Social Indicators Research (2020) 150:835–866

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02350-7

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Enhancing Social Sustainability Through the Planning

of Third Places: A Theory-Based Framework

Z. Goosen1  · E. J. Cilliers1

Accepted: 20 April 2020 / Published online: 27 April 2020

© Springer Nature B.V. 2020

Abstract
With constantly changing societal needs, along with population growth and increas-
ing urbanisation pressures, open public spaces are constantly competing against other
land-uses 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. It is for this reason that
social sustainability is becoming a crucial consideration within the urban context, seek-
ing balance between economic developments, environmental challenges and the demands
and preferences of modern societies. This article includes various theories and literature,
reflecting 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 is considered
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.
The Third Place concept is thus introduced in this article as an umbrella concept combin-
ing the physical realm and design of the social space and is considered from the perspec-
tive of 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 plan-
ning of Third Places. Although social sustainability has become increasingly influential in
the urban planning context, limited research to guide urban planning approaches towards
enhanced social sustainability exist, especially within the South African context. 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 sus-
tainability. The proposed theory-based framework, based on the theory and literature of
this article, will finally aim to inform the study of Third Place consideration for enhanced
social sustainability within the South African planning context.

Keywords Social sustainability · Third Places · Place-making · Lively planning · Green

urbanism · Theory-based framework

* Z. Goosen
goosenzhangoosen@gmail.com
Extended author information available on the last page of the article

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
836 Z. Goosen, E. J. Cilliers

Overlapping equal circles Nested circles

Society Economic Economic

Environment Society

Environment

Fig. 1 Nested versus overlapping dimensions of sustainable development Source: Thatcher (2014)

1 Introducing Sustainable Development and Its Dimensions

The concept “sustainable development”, has been 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; Harris 2003; Kates et al. 2005; WCED 1987). The integra-
tion of the drive for socioeconomic development and the need to limit its harmful impacts
on the physical environment (WCED 1987) led to this redefinition. Since this initial def-
inition, various definitions have been introduced, where sustainable development is fur-
thermore the pathway to sustainability (Feil and Schreiber 2017; Giddings et  al. 2002).
Coined in forestry, sustainability implies never harvesting more than what the forest yields
in new growth (Wiersum 1995), thereby maintaining well-being over a long, perhaps even
indefinite, period of time (Kuhlman and Farrington 2010). Simons and Bird (2008) fur-
thermore 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 prin-
ciple 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, envi-
ronmental and other requirements of present and future generations” (Al-Hagla 2008;
Wolch et al. 2014).
According to theory, sustainability will be achieved (European Union 2010; Palacky
et al. 2015) when the three dimensions (social, environmental and economic) are balanced
and in equal harmony (Al-Hagla 2008; Cilliers 2010; Cowley 2015; Harris 2003; Schil-
ling 2010; Wolch et al. 2014). Such balance is either an overlapping or nested illustration
(Thatcher 2014), as illustrated in Fig. 1, 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 sus-
tainability factors (Lozano 2008; Thatcher 2014). The size of each circle is often resized,
depending on an individual’s approach thereto. This illustrates that one factor is lead-
ing in terms of another (Moir and Carter 2012; Thatcher 2014). The nested circle model

13
Enhancing Social Sustainability Through the Planning of Third… 837

reflects the co-dependent reality of human society being a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
environment (Thatcher 2014). 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.
History has shown that the long-term social needs of communities have often been
deserted (Colantonio 2009; Woodcraft et al. 2011; Vallance et al. 2011), with the signifi-
cance 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 sus-
tainability rather than one overarching definition (Cuthill 2009). Social sustainability is
directly related to the leisure and recreational aspect of a place. Social contact (communi-
cation), health and well-being of communities are directly influenced, therefore “meeting
the basic social needs of all communities” (Eizenberg and Jabareen 2017). As a result,
social sustainability should achieve and provide opportunity, equity and participation, but
will differ from one place to another.
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). A community is
regarded as economically sustainable when there are adequate job and livelihood opportu-
nities, with economic growth and an increase in prosperity (Reddy and Thomson 2015).
This leads to economic security. As stated by Basiago (1999) “The ‘sustainability’ that
‘economic sustainability’ seeks is the ‘sustainability’ of the economic system itself”.
Basiago (1999) further defines economic sustainability as “the potential to reach qualita-
tively 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). It is for this reason that rapid economic growth is a factor hinder-
ing sustainability (The World Bank 2012). It is proposed that economic growth should be
both socially inclusive and ensure that the earth’s natural resources 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).
Environmental sustainability originated due to social concerns (Goodland and Daly
1996), as societies and economies could not function without a sustainably productive
environment (Morelli 2011). This dimension of sustainability seeks to improve social sus-
tainability and human welfare through the protection of natural resources used for human
needs (Goodland and Daly 1996; Reddy and Thomson 2015). Financial Times (2018)
defines environmental sustainability as “a state in which the demands placed on the envi-
ronment 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) attempts to
relate environmental sustainability to that of sustainable community development by advo-
cating 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

13
838 Z. Goosen, E. J. Cilliers

(Atiqul and Shah 2011; Harris 2003; Hickman 2013; Mensah 2014; Ranjha 2016). Eco-
logical 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.

2 Emphasising Social Sustainability

Social sustainability is one of the three dimensions of sustainable development, but envi-
ronmental and economic sustainability are often regarded as the driving force and focus of
overall sustainable development within urban areas (Barter and Bebbington 2010; Basiago
1999). Although limited research to guide urban planning approaches towards enhanced
social sustainability exist, this independent dimension of sustainable development has
become increasingly influential in the urban planning context.
Sachs (1999) stated that it is still unclear whether the concept of social sustainability
implies the social preconditions for sustainable development or the need to sustain spe-
cific 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 an independent
dimension of sustainable development, consequently allowing for an unclear relationship
between the different dimensions of sustainable development (Colantonio 2009). Assefa
and Frostell (2007) argue that social sustainability is concerned with the finality of sus-
tainable development, while economic and environmental sustainability has to do with the
goals and instruments of achieving sustainable development. Hardoy et al. (1992) contrib-
ute to this statement by interpreting social sustainability purely as the social condition nec-
essary to support environmental sustainability.
Adding to Assefa and Frostell (2007) 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 repro-
ductive 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; Littig and Griebler 2005; Sachs 1999). Social sustainability within urban areas,
forming part of the broader sustainable development principle, does however not solely
rest on the planning of idyllic public places that provide human and environmental quality
and encourage sociability by setting a social stage that is safe, integrated and accessible.
Fostering the sustainability of a community, social sustainability has furthermore been
encapsulated in the concepts of social cohesion and social capital as two interrelated ideas
(Carrasco and Bilal 2016), and although various authors have engaged the concepts of
social cohesion and social capital, definitions have remained ambiguous and questioned
(Cloete 2014; Spicker 2014). 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; Carrasco and Bilal 2016). Referred to as “the glue that holds society
together” (Janmaat 2011), or a society that “works towards the well-being of all the mem-
bers, fights exclusion and marginalisation, creates a sense of belonging, promotes trust and
offers members the opportunity of upward social mobility” (OECD 2011). Social capital,

13
Enhancing Social Sustainability Through the Planning of Third… 839

on the other hand, is defined as a resource produced by participating in social networks

and civic institutions (Stone and Hughes 2002). It is supported by trust that accommodates
shared exchanges, mutual support, social networks and collective action to achieve com-
munal objectives (Kawachi 1999; Putnam 2000; Matthews and Besemer 2015; Carrasco
and Bilal 2016). Mainly influenced by the work of Bourdieu (1985), Coleman (1988a, b,
1990) and Putnam (1993, 2000), social capital is referred to as a range of resources avail-
able to individuals thanks to their participation in social networks (Herreros 2004).
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD 2011) 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 belong-
ing, active participation, trust, exclusion and mobility. The difference found between social
capital and social cohesion (OECD 2011) then agrees with the following definition, where
social capital 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).

3 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;
Harrison and Dourish 1996; Lefebvre 1991; PPS 2015) and has been widely discussed
and theorised by many researchers spanning disciplinary bounds (see Cresswell 2004; De
Certeau 1988; Lefebvre 1991). As portrayed in existing literature, the distinction between
“space” and “place” is rather difficult to establish. The terms “space” and “place” are often
used interchangeably (Smith 2000) 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 collec-
tive life, expressions of the diversity of their common natural and cultural richness and a
foundation of their identity”.
Cresswell (2004) 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) and Massey (2005), space cannot
be 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 por-
tions of space containing meaning within. This is due to place largely existing within space
(Agnew 2011; Harrison and Dourish 1996), whereas space accordingly becomes a place
due to the space acquiring meaning for an individual (Al-Bishawi and Ghadban 2011; Cho
et al. 2011; Harrison and Dourish 1996; Thrift 2003; Tuan 2005).
It can be accepted that a place is generally a space with meaning and value added to
it. This definition sets place apart from, although always connected to, space. Space how-
ever 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 and Szymanski
2011; Strydom 2014). 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

13
840 Z. Goosen, E. J. Cilliers

space, whilst space simultaneously affects them (Al-Bishawi and Ghadban 2011; 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), place is understood as being the space experienced by
us humans. Space being accordingly a movement and place the pause (Madanipour 1996).
Harrison and Dourish (1996) 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; Saloojee
2012).
As place is unique and cannot be duplicated within another setting, place is identified
as being heterogeneous (Strydom 2014). 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). For this reason, space is duplicable within another setting, as it consists of a singu-
lar 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 and Dourish 1996;
Madanipour 1996; Tuan 2005).
Space and place continue to be related notions, and often the closeness of their relation-
ship 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.
For the purpose of this research paper and derived from the various definitions of space
and place (Agnew 2011; Al-Bishawi and Ghadban 2011; Cho et al. 2011; Cresswell 2004;
Harrison and Dourish 1996; Lefebvre 1991; Massey 2005; Thrift 2003; Tuan 2005), 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.
Lefebvre (1991) 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 trans-
formed 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) are evident within
the space. Place is different from space, but simultaneously intertwined with it, providing a
person-place-process attachment.
Broadly stated (Giuliani 2003; Low and Altman 1992), the attachment to place is highly
influenced by an individual in accordance with his or her personal experiences. Emphasis-
ing 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 and
Gifford 2010).
The “person” dimension refers to an individually or collectively determined meaning.
This personal dimension of the place attachment occurs at both an individual level (involv-
ing 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 psycho-
logical 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 and Gifford 2010). The place dimension is perhaps the most important dimension

13
Enhancing Social Sustainability Through the Planning of Third… 841

of place attachment and has been divided into two levels, social and physical place attach-
ment, at a home, neighbourhood and city spatial scale. Both the physical and social attach-
ments 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 and Mazumdar 2004; Mesch and Manor 1998).
The person-process-place relationship aids in understanding the attachment of a place
and is extended on through revisiting Oldenburg’s (1999) Third Place concept.

4 Revisiting the Notion of Third Places and Its Characteristics

This research considers the concept of Third Places (Oldenburg 1999), introduced as any
space other than our homes (First Place) or work (Second Place), manifesting as a com-
ponent 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; Camp 2015; Liu et al. 2007). 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). It is those places of regular, vol-
untary, 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; Harris 2003; Oldenburg 1999).
Oldenburg (1999) coined the term Third Place to ideally represent public places where
regular, voluntary gatherings of individuals take place (Camp 2015). 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; Mehta and Basson 2010). 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 and Stoll 2010).
Although the literature regarding Third Places (Oldenburg and Brissett 1982) involves
different disciplines, Crick (2011) 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). 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 of a place, creating what is known as regularity, a reoccurrence of
people within space (Suire et al. 2017).
Third Places are portrayed as fostering informal social interaction and consists of
numerous characteristics (Camp 2015; Crick 2011; Hickman 2013; Oldenburg, 1999),
where space is the resource in creating the Third Place. Introduced to enhance social sus-
tainability, the characteristics compiled by Oldenburg (1999) 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.

13
842 Z. Goosen, E. J. Cilliers

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 comfort-
ability, the unmistakable mark of true acceptance in a Third Place is not that of being taken
seriously, but being included in play (Bernhardt and Stoll 2010; Camp 2015). 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) 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.

5 Third Places in Relation to the Three Dimensions of Sustainable

Development

Although Third Places serve many functions to individuals and surrounding communi-
ties (Oldenburg 1999), they are defined by regularity and being closely knit with social
sustainability (Camp 2015). A broad theoretical base for understanding the importance of
such spaces in modern society calls for specialists to reflect on the social impact through
emphasising the benefits Third Places offer to communities and surrounding environments
(Stein 2003). Camp (2015) and Oldenburg and Brissett (1982) 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) continues to argue that the personal benefits iden-
tified and detailed by Oldenburg are vast. The benefits provided by Third Places to commu-
nity quality of life are also reflected on by Jeffres et al. (2009). 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) highlights that the provi-
sion 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). 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 and Mount 2017).
The social benefits of Third Places are thus directly related to the leisure and recre-
ational aspect of space itself. Social contact (communication), health and well-being of
communities are directly influenced. Third Places also contribute towards environmen-
tal and economic benefits (Harris 2003; Mensah 2014; Palacky et al. 2015; Power 2004;

13
Enhancing Social Sustainability Through the Planning of Third… 843

Ranjha 2016). For this reason, the benefits put forward in Table 1 are divided into direct
(economic) and indirect (social and environmental) benefits.

6 Third Place Planning to Enhance Social Sustainability

Based on the responses to social problems in the urban context, emerging from the poli-
cies that the physical environment can positively influence well-being and quality of life
(De Jong 2014; Karacor 2014), three purposefully selected planning approaches were con-
sidered, including the place-making approach, the lively planning approach and the green
urbanism approach. This will ultimately inform a theory-based framework for 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 spe-
cific needs and requirements (Arefi 1999; Cilliers and De Jong 2013; Lepofsky and Fraser
2003). The second planning approach considered, lively planning, contributes in transform-
ing 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 and
de Jong 2013; Lamit et al. 2013). The third planning approach, green urbanism, considers
public space planning and urban greening catalyst for enhancing social spaces for commu-
nities (Manley and Rose 2014).
Accordingly, each purposefully selected planning approach was explored to sample the-
ory to inform the theory-based framework for enhanced social sustainability through the
planning of Third Places.

6.1 Place-Making Approach

Growing swiftly across a spectrum of multiple professions (Friedmann 2010), 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) 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; Lanham 2007). The approach is considered
as a wide concept including various dimensions of development (PPS 2012). 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). The place-making approach is therefore both
an overarching idea and a hands-on tool for improving public spaces within a neighbour-
hood, city or region (Project for Public Spaces and Metropolitan Planning Council 2008).
This is when place-making focuses on creating quality places, using cultural values associ-
ated with a setting and capturing the authentic characteristics of a place (Strydom 2014).
Known as a multi-stakeholder, multi-level and multi-sector approach, place-making neces-
sitates 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).

13
844 Z. Goosen, E. J. Cilliers

Table 1 Direct and indirect benefits of Third Places Source: Author’s own construction based on Alidoust
et  al. (2015), Atiqul and Shah (2011), Oldenburg and Brissett (1982), Cabras and Mount (2017), Camp
(2015), Commissioner for Children and Young People (2011), Harris (2003), Hickman (2013), Jeffres et al.
(2009), McAllister (2008), Mensah (2014), Oldenburg (1999), Palacky et al. (2015), Power (2004), Ranjha
(2016), Rudofsky (1969)
Benefit References

Indirect: social sustainability

Aid in unifying neighbourhoods Jeffres et al. (2009), Oldenburg (1999)
Bring youth and adults into association with one Oldenburg (1999)
another (social stage)
Improve neighbourhood relations to encourage Alidoust et al. (2015), Camp (2015), Oldenburg
community cohesion: (1999)
 Increased both real and perceived security and
safety
 Pedestrian-friendly areas
Provides for entertainment Camp (2015), Oldenburg (1999)
Foster social interaction, integration and civic pride Alidoust et al. (2015), Oldenburg and Brissett (1982),
through recreation: Camp (2015), Hickman (2013)
 Forming friendships
 Important for retired people
 Tourist attraction
 Encourage volunteerism
Child Development Commissioner for Children and Young People
 Positive impact on development stages, health and (2011), McAllister (2008)
well-being
 Early interaction enhances social skills and
improve confidence levels
 Identifying future abilities and identities
Human health and well-being (physical, mental and Atiqul and Shah (2011), Oldenburg and Brissett
psychological) (1982), Camp (2015), Hickman (2013)
Improved quality of life: Urban liveability (quality Jeffres et al. (2009)
living space)
Beautification: Sense of Community and Sense of Jeffres et al. (2009), Rudofsky (1969)
Place
Promoted social equality and stability Atiqul and Shah (2011), Camp (2015)
Indirect: environmental sustainability
Reduced air, noise and water pollution Atiqul and Shah (2011)
Create, enhance and restore ecological diversity, Harris (2003), Mensah (2014), Ranjha (2016)
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
Contribution to aesthetic value: Substituting grey Hickman (2013)
infrastructure in urban areas
Direct: economic sustainability
Increased neighbourhood and property value by Atiqul and Shah (2011)
increasing attractiveness
Increased economic vitality Palacky et al. (2015), Power (2004), Ranjha (2016),
Cabras and Mount (2017)

13
Enhancing Social Sustainability Through the Planning of Third… 845

Table 1 (continued)
Benefit References
Support local economies (increased business Palacky et al. (2015), Power (2004), Ranjha (2016),
confidence) Cabras and Mount (2017)
Vibrant green Third Place and pedestrian-friendly
street contributes to customer satisfaction,
enhancing the economic return of a mixed-use
development

Place-making is a process and not an outcome. According to the Project for Public
Spaces and Metropolitan Planning Council (2008) 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 and de Jong 2013).
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 and Shah 2011; Mpe and Ogra 2014; Prange 2014). This process con-
sists 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). 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;
Lepofsky and Fraser 2003), motivating the establishment of collaborative partnerships. For
this reason, the importance of place-making includes the formation of collaborative rela-
tionships to provide various stakeholder involvements (Strydom 2014). 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 and Fraser 2003; Mpe and
Ogra 2014).
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, incorpo-
rated 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 and Metropoli-
tan Planning Council 2008). Public places are considered an extension of the community
(Cilliers et  al. 2012) and when incorporating the views, needs and opinions of the com-
munity, 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 (Silberberg et al. 2013).
PPS (2014) developed the Place Diagram, which reflects four key attributes of a suc-
cessful 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).
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 unmistak-
able feature. The strong sense of place or attachment is encouraged through setting a social

13
846 Z. Goosen, E. J. Cilliers

stage for interaction for the different users of a place. Uses and 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).
The place-making approach is furthermore mainly focused on the artistic elements in
terms of designing cities for people. This includes paying attention to the social and cul-
tural 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 and Met-
ropolitan Planning Council 2008). 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).
A qualitative enquiry into the design considerations of place-making resulted in a the-
ory-based sampling of specific design considerations that could be translated to the plan-
ning of Third Places. Table 2 captures these specific design considerations regarding the
place-making approach and the motivation for their inclusion to inform the framework for
the planning of Third Places. 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).

6.2 Lively Planning Approach

Lively places are strategic to the quality of life within cities (Gomes and Moretto 2011;
Schilling 2010), 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). Lively planning is accordingly achieved
through the restoration of space becoming a lively place (Soholt 2004), based on the needs
of the public and enhancing the usage of the transformed place (Cilliers et al. 2014).
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), 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 con-
text 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 col-
our 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 2010).
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

13
 Table 2 Place-making design considerations and elements Source: Authors own construction based on Baltimore City Department of Planning, (2010), PPS (2014), Project
for Public Spaces and Metropolitan Planning Council (2008)
Design consideration Objective Design elements Third Place linkage

Sociability Social dimension for urban vitality fostering Place attraction through synergy Successful Third Places provide opportunities for
social activities. Strong sense of place fostering social activities social interaction. Sociability aids in the crea-
Welcoming space with diverse uses and users tion of a platform for community cohesion and
Social dimension and urban vitality social inclusion
Uses and activities Active space enhancing characteristic unique- Characteristic uniqueness Purposefully designed activities to be included
ness for regularity. Active space–place within the Third Place ensure user regularity
Connected function and encourage active social interaction
Transitions
User need diversity
Access and linkages Internal and external place connectedness. Entrance and exit to and from the public space Effectively designed access to and from the Third
Enhancing Social Sustainability Through the Planning of Third…

Safety perception Place enhance the number of visitors that fre-

Internal and external connectedness of the place quently visit the Third Place due to conveni-
Walkable spaces ence-encouraged regularity. Third Places should
Network linkages and other function proximity be accessible to all
Comfort and image Overall character (sense of place) including Overall character of the public space Social interaction is encouraged through comfort.
perceptions about safety, cleanliness, and seat- Public furniture and facilities availability The display of social niceties enhances a wel-
ing options. Safety perceptions coming feeling, fostering a sense of place
Aesthetic values and attractiveness
Pedestrian scale
Active facades
Shared spaces
847

13
848 Z. Goosen, E. J. Cilliers

time in (Lamit et al. 2013). Thus, lively places should be planned with the intension of “inten-
sive” 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) are involved in defining a lively place. Lively places are then based on social con-
tact, 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).
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) and for a society who is
becoming more and more dynamic, taking into consideration the needs of the urban environ-
ment in terms of green planning as well as the needs of the people in terms of function, form
and activities.
Lively planning therefore transforms locations that people inhabit into the places they live
in (Cilliers and De Jong 2013; Veenhoven and Ehrhardt 1995), 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). 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.
The new planning approach of 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 compo-
nents of place-making. The aim of the lively planning approach is thus to enhance the usage
of public places within urban areas, creating and designing versatile places that celebrate the
uniqueness of a place (Cilliers and De Jong 2013).
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 psychologi-
cal dimension (Baltimore City Department of Planning 2010; Cilliers et al. 2015; City of Lon-
etree Colorado 2013), as captured in Table 3. Each dimension focusses on enhancing lively
elements, functions and linkages to encourage regularity through providing for user require-
ments 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 4
captures these specific design considerations and the motivation for including such to inform
the framework for the planning of Third Places.

6.3 Green Urbanism Approach

Considered as a relatively new planning approach, this sustainable city movement,

coined as green urbanism, offers innovative approaches to integrate urban spaces that
provide sustainable “green” systems (Manley and Rose 2014). Green urbanism is put

13
 Table 3 Lively planning design considerations Source: Author’s own construction based on Baltimore City Department of Planning (2010), Cilliers et al. (2015), City of Lon-
etree Colorado (2013)
Design consideration Objective Design elements Third Place linkage

Marketing dimension Market research establishing community’s Quality of space enhancing a unique selling point Establishing of user need requirement for an
need for regularity attractive and inviting Third Place encouraging
lingering of users and increased regularity.
Functional dimension Purpose practicality and usefulness Experimental approach Functionality of the Third Place will encourage
Consistency for quality user regularity, satisfy user needs and create a
Flexibility for users sense of belonging.
Environmental dimension Design relating to the natural environment Sustainable practice approach Encouraging a balance between human and nature
Green initiatives 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 dimension will encourage a Third Place on
Social cohesion neutral ground where individuals and communi-
ties wish to gather and interact, outside of the
Enhancing Social Sustainability Through the Planning of Third…

work or home realm. This is where users choose

to spend time.
Visual dimension Appeal regarding seeing or sight Colour and texture—surface variety Visually the Third Place should be inviting and
Innovation in design through creativity—public represent a sense of place for a personal experi-
art ence.
Scale diversity
Movement dimension Pedestrian-friendly movement flow Utilise shared space through mixed use Movement should focus on pedestrian flow within
Enclosure elements through the layout the Third Place, lending a comfortable public
Pedestrian friendly balance for active informal social interaction.
Reinforce linkages
Streetscape enhancement
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.
849

13
 Table 3 (continued)
850

Design consideration Objective Design elements Third Place linkage

Psychological dimension Mental and emotional sense of well-being Sense of authenticity Within the Third Place the person-process-place

13
Sense of place concept should be enhanced to encourage a
Well-being place attachment for each user to have a personal
experience within the Third Place.
Z. Goosen, E. J. Cilliers
 Table 4 Green urbanism design considerations and elements Source: Author’s own construction based on Ahern (2007), Ahern (2011), Cilliers and Cilliers (2016), Nassar
(2013)
Design consideration Objective Design elements Third Place linkage

Diversity Diversity of greenery within the Third Place Social and functional diversity Big or small natural areas varied in quality
Plan within ecological limits of urban areas should be incorporated to encourage user
for biodiversity enhancement diversity within the Third Place and oppor-
tunity to interact with nature on different
scales.
Sustainability Sustainable design for current and future use Water efficiency Green urbanism within Third Places enhances
Materials and resources overall sustainable development when a
Social aspect design is implemented for current and future
Environmental quality use.
Community priority
Enhancing Social Sustainability Through the Planning of Third…

Multi-functional Green usage functionality (day to 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 Connectivity planning Green urbanism integration on different levels
systems) Human and urban scale interconnected enhance human and nature interaction.
systems
Adaptive planning and design Flexibility planning for greenery adaptation Plan for flexibility The green elements within Third Places should
Experimental design encourage a smart and embracing design to
incorporate nature.
851

13
852 Z. Goosen, E. J. Cilliers

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 (Man-
ley and Rose 2014). Nassar (2013) refers to green urbanism as a conceptual model for
zero-emission and zero-waste urban design, consisting of practical methods to incor-
porate a smart and embracing design, incorporating nature within public spaces. Wells
(2010) further defines green urbanism as “the practice of creating communities mutu-
ally beneficial to humans and the environment”. This definition implies that green
urbanism improves the development of social and environmental sustainability. How-
ever, 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 and Newman 2013), referring to cit-
ies 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 urban-
ites 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; Zupancic et al.
2015). 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 and Shah 2011; Town and Country Planning
Association 2012), 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, strengthening the green identity and green value within urban areas and
more specifically Third Places.
To face the challenging issues of sustainability within urban areas today, innovative
development and employment of green urbanism principles is required (Ranjha 2016).
Although the characteristics of green urbanism planning are multi-functional (Gaut-
eng City-Region Observatory 2013), 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 4 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, 2011; Cilliers and
Cilliers 2016; Nassar 2013).

13
Enhancing Social Sustainability Through the Planning of Third… 853

7 A Theory-Based Framework to Inform the Planning of Third Places

for Enhanced Social Sustainability

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. This collective consideration is illustrated in Table 5.
Theoretical sampling (Bagnasco et al. 2014), which is a unique feature of grounded the-
ory (Butler et al. 2018; Draucker et al. 2007), where employed to collect data and generate
theories (Charmaz 2014; Glaser and Strauss 1967). Theory-based sampling involves select-
ing cases according to the extent to which they represent a particular theoretical construct.
Purposive sampling (Palys 2008) was applied as the population of the particular theoretical
construct was difficult to determine, as in this case referring to limited theoretical guidance
on the planning of Third Places.
Overlapping design considerations (captured in Table  6) of the various planning
approaches were identified in the collective consideration. The overlapping was informed
by the overlying of the three purposefully selected planning approach design considera-
tions and their specific planning guidelines. The overlapping design considerations were
recoded to inform a theory-based framework for the planning of Third Places.
Accordingly, a theory-based framework was compiled based on the collective consid-
eration of the three purposefully selected planning approaches and the specific recoded
design considerations. Table  7 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.

8 Concluding Remarks

This article pulled upon Oldenburg’s (1999) Third Place concept, to enhance social sus-
tainability through considering the planning of Third Places. Due to public life included
as an essential part of the broader social structure, the notion of Third Places (Oldenburg
1999) is put forward to be considered as a facilitator in fuelling public life (Camp 2015),
especially in terms of the direct (economic) and indirect (environmental and social) ben-
efits provided by Third Places. Although a broad theoretical base for understanding the
importance of Third Places in modern society exists, relatively few studies have put for-
ward approaches for planning Third Places as part of a broader spatial planning approach
within urban areas, especially from the point of departure to enhance social sustainability
(Crick 2011; Jeffres et al. 2009; Stein 2003).
A collective consideration of three purposefully selected planning approaches informed
the formulation of recoded design considerations, providing a focused approach for
enhances social sustainability through the planning of Third Places. Although supplemen-
tary planning approaches could be considered for future research, in context of the subject
matter, the focus was places on social sustainability.
The proposed theory-based framework acts as a point of departure, aiming to inform the
planning of Third Places within the South African context to enhance social sustainability.
The need for this proposed concept were driven by numerous challenges that South Afri-
can cities are facing, including fragmentation and segregation, causing the city to become
unsustainable (Southworth 2007:1), mainly because it is not integrated, where unused

13
 Table 5 Collective consideration of the three purposefully selected planning approaches
854

Collective consideration of the three purposefully selected planning approaches

Planning approach design considerations Planning guidelines Third Place planning considerations to Overlapping design considerations

13
enhance social sustainability

Planning approach: Place-making

Sociability Place attraction through synergy Creation of a platform for community Social dimension (lively planning)
Social dimension for urban vitality foster- Sense of place cohesion and social inclusion Sustainability (green urbanism)
ing social activities Welcoming space with diverse uses and
users
Uses and activities Connected function Organising and offering activities to Diversity (green urbanism)
Active space enhancing characteristic Transitions foster active social interaction Multi-functional (green urbanism)
uniqueness for regularity User need diversity The power of 10+
Access and linkages Entrance and exit to and from the public Enhance the number of visitors that Movement dimension (lively planning)
Internal and external place connectedness space frequently visit the Third Place, due to Multi-scale (green urbanism)
Safety perception convenience encouraging regularity
Walkability
Network linkages and other function
proximity
Comfort and image Public furniture and facilities availability Display of social niceties Functional dimension (lively planning)
Overall character (sense of place) includ- Safety perceptions Movement dimension (lively planning)
ing perceptions about safety, cleanli- Aesthetic values and attractiveness Visual dimension (lively planning)
ness, and seating options Pedestrian scale
Active facades
Shared spaces
The power of 10+ Seating, playgrounds to enjoy, art to Focus on the human experience within Functional dimension (lively planning)
Provision of a variety (10 +) activities touch, music to hear, food to eat, the Third Place Uses and activities (place-making)
and objects within a single location history to experience, people to meet,
natural areas to explore, books to read,
water features
Planning approach: lively planning
Z. Goosen, E. J. Cilliers
 Table 5 (continued)
Collective consideration of the three purposefully selected planning approaches
Planning approach design considerations Planning guidelines Third Place planning considerations to Overlapping design considerations
enhance social sustainability

Marketing dimension Quality of space enhancing a unique Diverse user-need attraction inviting
Market research establishing community selling point lingering and regularity
need for regularity
Functional dimension Experimental approach Contributes to public places where regu- Multi-functional (green urbanism)
Purpose practicality and usefulness Consistency for quality lar, voluntary gatherings of individuals Comfort and image (place-making)
Flexibility for users occur The power of 10+
Environmental dimension Sustainable practice approach Create, enhance and restore ecological, Green urbanism approach
Design relating to the natural environ- Green initiatives biodiversity and ecosystem conserva-
ment tion and substitute grey infrastructure
in urban areas
Social dimension Options creating opportunity for interac- Public place on neutral ground where Sociability (place-making)
Social stage for interaction opportunities tion individuals and communities wish to
Social cohesion gather and interact, outside of the work
Enhancing Social Sustainability Through the Planning of Third…

or home realm
Visual dimension Colour and texture Representation of a personal experience Comfort and image (place-making)
Appeal regarding seeing or sight Surface variety
Innovation in design through creativity
Public art
Scale diversity
Movement dimension Utilise shared space through mixed-use Lending a comfortable public balance for Access and linkages (place-making)
Pedestrian friendly movement flow Enclosure elements through the layout active informal social interaction Comfort and image (place-making)
Reinforce linkages and enhance
streetscape
Compatibility dimension Context consideration, design in context Physical design encouraging compact Adaptive planning and design (green
Compact layout design in context design for social interaction encourage- urbanism)
ment
855

13
 Table 5 (continued)
856

Collective consideration of the three purposefully selected planning approaches

Planning approach design considerations Planning guidelines Third Place planning considerations to Overlapping design considerations

13
enhance social sustainability

Psychological dimension Sense of authenticity Person-process-place concept enhancing

Mental and emotional sense of well-being Sense of place place attachment
Planning approach: Green urbanism
Diversity Social and functional diversity Big or small natural areas varied in Uses and activities (place-making)
Diversity of greenery within the Third Plan within ecological limits for biodiver- quality
Place sity enhancement
Sustainability Water efficiency Creation and maintenance of the condi- Sociability (place-making)
Sustainable design for current and future Materials and resources tions under which humans and nature
use Social aspect can exist in productive harmony within
Environmental quality urban areas
Community priority
Multi-functional Combined services and activities Fulfil a need for the people, being avail- Functional dimension (lively planning)
Green usage functionality (day to night) able when needed Uses and activities (place-making)
Multi-scale Scale connectivity planning Planning on different scales enforcing an Access and linkages (place-making)
Human and urban scale (interconnected integrated planning approach and max-
systems) imising the opportunities provided
Adaptive planning and design Experimental design Incorporating a smart and embracing Compatibility dimension (lively planning)
Flexibility planning for greenery adapta- design, where space embraces nature
tion
Z. Goosen, E. J. Cilliers
 Table 6 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 Marketing dimension5 Diversity2 Social inclusivity1

Uses and activities2 Functional dimension4 Sustainability1 Multi-functionality2
Access and linkages3 Environmental dimension6 Multi-functional2 Accessibility3
Comfort and image4 Social dimension1 Multi-scale3 Perceptibility4
The power of 10 + 2 Visual dimension4 Adaptive planning and design7 Marketability5
Enhancing Social Sustainability Through the Planning of Third…

Movement dimension3 Environmental sensitivity6

Compatibility dimension7 Adaptability7
Psychological dimension8 Intrinsic connectivity8

The terms under the first three columns lead to the recoded design term in the final column. Thus all the terms with a number 1 in the first three columns = the term with the
number 1 in the final column
857

13
 Table 7 Theory-based framework
858

Theory-based framework
Planning approach design Conforming to Third Place objectives Planning guidelines Third Place planning consideration to enhance

13
considerations social sustainability

Social inclusivity Creation of a platform for community cohesion Place attraction through synergy Creation of a platform for community cohesion
and social inclusion by improving the ability Sense of place and social inclusion
and opportunity on which individuals and Welcoming space with diverse uses and users Public place on neutral ground where individu-
groups take part in society. The fostering of Sustainable approach als and communities wish to gather and inter-
social activities on neutral ground Community priority act 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 unique- User-need diversity Organising and offering activities to foster active
ness, through providing a variety (10 +) Social and functional diversity social interaction
of activities and amenities to focus on the Combined services and activities (10 +) Focus on the human experience within the Third
enhancement of the human experience for Place
each individual within the Third Place Big or small natural areas varied in quality
Accessibility Internal and external place connectedness Entrance and exit to and from space Enhance the number of visitors that frequently
encouraging convenient pedestrian move- Safety perception visit the Third Place, due to convenience
ment flow Walkability encouraging regularity
Utilise shared space through mixed-use Planning on different scales enforcing an inte-
Reinforce linkages grated planning approach and maximising the
opportunities provided
Perceptibility The display of social niceties to enhance the Public furniture and facilities availability Display of social niceties and contributes to pub-
overall character (sense of place) through Aesthetic values and attractiveness lic places where regular, voluntary gatherings
smart and adaptation designs Flexibility for users of individuals occur
Scale diversity Representation of a personal experience
Marketability The attractiveness, practicality and usefulness Quality of space enhancing a unique selling Diverse user-need attraction inviting lingering
for voluntary gatherings to occur through point and regularity
the establishment of user need attraction for
regularity
Z. Goosen, E. J. Cilliers
 Table 7 (continued)
Theory-based framework
Planning approach design Conforming to Third Place objectives Planning guidelines Third Place planning consideration to enhance
considerations social sustainability

Environmental sensitivity Enhancement of a sustainable green design Sustainable practice approach Create, enhance and restore ecological, biodiver-
for current and future use, relating to natural Green initiatives sity and ecosystem conservation and substitute
environmental diversity grey infrastructure in urban areas
Adaptability Compact layout design in context through Context consideration, design in context Physical design encouraging compact design for
incorporating multi-scale interconnected Experimental design social interaction encouragement
systems for the capacity to be modified Day-to-night usage Incorporating a smart and embracing design,
where space embraces nature
Intrinsic connectivity Mental and emotional sense of well-being Sense of authenticity Person-process-place concept enhancing place
based on person-process-place attachment Sense of place attachment
Enhancing Social Sustainability Through the Planning of Third…
859

13
860 Z. Goosen, E. J. Cilliers

urban spaces occur throughout the urban fabric. 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 ini-
tiatives and incentives, developing the potential of people and their capacity to develop-
ing, maintaining and sustaining socio political, socio-economic, socio-cultural and socio-
educational progress (Louw and Bredenkamp 1999). 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.
The proposed theory-based framework should be applied in accordance with recognis-
ing 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 plan-
ning for Third Places to enhance social sustainability within urban areas of South Africa.

Acknowledgements This research (or parts thereof) was made possible as a result of a financial contribu-
tion from the NRF (National Research Foundation) South Africa. Any opinion, findings and conclusions
or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and therefore the NRF does not
accept any liability in regard thereto.

Funding This research (or parts thereof) was funded by the NRF (National Research Foundation) South
Africa.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval This research conformed to the ethical guidelines of the North-West University’s Unit for
Environmental Sciences and Management. For the purpose of this research paper, forming the first part of
a series of papers to be published, no ethical concerns are included due to the strong literature orientated
approach in this research paper to establish a theory-based framework for enhanced social sustainability
through the planning of Third Places.

References
Agnew, J. (2011). Space and place: Handbook of geographical knowledge. London: Sage.
Ahern, J. (2007). Green infrastructure for cities: The spatial dimension. In V. Novotny & P. Brown (Eds.),
Cities of the future: Towards integrated sustainable water and landscape (pp. 267–283). London:
IWA Publishing.
Ahern, J. (2011). From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: Sustainability and resilience in the new urban world. Land-
scape and Urban Planning, 100(4), 34–343.
Al-Bishawi, M., & Ghadban, S. S. (2011). A methodological approach for reading urban open space. Arch-
Net-IJAR, 5(1), 73–85.
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 Confer-
ence, Gold Coast, Australia, 9–11 December 2015. Retrieved February 12, 2018 from https://www.
resea rchga te.net/profi le/Sara_Alido ust/publi catio n/30975 2006_Socia lly_Healt hy_Agein g_The_
Impor tance_of_Third_Places_Soft_Edges_and_Walkable_Neighbourhoods/links/5821c08708ae538
5869f df3c/Socia lly-Healt hy-Agein g-The-Impor tance -of-Third -Place s-Soft-Edges -and-Walka ble-
Neighbourhoods.pdf.
Arefi, M. (1999). Non-place and placelessness as narratives of loss: Rethinking the notion of place. Journal
of Urban Design, 4(2), 179–193.

13
Enhancing Social Sustainability Through the Planning of Third… 861

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.
Atiqul, H. A. Q., & Shah, M. D. (2011). Urban green spaces and an integrated approach to sustainable envi-
ronment. Journal of Environmental Protection, 2, 601–608.
Bagnasco, A., Ghirotto, L., & Sasso, L. (2014). Theoretical sampling. Oxford: Wiley.
Baltimore City Department of Planning. (2010). Downtown open space plan. Retrieved February 12, 2018
from http://www.godowntownbaltimore.com/docs/openspaceplan.pdf.
Barter, N., & Bebbington, J. (2010). Pursuing environmental sustainability. St. Andrews: St. Andrews Sus-
tainability Institute: University of St. Andrews.
Basiago, A. D. (1999). Economic, social, and environmental sustainability in development theory and urban
planning practice. The Environmentalist, 19(2), 145–161.
Beatley, T., & Newman, P. (2013). Biophilic cities are sustainable, resilient cities. Sustainability, 5(8),
3328–3345.
Bernhardt, A., & Stoll, L. (2010). Creating Third Places: Places where communities gather. Downtown Eco-
nomics, 172, 1–2.
Biart, M. (2002). Social sustainability as part of the social agenda of the European community. In T. Ritt
(Ed.), Soziale Nachhaltigkeit: Von der Umweltpolitik zur Nachhaltigkeit (Vol. 149, pp. 5–10).
Bourdieu, P. (1985). The forms of social capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research
for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood.
Butler, A. E., Copnell, B., & Hall, H. (2018). The development of theoretical sampling in practice. Colle-
gian: The Australian Journal of Nursing Practice, Scholarship and Research, 25, 561–566.
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,
PhD Thesis. Tennessee: Murfreesboro.
Carmona, M. (2003). Is the grass greener…? Learning from international innovations in urban green space
management. Retrieved March 15, 2017 from http://www.cabe.org.uk/publications/is-the-grass-green
er.
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 and Medicine, 159, 127–131.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
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.
Cilliers, D. P. (2010). The development and use of a land-use suitability model in spatial planning in South
Africa, Masters dissertation. Potchefstroom: NWU.
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). In 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 Cit-
ies, 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 Sustain-
ability, 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. Retrieved February 12, 2019 from http://
cityoflonetree.com/planning/DesignGuidelines/.
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. Retrieved January 13, 2018 from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/35867/.

13
862 Z. Goosen, E. J. Cilliers

Coleman, J. S. (1988a). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology,
94, S95–S120.
Coleman, J. S. (1988b). The creation and destruction of social capital: Implications for the law. Notre
Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, & Public Policy, 3, 375–404.
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press (Division of Har-
vard University Press).
Commissioner for Children and Young People. (2011). Caring for the future growing up today: Building
spaces and places for children and young people. Retrieved August 17, 2017 from https://www.
ccyp.wa.gov.au/files /Build ing%20spa ces%20and %20pla ces%20for %20chi ldren %20and %20you
ng%20people.pdf.
Cortese, C., Haase, A., Grossmann, K., & Ticha, I. (2013). Governing social cohesion in shrinking cit-
ies: 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. Retrieved March 6,
2017 from https://www.rc21.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/B2-Cowley.pdf.
Cresswell, T. (2004). Place: A short introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Crick, A. P. (2011). Rethinking Oldenburg: Third Places and generation Y in a developing country con-
text. Retrieved November 9, 2017 from http://scholarworks.umass.edu/refereed/ICHRIE_2011/
Friday/7.
Cuthill, M. (2009). Strengthening the social in sustainable development: Developing a conceptual frame-
work for social sustainability in a rapid urban growth region in Australia. Sustainable Develop-
ment, 18(6), 362–373.
De Certeau, M. (1988). The writing of history. New York: Columbia University Press.
De Jong, N. (2014). Addressing social issues in rural communities by planning for lively places and
green spaces, Masters thesis. Potchefstroom: North-West University.
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.
Eizenberg, E., & Jabareen, Y. (2017). Social sustainability: A new conceptual framework. Sustainability,
9(68), 1–16.
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.
Financial Times. (2018). Definition of environmental sustainability. Retrieved September 23, 2018 from
http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=environmental-sustainability.
Friedmann, J. (2010). Place and place-making in cities: A global perspective. Planning Theory & Prac-
tice, 11(2), 149–165.
Gauteng City-Region Observatory (GCRO). (2013). A framework for a green infrastructure planning
approach in the Gauteng City-Region. Retrieved September 25, 2018 from http://www.gcro.ac.za/
media/repor ts/GCRO_Green_Assets_Repor t_Digital_version__book.pdf.
Giddings, B., Hopwood, B., & O’Brien, G. (2002). Environment, economy and society: Fitting them
together into sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 10(4), 187–196.
Giuliani, M. V. (2003). Theory of attachment and place attachment. In M. Bonnes, T. Lee, & M. Bonai-
uto (Eds.), Psychological theories for environmental issues (pp. 137–170). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.
London: Aldine Transactions.
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.
Goodland, R., & Daly, H. (1996). Environmental sustainability: Universal and non-negotiable. Ecologi-
cal Applications, 6(4), 1002–1017.
Hardoy, J., Mitlin, D., & Satthertwaite, D. (1992). Environmental problems in Third World cities. Lon-
don: Earthscan Publications.
Harris, K. (2003). Your Third Place or mine? Public libraries and local communities. Public Library
Journal, 18(2), 26–29.
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, pp. 67–76.
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.

13
Enhancing Social Sustainability Through the Planning of Third… 863

Hobart City Council. (2010). Hobart public spaces and public life, a city with people in mind. Retrieved
July 18, 2017 from http://www.hobartcity.com.au/Hobart/A_City_with_People_in_Mind.
Janmaat, J. G. (2011). Social cohesion as real-life phenomenon: Assessing the explanatory power of the uni-
versalist and particularist perspectives. Social Indicators Research, 100(1), 61–83.
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.
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, indi-
cators, 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.
Kuhlman, T., & Farrington, J. (2010). What is sustainability? Retrieved November 8, 2017 from https://
www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/2/11/3436.
Lamit, H., Ghahramanpouri, A., & Nia, S. S. (2013). A behavioral observation of street liveliness in Mel-
drum Walk, Johor Bahru of Malaysia. International Transaction Journal of Engineering, Manage-
ment, & Applied Sciences & Technologies, 4(1), 3–14.
Lanham, K. F. (2007). Planning as placemaking: Tensions of scale, culture and identity. Blacksburg: Vir-
ginia 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 com-
parative study on European cities. Retrieved February 17, 2017 from www.dare.ubvu.vu.nl/bitst
ream/1871/8928/1/20040017.pdf.
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.
Loudier, C., & Dubois, J. L. (2001). Public spaces: Between insecurity and hospitality. Retrieved June 5,
2018 from http://www.ocs.polito.it/biblioteca/verde/uk_PARTIE201_C133.134.pdf.
Louw, H. A., & Bredenkamp, I. M. (1999). The implications of democratization on access to higher educa-
tion 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.
Madanipour, A. (1996). Design of urban space: An inquiry into a socio-spatial process. Oxford: Wiley.
Manley, K., & Rose, T. M. (2014). Green urbanism and diffusion issues. Retrieved September 8, 2018 from
https://eprints.qut.edu.au/81183/1/SB14%20paper%20authors%20copy.pdf.
Massey, D. (2005). For space. London: Sage.
Matthews, P., & Besemer, K. (2015). Social networks, social capital and poverty: Panacea or placebo? Jour-
nal of Poverty & Social Justice, 23(3), 189–201.
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. Envi-
ronments Journal, 35(3), 45–56.
Mehta, V., & Basson, J. K. (2010). Third Places and the social life of streets. Environment and Behavior,
42(6), 779–805.
Mensah, C. A. (2014). Urban green spaces in Africa: Nature and challenges. International Journal of Eco-
system, 4(1), 1–11.
Mesch, G. S., & Manor, O. (1998). Social ties, environmental perception, and local attachment. Environ-
ment and Behavior, 30(4), 227–245.
Moir, S., & Carter, K. (2012). Diagrammatic representations of sustainability: A review and synthesis. In
S. D. Smith (Ed.), Proceedings of 28th annual ARCOM conference (pp. 1479–1489), 3–5 September
2012, Edinburgh, Association of Researchers in Construction Management.
Morelli, J. (2011). Environmental sustainability: A definition for environmental professionals. Journal of
Environmental Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.14448/jes.01.0002.
Mpe, R., & Ogra, A. (2014). Making great places in slums/informal settlements. In Proceedings of the confer-
ence planning Africa 2014: Making great places. Retrieved June 15, 2018 from http://www.planningaf

13
864 Z. Goosen, E. J. Cilliers

rica.org.za/images/banners/History-Documents/01.%20SAPI%202014%20Conference%20Proceedings.
pdf.
Nassar, U. (2013). Principles of green urbanism: The absent value in Cairo, Egypt. International Journal of
Social Science and Humanity, 3(4), 339–343.
OECD. (2011). Development co-operation report 2011. Retrieved August 15, 2017 from http://www.oecd.org/
dac/developmentco-operationreport2011.htm.
Oldenburg, R. (1999). The great good place: Cafes, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hang-
outs at the heart of a community (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press.
Oldenburg, R., & Brissett, D. (1982). The Third Place. Qualitative Sociology, 5(4), 265–284.
Oxoby, R. (2009). Understanding social inclusion, social cohesion and social capital. International Journal of
Social Economics, 36(12), 1133–1152.
Palacky, J., Wittmann, M., & Frantisak, L. (2015). Evaluation of urban open spaces sustainability. Retrieved
September 10, 2017 from https://dspace.vutbr.cz/bitstream/handle/11012/42779/PALACKYAESOP201
5FULLPAPERFINAL.pdf?sequence=13.
Palys, T. (2008). Purposive sampling. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research
Methods, 2:697–698. Los Angeles: Sage.
Parker, E. (2014). Proposals for the development of green spaces in urban areas [personal interview]. March
10, 2014. Durban.
Power, A. (2004). Sustainable communities and sustainable development: A review of sustainable communities.
Retrieved October 21, 2017 from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/28313/1/CASEreport23.pdf.
Prange, M. (2014). Urban Design tools to improve child-friendly green spaces [personal interview]. April 14,
2014. Durban.
Project for Public Spaces. (2012). Placemaking and the future of cities. Retrieved August 13, 2018 from https://
www.pps.org/article/placemaking-and-the-future-of-cities.
Project for Public Spaces. (2014). What makes a successful place? Retrieved April 21, 2017 from http://www.
pps.org/reference/grplacefeat/.
Project for Public Spaces. (2015). Public places and spaces. Retrieved April 19, 2015 from http://www.pps.org/
places/.
Project for Public Spaces and Metropolitan Planning Council. (2008). A guide to neighborhood placemaking in
Chicago. Chicago.
Putnam, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. American Prospect, 13, 35–42.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Ranjha, S. (2016). Green infrastructure: Planning for sustainable and resilient urban environment. Brief for
GSDR—2016 update. Retrieved September 6, 2017 from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/
documents/95599_Ranjha_Green%20infrastructure_planning%20for%20sustainable%20and%20resilien
t%20urban%20environment.pdf.
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. Retrieved May 22, 2018 from https://www.actuaries.asn.au/Library/Events/
ASTINAFIRERMColloquium/2015/ReddyThompsonActuarialSciencePaper.pdf.
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 devel-
opment. 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, Honours Mini-dissertation.
Johannesburg: University of Johannesburg.
Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010). Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 1–10.
Schilling, J. (2010). Towards a greener green space planning, Masters dissertation. Lund: Lund University.
Schofield, J., & Szymanski, R. (Eds.). (2011). Sense of place in a changing world. In Local heritage, global con-
text: Cultural perspectives on sense of place (pp. 1–11). Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Silberberg, S., Lora, K., Disbrow, R., & Muessig, A. (2013). Places in the making: How placemaking builds
places and communities. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved February 10, 2019 from https
://dusp.mit.edu/sites/dusp.mit.edu/files/attachments/project/mit-dusp-places-in-the-making.pdf.
Simons, G. F. & Bird, S. (2008). Toward a global infrastructure for the sustainability of language resources.
In Proceedings of the 22nd Pacific Asia conference on language, information and computation, 20–22
November 2008, Cebu City, Philippines. Retrieved February 2, 2019 from https://scholars.sil.org/sites/
scholars/files/gary_f_simons/preprint/paclic22.pdf.
Smith, D. M. (2000). Moral geographies: Ethics in a world of difference. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.

13
Enhancing Social Sustainability Through the Planning of Third… 865

Soholt, H. (2004). Life, spaces and buildings: Turning the traditional planning process upside down. Paper pre-
sented 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), 1–7.
Southworth, B. (2007). City Squares in Cape Town’s townships—Public space as an instrument of urban trans-
formation: The origins, objectives and implementation of the City of Cape Town’s Dignified Places Pro-
gramme. Retrieved May 12, 2017 from http://www.treasury.gov.za/divisions/bo/ndp/TTRI/TTRI%20
Oct%202007/Day%202%20-%2030%20Oct%202007/7.10%20Reading%20Public%20Spaces%20CoC
T.PDF.
Spicker, P. (2014). Cohesion, exclusion and social quality. International Journal of Social Quality, 4(1), 95–107.
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. Retrieved
April 17, 2018 from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1cda/46907d89053ac1061bea465c82377125686
3.pdf.
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, Mas-
ters dissertation. Potchefstroom: North-West University.
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?. Retrieved February 12, 2017 from http://asrdlf2017
.com/asrdlf2017_com/inc/resumes/24.pdf.
Thatcher, A. (2014). Theoretical definitions and models of sustainable development that apply to human factors
and ergonomics. Retrieved August 15, 2016 from http://proceedings.dtu.dk/fedora/repository/dtu:2471/
OBJ/x152.747-752.pdf.
The World Bank. (2012). Inclusive green growth: The pathway to sustainable development. Washington, DC:
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/International Development.
Thrift, N. (2003). Performance and …. Environment and Planning A, 35(11), 2019–2024.
Town and Country Planning Association. (2012). Planning for a healthy environment—Good practice guid-
ance for green infrastructure and biodiversity. Retrieved May 12, 2017 from https://www.wildlifetrusts.
org/sites/default/files/Green-Infrastructure-Guide-TCPA-TheWildlifeTrusts.pdf.
Trancik, R. (1986). Finding lost space: Theories of urban design. New York: Wiley.
Tuan, Y. F. (2005). Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Learn about sustainability. Retrieved September 24,
2017 from https://www.epa.gov/sustainability/learn-about-sustainability.
Vallance, S., Perkins, H. C., & Dixon, J. E. (2011). What is social sustainability? A clarification of concepts.
Geoforum, 42(3), 342–348.
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.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). (1987). Report of the world commission on
environment and development: “Our common future”. New York: United Nations.
Wells, W. (2010). What is green urbanism?. Retrieved March 26, 2018 from https://www.planetizen.com/
node/46245.
Wiersum, K. F. (1995). 200 years of sustainability in forestry: Lessons from History. Environmental Manage-
ment, 19(3), 321–329.
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.
Woodcraft, S., Hackett, T., & Caistor-Arendar, L. (2011). Design for social sustainability: A framework for cre-
ating thriving new communities. S.l.: Future Communities. Retrieved February 5, 2019 from https://ucale
arningandteaching.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/design_for_social_sustainability.pdf.
Zupancic, T., Kingsley, M., Jason, T., & Macfarlane, R. (2015). Green city: Why nature matters to health—
An evidence review. Retrieved March 16, 2018 from http://www.ecohealth-ontario.ca/files/Green_City_
Why_Nature_Matters_to_Health_An_Evidence_Review.pdf.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

13
866 Z. Goosen, E. J. Cilliers

Affiliations

Z. Goosen1  · E. J. Cilliers1
E. J. Cilliers
Juanee.cilliers@nwu.ac.za
1
Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North West University, Potchefstroom,
South Africa

13
Social Indicators Research is a copyright of Springer, 2020. All Rights Reserved.