OBSERVED SOCIAL BEHAVIOR OF PEDESTRIANS
IN A SHOPPING CENTER PARKING LOT
A Thesis
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree Master of City and Regional Planning
Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Lisa Lee Russell, B.S.
*****
The Ohio State University
2005
Master’s Examination Committee:
Approved by
Dr. Jack Nasar, Adviser
Dr. Jennifer Evans-Cowley
Adviser
City and Regional Planning
Graduate Program
ABSTRACT
This study sought to discover the kinds of social behavior among pedestrians in a
shopping center parking lot. A pilot study looked for social behaviors in three shopping
center parking lots. Systematic unobtrusive observation revealed actual patterns of social
behavior among moving and stationary pedestrians. Typical behaviors were noted and a
coding sheet was developed for the final study at one parking lot. The kinds of social
behavior observed included conversations, talking on cell phones, and playing. Talking in
person was the most common social behavior observed, accounting for 77% of all noted
social behavior. Talking on cell phones was 13%, and play was 7% of the overall total.
During the 180-minute research period, pedestrians displayed social behavior 90 times;
70 were moving and 20 were stationary. In the moving group, 91% of recorded activity
occurred in the aisles and 9% at parking spaces. Stationary pedestrians tended to talk at
parked cars. Sixty percent of stationary social behavior occurred at parking spaces and
another 25% occurred inside parked cars. The remaining 15% were in an aisle or at a
curb. Many planners promote fostering social behavior in pedestrian environments.
Some have argued the best places to enhance behavior are places where people attempt
the behavior naturally. Planners disagree on whether parking lots should be promoted as
civic spaces, and the question is open whether pedestrian-oriented site design can foster
social behavior in shopping center parking lots.
ii
Dedicated to my mother
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am sincerely grateful to the following individuals for their contributions and support:
Dr. Jack Nasar, Dr. Jennifer Evans-Cowley, Marc Cerana, Diann Nelson-Houser, Lucy
Seabrook, Jan Solari, and Dotte Turner.
iv
VITA
July 15, 1959 ...................................................................................Born – Decatur, Illinois
1997.................................................................B.S. Agriculture, The Ohio State University
2002 – present...............................................................Planner II, City of Columbus, Ohio
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: City and Regional Planning
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract...............................................................................................................................ii
Dedication..........................................................................................................................iii
Acknowledgments..............................................................................................................iv
Vita......................................................................................................................................v
List of Tables....................................................................................................................viii
List of Figures.....................................................................................................................ix
Chapters:
1. Introduction......................................................................................................................1
1.1 Ecological Observation and Livable Space.............................................................1
1.2 Pedestrian-oriented Design......................................................................................4
1.3 Alternative Views....................................................................................................6
1.4 Shopping Centers....................................................................................................7
2. Method.............................................................................................................................9
3. Pilot Study......................................................................................................................11
3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................11
3.2 Method...................................................................................................................13
3.2.1 Settings.......................................................................................................13
3.2.2 Instrument and Procedure..........................................................................15
3.3 Results....................................................................................................................16
3.4 Discussion..............................................................................................................16
4. The Study.......................................................................................................................18
4.1 Background............................................................................................................18
4.2 Method...................................................................................................................18
4.2.1 Setting........................................................................................................18
4.2.2 Procedure...................................................................................................20
4.3 Results of the Final Study.....................................................................................20
4.4 Discussion..............................................................................................................25
Appendices........................................................................................................................30
Appendix A. Excerpts from The Principles of Smart Development...........................30
vi
Appendix B. Excerpts from The Principles of New Urbanism...............................31
Appendix C. Coding sheet.......................................................................................32
Appendix D. Results of pilot study..........................................................................33
References......................................................................................................................35
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
4.1. Social occurrences grouped by ‘stationary’ of ‘moving’ categories
and separated by day of week.....................................................................................20
4.2. Kinds of social behavior observed..............................................................................21
4.3. Observations grouped by day of week........................................................................21
4.4. Weather observations at Lennox in May 2005...........................................................22
4.5. Location of stationary social behaviors......................................................................23
4.6. Location of moving social behaviors..........................................................................24
D.1. Eleven visits to various parking lots: Duration and time of visit,
weather conditions, and kinds of behavior observed.................................................33
D.2. Visits grouped by location in the pilot study.............................................................34
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
3.1. Location map of three shopping centers.....................................................................12
4.1. The study area at Lennox Town Center......................................................................19
ix
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The design of the built environment affects the quality of life for urban dwellers. Streets
and parking lots, which fill our urban environment, function primarily for automobiles. In
parking lots, pedestrians must navigate through parked and moving cars to reach their
destinations. How can we make parking lots more supportive of pedestrians? Observing
patterns of behavior and the social interactions of pedestrians can provide a starting point.
The number of pedestrians who use a parking lot equals or exceeds the number of
cars in it. Drivers and pedestrians are the same people at different points in their journeys.
Although shopping center parking lots have a great deal of foot traffic, research has not
studied the behavior of these pedestrians.
1.1 Ecological Observation and Livable Space
Whyte (1988) demonstrated why such study of pedestrian behavior has value. Using
unnoticeable measures such as filming, he studied behavior of pedestrians on public
sidewalks and plazas using unobtrusive observation; that is, without participants’
knowledge. His findings revealed standing patterns of behavior that suggested how to
redesign sidewalks and plazas to make them more livable. In his observations, Whyte
found bunching patterns of pedestrians and a tendency toward self-congestion (people
1
moving to places where other people gathered). Whyte’s method parallels the one
pioneered earlier by ecological psychologists such as Barker (Wicker 1979). They called
for the observation of behavior naturalistically in behavior settings. A behavior setting is
a constellation of environment-behavior interactions within a specified place. Barker
developed behavior setting surveys to study the relationships between social situations,
physical environments, and behavior. In behavior setting surveys, observers code actions
that occur in a setting. Ecological psychologists found that the socio-physical setting
exerts a strong influence on behavior. Given a particular setting, certain predictable
patterns of behavior occur.
Direct observation, like that employed by Whyte and the ecological psychologists,
avoids biases in questionnaires, which miss actual behavior. What people say they do
often differs from what they actually do. Thus, Whyte asked, “How many people would
say they like to sit in the middle of a crowd? Instead they speak of getting away from it
all, and they use terms like, ‘oasis’, ‘retreat’, and ‘escape’…[yet] what attracts people
most is other people” (Whyte, 1988, pp. 9,10). Interviews and questionnaires have
another bias, the reactive measurement effect, also known as the ‘guinea pig effect’. In
observational studies, a visible observer affects the behavior being studied (Webb, et al,
2000). Direct observation, done inconspicuously, can provide accurate information about
pedestrian behavior patterns in parking lots.
Whyte found several elements made a public space livable. The elements include
‘sittable’ space, especially moveable seating on plazas; connection to the street to foster
people watching; food; sun and shade provided by deciduous trees; water features; and
triangulation (a stimulus that brings people together, such as performance art or
2
sculpture). Citing numerous studies, Marcus and Francis (1998) verified Whyte’s
assertion that certain elements make a good public plaza. Parking lots lack these features,
except for the trees now required by some zoning code regulations.
Livable space attracts people, provides a setting for social interaction, and adds to the
vitality of a city. Well-designed urban public space may increase property value, augment
business development, and enhance social interaction among pedestrians. Additionally,
social interaction reduces stress, builds community cohesion and strengthens sense of
belonging (Bell, Greene, Fisher, and Baum 2001).
Jacobs (1961) described some outdoor social activities as spontaneous. She referred
to these activities as ‘outdoor life’; children playing on the streets and sidewalks, adults
socializing and watching the children play, and random sidewalk contacts between
strangers. Jacobs noted that outdoor life occurs in small bits, often in intervals left over
from scheduled activities. When describing spontaneous play, Jacobs wrote, “It is not in
the nature of things to go somewhere formally to do them by plan, officially. Part of their
charm is the accompanying sense of freedom to roam up and down the sidewalks…”
(Jacobs, 1961, p.86). Jacobs said open space, in and of itself, will not create recreational
activity, and that parks are often city vacuums in need of people to create social life in
them. Some streets and parking lots are used as playgrounds for children not because real
parks and playgrounds are missing, but because the streets and parking lots happen to be
along the way. For the same reason, a neighborhood community center building may not
enhance interaction as much as a street-level public plaza situated on a busy street.
3
1.2 Pedestrian-oriented Design
Many city planners have advocated improving the quality of urban life by promoting
pedestrian-oriented design. The mid-twentieth century saw suburban sprawl occupy vast
areas of land for housing subdivisions and parking lots associated with commercial uses.
Today, some planners lament the perceived loss of social benefits caused by autooriented sprawl. Frequent auto use itself does not necessarily contribute to the
dehumanization of urban space so much as the physical arrangement of vehicular and
pedestrian interface.
People who are concerned with livable cities view the public street as primary public
space. For safety and efficiency, we separate pedestrians and cars, but this separation may
have gone too far in newer suburban developments. The suburban model of a wide road
with a high speed limit, few sidewalks, and buildings positioned far apart and far from
the street may hinder pedestrian street life. In contrast, the configuration of the older
downtown streets, where many sidewalk pedestrians create active street life and cars
crawl by, seems to support pedestrian activity.
A host of contemporary planners and designers have written about promoting
pedestrian life (Childs, 1999; Duany, Plater-Zyberk, and Speck, 2000; Jacobs,
Macdonald, and Rofe, 2002; Southworth and Ben-Joseph, 2003; and Urban Design
Associates, 2003). Southworth and Ben-Joseph promote the social benefits of residential
shared streets (known as woonerf in Europe) that integrate pedestrian activity and
vehicular movement on one surface. Duany et al. suggest that narrower and more
versatile streets should replace the collector roads onto which suburban traffic is
funneled. To foster pedestrian-friendly environments, they encourage planners to allow
4
parallel parking along the curbs, reduce the speed of traffic, install shade trees, and
position buildings close to the street. Childs and Jacobs et al. also prefer on-street
parking because it slows traffic and separates pedestrians from moving cars, increasing
safety. That idea demonstrates a shift in thought from a few decades ago, when traffic
engineers and planners viewed street parking as undesirable. Urban Design Associates
list 27 principles of New Urbanism, several of which promote alternative modes of
transportation; define streets as shared use public spaces; generate compact, mixed-use,
pedestrian-friendly developments; and distribute parks, gardens and village greens
throughout neighborhoods.
Childs (1999) goes further than valuing the street as public space in the city; he
suggests that good design can transform parking lots into effective, mixed-use public
places. Parking spaces, as the beginning and ending of car trips, can become pedestrian
pockets. Parking lots resemble civic spaces because they are inherently places of arrival
and gathering. Childs promotes allowing cars into plazas and parks traditionally reserved
for pedestrians, and: “Perhaps, if parking areas are made more social and pleasant places,
then the apparent conflict between parking and the enjoyment of the city can be reduced”
(p. 37).
Some studies explore the extent to which the physical environment affects levels of
physical activity. Auto-oriented design can be insensitive to the needs of pedestrians,
discouraging people to walk, and thereby contributing to obesity (Ewing, Schmid,
Killingsworth, Zlot, and Raudenbush, 2003). Ewing et al. argues that zoning laws can
shape the physical environment and possibly inspire people to walk to work, and that
planners should plan for both driver and pedestrian.
5
1.3 Alternative Views
Not all research on automobiles and pedestrians supports the concept of further
integration of cars and people. Taylor (2003) suggests the attention to moving traffic and
traffic signs required by both drivers and pedestrians diminishes appreciation of buildings
and spaces. He reports that people experience motor traffic as a central source of anger,
tension and frustration, and recommends reducing automobile traffic.
Appleyard (1981) found that residents preferred living on streets that had low
vehicular traffic, and that traffic congestion contributed to stress because noise
interrupted sleep, conversation, and other activities at home. Other negative effects of
traffic on residential streets included air pollution and road grime. Responding to
Appleyard’s survey, San Francisco residents felt their streets were dangerous because of
traffic. Statistics supported the residents’ beliefs; more pedestrian casualties occurred on
heavily trafficked streets than on lightly trafficked ones.
But one study suggests that, at least in England, heavier traffic in densely built urban
areas reduced the number of pedestrian fatalities by autos. Graham and Glaister (2003)
studied the relationship of pedestrian casualties to the density and land use mix of local
urban environments in 1999 and 2000. The number of accidents varied by ward (location)
from zero to twenty casualties. In agreement with Appleyard, they believed the urban
wards with greater density and more traffic would have higher numbers of accidents.
Existing statistics already revealed this on a large scale: London, a large and densely
populated city with high traffic flow, had the highest incidence of accidents, and the
number of accidents decreased with the sizes of cities. When Graham and Glaister
narrowed the inquiry to a finer level by studying smaller geographical areas, they found
6
that higher population density wards did have more accidents than lower density wards.
However, the relationship changed for the densest urban areas. Traffic congestion, when
sufficiently high, reduced pedestrian casualties. Perhaps congestion slows cars enough to
make streets safer for pedestrians or maybe the densest areas have more traffic control
devices, such as traffic lights and crosswalks. The findings echo the rationale for woonerf
design. Pedestrians are safer when traffic moves slowly, even if the traffic is highly
congested.
1.4 Shopping Centers
Shopping centers are concentrations of retail and entertainment destinations, usually
planned to accommodate customers who arrive by car. They first appeared in cities in the
1920s as neighborhood and community strip shopping centers. Suburban shopping
centers proliferated in the mid-1900s when extensive single-family residential
subdivisions were built outside of the central city areas. The post-WWII interstate
highway system facilitated suburban sprawl. After 1950, larger regional shopping
centers, often enclosed malls, served as ‘public’ space for suburbanites (Cohen, as
interviewed by Silverthorne, 2003). Previously, in the early 1900s, retail shopping and
entertainment had been concentrated in central city business districts, or downtowns. The
migration of stores from downtowns to suburbs contributed to the decline of inner cities,
known as ‘urban blight’ in the 1970s.
Palen (1997) acknowledges that shopping centers have replaced downtowns and
main streets as America’s social centers. However, Palen argues that private shopping
malls differ from truly public space in that enclosed malls exclude vagrants, panhandlers
7
and disruptive individuals from the social mix. Publicly accessible yet privately owned,
open shopping centers and their associated parking lots differ from public civic spaces in
affording freedoms of speech and assembly (Cohen, as interviewed by Silverthorne,
2003). Cohen advocates for retailers to become more aware of their role in the social and
civic life of citizens. “ The bottom line must include more than a calculation of corporate
profits. It must measure the extent to which social good and consumer goods have
converged” (2003).
Most pedestrians in any parking lot arrived by car. Parking lot design focuses on
dimensions of aisles and stalls; the numbers of parking spaces, the costs, paving,
drainage, and lighting – and all in relation to the automobile. Because of stop signs and
pavement markings the driver’s path is predictable. The pedestrian’s path from the car to
the destination, the retail store, is less legible.
For economic reasons, most retail establishments must cater to consumers who arrive
by automobile. However, once customers get out of cars they become pedestrians. The
design of the physical spaces, including parking lots, affects the safety, comfort, and level
of social and physical activity of the users of the space. Observational studies of behavior
can help assess those activities. People interact with one another and the environment in
ways that one can observe, record, analyze, and ultimately predict.
If outdoor life occurs in leftover bits, and if the automobile remains associated with
retail shopping, we can consider redesigning the shopping center parking lot as a mixeduse outdoor space. We need an understanding of behavior to explore the feasibility of this
vision.
8
CHAPTER 2
METHOD
This research sought to assess the level of social activity in parking lots, to discover the
patterns of social behavior, to record what social behavior occurs, where and how often it
occurs, and how it relates to physical elements. Systematic unobtrusive observational
studies of people in natural settings provide objective and detailed information about
actual behavior. The study used unobtrusive measures of people in parking lots to
uncover any standing patterns of behavior.
Wicker (1979) discussed the work of Roger Barker, a pioneer in the field of
ecological psychology. Barker introduced the concept of behavior setting surveys, which
he used to analyze the influence of environments on behavior. Barker maintained that
understanding the relationship of people and objects is essential to understanding the
behavior setting. To a large extent, a physical setting determines which behaviors are
possible. Although a shopping center parking lot does not equate with behavior settings
as described by Barker, the parking lot is similar in that it does have an assumed program
and is subject to regulating mechanisms. The program is the purpose of the setting. We
all know what to do in a parking lot because regulating mechanisms guide behavior. Stop
signs, curbs, and pavement markings regulate the drivers in parking lots. People express
behaviors compatible with the program.
9
What are the kinds of social interactions that occur in shopping center parking lots
among pedestrians? What social rituals and encounters are observed? Where do social
interactions occur? If Childs (1999) is correct, certain kinds of behavior may occur in the
parking lot itself, especially around cars, and it is these behaviors that this research
sought to record. In Manhattan, Whyte (1988) mapped bunching patterns, the tendency of
pedestrians to self-congest, but this phenomenon may not apply to parking lots because 1)
the destination of motorists is usually the retail stores, while the parking lot itself is rarely
a destination, and 2) the phenomenon of bunching would draw people from the parking
lot to the storefronts and to sidewalks where more people are clustered.
I developed a coding sheet for rapidly recording the pedestrians. It has a space to
record weather conditions (because weather might affect social interactions) and it lists
ten activities: sitting, standing, walking, running, talking, eating, using a cell phone,
smoking, playing, and working. I created this list from my pilot observations at the three
shopping centers. Only some of these listed activities are social in nature, but social
behavior might occur while a person is engaged in more than one activity. For example,
both talking and walking may occur at the same time. In addition, the coding sheet has
spaces to code the sex, approximate age, and location of each person. The coding sheet
allows for recording the numbers of individuals in an interaction but each observed
occurrence of social behavior represented one social event regardless of the number of
people involved in it. Thus, three pedestrians walking and talking in the parking lot
counts as one occurrence of social behavior.
10
CHAPTER 3
PILOT STUDY
3.1 Introduction
The research began with a pilot study to see if social behaviors occurred in shopping
center parking lots, to identify a location conducive to direct unobtrusive observation, and
to test and refine the research instrument.
In the pilot study, I recorded preliminary observations at the Lennox Town Center, a
large strip shopping center near the Ohio State University (OSU) in Columbus, Ohio and
at two community strip shopping centers in the area, Shops on Lane Avenue and
University City shopping centers. The three sites differed in parking lot design, variety of
retail establishments, and served different neighborhoods near the expansive 1715-acre
Ohio State University campus.
11
12
3.2 Method
3.2.1 Settings
The Shops on Lane Avenue, located west of OSU, was built in 1951 as an open strip
shopping center and was later enclosed as a mall in the 1980s. In 2004 it underwent an
upscale transformation from an enclosed strip mall to a partly open community strip
shopping center. Its site is approximately 13 acres in size. The main strip building, which
is actually two buildings joined by a courtyard, is approximately 157,000 square feet.
Parking is available behind the buildings, but customers prefer the parking lot in front,
adjacent to Lane Avenue. The small front parking lot has only three aisles for traffic, two
of them one-way, serving 329 of the 880 total parking spaces. Competition for the front
parking spaces is evident as drivers circle around several times waiting for spots to open.
Built in 1961, University City is a declining community shopping center north of
OSU occupying approximately 12 acres of land along Olentangy River Road. The openair strip center’s main building is 116,131 square feet and there are two freestanding
restaurants on the site. Zoning officials recognize University City’s parking lot as being
too large, evidenced by parking waivers granted for 24 parking spaces in 1992 and for
117 spaces in 2003. A parking study conducted in 1992 revealed the parking lot was
beneath 50% capacity at all times. The large open parking lot now has 601 parking
spaces.
Lennox Town Center is located 1.5 miles south of University City on Olentangy
River Road. Built in 1996, Lennox is the first shopping center to be erected near OSU
since 1961. Lennox shopping center is south of OSU on a 37-acre site formerly occupied
by Lennox Industries, an air conditioner manufacturer. The buildings at Lennox Town
13
Center include a long open L-shaped strip building and two freestanding restaurants,
providing altogether 370,000 square feet of commercial space. The 2500 parking spaces
are dispersed into smaller segments of the parking lot, providing a more intimate physical
environment.
Lennox Town Center caters to students who attend OSU and to those who work and
live on campus or nearby in densely populated neighborhoods. It has a bus connection to
OSU. A 5000-seat, 24-screen movie theater anchors the shopping center, and its section
of the parking lot in front of the theater is often filled to capacity. Popular regional chain
stores with broad appeal are located at Lennox, including Target discount department
store, Barnes and Noble bookstore, World Market, Staples Office Supplies, Bath and
Body Works, and Old Navy casual clothing store. A coffee shop is strategically
positioned at a busy corner near the movie theater.
Although I observed some similar pedestrian social behaviors at each of the parking
lots, (such as children trying to run and play, adults having conversations, and people
talking on cell phones while standing in the parking lots), the physical layout of Lennox
shopping center offered the best arrangement for unobtrusive observation. The other two
parking lots have characteristics that made the observer stand out. Shops on Lane Avenue
is too compact and University City is too vast and underused. At Lane Avenue, the oneway aisles are narrower than two-way aisles, and effectively bring people and cars closer
together. Unobtrusive observation is difficult in this location because of the compact
front parking lot. Motorists and pedestrians were close to the researcher, which made it
difficult to stay unnoticed. Drivers circling the lot noticed me occupying a parking space
and they often stopped to wait for me to vacate the space.
14
The large mostly empty parking lot at University City shopping center posed the
same problem for different reasons. It had few cars and drivers had parked their cars as if
at random across the lot, making the researcher even more visible to them. University
City has fewer customers (and thus pedestrians) than Shops on Lane Avenue and Lennox
Town Center, and this lack of customers also made the researcher stand out. To improve
parking lot design, a useful study might compare different parking lot designs and their
levels of social interaction. The actual kinds of social interaction, their description and
frequency of occurrence, is research that should precede the comparison of design
elements in parking lots.
3.2.2 Instrument and Procedure
The pretest period included eleven visits to the three shopping center parking lots. I
made observations on visits one through eight, wrote them in a notebook, and developed
the coding sheet after visit eight, which I used during the last three visits. Appendix C
shows the coding sheet.
The usefulness of this measurement tool rests on its reliability and validity. Reliable
measures produce the same readings under the same conditions. I refined the instrument
employed during the pilot to improve reliability. Recording observations at standard
times and locations reduces the effects of those variables on the data. Retesting and
correlating the results determine reliability.
The instrument is valid if observations are accurately recorded. Research measures
are valid when they precisely record what they are supposed to record. The coding sheet
headings are designed to assist the researcher in recording actual events. For example,
15
“walking while talking” is a column heading on the coding sheet. Except for age,
subjective interpretations of behavior are not choices on the observer’s coding sheet.
3.3 Results
In the three parking lots, I observed seven occurrences of play, nine occurrences of
talking while standing, seven occurrences of talking while walking, and eleven
occurrences of cell phone use. Appendix D displays the full matrix of preliminary
observations.
Comparison of the rates of occurrence revealed that Lennox had almost twice the rate
at University City and more than twice the rate at Lane Avenue shopping center. The
observations in the final study were executed at standardized times from a fixed location
in the Lennox parking lot. During the month of May 2005 I visited one part of the
Lennox parking lot and recorded observations four times a week for three weeks. Each
visit lasted fifteen minutes.
3.4 Discussion
The competition for parking spaces among motorists may affect the occurrence and
duration of social behaviors in a parking lot. Perceived pressure to vacate a parking space
abbreviates a ritual of hello or goodbye that occurs near a parked car. The compressed
arrangement of Lane Avenue’s parking lot is a possible factor in limiting occurrences of
social behavior. Pedestrians found no space to pause on the pavement and so did not
pause. I was challenged to record and properly code social behaviors that might be very
brief, often only a few seconds in duration. Other behaviors that are neither social nor
16
occurring in the parking lots will not be recorded. Social behaviors include conversations
and play. Play in the parking lots includes dancing, chasing and being chased, riding
shopping carts, and tossing objects - such as a newly purchased pillow in one case.
The preliminary observations suggest some possible generalizations: 1) people do
converse in parking lots, but the conversations are brief; 2) occasionally, people have
longer conversations while standing next to their cars; 3) individuals talk on cell phones
almost anywhere, even in parking lot aisles; 4) children, teenagers and adults play in
parking lots; 5) children try to run but are stifled by protective adults.
Barker’s synomorphy is the compatible relationship between objects and people’s
actions (Wicker, 1979). A parking lot might be a setting that has a lack of synomorphy. A
parking lot works for the movement of automobiles at the expense of pedestrians.
Underhill (2004) thinks adding amenities to a mall parking lot makes good business
sense. “If the mall devoted much thought to how shoppers experience the place, they’d
spend a little money and effort on the parking lot” and, “Nobody enjoys a springtime
stroll through a mall parking lot. When you shop in a city, getting to your destination is
an enjoyable part of the experience and may turn up some pleasant surprises along the
way...None of that exists in the parking lot of the mall” (p. 25).
17
CHAPTER 4
THE STUDY
4.1 Background
This study sought to discover the frequency of social behavior among pedestrians in a
parking lot. The pilot study revealed such behavior and generated the coding sheet as an
instrument. It also selected the shopping center best for unobtrusive observation –
Lennox Town Center.
4.2 Method
4.2.1 Setting
I narrowed the location of the final study to one section of the Lennox parking lot
because this study is not a comparison of locations, and because staying in one place
helps to reduce the number of variables that might affect observed behavior. The setting
is the parking area of 10 rows and 217 spaces between Don Pablo’s Mexican Kitchen and
Cup O’ Joe coffee house. Next to the coffee house is Johnny Rockets Hamburgers.
Within walking distance of this parking area are several retail stores, the theater, and
Champp’s restaurant.
18
19
4.2.2 Procedure
Using the coding sheet created for the pilot study, I conducted 15-minute observations 12
times in May 2005, four times a week for three consecutive weeks. The visits took place
midday on Wednesdays, approximately 5:30PM on Fridays, Saturdays late afternoon, and
Sundays early evening. My work schedule limited observation times. I positioned my car
near the middle of the eighth row facing Don Pablo’s because that allowed me to see the
part of the lot used most densely and I was close enough to see the action.
4.3 Results of the final study
Visit date
1. WED 5/4
2. FRI 5/6
3. SAT 5/7
4. SUN 5/8
5. WED 5/11
6. FRI 5/13
7. SAT 5/14
8. SUN 5/15
9. WED 5/18
10. FRI 5/20
11. SAT 5/21
12. SUN 5/22
Time of day
11:50AM-12:05PM
5:36-5:51PM
3:00-3:15PM
7:00-7:15PM
12:07-12:22PM
5:22-5:37PM
3:30-3:45PM
7:11-7:26PM
11:44-11:59AM
5:30-5:45PM
3:38-3:53PM
7:00-7:15PM
12 visits
180 minutes
Stationary
1
3
0
1
1
3
2
2
2
1
4
0
Moving
10
3
5
4
7
5
4
7
5
8
7
5
Total events
11
6
5
5
8
8
6
9
7
9
11
5
20
70
90 events
Table 4.1 Social occurrences grouped by ‘stationary’ or ‘moving’ categories and
separated by day of week.
Twelve 15-minute observations were recorded at Lennox shopping center in May
of 2005. The total time of all the visits was 180 minutes and a total of 90 social events
were recorded. Of the 90 occurrences of social behavior, 20 were stationary and 70 were
moving, as shown in Table 4.1. Stationary socializing included talking and other kinds of
20
interaction, and cell phone use while standing or sitting. Moving social interaction
included talking, cell phone use, and playing while walking or running.
All social behavior
Number of observations
Percent of total
Talking (not on cell)
69
77%
Cell phone use
12
13%
Play
6
7%
Other
3
3%
Totals
90
100%
Table 4.2 Kinds of social behavior observed.
As shown in Table 4.2, talking (not on a cell phone) was the most common social
behavior, accounting for 77% of all noted social behavior. Talking on cell phones
accounted for 13% of the overall total. Six incidents of play were observed. Play was 7%
of observed social behavior. The remaining 3% of the total were events in which people
had social behavior that did not include observable talking or playing.
Day of week
Wednesday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Date
5/4
5/6
5/7
5/8
Date
5/11
5/13
5/14
5/15
Date
5/18
5/20
5/21
5/22
Number of observed social behaviors
26
23
22
19
Table 4.3: Observations grouped by day of week.
21
Twenty-six of the 90 social behaviors occurred at lunchtime on Wednesdays, 23
on Fridays around 5:30PM, 22 on Saturday afternoons, and 19 on Sunday evenings.
Visit
Cool
(<70°)
1
60°F
Warm
(≥70°)
Clear
Cloudy
Windy
Calm
Total events
X
X
11
X
X
6
2
70°F
3
70°F
4
75°F
5
85°F
X
6
80°F
X
X
X
X
5
X
X
5
8
X
7
63°F
X
8
55°F
X
9
60°F
X
X
7
10
60°F
X
X
9
11
12
72°F
62°F
X
8
6
X
X
X
9
X
11
X
5
90
Table 4.4: Weather observations at Lennox in May 2005.
22
Table 4.4 shows the weather conditions for each of the twelve visits. All
temperatures were within a moderate range of 60-80° Fahrenheit. Half of the days were
cool and half were warm. Forty-seven social behaviors occurred on cool days and 43
occurred on warm days. Thirty-one social behaviors were seen on four visits when the
weather was clear and calm. Thirty-two social behaviors were seen on five visits when
the weather was cloudy and windy. Twenty-two social behaviors were seen on three days
that were cloudy and calm. The rates compare as follows: one event every 1.9 minutes on
clear, calm days, one event every 2.3 minutes on cloudy windy days, and one event every
2 minutes on cloudy calm days.
Stationary
Talking
Other
socializing
Cell use
Total 20 events
In aisle
2
0
Parking space
9
1
In car
2
1
At edge of lot
0
1
Totals
13
3
0
2
2
12
2
5
0
1
4
20
Table 4.5: Location of stationary social behaviors.
Stationary social behavior accounted for 22% of the total social behavior. As
shown in Table 4.5, of the 20 stationary events, four involved cell phone use, two in cars
and two next to cars at parking spaces. Cell phone use accounted for 20% of observed
stationary social behavior. Of the remaining 16 stationary events, 13 involved talking,
and the last three were social behavior that did not include observable talking. In one
case, a man and woman stood looking at a car’s engine then departed in separate cars. In
another case, two young girls sat together on a curb and then lay down in the grass at the
23
edge of the lot. In a third case, one couple was kissing in a truck for six minutes. Sixty
percent of the stationary activity occurred at parking spaces next to vehicles including
two cell phone uses. The remaining eight stationary events occurred either in the aisles
(10%), in a car (25%), or at the edge of the lot at a curb (5%). Of talking and standing in
the stationary group, only 2 of the 20 stationary events were in the aisles. Five of the 20
stationary events occurred inside parked cars. Two of these were cell phone use, two
were conversations, and one was the kiss in a pickup truck. Altogether, three kisses
occurred and two hugs but only the one in the truck was a discreet event. Talking was
seen on the other two and they were coded as stationary talking.
Moving social
behavior
Talking
Playing
Cell use
Total
In aisle
At parking space
At edge of lot
Total
52
5
6
63
4
1
2
7
0
0
0
0
56
6
8
70
Table 4.6: Locations of moving social behaviors.
Table 4.6 displays the locations of moving social behavior. Moving social
behavior accounted for 78% of the 90 observations. Of those moving social behaviors,
91% occurred in the aisles. The rest occurred at parking spaces. Of those, 11% involved
moving cell phone use, with most of them (75%) involving people walking across the
parking lot aisles. The other 25% talked on the phone while moving around getting
accessories from parked cars. Talking again emerged as the most common kind of social
24
behavior exhibited, accounting for 81% of all moving social behavior. Talking while
moving (not on a cell phone) occurred 52 times in aisles and four times at parking spaces.
Play occurred six times, five times in the aisles and once at a parking space. Five of the
six occurrences of play were seen on Sundays, and three of those five occurred on the
same Sunday, visit 8 on May 15th. The people who played included three children, two
teens, and four young adults. The teens and adults were male and female couples, while
the children each played on their own as parents reined them in.
Other interesting behaviors occurred rarely: admiring or examining cars (2), and
pedestrian-auto conflicts, or near accidents (2). Only one person was observed smoking
while talking with another person and only one was eating while conversing in the
parking lot.
Social behaviors averaged once every two minutes. Observed stationary
socializing occurred at a rate of one event every nine minutes. Moving social behavior
among pedestrians occurred once every 2.5 minutes. Play occurred at a rate of once every
30 minutes and occurred in the moving category only. Play accounted for six of the 70
moving social events. Cell phone use in the moving category occurred eight times at a
rate of once every 22.5 minutes. Cell phone use in the stationary group occurred four
times at a rate of once every 45 minutes.
Stationary social behavior is the kind New Urbanism planners want to encourage.
This research concludes that 22% of observed social behavior was stationary, involving
people who were standing or sitting.
25
4.4 Discussion
Limitations of this research included not being able to see all activity because cars
blocked views sometimes. Videotape from a higher position could provide more details. I
might have missed some conversations because I could not see or hear them. I did not
count the total numbers of pedestrians who did not exhibit social behavior. Couples and
groups often walked from their cars to a restaurant and apparently did not interact. One
observer could not track all of the people as the events happened simultaneously or
rapidly in succession. Thus, I focused on recording social behavior. Sometimes, more
than one social behavior occurred at the same time in the same group. For example in a
group of three, one person might talk on a cell phone while two others talked with each
other.
The analysis of the data suggests weather variations during the study period and
day of the week affected levels of social behavior negligibly. As expected, bunching
patterns of pedestrians did not occur in the parking lot. Pedestrians moved from their cars
to retail and restaurant destinations. Although people commonly talked while walking
across the parking lot, of greatest interest to New Urbanism planners is the stationary
group activity and play from the moving category.
It is not remarkable that people talk while walking from parked cars to restaurants
or stores but if we want to facilitate this moving social behavior, would design elements
make a difference? If stationary socializing is worth encouraging, what variables matter?
Perhaps aisle width and sizes of parking spaces are elements that determine whether
pedestrians will stand still and converse in a parking lot. Possibly, amenities such as trees
and benches make a difference. Childs says three elements contribute to shaping public
26
space: size, seating, and activities. Although the Lennox shopping center’s parking lot is
divided into segments, Childs advocates smaller segments. He suggests bays up to 65’
long, holding 14-16 cars. Both Childs and Whyte agree that a variety of seating options
will enhance social interaction. Whyte spoke of triangulation; a focal stimulus in public
plazas, and Childs’ equivalent for parking lots is a list of possible activities that could
occur in parking lots. The shopping center parking lot, during non-peak periods, can
serve as a space for concerts, rallies, public art, rollerblading and skateboarding. Other
amenities such as drinking fountains and newspaper racks make pedestrian interaction
more comfortable.
One can test whether parking lot amenities encourage social behavior by
observing behavior in a parking lot, then adding an amenity and observing behavior
again. A study comparing different parking lots is more practical but other variables
might contribute more than physical design alone. For example, I found a faster rate of
interaction at Lennox than at University City shopping center. The physical design of the
Lennox lot, being smaller and closer to stores, possibly contributes to the higher rate of
activity. Factors such as the quality of the stores, the location of the shopping center itself
and the numbers of patrons may have contributed more to the levels of social interaction
than did the physical design of the lot. A simulated parking lot study could avoid the
location variables. In this research not all pedestrians were counted. Ideally, the next
phase of this research would repeat the observations in the same place, but count all
pedestrians in the parking lot and on the sidewalk. Pedestrians exhibiting social behavior
could then be described as a percent of all pedestrians. Research could compare
proportions of social behavior in the parking lot and on the sidewalk near the stores.
27
To determine the significance of rates of social behavior in parking lots, a future
study could compare various settings for relative frequency of social activity. Possibly
because of design, higher rates of outdoor social behavior might occur at Easton Town
Center or in the Short North arts district. Easton is a large mixed-use pedestrian-oriented
suburban shopping center and the Short North is a revitalized old commercial strip
adjacent to downtown Columbus. Both these sites offer a variety of parking options and
stores are oriented to pedestrians on sidewalks. There are places for pedestrians to pause
in between destinations. Park the car and walk to the store, but along the way discover
appealing elements including benches, small plazas, sculpture, and many other stores.
Of three shopping centers in this study, all had sidewalks in front of the stores and
only Shops on Lane Avenue offered an outdoor pedestrian courtyard separate from the
parking lot. Although not counted in the study, very few people appeared in the
courtyard. However, restaurant patrons commonly gathered on sidewalks in front of the
restaurants at all three shopping centers.
Which of the observed social behaviors do planners want to encourage? The most
common location for a conversation occurred as people walked across the lot to the
stores. Should we, and how can we, facilitate the path from the car to the store? The walk
can be made more pleasant and safe. If a brick sidewalk is provided for pedestrians, will
they use it or always take the shortest distance? It appeared peoples’ conversations were
challenged during their walk by having to walk around the parked cars. Some kept their
conversation going as the group split and individuals walked on opposite sides of the
cars. Others talking had to turn around to face their companions as they squeezed single
file through the rows of parked cars. Play is important, but can a parking lot
28
accommodate it? The social activity near the parked cars is the most significant behavior
that Childs talked about. If small plazas are provided, will people gather there to talk, or
will they prefer to stand beside their cars on the pavement anyway? What about the
parking space itself? Should it be larger to allow more space for the people stopping to
converse?
This research demonstrates that social behavior does occur in the shopping center
parking lot. People often talked while walking across the lot, and some social behavior
occurred among stationary pedestrians. Stationary pedestrians tended to talk at parked
cars. The likely benefits of fostering social behavior among these pedestrians include
increased sales because customers stay in the area longer and their presence attracts
others, and increased safety because of natural surveillance. Already, the idea of
facilitating pedestrian social activity is deemed important enough to be included in recent
zoning code regulations. Some of these codes for Columbus, Ohio apply to new
subdivision developments and some zoning standards apply to older commercial
corridors in the central city. Chapter 3320 of the Columbus zoning code is the Traditional
Neighborhood Development (TND) zoning district development regulations. “The
purpose of this article is to encourage the development of transit-supportive mixed-use
neighborhoods that foster pedestrian activity and a sense of community” (Columbus City
Codes, 2004, chapter 3320, section 01). The Urban Commercial Overlay, chapter 3372 of
the Columbus zoning code, states. “ The provisions of the UCO are intended to
encourage pedestrian-oriented development featuring retail display windows, reduced
building setbacks, rear parking lots, and other pedestrian-oriented site design elements”
(Columbus City Codes, 2004, chapter 3372, section 603).
29
Surface parking lots along city streets are considered dead spots, places that don’t
attract pedestrians. Yet some social contact occurs in shopping center parking lots and
perhaps pedestrian-friendly design can make these places more livable.
30
APPENDIX A
EXCERPTS FROM THE PRINCIPLES OF SMART DEVELOPMENT
The Principles of Smart Development (APA, 1998. PAS no.479)
Principle 1. Efficient Use of Land Resources: includes promoting less land for streets,
adopting “skinny” street standards, and advocating more efficient use of parking areas.
Principle 2. Full Use of Urban Services: includes, among other things, consideration for
parking cars on streets.
Principle 3. Mix of Uses: promotes the mix of residential and commercial uses, and
suggests locating destinations within walking distance of each other.
Principle 4. Transportation Options: includes suggestions for multimodal streets, for
transit, bike, and pedestrian connectivity, and sidewalk requirements.
Principle 5. Detailed, Human-Scale Design: includes consideration of the pedestrian in
street design and in architectural features such as the location of porches.
31
APPENDIX B
EXCERPTS FROM THE PRINCIPLES OF NEW URBANISM
The Principles of New Urbanism (Urban Design Associates, 2003)
19. A primary task of all urban architecture and landscape design is the physical
definition of streets and public spaces as places of shared use.
22. In the contemporary metropolis, development must adequately accommodate
automobiles. It should do so in ways that respect the pedestrian and the form of public
space.
23. Streets and squares should be safe, comfortable, and interesting to the pedestrian.
Properly configured, they encourage walking and enable neighbors to know each other
and to protect their communities.
32
APPENDIX C
CODING SHEET
33
APPENDIX D
RESULTS OF PILOT STUDY
Visit
Visit 1
Visit 2
Visit 3
Visit 4
Visit 5
Visit 6
Visit 7
Visit 8
Visit 9
Visit 10
Visit 11
Totals
Duration
9 min.
25 min.
19 min.
15 min.
19 min.
30 min.
20 min.
60 min.
11 min.
61 min.
25 min.
294 min.
Play
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
0
0
0
7
Talk/stand
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
4
0
0
1
9
Talk/walk
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
7
Cell
4
2
0
1
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
11
Totals
7
3
2
1
1
0
3
11
2
2
2
34
Visit 1: Lennox Tuesday 10-12-04, 6:00-6:05PM, 60 F degrees and clear
Visit 2: Lane Avenue Wednesday 10-13-04, 12:05-12:30 noon, cool, damp
Visit 3: University City Thursday 10-14-04, 5:40-5:59PM (need weather)
Visit 4: University City Friday 10-15-04, 11:51-12:06 Noon 49 degrees, light rain
Visit 5: University City Saturday 10-16-04, 4:29PM, 49 degrees, cold, windy
Visit 6: Lane Ave. Saturday 10-16-04, 5:00-5:30PM, cool cloudy
Visit 7: Lennox Saturday 10-16-04 5:51-6:11PM, cool and cloudy
Visit 8: Lennox Sunday 10-17-04, 3:30-4:30PM, 50 degrees, cool, sunny
Visit 9: Lennox Sunday 11-28-04, 12:05-12:16PM, 45 degrees, pt. Cloudy, windy
Visit 10: Lennox Sunday 11-28-04, 45 degrees, cold, cloudy, windy
Visit 11: Lennox Monday 11-29-04, 4:43-5:08PM cold, cloudy.
Table D.1: Eleven visits to various parking lots: Duration and time of visit, weather
conditions, and kinds of behavior observed.
34
Location
Number of
visits
Total
time of
visits
Play
Talk/
stand
Talk
/
walk
Cell
phone
use
Total
social
behaviors
Rates of
occurrences
1 / 6.88 min.
Lennox
6
186min
.
7
6
6
8
27
Lane Ave
2
55min.
0
0
1
2
3
1 / 18.33
min.
Univ.
3
53min.
0
3
0
1
4
1 / 13.25
min.
Totals
11
294min
.
7
9
7
11
34
Avg. 1 /
8.64 min.
Table D.2: Visits grouped by location in the pilot study.
35
REFERENCES
American Planning Association (1998). The Principles of Smart Development. Chicago:
Planning Advisory Service Report number 479.
Appleyard, D. (1981). Livable Streets. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of
California Press.
Bell, P. A., Greene, T.C., Fisher, J.D., & Baum, A. (2001). Environmental Psychology 5th
ed. Orlando, FL: Harcourt.
Childs, M. C. (1999). Parking Spaces: a Design, Implementation and Use Manual for
Architects, Planners and Engineers. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing.
City of Columbus, Ohio (2004). Columbus City Codes, Title 33. Charlottesville: Matthew
Bender and Company.
Ewing, R., et al. (2003) Relationship between urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity
and morbidity. American Journal of Health Promotion. Vol.18, No 1, 47-57.
Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, E., & Speck, J. (2000). Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl
and the Decline of the American Dream. New York: North Point Press.
Graham, D.J. & Glaister, S. (2003). Spatial variation in road pedestrian casualties: The
role of urban scale, density and land-use mix. Urban Studies, Vol. 40, No.8, 1591-1607.
Jacobs, A. B., Macdonald, E., & Rofe, Y. (2002). The Boulevard Book: History,
Evolution, Design of Multiway Boulevards. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage
Books.
Marcus, C. Cooper, & Francis, C. (1998). People Places: Design Guidelines for Urban
Open Space Second Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Palen, J. (1997). The Urban World Fifth Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Silverthorne, S. (2003). How we became a consumer’s republic, Harvard Business
School Working Knowledge. Retrieved February 22, 2005, from
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/pubitem.jhtml?id=3262&t=bizhistory
Southworth, M., & Ben-Joseph, E. (2003). Streets and the Shaping of Towns and Cities.
Washington DC: Island Press.
36
Taylor, N. (2003). The aesthetic experience of traffic in the modern city. Urban Studies
Vol.40. No. 8, July 2003, 1609-1625.
Underhill, P. (2004). The Call of the Mall, New York: Simon and Shuster Paperbacks.
Urban Design Associates (2003). The Urban Design Handbook: Techniques and Working
Methods. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Webb, E. J., & Campbell, D.T. (2000). Unobtrusive Measures Revised Edition. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Whyte, W. H. (1988). City: Rediscovering the Center. New York: Doubleday.
Wicker, A. W. (1979). An Introduction to Ecological Psychology, Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth, Inc.
37