidance on the planning of Third Places. 
The first planning approach considered, place-making, provides a platform for people to 
transform the locations they inhabit into the places they live in. Considered as both a philosophy 
and a practical process in terms of the transformation of public spaces, the place-making 
approach is centred on the observation of the people to establish their specific needs and 
requirements (Arefi, 1999:187; Cilliers & De Jong, 2013:1; Lepofsky & Fraser, 2003:133). The 
second planning approach considered, lively planning, contributes in transforming space to 
place, adding the lively element, and is characterised by functions of activity and use. To 
identify the liveability of a place, the lively planning approach focuses on the inclusive public 
realm, creating versatile lively places with various activities (Cilliers & de Jong, 2013:2; Lamit et 
al., 2013:3-4). The third planning approach, green urbanism, considers public space planning 
and urban greening catalyst for enhancing social spaces for communities (Manley & Rose, 
2014:2).  
It was recognised that supplementary planning approaches might exist which could also 
contribute to the planning of Third Places. For the purpose of this research, the focus was 
placed on the three purposefully selected planning approaches (place-making, lively planning 
and green urbanism), to aid in developing a theory-based framework based on key 
 39 
consideration and sampling of the three purposefully selected planning approaches. Figure 3-1 
represents the structure of Chapter 3.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3-1: Chapter 3 structure  
Accordingly, each purposefully selected planning approach was explored to sample theory to 
inform the theory-based framework for enhanced social sustainability through the planning of 
Third Places.  
3.2 Planning approach: Place-making 
Growing swiftly across a spectrum of multiple professions (Friedmann, 2010:152), the place-
making approach aims to create places to set a platform to socialise and interact. However, 
cities today and the spaces within them agonise from “placelessness” (Saloojee, 2012:14) and 
could be improved by reclaiming public space for public use.  
Place-making is regarded as a socially constructed process, shaping spaces by including 
different functions within (Cilliers et al., 2012:6; Lanham, 2007:3). The approach is considered 
as a wide concept including various dimensions of development (PPS 2012:10). This is based 
on the premise that quality public places are lively, secure and distinctive, functioning well for 
the people who use them (PPS 2012:10). The place-making approach is therefore both an 
overarching idea and a hands-on tool for improving public spaces within a neighbourhood, city 
or region (Project for Public Spaces & Metropolitan Planning Council, 2008:1). This is when 
CHAPTER 3: The planning of Third Places for enhanced 
social sustainability 
Place-making Lively planning Green urbanism 
Theory-based Framework: Enhancing social sustainability through the planning 
of Third Places 
Conclusion 
 40 
place-making focuses on creating quality places, using cultural values associated with a setting 
and capturing the authentic characteristics of a place (Strydom, 2014:24). Known as a multi-
stakeholder, multi-level and multi-sector approach, place-making necessitates a 
transdisciplinary perspective. Through implementing the place-making approach the structure of 
urban space may not change, but one’s perceptions of it could. This is accomplished by giving 
urban space the perceived character it requires to become a place (Saloojee, 2012:14). 
Place-making is a process and not an outcome. According to Ganis (2015:1) the relationship 
between the complex network of people and their places within urban areas should be 
considered to apply the place-making approach within these areas. According to the Project for 
Public Spaces and Metropolitan Planning Council (2008:1) place-making is how public spaces 
are shaped collectively to maximise shared value and provide for quality public places. It 
involves people and their locality, although the people–place relationship constantly changes 
regarding need and demand within urban areas (Cilliers & de Jong, 2013:1). 
The empowering process of the place-making approach also inspires people to create and 
improve their public places, ultimately strengthening the connection between human and nature 
(Atiqul & Shah, 2011:601; Mpe & Ogra, 2014:593; Prange, 2014). This process consists of 
certain criteria to be followed to ensure a well-developed and designed place with a distinct form 
and function (Town and Country Planning Association, 2012:3). However, the inclusive process 
in which space is transformed into place through the place-making approach is considered as a 
tool for democracy enhancement within society (Arefi, 1999:187; Lepofsky & Fraser, 2003:133), 
motivating the establishment of collaborative partnerships. For this reason, the importance of 
place-making includes the formation of collaborative relationships to provide various 
stakeholder involvements (Strydom, 2014:27). To reclaim public space for public use, public 
non-profit organisations and private sectors are required to be involved in this process over a 
long period of time, and possibly indefinitely. Place-making could then also be portrayed as an 
approach to inspire existing communities to shape and create their public realm, maximising 
shared value (Lepofsky & Fraser, 2003:128; Mpe & Ogra, 2014:589).  
A collaborative place-making process is essential in the quest for planning sustainable 
communities and includes three steps as exemplified in Figure 3-2 below. 
 41 
 
Figure 3-2: Collaborative place-making process 
Source:  Author’s own construction based on Jacobs (1993:10); Mpe and Ogra 
(2014:593); Norberg-Schulz (1976:5-6) 
Place-making sets out to draw people to a public place and to spend time interacting with these 
places (Baltimore City Department of Planning, 2010:22; Mpe & Ogra, 2014:590; Project for 
Public Spaces & Metropolitan City Council, 2008:1). The interaction is encouraged through 
providing safe environments for the people within these places (Mpe & Ogra, 2014:593; PPS, 
2012:10). 
PPS (2015) extends on the place-making approach as both a practical process and a 
philosophy. This is due to the approach growing into an international movement, incorporated 
into planning policies and frameworks to serve the people of a community, providing vital places 
where function is put ahead of form (Project for Public Spaces & Metropolitan Planning Council, 
2008:5). Public places are considered an extension of the community (Cilliers et al., 2012:11) 
and when incorporating the views, needs and opinions of the community, improved 
neighbourhood liveability, regularity and resident engagement could be achieved. It is for this 
reason that the place-making approach facilitates the return of public space to the people 
(Siberberg et al., 2013). 
3.2.1 Place-making planning scales 
Place-making approaches acknowledges the different planning scales and supports an 
integrated planning approach. The place-making approach can thus be implemented on various 
planning scales (Gehl, 2010:10) in order to maximise the opportunities provided in terms of the 
UNDERSTANDING
Understanding the DNA of a place and what makes it special is 
fundamental to successfull implimentation of place-making. 
ENGAGING
Engaging stakeholders and clients encourages 
understanding, creates shared ownership, and allows the 
construction of a collective vision.
CREATING
Creating begins with the visioning process and ends with 
physical interventions. But along the way there are many 
issues to resolve and many actions to coordinate. 
 42 
planning of and provision for public places. Figure 3-3 illustrates the place-making planning 
scales.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3-3: Place-making planning scales 
Source:  Author’s own construction based on Gehl (2010:10); Scottish Government (2011:2) 
3.2.1.1 Urban or city plan scale of place-making 
On an urban or city plan scale, place-making is employed beyond the immediate boundary of 
the urban area. This allows for a larger picture to emerge and connects a wider network relating 
to public places and social interaction. On this scale the development plans along with the 
various master plans should knit the urban area together, forming continuity through place-
making and enhancing the broader social fabric of that urban area (Gehl, 2010:10; The Scottish 
Government, 2011:2). 
3.2.1.2 Neighbourhood or site plan scale of place-making 
The existing layout of the infrastructure on a neighbourhood or site plan scale determines 
specific desired lines. This scale maintains a sense of continuity with the neighbourhood and 
creates a sense of place, enhancing function for users. This avoids ill layout and implementation 
of the applicable planning approach, ensuring easy access to encourage residents, workers and 
tourist to make use of the public places within their neighbourhoods (Friedmann, 2010:162; The 
Scottish Government, 2011:2). 
3.2.1.3 Human or people plan scale of place-making 
The human or people plan scale aims to ensure that interaction between objects and people are 
accommodated. The human scale in any given community depends on what the community 
perceives as this scale, or the scale that is commonly accepted by the people (Friedmann, 
2010:154). The human or people plan scale is therefore the way the city is accessible to the 
Urban or city plan 
scale 
Neighbourhood or 
site plan scale 
Human or people 
plan scale 
 43 
people by foot or the way it is observed through a car window. The focus remains on 
pedestrians (The Scottish Government, 2011:2). 
3.2.2 Planning and design considerations of place-making 
PPS (2014) developed the Place Diagram, which reflects four key attributes of a successful 
place, namely sociability, uses and activities, access and linkages, and comfort and image. 
Each key attribute is represented by many intangible qualities and measurements. These key 
attributes should be developed in harmony with the intangibles for a public place to reach its 
maximum potential, contribute to sustainable development and provide for the needs of the 
community within urban areas (Sohrabi, 2017:2).  
The first key attribute, sociability, is a challenging quality to be achieved within any public place. 
Once users feel a strong sense of place or attachment to their community and the place 
fostering social activities, sociability is obtained, and it becomes an unmistakable feature. The 
strong sense of place or attachment is encouraged through setting a social stage for interaction 
for the different users of a place. Uses & activities, the second key attribute, is based on the 
activities provided within the place. These activities encourage regularity, as they provide a 
reason to be within the place. The third key attribute, access and linkages, is enhanced by its 
connections to its surroundings, both visual and physical. The connections should provide for 
easy access to and through the place, with well-defined interesting edges and convenience to 
public transport. Comfort and image, the final key attribute, rests on the perceptions concerning 
safety, cleanliness and seating options (PPS, 2014).  
Table 3-1 captured these four key attributes, intangible qualities and measurements as 
developed by PPS in 2003. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 44 
Table 3-1: Key attributes, intangibles and measurements developed by PPS 
KEY ATTRIBUTES INTANGIBLES MEASUREMENTS 
 
Sociability 
• Diverse  
• Stewardship 
• Cooperative 
• Neighbourly 
• Pride 
• Friendly 
• Interactive 
• Welcoming 
• Number of women, 
children and elderly  
• Social networks 
• Volunteerism  
• Evening use 
• Street life 
 
Uses and activity 
• Fun 
• Active 
• Vital 
• Special 
• Real 
• Useful 
• Indigenous 
• Celebratory 
• Sustainable 
• Local business ownership 
• Land-use patterns 
• Property values 
• Rent levels 
• Retail sales 
 
Comfort and image 
• Safe  
• Clean  
• Green 
• Walkable 
• Seating 
• Spiritual 
• Charming 
• Attractive 
• Historic 
• Crime statistics 
• Sanitation rating 
• Building conditions 
• Environmental data 
 
Access and linkages 
• Continuity 
• Proximity 
• Connected 
• Readable 
• Walkable 
• Convenient 
• Accessible 
• Traffic data 
• Mode splits 
• Transit usage 
• Pedestrian activity 
• Parking usage patterns 
Source: PPS (2003) 
 45 
The place-making approach is mainly focused on the artistic elements in terms of designing 
cities for people. This includes paying attention to the social and cultural importance of quality 
and inviting public places (PPS, 2015) and aims to provide a variety of activities and objects 
within a single location (Project for Public spaces & Metropolitan Planning Council, 2008:10). 
The Power of 10+ is a concept adopted by PPS (2015) to commence the approach and ensure 
accomplishment in terms of the development thereof at multiple city scales. Attention is shifted 
towards the human experience within public places, where the principle of the Power of 10+ 
strives to provide users within places with a variety (10+) of reasons to be there or (10+) things 
to do. This could include, amongst others, seating areas, elements to observe, objects to touch, 
natural areas to explore and human interaction (PPS, 2015). 
Although place-making is a long-term process of building community ownership in a place, 
short-term, inexpensive and creative transformations can be effective. PPS (2015) consequently 
identified various transforming principles to be incorporated in the strategic approach towards 
transforming space to place and introducing quality public places as captured in Table 3-2. 
Table 3-2: Place-making principle strategies and considerations  
PRINCIPLE STRATEGY  CONSIDERATION 
Look for partners, it cannot be 
done alone 
• Ongoing sustainable support 
The community is the expert  
(public participation) 
 
• Bottom-up approach 
• Diverse perspectives and insights  
• Sense of community 
Forming supports function • Public and private investors for public inputs  
Vision creation 
 
• Maximised potential of space 
• Community sense of pride and inviting atmosphere 
encouraging safety 
The power of observation 
 
• Natural surrounding integration of public space and 
people 
• Public need satisfaction  
Follow a sustainability 
approach 
• Development values 
• Social, economic and environmental sustainability 
Triangulate 
 
• People linkage 
• Element arrangement in public space 
 
 46 
Lighter, quicker, cheaper  
(LQC strategy) 
 
• Short-term improvements and goals 
• Local development strategy 
• Community-created temporary projects 
• Creative energy of public participation  
• Lightweight strategies 
Public streets should become 
public places 
 
• Car-free zones 
• Pedestrian-friendly streets 
• Interpersonal interaction 
• Sense of community 
Squares and parks to become 
multi-use destinations 
 
• Serve as a “safety valve” 
• Multi-use destination provided 
• Common ground with variety activities and attractions 
• Social connection formulation 
Create a place, not only a 
design 
• Physical elements for vital public places 
• Comfortable and inviting elements 
Reinvent community planning 
towards place-making 
 
• Holistic approach within communities 
• Partnerships 
• Community control 
Link a public health agenda to 
a public space agenda 
• Health benefits for the people and the environment 
Create a comprehensive public 
space agenda 
• Comprehensive top-down and bottom-up approach 
Restructure government to 
support place-making 
• Government funding 
• Adjustment on policy and framework support towards 
public spaces 
Money is not the issue • Correlation between cost and benefits provided 
A continual process 
 
• Continual attention 
• Response to the needs, opinions and changes of the 
community 
Source: PPS (2015); Project for Public Spaces and Metropolitan City Council (2008:7-8); 
Schlebusch (2015:63) 
A qualitative enquiry into the design considerations of place-making resulted in a theory-based 
sampling of specific design considerations that could be translated to the planning of Third 
Places. Table 3-3 captures these specific design considerations regarding the place-making 
approach and the motivation for their inclusion in informing the framework for the planning of 
Third Places. 
 47 
The design considerations relate to the four key attributes proposed by PPS and are included 
due to the direct correlation that can be made between the planning of public places and Third 
Places regarding these four key attributes (Sohrabi, 2017:2).  
 48 
Table 3-3: Place-making design considerations and elements  
DESIGN 
CONSIDERATION 
OBJECTIVE DESIGN ELEMENTS THIRD PLACE LINKAGE  
Sociability Social dimension for urban vitality 
fostering social activities. 
• Place attraction through synergy 
• Strong sense of place fostering social activities 
• Welcoming space with diverse uses and users 
• Social dimension and urban vitality 
Successful Third Places provide opportunities for social interaction. Sociability 
aids in the creation of a platform for community cohesion and social inclusion. 
 
Uses and activities Active space enhancing characteristic 
uniqueness for regularity. 
• Characteristic uniqueness  
• Active space – place 
• Connected function 
• Transitions 
• User need diversity 
Purposefully designed activities to be included within the Third Place ensure 
user regularity and encourage active social interaction. 
Access and linkages Internal and external place 
connectedness. 
• Entrance and exit to and from the public space 
• Safety perception 
• Internal and external connectedness of the place 
• Walkable spaces 
• Network linkages and other function proximity 
Effectively designed access to and from the Third Place enhance the number of 
visitors that frequently visit the Third Place due to convenience-encouraged 
regularity. Third Places should be accessible to all. 
Comfort and image Overall character (sense of place) 
including perceptions about safety, 
cleanliness, and seating options.  
• Overall character of the public space 
• Public furniture and facilities availability 
• Safety perceptions 
• Aesthetic values and attractiveness 
• Pedestrian scale  
• Active facades 
• Shared spaces 
Social interaction is encouraged through comfort. The display of social niceties 
enhances a welcoming feeling, fostering a sense of place. 
Source: Authors own construction based on Baltimore City Department of Planning, (2010:22-23); PPS (2014); Project for Public Spaces and Metropolitan Planning Council (2008:10) 
 
  
 49 
3.3 Planning approach: Lively planning  
Lively places are strategic to the quality of life within cities (Gomes & Moretto, 2011:48; 
Schilling, 2010:1), the coming together of various planning approaches and assets to form a 
network impacting the people, their neighbourhoods as well as the urban environment as a 
whole (Gauteng City-Region Observatory, 2013:1). Lively planning is accordingly achieved 
through the restoration of space becoming a lively place (Soholt, 2004:28), based on the needs 
of the public and enhancing the usage of the transformed place (Cilliers et al., 2014:1371).  
The lively planning approach focusses on the inclusive public realm by encouraging alternative 
uses of the place to improve possibilities within the created place. According to Loudier and 
Dubois (2001:1), a lively place can be categorised as a meeting place, a place for debate, 
controversy, discussion, a place that is accessible to all and that one and all can use. Thus, 
defining liveability within public places should be done according to context and is considered 
as a people-led approach. For the purpose of this research it can be accepted that liveability is 
best defined and acknowledged as the sense of one’s experience within a place. A place is thus 
categorised as lively when diverse textures, objects and colour are incorporated within a place, 
where the focus is placed on the public grounds, being inclusive for all and open for a wide 
range of user groups (Hobart City Council, 2011:1).  
Lively places are not only provided for people to walk in or pass through, these places provide a 
public area within urban areas for people to sit, stand, linger and spend their leisure time in 
(Lamit et al., 2013:4). Thus, lively places should be planned with the intension of “intensive” 
use, where the existence of people engaging in a variety of sustained and social activities 
contributes to defining a space as a lively place. Different levels of activities and interactions 
observed through the behaviour of people within these lively places (Carmona, 2003; Lamit et 
al., 2013:3) are involved in defining a lively place. Lively places are then based on social 
contact, social awareness and social cohesion, as people are constantly triggered to participate 
in these places as public life exists within urban areas (Carr et al., 1992; Soholt, 2004:8). 
The provision of Third Places through applying the lively planning approach ought to encourage 
alternative uses within the place. This is driven by public participation methods and approaches. 
The challenge concerning the lively planning approach is to create lively places for people 
whose needs are constantly changing (Cilliers et al., 2012:13) and for a society who is 
becoming more and more dynamic, taking into consideration the needs of the urban 
environment in terms of green planning as well as the needs of the people in terms of function, 
form and activities.  
 50 
Lively planning therefore transforms locations that people inhabit into the places they live in 
(Cilliers & De Jong, 2013:1; Veenhoven & Ehrhardt, 1995:35), resulting in higher levels of public 
satisfaction. Lively planning recognises the need for an integrated approach to address complex 
problems in terms of urban realities (Cilliers et al., 2014:1368). Lively planning could thus 
contribute to the well-being and cultural richness of cities and communities (Parker, 2014), 
enhancing economic, social and environmental value. As people have widespread needs, lively 
planning could be the collective arrangement to fulfil these needs and enhance social 
sustainability.  
Lively planning is also focused on creating versatile, diverse and integrative functions, elements 
and linkages within urban public places. This approach attracts people and activities and adhere 
to the key attributes, strategies and creation components of place-making. With that said, the 
aim of the lively planning approach is to enhance the usage of public places within urban areas, 
creating and designing versatile places that celebrate the uniqueness of a place (Cilliers & De 
Jong, 2013:2).  
3.3.1 Planning and design considerations of Lively planning 
Lively planning focusses on the inclusion of lively elements within a space to enhance the 
regularity. The identified considerations and elements in providing lively places should be linked 
to a marketing dimension, functional dimension, environmental dimension, social dimension, 
visual dimension, movement dimension, compatibility dimension and psychological dimension 
(Baltimore City Department of Planning, 2010:5-23; Cilliers et al., 2015:11; City of Lonetree 
Colorado, 2013:11), as captured in Table 3-4 below. Each dimension focusses on enhancing 
lively elements, functions and linkages to encourage regularity through providing for user 
requirements due to the sense of place and belonging created through each dimension 
considered.  
Regarding the design considerations guiding lively planning, a direct correlation can be made to 
the place-making approach and its principle strategies. A qualitative enquiry into the design 
considerations of lively planning approaches resulted in a theory-based sampling of specific 
design considerations that could be translated to the planning of Third Places. Table 3-4 
captures these specific design considerations and the motivation for including such to inform the 
framework for the planning of Third Places.  
  
 51 
Table 3-4: Lively planning design considerations 
DESIGN 
CONSIDERATION 
OBJECTIVE DESIGN ELEMENTS THIRD PLACE LINKAGE 
Marketing dimension Market research establishing 
community’s need for regularity 
• Quality of space enhancing a unique selling point 
 
Establishing of user need requirement for an attractive and inviting Third Place encouraging 
lingering of users and increased regularity. 
Functional dimension Purpose practicality and 
usefulness 
• Experimental approach 
• Consistency for quality  
• Flexibility for users 
Functionality of the Third Place will encourage user regularity, satisfy user needs and create a 
sense of belonging. 
Environmental 
dimension 
Design relating to the natural 
environment 
• Sustainable practice approach 
• Green initiatives 
Encouraging a balance between human and nature through enhancing and restoring ecological, 
biodiversity and ecosystem conservation and substitute grey infrastructure in urban areas. This will 
ensure human health (physical, emotional and mental).  
Social dimension Social stage for interaction 
opportunities 
• Options creating opportunity for interaction 
• Social cohesion 
Social dimension will encourage a Third Place on neutral ground where individuals and 
communities wish to gather and interact, outside of the work or home realm. This is where users 
choose to spend time. 
Visual dimension Appeal regarding seeing or sight • Colour and texture - surface variety  
• Innovation in design through creativity - public art 
• Scale diversity 
Visually the Third Place should be inviting and represent a sense of place for a personal 
experience. 
Movement 
dimension 
Pedestrian-friendly movement 
flow 
• Utilise shared space through mixed use 
• Enclosure elements through the layout 
• Pedestrian friendly 
• Reinforce linkages 
• Streetscape enhancement 
Movement should focus on pedestrian flow within the Third Place, lending a comfortable public 
balance for active informal social interaction. 
Compatibility 
dimension  
Compact layout design in context • Context consideration, design in context The physical design should encourage a compact design for social interaction and encouragement 
opportunities. 
Psychological 
dimension  
Mental and emotional sense of 
well-being 
• Sense of authenticity 
• Sense of place 
• Well-being 
Within the Third Place the person-process-place concept should be enhanced to encourage a place 
attachment for each user to have a personal experience within the Third Place. 
Source: Author’s own construction based on Baltimore City Department of Planning (2010:5-23); Cilliers et al. (2015:11); City of Lonetree Colorado (2013:11) 
  
 52 
3.4 Planning approach: Green urbanism  
Considered as a relatively new planning approach, green urbanism offers innovative 
approaches to integrate urban spaces that provide sustainable “green” systems (Manley & 
Rose, 2014:2). Green urbanism is put forward as interdisciplinary, requiring a collaborative 
approach in terms of design and implementation. The approach involves a wide range of 
specialists, including planners, biologists, engineers, architects, sociologists, economists and 
environmentalists (Manley & Rose, 2014:3). Nassar (2013:340) refers to green urbanism as a 
conceptual model for zero-emission and zero-waste urban design, consisting of practical 
methods to incorporate a smart and embracing design, incorporating nature within public 
spaces. Wells (2010) further defines green urbanism as “the practice of creating communities 
mutually beneficial to humans and the environment”. This definition implies that green urbanism 
improves the development of social and environmental sustainability. However, green urbanism 
has taken on many shapes and directions, the approach seems as elusive as it is evocative. A 
key element of the elevation of green urbanism, becoming common urbanism, in the built 
environment is the interest and relevant knowledge of green spaces and places.  
Through applying the green urbanism approach, urban nature is incorporated within urban 
areas. This leads to biophilic cities (Beatley & Newman, 2013:3328), referring to cities 
containing abundant nature. Biophilic urban areas strive to foster deep connections and daily 
contact with natural surroundings. As green urbanism does not only consist of large open green 
spaces (parks), nature in cities can be either big or small, and varied in quality. It remains an 
open question as to the mix of different kinds of nature that urbanites need, ideally a diversity of 
integrated nature opportunities. Literature has confirmed that people are happiest, emotionally 
and physically healthiest, and most productive when working and living in close proximity to 
nature (Wolch et al., 2014:235; Zupancic et al., 2015:12). For this reason, nature within urban 
areas is not optional, but essential to living a heathy and meaningful life.  
The integration of green urbanism within urban areas play an essential role in social, economic 
and environmental aspects of sustainable development. This approach also aims to safeguard 
the natural environment for future generations through protecting and enhancing the natural 
environment (Atiqul & Shah, 2011:601; Town and Country Planning Association, 2012:3), and 
adding to the aesthetic value of providing a green city.  
The main focus in this research concerning the green urbanism approach is placed on building 
natural social capital, where nature is incorporated in unexpected paces within urban areas. 
This could provide a direct link between human and nature. The strategic planning of green 
urbanism within urban areas require different design considerations and elements, 
 53 
strengthening the green identity and green value within urban areas and more specifically Third 
Places.  
3.4.1 Planning and design considerations of green urbanism  
To face the challenging issues of sustainability within urban areas today, innovative 
development and employment of green urbanism principles is required (Ranjha, 2016:1). 
Although the characteristics of green urbanism planning are multi-functional (Gauteng City-
Region Observatory, 2013:11-13), urban nature should be planned, implemented, enhanced, 
maintained and protected to achieve maximum potential within urban areas.  
A qualitative enquiry into the design considerations of green urbanism resulted in a theory-
based sampling of specific design considerations that could be translated to the planning of 
Third Places. Table 3-5 captures these specific design considerations and the motivation for 
including such to inform the framework for the planning of Third Places. Specific design 
considerations include diversity of greenery to be incorporated, the notion of sustainability, 
multi-functionality for different user group satisfaction; multi-scale incorporation of green 
urbanism, and finally an adaptive planning and design approach to encourage a smart and 
embracing design (Ahern, 2007:269; Ahern, 2011:341-343; Cilliers & Cilliers, 2016:20; Nassar, 
2013:339-340). 
  
 54 
Table 3-5: Green urbanism design considerations and elements   
DESIGN 
CONSIDERATION 
OBJECTIVE DESIGN ELEMENTS THIRD PLACE LINKAGE 
Diversity Diversity of greenery 
within the Third Place 
• Social and functional diversity 
• Plan within ecological limits of urban 
areas for biodiversity enhancement 
Big or small natural areas varied in quality should be 
incorporated to encourage user diversity within the 
Third Place and opportunity to interact with nature on 
different scales. 
Sustainability Sustainable design for 
current and future use 
• Water efficiency 
• Materials and resources 
• Social aspect 
• Environmental quality 
• Community priority  
Green urbanism within Third Places enhances overall 
sustainable development when a design is 
implemented for current and future use. 
Multi-functional Green usage functionality 
(day and night) 
• Combined services and activities Third Places within integrated green urbanism being 
multi-function for diverse user groups could fulfil a 
personal need for the user, being available as the 
need arises. 
Multi-scale Human and urban scale 
(interconnected systems) 
• Connectivity planning 
• Human and urban scale 
interconnected systems 
Green urbanism integration on different levels 
enhance human and nature interaction. 
Adaptive planning 
and design 
Flexibility planning for 
greenery adaptation 
• Plan for flexibility 
• Experimental design 
The green elements within Third Places should 
encourage a smart and embracing design to 
incorporate nature.  
Source: Author’s own construction based on Ahern (2007:269); Ahern (2011:341-343); Cilliers and Cilliers (2016); Nassar (2013:339-340)  
 55 
3.5 Theory-based framework to inform the planning of Third Places 
A collective consideration of the three purposefully selected planning approaches informed a 
theory-based framework to enhance social sustainability through the planning of Third Places, 
as illustrated in Figure 3-4.  
 
Place-making 
Centred on the observation of the people to establish 
their specific need requirements to enhance social 
well-being. 
Lively planning 
Adding the lively element, characterised by functions 
of activity and use. 
Green urbanism 
Considering public space planning within the notion 
towards urban greening, creating sustainable healthy 
spaces for communities in harmony with nature. 
 
Figure 3-4: Three purposefully selected planning approaches informing the theory-
based framework 
A collective consideration of the three purposefully selected planning approaches are illustrated 
in Table 3-6. The three planning approaches informs the planning of Third Places through the 
design considerations for enhanced social sustainability.  
  
T
h
e
o
ry
-b
a
s
e
d
 fra
m
e
w
o
rk
  
Planning guidelines 
(based on design 
elements) 
 56 
Table 3-6: Collective consideration of the three purposefully selected planning approaches  
Collective consideration of the three purposefully selected planning approaches 
Planning approach design considerations  Planning guidelines  
Third Place planning considerations to enhance 
social sustainability 
Overlapping design considerations 
Place-making 
Lively 
planning 
Green 
urbanism 
Planning approach: Place-making 
Sociability 
Social dimension for urban vitality fostering 
social activities 
 
- place attraction through synergy 
- sense of place  
- welcoming space with diverse uses and users 
 
Creation of a platform for community cohesion and 
social inclusion 
 X X 
Uses and activities 
Active space enhancing characteristic 
uniqueness for regularity 
- connected function 
- transitions 
- user need diversity 
Organising and offering activities to foster active 
social interaction 
  X 
Access and linkages 
Internal and external place connectedness 
- entrance and exit to and from the public space 
- safety perception 
- walkability 
- network linkages and other function proximity 
Enhance the number of visitors that frequently visit 
the Third Place, due to convenience encouraging 
regularity 
 X X 
Comfort and image 
Overall character (sense of place) including 
perceptions about safety, cleanliness, and 
seating options 
- public furniture and facilities availability 
- safety perceptions 
- aesthetic values and attractiveness 
- pedestrian scale  
- active facades 
- shared spaces 
Display of social niceties  X  
The power of 10+ 
Provision of a variety (10+) activities and objects 
within a single location 
- seating, playgrounds to enjoy, art to touch, music to 
hear, food to eat, history to experience, people to meet, 
natural areas to explore, books to read, water features  
 
Focus on the human experience within the Third 
Place  
 X  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 57 
Planning approach: Lively planning 
Marketing dimension 
Market research establishing community need 
for regularity 
 
- quality of space enhancing a unique selling point 
 
Diverse user-need attraction inviting lingering and 
regularity 
   
Functional dimension 
Purpose practicality and usefulness 
- experimental approach 
- consistency for quality  
- flexibility for users 
Contributes to public places where regular, 
voluntary gatherings of individuals occur 
X  X 
Environmental dimension 
Design relating to the natural environment 
- sustainable practice approach 
- green initiatives 
Create, enhance and restore ecological, 
biodiversity and ecosystem conservation and 
substitute grey infrastructure in urban areas 
  X 
Social dimension 
Social stage for interaction opportunities 
- options creating opportunity for interaction 
- social cohesion 
Public place on neutral ground where individuals 
and communities wish to gather and interact, 
outside of the work or home realm  
X   
Visual dimension 
Appeal regarding seeing or sight 
- colour and texture  
- surface variety  
- innovation in design through creativity  
- public art 
- scale diversity 
Representation of a personal experience X   
Movement dimension 
Pedestrian friendly movement flow 
- utilise shared space through mixed-use 
- enclosure elements through the layout 
- reinforce linkages & enhance streetscape 
Lending a comfortable public balance for active 
informal social interaction 
X   
Compatibility dimension 
Compact layout design in context 
- context consideration, design in context Physical design encouraging compact design for 
social interaction encouragement 
  X 
Psychological dimension  
Mental and emotional sense of well-being 
- sense of authenticity 
- sense of place 
Person-process-place concept enhancing place 
attachment  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 58 
Planning approach: Green urbanism 
Diversity 
Diversity of greenery within the Third Place 
 
- social and functional diversity 
- plan within ecological limits for biodiversity 
enhancement 
 
Big or small natural areas varied in quality X   
Sustainability 
Sustainable design for current and future use 
- water efficiency 
- materials and resources 
- social aspect 
- environmental quality 
- community priority  
Creation and maintenance of the conditions under 
which humans and nature can exist in productive 
harmony within urban areas 
X   
Multi-functional 
Green usage functionality (day and night) 
- Combined services and activities Fulfil a need for the people, being available when 
needed 
X X  
Multi-scale 
Human and urban scale (interconnected 
systems) 
- scale connectivity planning Planning on different scales enforcing an integrated 
planning approach and maximising the 
opportunities provided 
X   
Adaptive planning and design 
Flexibility planning for greenery adaptation 
- experimental design Incorporating a smart and embracing design, where 
space embraces nature 
 X  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 59 
Overlapping design considerations of the various planning approaches were identified in the 
collective consideration (cross-reference to Table 3-6). The overlapping was informed by the 
overlying of the three purposefully selected planning approach design considerations and their 
specific planning guidelines. The overlapping design considerations were recoded to inform a 
theory-based framework for the planning of Third Places.  
The recoded design considerations for the theory-based framework based on the integrative 
consideration of the three purposefully selected planning approaches (cross-reference to Table 
3-6) are captured in Table 3-7. 
 
 
 60 
Table 3-7: Recoded design considerations for the theory-based framework 
PLACE-MAKING DESIGN 
CONSIDERATION 
LIVELY PLANNING DESIGN 
CONSIDERATIONS 
GREEN URBANISM DESIGN 
CONSIDERATIONS 
 
RECODED DESIGN 
CONSIDERATIONS TO INFORM THE 
PLANNING OF THIRD PLACES 
• Sociability1 
• Uses and activities2 
• Access and linkages3 
• Comfort and image4 
• The power of 10+2 
• Marketing dimension5 
• Functional dimension4 
• Environmental dimension6 
• Social dimension1 
• Visual dimension4 
• Movement dimension3 
• Compatibility dimension7 
• Psychological dimension8 
• Diversity2 
• Sustainability1 
• Multi-functional2 
• Multi-scale3 
• Adaptive planning and 
design7  
1Social inclusivity  
2Multi-functionality  
3Accessibility  
4Perceptibility  
5Marketability  
6Environmental sensitivity  
7Adaptability  
8Intrinsic connectivity 
 
 
 
 61 
Accordingly, a theory-based framework was compiled based on the collective consideration of 
the three purposefully selected planning approaches and the specific recoded design 
considerations (cross-reference to Table 3-6 and Table 3-7).  
Table 3-8 illustrates the theory-based framework informed by the eight recoded design 
considerations that were identified for enhanced social sustainability though the planning of 
Third Places. 
 
  
 62 
Table 3-8: Theory-based framework 
Theory-based framework 
Planning approach 
design considerations 
Interpretation in terms of Third Place objectives Planning guidelines  
Third Place planning considerations 
to enhance social sustainability 
 
 
Social inclusivity 
Creation of a platform for community cohesion and social 
inclusion by improving the ability and opportunity on which 
individuals and groups take part in society. The fostering of 
social activities on neutral ground.  
- place attraction through synergy 
- sense of place  
- welcoming space with diverse uses and 
users 
- sustainable approach 
- community priority 
 • Creation of a platform for community cohesion and social inclusion 
• Public place on neutral ground where individuals and communities wish to gather 
and interact outside of the work or home realm  
• Creation and maintenance of the conditions under which humans and nature can 
exist in productive harmony within urban areas 
(cross-reference to Section 2.2, Section 2.5 and Section 2.7) 
 
Multi-functionality  
Active space enhancing characteristic uniqueness, through 
providing a variety (10+) of activities and amenities to focus 
on the enhancement of the human experience for each 
individual within the Third Place. 
- user-need diversity 
- social and functional diversity 
- combined services and activities (10+)  
 • Organising and offering activities to foster active social interaction 
• Focus on the human experience within the Third Place  
• Big or small natural areas varied in quality 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7.1, Section 3.2.2 and Section 3.4) 
 
Accessibility  
Internal and external place connectedness encouraging 
convenient pedestrian movement flow.  
- entrance and exit to and from space 
- safety perception 
- walkability 
- utilise shared space through mixed-use 
- reinforce linkages 
 • Enhance the number of visitors that frequently visit the Third Place, due to 
convenience encouraging regularity 
• Planning on different scales enforcing an integrated planning approach and 
maximising the opportunities provided 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7.1 and Section 3.2.1) 
 
Perceptibility 
The display of social niceties to enhance the overall 
character (sense of place) through smart and adaptation 
designs.  
- public furniture and facilities availability 
- aesthetic values and attractiveness 
- flexibility for users 
- scale diversity 
 • Display of social niceties and contributes to public places where regular, voluntary 
gatherings of individuals occur 
• Representation of a personal experience 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7 and Section 2.7.1) 
 
Marketability  
The attractiveness, practicality and usefulness for voluntary 
gatherings to occur through the establishment of user need 
attraction for regularity. 
- quality of space enhancing a unique 
selling point 
 • Diverse user-need attraction inviting lingering and regularity 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7.1) 
 
Environmental 
sensitivity 
Enhancement of a sustainable green design for current and 
future use, relating to natural environmental diversity. 
- sustainable practice approach 
- green initiatives 
• Create, enhance and restore ecological, biodiversity and ecosystem conservation 
and substitute grey infrastructure in urban areas 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7.2, Table 2.4) 
Adaptability  
Compact layout design in context through incorporating 
multi-scale interconnected systems for the Third Place to be 
modified. 
- context consideration, design in context 
- experimental design 
- day- and night usage 
 • Physical design encouraging compact design for social interaction 
encouragement 
• Incorporating a smart and embracing design, where space embraces nature 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7 and Section 3.4) 
 
Intrinsic connectivity  
Mental and emotional sense of well-being based on person-
process-place attachment. 
- sense of authenticity 
- sense of place 
 • Person-process-place concept enhancing place attachment  
(cross-reference to Section 2.6) 
 
  
 63 
The theory-based framework portrayed in Table 3-8 were further applied as part of the empirical 
investigation, in an attempt to refine the framework for enhanced social sustainability through 
the planning of Third Places, based on international and local best practices, and translated to 
conform to the local South African planning context.  
3.6 Conclusion 
Chapter 3 reflected on three purposefully selected planning approaches to inform a theory-
based framework to enhance social sustainability through the planning of Third Places, in line 
with the research aim and objectives determined in Chapter 1.  
Acknowledging that other supplementary planning approaches could also inform the planning of 
Third Places, this research was limited to the social dimension of sustainability, and the three 
approaches considered in this research were selected based on their responses to social 
problems in the urban context, emerging from the policies that the physical environment can 
positively influence well-being and quality of life (De Jong, 2014: 84, 127-130; Karacor, 
2014:253).  
The qualitative enquiry into these three planning approaches resulted in a theory-based 
framework to guide the planning of Third Places, with eight recoded design considerations 
namely social inclusivity, multi-functionality, accessibility, perceptibility, marketability, 
environmental sensitivity, adaptability and intrinsic connectivity.  
In the context of this research, social inclusivity aims to improve the ability and opportunity on 
which individuals and groups take part in society (The World Bank, 2018), and is proposed 
through the fostering of social activities on neutral ground within the Third Place provided. Multi-
functionality within the Third Place contributes to fulfilling several functions or consisting of 
different uses (Cambridge Dictionary, 2018). In the context of this research referring to the 
usage functionality of the place and the human experience, enhancing characteristic 
uniqueness. For convenient pedestrian movement flow, internal and external place 
connectedness is considered and encouraged through accessibility. The design consideration, 
perceptibility is also considered to, referring to the sense of place. Perceptibility thus referrers to 
the Third Place being perceived by the senses or the mind. Regularity is in addition required 
and can be enhanced through the establishment of user need attraction. In this context, 
marketability referrers to the promoting of attractiveness and practicality of the provided Third 
Place. The enhancement of sustainable approaches and a green design is proposed through 
and environmental sensitivity design consideration for the planning of the Third Place. 
Contributing to the design consideration of accessibility, adaptability is in addition proposed. 
 64 
Adaptability, in this context, referrers to the layout and interconnected systems for possible 
modifications, should it be required within the Third Place. Finally, for the Third Place to 
enhance a sense of well-being, with reference to the person-process-place attachment (cross-
reference to Section 2.6) intrinsic connectivity is proposed. 
The theory-based framework compiled in Chapter 3 (Table 3-8) was accordingly considered 
against the South African reality (Chapter 4) and refined in the empirical investigation through a) 
an informative case study review and b) local expert analysis. 
  
 65 
CHAPTER 4: REFLECTING ON THE SOUTH AFRICAN PLANNING 
REALITY FROM A SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY PERSPECTIVE 
4.1 Introduction 
Chapter 4 of this research elaborates on the current planning reality within South Africa relating 
to broader sustainability approaches. The realities and challenges faced within South Africa 
were elaborated on in this chapter through capturing the status quo, and the policy and 
legislative frameworks applicable to sustainable development and public space planning in 
South Africa. Chapter 4 also included an evaluation matrix of the applicable South African policy 
and legislative frameworks, in an attempt to identify opportunities for translating the planning of 
Third Places to local context. Figure 4-1 illustrates the chapter structure. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4-1: Chapter 4 structure  
4.2 Local urban realities and challenges 
The concept of Third Places is conceived in different ways worldwide. Within South Africa, 
reference is mostly made to the term “public places”. The term “Third Place” (which includes 
green spaces and public places or spaces) remains fairly new. Within planning policy and 
legislative frameworks, occasional reference is made to the inclusion or development of public 
places or spaces when raising the subject of community upliftment, improving quality of life, 
building sustainable communities, community facilities or public infrastructure (Constitution of 
CHAPTER 4: Reflecting on the South Africa planning reality 
from a social sustainability perspective 
Conclusion 
Urban realities and challenges specific to South Africa 
Identified policy and legislative 
framework review 
Evaluation matrix 
 66 
the Republic of South Africa, 1996; Municipal Systems Act, 2000; National Development Plan, 
2030; National Environmental Management Act, 1998; National Strategy for Sustainable 
Development and Action Plan 2011-2014; National Urban Development Framework; 2009; 
Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, 2013). It is for this reason that reference will 
be made to public places concerning the planning of Third Places within Chapter 4. 
A challenge that South African cities are facing include fragmentation, mostly caused by 
apartheid policies that were implemented from 1948 to 1990 (Badenhorst et al., 2005:4; Jürgens 
et al., 2003:35; Kay, 2007:1; Pieterse, 2006:286; Pieterse, 2007:1; Ross, 1999:114; Smith, 
2003:2), as well as frail urban layout development, causing floating buildings which are 
fragmented from one another. Fragmentation is an ongoing concern and can be defined as 
when “development occurs in relatively discrete pockets or cells” (Pieterse, 2007:5). It is then 
when the city no longer functions as a synergetic system (Bénit-Gbaffou, 2008:1934), largely 
impacting sustainable urban development. This poses great challenges for the discipline of town 
planning within the urban areas of South African cities (Parker, 2014). According to Southworth 
(2007:1), fragmentation causes the city to become unsustainable, mainly because it is not 
integrated, where unused urban spaces occur throughout the urban fabric. These unused 
spaces create opportunity for redesign by introducing the notion of Third Place planning or 
public place planning. Numerous authors stress the importance of integrated cities to ultimately 
address the increasing levels of fragmentation (Barnett, 1995:1; Häussermann, 2006:9; Hidding 
& Teunissen, 2002:299; Marcinczak & Sagan, 2011:1789; Wei & Zhang, 2012; Yaping & 
Zongyi, 2011:417).  
However, South Africa is rapidly changing from a segregated to an integrated society and rapid 
urbanisation has encouraged unified living conditions. In South Africa, as in numerous 
countries, obtaining democracy differs from developing a civil society, involving exposing 
residents to different development initiatives and incentives, developing the potential of people 
and their capacity to developing, maintaining and sustaining socio political, socio-economic, 
socio-cultural and socio-educational progress (Louw & Bredenkamp, 1999). South Africa is also 
facing decentralisation and suburbanisation, which contributes to the negative effects in terms 
of city form and structure (Bromley et al., 2005:2407). Decentralisation and suburbanisation 
refer to when functions that are unique to the city centre begin to follow their users to the outer 
areas or periphery of the city and into neighbourhoods. This creates urban sprawl and results in 
abandoned city centres. The occurring change in the metropolitan structure leads to urban 
decay (De Villiers, 1997:31), resulting in a decrease in economic value and an increase of 
unused urban spaces within city centres. 
 67 
Due to the focus of this research being placed on social sustainability within urban areas, 
challenges specific to social sustainability within South Africa cannot go unnoticed and should 
be emphasised. Past challenges in terms of social sustainability within South Africa remain and 
some have even intensified (Goebel, 2007:292; Ross et al., 2010:292), mainly due to apartheid 
histories having numerous impacts such as general inequality (urban and rural, formal and 
informal) (Wilson, 2011:3; Pecenka & Kundhlande, 2013:737; Stellenberg, 2015:2) and gender 
inequality (Mathews et al., 2012:84; Jonck et al., 2015:141). 
However, the challenges faced in terms of social sustainability go far beyond inequality, where 
sustainability in terms of the broader social context are fuelled by high poverty, low levels of 
education and high unemployment levels (Ataguba & Alaba, 2012:758; Dawson, 2014:864; 
Kotze & Prevost, 2015:143), violent crime due to extensive poverty (Pecenka & Kundhlande, 
2013:737; Klaaren, 2015:552), substance abuse (Peltzer et al., 2010:2237; Schneider et al., 
2014:1; Sorsdahl et al., 2014:122) and HIV/Aids (Schatz et al., 2011:599; Schneider et al., 
2014:1; Mavhandu-Mudzusi & Sandy, 2015:196; Meade et al., 2015:80). The main challenge in 
terms of inequality, is identified within South Africa when observing the vast difference between 
urban and rural areas, formal and informal settings, the divide between low-income and high-
income levels, living standard measurement percentages and basic service provision (Freund, 
2010:287; Goebel, 2007:294; Hopkins, 2007:5; Jürgens et al., 2013:256; Lorraine & Molapo, 
2014:905; Poulsen & Silverman, 2005:29; Tomlinson, 2006:87). 
In many cases the planning of public places within South Africa are regarded as unaffordable to 
provide and maintain for, where it cannot compete for popular or political support in the face of 
demands for basic services (Prange, 2014; Southworth, 2007:4). This is due to South Africa’s 
continuing growing population and the results of urbanisation. Facing the reality of extreme 
increases in urbanisation, referring to the growing number of people in urban areas (Pacione, 
2005:127), great pressure on urban spaces and public places are experienced (Prange, 2014). 
This results in neglected and abandoned public places which offer minimal sense of place 
(Southworth, 2007:4). 
Within South Africa the biggest stumbling block in the provision and development public places 
are the concerning financial aspect thereof. According to Parker (2014), there is an obvious 
need for public place planning within South African cities, but the financial provision is usually 
not prioritised within budgets. This is due to more pressing concerns from a governmental point 
of view, such as poverty and the provision of basic services. A major barrier to the 
implementation of innovations that promotes public place planning in South Africa is the lack of 
training for government and private developers on the need (and benefits that can be gained) 
regarding public places within urban areas of South African. 
 68 
In an attempt to address city spatial patterns and inequality challenges within South Africa 
through constant planning policy and legislative frameworks, little has been achieved in 
improving current situations relating to constant pressure placed on urban spaces and public 
places (Watson, 2009:160; Tissington, 2011:6; Du Plessis, 2014:85; Turok & Borel-Saladin, 
2014:688).  
A need exists for quality of life and sustainability for the people within urban areas, mainly due 
to society becoming more and more concerned about the quality of urban life (Levent et al., 
2004:2) and social well-being. However, the design of a place, its uses and functions resonate 
differently with diverse groups and must therefore be addressed differently in their designs (Day, 
2003:90). Unfortunately, the major benefits that Third Places in urban areas provide in terms of 
human and nature, are overlooked (Prange, 2014).  
4.3 Local planning policy and legislative frameworks 
Integrated development planning within South Africa is increasing in terms of application and 
success (Binns & Nel, 2002:931; Cilliers, 2010:51). As a result, there are now numerous 
planning policy and legislative frameworks suggesting sustainable development and the 
integration between spheres and sectors.  
For purposes of this research, seven national policy and legislative frameworks were identified 
and reviewed. These identified policies and legislative frameworks serve as a point of departure 
to determine the scope to include Third Places as part of mainstream planning approaches in 
South Africa, to enhance broader social sustainability objectives. The identified policy and 
legislative frameworks were considered in terms of their reference to sustainability, social 
sustainability and opportunities to support the planning of Third Places.  
It is further recognised that international policies and frameworks, such as Agenda 21, 
proposing objectives in terms of a global action plan for sustainable development into the 21st 
century, the New Urban Agenda (NUA), which is an action-oriented document that sets the 
global standards of achievement in sustainable urban development, and International 
Guidelines on Urban and Territorial Planning (IG-UTP) in terms of the UN-Habitat provide 
guidelines with a global reference framework that promotes more compact, socially inclusive, 
better integrated and connected cities and territories that foster sustainable urban development 
and are resilient to climate change. These international policies and frameworks assisted in the 
forming of national planning policy and legislative frameworks. 
The policy and legislative frameworks considered in this research are illustrated in Table 4-1. 
 
 69 
Table 4-1: Identified policy and legislative frameworks for review 
IDENTIFIED POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORKS 
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996) 
National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (NEMA) 
Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 (MSA) 
National Urban Development Framework (2009) (NUDF) 
Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act 16 of 2013 (SPLUMA) 
National Strategy for Sustainable Development and Action Plan 2011-2014 (NSSD) 
National Development Plan 2030 (NDP) 
Each identified policy and legislative framework were discussed and elaborated on as a point of 
departure to determine the scope to include Third Places as part of mainstream planning 
approaches in South Africa.  
4.3.1 Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996) 
The Constitution is the single most important piece of legislation within South Africa. its broad 
purpose is to: 
a) “Heal the divisions of the past and establish a society based on democratic values, social 
justice and fundamental human rights; 
b) Lay the foundations for a democratic and open society in which government is based on the 
will of the people and in which every citizen is equally protected by law; 
c) Improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of each person; and  
d) Build a united and democratic South Africa able to take its rightful place as a sovereign 
state in the family of nations”. 
Furthermore, all laws are subject to the Constitution, and no law may be in any conflict 
whatsoever with it or its principles (Van Wyk, 1999:99). All development functions in South 
Africa therefore have to be executed in accordance with it and, according to Scheepers 
(2000:36), the 1996 Constitution is the first of its kind in that it is development-orientated and 
more specifically sustainable development orientated, as stated in Section 24(b)(iiii): everyone 
has the right to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future 
generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that secure ecologically 
 70 
sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and 
social development. 
The democratic values of human dignity, equality and freedom are also established in the 
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996), where the state must respect, 
protect, promote and fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights. 
Furthermore, the Constitution confirms that everyone has the right to an environment that is not 
harmful to their health or well-being, through reasonable legislative and other measures that 
prevent pollution and ecological degradation, promote conservation, secure ecologically 
sustainable development and use of natural resources, while promoting justifiable economic 
and social development. 
Within the Constitution no specific reference is made to public place planning or social 
sustainability. The Constitution does however refer to sustainable development in terms of the 
environment in section 24 and 152 of the legislation.  
24. Environment. -Everyone has the right- 
(a) to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and 
(b) to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, 
through reasonable legislative and other measures that- 
(i) prevent pollution and ecological degradation; 
(ii) promote conservation; and 
(iii) secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while 
promoting justifiable economic and social development. 
152. Objects of local government. -The objects of local government are- 
(d) to promote a safe and healthy environment 
The Constitution is thus set on the Bill of Rights, cooperative government, as well as the role of 
the different spheres in terms of the presidency, parliament, administration of justice and 
different provinces within South Africa. It is also clear that the Constitution plays a crucial role in 
the manner in which development and development planning is conducted. With reference to 
public place planning to enhance social sustainability, the Constitution prominently highlights 
the importance of sustainable development, aiming “to ensure the provision of services to 
communities in a sustainable manner “, but no specific reference is made to the planning of 
public places to improve sustainable development, or more specifically social sustainability 
within South African cities.  
 
 71 
4.3.2 National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (NEMA) 
NEMA provides all relevant parties with environmental management principles for application in 
decision making on matters affecting or concerning the environment and directs all provinces in 
South Africa to prepare an environmental implementation and management plan in accordance 
with Chapter 3 of this act.  
In section 16(4)(b) of NEMA it is stated that municipalities should adhere to the relevant 
environmental implementation and management plans, and the principles contained in Section 
2 [of NEMA] in the preparation of any policy, program or plan, including the establishment of 
integrated development plans and land development objectives. 
The promotion and insurance of sustainable development is furthermore the main focus and 
purpose of NEMA, an environmental framework legislation providing for environmental 
management. This is achieved by utilising the environment in such a way that the needs of the 
public are met, and environmental preservation is ensured. Sustainable development as defined 
by the act is the collective consideration of social, economic and environmental factors into 
planning, implementation and decision-making processes as to ensure that the development 
serves current and future generations.  
NEMA further strives to provide for cooperative, environmental governance by establishing 
principles for decision making on matters affecting the environment. NEMA states that everyone 
has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being, although many 
inhabitants of South Africa do find themselves living in an environment threatening these 
aspects. 
In terms of the three identified aspects of sustainable development, the state is obligated to 
respect, protect, promote and fulfil the social, economic and environmental rights of each citizen 
and strive to meet the basic needs of all inhabitants. This requires the collective consideration of 
social, economic and environmental factors in planning, as stated above. Conservation should 
also be promoted, and degradation of ecological systems should be eliminated and secured 
through justifiable urban development. 
Although NEMA aims to “secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural 
resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development”, the act consists of a 
strong environmental perspective. Concerning the planning of public places within South Africa, 
the focus is shifted towards the social sustainability aspect in accordance with environmental 
and economic sustainability. Although public place planning should include all three dimensions 
of sustainable development, the link between planning for public places, more specifically Third 
Places, to enhance social sustainability has not been quantified. 
 72 
4.3.3 Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 (MSA) 
MSA aims to provide core principles, mechanisms and processes that are compulsory to enable 
municipalities to “... establish a simple and enabling framework for the core processes of 
planning, performance management, resource mobilisation and organisational change which 
underpin the notion of developmental local government”.  
This act further sets out legislation that enables municipalities to socially and economically uplift 
their communities by ensuring access to essential services. MSA defines development as 
sustainable development that includes integrated social, economic, environmental, spatial, 
infrastructural, institutional and organisational upliftment of the community. The aim is to 
improve the quality of life for inhabitants and to ensure that development serves present and 
future generations. 
MSA is aimed at increasing the effectiveness of local governments in South Africa and, 
according to Scheepers (2000:45), is utilised whenever issues related to the process of 
managing affairs in local government are to be dealt with. The act furthermore seeks to 
establish an effective framework for integrated development in the form of an integrated 
development plan (IDP) to ensure municipal planning, performance management and the 
optimal use of resources.  
In terms of the provisions of MSA, all local municipalities are required to compile IDP’s for their 
area of jurisdiction, as explained by Harrison et al., (2008:83). One of the key components of 
such plans is a spatial development framework that guides planning and future land 
development within the various municipalities (Todes et al., 2010:416): “Spatial frameworks 
were intended to give effect to the principles and priorities of the IDP, and to act as a flexible 
instrument to manage urban growth and change within municipalities”.  
MSA was amended in 2011 with the creation of the Municipal Systems Amendment Act 7 of 
2011. According to South African Government Information (2013) this newly amended act aims 
to professionalise local government to improve service delivery and performance management. 
The new act also aimed to instil a people-centred mindset in local government.  
South African Government Information (2013) further states that the act also aims to: 
a) Ensure that the administrative apparatus of municipalities is staffed by appropriately 
qualified and competent persons to professionalise the municipality and thus improve 
service delivery. 
b) Ensure that employment contracts and performance agreements of municipal managers be 
consistent with the national systems and procedures.  
 73 
c) Extend the minister’s power to make regulations relating to macro-benefits.  
MSA solely focusses on the implementation of the various regional frameworks within their 
specific municipal boundaries, highlighting the fact that improving the quality of life may 
consider any developing trends in the sustainable provision of municipal services generally. It is 
however important to recognise that the planning of public places and Third Places will only be 
effective if the strategic guidelines provided are implementable at local municipal level, where 
the focus is placed directly on the specific municipal area in terms of the urban environment to 
enhance social sustainability. No exclusive reference to the planning of Third Places with the 
aim to enhance social sustainability is included within the MSA.  
4.3.4 National Urban Development Framework (2009) (NUDF) 
This framework addresses the different challenges and opportunities that South African towns, 
cities and regions are facing, providing a nationwide view of how South African towns and cities 
could strengthen and support shared growth, progress and environmental sustainability. The 
framework is focused on environmental sustainability, where the development of greener 
buildings and renewable energy sources are encouraged. The framework also focuses on social 
equity, ensuring that urban and rural areas are not divided, but rather form part of a continued 
region.  
NUDF does not offer comprehensive sectoral strategies that are relevant to urban areas within 
South Africa, but rather provides a planning and policy context on a larger scale for existing as 
well as future plans and initiatives. 
Within this framework reference is made to facilitating sustainable livelihoods, ultimately 
affecting social sustainability, but there is no focus on the importance of planning for public 
places within urban areas of South Africa, based on the social benefits provided by enhanced 
social sustainability. 
4.3.5 Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act 16 of 2013 (SPLUMA) 
This act, inter alia, aims to provide a framework for spatial planning and land use management 
in South Africa to: 
a) Specify the relationship between the spatial planning and land use management systems 
and other kinds of planning. 
b) Provide for the inclusive, developmental, equitable and efficient spatial planning at the 
different spheres of government. 
c) Provide a framework for the monitoring, coordination and review the spatial planning and 
land use management systems. 
 74 
d) Provide a framework for policies, principles, norms and standards for spatial development 
planning and land use management. 
e) Address past spatial and regulatory imbalances. 
f) Promote greater consistency and uniformity in the application procedures and decision 
making by authorities responsible for land use decisions and development applications.  
g) Provide for the facilitation and enforcement of land use development measures. 
SPLUMA replaced the town planning ordinances and the Development Facilitation Act used by 
planning departments within municipalities (Department of Rural Development and Land Reform 
Strategic Plan, 2015:5; South African Cities Network, 2015:19), currently serving as the main 
legislation governing planning.  
SPLUMA is further set to provide a framework for spatial planning and land use management in 
the Republic of South Africa. The framework includes provision for green or public spaces within 
the municipal boundaries (Goosen, 2014:33). 
The objects of this act are to: 
a) Provide for a uniform, effective and comprehensive system of spatial planning and land use 
management for the Republic. 
b) Ensure that the system of spatial planning and land use management promotes social and 
economic inclusion. 
c) Provide for development principles, norms and standards. 
d) Provide for the sustainable and efficient use of land. 
e) Provide for cooperative government and intergovernmental relations amongst the national, 
provincial and local spheres of government. 
f) Redress the imbalances of the past and to ensure that there is equity in the application of 
spatial development planning and land use management systems. 
 
Since spatial planning has a long-term perspective, it is only fitting that it should include 
principles and goals of sustainability. SPLUMA (2013:18) further introduces spatial sustainability 
as a guiding principle, stating that spatial planning and land use management systems must do 
the following in order to promote spatial sustainability: 
a) Promote land development which is within the institutional, fiscal and administrative means 
of the country. 
b) Give special consideration to the protection of prime and unique agricultural land. 
c) Promote and stimulate effective and equitable functioning of land markets. 
d) Uphold the consistency of land use measured in accordance with applicable environmental 
management systems. 
 75 
e) Consider the current and future costs for the provision of infrastructure and social services 
in developments. 
f) Promote land development in sustainable locations and limit urban sprawl.  
g) Create viable communities. 
 
Within SPLUMA, flexibility in spatial plans, policies and land use management systems are 
accommodated to ensure sustainable livelihoods. The importance of Third Place planning 
should be highlighted within SPLUMA, linking to the enhancement of social sustainability. 
4.3.6 National Strategy for Sustainable Development and Action Plan 2011-2014 (NSSD) 
This action plan consists of a strong vision in terms of a sustainable, economically prosperous 
and self-reliant nation, where a sustainability system approach could be reached when the 
economic system, the socio-political system and the ecosystem are embedded within each 
other and consequently integrated through the governance system, holding all systems intact. 
NSSD has identified five strategic objectives in order to reach ultimate sustainability: 
a) Enhancing systems for integrated planning and implementation  
b) Sustaining our ecosystems and using natural resources efficiently  
c) Towards a green economy  
d) Building sustainable communities  
e) Responding effectively to climate change 
 
NSSD is a proactive strategy aiming to regard sustainable development as a long-term 
commitment. The action plan combines environmental protection, social equity and economic 
efficiency together with the proposed visions and values of the country. Although no reference is 
made to the planning of Third Paces, there is a strong reference made to green infrastructure 
planning through building a green economy and safeguarding current ecosystems. This action 
plan therefore presents an understanding of sustainable development and explains the way 
forward in terms of an actionable plan with different strategic priorities. Although it does not 
exclusively refer to Third Places, it does refer to building sustainable communities, which could 
aid Third Place planning approaches, especially when linked to broader social sustainability. 
4.3.7 National Development Plan 2030 (NDP) 
The NDP has a vision for a better South Africa for all races, genders and religions. Certain 
visions and goals have been set out, which must be met in order for this plan to be successful. 
The vision for a better South-Africa, according to the NDP 2030, is a country in which the 
people can say “we feel loved, respected and cared for at home, in community and the public 
 76 
institutions we have created. We feel understood. We feel needed. We feel trustful. We feel 
trusted. We feel accommodative. We feel accommodated. We feel informed. We feel healthy. 
We feel safe. We feel resourceful and inventive. We learn together. We talk to each other. We 
share our work. We play. We worship. We ponder and laugh. I have a space that I can call my 
own. This space I share. This space I cherish with others. I maintain it with others. I am not self-
sufficient alone. We are self-sufficient in community. Through our service we show our 
solidarity. We enjoy the same quality of service. We are connected through our caring. 
Everywhere we go in our country, we hear the laughter of our children”. 
According to the NDP, the National Planning Commission proposes a national focus on spatial 
transformation across all geographical scales. The NDP was released by this commission in 
2013 as an approach to eliminate poverty and reduce inequality by 2030 (National Planning 
Commission, 2013:24). The NDP was created in response to the National Planning 
Commission’s diagnostic report (2011:19), which set out nine primary challenges: 
a) Poor educational outcomes 
b) High disease burden 
c) Divided communities 
d) Uneven public service delivery 
e) Spatial patterns which are marginalising the poor 
f) High unemployment 
g) Corruption 
h) An unsustainable resource intensive economy 
i) Crumbling infrastructure 
  
The NDP (National Planning Commission, 2013:203) does make special mention of sustainable 
communities, stating that they are “built through well-structured development planning 
processes that help to guide them to optimally manage natural resources and environmental 
risks in the pursuit of social and economic goals”. Chapter 8 of the NDP focusses on building 
sustainable human settlements, paying attention to the principles of sustainable development to 
which the state must adhere in its responsibility to build vibrant human settlements. Sustainable 
living environments are highlighted within the NDP, where Third Places could form part in 
providing these environments enhancing social sustainability.  
 
 77 
4.3.8 Evaluation matrix of South African policy and legislative framework 
Table 4-3 illustrates an evaluation matrix of the identified policy and legislative frameworks 
discussed in Chapter 4. The evaluation was based on the different indicators, as identified 
within each policy and legislative framework, linked to the objectives of sustainable 
development, social sustainability and public place planning.  
Self-evaluation, also referred to as self-assessment (Boud & Falchikov, 1989:529) was applied 
in order to evaluate each included policy and legislative framework. Self-evaluation, which is 
formative (Black & Wiliam, 1998:7-8) in this research, was applied to encompass two key 
elements (Boud & Falchikov, 1989:529) in terms of the evaluation decision in this research 
chapter. Firstly, the identification of criteria (ranking scale) to be applied to the evaluation, and 
secondly the involvement of the researcher in ranking each specific policy and legislative 
framework regarding the scale on which each applicable element being evaluated is ranked on. 
This method is functional in making use of a ranking system concerning the criteria, illustrating 
the value to be added to each specific self-assessed element. Through applying the ranking 
system within this self-evaluation approach, a concomitant involvement of literature in 
establishing the criteria in terms of the ranking system is applied.  
The evaluation was based on a three-tier ranking system to establish how comprehensively 
sustainable development, social sustainability and public place planning is dealt with within 
each identified policy and legislative framework. Table 4-2 illustrates the three-tier ranking scale 
applied for the evaluation matrix of the identified policy and legislative frameworks.  
Table 4-2: Three-tier evaluation matrix ranking system of the identified policy and 
legislative frameworks 
CRITERIA TIER 
EVALUATION RANKING 
SCALE 
Three main indicators including the broader 
theme of sustainable development, social 
sustainability and public place inclusion within 
the policy and legislative frameworks. 
1 Not at all 
2 Dealt with to some extent  
3 Comprehensively dealt with 
 
Applying the ranking scale based on the criteria set out in Table 4-2, Table 4-3 reflects the 
evaluation made in terms of each policy and legislative framework.  
The evaluation was based on the tier at which each policy and legislative framework addresses 
the broader theme of sustainable development, social sustainability and public place planning. 
 78 
Tier 1 indicated that the policy and legislative framework did not address any of the three main 
indicators set out in the criteria. Tier 2 indicated that the main indicators were dealt with to some 
extent, meaning room exists for improving the approach towards sustainable development, 
social sustainability and public place planning. Tier 3 indicated that the main indicators were 
comprehensively dealt with within the policy or legislative framework. Following the evaluation of 
each policy and legislative framework, Table 4-3 captured the indicators motivating each 
evaluation.
 79 
Table 4-3: Evaluation matrix of purposefully selected policy and legislative frameworks 
LEGISLATION/ POLICY/ 
FRAMEWORK 
EVALUATION RANKING SCALE 
RELEVANCY TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 
INCLUSION 
RELEVANCY TO SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY INCLUSION RELEVANCY TO PUBLIC PLACE PLANNING INCLUSION 
TIER INDICATOR FOR EVALUATION TIER 
INDICATOR FOR EVALUATION 
TIER INDICATOR FOR EVALUATION 
Constitution of the Republic 
of South Africa (Act 108 of 
1996) 
Tier 2: 
 
DEALT WITH 
BUT 
INSUFFICIENTLY 
“secure ecologically sustainable 
development and use of natural 
resources while promoting justifiable 
economic and social development” 
“to ensure the provision of services 
to communities in a sustainable 
manner” 
“the need to provide municipal 
services in an equitable and 
sustainable manner” 
Tier 2: 
 
DEALT WITH  
BUT 
INSUFFICIENTLY 
“secure ecologically sustainable 
development and use of natural 
resources while promoting justifiable 
economic and social development” 
 
Tier 1: 
 
NOT AT ALL 
Not applicable 
National Environmental 
Management Act 107 of 1998 
Tier 2: 
 
DEALT WITH 
 BUT 
INSUFFICIENTLY 
“sustainable development requires 
the integration of social, economic 
and environmental factors in the 
planning, implementation and 
evaluation of decisions to ensure 
that development serves present 
and future generations” 
“secure ecologically sustainable 
development and use of natural 
resources while promoting justifiable 
economic and social development” 
“enable the Minister to monitor the 
achievement, promotion, and 
protection of a sustainable 
environment” 
Tier 2: 
 
DEALT WITH 
BUT 
INSUFFICIENTLY 
“sustainable development requires 
the integration of social, economic 
and environmental factors in the 
planning, implementation and 
evaluation of decisions to ensure 
that development serves present 
and future generations” 
“secure ecologically sustainable 
development and use of natural 
resources while promoting justifiable 
economic and social development” 
 
Tier 1: 
 
NOT AT ALL 
Not applicable 
Municipal Systems Act  
(Act 32 of 2000) 
Tier 2: 
 
DEALT WITH  
BUT 
INSUFFICIENTLY 
“development means sustainable 
development, and includes 
integrated social, economic, 
environmental, spatial, 
infrastructural, institutional, 
Tier 2: 
 
DEALT WITH  
BUT 
INSUFFICIENTLY 
“development means sustainable 
development, and includes 
integrated social, economic, 
environmental, spatial, 
infrastructural, institutional, 
Tier 1: 
 
NOT AT ALL 
Not applicable 
 80 
organisational and human resources 
upliftment of a community aimed 
at— 
(a) improving the quality of life of its 
members with specific reference to 
the poor and other disadvantaged 
sections of the community; and 
(b) ensuring that development 
serves present and future 
generations” 
organisational and human resources 
upliftment of a community aimed 
at— 
(a) improving the quality of life of its 
members with specific reference to 
the poor and other disadvantaged 
sections of the community; and 
(b) ensuring that development 
serves present and future 
generations” 
National Urban Development 
Framework (2009) 
Tier 2: 
 
DEALT WITH  
BUT 
INSUFFICIENTLY 
“facilitating the provision of basic 
services, sustainable livelihoods and 
human development in rural and 
other low-opportunity areas” 
“Government leadership can also 
help to raise awareness of the 
necessary sacrifices and procedures 
to create places where it is easier for 
people to adopt sustainable lifestyles” 
“called for more compact and 
coherent spatial development, with a 
more efficient and sustainable urban 
form” 
“facilitating the provision of basic 
services, sustainable livelihoods and 
human development in rural and 
other low opportunity areas” 
Tier 2: 
 
DEALT WITH  
BUT 
INSUFFICIENTLY 
“facilitating the provision of basic 
services, sustainable livelihoods and 
human development in rural and 
other low opportunity areas” 
Tier 2: 
 
DEALT WITH  
BUT  
INSUFFICIENTLY 
“government leadership can also 
help to raise awareness of the 
necessary sacrifices and 
procedures to create places where 
it is easier for people to adopt 
sustainable lifestyles” 
 
Spatial Planning and Land 
Use Management Act 16 of 
2013 
Tier 2: 
 
DEALT WITH 
 BUT 
INSUFFICIENTLY 
“provide direction for strategic 
development” 
“flexibility in spatial plans, policies 
and land use management systems 
are accommodated to ensure 
sustainable livelihoods” 
Tier 1: 
 
NOT AT ALL 
Not applicable Tier 2: 
 
DEALT WITH 
BUT  
INSUFFICIENTLY 
“flexibility in spatial plans, policies 
and land use management 
systems are accommodated to 
ensure sustainable livelihoods” 
National Strategy for 
Sustainable Development 
and Action Pan (2011-2014) 
Tier 2: 
 
DEALT WITH  
BUT 
INSUFFICIENTLY 
“South Africa’s commitment to a 
long-term sustainable development 
trajectory that is economically, 
socially and environmentally 
sustainable.” 
Tier 2: 
 
DEALT WITH  
BUT 
INSUFFICIENTLY 
“South Africa’s commitment to a 
long-term sustainable development 
trajectory that is economically, 
socially and environmentally 
sustainable” 
Tier 1: 
 
NOT AT ALL 
Not applicable 
 81 
 
National Development Plan 
2030 
Tier 2: 
 
DEALT WITH  
BUT 
INSUFFICIENTLY 
“Infrastructure and access to 
sustainable livelihoods” 
“create the conditions for more 
humane – and environmentally 
sustainable – living and working 
environments.” 
“As with any form of community 
building, the building of sustainable 
communities cannot be 
accomplished as a top-down 
process, but must be the outcome of 
engagement with participation by 
communities.” 
 
Tier 2: 
 
DEALT WITH  
BUT 
INSUFFICIENTLY 
“It should ensure optimal settlement 
performances by developing public 
goods through investment in public 
transport, other economic and social 
infrastructure, quality public spaces 
and jobs.” 
“Daily interactions on an equal basis 
build social cohesion and common 
understanding. These interactions 
will be promoted effectively when 
South Africans share more public 
spaces.” 
 
Tier 3: 
 
COMPREHENSIVELY 
DEALT WITH 
“Promote mixed housing strategies 
and more compact urban 
development to help people access 
public spaces and facilities.” 
“Despite improvements, the 
existing housing subsidy system 
continues to fund top structures 
(houses) rather than producing 
quality public spaces and 
infrastructure in the area.” 
“It should ensure optimal 
settlement performances by 
developing public goods through 
investment in public transport, 
other economic and social 
infrastructure, quality public spaces 
and jobs.” 
“Funding arrangements and 
programmes that would channel 
resources into community facilities, 
public infrastructure and public 
spaces, and not just into housing.” 
“To make it easier for South 
Africans to interact with each other 
across racial and class divides, the 
country needs to  
improve public spaces and public 
services.” 
“Daily interactions on an equal 
basis build social cohesion and 
common understanding. These 
interactions will be promoted 
effectively when South Africans 
share more public spaces…” 
Source: Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996); Municipal Systems Act (2000); National Environmental Management Act (1998); National Urban Development Framework (2009); National Strategy for 
Sustainable Development and Action Pan (2011-2014); National Development Plan (2030); Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act (2013)  
 82 
4.4 Conclusion 
South Africa, as a developing country, face numerous challenges relating to sustainability within 
urban environments (Badenhorst et al., 2005:4; Dewar & Uytenbogaardt, 1995:88; Jürgens et 
al., 2003:35; Kay, 2007:1; Parker, 2014; Southworth, 2007:4) (cross-reference to Section 4.2). 
Poverty and basic service provision are some examples of the more pressing issues present in 
South Africa, along with budget constraints which limits the scope for the planning of Third 
Places (cross-reference to Section 4.2). Social issues in South Africa (cross-reference to 
Section 4.2) are also different to those faced globally and therefore a need exists for a context-
based framework, facilitating the planning of Third Places in South Africa. What is further 
required in terms of these local urban realities and challenges, is a sensitive understanding of 
the problems that South African cities are facing (Dewar & Uytenbogaardt, 1995:88; Parker, 
2014).  
Although the provision of public places and inclusion of strategies to enhance sustainable 
development and social sustainability is dealt with within applicable policy and legislative 
frameworks, a lack concerning the enforcement thereof exists, leading to insufficiency. The 
need and importance of social sustainability within the broader discourse concerning 
sustainable development has not been explored from a spatial planning approach. Development 
provision tactics and implementation strategies are not enforced to ensure the success of public 
places within urban areas of South Africa. A continued need exists for the planning of public 
places, as the benefits thereof in terms of the environment and its residents are pervasive. As 
the public places provided require ongoing protection, maintenance and transformation by the 
local municipalities, it is necessary to be addressed within all local influencing policy and 
legislative frameworks.  
The provision made for the inclusion of public place planning to enhance social sustainability 
could furthermore be addressed and categorised under sustainable development, as most of 
the policy and legislative frameworks do address sustainable development, social sustainability 
and public place planning to some extent. However, the purpose and specific meaning 
regarding the provision of public places to enhance social sustainability are often lost in terms of 
the benefits provided within urban areas of South Africa. The provision of public places is more 
evident on local levels where local frameworks do articulate the importance thereof on a small 
scale, as these frameworks are directly influential.  
Chapter 4 concluded the literature investigation of this research. Chapter 5 introduced the 
empirical investigation, aiming to inform the refinement of theory-based framework for the 
planning of Third Places.   
 83 
CHAPTER 5: EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION  
5.1 Introduction 
The literature investigation of this research reflected on social sustainability and the interface 
with Third Places, along with the South African scope concerning the policy and legislative 
frameworks supporting the planning of Third Places in local context. No framework currently 
exists within broader spatial planning approaches facilitating the planning of Third Places to 
enhance social sustainability in South Africa. This research proposed a theory-based framework 
(cross-reference to Section 3.5), refined within Chapter 5 based on international best practices 
and planning approaches by means of a case study review (Phase 1), as well as expert 
perspectives (Phase 2) on the subject matter. Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the empirical 
investigation ultimately guided the compilation of a refined framework for enhanced social 
sustainability through the planning of Third Places in the South African context. Figure 5-1 
illustrates the structure of Chapter 5. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5-1: Chapter 5 structure  
CHAPTER 5: Empirical investigation 
Phase 1 
Refinement of the theory-based 
framework through case study 
reviews  
Phase 2  
Refinement of the theory-
based framework through an 
expert-survey  
Conclusion 
Case study review for best 
practices 
Statistical date interpretation  
 84 
5.2 Phase 1: Case study reviews  
The detailed methodological approach of Phase 1 of the empirical investigation was described 
in Chapter 1 (cross-reference to Section 1.5.2). Five international case studies were 
purposefully selected as an informative sample, to be reviewed and identify international best 
practices for the planning of Third Places. 
The informative sample comprised of five international case studies identified on a global scale, 
based on their functionality as public spaces and their relevance to sustainable development 
and broader social sustainability objectives. The sample of five case studies was neither a 
comprehensive sample nor was it representative of Third Place planning approaches. It was 
rather an informative sample and provided insight into the application of the notion of Third 
Places and the planning thereof (Kim & Skinner 2013:385). 
The case studies that formed part of the case study review for best practice identification 
included: 
1. Las Ramblas Boulevard in Barcelona, Spain 
2. Bryant Park in New York City, United States of America  
3. The High Line in New York City, United States of America 
4. Noriega Street Parklet in San Francisco, United States of America 
5. Perth Cultural Centre in Perth, Western Australia  
Figure 5-2 illustrates the approximate location of each case study within a global context. 
 
 
Figure 5-2: Location pin of identified international case studies  
  International case study locations 
 
 85 
These case studies were reflected on in evidence-based research to identify best practices 
relating to design elements in terms of social sustainability, public places and the planning of 
Third Places, to inform the refined theory-based framework for the planning of Third Places.  
5.2.1 Case 1: The case of Las Ramblas Boulevard, Barcelona, Spain 
5.2.1.1 Location overview 
Barcelona, the capital city of Catalonia in Spain, is classified as a bustling Mediterranean city 
with history dating back to the Roman era (Hansen, 2015:3). With a population of 1,6 million 
within its city limits, Barcelona is classified as the country’s second most populous municipality 
and the sixth-most populous urban area in the European Union (Walker & Porraz, 2003:3). This 
major global city remains one of the world’s leading tourist, economic, trade fair and cultural 
centres. Large-scale modernisation took place to host the 1992 Summer Olympics, (Nelson, 
2004:3; Marshall, 2000:303), and currently a unique blend of new and old (ancient charm) exists 
within the city (Tripomatic, 2016:2) regarding city planning.  
5.2.1.2 Planning principles employed in Las Ramblas Boulevard 
Barcelona is known as a leader in innovative planning worldwide and is celebrated for its 
accessible open public spaces and city walkability. Taking a distinctive approach to urban 
governance (Marshall, 2000:299), Barcelona is well known for urban planning and urban 
regeneration. 
The provision of public place and space, green urbanism and liveability within Barcelona, 
centralising activity on different planning scales, has contributed to the environmental, social 
and economic development aspects of the city impacting overall sustainable development.  
The city of Barcelona includes the following guiding principles in its urban planning (Nelson, 
2004:1):  
• Focus on the creation of public amenities in dilapidated neighbourhoods.  
• Orienting the city back to the Mediterranean Sea by creating accessible and usable 
beaches.  
• Provide adequate public facilities within every neighbourhood.  
• Reuse of brownfields sustainable planning. 
• Restricting urban sprawl by focusing on transformative redevelopment rather than new 
development.  
• Reclaiming famous inner courtyards that act as open space within each block through 
redevelopment. 
 86 
Within Barcelona the planning function in terms of the council are spread between three plenary 
council commissions to create good urban form, while respecting the historical growth (Marshall, 
2000:300-304). These commissions include housing and land policy, sustainability and urban 
ecology and infrastructure and urbanism. 
Furthermore, community green space and public place on a large and small scale and ease of 
access within and around the city centre have proven to be successful in terms of access, 
linkages, compact design and public spaces (Nelson, 2004:4). The topography in Barcelona has 
contributed to keeping the city fairly compact, also impacting on sustainability aspects (Nelson, 
2004:4). The aim is reusing infrastructure, where advantage has been taken of industrial sites 
for development as heavy industry and shipping become less prevalent. For this reason, 
Barcelona has become a leader in the practice of aiming to adapt to the pressures and 
opportunities of globalisation though sustainable alternatives.  
With specific reference to public places within the urban boundaries of Barcelona, the 
Metropolitan Master Plan and the Urban Planning Law of Catalonia serve as the most relevant 
planning policies for the metropolitan area (Hansen, 2015:5). Serving as a supplementary 
helpful tool, the Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Plan includes enhancing the connectivity 
of green infrastructure, conservation, re-naturalisation of the city and the creation of new green 
spaces (Barcelona Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Plan 2020, 2013; Hansen, 2015:5).  
Barcelona is known for its lively public spaces and places, where La Ramblas Boulevard, one of 
the landmarks of Barcelona, is classified as one of the greatest of them all (PPS, 2015). Here 
tourists and locals are presented with approximately 1,3 kilometres of endless entertainment, 
stretching from Plaça Catalunya, the central transport hub in Barcelona considered to be 
Barcelona’s city centre, to the statue of Christopher Columbus in the port. The boulevard is 
pedestrian-orientated, with an approximate 60 feet-wide central walkway in the centre. Shops, 
café’s, markets, adequate seating, artists and performers are offered along this boulevard, 
where towering street trees are also a plus (Alexander & Tang, 2010:1). Pedestrians have right 
of way, and cars are restricted to narrow lanes on either side of the boulevards, accommodating 
pedestrians at every intersection of the boulevard. The Las Ramblas Boulevard contributes in 
creating a lively community (Nelson, 2004:4) and exemplifies Barcelona’s success in having 
public spaces for people to meet and socialise. However, the Las Ramblas Boulevard, 
generating over-tourism, has become a victim of its own success, facing numerous challenges 
and realities regarding safety, real estate speculations and displacement of inhabitants 
(Stephenwoo, 2016). 
 87 
The success and implementation of the Las Ramblas Boulevard, along with its planning 
methods and approaches in terms of implementation and maintenance, is due to a combination 
of factors as portrayed in Table 5-1, in addition to a strong public participation approach.  
  
 88 
Table 5-1: Success factors of Las Ramblas Boulevard 
FACTOR / 
INITIATIVE 
DESCRIPTION 
S
o
c
ia
l 
in
c
lu
s
iv
it
y
 
M
u
lt
i-
fu
n
c
ti
o
n
a
li
ty
 
A
c
c
e
s
s
ib
il
it
y
 
P
e
rc
e
p
ti
b
il
it
y
 
M
a
rk
e
ta
b
il
it
y
 
E
n
v
ir
o
n
m
e
n
ta
l 
s
e
n
s
it
iv
it
y
 
A
d
a
p
ta
b
il
it
y
 
In
tr
in
s
ic
 
c
o
n
n
e
c
ti
v
it
y
 
Uses and activities  Variety of eateries, shops, markets, street performers, public art and cultural institutions along the artful street create an 
attractive and diverse experience for pedestrians.  
X X  X X   X 
Access and linkages The boulevard is physically well-connected to key areas within Barcelona and consists of entrances almost every 13 feet.    X    X  
Atmosphere  History and character, dating back hundreds of years.     X X   X 
Sociability  Buildings, paths, vegetation and details are proportioned for pedestrians to have pleasant spaces to interact in. X X  X  X  X 
Green Trees stretching from the northern end to the most southern end of the Las Ramblas Boulevard contribute to overall 
sustainability. 
     X   
Building form • Boulevard with a 36-80 foot-wide pedestrian strip down the centre. 
• Sidewalks usually less than 10 feet wide, encouraging walking in the centre.  
• On each side of the strip one or two lanes of traffic with a lane for parking and deliveries (reserves the centre of the street 
for pedestrians and the side traffic lanes for autos).  
• Arrangement of building in a grid form.  
• Buildings arranged closely, and small alleys act as service roads between buildings.  
• Only one-way roads are provided, to avoid traffic congestions. 
• Walkways link from one place to another. 
• The street is lined by five to seven story buildings with complex facades, textures and ornamental details.  
• Majority of the buildings are influenced by Gothic architecture. 
X  X    X  
Comfort and image • The street width, building height and landscaping work together to create a pedestrian-friendly environment. 
• The amenities and comfort of the place can contribute by having a pedestrian prioritised street and the harmony between 
street width, building height, landscaping and intensity of usage create a pleasant pedestrian experience.  
• A mix of activities promotes the character and liveability of the area, including landscaping, public art, lighting, seating, 
safety and public drinking fountains. 
  X X X    
Construction • The pavement wave pattern implemented on La Rambla Boulevard is designed for rainwater flow and drainage.  
• Interlocking pavers are used to differentiate between pedestrian walkways and the road. 
     X   
Source: Author’s own construction based on Alexander and Tang (2010:1) 
 89 
Considering the Las Ramblas Boulevard, this Third Place exemplifies opportunities provided for 
social interaction due to the social stage that is set, as well as the variety of activities provided, 
which contributes to user regularity. Contributions are made towards the enhancement of 
bringing the youth and adults into association with one another through the social stage 
provided, fostering social interaction, integration and civic pride through recreation. This directly 
affects human health and well-being (physical, mental and psychological). 
5.2.1.3 Visual illustrations of Third Place planning in Las Ramblas Boulevard 
The following images illustrate the Las Ramblas Boulevard from an urban or city plan scale and 
a street view, illustrating specific initiatives incorporated to enhance the planning of Third 
Places. A focused green approach can be identified along with car-free zones, lighting for a safe 
and inviting feeling, and elements separating car and pedestrian zones.  
 90 
Figure 5-3: Las Ramblas Boulevard illustrations of Third Place planning 
Source:  The Savvy Backpacker (2017) 
5.2.1.4 Case study review for best practices in Las Ramblas Boulevard 
Following the introduction and background of Barcelona, and the broader planning approaches 
of the city and the Third Place in question (Las Ramblas Boulevard), the specific case study 
1,3km 
 91 
identified is assessed accordingly to identify best practices relating to the planning of Third 
Places, and the linkages with broader social sustainability. The review was based on the theory-
based framework developed in the literature investigation of this research (cross-reference to 
Section 3.5). Best practices are identified (in Section 5.2.6) to refine the proposed framework for 
enhanced social sustainability through the planning of Third Places. 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 92 
Table 5-2: Case 1 review and best practice identification 
Las Ramblas Boulevard review 
Planning approach design 
considerations and interpretation in 
terms of Third Place objectives 
Planning guidelines  
Third Place planning considerations 
to enhance social sustainability 
Indicators motivating case study 
Best practice 
identification  
(Case study specific) 
Social inclusivity 
Creation of a platform for community 
cohesion and social inclusion by improving 
the ability and opportunity on which 
individuals and groups take part in society. 
The fostering of social activities on neutral 
ground.  
- place attraction through 
synergy 
- sense of place  
- welcoming space with 
diverse uses and users 
- sustainable approach 
- community priority 
 • Creation of a platform for community cohesion and 
social inclusion 
• Public place on neutral ground where individuals 
and communities wish to gather and interact 
outside of the work or home realm  
• Creation and maintenance of the conditions under 
which humans and nature can exist in productive 
harmony within urban areas 
(cross-reference to Section 2.2, Section 2.5 and 
Section 2.7) 
The size, form and facilities allow for social interaction, 
creating a sense of place and belonging for every user. 
A social stage is set through opportunities provided for 
interaction. These opportunities are influenced by the 
different activities, amenities and attractions. 
Green initiatives are evident through the incorporation of 
green infrastructure. The space is designed according to a 
self-sustained approach.  
 
Multi-functionality  
Active space enhancing characteristic 
uniqueness, through providing a variety 
(10+) of activities and amenities to focus on 
the enhancement of the human experience 
for each individual within the Third Place. 
- user-need diversity 
- social and functional 
diversity 
- combined services and 
activities (10+)  
• Organising and offering activities to foster active 
social interaction 
• Focus on the human experience within the Third 
Place  
• Big or small natural areas varied in quality 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7.1, Section 3.2.2 
and Section 3.4) 
The diverse activities ensure a diverse user group and a 
vibrant atmosphere. With constant changing activities 
according to seasonal changes, regularity and diversity is 
ensured. 
The human experience is enhanced with a variety of 
amenities, attractions and activities: seating, play spaces to 
enjoy, art to touch, music to hear, food to eat, history to 
experience, people to meet, books to read, water features. 
*Mixed uses and users 
impact regularity 
Accessibility  
Internal and external place connectedness 
encouraging convenient pedestrian 
movement flow.  
- entrance and exit to and 
from space 
- safety perception 
- walkability 
- utilise shared space 
through mixed-use 
- reinforce linkages 
 • Enhance the number of visitors that frequently visit 
the Third Place, due to convenience encouraging 
regularity 
• Planning on different scales enforcing an 
integrated planning approach and maximising the 
opportunities provided 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7.1 and Section 
3.2.1) 
Large in size, more than 1 entrance and exit to the space 
and central location. 
Enclosure is assured by the layout and the buildings 
surrounding the space. The space, only catering to 
pedestrians, is enhanced through street level elevation.  
Variety in scale development is visible in the space but are 
well integrated to ensure connectivity (street level, space 
and surrounding building ensuring enclosure). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 93 
Perceptibility 
The display of social niceties to enhance 
the overall character (sense of place) 
through smart and adaptation designs.  
- public furniture and 
facilities availability 
- aesthetic values and 
attractiveness 
- flexibility for users 
- scale diversity 
 • Display of social niceties and contributes to public 
places where regular, voluntary gatherings of 
individuals occur 
• Representation of a personal experience 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7 and Section 2.7.1) 
The space is welcoming and comfortable with active 
facades and high safety perceptions.  
Green urbanism is included, ensuring nature is visible within 
the space. 
Visually the space is highly appealing and attractive with 
different amenities interacting within the space. Public art 
and scale diversity are implemented with regards to 
buildings, amenities and pedestrian friendly areas. 
 
Marketability  
The attractiveness, practicality and 
usefulness for voluntary gatherings to occur 
through the establishment of user need 
attraction for regularity. 
- quality of space enhancing 
a unique selling point 
 • Diverse user-need attraction inviting lingering and 
regularity 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7.1) 
The space has become a tourist attraction due to the quality 
and uniqueness of the space, providing a stage for 
interaction. 
*Reclaim urban space for 
public use 
 
Environmental sensitivity 
Enhancement of a sustainable green design 
for current and future use, relating to natural 
environmental diversity. 
- sustainable practice 
approach 
- green initiatives 
 • Create, enhance and restore ecological, 
biodiversity and ecosystem conservation and 
substitute grey infrastructure in urban areas 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7.2, Table 2.4) 
Grey infrastructure is substituted regarding greenery (green 
urbanism) and is incorporated in the boulevard. 
*Respect historical growth 
of public areas 
 
Adaptability  
Compact layout design in context through 
incorporating multi-scale interconnected 
systems for the Third Place to be modified. 
- context consideration, 
design in context 
- experimental design 
- day- and night usage 
 • Physical design encouraging compact design for 
social interaction encouragement 
• Incorporating a smart and embracing design, 
where space embraces nature 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7 and Section 3.4) 
Surrounding buildings of the boulevard ensures a compact 
layout. 
Due to the layout of the space, seasonal flexibility is limited 
during winter seasons. The layout does however ensure 
diversity and flexibility. 
*Focus on redevelopment 
rather than new 
development 
*The urban environment 
should remain fairly 
compact to impact 
sustainability  
Intrinsic connectivity  
Mental and emotional sense of well-being 
based on person-process-place attachment. 
- sense of authenticity 
- sense of place 
 • Person-process-place concept enhancing place 
attachment  
(cross-reference to Section 2.6) 
Sense of place is created through regular use due to the 
sense of community created when in the space. 
*Variety uses ensures 
an individual experience 
for all 
 
 94 
5.2.2 Case 2: The case of Bryant Park, New York, United States of America 
5.2.2.1 Location overview 
Bryant Park (38 860 m2), located in the New York City borough of Manhattan, is an ever popular 
destination and referred to as Manhattan’s Town Square. The park is famous for its lush 
gardens, free activities, public services, inviting feeling and liveliness, and is visited by more 
than six million locals and tourists each year (Bryant Park, 2017). The park is also conveniently 
and strategically located adjacent to the New York Public Library. Although the park forms part 
of the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, Bryant Park is privately-managed by 
non-profit corporation Bryant Park Corporation (BPC).  
Nestled between New York’s iconic skyscrapers, Bryant Park is an oasis of lush green lawns. 
As illustrated in Figure 5-4, the park consists of different amenities (Bryant Park, 2017). The city 
park, also presenting itself as a Third Place, is a social place where people meet, eat lunch, 
chat, stroll, listen to music, work, or simply sit, think and observe (Bryant Park, 2017).  
 
Figure 5-4: Bryant Park layout 
Source:  Bryant Park (2017) 
5.2.2.2 Planning principles employed in Bryant Park 
From Potter’s Field in 1686 to a reservoir in 1842, to one of the world’s busiest public spaces, 
Bryant Park boasts a rich history (Lydon et al., 1998:11). The square then became a park in 
transition, with redesign commencing in 1934 (Saphan et al., 2016:3). The modern Bryant Park 
 95 
then came into existence in 1979. A seven-year push combining supplementary park 
maintenance, temporary kiosks and public events ranging from historical park tours to concerts 
reduced crime by 92%, doubling the number of annual visitors. As popularity of the park 
increased, new entrances were incorporated to increase visibility and design of the park. During 
the 1990’s, various facilities within the park were opened in stages. During April 1992, Bryant 
Park formally reopened, increasing property value in the surrounding areas, providing a 
multitude of free and engaging activities, and offering a free public Wi-Fi zone. However, this 
plot of green public spaces has never worked as the refuge from urban tensions that a city park 
should be capable of providing (Goldberger, 1983). Until 1983 no maintenance or renovation 
plans were set in place for Bryant Park. Only recently Bryant park has succeeded in its 
expectations to a large extent.  
With regard to the New York City planning system in terms of public spaces and Third Places, 
various planning approaches, guidelines and initiatives form part of the general planning 
system. The city aims to provide to the needs of the locals and tourists, with consideration of 
their environment.  
5.2.2.2.1 Parks, open spaces and recreational facilities  
The parks, open spaces and recreational facilities guidelines set for New York City include 
objectives and strategies to locate and design parks, open spaces and recreational facilities for 
the residents and tourists. This automatically encourages physical activity. In accordance with 
these public facilities, buildings should be designed to enhance and provide easy access to the 
parks and open spaces and should form part of large-scale developments near public spaces 
(Bloomberg et al., 2010:30-34). 
The guidelines include: 
• Improve safe and visible bicycle and pedestrian routes.  
• In the design of parks and open spaces, provide facilities like paths, running tracks, 
playgrounds, sports courts, and drinking fountains. People are more active in parks that 
include facilities like basketball and racquetball courts, incorporating such recreational 
areas is therefore essential. 
• Locate new projects near existing public and private recreational facilities and encourage 
development of new facilities, including indoor activity spaces. 
• Design parks, open spaces and recreational facilities to complement the cultural 
preferences of the local population, and accommodate a range of age groups, including 
children and their parents or guardians. Co-locating physical activity spaces for children and 
their caretakers can simultaneously promote physical activity in different age groups.  
 96 
• Create partnerships with organisations to sponsor and maintain green spaces and gardens 
on building sites. Outdoor spaces that are adopted by volunteers are more vital and 
beautiful. Building owners can seek partnerships with local organisations that promote 
horticulture or other forms of green space as a cost-effective way to maintain outdoor 
spaces. 
5.2.2.2.2 Active design guidelines, promoting physical activity and health in design  
Active design is environmental design that encourages stair climbing, walking, cycling, transit 
use, active recreation, and healthy eating (Bloomberg et al., 2010:6). The Active Design 
Guidelines initiative was the city’s first publication to address those responsible for the planning 
and construction of buildings, streets and neighbourhoods, and to highlight their role in terms of 
health. These guidelines also focus on a more liveable and hospitable New York City. The 
guidelines seek to identify opportunities to increase daily physical activity, including measures 
such as making stairs more visible and providing inviting streetscapes for pedestrians and 
bicyclists (Bloomberg et al., 2010:4). These guidelines also serve to benefit the environment by 
reducing energy use in buildings. 
The Active Design Guidelines draws upon specific examples to illustrate the most effective 
design strategies for achieving a more physically active lifestyle in the city (Bloomberg et al., 
2010:5).  
The key recommended measures include: 
• Develop and maintain mixed land use in city neighbourhoods.  
• Improve access to and from transit facilities.  
• Improve access to plazas, parks, open spaces and recreational facilities, and design these 
spaces to maximise their active use where appropriate. 
• Improve access to full-service grocery stores and fresh produce. 
• Design accessible, pedestrian-friendly streets with high connectivity, traffic-calming 
features, landscaping, lighting, benches and water fountains.  
• Facilitate cycling for recreation and transportation by developing continuous bicycle 
networks and incorporating infrastructure like safe indoor and outdoor bicycle parking. 
The success and implementation of Bryant Park, based on the physical features, along with its 
planning methods and approaches in terms of implementation and maintenance is due to a 
combination of factors as portrayed in Table 5-3. 
 
 97 
Table 5-3: Success factors of Bryant Park  
FACTOR / 
INITIATIVE 
DESCRIPTION 
S
o
c
ia
l 
in
c
lu
s
iv
it
y
 
M
u
lt
i-
fu
n
c
ti
o
n
a
li
ty
 
A
c
c
e
s
s
ib
il
it
y
 
P
e
rc
e
p
ti
b
il
it
y
 
M
a
rk
e
ta
b
il
it
y
 
E
n
v
ir
o
n
m
e
n
ta
l 
s
e
n
s
it
iv
it
y
 
A
d
a
p
ta
b
il
it
y
 
In
tr
in
s
ic
 
c
o
n
n
e
c
ti
v
it
y
 
Imageability  
 
The quality of a place that makes it distinct, recognisable, and 
memorable. A place has high imageability when specific 
physical elements and their arrangement capture attention, 
evoke feelings and create a lasting impression.  
   X X   X 
Enclosure  
 
The degree to which streets and other public spaces are 
visually defined by buildings, walls, trees and other vertical 
elements.  
X  X      
Human scale  The size, texture and articulation of physical elements that 
match the size and proportions of humans and, equally 
important, correspond to the speed at which humans walk.  
  X X     
Transparency  
 
The degree to which people can see or perceive objects and 
activity, especially human activity, beyond the edge of a street 
and within a public place. 
 X X X   X  
Complexity  
 
Referring to the visual richness of a place. The complexity of a 
place depends on the variety of the physical environment. 
 X     X  
Green 
approach 
Implementation of green elements. Setting a stage for human 
and nature to interact. 
X     X   
Source: Author’s own construction based on Bloomberg et al. (2010:23); Saphan et al. (2016:3)  
 98 
The New York City Parks and Recreation Department adopted various policies, frameworks and 
planning principles ensuring safe, maintained and accessible public places for its residents. 
Conceptual planning is integrated in the developing of parks and public places, offering 
community participation. This is where community input meetings are held, and the adopted 
plan and vision includes a participatory approach. 
Considering Bryant Park, this Third Place exemplifies green approaches incorporated to 
enhance social sustainability concerning a balance found between human and nature. With 
variety of seasonal activities incorporated, the use of the space is enhanced through regularity. 
Social sustainability is thus improved through the encouragement of community cohesion, 
fostering of social interaction, child development through child interactional opportunities, impact 
on human health and well-being (physical, mental and psychological), as well as the 
improvement of quality of life concerning urban liveability. 
5.2.2.3 Illustrations of Third Place planning in Bryant Park 
The following images illustrate Bryant Park from both a bird’s eye and street view. Strong 
approaches towards green urbanism are incorporated within Bryant Park. The Third Place is 
also designed to be able to incorporate a variety of lively elements for day- and night use and 
provide different social activities, setting a social stage for different user groups. Contributing to 
encouraging an inviting atmosphere, this Third Place also provides for adequate seating options 
for people to linger within and interact with the natural space provided.  
 
 
 99 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5-5: Bryant Park illustrations of Third Place planning 
Source:  Bryant Park (2017) 
5.2.2.4 Case study review for best practices in Bryant Park 
Following the introduction and background of New York City, and the broader planning 
approaches of the city and the Third Place concerned, the specific case study identified (Bryant 
Park) is evaluated accordingly. The review was based on the theory-based framework 
developed in the literature investigation of this research (cross-reference to Section 3.5). 
 
 100 
Table 5-4: Case 2 review and best practice identification 
 
Bryant Park review 
Planning approach design considerations 
and interpretation in terms of Third Place 
objectives 
Planning guidelines  
Third Place planning considerations 
to enhance social sustainability 
Indicators motivating case study 
Best practice identification  
(Case study specific) 
 
Social inclusivity 
Creation of a platform for community cohesion 
and social inclusion by improving the ability and 
opportunity on which individuals and groups take 
part in society. The fostering of social activities 
on neutral ground.  
- place attraction through 
synergy 
- sense of place  
- welcoming space with 
diverse uses and users 
- sustainable approach 
- community priority 
 • Creation of a platform for community cohesion and 
social inclusion 
• Public place on neutral ground where individuals 
and communities wish to gather and interact outside 
of the work or home realm  
• Creation and maintenance of the conditions under 
which humans and nature can exist in productive 
harmony within urban areas 
(cross-reference to Section 2.2, Section 2.5 and 
Section 2.7) 
Social cohesion is visible through the 
interactional platform that is set in the space.  
The space lend itself towards a park 
development, with different facilities provided. 
Green initiatives are thus well catered for. 
 
*The place should complement 
the cultural preference of the 
surrounding community 
Multi-functionality  
Active space enhancing characteristic 
uniqueness, through providing a variety (10+) of 
activities and amenities to focus on the 
enhancement of the human experience for each 
individual within the Third Place. 
- user-need diversity 
- social and functional diversity 
- combined services and 
activities (10+)  
• Organising and offering activities to foster active 
social interaction 
• Focus on the human experience within the Third 
Place  
• Big or small natural areas varied in quality 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7.1, Section 3.2.2 and 
Section 3.4) 
Regularity of users due to the location and 
diverse activities provided.  
The space is active and vibrant due to 
different activities. 
The human experience is enhanced with a 
variety of amenities, attractions and activities. 
The multi-functionality encourages regularity. 
*Variety for day- and night use 
and seasonal changes in terms 
of amenities and services/ 
activities provided to ensure all 
year-round regularity of users in 
the space 
Accessibility  
Internal and external place connectedness 
encouraging convenient pedestrian movement 
flow.  
- entrance and exit to and from 
space 
- safety perception 
- walkability 
- utilise shared space through 
mixed-use 
- reinforce linkages 
 • Enhance the number of visitors that frequently visit 
the Third Place, due to convenience encouraging 
regularity 
• Planning on different scales enforcing an integrated 
planning approach and maximising the opportunities 
provided 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7.1 and Section 3.2.1) 
More than one entrance and exit to the space 
for convenience.  
Surrounding buildings ensure well defined 
enclosure and is pedestrian friendly due to 
enhancement of the space from street level. 
*Increase visibility by increasing 
entrances 
 
 101 
Perceptibility 
The display of social niceties to enhance the 
overall character (sense of place) through smart 
and adaptation designs.  
- public furniture and facilities 
availability 
- aesthetic values and 
attractiveness 
- flexibility for users 
- scale diversity 
 • Display of social niceties and contributes to public 
places where regular, voluntary gatherings of 
individuals occur 
• Representation of a personal experience 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7 and Section 2.7.1) 
Facilities (seating arrangements) provided 
cater for comfort in the space. 
The space caters for both human and nature 
and is flexible to seasonal changes. 
The green initiatives and public amenities 
provide for an attractive and visually 
appealing Third Place. 
 
Marketability  
The attractiveness, practicality and usefulness 
for voluntary gatherings to occur through the 
establishment of user need attraction for 
regularity. 
- quality of space enhancing a 
unique selling point 
 • Diverse user-need attraction inviting lingering and 
regularity 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7.1) 
The quality of the space is visible through the 
user groups, different functions and location 
within the city, aiding in sustainability of the 
environment and the users. 
*Engaging activities for the 
people at no cost 
Environmental sensitivity 
Enhancement of a sustainable green design for 
current and future use, relating to natural 
environmental diversity. 
- sustainable practice 
approach 
- green initiatives 
 • Create, enhance and restore ecological, biodiversity 
and ecosystem conservation and substitute grey 
infrastructure in urban areas 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7.2, Table 2.4) 
The space is integrated with a park, relating 
the design to the natural environment where 
green initiatives are considered. 
 
Adaptability  
Compact layout design in context through 
incorporating multi-scale interconnected 
systems for the Third Place to be modified. 
- context consideration, design 
in context 
- experimental design 
- day- and night usage 
 • Physical design encouraging compact design for 
social interaction encouragement 
• Incorporating a smart and embracing design, where 
space embraces nature 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7 and Section 3.4) 
The park is situated within the hub of New 
York City but is compatible with its 
surroundings due to the location and close 
amenities such as the New York Public 
Library. 
The layout caters for flexibility and the 
diverse activities incorporated within the 
space. Seasonal changes affect the space 
especially during the winter season. 
*Incorporate activities in stages, 
cost effective 
Intrinsic connectivity  
Mental and emotional sense of well-being based 
on person-process-place attachment. 
- sense of authenticity 
- sense of place 
 • Person-process-place concept enhancing place 
attachment  
(cross-reference to Section 2.6) 
A sense of place is created through the scale 
of development (human scale) for the diverse 
user groups. 
 
 
  
 102 
5.2.3 Case 3: The case of the High Line, New York, United States of America 
5.2.3.1 Location overview 
The High Line, now a Third Place, was built on a historic freight rail line elevated above the 
streets on Manhattan’s West Side. The rail line was destined for demolition, as it went out of use 
in 1980. Through innovative programming and unique designing techniques, a green and 
vibrant public place was created, providing a sustainable and engaging community in and 
around the High Line, New York City’s only elevated park. Today the High Line is a continuous 
greenway of 2,3 kilometres and features more than 500 species of plants and trees. It is 
maintained and operated by the non-profit conservancy Friends of the High Line, in partnership 
with the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. The park reshaped the New 
Yorkers’ thinking with regard to public places and their city in a profound way. In addition to the 
various shops, art commissions, food vendors and free programmes, residents visit the High 
Line to linger, interact and enjoy city views. 
Although the High Line is an icon for sustainability in urban design, this attraction has brought in 
many tourists. As a result, the High Line is referred to a "tourist clogged catwalk". The increase 
in tourists has in addition resulted in an increase in prices in the area, not taking low-income 
residents in consideration (Ferrier, 2016). 
 103 
 
Figure 5-6: Layout of the High Line  
Source:  High Line (2017) 
5.2.3.2 Planning principles employed in the High Line 
Along with strong community engagement principles and the planning principles put forward in 
the case of Bryant Park (Alvarez, 2012:7), the High Line employs three main design principles, 
illustrated in Table 5-5, as part of its success.  
  
 104 
Table 5-5: Success factors of the High Line  
FACTOR / 
INITIATIVE 
DESCRIPTION 
S
o
c
ia
l 
in
c
lu
s
iv
it
y
 
M
u
lt
i-
fu
n
c
ti
o
n
a
li
ty
 
A
c
c
e
s
s
ib
il
it
y
 
P
e
rc
e
p
ti
b
il
it
y
 
M
a
rk
e
ta
b
il
it
y
 
E
n
v
ir
o
n
m
e
n
ta
l 
s
e
n
s
it
iv
it
y
 
A
d
a
p
ta
b
il
it
y
 
In
tr
in
s
ic
 
c
o
n
n
e
c
ti
v
it
y
 
The structure Converting each of the three sections of the High Line from an out-of-use railroad to a public place involved 
planning, community input, and work by some of the city’s most inventive designers. Also, more than two years of 
construction per section was required.  
X X X X X  X  
Planting 
design 
The High Line’s planting design was inspired by the current landscape that grew on the out-of-use elevated rail 
tracks during the 25 years after trains stopped running and the line was abandoned. The species of perennials, 
grasses, shrubs and trees were chosen for their hardiness, sustainability, and textural and colour variation, with a 
focus on native species. Many of the species that originally grew on the High Line’s rail bed are incorporated into 
the park’s landscape today. Nearly half of the plant species and cultivars planted on the High Line are native to the 
United States. 
   X  X   
Sustainable 
practices 
The way in which the High Line is maintained and operated on an ongoing basis, the park strives towards 
sustainability with the same level of care that went into the park’s design. 
Plant watering 
The High Line’s green roof system is designed to allow the plants to retain as much water as possible. A drip 
irrigation system is also installed with options for both automatic and manual watering. As many of the plants are 
drought-tolerant, they need little supplemental watering. When supplemental watering is needed, hand watering is 
used so as to tailor the amount of water to the needs of individual species and weather conditions, and to conserve 
water. 
     X   
Sustainability 
The High Line is inherently a green structure. It repurposes a piece of industrial infrastructure as a public green 
space. The High Line landscape essentially functions as a green roof; porous pathways contain open joints, so 
water can drain between planks and water adjacent planting beds, cutting down on the amount of stormwater that 
runs off the site into the sewer system. 
 X  X X X X  
Local sourcing 
Materials are sourced from within a 100-mile radius. Almost half of the High Line’s plants are native species, and 
many were produced by local growers. The High Line’s ecosystem provides food and shelter for a variety of wildlife 
species, including native pollinators. 
   X  X  X 
Source: Author’s own construction based on Cantor (2014) and David (2002:25) 
 
 105 
The High Line represent different elements, principles and considerations to be included within 
open space to ensure regularity for a successful Third Place. With variety of activities included, 
opportunity for social interaction and Third Place layout, the social sustainability is enhanced 
through an improved quality of life concerning urban liveability (quality living space), social 
equality and stability. 
5.2.3.3 Visual illustrations of Third Place planning in the High Line 
The following images illustrate the High Line as situated in New York City. This unique Third 
Place utilised unused open space and incorporated different planning elements with a focused 
green approach to encourage users to spend time within. Opportunity for social interaction is 
provided on more than one level through the different services and attractions provided, seating 
options within the Third Places and location of the continuous greenway.  
 106 
Figure 5-7: The High Line illustration of Third Place planning 
Source:  High Line (2017) 
5.2.3.4 Case study review for best practices in the High Line 
Following the introduction and the broader planning approaches, the specific case study 
identified (The High Line) is evaluated accordingly. The review was based on the theory-based 
framework developed in the literature investigation of this research (cross-reference to 
Section 3.5). 
  
 107 
Table 5-6: Case 3 review and best practice identification 
The High Line review 
Planning approach design considerations 
and interpretation in terms of Third Place 
objectives 
Planning guidelines  
Third Place planning considerations 
to enhance social sustainability 
Indicators motivating case study 
Best practice 
identification  
(Case study specific) 
 
Social inclusivity 
Creation of a platform for community 
cohesion and social inclusion by improving 
the ability and opportunity on which 
individuals and groups take part in society. 
The fostering of social activities on neutral 
ground.  
- place attraction through synergy 
- sense of place  
- welcoming space with diverse 
uses and users 
- sustainable approach 
- community priority 
 • Creation of a platform for community cohesion and 
social inclusion 
• Public place on neutral ground where individuals 
and communities wish to gather and interact outside 
of the work or home realm  
• Creation and maintenance of the conditions under 
which humans and nature can exist in productive 
harmony within urban areas 
(cross-reference to Section 2.2, Section 2.5 and 
Section 2.7) 
Social cohesion is achieved through the interactional 
platform for users. Benches and different chair 
setups also aid in the sense of place and movement 
dimension within the Third Place. 
The space is self-sustained in terms of green 
urbanism and green infrastructure incorporated, 
according to seasonal specifications. 
 
Multi-functionality  
Active space enhancing characteristic 
uniqueness, through providing a variety (10+) 
of activities and amenities to focus on the 
enhancement of the human experience for 
each individual within the Third Place. 
- user-need diversity 
- social and functional diversity 
- combined services and activities 
(10+)  
• Organising and offering activities to foster active 
social interaction 
• Focus on the human experience within the Third 
Place  
• Big or small natural areas varied in quality 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7.1, Section 3.2.2 and 
Section 3.4) 
The space ensures regularity due to its uniqueness 
with a vibrant atmosphere.  
The human experience is enhanced with a variety of 
amenities, attractions and activities. 
Activities and city view differ from day- and night 
ensuring diversity is catered for in terms of the 
different user group needs. 
The Third Place is multi-functional due to its layout, 
serving different purposes and activities. 
*Diversity within the Third 
Place to provide to different 
user groups 
Accessibility  
Internal and external place connectedness 
encouraging convenient pedestrian 
movement flow.  
- entrance and exit to and from 
space 
- safety perception 
- walkability 
- utilise shared space through 
mixed-use 
- reinforce linkages 
 • Enhance the number of visitors that frequently visit 
the Third Place, due to convenience encouraging 
regularity 
• Planning on different scales enforcing an integrated 
planning approach and maximising the opportunities 
provided 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7.1 and Section 3.2.1) 
Due to the unique form of the space, multiple 
entrances and exits are provided. 
Well defined enclosure is visible due to the space 
being elevated above street level, pedestrian-
orientated approach. 
The space ensures integrated connectivity towards 
the surrounding urban are due to the layout and 
form. 
 
 
 108 
Perceptibility 
The display of social niceties to enhance the 
overall character (sense of place) through 
smart and adaptation designs.  
- public furniture and facilities 
availability 
- aesthetic values and 
attractiveness 
- flexibility for users 
- scale diversity 
 • Display of social niceties and contributes to public 
places where regular, voluntary gatherings of 
individuals occur 
• Representation of a personal experience 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7 and Section 2.7.1) 
Parking is limited due to the form and location, but a 
holistic and clean space is created with a welcoming 
atmosphere ensuring the space is comfortable for 
the users due to the layout.  
Multi-functionality is ensured through the 
incorporation of nature within the space, combining 
user activities according to the user needs. 
Visually the Third Place is attractive due to its 
location, elevated above the pedestrian eye level 
and green initiatives incorporated. 
*Aesthetic value enhances 
sense of place through the 
unique layout 
Marketability  
The attractiveness, practicality and usefulness 
for voluntary gatherings to occur through the 
establishment of user need attraction for 
regularity. 
- quality of space enhancing a 
unique selling point 
 • Diverse user-need attraction inviting lingering and 
regularity 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7.1) 
The quality of the space is highlighted by the 
uniqueness in terms of the motivation for the 
development of the high line, aiding to the location. 
*Sustainable maintenance 
approach and practices 
 
Environmental sensitivity 
Enhancement of a sustainable green design 
for current and future use, relating to natural 
environmental diversity. 
- sustainable practice approach 
- green initiatives 
 • Create, enhance and restore ecological, biodiversity 
and ecosystem conservation and substitute grey 
infrastructure in urban areas 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7.2, Table 2.4) 
Sustainable practices are incorporated to transform 
a lost space into a Third Place, substituting grey 
infrastructure and design within the boundaries of 
the natural environment of the Third Place. 
*Strong environmental 
concerns with a native 
green approach (inherently 
a green structure)  
*Local sourcing of materials 
Adaptability  
Compact layout design in context through 
incorporating multi-scale interconnected 
systems for the Third Place to be modified. 
- context consideration, design 
in context 
- experimental design 
- day- and night usage 
 • Physical design encouraging compact design for 
social interaction encouragement 
• Incorporating a smart and embracing design, where 
space embraces nature 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7 and Section 3.4) 
The Third Place is designed according to the context 
ensuring compatibility as the Third Place stretches 
over different areas of the city. 
The space is highly adaptive to seasonal changes 
due to the layout. However, regularity can reduce 
during winter season. 
*Encourage re-design 
(transformation), rather than 
new design 
Intrinsic connectivity  
Mental and emotional sense of well-being 
based on person-process-place attachment. 
- sense of authenticity 
- sense of place 
 • Person-process-place concept enhancing place 
attachment  
(cross-reference to Section 2.6) 
Sense of place is created through the welcoming 
atmosphere and connectedness to nature (green 
initiatives). 
 
  
 109 
5.2.4 Case 4: The case of Noriega Street Parklet, San Francisco, California 
5.2.4.1 Location overview 
Street parklets, also revered to as pop-up parklets, have become a popular movement of urban 
planning and design to create public places in urban areas around the world. The parklets exist 
within small and underutilised public space and are based on a low-cost conversion to reclaim 
public space for public use (Loukaitou-Sideris et al., 2012:5). The creation of these parklets, are 
driven by a push to reclaim car-designated zones in urban areas for pedestrian use. A parklet is 
defined as “a removable platform made available to the public for recreational use that occupies 
a portion of a parking lane that is closed to motor vehicle parking” (Departments of Planning and 
Development Review, Public Works and Public Utilities, 2016) 
The Noriega parklet was designed as a meeting spot by the community for sitting, eating, and 
playing. Replacing three parking spaces on a street in San Francisco, California, the site 
consists of a 45° parallelogram and is subdivided into two separate spaces to help 
accommodate different user groups (dogs and children, young and old, quiet and loud, bikes 
and strollers). The one part of the space opens generously to the sidewalk, while the other is 
more protected and intimate. The required setback from adjacent parking spaces is exploited to 
provide seating on both the interior and exterior of the extra-deep benches, while the acute 
corners are embraced as areas for planting and chaise lounge seating. Although these parklets 
provide for public places, insufficient parking spaces has now become a great concern where 
parklets have been implemented.  
The parklet, situated in the city’s Outer Sunset District, was a community participation process, 
designed pro bono, constructed at cost and completed in 2012.  
 
 
 110 
 Figure 5-8:  Layout of Noriega Street Parklet  
Source:   Contemporist (2012) 
5.2.4.2 Planning principles employed in Noriega Street Parklet 
Departments of Planning and Development Review, Public Works and Public Utilities (2016) 
and Loukaitou-Sideris et al. (2012:5) refer to the following qualifications, processes and specific 
design elements to consider for a successful parklet. Table 5-7 illustrates the planning principles 
included in the implementation of the parklet in terms of the qualifications for the parklet, the 
process and the specific considered design elements.  
  
 111 
Table 5-7: Success factors of Noriega Street Parklet  
FACTOR / 
INITIATIVE 
DESCRIPTION 
S
o
c
ia
l 
in
c
lu
s
iv
it
y
 
M
u
lt
i-
fu
n
c
ti
o
n
a
li
ty
 
A
c
c
e
s
s
ib
il
it
y
 
P
e
rc
e
p
ti
b
il
it
y
 
M
a
rk
e
ta
b
il
it
y
 
E
n
v
ir
o
n
m
e
n
ta
l 
s
e
n
s
it
iv
it
y
 
A
d
a
p
ta
b
il
it
y
 
In
tr
in
s
ic
 
c
o
n
n
e
c
ti
v
it
y
 
Qualifications 
 
Parklet application is required for a permit for pedestrian enhancement, demonstrating the following based on the 
Parklet Design Guidelines: 
Safe and appropriate parklet location and construction 
Appropriate location demonstrated via photographs and drawings of proposed locations, while safe construction is 
demonstrated by stamped engineering drawings for loading requirements. Both location and construction should meet 
the Parklet Design Guidelines. 
  X  X X X X 
Community support 
Letters of support from adjacent property owners, as well as petitions of support from neighbours and other involved 
groups. 
X   X X   X 
Appropriately maintenance strategy 
The maintenance of the parklet includes, but is not limited to, cleaning the parklet and the immediate environment 
affected by it, storing the parklet in the case of temporary or seasonal removal, and maintaining insurance. 
 X     X  
Parklet process 
 
The design phase, where parklets should be installed and developed include considering which streets and location in 
the street.  
Considerations for the parklet development include entrances, width and height, loading, installation, signage and 
additional safety measures. 
The application phase includes location identification, application submission, location review, finalise community 
support and input, design review, final approvals and installation. 
  X X X    
Design elements 
to consider 
Lighting, seating options, shading, topography-influenced design 
X X    X X X 
Source: Author’s own construction based on Departments of Planning and Development Review, Public Works and Public Utilities (2016); Loukaitou-Sideris et al. (2012:5)  
 112 
Although Noriega Street parklet is developed on a smaller scale, this Third Place exemplifies 
opportunities found within lighter, quicker and cheaper approaches to be considered for Third 
Place planning within urban areas. Social sustainability is further enhanced through 
beautification, encouraging a sense of community and place, improving neighbourhood relations 
to encourage community cohesion, and increasing both real and perceived security and safety 
through encouraging pedestrian-friendly areas. 
5.2.4.3 Illustrations of Third Place planning in Noriega Street 
The following images illustrate The Noriega Street Parklet from a street view. Although this 
Third Place is provided on a smaller scale and includes green urbanism approaches, the 
uniqueness of the mobile Third Place invites users to interact and utilise the area. The location 
in which these Third Places are provided is the key to success, providing a seating option for 
users. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5-9: Noriega Street Parklet visual illustrations of Third Place planning 
Source:  Contemporist (2012) 
5.2.4.4 Case study review for best practices in Noriega Street Parklet 
Following the introduction and the broader planning approaches, the specific case study 
identified (Noriega Street Parklet) is evaluated accordingly. The review was based on the 
theory-based framework developed in the literature investigation of this research (cross-
reference to Section 3.5). 
  
 113 
Table 5-8: Case 4 review and best practice identification 
Noriega Street Parklet review 
Planning approach design 
considerations and interpretation in 
terms of Third Place objectives 
Planning guidelines  
Third Place planning considerations 
to enhance social sustainability 
Indicators motivating case study 
Best practice 
identification  
(Case study specific) 
 
Social inclusivity 
Creation of a platform for community 
cohesion and social inclusion by improving 
the ability and opportunity on which 
individuals and groups take part in society. 
The fostering of social activities on neutral 
ground.  
- place attraction through synergy 
- sense of place  
- welcoming space with diverse uses and 
users 
- sustainable approach 
- community priority 
 • Creation of a platform for community cohesion and 
social inclusion 
• Public place on neutral ground where individuals 
and communities wish to gather and interact outside 
of the work or home realm  
• Creation and maintenance of the conditions under 
which humans and nature can exist in productive 
harmony within urban areas 
(cross-reference to Section 2.2, Section 2.5 and 
Section 2.7) 
The size of the space creates an interactional 
platform for social cohesion and a sense of 
place. 
Due to the layout of the Third Place social 
interaction is encourages. 
The space can be self-sustained, but due to 
the size, minimal green initiatives can be 
incorporated on a small scale.  
 
 
Multi-functionality  
Active space enhancing characteristic 
uniqueness, through providing a variety 
(10+) of activities and amenities to focus 
on the enhancement of the human 
experience for each individual within the 
Third Place. 
- user-need diversity 
- social and functional diversity 
- combined services and activities (10+)  
• Organising and offering activities to foster active 
social interaction 
• Focus on the human experience within the Third 
Place  
• Big or small natural areas varied in quality 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7.1, Section 3.2.2 and 
Section 3.4) 
Regularity is ensured due to the structure 
being moveable, different users at different 
locations.  
The space is compatible for day- and night use 
and in different locations. 
Green usage and initiatives can be changed 
due to the design. The size allows for multi-
functionality within different locations. 
 
Accessibility  
Internal and external place connectedness 
encouraging convenient pedestrian 
movement flow.  
- entrance and exit to and from space 
- safety perception 
- walkability 
- utilise shared space through mixed-use 
- reinforce linkages 
 • Enhance the number of visitors that frequently visit 
the Third Place, due to convenience encouraging 
regularity 
• Planning on different scales enforcing an integrated 
planning approach and maximising the opportunities 
provided 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7.1 and Section 3.2.1) 
The structure creating the space is moveable, 
convenient in terms of location. 
Well defined enclosure is provided, placed on 
street level, providing for diverse user groups. 
Integrated with sidewalks and current street 
level systems. 
*Encourage public spaces 
for pedestrian use within 
urban areas (pedestrian 
enhancement & car free 
zones) 
 
 114 
Perceptibility 
The display of social niceties to enhance 
the overall character (sense of place) 
through smart and adaptation designs.  
- public furniture and facilities availability 
- aesthetic values and attractiveness 
- flexibility for users 
- scale diversity 
 • Display of social niceties and contributes to public 
places where regular, voluntary gatherings of 
individuals occur 
• Representation of a personal experience 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7 and Section 2.7.1) 
The space provides a clean and comfortable 
image with creativeness included in the space. 
The Third Place is appealing due to its layout 
and innovation in design to ensure a personal 
experience.  
 
Marketability  
The attractiveness, practicality and 
usefulness for voluntary gatherings to 
occur through the establishment of user 
need attraction for regularity. 
- quality of space enhancing a unique 
selling point 
 • Diverse user-need attraction inviting lingering and 
regularity 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7.1) 
The uniqueness of the space is focused on the 
lighter, quicker & cheaper approach of a 
moveable structure creating a Third Place. *Cost effective approach 
Environmental sensitivity 
Enhancement of a sustainable green 
design for current and future use, relating 
to natural environmental diversity. 
- sustainable practice approach 
- green initiatives 
 • Create, enhance and restore ecological, biodiversity 
and ecosystem conservation and substitute grey 
infrastructure in urban areas 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7.2, Table 2.4) 
Third Place is designed according to 
sustainable practices including green 
initiatives. 
 
Adaptability  
Compact layout design in context through 
incorporating multi-scale interconnected 
systems for the Third Place to be modified. 
- context consideration, design in context 
- experimental design 
- day- and night usage 
 • Physical design encouraging compact design for 
social interaction encouragement 
• Incorporating a smart and embracing design, where 
space embraces nature 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7 and Section 3.4) 
The Third Place is moveable ensuring 
compatibility with its surroundings and is 
implemented according to context 
considerations. 
Flexible in terms of layout and location for 
seasonal changes. 
*Transforming underutilised 
space to public place 
(reclaim of urban space) 
    *Temporary structure 
removal options for variety 
Intrinsic connectivity  
Mental and emotional sense of well-being 
based on person-process-place 
attachment. 
- sense of authenticity 
- sense of place 
 • Person-process-place concept enhancing place 
attachment  
(cross-reference to Section 2.6) 
Sense of authenticity is provided through the 
uniqueness of the place created within what 
was unused space. 
 
 
 
 
 115 
5.2.5 Case 5: The case of Perth Cultural Centre, Perth, Western Australia 
5.2.5.1 Location overview 
The Perth Cultural Centre (PCC) is strategically positioned between the Perth CBD and vibrant 
Northbridge and is home to key cultural institutions and public gathering spaces. Surrounded by 
attractions such as the Art Gallery of Western Australia, Western Australia Museum, State 
Library of Western Australia, State Theatre, and the Perth Institute of Contemporary Arts 
(PICA), the PCC provides a unique public space as Third Place for the people within this 
precinct. The PCC precinct is earmarked for continued development and enhancement as the 
principal focus of cultural activities (City of Perth Planning Scheme, 2015). 
5.2.5.2 Planning principles employed in Perth Cultural Centre  
While the PCC is home to many of the state’s major cultural and educational institutions, a lack 
of management and maintenance has left the precinct underutilised, with a poor public 
perception. For this reason, the PCC was not functioning at full capacity. The East Perth 
Redevelopment Authority (EPRA), along with Project for Public Space (PPS) and local 
community and institutions, collaborated to revamp the district and provide a valued place for a 
corresponding public place experience for the people. The aim was for a continuous, safe, 
attractive and clearly identified network of pedestrian paths, spaces and facilities to be provided 
and enhanced throughout the precinct, ensuring pedestrian considerations remain a high 
priority. 
Place-making principles were applied, considering the people, the community and the area’s 
assets and personality, to create vibrant and active public place for Western Australia as 
illustrated in Table 5-9. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 116 
Table 5-9: Success factors of Perth Cultural Centre  
FACTOR / 
INITIATIVE 
DESCRIPTION 
S
o
c
ia
l 
in
c
lu
s
iv
it
y
 
M
u
lt
i-
fu
n
c
ti
o
n
a
li
ty
 
A
c
c
e
s
s
ib
il
it
y
 
P
e
rc
e
p
ti
b
il
it
y
 
M
a
rk
e
ta
b
il
it
y
 
E
n
v
ir
o
n
m
e
n
ta
l 
s
e
n
s
it
iv
it
y
 
A
d
a
p
ta
b
il
it
y
 
In
tr
in
s
ic
 
c
o
n
n
e
c
ti
v
it
y
 
Mix of spaces 
and uses 
The precinct’s physical interface with the city and its 
relationship between buildings and open spaces must be 
seamless. Introducing a new mix of uses and commercial 
activity to add vibrancy, supported by sympathetic 
programming and activation strategies, will aid in ensuring a 
mix of uses and users. 
  X  X  X  
Pedestrian-
orientated 
The planning patterns, movement and public realm is 
designed to enhance pedestrian movement and ensure a 
vibrant people-focused destination.  
X   X    X 
PPS lighter, 
quicker, cheaper 
approach 
The approach ensured a range of immediate 
improvements including seating, shade, lighting, retail 
pods, urban orchard and native wetland. 
 X    X   
Source: Author’s own construction based on City of Perth Planning Scheme (2015) 
 117 
The public place integrated with the PCC provides opportunities for social engagement and 
lingering through the layout and activities provided for different user groups. Social sustainability 
is enhanced through setting a stage for youth and adults to associate with one another, 
improving neighbourhood relations to encourage community cohesion, increasing both real and 
perceived security and safety through encouraging pedestrian-friendly areas, and improving 
quality of life concerning urban liveability and quality living space, social equality and stability 
provided. 
5.2.5.3 Illustrations of Third Place planning in Perth Cultural Centre  
The following images illustrate PCC as a Third Place from both a bird’s view and street view. 
Provided on a larger scale, the place introduces opportunity for social interaction as different 
activities and amenities are incorporated. Usage of the place for day and night or for different 
purposes is also encouraged and ensures regularity of a variety of different user groups. 
Different textures, colours, seating arrangements and lighting are incorporated for a safe and 
inviting atmosphere and a pedestrian-friendly zone. 
 118 
Figure 5-10: Perth Cultural Centre illustrations of Third Place planning 
Source:  City of Perth Planning Scheme (2015:2) 
5.2.5.4 Case study review for best practices in Perth Cultural Centre  
Following the introduction and the broader planning approaches, the specific case study 
identified (Perth Cultural Centre) is evaluated accordingly. The review was based on the theory-
based framework developed in the literature investigation of this research (cross-reference to 
Section 3.5).   
  
 119 
Table 5-10: Case 5 review and best practice identification 
Perth Cultural Centre review 
Planning approach design considerations 
and interpretation in terms of Third Place 
objectives 
Planning guidelines  
Third Place planning considerations 
to enhance social sustainability 
Indicators motivating case study 
Best practice 
identification  
(Case study specific) 
 
Social inclusivity 
Creation of a platform for community cohesion 
and social inclusion by improving the ability 
and opportunity on which individuals and 
groups take part in society. The fostering of 
social activities on neutral ground.  
- place attraction through synergy 
- sense of place  
- welcoming space with diverse uses 
and users 
- sustainable approach 
- community priority 
 • Creation of a platform for community cohesion and 
social inclusion 
• Public place on neutral ground where individuals 
and communities wish to gather and interact outside 
of the work or home realm  
• Creation and maintenance of the conditions under 
which humans and nature can exist in productive 
harmony within urban areas 
(cross-reference to Section 2.2, Section 2.5 and 
Section 2.7) 
The space is cooperative in terms of the 
surrounding facilities and sets a social 
interactive platform through the facilities with 
the space. 
Green initiative incorporation through green 
infrastructure in a self-sustained approach. 
 
 
*Social engagement 
Multi-functionality  
Active space enhancing characteristic 
uniqueness, through providing a variety (10+) 
of activities and amenities to focus on the 
enhancement of the human experience for 
each individual within the Third Place. 
- user-need diversity 
- social and functional diversity 
- combined services and activities (10+)  
• Organising and offering activities to foster active 
social interaction 
• Focus on the human experience within the Third 
Place  
• Big or small natural areas varied in quality 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7.1, Section 3.2.2 and 
Section 3.4) 
The diversity in activities ensure regularity of 
diverse user groups. 
The human experience is enhanced with a 
variety of amenities, attractions and activities. 
With the variety in activities and amenities 
provided for different user groups and specific 
needs, the Third Place is multi-functional. 
*For day- and night use 
– lighting 
Accessibility  
Internal and external place connectedness 
encouraging convenient pedestrian movement 
flow.  
- entrance and exit to and from space 
- safety perception 
- walkability 
- utilise shared space through mixed-
use 
- reinforce linkages 
 • Enhance the number of visitors that frequently visit 
the Third Place, due to convenience encouraging 
regularity 
• Planning on different scales enforcing an integrated 
planning approach and maximising the opportunities 
provided 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7.1 and Section 3.2.1) 
Conveniently located to offer more than one 
entrance and exit to the space. 
The planning patterns, movement and public 
realm are designed to enhance pedestrian 
movement and ensure a vibrant people 
focused destination.  
Different levels are incorporated in the space 
but integrated to ensure connectivity. 
 
 
 120 
Perceptibility 
The display of social niceties to enhance the 
overall character (sense of place) through 
smart and adaptation designs.  
- public furniture and facilities 
availability 
- aesthetic values and attractiveness 
- flexibility for users 
- scale diversity 
 • Display of social niceties and contributes to public 
places where regular, voluntary gatherings of 
individuals occur 
• Representation of a personal experience 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7 and Section 2.7.1) 
Diverse services, activities and facilities for 
multi-functionality.  
Visually the Third Place is appealing due to the 
design, layout and innovation in design. 
*Increasing both real 
and perceived security 
and safety through 
pedestrian-friendly 
areas 
Marketability  
The attractiveness, practicality and usefulness 
for voluntary gatherings to occur through the 
establishment of user need attraction for 
regularity. 
- quality of space enhancing a unique 
selling point 
 • Diverse user-need attraction inviting lingering and 
regularity 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7.1) 
The location, integrating the space with 
surrounding activities, contribution to quality 
and regularity. 
*Lighter, quicker and 
cheaper approach 
Environmental sensitivity 
Enhancement of a sustainable green design 
for current and future use, relating to natural 
environmental diversity. 
- sustainable practice approach 
- green initiatives 
 • Create, enhance and restore ecological, biodiversity 
and ecosystem conservation and substitute grey 
infrastructure in urban areas 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7.2, Table 2.4) 
Grey infrastructure substitution through green 
initiatives incorporated in the Third Place. 
 
Adaptability  
Compact layout design in context through 
incorporating multi-scale interconnected 
systems for the Third Place to be modified. 
- context consideration, design in 
context 
- experimental design 
- day- and night usage 
 • Physical design encouraging compact design for 
social interaction encouragement 
• Incorporating a smart and embracing design, where 
space embraces nature 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7 and Section 3.4) 
The Third Place is compatible with its 
surrounding amenities.  
Flexibility is ensured through the layout with a 
range of immediate improvements through a 
lighter & quicker approach. 
* Seamless physical 
interface with the city 
and its relationship 
between buildings and 
open spaces    
Intrinsic connectivity  
Mental and emotional sense of well-being 
based on person-process-place attachment. 
- sense of authenticity 
- sense of place 
 • Person-process-place concept enhancing place 
attachment  
(cross-reference to Section 2.6) 
The welcoming atmosphere ensures a sense 
of place. 
*Urban liveability and 
quality living space 
 
 
  
 121 
5.2.6 Collective case study review and interpretation 
Following the discussions, illustrations and reviews based on the five identified case studies, 
Table 5-11 illustrated a collective case study review and interpretation. The aforementioned 
literature-based design considerations are portrayed once more, and the best practices of each 
case study are identified. Although most of the best practices can be categorised with the 
current literature-based design considerations, single elements were identified to refine the 
framework for planning Third Places. This review and interpretation will aid in the refining of the 
theory-based framework for the South African context. 
 
 
  
 122 
Table 5-11: Collective case study review and interpretation  
Collective case study review and interpretation 
 
Design consideration 
regarding literature 
Case 1: Las Ramblas Boulevard Case 2: Bryant Park Case 3: High Line Case 4: Noriega Street Parklet Case 5: Perth Cultural Centre 
Social inclusivity 1,2  
*The place should complement the 
cultural preference of the 
surrounding community 
  
 
*Social engagement 
Multi-functionality 1,3 
*Mixed uses and users impact 
regularity 
*Variety for day- and night use and 
seasonal changes in terms of 
amenities and services/ activities 
provided to ensure all year-round 
regularity of users in the space 
*Diversity within the Third Place to 
provide to different user groups 
 *For day- and night use – lighting 
Accessibility 1,2,3  
*Increase visibility by increasing 
entrances 
 
*Encourage public spaces for 
pedestrian use within urban areas 
(pedestrian enhancement & car 
free zones) 
 
Perceptibility 1,2   
*Aesthetic value enhances sense 
of place through the unique layout 
 
*Increasing both real and 
perceived security and safety 
through pedestrian-friendly areas 
Marketability 2 
*Reclaim urban space for public 
use 
*Engaging activities for the people 
at no cost 
*Sustainable maintenance 
approach and practices 
*Cost effective approach 
*Lighter, quicker and cheaper 
approach 
Environmental sensitivity 2 
*Respect historical growth of public 
areas 
 
*Strong environmental concerns 
with a native green approach 
(inherently a green structure) 
*Local sourcing of materials 
  
Adaptability 2,3 
*Focus on redevelopment rather 
than new development 
*The urban environment should 
remain fairly compact to impact 
sustainability 
*Incorporate activities in stages, 
cost effective 
*Encourage re-design 
(transformation), rather than new 
design 
*Transforming underutilised space 
to public place (reclaim of urban 
space) 
*Temporary structure removal 
options for variety 
* Seamless physical interface with 
the city and its relationship 
between buildings and open 
spaces 
Intrinsic connectivity 2 
*Variety uses ensures an individual 
experience for all 
   
*Urban liveability and quality living 
space 
1 Placemaking   2 Lively planning   3 Green urbanism 
 123 
5.3 Phase 2: Expert-survey 
The literature investigation of this research has identified and elaborated on the importance and 
benefits of Third Place planning and the challenges South Africa face in this regard. In 
accordance with the case study review and best practice identification (cross-reference to 
Section 5.2), Chapter 5 further reflected on expert perspectives regarding the importance of 
planning Third Places in South Africa. The detailed methodological approach of Phase 2 of the 
empirical investigation was described in Chapter 1 (cross-reference to Section 1.5.2).  
The results from the expert perspective are presented accordingly, based on the structured 
questionnaire. A e-questionnaire was sent to 162 candidates and a total of 30 participants 
(n=30) completed a valid questionnaire. 86,7% of these participants indicated the private sector 
as their main sector of employment, with the remaining 13,3% indicating the public sector as 
their main sector of employment. 
Profession was a core dominator for selecting participants, as expert opinions on the subject 
matter was required. 50% of the participants included in the research are Professional Town 
Planners; 30% Candidate Planners; 6,7% researchers in the field of Urban and Regional 
Planning; with the remaining 13,3% participants indicating their profession as market analysts. 
 
Figure 5-11: Profession of survey participants 
 
0 10 20 30 40 50
Professional Town Planner
Candidate Planner
Other
Researcher
%
A
xi
s 
Ti
tl
e
13,3%
6,7%
30%
50%
Pro
fes
s o
n 
 124 
Figure 5-12 illustrates the highest level of planning education of the participants. 53,3% 
indicated an honours degree as their highest level of planning education, correlating with the 
SACPLAN requirements of a registered Professional Planner (SACPLAN, 2018). 
 
Figure 5-12: Survey participants’ highest level of planning education  
Within the sample size of the 30 participants, 73,3% indicated that their knowledge on Third 
Places and the planning thereof was based on a local perspective. 
5.3.1 Expert-survey results  
The results of the expert-survey are reported thematically according to:  
1) importance of Third Places within spatial planning,  
2) improvement of social sustainability through Third Places,  
3) creating a sense of place and community through Third Places and  
4) the importance of public participation in Third Place planning.  
The data of the questionnaire-based expert-survey was statistically analysed by the Statistical 
Consultation Services of the North-West University, where frequencies and cross-tabulations 
were used to determine the association between two variables. The results were interpreted to 
inform on the planning of Third Places within the local South African context, the specific needs 
and preferences identified by the experts, along with specific characteristics to inform the 
planning of Third Places within a local context. 
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Diploma
Degree
Honours degree
Masters degree
Doctorate degree
%
L
e
v
e
l
3,3%
53,3%
10%
26,7%
6,7%
 125 
With specific reference to the needs and preferences relating to Third Places, 60% of the expert 
perspectives indicated the importance for Third Places to provide users with a place for 
interactional opportunities. Furthermore 56,7% indicated the importance of a place space for 
children to be incorporated within the Third Place (refer to Table 5-12 and Table 5-13).  
Table 5-12: Needs and preferences in the Third Place 
 
 
 
Needs and preferences in the Third Place 
 
 
 
 
 
 
N
o
t 
im
p
o
rt
a
n
t 
a
t 
a
ll
 
S
li
g
h
tl
y
 i
m
p
o
rt
a
n
t 
M
o
d
e
ra
te
ly
 i
m
p
o
rt
a
n
t 
V
e
ry
 i
m
p
o
rt
a
n
t 
E
x
tr
e
m
e
ly
 i
m
p
o
rt
a
n
t 
Provides users a place to: 
Interact with people/friends/family   3,3% 60% 36,7% 
Work out/keep fit (e.g. gym, run, walk)  6,7% 40% 36,7% 16,7% 
Relax   6,7% 26,7% 36,7% 30% 
Enjoy lunch  6,7% 3,3% 33,3% 36,7% 20% 
Play for children  3,3% 10% 56,7% 30% 
Walk pets  10% 36,7% 43,3% 10% 
Enjoy/interact with nature (green)   16,7% 43,3% 40% 
Spend a day (e.g. picnic)  13,3% 23,3% 43,3% 20% 
Engage in other activities (e.g. public art, games)  10 30% 43,3% 16,7% 
A total of 86,7% participants indicated safety as extremely important with reference to the 
characteristic of Third Places, 66,7% indicated physical design as very important, 63,3% 
identified amenities within the Third Place as very important, and 66,7% indicated that it is very 
important for the Third Place to be personally functional to its users. With this high percentage 
indicating the importance of safety within Third Places, a direct correlation can be made in terms 
of the location, indicated as extremely important by 63,3%, and will consequently influence 
regularity within the Third Place.  
 126 
Table 5-13: Importance of the quality of characteristics in Third Places 
 
 
 
Characteristics 
 
 
 
 
 
 
N
o
t 
im
p
o
rt
a
n
t 
a
t 
a
ll
 
S
li
g
h
tl
y
 i
m
p
o
rt
a
n
t 
M
o
d
e
ra
te
ly
 i
m
p
o
rt
a
n
t 
V
e
ry
 i
m
p
o
rt
a
n
t 
E
x
tr
e
m
e
ly
 i
m
p
o
rt
a
n
t 
Location   10% 26,7% 63,3% 
Safety    13,3% 86,7% 
Physical design   16,7% 66,7% 16,7% 
Accessibility   6,7% 46,7% 46,7% 
Management   10% 36,7% 53,3% 
Amenities   20% 63,3% 16,7% 
Regularity  3,3% 26,7% 53,3% 16,7% 
Incorporated activities  6,7% 40% 36,7% 16,7% 
Representation of a personal experience 3,3% 3,3% 40% 46,7% 6,7% 
Fulfil an individual need 3,3% 6,7% 53,3% 23,3% 13,3% 
Makes one escape from home (First Place) and 
work (Second Place) 
 3,3% 20% 53,3% 23,3% 
Personally functional to people  3,3% 20% 66,7% 10% 
There when needed 3,3% 6,7% 23,3% 53,3% 13,3% 
 
Cross-tabulations were further applied in order to examine relationships within the data that 
might not be readily apparent when analysing total survey responses. Cramer’s V (symbolized 
by V: large effect or practical significant association V ~ 0,5; a medium effect or practical visible 
significant association V ~ 0,3; and a small effect or practical non-significant association V ~ 
0,1). Ellis and Steyn (2013:52) determined the effect size and practical significance thereof. P-
values are reported for the sake of completeness, but will not be interpreted, since a 
 127 
convenience sample instead of a random sample is applied. The analysis considered the 
responses of participants with reference to the importance of planning Third Places impacting 
social sustainability within South Africa. Significant associations which illustrated a small, 
medium or large effect are captured in Table 5-14. The cross-tabulation results were according 
discussed thematically based on four initiatives including 1) the importance of Third Places 
within spatial planning; 2) the improvement of social sustainability through Third Places; 3) 
creating a sense of place and community through Third Places; and 4) the importance of public 
participation in Third Place planning. 
Table 5-14: Cross-tabulations results of the expert-survey  
These findings in Table 5-14 are discussed accordingly. 
5.3.1.1.1 Third Place importance within spatial planning 
The cross-tabulation illustrated a total of 53,3% of the participants, indicating their profession as 
Professional Town Planners, ranked the importance of Third Places within spatial planning as 
“very important”. This is a direct indication of professionals within the public and private sector of 
South Africa recognising the importance of Third Place planning to be included and maximised 
INITIATIVE 
SUPPORT OF 
INITIATIVE 
CHI-SQUARE 
TEST 
(P<0.05) 
CRAMER’S V 
TEST VALUE 
CRAMER’S V 
TEST 
APPROX. 
SIG. 
Third Place importance 
within spatial planning  53,3% 0,905 0,190 0,905 
Improvement of social 
sustainability through 
Third Places 
66,7% 0,283 0,348 0,283 
Third Places to create a 
sense of 
place/community 
77,8% 0,141 0,401 0,141 
Importance of public 
participation in Third 
place planning 
72,8% 0,211 0,322 0,211 
 128 
within broader spatial planning initiatives. A small effect or practical non-significant association 
was evident (V = 0,190). A total of 55,6% of the participants indicating their profession as 
Candidate Town Planners also ranked the importance of Third Places within spatial planning as 
“very important”. 
5.3.1.1.2 Improvement of social sustainability through Third Places 
66,7% of the participants, indicating the extent of their familiarity regarding Third Places as “very 
familiar”, agreed with the statement that introducing Third Places in urban areas would enhance 
social sustainability. A medium effect or practical visible significant association was evident (V = 
0,348). 
5.3.1.1.3 Third Places to create a sense of place and community 
The cross-tabulation illustrated a total of 77,8% of the participants, indicating the extent of their 
familiarity regarding Third Places as “very familiar”, ranked the importance of Third Places within 
communities in order to create a sense of place or sense of community as “extremely 
important”. A large effect or practical significant association was evident (V = 0,401). 
5.3.1.1.4 Importance of public participation in Third Place planning 
36,4% of the participants, indicating that their knowledge in terms of Third Places as based on a 
“local perspective”, indicated the importance of a bottom-up/public participation process in the 
planning of Third Places as “very important to extremely important”. A medium effect or practical 
visible significant association was evident (V = 0,322). 
5.3.2 Expert-survey review and interpretation  
Following the discussions, illustrations and data analysed based on the expert perspectives, 
Table 5-15 captures the expert-survey review and interpretation, linking the expert-survey 
initiatives to the design considerations and constructing the South African consideration in 
context to each design consideration. This review and interpretation informed the refining of the 
theory-based framework for the planning of Third Places in the South African context.  
 129 
Table 5-15: Expert-survey review and interpretation  
Expert-survey review and interpretation 
 30 (n=30) purposefully selected participant perspectives based on the South African context 
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS EXPERT-SURVEY INITIATIVES  SOUTH AFRICAN CONSIDERATIONS 
Social inclusivity 
• Importance of public participation in Third Place planning 
• Improvement of social sustainability through Third Places 
Consider Third Place planning on neighbourhood scale to enhance a sense of place and community 
through providing a social stage and opportunity for interaction. 
Multi-functionality  
• Third Place importance within spatial planning 
Optimal usage requires multi-functionality through providing variety of usage options (e.g. day- and 
night usage). 
Accessibility Optimal usage of Third Place enhancement through providing sufficient entrances to the Third Place. 
Perceptibility • Third Places to create a sense of place and community 
The importance of Third Place planning could be included and maximised within spatial planning 
initiative. 
Marketability 
• Importance of public participation in Third Place planning 
• Third Place importance within spatial planning 
By introducing Third Places within urban areas of South Africa, social sustainability could be 
enhanced. 
Environmental sensitivity 
• Third Place importance within spatial planning 
Sustainable and environmental sensitive approach through local material sourcing.  
Adaptability Consider reclaiming urban open space to be transformed to Third Places. 
Intrinsic connectivity  
• Importance of public participation in Third Place planning 
• Third Places to create a sense of place and community 
Consider public input or a bottom-up approach to ensure user needs and requirements are met and a 
unique human experience in the Third Place is provided. 
  
 130 
Phase 2, the expert perspectives, confirmed the importance of sustainable development within 
the local context. However, undervaluation of social sustainability within spatial planning 
approaches exist. The expert perspectives contributed specific planning guidelines to be 
considered in the context of South African. The inclusion of Third Place planning within spatial 
planning initiatives, the consideration of Third Place planning on neighbourhood scale and a 
bottom-up approach were proposed, based on the expert-survey, to inform the revised 
framework for the planning of Third Places specifically for the local South African context. 
5.4 Conclusion 
The empirical investigation of this research comprised of two phases, with Phase 1 and Phase 2 
respectively constituting a qualitative and a quantitative study. Phase 1, the case study review, 
consisted of five purposefully selected international case studies to identify and consider 
international best practices for the South African context. Phase 2, the expert-survey, included a 
questionnaire-based expert-survey on the importance of planning Third Places in South Africa 
and the interface thereof with social sustainability.  
Based on the five international case studies reviewed (cross-reference to Section 5.2), a strong 
correlation was drawn between the design considerations of the three purposefully selected 
planning approaches put forward for the planning of Third Places (cross-reference to Section 
3.5) and the planning principles employed in the context of each international case study. Each 
case study contributed towards identifying international best practices, to inform the refinement 
of the eight design considerations of the framework for enhanced social sustainability through 
the planning of Third Places (cross-reference to Table 5-11).  
The expert perspectives contributed to the refined framework by proposing additional 
consideration for the planning of Third Places in South Africa. As Third Place planning is a new 
concept within the South African planning context, the need to increase education and 
awareness on Third Place planning was emphasised, based on the value and benefits provided 
by such spaces. The incorporation of a participatory planning approach was in addition a 
prominent approach to be considered when planning for Third Places within South Africa to 
ensure that the need of the user groups of these places are met and regularity is enhanced. 
Following Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the empirical investigation, the following core findings were 
drawn. Phase 1 indicated that social sustainability is regarded as an important aspect within 
spatial planning. This is due to public parks, green spaces and communal areas enhancing the 
 131 
social well-being of the people, impacting on broader objectives linked to social sustainability. 
Case studies identified the value of well-defined planning considerations and guidelines in aid of 
planning for successful public places and for increased flexibility while catering for different user 
groups within the social fabric. Phase 2 confirmed the importance of sustainable development 
within the local context, but undervaluation of social sustainability within spatial planning 
approaches. As Third Place planning is a new concept within the South African planning 
context, the need to increase education and awareness on Third Place planning was 
emphasised, based on the value and benefits provided by such spaces. The eight design 
considerations constructed in Chapter 3 (cross-reference to Table 3-8) were refined according 
to their specific planning guidelines. This refinement of the guidelines of each design 
consideration was informed by the best practices and expert perspective initiatives (cross-
reference to Table 5-11 and Table 5-15). 
Phase 1 and 2 of this empirical investigation were accordingly employed to inform and refine the 
framework for enhanced social sustainability through the planning of Third Place in South Africa, 
as presented and proposed in Chapter 6.  
 
  
 132 
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS 
6.1 Introduction 
Previous chapters in this research emphasised the increasingly influential role of social 
sustainability within the urban context, and the contribution of planning for Third Places in this 
regard. Chapter 6 of this research reflected on the most significant conclusions drawn from the 
literature review, the policy and legislative framework evaluation and the empirical investigation, 
in line with the research objectives and main research question set out in Chapter 1 (cross-
reference to Section 1.4).  
6.2 Conclusions drawn with regard to research objectives  
Based on the research objectives, the following conclusions were drawn:   
6.2.1 Conclusion 1: The planning of Third Places can enhance social sustainability 
Social sustainability has become increasingly influential in the urban planning context 
(Woodcraft et al., 2011:9). However, limited research to guide urban planning approaches 
towards enhanced social sustainability exists, especially in the South African context.   
From a spatial planning perspective, the connections between social sustainability and the 
opportunities provided by the physical environment are becoming more apparent as land-use 
management is set to guide urban growth to provide high-quality living environments. Due to the 
notion of Third Place planning interpretation in terms of the objectives of sustainable 
development (evident from Table 2-3), the planning of Third Places could be a valuable 
planning approach towards realising sustainability objectives in the spatial planning context and 
enhance social sustainability.  
The notion of Third Places could be considered as facilitator to enhance social sustainability 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7), motivated in terms of the benefits related to these places 
(cross-reference to Section 2.7.2). The planning of Third Places can, in this sense, then 
enhance social sustainability if the interface between the concepts are identified and 
strengthened.   
 
 133 
Table 6-1 illustrates the interface between the drivers of social sustainability as shown in 
Chapter 2 of this research, highlighting the direct and indirect benefits of Third Places (cross-
reference to Section 2.7.2) and the characteristics of Third Places as compiled by Oldenburg 
(1999:20-42) (cross-reference to Section 2.7.1).   
 134 
Table 6-1: Interface between the drivers of social sustainability and the characteristics of Third Places 
 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE THIRD PLACE CONCEPT 
N
e
u
tr
a
l 
g
ro
u
n
d
 
L
e
v
e
ll
e
r 
C
o
n
v
e
rs
a
ti
o
n
 
A
c
c
e
s
s
ib
il
it
y
 &
 
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
ti
o
n
 
R
e
g
u
la
rs
 
L
o
w
 p
ro
fi
le
s
 
P
la
y
fu
l 
m
o
o
d
 
H
o
m
e
 a
w
a
y
 f
ro
m
 
h
o
m
e
 
D
R
IV
E
R
E
S
 O
F
 S
O
C
IA
L
 S
U
S
T
A
IN
A
B
IL
IT
Y
 
Aid in unifying neighbourhoods 
Social stage  Bring youth and adults into association with one another 
 
   
Increased both real and 
perceived security and 
safety 
Improve neighbourhood relations to encourage 
community cohesion 
 
Pedestrian-friendly 
areas 
  Provides for entertainment  
Foster social 
interaction, integration 
and civic pride through 
recreation 
 Forming friendships 
Important for retired 
people 
Tourist attraction  
Encourage 
volunteerism 
 
Early interaction for 
children enhances 
social skills and 
improve confidence 
levels 
 
Positive impact on development stages, health 
and well-being 
  
Identifying future 
abilities and identities 
of children 
 
Human health and well-being     Physical, mental & psychological well-being 
Improved quality of life  Urban liveability    Quality space 
   
    
Beautification: Sense of 
Community & Sense of 
Place 
Promoted social equality and stability       
 
  
 135 
This interface is the point of departure to enhance social sustainability through the planning of 
Third Places  
6.2.2 Conclusion 2: A compilation of socially orientated planning approaches can 
inform the planning of Third Places as point of departure.  
No framework currently exists within broader spatial planning guidelines for enhanced social 
sustainability through the planning of Third Places. As a result, existing literature and socially 
orientated planning approaches could inform such framework. Although for the purpose of this 
research the focus was placed on three purposefully selected planning approaches 
supplementary planning approaches might exist which should be considered and could also 
contribute to the planning of Third Places.  
Attempting to create a theory-based framework for the planning of Third Places, three 
purposefully selected planning approaches (place-making, lively planning and green urbanism) 
were considered in this research to identify key design elements to be included in the framework 
(cross-reference to Chapter 3).  
A collective consideration of the three planning approaches informed the formulation of recoded 
design consideration for the South Africa context. As a result, these three planning approaches 
provide a focused approach to guide the planning of Third Places and was applied in the 
empirical investigation of this research to identify international best practices to inform the 
refined framework for the local South African framework. 
Table 6-2 captures the theory-based framework for enhanced social sustainability through the 
planning of Third Places. 
  
 136 
Table 6-2: Theory-based framework for enhanced social sustainability through the planning of Third Places  
Theory-based framework 
Design considerations 
interpreted in terms of Third Place objectives 
 
Planning guidelines  
Third Place planning considerations 
to enhance social sustainability 
  
Social inclusivity  
Creation of a platform for community cohesion and social inclusion by 
improving the ability and opportunity on which individuals and groups 
take part in society. The fostering of social activities on neutral ground.  
 - place attraction through synergy 
- sense of place  
- welcoming space with diverse uses and users 
- sustainable approach 
- community priority 
 • Creation of a platform for community cohesion and social inclusion 
• Public place on neutral ground where individuals and communities wish to gather and 
interact outside of the work or home realm  
• Creation and maintenance of the conditions under which humans and nature can exist 
in productive harmony within urban areas 
Multi-functionality   
Active space enhancing characteristic uniqueness, through providing a 
variety (10+) of activities and amenities to focus on the enhancement of 
the human experience for each individual within the Third Place. 
- user-need diversity 
- social and functional diversity 
- combined services and activities (10+)  
• Organising and offering activities to foster active social interaction 
• Focus on the human experience within the Third Place  
• Big or small natural areas varied in quality 
 
Accessibility   
Internal and external place connectedness encouraging convenient 
pedestrian movement flow.  
- entrance and exit to and from space 
- safety perception 
- walkability 
- utilise shared space through mixed-use 
- reinforce linkages 
• Enhance the number of visitors that frequently visit the Third Place, due to convenience 
encouraging regularity 
• Planning on different scales enforcing an integrated planning approach and maximising 
the opportunities provided 
Perceptibility  
The display of social niceties to enhance the overall character (sense of 
place) through smart and adaptation designs.  
- public furniture and facilities availability 
- aesthetic values and attractiveness 
- flexibility for users 
- scale diversity 
• Display of social niceties and contributes to public places where regular, voluntary 
gatherings of individuals occur 
• Representation of a personal experience 
 
Marketability   
The attractiveness, practicality and usefulness for voluntary gatherings to 
occur through the establishment of user need attraction for regularity. 
- quality of space enhancing a unique selling 
point 
• Diverse user-need attraction inviting lingering and regularity 
 
Environmental sensitivity  
Enhancement of a sustainable green design for current and future use, 
relating to natural environmental diversity. 
- sustainable practice approach 
- green initiatives 
• Create, enhance and restore ecological, biodiversity and ecosystem conservation and 
substitute grey infrastructure in urban areas 
 
Adaptability   
Compact layout design in context through incorporating multi-scale 
interconnected systems for the Third Place to be modified. 
- context consideration, design in context 
- experimental design 
- day- and night usage 
 • Physical design encouraging compact design for social interaction encouragement 
• Incorporating a smart and embracing design, where space embraces nature 
 
Intrinsic connectivity   
Mental and emotional sense of well-being based on person-process-
place attachment. 
- sense of authenticity 
- sense of place 
 • Person-process-place concept enhancing place attachment  
 
 
 137 
6.2.3 Conclusion 3: International best practices can be translated to the local context, in 
line with guiding policy and legislative frameworks  
The need for planning Third Places within South Africa has been confirmed through capturing 
the direct and indirect benefits provided (cross-reference to Section 2.7.2). Although this need 
exists, urban areas in South Africa continue to face unique challenges and realities relating to 
social sustainability and public place planning (cross-reference to Section 4.2). As a result, the 
social dimension of sustainability is often neglected, in comparison to the economic and 
environmental dimensions, reflected in the lack of financial support towards social sustainability 
initiatives within broader spatial planning approaches (cross-reference to Section 4.2). 
During the review of the five purposefully selected international case studies, a direct 
association was made between the design considerations of the three purposefully selected 
planning approaches put forward for the planning of Third Places (cross-reference to Section 
3.5) and the planning principles employed in the context of each international case study. These 
best practices, including the proposal of a cultural approach, a maintenance strategy plan to 
ensure continued sustainability, reclaiming space to be transformed to place, sustainable local 
approaches, pedestrian-orientated approach and mixed-use incorporation, resulted in the 
compilation of supplementary planning guidelines, contributing to inform the revised framework 
specifically for the local South African context.  
Limited case studies are document that suggest of the successful interface between social 
sustainability and the planning of Third Places. More such cases should be captured to broaden 
the literature base on enhancing social sustainability through the planning of Third Places. 
Table 6-3 below, illustrates the considerations proposed for the refining of the framework for 
South Africa, based on the case study review and identification of best practices and the expert 
perspectives. 
 
  
 138 
Table 6-3: Considerations for the refining of the framework for the South African context 
P 
Phase 1:  
Best practice 
identification 
Cultural approach 
(surrounding environment 
consideration) 
Maintenance strategy for 
continued sustainability 
From space to place 
(reclaiming unused space for 
transformation) 
Sustainable local approach 
(local material sourcing) 
Pedestrian-orientated 
approach increasing car free 
zones 
Third Place variety usage 
(different user group regularity 
and financial security) 
-  
 
Phase 2: 
Expert 
perspectives 
- Consider Third Place 
planning on 
neighbourhood scale to 
enhance a sense of place 
and community 
- Location  
- Safety  
 
- To be included and 
maximised within spatial 
planning and initiative 
- Management  
 
- Consider public input or a 
bottom-up approach to 
ensure user needs and 
requirements are met for 
regularity 
- Relax in  
- Enjoy a lunch break in  
- Spend a day in (e.g. picnic)  
- Enjoy/ interact with nature 
(green)  
 
- Play for children  
- Walk pets  
- Interact with people/ 
friends/ family  
- Personally functional to 
people  
- Representation of a 
personal experience  
- Engage in other activities 
(e.g. public art, games)  
 
 In line with guiding policy and legislative frameworks  
Emphasis the planning of Third Places within broader spatial planning approaches within South African policy and legislative frameworks where scope for inclusion exists through realising the 
benefits provided regarding social sustainability. 
 
 
 
 139 
6.2.4 Conclusion 4: Local perspectives can contribute to enhance social sustainability 
through the planning of Third Places within the South African context 
South African viewpoints of participants included in the research, relating to enhanced social 
sustainability through the planning of Third Places, were also included (cross-reference to 
Section 5.3). Regarding the cross-tabulation of the data extracted from the expert-survey, 
56,7% of the participants indicated the importance of Third Places within spatial planning as 
“very important”, while 53,3% of the participants agreed that social sustainability will be 
enhanced through the planning of Third Places within urban areas. The importance of Third 
Places in creating a sense of place and community was confirmed, and the importance of public 
participation in Third Place planning was indicated as being of the utmost importance.  
Although Third Place planning remains a fairly new concept within South African spatial 
planning approaches, the importance thereof has been confirmed by professional perspectives. 
The main concern is reflected as the dissimilarity found between the status quo on the 
importance of Third Places brought forward in applicable South African policy and legislative 
frameworks (cross-reference to Section 4.3) and the conclusions drawn from the expert 
opinions (cross-reference to Section 5.3.1). The importance and need for the facilitation of Third 
Places from an expert point of view, based on the South African context, is not reflected in 
current policy and legislative framework provision. It is therefore concluded that a gap exists 
between acknowledgement of the importance of enhancing social sustainability and specific 
development guidelines on how to achieve this. This research proposes to enhance social 
sustainability through adopting a framework for facilitating the planning of Third Places. 
After applying the theory-based framework to each case study to review, specific international 
best practices were identified, and the formulation of supplementary design considerations were 
created. These supplementary design considerations, along with the expert perspectives 
considering the local South African context and applicable policy and legislative frameworks, 
contributed to considerations for the refining of the framework to enhance social sustainability 
through the planning of Third Places.  
Table 6-3 captures these considerations regarding international best practices (refer to 
Consideration 3), expert perspectives and applicable policy and legislative frameworks.
 140 
6.2.5 Conclusion 5: Social sustainability can be enhanced through a refined framework 
facilitating the planning of Third Places in South Africa  
It is confirmed that the awareness of social sustainability within broader spatial planning 
approaches is increasing. In South Africa this awareness is also on the forefront. However, the 
planning of Third Places is at large unfamiliar, and although the importance thereof was 
confirmed by local expert perspectives (cross-reference to Section 5.3), gaps were identified in 
the planning thereof. From the conclusions drawn in the previous chapters, it was evident that 
the link between Third Place planning and social sustainability has not been quantified from a 
South African perspective. Currently no framework exists within broader spatial planning 
approaches to enhance social sustainability through the planning of Third Places. 
This research proposed a refined framework to enhance social sustainability through the 
planning of Third Places, departing from defining Third Places from a South African perspective 
as: “Any sustainable place created by its social surroundings, integrated in the urban area, 
focused on the social dimension for a personal experience on neutral ground for all. The Third 
Place fulfils an individual functional need, providing diverse activities and amenities for 
regularity”.  
Following the inclusion of the design considerations, the overlapping design considerations of 
the various planning approaches were identified and recoded to inform a refined framework for 
the South African context (cross-reference to Table 3-7).  
Objectives were furthermore constructed for each recoded design consideration, conforming to 
Third Places. Planning guidelines were established and proposed to facilitate the planning of 
Third Places. The spatial link to enhance social sustainability was also drawn in the refined 
framework, emphasising the interphase with social sustainability drivers regarding Third Place 
planning in the South African context. Finally, the South African approach (context-based 
considerations) for the planning of Third Place, specifically in the South African context, were 
captured. These context-based considerations were formulated based on the international best 
practice identification and the local expert perspectives informing the refined framework (cross-
reference to Table 6-3). The context-based considerations are associated with the recoded 
design considerations captured and is proposed specifically for the South African local urban 
context.  Each context-based consideration included was elaborated on, in the context of South 
Africa, in Chapter 7. 
 141 
Table 6-4 captures the refined framework compiled for the South African context to enhance 
social sustainability through the planning of Third Places.  
 142 
Table 6-4: Refined framework for enhanced social sustainability through the planning of Third Places in South Africa 
Refined framework for the South African context 
 
 
The Third Place  
(context-based)  
Interface with social 
sustainability drivers 
Planning approach design considerations 
interpreted in terms of Third Place objectives 
Planning guidelines: The South African approach 
(context-based considerations) Ensuring sustainable communities 
through Third Places: Thee 
principles 
   
Any sustainable place created 
by its social surroundings, 
integrated in the urban area, 
focused on the social 
dimension for a personal 
experience on neutral ground 
for all. The Third Place fulfils 
an individual functional need, 
providing diverse activities and 
amenities for regularity. 
 
 
Maintaining scale 
and capacity 
 
Recognising the importance of 
scale and capacity regarding the 
natural and human environment. 
 
Social cohesion and 
social capital 
 
Encouraging social sustainability 
through enhancing a sense of 
community. The provision of 
interactional platforms created 
through lively elements, where 
space is regained for public use. 
 
Placement of high value on 
quality of life 
 
Primary focus is placed on the 
user, increasing the quality of life 
experienced within the 
community. Through realising the 
essential need of natural areas for 
human well-being, the sensitive 
interface between the natural and 
built environment is understood. 
Social inclusivity  
Creation of a platform for community cohesion and social inclusion by improving the 
ability and opportunity on which individuals and groups take part in society. The 
fostering of social activities on neutral ground.  
Setting of a social stage 
- cultural approach (surrounding environment consideration) 
- create opportunity for interaction between strangers 
- consider neighbourhood scale 
Multi-functionality   
Active space enhancing characteristic uniqueness, through providing a variety (10+) of 
activities and amenities to focus on the enhancement of the human experience for 
each individual within the Third Place. 
Diversity for regularity  
- provision of a varied uses to ensure place attraction and experience for all individual users   
- implementation of user need diversity through provided activities 
- day- and night usage of Third Place 
- inclusion of innovation in design through creativity 
Accessibility   
Internal and external place connectedness encouraging convenient pedestrian 
movement flow.  
Pedestrian-orientated  
- entrance and exit enhancement 
- walkability (pedestrian-orientated approach increasing car free zones) 
- network linkages and proximity (linking the Third Place with its surrounding context) 
- streetscape enhancement for improved movement 
Perceptibility  
The display of social niceties to enhance the overall character (sense of place) through 
smart and adaptation designs.  
Sense of place 
- public furniture 
- safety perceptions 
- utilise shared space through mixed-use 
- enclosure of elements through the layout 
Marketability   
The attractiveness, practicality and usefulness for voluntary gatherings to occur 
through the establishment of user need attraction for regularity. 
LQC strategy PPS, 2015) to enhance social sustainability 
- public participation methods 
- consider experimental approach (lighter, quicker, cheaper) 
- consistency for quality  
- quality of the Third Place to enhance a unique selling point 
Environmental sensitivity  
Enhancement of a sustainable green design for current and future use, relating to 
natural environmental diversity. 
Nature-based solutions  
- water efficiency 
- use of local materials and resources 
- community priority of green initiatives  
- post-implementation maintenance strategy for continued sustainability 
- social and functional diversity of greenery (human & nature) 
- plan within ecological limits for biodiversity enhancement 
Adaptability   
Compact layout design in context through incorporating multi-scale interconnected 
systems for the Third Place to be modified. 
Transformation of existing open spaces to Third Places 
- from space to place (reclaiming unused space for transformation) 
- flexibility for change 
Intrinsic connectivity   
Mental and emotional sense of well-being based on person-process-place attachment. 
Focused participatory planning 
- sense of authenticity to influence a personal experience through public participation 
approaches 
  
 143 
6.3 Conclusion  
Although existing policy and legislative frameworks supports the notion of sustainable 
development in South Africa, insufficient support of public place planning exists (cross-reference 
to Table 4-3). In conjunction to this, specific implementation strategies of sustainable 
development are absent. As a result, the lack of practical application of existing planning 
theories has resulted in the widening of the theory-practice gap and alternative approaches 
should be considered to enhance social sustainability. Ultimately the focus should be shifted 
from planning for sustainable development to designing for social sustainability.  
Conclusions regarding the notion of Third Place planning to enhance social sustainability was 
made in Chapter 6 of this research. However, the impact of Third Places within urban areas can 
only be comprehended through an enhanced understanding of these Third Places for the South 
African context, where social sustainability is emphasised within the notion of sustainable 
development. Within the local South African context, it was proposed to reclaim public space for 
public used to plan for Third Places by employing the refined framework compiled for the local 
South African context.  
The conclusions elaborated on in this chapter addressed the objective set out in Chapter 1. The 
main research question (cross-reference to Section 1.4) included in this research of “How can 
the notion of Third Places contribute to enhance social sustainability, especially in the South 
African context?” was addressed through a detailed literature and empirical investigation. 
Chapter 6 concluded that Third Place planning could enhance social sustainability in South 
Africa, when the enforcement of the specific planning considerations and guidelines proposed in 
the refined framework are approached in accordance with the realities and challenges (cross-
reference to Section 4.2) currently existing in the local South African context.    
Finally, generalisations confirmed and new contributions made to planning knowledge on Third 
Place planning were elaborated on. Table 6-5 reflects the key generalisations confirmed, as well 
as new contributions made by this research as portrayed under each concluding objective. 
 
 
 144 
Table 6-5: Key generalisations confirmed and new contributions made by this research 
CONFIRMATIONS CONTRIBUTIONS 
Reflect on sustainable development, with the emphasis on social sustainability and the linkages with the Third Place concept 
• Social sustainability getting insufficient recognition in comparison to economic and environmental 
sustainability. 
• The link between Third Places and social sustainability (for South Africa) has not been quantified. 
• Third Places and the planning thereof remains a fairly new concept within South Africa. 
• The benefits provided by Third Places should be quantified as motivation to plan for Third Places. 
• Sustainable development (direct and indirect benefits) can be enhanced through Third Places. 
• Contribution to the discourse on sustainable development, the importance of social sustainability and 
the role of Third Places therein. 
• Considering urban space to host social sustainability. 
• Identified interface for enhanced social sustainability through the planning of Third Places. 
• Increased recognition on Third Place planning within urban areas of South Africa by emphasising the 
benefits provided. 
Develop a theory-based framework for enhancing social sustainability through a qualitative enquiry into three purposefully selected planning approaches relating to the planning of Third Places 
• No focused approach is provided to facilitate Third Place planning in South Africa. • Compilation of a theory-based framework based on three main planning approaches. 
Consider international case studies and identify best practices relating to the planning of Third Places, in an attempt to refine the proposed framework in line with guiding policy and 
legislative frameworks 
• Focus is placed on the provision of more pressing issues (housing) of a developing country (South 
Africa).  
• Sustainable development is emphasised in spatial context.  
• Capturing best practices relating to the planning of Third Places and comparing such to expert 
perspectives and local interpretation. 
• Identify applicable national policy and legislative frameworks supporting Third Place planning to 
identify opportunity for inclusion (cross-reference to Section 7.2.4). 
Capture the local interpretation of planning for Third Places from a professional perspective and to statistically interpret findings to inform the proposed framework 
• The lack concerning the planning of Third Pace in local context. 
• The need for sustainable community planning is highlighted. 
• Capturing expert perspectives and local interpretation on the planning of Third Places to enhance 
social sustainability. 
• Contribution to the literature on Third Places, especially from a local South African perspective, in line 
with guiding policy and legislative frameworks. 
Recommend a framework to enhance social sustainability through the planning of Third Places, translating literature and empirical investigation findings to the South African context 
• Insufficient planning of Third Places to enhance social sustainability. • Creation of a framework to enhance social sustainability and the planning of Third Places for the 
South African context. 
 
 145 
Table 6-6 captures the overall research contribution in line with the respective research 
objectives. 
 146 
Table 6-6: Research contribution in line with the respective research objectives 
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED IN NEW KNOWLEDGE CONTRIBUTION (BASED ON RESEARCH FINDINGS) 
Reflect on sustainable development, with the 
emphasis on social sustainability and the linkages 
with the Third Place concept. 
 
• Section 6.2.1 
• Section 7.2.1 & 7.2.2 
• Contribution to the discourse relating to sustainable development, the importance of social sustainability and the role of Third 
Places as emphasis. 
• Opportunity is provided for urban space to host social sustainability. 
• A link is provided for social sustainability to be enhanced through the notion of Third Places. 
• Increased recognition on Third Place planning within urban areas of South Africa through emphasising the benefits provided. 
Develop a theory-based framework for enhanced 
social sustainability through a qualitative enquiry 
into three purposefully selected planning 
approaches relating to the planning of Third 
Places. 
• Section 6.2.2 
 
• Compilation of a theory-based framework based on three main planning approaches. 
Consider international case studies and identify 
best practices relating to the planning of Third 
Places, in an attempt to refine the proposed 
framework in line with guiding policy and legislative 
frameworks. 
• Section 6.2.3 
• Section 7.2.2, 7.2.3, 7.2.4 
 
• Capturing best practices relating to the planning of Third Places and comparing such to expert perspectives and local 
interpretation. 
• Identify applicable national policy and legislative frameworks supporting Third Place planning to identify opportunity for 
inclusion (cross-reference to Section 7.2.4). 
Capture the local interpretation of planning for 
Third Places from a professional perspective and to 
statistically interpret findings to inform the proposed 
framework. 
• Section 6.2.4 
• Section 7.2.5 
 
• Capturing expert perspectives and local interpretation on the planning of Third Places to enhance social sustainability. 
• Contribution to the literature on Third Places, especially from a local South African perspective, in line with guiding policy and 
legislative frameworks. 
Recommend a framework to enhance social 
sustainability through the planning of Third Places, 
translating literature and empirical investigation 
findings to the South African context. 
• Section 6.2.5 
• Section 7.2.5 
• First to develop a focused framework facilitating Third Place planning to enhance social sustainability in South Africa. 
 
 147 
CHAPTER 7: RECOMMENDATIONS TO ENHANCE SOCIAL 
SUSTAINABILITY THROUGH THIRD PLACE PLANNING 
7.1 Introduction 
Based on the conclusions drawn in Chapter 6, substantiated by the literature investigation, 
theory-based sampling framework, policy and legislative framework evaluation, and empirical 
investigation, Chapter 7 aimed to propose specific planning recommendations to enhance social 
sustainability within the local South African context through the planning of Third Places. 
Chapter 7 also elaborated on opportunities for future research. Figure 7-1 illustrates the chapter 
structure. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 7-1: Chapter 7 structure  
7.2 Planning recommendations  
Table 7-1 illustrates the recommendations proposed with regards to each objective put forward 
in Chapter 1 of this research. The proposed recommendations in Table 7-1 were elaborated on 
accordingly. 
CHAPTER 7: Recommendations to enhance social 
sustainability through Third Place planning 
Conclusion 
Research objectives 
Recommendations proposed for 
enhances social sustainability through 
the planning of Third Places  
Opportunities for future research to enhance social sustainability through the 
planning for Third Places 
 148 
Table 7-1: Planning recommendations derived from this research  
OBJECTIVE RECOMMENDATION PROPOSED 
Reflect on sustainable development, with the 
emphasis on social sustainability and the 
linkages with the Third Place concept. 
Planning recommendation 1: Enhance 
social sustainability within sustainable 
development approaches.  
Develop a theory-based framework for 
enhancing social sustainability through a 
qualitative enquiry into three purposefully 
selected planning approaches relating to the 
planning of Third Places. 
Planning recommendation 2: Emphasise 
the planning of Third Places within broader 
spatial planning approaches. 
Consider international case studies and 
identify best practices relating to the planning 
of Third Places, in an attempt to refine the 
proposed framework in line with guiding 
policy and legislative frameworks. 
Planning recommendation 3: Transform 
current urban spaces to Third Places to 
enhance broader social sustainability 
objectives. 
Capture the local interpretation of planning for 
Third Places from a professional perspective 
and to statistically interpret findings to inform 
the proposed framework. 
Planning recommendation 4: Enhance 
social sustainability within policy and 
legislative frameworks to support the 
planning of Third Places. 
Recommend a framework to enhance social 
sustainability through the planning of Third 
Places, translating literature and empirical 
investigation findings to the South African 
context. 
Planning recommendation 5: Employ a 
framework to enhance social sustainability 
within the South African context through 
focussing on the planning of Third Places.  
 
7.2.1 Planning recommendation 1: Enhance social sustainability within sustainable 
development approaches  
This research focused on social sustainability as a dimension of sustainable development, 
acknowledging the multi-disciplinary nature thereof (cross-reference to Chapter 2). Relevant 
legislative documents on municipal level should incorporate such a focus within urban context.  
 149 
When referring to sustainable urban development, the inclusion of the economic, environmental 
and social aspects is accepted. Social sustainability could be emphasised within sustainable 
urban development by addressing the following elements: 
1. Improve the extent to which social sustainability is defined, understood and operationalised 
within sustainable development approaches. 
2. Clear orientation of proposed approaches towards social sustainability, user croup 
considered for enhanced social sustainability through Third Place planning. 
3. Identify key challenges for creating social sustainability. 
 
For the focus to be shifted from planning for sustainable development to designing for social 
sustainability, Table 7-2 illustrates the interface regarding the recoded design consideration 
(cross-reference to Section 3.5) for the proposed framework and the spatial link to enhance 
social sustainability derived from the literature and empirical investigation (cross-reference to 
Section 2.5 and Section 5.3). The social sustainability drivers propose three main principles 
applicable to the eight recoded design considerations. 
  
 150 
Table 7-2: Interface between the design considerations and social sustainability drivers 
 
DESIGN 
CONSIDERATIONS 
S
o
c
ia
l 
in
c
lu
s
iv
it
y
 
M
u
lt
i-
fu
n
c
ti
o
n
a
li
ty
 
A
c
c
e
s
s
ib
il
it
y
 
P
e
rc
e
p
ti
b
il
it
y
 
M
a
rk
e
ta
b
il
it
y
 
E
n
v
ir
o
n
m
e
n
ta
l 
s
e
n
s
it
iv
it
y
 
A
d
a
p
ta
b
il
it
y
 
In
tr
in
s
ic
 
c
o
n
n
e
c
ti
v
it
y
 
S
O
C
IA
L
 S
U
S
T
A
IN
A
B
IL
IT
Y
 D
R
IV
E
R
S
 
Maintaining scale 
and capacity 
 
Social stage 
and 
opportunity 
for 
interaction 
 
Development 
scale 
(pedestrian) 
to enhance 
access 
  
Development 
scale for 
interaction 
between 
human and 
nature 
  
Social cohesion 
and social capital 
Interactional 
platforms 
Divers uses 
and users 
  
Enhancing a 
sense of 
community 
 
Reclaim 
space for 
place 
 
Placement of high 
value on quality of 
life 
   
Increase the 
quality of life 
experienced 
within the 
community 
   
 Primary 
focus on 
user 
  
 151 
From Table 7-2 it was evident that the specific design considerations proposed for the planning 
of Third Places could enhance social sustainability though a spatial link considering Third Place 
scale and capacity, social cohesion and social capital as well as placing high value on quality of 
life. These main principles were integrated in the proposed framework for the local South 
African context. 
In accordance to recommendation 1, highly-developed societies are becoming increasingly 
dynamic regarding social sustainability (Cilliers & De Jong, 2013:2). The design considerations 
proposed within the local context of South Africa should facilitate these changing needs.  
7.2.2 Planning recommendation 2: Emphasise the planning of Third Places within 
broader spatial planning approaches 
The planning of Third Places is limited within current spatial planning approaches. The impact 
and benefits of Third Places has been confirmed (cross-reference to Section 2.7), increasing the 
importance for the inclusion of Third Places planning to be emphasised within the local context 
of South Africa. 
Phase 2 of the empirical section of this research (cross-reference to Section 5.3) consisted of 
an expert-survey. Within the survey, Question 7 required the participants to indicate the extent 
of their familiarity regarding Third Places. 46,7% of the participants indicated a moderately 
familiarity, as illustrated in Figure 7-2. 
 
Figure 7-2: Questionnaire survey of participant familiarity regarding Third Places 
3,3%
20%
46.7%
30%
0%
0 10 20 30 40 50
NOT AT ALL FAMILIAR
SLIGHTLY FAMILIAR
MODERATELY FAMILIAR
VERY FAMILIAR
EXTREMELY FAMILIAR
 152 
The impact of Third Places within urban areas can only be comprehended through an enhanced 
understanding of these Third Places for the South African context. Figure 7-2 motivates a need 
for an improved understanding on Third Places in order to emphasise the benefits and impacts 
provided by Third Place planning within broader spatial planning approaches. Emphasising the 
planning of Third Places can be achieved through contextualised research and training 
regarding the subject matter. Within the contextualised research and training, an understanding 
of the benefits (cross-reference to Section 2.7.2) provided by these Third Places, design 
considerations (cross-reference to Chapter 3) for Third Places and context specific 
considerations should be emphasised. To improve this understanding and encourage its 
inclusion in broader spatial planning approaches, supplementary data, international best 
practices, and constant case study reviewing of current successful Third Places, as well as 
cross-continental research is required in order to improve the understanding of Third Place 
planning within South African and emphasised within broader spatial planning approaches.  
7.2.3 Planning recommendation 3: Transform current urban spaces to Third Places to 
enhance broader social sustainability objectives 
Lefebvre (1991:190) argues that life should be changed by changing space first (cross-
reference to Section 2.6). As portrayed in Section 2.6 of this research, definite dissimilarities 
exist between space and place. A space is transformed into a place when meaning and value is 
added, and a pause within the space is created (cross-reference to Section 2.6).  
With pockets of lost open spaces currently existing within urban areas of South Africa, along 
with unoccupied public places, a lighter, quicker and cheaper approach as put forward by PPS 
(2015) can be applied. Transformation and redesign could be applied, resulting in the 
transformation or upgrade of a current space to a public place, and more specifically a Third 
Place. Figure 7-3 illustrates the recommendation to reclaim public space for public use through 
the transformation of space to place by referring to four main drivers to be included. The main 
driver, policy and legislative frameworks, should be considered to ensure the transformation of 
space to place is in line with guiding planning policies on local municipal level. However, to 
ensure the successful transformation, the planning guidelines from local municipalities should 
include expert considerations and include a public participation approach to ensure user need 
requirements are addressed. Finally, impacted by the existing drivers, planning considerations 
and guidelines approached for the transformation from space to place is informed by the 
framework proposed in the context of current South African realities and challenges. 
 153 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 7-3: Transforming space to place  
The transformation from space to place could be achieved through considering the proposed 
framework to enhance social sustainability through planning for Third Places in South Africa.  
7.2.4 Planning recommendation 4: Enhance social sustainability within policy and 
legislative frameworks to support the planning of Third Places 
Social sustainability should be enhanced within policy and legislative frameworks. Due to 
Strategic Spatial Development Plans implemented on different levels, as illustrated in Figure 7-
4, any intervention to enhance social sustainability should articulate the main objectives with 
regard to social sustainability development and implementation strategies. Furthermore, as the 
planning of Third Places require support within policy and legislative frameworks, specific 
revisions are necessitated, and the success of these revisions will require public participation, 
users’ input, expert opinions, as well as private sector and governmental involvement regarding 
Place Space Transformation 
Government 
support 
Policy and legislative 
frameworks 
Planning 
considerations 
and guidelines  
Planning guidance from local municipal level 
Participatory planning 
Expert planning inputs 
 
Third Place 
 154 
the specific policy and legislative framework. It is only through a synergistic, multi-institutional 
and multidimensional approach that the importance of Third Places can be realised, that would 
ultimately result in revised policies and legislative frameworks to support the planning of Third 
Places in line with objectives of social sustainability.  
 
Figure 7-4: Hierarchy of plans with focus area 
As illustrated in Figure 7-4, it is proposed that the specific design considerations and planning 
guidelines for enhances social sustainability through the planning of Third Places be 
implemented on local municipal level. As a result, the focus is placed directly on the specific 
municipal area in terms of the urban environment, considering Third Place planning. Third Place 
planning should thus be enhanced in future local policy and legislative frameworks on municipal 
level, as this is where the planning and development take effect and direct social enhancement 
with regard to the people can be enhanced.  
SPLUMA replaced the town planning ordinances and the Development Facilitation Act used by 
planning departments within municipalities (Department of Rural Development and Land Reform 
Strategic Plan, 2015:5; South African Cities Network, 2015:19). Currently acting as the main 
legislation governing planning (cross-reference to Section 4.3.5), SPLUMA, as national 
S
tr
a
te
g
ic
 S
p
a
ti
a
l 
D
e
v
e
lo
p
m
e
n
t 
P
la
n
s
National Development Plan
Provincial Spatial
Development Framework
Metropolitan Spatial 
Development Framework
Regional Spatial
Development Frameworks
Local Spatial
Development Frameworks
National level 
Provincial level 
Municipal  
level 
 155 
legislation, consists of land use management bylaws on municipal level as illustrated in Figure 
7-5. The municipal bylaws regarding SPLUMA are a form of delegated legislation influenced on 
municipal level, where possible opportunities for revisions and new initiatives could be 
proposed. To enhance social sustainability within the local context of South Africa, the notion of 
Third Place planning was proposed. The framework for enhances social sustainability through 
Third Place planning recommended in this research could be proposed on municipal level in the 
context of each municipal bylaws. This will ensure that the framework is considered in the 
context of the specific focus area where Third Place planning is proposed. The recommended 
framework will consequently be approached according to context-based local realities and 
challenges applicable in the municipal boundaries.  
 
Figure 7-5: SPLUMA context with focus area 
The benefits of Third Places should be quantified to build a case for enhanced social 
sustainability. Although support and guidance from local municipalities is necessary to 
enhancing social sustainability through the planning of Third Places, participatory planning and 
expert planning inputs is in addition required.  
7.2.5 Planning recommendation 5: Employ a framework to enhance social sustainability 
within the South African context through focussing on the planning of Third 
Places 
The planning of Third Places is proposed in this research to enhance social sustainability within 
the South African context. Third Places remain a fairly new concept within applicable South 
National
SPLUMA
Provincial
Draft Land Use Planning Bill (LUPA)
Municipal
Municipal Bylaws on Land Use Planning
 156 
African policy and legislative frameworks (cross-reference to Section 4.3). For this reason, 
managing authorities on local municipal level could emphasise the importance of social 
sustainability and take the lead in acknowledging the importance of Third Places within the local 
South African context. Accordingly, Third Places should not be privatised and is motivated by 
PPS (2012:3), stating “what defines a character of a city is its public space, not its private 
space. What defines the value of the private assets of the space are not the assets by 
themselves but the common assets. The value of the public good affects the value of the private 
good. We need to show every day that public spaces are an asset to a city”. 
However, the success of Third Place planning relies on public participation. The aim is to 
improve urban life through effective influences (Narooie, 2014:9-10; Zhang, 2015:3). This 
necessitates insisting on a “people-oriented approach” (Project for Public Spaces and 
Metropolitan Planning Council, 2008:5; Town and Country Planning Association, 2012:27) to 
meet people’s functional requirements and needs within specific urban areas. Public 
participation as part of a people-orientated planning approach is referred to as a bottom-up 
approach (Schlebusch, 2015:67), where the public should have the majority input in terms of the 
design and provided activities within Third Places in order to ensure regularity and a functional 
place for all. Public participation methods were included as a guideline in the refined framework 
for the South African context. Motivating the inclusion of public participation, the importance 
thereof was emphasised in the planning and design considerations of the planning approaches 
(cross-reference to Section 3.2 and Section 3.3) and the case study review highlighting 
international best practices (cross-reference to Section 5.2). Finally, emphasis was places on 
the importance of participatory planning in the expert-survey conducted for local perspectives 
(cross-reference to Section 5.3.1). In this the aim is to develop joint-control participation 
process, where both the public and government have influence (Goosen, 2015:41). 
This research recommended a framework to enhance social sustainability through the planning 
of Third Places. The Third Places should adapt effective design considerations (cross-reference 
to Section 3.5 and Section 6.2.5) to ensure regularity within these places. The proposed 
framework could be adopted on local municipal level as a point of departure in planning for 
Third Places within the local context of South Africa, along with strategic agreements on a local 
level for ongoing maintenance to follow. 
  
 157 
Table 7-3: The South African Third Place focus and approach integrated in the refined framework  
Refined framework for the South African context 
 
 
The Third Place  
(context-based) 
Planning approach design considerations 
interpreted in terms of Third Place objectives 
Planning guidelines: The South African approach 
(context-based considerations) 
   
Any sustainable place created by its 
social surroundings, integrated in the 
urban area, focused on the social 
dimension for a personal experience on 
neutral ground for all. The Third Place 
fulfils an individual functional need, 
providing diverse activities and 
amenities for regularity. 
Social inclusivity  
Creation of a platform for community cohesion and social inclusion by improving the ability and opportunity on 
which individuals and groups take part in society. The fostering of social activities on neutral ground.  
Setting of a social stage 
- cultural approach 
- opportunity for interaction  
- neighbourhood scale 
Multi-functionality   
Active space enhancing characteristic uniqueness, through providing a variety (10+) of activities and amenities 
to focus on the enhancement of the human experience for each individual within the Third Place. 
Diversity for regularity  
- varied uses for place attraction   
- user need diversity  
- day- and night usage  
- innovation in design through creativity 
Accessibility   
Internal and external place connectedness encouraging convenient pedestrian movement flow.  
Pedestrian-orientated  
- entrance and exit enhancement 
- walkability 
- network linkages and proximity  
- streetscape enhancement 
Perceptibility  
The display of social niceties to enhance the overall character (sense of place) through smart and adaptation 
designs.  
Sense of place 
- public furniture 
- safety  
- shared space through mixed-use 
- layout to enhance enclosure 
Marketability   
The attractiveness, practicality and usefulness for voluntary gatherings to occur through the establishment of 
user need attraction for regularity. 
LQC strategy to enhance social sustainability 
- public participation 
- experimental approach  
- consistency for quality  
- unique selling point 
Environmental sensitivity  
Enhancement of a sustainable green design for current and future use, relating to natural environmental 
diversity. 
Nature-based solutions  
- water efficiency 
- local materials and resources 
- community priority of green initiatives  
- post-implementation maintenance strategy  
- social and functional diversity of greenery 
- plan within ecological limits for biodiversity enhancement 
Adaptability   
Compact layout design in context through incorporating multi-scale interconnected systems for the Third Place to 
be modified. 
Transformation of existing open spaces to Third Places 
- reclaiming unused space for transformation 
- flexibility for change 
Intrinsic connectivity   
Mental and emotional sense of well-being based on person-process-place attachment. 
Focused participatory planning 
- sense of authenticity to influence a personal experience 
 
  
 158 
Table 7-3 represents the refined framework for the planning of Third Places to enhance social 
sustainability in South Africa. However, the South African approach (context-based 
considerations) associated with the recoded design considerations was captured in Table 7-3 
and elaborated on accordingly in the context of the challenges and opportunities relating to the 
South African context, as perceived from a spatial planning perspective, to improve these 
design considerations through the context-based considerations established. The empirical 
investigation (best practices and expert-survey initiatives) informed the refinement of the 
framework regarding the planning guidelines for the South African approach, context-based. 
Guidelines informing the design considerations, contexts-based, should be enforced to 
successfully implement the design considerations constructed for the South African context. 
Through the context-based approach, social sustainability can be enhanced through the 
planning of Third Places.  
7.2.5.1 Social inclusivity: Setting of a social stage 
The provision of a social stage (cross reference to Table 3.4) and opportunities to interact 
should be considered to enhance social inclusivity within Third Places. As a result, the focus is 
placed on communication (cross-reference to Section 2.7.1) to enhance social interaction. In 
aiming to create these opportunities for social interaction, a cultural approach, regarding the 
surrounding environment, as well as development on a neighbourhood scale (cross-reference to 
Section 3.2.1) of the Third Place is proposed. Within South Africa public places and open 
spaces are often deprived of this element due to a lack of integrated amenities providing the 
opportunity for social interaction through the setting of a social stage. In addition to a cultural 
approach and neighbourhood scale development, an integrated layout is proposed to assist in 
contributing to opportunities for social interaction through setting a social stage. This proverbial 
social stage requires a welcoming and comfortable environment, which is in addition created 
through planning guidelines for an integrated and compact layout.  
7.2.5.2 Multi-functionality: Diversity for regularity  
Multi-functionality was proposed as the second design consideration to enhance social 
sustainability through the planning of Third Places. To enhance multi-functionality, the focus 
should be placed on diversity of uses and users. This will enhance opportunities for place 
attraction and regularity of the Third Place. The design of a place, its uses and functions 
resonate differently with diverse groups. User need diversity should thus inform the provision of 
 159 
uses and ensure multi-functionality. Designing according to user need requirements of the Third 
Place and direct vicinity could assists in providing diversity and is proposed to be achieved 
through participatory methods. The South African reality requires planning for a diverse user 
group through innovation in design and applying creativity in this regard. Multi-functionality 
should in addition be enhanced through day- and night usage of the Third Place provided which 
could also enhance regularity. 
7.2.5.3 Accessibility: Pedestrian-orientated 
The location of the Third Place is concerned with the accessibility thereof within broader spatial 
planning realities of the urban area and should lend itself towards optimised accessibility 
(entrance and exit enhancement). A pedestrian-orientated approach is proposed in this regard, 
ensuring comfortable pedestrian movement flow and ensure car-free zones through streetscape 
enhancement and network linkages with the surrounding areas. 
7.2.5.4 Perceptibility: Sense of place 
Contributing to perceptibility, sense of place should be enhanced. In South Africa the provision 
of public places cannot compete for popular or political support in the face of demands for basic 
services, due to increasing population growth (cross-reference to Section 4.2). This results in 
neglected and abandoned current open spaces and public places. In order to transform space 
to place (cross-reference to Section 7.2.3) and plan for Third Places, safety perceptions and 
comfort should be considered and enhanced. Public furniture, shared spaces through mixed-
uses and enclosure through the layout is proposed to enhance Third Place perceptibility. 
7.2.5.5 Marketability: LQC strategy to enhance social sustainability 
A lighter, quicker, cheaper approach was proposed to transform current open spaces to Third 
Places. This could assist to ensure enhanced marketability regarding the enhancement of social 
sustainability through the planning of Third Places in South African. This approach provides 
opportunities for quick transformations, creative planning and adaptive amenities to be 
implemented for user need satisfaction. Experimental approaches could also be considered and 
informed by public participation inputs to ensue user need requirements are met and a unique 
selling point is achieved.  
 160 
7.2.5.6 Environmental sensitivity: Nature-based solutions  
An environmental sensitivity approach is proposed through considering nature-based solutions 
in the planning of Third Places for enhanced social sustainability in South Africa. The Third 
Place should encourage social and functional diversity of greenery but should be planed within 
the ecological limits. Water efficiency usage and local materials and resources could in addition 
be considered for a green approach (cross-reference to Section 3.4). For continued sustainable 
development enhancement of the Third Place, specific post-implementation maintenance 
strategy should be developed and implemented in accordance to planning for Third Places in 
South Africa.    
7.2.5.7 Adaptability: Transformation of existing open spaces to Third Places 
Within South Africa urban open space and lost space continue to exist due to frail urban layout 
development which results in fragmentation and floating building (cross-reference to Section 
4.2). In an attempt to integrate the urban context of South Africa these spaces could be 
integrated with the surrounding amenities (cross-reference to Section 7.2.3). As a result, the 
location of the Third Place should be considered in terms of the surrounding linkages, current 
infrastructure and broader spatial compatibility in order to reclaim and transform unused spaces 
to Third Places in South Africa. The integration of flexible planning approaches and the LQC 
(lighter, quicker, cheaper) approach could assist in transforming current spaces to places in the 
urban context.  
7.2.5.8 Intrinsic connectivity: Focused participatory planning 
Finally, an intrinsic connectivity design consideration was proposed for enhanced social 
sustainability through the planning of Third Places in South Africa. Diverse user need 
requirements should continually inform amenities and activities to be included and provided in 
the Third Place. These needs could also be informed through the inclusion of participatory 
planning strategies, planning not only for the people, but with the people. This approach 
enhances a connection between the user and the Third Place (person-place-process 
attachment) (cross-reference to Section 2.6). A personal experience and sense of authenticity is 
in addition achieved through informed user need identification strategies (participatory 
planning). 
 
 161 
7.3 Opportunities for future research 
In realising current urban realities and challenges faced within South Africa and the current 
strategic planning approaches along with maintenance insufficiencies, a number of questions 
remain with regard to improving social sustainability through the planning of Third Places within 
the urban context of South Africa. Opportunities for future research emerging from this study 
include: 
• Consider additional planning approaches to inform a theory-based framework for enhanced 
social sustainability through the planning of Third Places. 
• Expanding the refined framework for the South African context proposed here. 
• Duplicating this study in South African rural environments. 
• Investigating improved post-implementation maintenance strategies of Third Places on a 
local level within urban areas of South Africa. 
• Practical implementation of the proposed refined framework for the local context. 
• Multidisciplinary research between planners and public investors to develop proposals 
based on the recommendations made in this research.  
• Considering the role of SPLUMA to facilitate the initiative of planning Third Places to 
enhance social sustainability within urban areas of South Africa. 
7.4 Conclusion  
Numerous factors exist that influence the success of Third Places within urban areas. It is a 
closely integrated process of creating and shaping places for people to live in. The aim of this 
research, linking with the main research question was to propose a framework to enhance 
social sustainability through the planning of Third Places within South Africa. The planning 
considerations proposed in the framework could inform integrated planning models, acting as 
planning-support systems, embracing a triple bottom line approach towards Third Places by 
incorporating local policy and legislative frameworks, sustainable development approaches, 
focusing on social sustainability and effective public participation methods. Based on the 
research conducted and the recommendations brought forward, a refined framework for the 
planning of Third Places to enhance social sustainability in the local South African context has 
been proposed.  
Chapter 8 aimed to capture the contribution made towards new knowledge in this research.  
 162 
CHAPTER 8: CONTRIBUTION TO NEW KNOWLEDGE  
8.1 Introduction  
Following the conclusions drawn from the research, as well as the proposed planning 
recommendations in Chapter 7, Chapter 8 captured the contribution towards new knowledge 
made by this research, as a required output for the successful completion of a philosophy 
doctorate.  
8.2 New framework to enhance social sustainability through the planning of Third 
Places within the South African context 
With specific reference to Section 6.2.5 and Section 7.2.5.  
The compilation of a framework to enhance social sustainability through the planning of Third 
Places in South Africa, was based on the motivation of a gap existing between the importance 
for enhancing social sustainability and specific development guidelines on how to achieve this 
enhancement within the South African context. The importance and need for the facilitation of 
Third Places to enhance social sustainability from an expert point of view, based on the South 
African context, does not agree with the current provision made within policy and legislative 
frameworks. It should furthermore be highlighted that no framework currently exists within 
broader spatial planning guidelines for enhanced social sustainability through the planning of 
Third Places within the South African context. 
The refined framework proposed for the South African context should be applied in accordance 
with recognising current challenges and realities. Based on specific planning considerations and 
design guidelines, the framework could be adopted on local level as a point of departure in 
planning for Third Places to enhance social sustainability within urban areas of South Africa.  
Bearing in mind the current realities and challenges faced in South Africa and the framework 
proposed as a point of departure, it is advised that current urban space be utilised for the 
planning of Third Places to enhance social sustainability through the transformation and 
redesign of existing spaces. Table 8-1 illustrates the proposed framework to enhance social 
sustainability through the planning of Third Places.   
 163 
Table 8-1: Refined framework to enhance social sustainability through the planning of Third Places 
Refined framework for the South African context 
 
 
The Third Place  
(context-based) 
Interface with social 
sustainability drivers 
Planning approach design considerations 
interpreted in terms of Third Place objectives 
Planning guidelines: The South African approach 
(context-based considerations) 
Ensuring sustainable 
communities through Third 
Places: Thee principles 
   
Any sustainable place created 
by its social surroundings, 
integrated in the urban area, 
focused on the social 
dimension for a personal 
experience on neutral ground 
for all. The Third Place fulfils 
an individual functional need, 
providing diverse activities and 
amenities for regularity. 
 
 
Maintaining scale 
and capacity 
 
Recognising the importance of 
scale and capacity regarding the 
natural and human environment. 
 
Social cohesion and 
social capital 
 
Encouraging social sustainability 
through enhancing a sense of 
community. The provision of 
interactional platforms created 
through lively elements, where 
space is regained for public use. 
 
Placement of high value on 
quality of life 
 
Primary focus is placed on the 
user, increasing the quality of 
life experienced within the 
community. Through realising 
the essential need of natural 
areas for human well-being, the 
sensitive interface between the 
natural and built environment is 
understood. 
Social inclusivity  
Creation of a platform for community cohesion and social inclusion by improving the ability 
and opportunity on which individuals and groups take part in society. The fostering of 
social activities on neutral ground.  
Setting of a social stage 
- cultural approach 
- opportunity for interaction  
neighbourhood scale 
Multi-functionality   
Active space enhancing characteristic uniqueness, through providing a variety (10+) of 
activities and amenities to focus on the enhancement of the human experience for each 
individual within the Third Place. 
Diversity for regularity  
- varied uses for place attraction   
- user need diversity  
- day- and night usage  
- innovation in design through creativity 
Accessibility   
Internal and external place connectedness encouraging convenient pedestrian movement 
flow.  
Pedestrian-orientated  
- entrance and exit enhancement 
- walkability 
- network linkages and proximity  
- streetscape enhancement 
Perceptibility  
The display of social niceties to enhance the overall character (sense of place) through 
smart and adaptation designs.  
Sense of place 
- public furniture 
- safety  
- shared space through mixed-use 
- layout to enhance enclosure 
Marketability   
The attractiveness, practicality and usefulness for voluntary gatherings to occur through 
the establishment of user need attraction for regularity. 
LQC strategy to enhance social sustainability 
- public participation 
- experimental approach  
- consistency for quality  
- unique selling point 
Environmental sensitivity  
Enhancement of a sustainable green design for current and future use, relating to natural 
environmental diversity. 
Nature-based solutions  
- water efficiency 
- local materials and resources 
- community priority of green initiatives  
- post-implementation maintenance strategy  
- social and functional diversity of greenery 
- plan within ecological limits for biodiversity enhancement 
Adaptability   
Compact layout design in context through incorporating multi-scale interconnected 
systems for the Third Place to be modified. 
Transformation of existing open spaces to Third Places 
- reclaiming unused space for transformation 
- flexibility for change 
Intrinsic connectivity   
Mental and emotional sense of well-being based on person-process-place attachment. 
Focused participatory planning 
- sense of authenticity to influence a personal experience 
 
 164 
8.3 Key generalisations confirmed and new contributions made 
Generalisations confirmed and new contributions made to planning knowledge on Third Place 
planning were elaborated on in Table 6-6 (cross-reference to Section 6.3). Table 8-2 extends on 
the new contributions made by this research as portrayed under each concluding objective. 
  
 165 
Table 8-2: Key generalisations confirmed and new contributions made by this research 
CONTRIBUTIONS 
Reflect on sustainable development, with the emphasis on social sustainability and the linkages with the Third Place concept 
• Contribution to the discourse on sustainable development, the importance of social sustainability and the role of Third Places therein. 
• Considering urban space to host social sustainability. 
• Identified interface for enhanced social sustainability through the planning of Third Places. 
• Increased recognition on Third Place planning within urban areas of South Africa by emphasising the benefits provided. 
Develop a theory-based framework for enhancing social sustainability through a qualitative enquiry into three purposefully selected 
planning approaches relating to the planning of Third Places 
• Compilation of a theory-based framework based on three purposefully selected planning approaches. 
Consider international case studies and identify best practices relating to the planning of Third Places, in an attempt to refine the 
proposed framework in line with guiding policy and legislative frameworks 
• Capturing best practices relating to the planning of Third Places and comparing such to expert perspectives and local interpretation. 
• Identify applicable national policy and legislative frameworks supporting Third Place planning to identify opportunity for inclusion (cross-
reference to Section 7.2.4). 
Capture the local interpretation of planning for Third Places from a professional perspective and to statistically interpret findings to 
inform the proposed framework 
• Capturing expert perspectives and local interpretation on the planning of Third Places to enhance social sustainability. 
• Contribution to the literature on Third Places, especially from a local South African perspective, in line with guiding policy and legislative 
frameworks. 
• Confirm the importance of public participation methods with regards to the notion of Third Place planning in South Africa. 
Recommend a framework to enhance social sustainability through the planning of Third Places, translating literature and empirical 
investigation findings to the South African context 
• Creation of a framework to enhance social sustainability through the planning of Third Places with the focus on the South African approach. 
  
 166 
8.4 Closing remarks 
Finally, this research made a valuable contribution towards enhancing the interface between 
social sustainability and Third Places, and how such interface could enhance broader social 
sustainability objectives, especially within the South African context. Furthermore, in an attempt 
to enhance social sustainability, the interface between Third Places and social sustainability has 
been drawn in this research. 
The refined framework for enhanced social sustainability could be employed by Planners and 
other planning authorities, focussing on the planning of Third Places within the South African 
context.  
 
  
 167 
BIBLIOGRAPHY  
Abrahams, F.  2005.  A review of provincial land-use planning in the Western Cape.  Cape 
Town: University of Cape Town.  (Dissertation – Masters). 
Agnew, J.  2011.  Space and place: handbook of geographical knowledge.  London: Sage.  
Ahern, J.  2011.  From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: sustainability and resilience in the new urban 
world.  Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(4):34-343. 
Ahern, J.  2007.  Green infrastructure for cities: the spatial dimension.  (In Novotny, V. & Brown, 
P. (eds).  Cities of the future: towards integrated sustainable water and landscape.  IWA 
Publishing: London, p. 267-283). 
Al-Bishawi, M. & Ghadban, S.S.  2011.  A methodological approach for reading urban open 
space.  ArchNet-IJAR, 5(1):73-85. 
Alexander, C. & Tang, L.  2010.  Las Ramblas, Barcelona, Spain. 
http://courses.be.uw.edu/SDMasterStudio/wp-content/themes/gehl-
studio/downloads/Winter2010/LasRamblas.pdf  Date of access: 15 Sept. 2017.  
Al-Hagla, K.  2008.  Towards a sustainable neighbourhood: the role of open spaces. ArchNet-
IJAR, 2(2):162-177. 
Alidoust, S., Bosman, C. & Holden, G.  2015.  Socially healthy ageing: the importance of Third 
Places, soft edges and walkable neighbourhoods.  Paper presented at the State of Australian 
Cities Conference, Gold Coast, Australia, 9–11 December 2015. 
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sara_Alidoust/publication/309752006_Socially_Healthy_A
geing_The_Importance_of_Third_Places_Soft_Edges_and_Walkable_Neighbourhoods/links/58
21c08708ae5385869fdf3c/Socially-Healthy-Ageing-The-Importance-of-Third-Places-Soft-
Edges-and-Walkable-Neighbourhoods.pdf  Date of access: 12 Feb. 2018. 
Alvarez, A.B.  2012.  New York City’s High Line: participatory planning or gentrification?. 
http://forms.gradsch.psu.edu/diversity/mcnair/mcnair_jrnl2012_14/files/2012-Alvarez.pdf  Date 
of access: 12 Feb. 2017.  
 168 
Arefi, M.  1999.  Non‐place and placelessness as narratives of loss: rethinking the notion of 
place.  Journal of Urban Design, 4(2):179-193. 
Assefa, G. & Frostell, B.  2007.  Social sustainability and social acceptance in technology 
assessment: a case study of energy technologies.  Technology in Society, 29 (1):63-78. 
Ataguba, J.E.O. & Alaba, O.  2012.  Explaining health inequalities in South Africa: a political 
economy perspective.  Development Southern Africa, 29(5):758. 
Atiqul, H.A.Q. & Shah, M.D.  2011.  Urban green spaces and an integrated approach to 
sustainable environment.  Journal of Environmental Protection, (2):601-608.  
Badenhorst, M.S., Van Helden P. & Schoonraad, M.D.  2005.  Post-apartheid Pretoria: 
verskuiwings in die sosio-ruimtelike landskap, 1996-2001.  Stads- en Streeksbeplanning, 49:1-16. 
Bagnasco, A., Ghirotto, L. & Sasso, L.  2014.  Theoretical sampling.  Oxford: John Wiley & Sons 
Ltd. 
Baltimore City Department of Planning.  2010.  Downtown Open Space Plan. 
http://www.godowntownbaltimore.com/docs/openspaceplan.pdf  Date of access: 12 Feb. 2018. 
Barcelona Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Plan 2020.  2013.  Councillor of Environment 
and Urban Services – Urban Habitat. Barcelona City Council. 
http://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/ecologiaurbana/sites/default/files/Barcelona%20green%20infras
tructure%20and%20biodiversity%20plan%202020.pdf  Date of access: 12 Feb. 2017. 
Barendse, P., Duerink, S. & Govaart, Y.  2007.  A multi stakeholder collaborative urban planning 
model.  Paper presented at ENHR 2007 International Conference Sustainable Urban Areas, 
Workshop 21: tools to facilitate housing and urban processes.  Rotterdam, 26 June.  
Barnett, J.  1995.  The fractured metropolis.  New York: HarperCollins. 
Bartkus, V.O. & Davis, J.H.  2009.  Social capital: Reaching reaching out, reaching in. 
Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.  
Basiago, A.D.  1999.  Economic, social, and environmental sustainability in development theory 
and urban planning practice.  The Environmentalist, 19(2):145-161. 
 169 
Beatley, T. & Newman, P.  2013.  Biophilic cities are sustainable, resilient cities. Sustainability, 
5(8):3328-3345. 
Bénit-Gbaffou, C.  2008.  Unbundled security services and urban fragmentation in post-
apartheid Johannesburg.  Geoforum, 39(6):1933-1950.  
Bernhardt, A. & Stoll, L.  2010.  Creating Third Places: places where communities gather. 
Downtown Economics, 172. https://fyi.uwex.edu/downtowneconomics/files/2012/07/creating-
third-places.pdf  Date of access: 17 Mar. 2018. 
Biart, M.  2002.  Social sustainability as part of the social agenda of the European community, 
(In Ritt, T., ed. Soziale Nachhaltigkeit: Von der Umweltpolitik zur Nachhaltigkeit, 149:5-10.  
Binns, T. & Nel, E.  2002.  Devolving development: integrated development planning and 
developmental local government in post-apartheid South Africa.  Regional Studies, 36(8):921-
945. 
Black, P. & Wiliam, D.  1998.  Assessment and classroom learning.  Assessment in Education: 
Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1):7-75. 
Bloomberg, M.R., Burney, D., Farley, T., Sadik-Khan, J. & Burden, A.  2010.  Active design 
guidelines: promoting physical activity and health in design.  City of New York. 
Boud, D. & Falchikov, N.  1989.  Quantitative studies of student self-assessment in higher 
education: a critical analysis of findings.  Higher Education, 18(5):529-549. 
Bridger, J.C. & Luloff, A.E.  1999.  Towards an interactional approach to sustainable community 
development.  Journal of Rural Studies, 15(4):377-387. 
Bromley, R.D.F., Tallon, A.R. & Thomas, C.J.  2005.  City centre regeneration through 
residential development: contributing to sustainability.  Urban Studies, 42(13):2407-2429. 
Bryant Park.  http://bryantpark.org/  Date of access: 12 Feb. 2017. 
Bryman, A.  2012.  Triangulation.  Department of Social Science. 
http://www.referenceworld.com/sage/socialscience/triangulation.pdf  Date of access: 
4 Feb. 2016. 
 170 
Busco, C., Fiori, G., Frigo, M.L. & Riccaboni, A.  2017.  Sustainable development goals. 
http://sfmagazine.com/post-entry/september-2017-sustainable-development-goals/  Date of 
access: 2 Oct. 2018. 
Butler A.E., Copnell, B., Hall, H.  2018.  The development of theoretical sampling in practice.  
Collegian: The Australian Journal of Nursing Practice, Scholarship and Research, (25):561-566. 
https://www.collegianjournal.com/article/S1322-7696(17)30194-4/pdf  Date of access: 
15 Mar. 2018. 
Cabras, I. & Mount, M.  2017.  Assessing the impact of pubs on community cohesion and well-
being in the English countryside.  International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality 
Management, 29(1):489-506. 
Camp, B.H.  2015.  A study of Third Place: Benefits of shared leisure practices in public 
gathering places.  Tennessee: Murfreesboro.  (Thesis – PhD). 
Cantor, L.  2014.  High Line, Phase 3. http://www.greenroofs.com/projects/high-line-phase-3/.  
Date of access: 12 Feb. 2017.  
Carmona, M.  2003.  Is the grass greener…? Learning from international innovations in urban 
green space management.  Available at: http://www.cabe.org.uk/publications/is-the-grass-
greener  Date of access: 15 Mar. 2017.  
Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L.G. & Stone, A.M.  1992.  Public space.  New York: Cambridge 
University Press. 
Carrasco, M. & Bilal, U.  2016.  A sign of the times: to have or to be? Social capital or social 
cohesion? Social Science & Medicine, 159:127-131. 
Chan, E.H.W. & Lee, G.K.L.  2008.  Critical factors for improving social sustainability of urban 
renewal projects.  Springer: Soc Indic Res, (85):243–256.  
Charmaz, K.  2014.  Constructing grounded theory.  2nd ed.  London: SAGE Publications. 
Cho, S., Lambert, D., Kim, S., Roberts, R. & Park, W.  2011.  Relationship between value of 
open space and distance from housing locations within a community.  Journal of Geographical 
Systems, 13(4):393-414. 
 171 
Cilliers, D.P.  2010.  The development and use of a land-use suitability model in spatial planning 
in South Africa.  Potchefstroom: NWU.  (Dissertation – Masters). 
Cilliers, E.J. & Cilliers, S.S.  2016.  Planning for green infrastructure: options for South African 
cities.  Johannesburg: South African Cities Network. 
Cilliers, E. J. & De Jong, N.  2013.  Planning for lively spaces: Adding value to old spaces 
(South African approach).  49th ISOCARP conference, Brisbane, 1-4 October 2013. 
Cilliers, E.J., Timmermans, W., Van den Goorbergh, F. & Slijkhuis, J.S.A.  2012.  The lively 
cities (LICI) background document: LICI theory and planning approaches.  Part of the LICI 
project (Lively Cities, made possible by INTERREG IVB North West Europe, European Regional 
Development Fund, European Territorial Cooperation, 2007-2013. Wageningen University of 
Applied Sciences, Van Hall Larenstein). 
Cilliers, E.J., Timmermans, W., Van den Goorbergh, F. & Slijkhuis, J.S.A.  2014.  Designing 
public spaces through the lively planning integrative perspective.  Environment, Development 
and Sustainability, 17(6):1367-1380. 
Cilliers, E.J., Timmermans, W., Van den Goorbergh, F. & Slijkhuis, J.S.A.  2015.  Green place-
making in practice: from temporary spaces to permanent places.  Journal of Urban Design, 
20(3):349-366. 
City of Lonetree Colorado.  2013.  Lonetree design guidelines. 
http://cityoflonetree.com/planning/DesignGuidelines/  Date of access: 14 Nov. 2018. 
City of Perth Planning Scheme.  2015.  City of Perth.  
https://www.perth.wa.gov.au/en/develop/planning-framework/planning-schemes  Date of 
access: 17 Nov. 2018. 
Cloete, A.  2014.  Social cohesion and social capital: possible implications for the common 
good.  Verbum et Ecclesia, 35(3):1-6. 
Colantonio, A.  2009.  Social sustainability: a review and critique of traditional versus emerging 
themes and assessment methods. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/35867/  Date of access: 13 Jan. 2018. 
 172 
Collins Dictionary.  2018.  https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/framework  Date 
of access: 18 Nov. 2018. 
Commissioner for Children and Young People.  2011.  Caring for the future growing up today: 
building spaces and places for children and young people. 
https://www.ccyp.wa.gov.au/files/Building%20spaces%20and%20places%20for%20children%2
0and%20young%20people.pdf  Date of access: 17 Aug. 2017. 
Contemporist.  2012.  Noriega Street Parklet by Matarozzi Pelsinger Design + Build. 
http://www.contemporist.com/noriega-street-parklet-by-matarozzi-pelsinger-design-build/  Date 
of access: 12 Jul. 2017.  
Cortese, C., Haase, A., Grossmann, K. & Ticha, I.  2013.  Governing social cohesion in 
shrinking cities: the cases of Ostrava, Genoa and Leipzig.  European Planning Studies, 
22(10):2050-2066. 
Cowley, R.  2015.  Reframing the problem of public space in the sustainable city.  
https://www.rc21.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/B2-Cowley.pdf  Date of access: 
6 Mar. 2017. 
Cresswell, T.  2004.  Place: a short introduction.  Oxford: Blackwell. 
Crick, A.P.  2011.  Rethinking Oldenburg: Third Places and Generation Y in a developing 
country context.  http://scholarworks.umass.edu/refereed/ICHRIE_2011/Friday/7  Date of 
access: 9 Nov. 2017. 
David, J.  2002.  Reclaiming the High Line.  http://www.solaripedia.com/files/1048.pdf  Date of 
access: 12 Feb. 2017. 
Dawson, H.  2014.  Youth politics: waiting and envy in a South African informal settlement.  
Journal of Southern African Studies, 40(4):861-882. 
Day, K.  2003.  New urbanism and the challenges of designing for diversity.  Journal of Planning 
Education and Research, 23(1):83-95. 
De Jong, N.  2014.  Addressing social issues in rural communities by planning for lively places 
and green spaces.  Potchefstroom: North-West University.  (Thesis – Masters). 
 173 
Designing Buildings Wiki.  2017.  Mixed use development.  
https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Mixed_use_development  Date of access: 18 Nov. 
2018. 
De Villiers, P.  1997.  New urbanism.  Australian Planner, 34(1):30-34. 
Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S. & Brown, C.  2011.  The social dimension of sustainable 
development: Defining urban social sustainability.  Sustainable Development, 19(5):289-300. 
Departments of Planning and Development Review, Public Works and Public Utilities.  2016.  
Parklet design guidelines: a placemaking initiative of the city of Richmond, Virginia.  
http://www.richmondgov.com/PlanningAndDevelopmentReview/documents/Parklet_Design_Gui
deline_Richmond_VA_8-2016.pdf  Date of access: 12 Feb. 2017. 
Dewar, D. & Uytenbogaardt, S. R.  1995.  Creating vibrant urban places to live: a primer. Cape 
Town: Headstart Developments. 
Draucker, C.B., Martsolf, D.S., Ross, R. & Rusk, T.B.  2007.  Theoretical sampling and category 
development in grounded theory.  Qualitative Health Research, 17(8):1137-1148.  
http://journals.sagepub.com/home/qhr  Date of access: 9 Aug. 2018. 
Du Plessis, D.J.  2014.  A critical reflection on urban spatial planning practices and outcomes in 
post-apartheid South Africa.  Urban Forum, 25(1):69-88. 
Ellis, S.M. & Steyn, H.S.  2013.  Practical significance (effect sizes) versus or in combination 
with statistical significance (p-values).  Management Dynamics, 12(4):51-53. 
English Oxford Living Dictionaries.  2018.  Enhance.  
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/enhance  Date of access: 14 Nov. 2018.  
English Oxford Living Dictionaries.  2018.  Municipality.  
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/municipality  Date of access: 18 Nov. 2018. 
English Oxford Living Dictionaries.  2018.  Planning.  
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/planning  Date of access: 19 Nov. 2018. 
 174 
European Union.  2010.  Making our cities attractive and sustainable: how the EU contributes to 
improving the urban environment.  Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 
Feil, A.A. & Schreiber, D.  2017.  Sustainability and sustainable development: unravelling 
overlays and scope of their meanings.  Cad. EBAPE.BR, 14(3):667-681. 
http://www.scielo.br/pdf/cebape/v15n3/en_1679-3951-cebape-15-03-00667.pdf  Date of access: 
2 Oct. 2018. 
Ferrier, R.  2016.  High Line Impacts on Chelsea.  Prezi.  https://prezi.com/wffxqctv9udn/high-
line-impacts-on-chelsea/  Date of access: 12 Feb. 2019. 
Financial Times.  2018.  Definition of environmental sustainability.  
http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=environmental-sustainability  Date of access: 23 Sept. 2018. 
Freund, B.  2010.  Is there such a thing as a post-apartheid city? Urban Forum, 21(3):283-298. 
Friedmann, J.  2010.  Place and place-making in cities: a global perspective.  Planning Theory 
& Practice, 11(2), 149-165. 
Ganis, M. 2015. Planning urban places: a small world network paradigm for dynamic urban 
placemaking. PhD theses, University of Queensland, Australia. 
Gauteng City-Region Observatory (GCRO).  2013.  A framework for a green infrastructure 
planning approach in the Gauteng City-Region.  
http://www.gcro.ac.za/media/reports/GCRO_Green_Assets_Report_Digital_version__book.pdf  
Date of access: 25 Sept. 2018. 
Gehl, J.  2010.  Cities for people.  London: Island Press. 
Geis, D. & Kutzmark, T.  2006.  Developing sustainable communities: the future is now.  
http://freshstart.ncat.org/articles/future.htm  Date of access: 24 April 2017. 
Giddings, B., Hopwood, B. & O’Brien, G.  2002.  Environment, economy and society: fitting them 
together into sustainable development.  Sustainable Development, 10(4):187-196. 
 175 
Giuliani, M. V.  2003.  Theory of attachment and place attachment.  (In Bonnes, M., Lee, T. & 
Bonaiuto, M., eds. Psychological theories for environmental issues.  Aldershot: Ashgate.  p. 137-
170). 
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A.  1967.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative 
research.  London: Aldine Transactions. 
Goebel, A.  2007.  Sustainable urban development? Low-cost housing challenges in South 
Africa.  Habitat International, 31(3-4):291-302. 
Goldberger, P.  1983.  The 'New' Bryant Park: A Plan of Pros and Cons.  The New York Times. 
https://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/01/nyregion/the-new-bryant-park-a-plan-of-pros-and-
cons.html  Date of access: 12 Feb. 2019. 
Gomes, C.S. & Moretto, E.M.  2011.  A framework of indicators to support urban green area 
planning: a Brazilian case study.  Proceedings of the International Academy of Ecology and 
Environmental Sciences, 1(1):47-56  
http://www.iaees.org/publications/journals/piaees/articles/2011-1(1)/A-framework-of-indicators-
to-support-urban.pdf  Date of access: 2 Apr. 2018. 
Goodland, R. & Daly, H.  1996.  Environmental sustainability: universal and non-negotiable.  
Ecological Applications, 6(4):1002-1017. 
Goosen, Z.  2014.  The planning and development of child-friendly green spaces in urban South 
Africa.  Potchefstroom: North-West University.  (Thesis – Masters). 
Goosen, Z.  2015.  The planning and development of child-friendly green spaces in urban South 
Africa.  Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 4(4-1):33-44. 
Hansen, R.  2015.  Green Surge report of case study city portraits.  
https://greensurge.eu/filer/GREEN_SURGE_Report_of_City_Portraits.pdf  Date of access: 
15 Sept. 2017. 
Hardoy J., Mitlin D. & Satthertwaite D.  1992.  Environmental problems in Third World cities.  
London: Earthscan Publications. 
 176 
Harris, K.  2003.  Your Third Place or mine? Public libraries and local communities.  Public 
Library Journal, 18(2):26-29.  https://www.statelibraryofiowa.org/ld/c-d/continuing-
ed/townmtgs/twnmeet2011/2011handouts/thirdplacehandout/at_download/file  Date of access: 
9 Jan. 2018.  
Harrison, P., Todes, A. & Watson, V.  2008.  Planning and transformation: lessons from the 
South African experience.  London: Routledge. 
Harrison, S. & Dourish, P.  1996.  Re-place-ing space: the roles of place and space in 
collaborative systems.  (In CSCW. Proceedings of the 1996 ACM conference on computer 
supported cooperative work, p. 67-76). 
Häussermann, H.  2006.  Berlin: From divided into fragmented city.  Studies in Culture, Polity 
and Identities, 7(1):1-15. 
Herreros, F.  2004.  The problem of forming social capital: why trust? Houndsmill: Palgrave 
Macmillian.  
Hickman, P.  2013.  Third Places and social interaction in deprived neighbourhoods in Great 
Britain.  Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 28(2):221-236. 
Hidding, M.C. & Teunissen, A.T.J.  2002.  Beyond fragmentation: new concepts for urban-rural 
development.  Landscape and Urban Planning, 58:297-308. 
High Line.  2017.  https://www.thehighline.org/  Date of access: 12 Mar. 2017. 
Hobart City Council.  2010.  Hobart public spaces and public life, a city with people in mind.  
http://www.hobartcity.com.au/Hobart/A_City_with_People_in_Mind  Date of access: 18 Jul. 
2017. 
Hopkins, J.  2007.  Social housing in South Africa: review of South Africa’s housing policy.  
http://www.cih.org.hk/publication_dnload/events2006112401/Social%20Housing%20in%20Sout
h%20Africa%20by%20John%20Hopkins.pdf  Date of access: 16 Mar. 2018. 
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).  2018.  
https://www.iisd.org/pdf/2012/sd_timeline_2012.pdf  Date of access 3 Sept. 2018. 
 177 
Jabareen, Y.R.  2006.  Sustainable urban forms: their typologies, models, and concepts.  
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26(1)38-52.  
https://my.vanderbilt.edu/greencities/files/2014/08/Jabareen.pdf  Date of access 3 Aug. 2018. 
Jacobs, A.B.  1993.  Great streets.  Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 
Janmaat, J.G.  2011.  Social cohesion as real-life phenomenon: assessing the explanatory 
power of the universalist and particularist perspectives.  Social Indicators Research, 100(1):61-
83.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9604-9  Date of access: 15 Aug. 2018.  
Jeffres, L.W., Bracken, C.C., Jian, G., & Casey, M.F.  2009.  The impact of Third Places on 
community quality of life.  Applied Research in Quality of Life, 4(4):333-345.  
Jonck, P., Goujon, A., Testa, M.R. & Kandala, J.  2015.  Education and crime engagement in 
South Africa: a national and provincial perspective.  International Journal of Educational 
Development, 45:141-151. 
Jürgens, U., Donaldson, R., Rule, S. & Bähr, J.  2013.  Townships in South African cities: 
literature review and research perspectives.  Habitat International, 39:256-260. 
Jürgens, U., Marais, L., Barker, C. & Lombaard, M.  2003.  Socio-demographic transformation in 
the Bloemfontein inner-city area.  Acta Academica Supplementum, 3:34-54. 
Karacor, E.  2014.  PlaceMaking Approachment to Accomplish Social Sustainability.  European 
Journal of Sustainable Development, 4:253-262.  
Kates, R.W., Parris, T.M. & Leiserowitz, A.A.  2005.  What is sustainable development? Goals, 
indicators, values, and practice. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 
47(3):8-21. 
Kawachi, I.  1999.  Social capital and community effects on population and individual health.  
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 896(1):120-130. 
Kay, D.  2007.  South African city planning in a post-apartheid era.  
http://www.lulu.com/shop/david-kay/south-african-city-planning-in-a-post-apartheid-
era/ebook/product-2134012.html  Date of access: 7 Apr. 2017. 
 178 
Kim, J.K. & Skinner, C.J.  2013.  Weighting in survey analysis under informative sampling.  
http://jkim.public.iastate.edu/presentation/p2013-2.pdf  Date of access: 18 Nov. 2018.  
Klaaren, J.  2015.  Review of governing through crime in South Africa: the politics of race and 
class in neoliberalizing regimes.  Law & Society Review, 49(2):551-554. 
Kotze, J.S. & Prevost, G.  2015.  Born free: an assessment of political identity formation and 
party support of South Africa’s first post-Apartheid generation.  Africa Insight 44(4):142-168. 
Kuhlman, T & Farrington, J.  2010.  What is sustainability?.  https://www.mdpi.com/2071-
1050/2/11/3436  Date of access: 8 Nov.2017. 
Lamit, H., Ghahramanpouri, A. & Nia, S.S.  2013.  A behavioral observation of street 
liveliness in Meldrum Walk, Johor Bahru of Malaysia.  International Transaction Journal of 
Engineering, Management, & Applied Sciences & Technologies, 4(1):3-14. 
Lanham, K.F.  2007.  Planning as placemaking: tensions of scale, culture and identity.  
Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. 
Lefebvre, H.  1991.  The production of space.  Oxford: Blackwell. 
Lepofsky, J. & Fraser, J. C.  2003.  Building community citizens: Claiming the right to place-
making in the city.  Urban Studies, 40(1):127-142. 
Levent, T.B., Vreeker, R. & Nijkamp, P.  2004.  Multidimensional evaluation of green spaces: a 
comparative study on European cities.  dare.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/1871/8928/1/20040017.pdf  
Date of access: 17 Feb. 2017. 
Liljefors, P.  2016.  Social sustainability in Swedish urban development – what does it mean? A 
case study of three Citylab Action pilot projects.  https://www.diva-
portal.org/smash/get/diva2:972522/FULLTEXT01.pdf  Date of access: 3 Jul. 2018. 
Littig, B. & Griebler, E.  2005.  Social sustainability: a catchword between political pragmatism 
and social theory.  International Journal of Sustainable Development, 8(1):65-79. 
Liu, Z., Mao, F., Zhou, W., Li, Q., Haung, J. & Zhu, X.  2007.  Accessibility assessment of urban 
green space: A quantitative perspective.  Beijing: Tsinghua University School of Architecture. 
 179 
Lombard, M.  2014.  Constructing ordinary places: Place-making in urban informal settlements 
in Mexico.  Journal of Progress in Planning, 94:1-53. 
Lorraine, M.M. & Molapo, R.R.  2014.  South Africa’s challenges of realising her socioeconomic 
rights.  Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(27):900-907. 
Loudier, C. & Dubois, J.L.  2001.  Public spaces: between insecurity and hospitality.  
http://www.ocs.polito.it/biblioteca/verde/uk_PARTIE201_C133.134.pdf  Date of access: 5 Jun. 
2018. 
Loukaitou-Sideris, A., Brozen, M. & Callahan, C.  2012.  Reclaiming the right-of-way: a toolkit for 
creating and implementing parklets.  
https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/reclaiming_the_right_of_way_brozen.pdf  Date of access: 
13 Feb. 2017. 
Louw, H.A. & Bredenkamp, I.M.  1999.  The implications of democratization on access to higher 
education in South Africa.  Unpublished report: Technikon Southern Africa, South Africa. 
Low, S.M. & Altman, I.  1992.  Place attachment: a conceptual inquiry: New York: Plenum. 
Lozano, R.  2008.  Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally.  Journal of Cleaner 
Production, 16(17):1838-1846. 
Lydon, D., Quraeshi, S., Hack, G., Halprin, L. & Francis, M.  1998.  Bryant Park, New York City.  
New York: Hardy Holzman Pfeiffer Associates. 
Lynch, K.  1960.  The image of the city.  Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 
Madanipour, A.  1996.  Design of urban space: an inquiry into a socio-spatial process.  Oxford: 
John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 
Manley, K. & Rose, T.M.  2014.  Green urbanism and diffusion issues.  
https://eprints.qut.edu.au/81183/1/SB14%20paper%20authors%20copy.pdf  Date of access: 
8 Sept. 2018.  
Marcinczak, S. & Sagan, I.  2011.  The socio-spatial restructuring of Lódz, Poland.  Urban 
Studies, 48(9):1789-1809. 
 180 
Marshall, T.  2000.  Urban planning and governance: is there a Barcelona model?  International 
Planning Studies, 5(3):299-319.  
Massey, D.  2005.  For space.  London: Sage Publications. 
Mathews, S., Loots, L., Sikweyiya, Y. & Jewkes, R.  2012.  Sexual abuse.  (In Van Niekerk, A., 
Suffla, S. & Seedat, M. eds. Crime, violence and injury in South Africa: 21st century solutions for 
child safety. Houghton: Psychological Society of South Africa. p. 84-96.) 
Matthews, P. & Besemer, K.  2015.  Social networks, social capital and poverty: panacea or 
placebo?.  Journal of Poverty & Social Justice, 23(3):189-201. 
Mavhandu-Mudzusi, A.H. & Sandy, P.T.  2015.  The experiences of HIV-serodiscordant couples 
in Soweto, South Africa.  International Nursing Review, 62(2):196-202. 
Mazumdar, S. & Mazumdar, S.  2004.  Religion and place attachment: a study of sacred places.  
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(3):385-397. 
McAllister, C.  2008.  Child friendly cities and land use planning: implications for children’s 
health.  Environments Journal, 35(3):45-56.  
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.393.63&rep=rep1&type=pdf  Date of 
access: 2 Nov. 2017. 
Meade, C.S., Towe, S.L., Watt, M.H., Lion, R.R., Myers, B. & Skinner, D.  2015.  Addiction and 
treatment experiences among active methamphetamine users recruited from a township 
community in Cape Town, South Africa: A mixed-methods study.  Drug and Alcohol 
Dependence, 152:79-86. 
Mehta, V. & Basson, J.k.  2010.  Third Places and the Social Life of Streets.  Environment and 
Behavior, 42(6):779-805.  https://www.raggeduniversity.co.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2016/02/Thrid-Places-and-social-life-of-streets-ilovepdf-compressed.pdf  Date 
of access: 6 Nov. 2017. 
Mensah, C.A.  2014.  Urban green spaces in Africa: nature and Challenges.  International 
Journal of Ecosystem, 4(1):1-11.  
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Collins_Adjei_Mensah/publication/259779329_Urban_Gre
 181 
en_Spaces_in_Africa_Nature_and_Challenges/links/02e7e52dd1ca9c4078000000.pdf  Date of 
access: 11 Jun. 2017. 
Mesch, G.S. & Manor, O.  1998.  Social ties, environmental perception, and local attachment.  
Environment and Behavior, 30(4):227-245. 
Moir, S. & Carter, K.  2012.  Diagrammatic representations of sustainability: a review and 
synthesis. (In Smith, S.D. ed. Procs 28th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2012, 
Edinburgh, UK, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, p. 1479-1489). 
Morelli, J.  2011.  Environmental sustainability: A definition for environmental professionals.  
Journal of Environmental Sustainability, 1(1).  
https://scholarworks.rit.edu/jes/vol1/iss1/2/?utm_source=scholarworks.rit.edu%2Fjes%2Fvol1%
2Fiss1%2F2&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages  Date of access: 
17 Aug. 2018. 
Mpe, R. & Ogra, A.  2014.  Making great places in slums/informal settlements.  Proceedings of 
the conference Planning Africa 2014: Making Great Places.  
http://www.planningafrica.org.za/images/banners/History-
Documents/01.%20SAPI%202014%20Conference%20Proceedings.pdf  Date of access: 
15 Jun. 2018. 
Mubarak, F.  2016.  Sustainable development and its origin.  
http://en.envirocitiesmag.com/articles/issue-13/3.pdf  Date of access: 12 Feb. 2018.  
Nahapiet, J. & Ghosal, S.  1998.  Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational 
advantage.  Academy of Management Review 23(2):242–266. 
Narooie, M.  2014.  Boosting public participation in urban planning through the use of web GIS 
technology: a case study of Stockholm County.  Stockholm: KTH Royal Institute of Technology. 
(Dissertation – Masters). 
Nash, V. & Christie, I.  2003.  Making sense of community.  London: Institute for Public Policy 
Research.  
Nassar, U.  2013.  Principles of green urbanism: the absent value in Cairo, Egypt.  International 
Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 3(4):339-343. 
 182 
Nelson, P.  2004.  Barcelona, Spain: the complete integrated city.  
http://depts.washington.edu/open2100/Resources/1_OpenSpaceSystems/Open_Space_Syste
ms/BarcelonaCaseStudy.pdf  Date of access: 15 Sept. 2017. 
Norberg-Schulz, C.  1976.  The phenomena of place. (In Larice, M. & Macdonald, E. eds. The 
urban design reader. London: Routledge. p. 125-137). 
Ocampo, L.A. & Clark, E.E.  2015.  A sustainable manufacturing strategy framework: The 
convergence of two fields.  Asian Academy of Management Journal, 20(2):29-57. 
OECD.  2011.  Development Co-operation Report 2011.  
http://www.oecd.org/dac/developmentco-operationreport2011.htm  Date of access: 15 Aug. 2017. 
Oldenburg, R. & Brissett, D.  1982.  The Third Place.  Qualitative Sociology, 5(4):265-284. 
Oldenburg, R.  1999.  The great good place: cafes, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, 
and other hangouts at the heart of a community.  3rd ed.  Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press. 
Osborn, D., Cutter, A. & Ullah, F.  2015.  Universal sustainable development goals: 
understanding the transformational challenge for developed countries, report of a study by 
stakeholder forum.  https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/1684SF_-
_SDG_Universality_Report_-_May_2015.pdf  Date of access: 18 Aug. 2017. 
Oxoby, R.  2009.  Understanding social inclusion, social cohesion and social capital.  
International Journal of Social Economics, 36(12):1133-1152.  
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03068290910996963  Date of access: 15 Mar. 2018. 
Pacione, M.  2005.  Urban geography: a global perspective.  New York: Routledge. 
Palacky, J. Wittmann, M. & Frantisak, L.  2015.  Evaluation of urban open spaces sustainability.  
https://dspace.vutbr.cz/bitstream/handle/11012/42779/PALACKYAESOP2015FULLPAPERFINA
L.pdf?sequence=13  Date of access: 10 Sept. 2017. 
Palys, T.  2008.  Purposive sampling.  In L. M. Given (Ed.) The Sage Encyclopedia of 
Qualitative Research Methods, 2:697-698.  Sage: Los Angeles. 
 183 
Parker, E.  2014.  Proposals for the development of green spaces in urban areas [personal 
interview].  10 Mar. 2014.  Durban. 
Pecenka, C.J. & Kundhlande, G.  2013.  Theft in South Africa: an experiment to examine the 
influence of racial identity and inequality.  Journal of Development Studies, 49(5):737-753. 
Peltzer, K., Ramlagan, S., Johnson, B.D. & Phaswana-Mafuya, N.  2010.  Illicit drug use and 
treatment in South Africa: a review.  Substance Use & Misuse, 45(13):2221-2243. 
Phuttharak, T. & Dhiravisit, A.  2014.  Rapid urbanization – its impact on sustainable 
development: a case study of Udon Thani, Thailand.  Asian Social Science, 10(22):70-79.  
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v10n22  Date of access: 15 Sept. 2018. 
Pieterse, E.  2006.  Building with ruins and dreams: some thoughts on realising integrated urban 
development in South Africa through crisis.  Urban Studies, 43(2):285-304.  
Pieterse, E.  2007.  Tracing the ‘integration’ thread in the South African urban development 
policy tapestry.  Urban Forum, 18(1):1-30. 
Poulsen, L. & Silverman, M.  2005.  Design strategies for the densification of low income 
housing.  International Journal for Housing Science and Its Applications, 30(1):19-31. 
Power, A.  2004.  Sustainable communities and sustainable development: a review of 
sustainable communities.  http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/28313/1/CASEreport23.pdf  Date of access: 
21 Oct. 2017. 
Prange, M.  2014. Urban Design tools to improve child-friendly green spaces [personal 
interview]. 14 Apr. 2014. Durban. 
Project for Public Spaces and Metropolitan Planning Council.  2008.  A guide to neighborhood 
placemaking in Chicago.  Chicago.  
Project for Public Spaces.  2008.  Streets as Places: Using streets to rebuild communities.  
https://uploads-
ssl.webflow.com/5810e16fbe876cec6bcbd86e/5b19499b941ffa434a23fea5_Using_Streets_to_
Rebuild_Communities.pdf  Date of access 13 Jun. 2018.  
 184 
Project for Public Spaces.  2012.  Placemaking and the future of cities.  
https://www.pps.org/article/placemaking-and-the-future-of-cities  Date of access: 13 Aug. 2018.  
Project for Public Spaces.  2014.  What makes a successful place? 
http://www.pps.org/reference/grplacefeat/  Date of access: 21 Apr. 2017. 
Project for Public Spaces.  2015.  Public places and spaces.  http://www.pps.org/places/  Date 
of access: 19 Apr. 2015. 
Putnam, R.D.  2000.  Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community.  New 
York: Simon & Schuster. 
Ranjha, S.  2016.  Green infrastructure: planning for sustainable and resilient urban 
environment.  Brief for GSDR – 2016 Update.  
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/95599_Ranjha_Green%20infrastruct
ure_planning%20for%20sustainable%20and%20resilient%20urban%20environment.pdf  Date 
of access: 6 Sept. 2017. 
Reddy, T.L. & Thomson, R.J.  2015.  Environmental, Social and economic sustainability: 
implications for actuarial science. Presented to the Actuaries Institute ASTIN, AFIR/ERM and 
IACA Colloquia, 23-27 Augustus 2017, Sydney.  
https://www.actuaries.asn.au/Library/Events/ASTINAFIRERMColloquium/2015/ReddyThompso
nActuarialSciencePaper.pdf  Date of access: 22 May 2018. 
Romo, M.  2015.  Public Green Space in Paris: sustainable development discourses in the 
objective of Le Grand Paris.  Uppsala:  Uppsala University.  (Dissertation – Masters). 
Rosen, M.A. & Kishawy, H.A.  2012.  Sustainable manufacturing and design: concepts, 
practices and needs.  Sustainability, 4(2):154-174. 
Ross, N., Bowen, P.A. & Lincoln, D.  2010.  Sustainable housing for low-income communities: 
lessons for South Africa in local and other developing world cases.  Construction Management 
& Economics, 28(5):433-449. 
Ross, R.  1999.  A concise history of South Africa.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
 185 
Rudofsky, B.  1969.  Streets for people: a primer for Americans.  New York: Doubleday & 
Company. 
Sachs, I.  1999.  Social sustainability and whole development: exploring the dimensions of 
sustainable development.  London: Zed Books. 
Sack, R. D.  1997.  Homo Geographicus.  Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 
Saloojee, A.  2012.  Place-making in the everyday: a case study of Fordsburg.  Johannesburg: 
University of Johannesburg.  (Mini-dissertation – Honours)  
Saphan, L., Salas, M. & Rozario, C.  2016.  Bryant Park, New York: Strangers in Public Spaces.  
Streetnotes, 25:1-17. 
Scannell, L. & Gifford, R.  2010.  Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework.  
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1):1-10. 
Schatz, E., Madhavan, S. & Williams, J.  2011.  Female-headed households contending with 
AIDS-related hardship in rural South Africa.  Health and Place, 17(2):598-605. 
Scheepers, T.  2000.  A practical guide to law and development in South Africa.  Kenwyn: Juta & 
Co. 
Schilling, J.  2010.  Towards a greener green space planning. Lund: Lund University.  
(Dissertation – Masters). 
Schlebusch, S.  2015.  Planning for Sustainable communities: evaluating place-making 
approaches.  Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 4(1):59-72.  
Schneider, M., Parry, C.D., Chersich, M., Temmerman, M. & Degomme, O.  2014.  The impact 
of alcohol on HIV prevention and treatment for South Africans in primary healthcare: original 
research.  Curationis, 37(1):1-8. 
Schofield, J. & Szymanski, R.  2011.  Sense of place in a changing world.  (In Schofield, J. & 
Szymanski, R. eds. Local heritage, global context: cultural perspectives on sense of place. 
Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited. p. 1-11). 
 186 
Silberberg, S., Lora, K., Disbrow, R. & Muessig, A.  2013.  Places in the making: how 
placemaking builds places and communities.  Boston, MA: MIT Press.  
Simons, G.F. & Bird, S.  2008.  Toward a Global infrastructure for the sustainability of language 
resources.  Proceedings of the 22nd Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and 
Computation, 20-22 November 2008, Cebu City, Philippines.  
https://scholars.sil.org/sites/scholars/files/gary_f_simons/preprint/paclic22.pdf  Date of access: 
5 May 2018. 
Smith, D.M.  2000.  Moral geographies: ethics in a world of difference.  Edinburgh: Edinburgh 
University Press. 
Smith, D.M.  2003.  Urban fragmentation, inequality and social justice: ethical perspectives. (In 
Harrison, P. Huchzermeyer, M. & Mayekiso, M. eds. Confronting fragmentation: housing and 
urban development in a democratic society. Landsdowne: University of Cape Town Press). 
Smith, K. & Davies, J.  2010.  Qualitative data analysis.  (In Dahlberg, L. & McCaig, C. eds. 
Practical researcher and evaluation: A start-to finish guide for practitioners. London: Sage. p. 145-
158). 
Soholt, H.  2004.  Life, spaces and buildings: turning the traditional planning process upside 
down.  Paper presented at Walk21-V Cities for People, The Fifth International Conference on 
Walking in the 21st Century, 9-11 June 2004, Copenhagen, Denmark. 
Sohrabi, N.M.  2017.  Public art: place making or focus on values (Case study: Vali-Asr Street, 
Tehran).  Arts and Social Science Journal 8(3).  https://www.omicsonline.org/open-
access/public-art-place-making-or-focus-on-values-case-study-valiasr-streettehran-2151-6200-
1000271.pdf  Date of access: 4 Oct. 2018. 
Sorsdahl, K., Stein, D.J., Carrara, H. & Myers, B.  2014.  Problem solving styles among people 
who use alcohol and other drugs in South Africa.  Addictive Behaviours, 39(1):122-126. 
South Africa.  1996.  Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996. Pretoria: Government 
Printer. 
South Africa.  1998.  National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998. Pretoria: 
Government Printer. 
 187 
South Africa.  2000.  The Local Government: Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000. Pretoria: 
Government Printer. 
South Africa.  2009.  National Urban Development Framework. Pretoria: Government Printer. 
South Africa.  2011.  National Strategy for Sustainable Development and Action Plan (2011-
2014). Pretoria: Government Printer. 
South Africa.  2013.  Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act 16 of 2013. Pretoria: 
Government Printer. 
South Africa.  2015.  Department of Rural Development and Land Reform Strategic Plan 2015-
2020.  Pretoria: Government Printer. 
South Africa. National Planning Commission.  2013.  National Development Plan 2030.  
http://www.poa.gov.za/news/Documents/NPC%20National%20Development%20Plan%20Vision
%202030%20-lo-res.pdf  Date of access: 14 Oct. 2016. 
South African Cities Network.  2015.  SPLUMA as a tool for spatial transformation.  
http://www.sacities.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/SPLUMA-as-a-tool-for-spatial-
transformation_final.pdf  Date of access: 14 Jun. 2017.  
South African Government Information.  2013.  Legislation and policy.  
http://www.info.gov.za/aboutgovt/locgovt/legislation.htm  Date of access: 6 Jul. 2017. 
Southworth, B.  2007.  City Squares in Cape Town’s townships – public space as an instrument 
of urban transformation: the origins, objectives and implementation of the City of Cape Town’s 
Dignified Places Programme.  
http://www.treasury.gov.za/divisions/bo/ndp/TTRI/TTRI%20Oct%202007/Day%202%20-
%2030%20Oct%202007/7.10%20Reading%20Public%20Spaces%20CoCT.PDF  Date of 
Access: 12 May. 2017. 
Spicker, P.  2014.  Cohesion, exclusion and social quality.  International Journal of Social 
Quality, 4(1):95-107. 
 
 188 
Stein, N.  2003.  Urban design between theory and practise: from conceptualisation to 
realisation and back again.  Paper for the AESOP-ACSP Third Joint Conference, 8-12 July 
2003, Leuven, Belgium.  
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1cda/46907d89053ac1061bea465c823771256863.pdf  Date of 
access: 17 Apr. 2018. 
Stephenwoo.  2016.  TripAdvisor, Las Ramblas: Too many pros and cons.  
https://www.tripadvisor.co.za/ShowUserReviews-g187497-d190163-r343407502-Las_Ramblas-
Barcelona_Catalonia.html  Date of access: 12 Feb. 2019. 
Stellenberg, E.L.  2015.  Accessibility, affordability and use of health services in an urban area 
in South Africa.  Curationis, 38(1):1-7 
Stone, W. & Hughes, J.  2002.  Understanding community strengths: can existing theories 
provide an overall framework for achieving and identifying strong communities? Family Matters, 
62(6):1-8. 
Strydom, W.J.  2014.  Towards place-making in urban planning through participatory action 
research.  Potchefstroom: North-West University.  (Dissertation – Masters). 
Suire, R., Rallet, A., Rochelandet, F. & Guibert, G.  2017.  Places and third-places, are they the 
missing puzzle pieces in dynamic of cultural and creative clusters?.  
http://asrdlf2017.com/asrdlf2017_com/inc/resumes/24.pdf  Date of access: 12 Feb. 2017. 
Svetlana, B.  2013.  World urbanization prospects and the problem of its infrastructural 
provision.  World Urbanization Prospects, 46(1-2):72-81. 
Thatcher, A.  2014.  Theoretical definitions and models of sustainable development that apply to 
human factors and ergonomics.  
http://proceedings.dtu.dk/fedora/repository/dtu:2471/OBJ/x152.747-752.pdf  Date of access: 
15 Aug. 2016. 
The Savvy Backpacker.  2017.  Barcelona travel guide — how to visit Barcelona on a budget.  
https://thesavvybackpacker.com/city-guide/barcelona-travel-guide-budget/  Date of access: 
12 Feb. 2017. 
 189 
The Scottish Government.  2011.  Green Infrastructure: design and Placemaking.  St Andrew’s 
House: Edinburgh. 
The South African Council for Professional Planners.  2018.  
https://www.sacplan.org.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=70&Itemid=198  
Date of access: 15 Nov. 2018. 
The World Bank.  2012.  Inclusive green growth: the pathway to sustainable development.  
Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / International 
Development. 
The World Bank.  2015.  What does “urban” mean?. 
http://blogs.worldbank.org/sustainablecities/what-does-urban-mean  Date of access: 18 Nov. 
2018. 
Thrift, N.  2003.  Performance and …  Environment and Planning A, 35(11):2019-2024. 
Tissington, K.  2011.  A resource guide to housing in South Africa 1994-2010. Legislation, 
policy, programmes and practice.  
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236144494_A_Resource_Guide_to_Housing_in_Sout
h_Africa_1994_-_2010_Legislation_Policy_Programmes_and_Practice  Date of access:12 Feb. 
2018. 
Todes, A., Karam, A., Klug, N. & Malaza, N.  2010.  Beyond master planning? New approaches 
to spatial planning in Ekurhuleni, South Africa.  Habitat International, 34(4):414-420. 
Tomlinson, M.R.  2006.  From quantity to quality: restructuring South Africa’s housing policy ten 
years after.  International Development Planning Review, 28(1):85-104. 
Town and Country Planning Association.  2012.  Planning for a healthy environment – good 
practice guidance for green infrastructure and biodiversity.  
https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/sites/default/files/Green-Infrastructure-Guide-TCPA-
TheWildlifeTrusts.pdf  Date of access: 12 May. 2017. 
Trancik, R.  1986.  Finding lost space: theories of urban design.  New York: John Wiley & Sons 
Inc. 
 190 
Tripomatic.  2016.  Barcelona Guide.  http://guides.tripomatic.com/download/tripomatic-free-city-
guide-barcelona.pdf  Date of access: 9 Feb. 2017. 
Tuan, Y.F.  2005.  Space and Place: The perspective of experience.  Minneapolis: University of 
Minnesota Press.  
Turok, I. & Borel-Saladin, J.  2014.  Is urbanisation in South Africa on a sustainable trajectory?.  
Development Southern Africa, 31(5):675-691. 
United Nations Development Program.  2016.  From the MDGs to sustainable development for 
all: lessons from 15 years of practice.  
file:///F:/Electronic%20Library/From%20the%20MDGs%20to%20SD4All%20(1).pdf  Date of 
access: 2 Oct. 2018. 
United Nations.  2017.  The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2017.  
http://sdgactioncampaign.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/07/TheSustainableDevelopmentGoalsReport2017.pdf  Date of access: 
2 Oct. 2018. 
United States Environmental Protection Agency.  2012.  Learn about sustainability.  
https://www.epa.gov/sustainability/learn-about-sustainability  Date of access: 24 Sept. 2017. 
US Legal.  2016.  Public Place Law and Legal Definition.  
https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/public-place/  Date of access: 18 Nov. 2018. 
Vallance, S., Perkins, H.C. & Dixon, J.E.  2011.  What is social sustainability? A clarification of 
concepts.  Geoforum, 42(3):342-348. 
Van Wyk, J.  1999.  Planning law: principles and procedures of land-use management.  Cape 
Town: Juta. 
Veenhoven, R. & Ehrhardt, J.  1995.  The cross-national pattern of happiness: test of 
predictions implied in three theories of happiness.  Social Indicators Research, 34(1):33-68. 
Vifell, Å.C., Soneryd, L. 2012.  Organizing matters: How ‘the social dimension’ gets lost in 
sustainability projects.  Sustainable Development, 20(1):18-27. 
 191 
Walker, A. & Porraz, B.  2003.  The case of Barcelona, Spain.  https://www.ucl.ac.uk/dpu-
projects/Global_Report/pdfs/Barcelona.pdf  Date of access: 24 Sept. 2017. 
Watson, V.  2009.  “The planned city sweeps the poor away…”: urban planning and 21st 
century urbanisation.  Progress in Planning, 72(3):151-193. 
World Commission on Environment and Development.  1987.  Report of the World Commission 
on environment and development: “our common future”.  New York: United Nations.  
Wei, Y. & Zhang, Z.  2012.  Assessing the fragmentation of construction land in urban areas: An 
index method and case study in Shunde, China.  Land Use Policy, 29(2):417-428.  
Wells, W.  2010.  What is green urbanism?.  https://www.planetizen.com/node/46245  Date of 
access: 26 Mar. 2018.  
Wiersum, K.F.  1995.  200 years of sustainability in forestry: lessons from History.  
Environmental Management, 19(3):321-329. 
Willard, B.  2010.  Sustainable Advantage: 3 Sustainability Models.  
https://sustainabilityadvantage.com/2010/07/20/3-sustainability-models/  Date of access: 18 
Nov. 2018.  
Wilson, F.  2011.  Historical roots of inequality in South Africa.  Economic History of Developing 
Regions, 26(1):1-15. 
Wolch, J.R., Byrne, J. & Newell, J.P.  2014.  Urban green space, public health, and 
environmental justice: the challenge of making cities “just green enough”.  Landscape and 
Urban Planning, 125:234-244.  http://ced.berkeley.edu/downloads/research/LUP.parks.pdf  
Date of access: 7 Apr. 2017. 
Woodcraft, S., Hackett, T. & Caistor-Arendar, L.  2011.  Design for social sustainability: a 
framework for creating thriving new communities.  S.l.: Future Communities.  
Yaping, W. & Zongyi, Z.  2011.  Assessing the fragmentation of construction land in urban 
areas: an index method and case study in Shunde, China.  Land Use Policy, 29(2):417-428. 
 192 
Your Dictionary.  2018.  Approach.  https://www.yourdictionary.com/approach  Date of access: 
14 Nov. 2018. 
Zhang, Y.  2015.  Public participation approaches for urban planning in China.  
https://dpla.wisc.edu/sites/dpla.wisc.edu/files/inline-files/15-05-Zhang%2C%20Yining_0.pdf  
Date of access: 16 Mar. 2018.  
Zupancic, T., Kingsley, M., Jason, T. & Macfarlane, R.  2015.  Green city: why nature matters to 
health – an evidence review.  http://www.ecohealth-
ontario.ca/files/Green_City_Why_Nature_Matters_to_Health_An_Evidence_Review.pdf  Date of 
access: 16 Mar. 2018.  
 193 
ANNEXURE 1: EMPIRICAL RESEARCH, PHASE 1 SURVEY 
QUESTIONNAIRE  
 194 
 
 
 
 
RESEARCH ETHICS PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET 
UNIT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES AND MANAGEMENT, SUBPROGRAM 7: 
 
Informed consent for participation in the research “A framework for enhancing social 
sustainability through the planning of Third Places: a South African approach” by Zhan Goosen 
(22095128) as part of post-graduate research for the degree Philosophiae Doctor in Urban and 
Regional Planning at the North-West University. 
 
Purpose of the research:  
 
• Orientation of research topic: Third Places for 
social sustainability 
• Relevance and Value: Provide a comprehensible 
understanding of the Third Place in an attempt to 
formulate a theoretical framework with guiding 
principles on the development of Third Places 
within urban areas of South Africa to enhance 
social sustainability. 
Research competence and 
expertise:  
 
• Post-graduate student introduction: Z Goosen 
• Study leader introduction: Prof E.J. Cilliers 
• Introduction of entity: Urban and Regional 
Planning, Unit for Environmental Sciences and 
Management, North-West University. 
Research sponsor: National research Foundation (NRF) 
Requirements of participation:  
 
State favourable risk-benefit ratio: Low risk, 
informative answers of concepts.  
Statements of voluntary 
participation:  
 
Your participation in this study is voluntary. If you 
wish not to participate, please return the 
questionnaire to the researcher. You are also not 
required to answer any question that makes you feel 
uncomfortable. 
 195 
Privacy statements: 
 
Participant’s responses are confidential. 
Confidentiality statement: Only the researchers 
involved in this study will observe your responses. 
Submission information: Electronic submission 
Note of thanks: Thank you for the participation, the received 
information is valued and will provide a better 
understanding of the complexities relating to Third 
Places within urban areas and the possible impact it 
has on improving social sustainability. 
 
 
 
  
 196 
RESEARCH ETHICS CONSENT FORM 
UNIT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES AND MANAGEMENT, SUBPROGRAM 7: 
 
Full title of Project: A framework for enhancing social sustainability through the planning of 
Third Places: a South African approach 
 
Name, position and contact address of Researcher:  
Zhan Goosen (Post-graduate Student - PhD) 
goosenzhangoosen@gmail.com 
 
Name, position and contact address of Participant:  
___________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 Please Initial Box 
 
1. I confirm that I have read and understand the information 
sheet for the above study and have had the opportunity to 
ask questions. 
 
  
2. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am 
free to withdraw at any time, without giving reason. 
 
 
3. I agree to take part in the above study. 
 
 
  
4.         I agree to the use of anonymised quotes in publications’ 
 
 
5.          I agree that my data gathered in this study may be stored 
(after it has been anonymised) in a specialist data centre and 
may be used for future research. 
 
 
  
 
Name of Participant    Date    Signature 
 
 
 
Name of Researcher    Date    Signature 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 197 
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR RESEARCH STUDY:  
 
A framework for enhancing social sustainability through planning for Third Places: a 
South African approach 
Thank you for your contribution in taking part in this survey. In order to determine the 
importance of planning for Third Places and the impact on social (people) sustainability, your 
valuable input as researcher and/or expert is vital. The questionnaire takes approximately 10 
minutes to complete. 
Do take note that the completion of the questionnaire is voluntary. The results will be used for 
research purposes only and responses will be treated confidential. The results and findings of 
this questionnaire will be made available on demand.  
This questionnaire forms part of post-graduate research for the degree Philosophiae Doctor in 
Urban and Regional Planning at the North-West University. For more details or ethics 
requirements please contact the study-leader Prof EJ Cilliers at juanee.cilliers@nwu.ac.za or 
the researcher Z Goosen at goosenzhangoosen@gmail.com. 
Research overview and questionnaire rationale: 
As urbanisation and the functional changing of cities continue to increase, problems associated 
with the quality of urban life arise. The aim of this study is to propose a theoretical framework 
with guiding principles on how to change spaces into lively and functional places. This can be 
achieved by revisiting the Third Place concept (Oldenburg, 1999:6), defined as a public place 
on neutral ground providing a stage for people to connect and interact. In contrast to First Place 
(home) and Second Place (work), Third Places allow people to simply enjoy their surroundings. 
But the social (people) sustainability benefits thereof should be established in order to 
determine the value of Third Places and the question of how to create the ideal public place 
(Lynch, 1960), remains the challenge. The theory framework proposed in this research is 
supported by place-making, lively planning and green urbanism planning approaches.  
 
  
 198 
Section A: Biographical Information  
Please answers all of the question below by selecting the option most relevant to you. 
1. Province of employment:  
 
o Eastern Cape 
o Free State 
o Gauteng 
o KwaZulu-Natal 
o Limpopo 
o Mpumalanga 
o North West 
o Northern Cape 
o Western Cape 
o Other: ___________________________ 
 
2. Age (in years): _________ 
 
3. Gender:  
 
o Male 
o Female 
 
4. Indicate your main sector of employment? 
 
o Public Sector 
o Private Sector 
 
5. Provide your profession? 
 
o Professional Town Planner 
o Candidate Planner 
o Researcher 
o Lecturer  
o Other:_____________________ 
 
6. Indicate your highest level of planning education? 
 
o Diploma 
o Degree 
o Honours degree 
o Masters degree 
o Doctorate degree 
 
 
  
 199 
Section B: Third Place expertise 
7. Indicate the extent of your familiarity regarding Third Places 
 
o Not at all familiar  
o Slightly familiar 
o Moderately familiar 
o Very familiar 
o Extremely familiar 
 
8. Based on your answer in question 8, is your knowledge on Third Places and the 
planning thereof based upon a global or local perspective? 
 
o Global perspective 
o Local perspective 
 
Section C: Third Places Questionnaire 
9. Rank the importance of Third Places within spatial planning? 
 
o Not at all important 
o Slightly important 
o Moderately important 
o Very important 
o Extremely important 
 
10. Rank the importance of Third Places within communities in order to create a sense of 
place and sense of community? 
 
o Not at all important 
o Slightly important 
o Moderately important 
o Very important 
o Extremely important 
 
11. Indicate the importance of a bottom-up/ public participatory process in the planning 
of Third Places? 
 
o Not at all important 
o Slightly important 
o Moderately important 
o Very important 
o Extremely important 
 
 
  
 200 
12. Indicate the importance of the listed purposes of Third Places: 
 
 
 
Needs & Preferences in the 
Third Place 
 
 
 
 
 
N
o
t 
a
t 
a
ll
 i
m
p
o
rt
a
n
t 
       
S
li
g
h
tl
y
 i
m
p
o
rt
a
n
t 
    
M
o
d
e
ra
te
ly
 i
m
p
o
rt
a
n
t 
    
V
e
ry
 i
m
p
o
rt
a
n
t 
    
E
x
tr
e
m
e
ly
 i
m
p
o
rt
a
n
t 
    
 
 
 
Remarks 
 
 
Provides users a place to: 
Interact with people/ friends/ 
family 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Workout/ keep fit in (e.g. gym, 
run, walk) 
      
Relax in       
Enjoy a lunch break in       
Play for children       
Walk pets       
Enjoy/ interact with nature 
(green) 
      
Spend a day in (e.g. picnic)       
Engage in other activities (e.g. 
public art, games) 
      
 
  
 201 
13. How important is the quality of the following characteristics of Third Places: 
 
 
 
Characteristics 
 
 
 
 
 
 
N
o
t 
a
t 
a
ll
 i
m
p
o
rt
a
n
t 
S
li
g
h
tl
y
 i
m
p
o
rt
a
n
t 
M
o
d
e
ra
te
ly
 i
m
p
o
rt
a
n
t 
V
e
ry
 i
m
p
o
rt
a
n
t 
E
x
tr
e
m
e
ly
 i
m
p
o
rt
a
n
t  
 
 
Remarks 
 
 
Location  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Safety       
Physical design       
Accessibility        
Management       
Amenities       
Regularity       
Incorporated Activities       
Representation of a personal 
experience 
      
Fulfil an individual need       
Makes one escape from home 
(first place) and work (second 
place) 
      
Personally functional to people       
There when needed       
 
14. Third Places improving social sustainability: 
Social sustainability is put forward as the social condition based on human well-being. Although 
context-based, the impact on social sustainability through the planning of Third Places has an 
improvement impact on sustainable development within urban areas. 
 
Based on this statement, kindly indicate your level of agreement. 
 
  
 202 
14.1 There exists a need to increase the awareness on social sustainability (as one of 
the three perspectives of sustainable development).  
 
o Strongly disagree 
o Disagree 
o Neither agree nor disagree 
o Agree 
o Strongly agree 
 
14.2 By introducing Third Places within urban areas social sustainability will be 
enhanced. 
 
o Strongly disagree 
o Disagree 
o Neither agree nor disagree 
o Agree 
o Strongly agree 
 
14.3 Kindly suggest one way in which you would improve social sustainability within 
urban areas?  
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
  
 203 
ANNEXURE 2: EMPIRICAL RESEARCH, PHASE 2 CROSS-
TABULATION  
 204 
 
Q5 * Q9 Crosstabulation 
 
Q9 
Total 3 4 5 
Q5 1 Count 2 8 5 15 
% within Q5 13,3% 53,3% 33,3% 100,0% 
2 Count 2 5 2 9 
% within Q5 22,2% 55,6% 22,2% 100,0% 
3 Count 0 1 1 2 
% within Q5 0,0% 50,0% 50,0% 100,0% 
5 Count 0 3 1 4 
% within Q5 0,0% 75,0% 25,0% 100,0% 
Total Count 4 17 9 30 
% within Q5 13,3% 56,7% 30,0% 100,0% 
       
Chi-Square Tests 
   
  Value df 
Asymptotic 
Significance (2-
sided)    
Pearson Chi-Square 2.155a 6 0,905 
   
Likelihood Ratio 2,817 6 0,831 
   
Linear-by-Linear Association 0,061 1 0,805 
   
N of Valid Cases 30     
   
a. 10 cells (83.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 
.27. 
   
       
Symmetric Measures 
   
  Value 
Approximate 
Significance    
Nominal by Nominal Phi 0,268 0,905 
   
Cramer's V 0,190 0,905 
   
N of Valid Cases 30   
   
       
 
 
 
  
 205 
 
Q7 * Q14.2 Crosstabulation 
 
Q14.2 
Total 2 3 4 5 
Q7 1 Count 0 0 0 1 1 
% within Q7 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 100,0% 100,0% 
2 Count 1 1 4 0 6 
% within Q7 16,7% 16,7% 66,7% 0,0% 100,0% 
3 Count 0 1 6 7 14 
% within Q7 0,0% 7,1% 42,9% 50,0% 100,0% 
4 Count 0 0 6 3 9 
% within Q7 0,0% 0,0% 66,7% 33,3% 100,0% 
Total Count 1 2 16 11 30 
% within Q7 3,3% 6,7% 53,3% 36,7% 100,0% 
        
Chi-Square Tests 
    
  Value df 
Asymptotic 
Significance 
(2-sided)     
Pearson Chi-
Square 
10.893a 9 0,283 
    
Likelihood Ratio 12,805 9 0,172 
    
Linear-by-Linear 
Association 
1,412 1 0,235 
    
N of Valid Cases 30     
    
a. 14 cells (87.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum 
expected count is .03. 
    
        
Symmetric Measures 
    
  Value 
Approximate 
Significance     
Nominal by Nominal Phi 0,603 0,283 
    
Cramer's V 0,348 0,283 
    
N of Valid Cases 30   
    
        
 
 
 
  
 206 
 
Q7 * Q10 Crosstabulation 
 
Q10 Total 
3 4 5 
 
Q7 1 Count 0 0 1 1 
% within Q7 0,0% 0,0% 100,0% 100,0% 
2 Count 1 3 2 6 
% within Q7 16,7% 50,0% 33,3% 100,0% 
3 Count 1 10 3 14 
% within Q7 7,1% 71,4% 21,4% 100,0% 
4 Count 0 2 7 9 
% within Q7 0,0% 22,2% 77,8% 100,0% 
Total Count 2 15 13 30 
% within Q7 6,7% 50,0% 43,3% 100,0% 
       
Chi-Square Tests 
   
  Value df 
Asymptotic 
Significance (2-
sided)    
Pearson Chi-
Square 
9.640a 6 0,141 
   
Likelihood 
Ratio 
10,447 6 0,107 
   
Linear-by-
Linear 
Association 
1,841 1 0,175 
   
N of Valid 
Cases 
30     
   
a. 10 cells (83.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum 
expected count is .07. 
   
       
Symmetric Measures 
   
  Value 
Approximate 
Significance    
Nominal by 
Nominal 
Phi 0,567 0,141 
   
Cramer's 
V 
0,401 0,141 
   
N of Valid Cases 30   
   
       
 
 
  
 207 
 
Q8 * Q11 Crosstabulation 
 
Q11 
Total 3 4 5 
Q8 1 Count 0 3 5 8 
% within Q8 0,0% 37,5% 62,5% 100,0% 
2 Count 6 8 8 22 
% within Q8 27,3% 36,4% 36,4% 100,0% 
Total Count 6 11 13 30 
% within Q8 20,0% 36,7% 43,3% 100,0% 
       
Chi-Square Tests 
   
  Value df 
Asymptotic 
Significance (2-
sided)    
Pearson Chi-
Square 
3.109a 2 0,211 
   
Likelihood Ratio 4,581 2 0,101 
   
Linear-by-Linear 
Association 
2,794 1 0,095 
   
N of Valid Cases 30     
   
a. 4 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected 
count is 1.60. 
   
       
Symmetric Measures 
   
  Value 
Approximate 
Significance    
Nominal by 
Nominal 
Phi 0,322 0,211 
   
Cramer's 
V 
0,322 0,211 
   
N of Valid Cases 30   
   
       
 
 
 
 208 
ANNEXURE 3: LANGUAGE EDITING CERTIFICATE  
 209 
 
  
 210 
ANNEXURE 4: PROOF OF SUBMISSION OF ARTICLE, JOURNAL OF 
APPLIED RESEARCH IN QUALITY OF LIFE  
 211