Article

Conceptualizing Public Space Using a Multiple

Sorting Task–Exploring the Links between
Loneliness and Public Space
Jing Jing 1,*, David Canter 2 and Tigran Haas 2
1 School of Architecture and Built Environment, Division of Urban and Regional Studies, KTH Royal
Institute of Technology, 114 28 Stockholm, Sweden
2 Centre for the Future of Places, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 114 28 Stockholm, Sweden;

[email protected] (D.V.); [email protected] (T.H.)

* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel:+46 72-148 63 46

Received: 8 November 2019; Accepted: 22 November 2019; Published: 26 November 2019

Abstract: This study tests the viability of multiple sorting tasks (MST) as a method to explore
perceptions of public space and its potential for people that are vulnerable to loneliness. The
procedure integrates qualitative and quantitative aspects and obviates the challenge of people
articulating how they interact with their surroundings, especially being aware of what features of
their environment are influencing them. Two samples, each with six participants of varying ages
and backgrounds, viewed 20 photographs of public spaces in Stockholm. They sorted these into
categories based upon the activities they anticipated would occur there. Within each sample, a
multidimensional scaling procedure was used to reveal the underlying structure across the
combination of the six responses. The results showed coherent structures with interesting variations
between people. A set of general multi-purpose places are identified, with others being
differentiated in terms of whether they were ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ and ‘open’ or ‘enclosed’. The study also
found that people conceptualized public space differently when loneliness was the focus during the
sorting process. An assemblage of public spaces relevant for loneliness is also illustrated. This
demonstrates the utility of the MST and provides theoretical and practical implications for urban
planning and design that addresses loneliness.

Keywords: public space; multiple sorting task; loneliness; social interaction; theory of place;
environmental probabilism; urban planning; urban design

1. Introduction
The importance of public space in urban areas for social activities and human wellbeing is
commonly promoted amongst academia, civil society, and urban planning professionals [1–8]. The
definition of public spaces (both conceptually and physically), however, can be a subject of constant
debate that is often underpinned by local politics, ownership, and management [9–13]. Generally
public space is understood to include places that are essentially open to the public. This ranges from
outdoor open spaces such as parks, gardens, squares, and streets to indoor enclosed places like cafés,
museums, libraries and malls, as well as virtual spaces that people increasing access through
technological advances [14–16]. Time spent in public space is an integral component of daily life for
urban dwellers.
Although the personal benefits derived from public space have been widely discussed, previous
studies mostly focused on the dimensions of physical health. This included benefits such as access to
fresh air and opportunities for physical exercises that can reduce cardiovascular diseases and obesity

Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 107; doi:10.3390/urbansci3040107 www.mdpi.com/journal/urbansci

Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 107 2 of 23

[17,18]. As researchers continue to point out how the body and mind connect and work together for
health outcomes [19,20], it is important to also understand the role of public space in mental health
and overall wellbeing.
There is a growing body of literature demonstrating how the built environment affects mental
health [21–23]. Increased social interactions and social support are distinct values that benefit mental
health and can be positively affected by public spaces. Some examples of these benefits include: the
restorative and healing effects provided by greater access to greenery and water [24–26]; improved
physical accessibility and visual permeability of the front-yard for community building [27]; a
strengthened sense of community and belonging produced by active public spaces in local
neighborhoods [27,28]; opportunities for relaxation and social exchange provided by privately
owned public space (known as POPS)[29] and “a home away from home” [30], as well as “commercial
social support” [31] provided by “third places” for people who go there. These few examples
underline how the physical and social environment influences how people feel and interact, which
in turn impacts people’s health and wellbeing.
Loneliness is not a new phenomenon, but there is increasing concern that it is a growing problem
around the world that poses a severe threat to public health and wellbeing and may be reaching
historic levels in some countries [32–34]. The negative effects of loneliness range from decreased
function of the immunity system and increased anxiety and depression to growing levels of early
mortality [35], suicide [36], and violence [37]. These effects are physical, mental, and physiological,
and also often attached to a fear of being stigmatized by admitting to others feelings of loneliness.
A core driver of loneliness is the subjective experience of having a deficit of desired social
relationships. The (built) environment, and particularly public space, provides a setting where social
encounters, interactions, and activities occur. It is highly plausible to assume that social encounters
play a role in enabling social relationships to grow or be formed, and that deepening or expanding
social relationships can lessen or mitigate feelings of loneliness. This paper builds upon these
assumptions to hypothesize that public space can have an impact on social encounters, which in turn
impacts on social relationships, and could have an impact on loneliness in urban populations.
Potential challenges to test this hypothesis in relation to urban planning and design include the
following factors: (1) it requires multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches to unpack the
current knowledge of loneliness and its relation to the built environment; (2) there is a lack of effective
tools to document and measure the experience of loneliness and overcome the high stigma perceived
by many individuals about sharing their experiences; (3) the subjective nature and transient state of
loneliness makes it more challenging to identify specific planning and design efforts that may be of
relevance to loneliness and assess the effectiveness of measures taken.
The purpose of the present study is to find pathways for urban planning and design to address
loneliness, given the aforementioned challenges. A proposed first step to test the hypothesis is to
investigate how people perceive public space and whether people use public space in situations when
they feel lonely. This study employs the multiple sort task (MST) method to explore these issues.
The MST [38] was first developed in the field of environmental psychology. It was previously
applied to help individuals to articulate their perceptions of “multi-attribute domains” [39] such as
architecture styles, casino space, etc. and to ultimately reveal their conceptual systems. This makes
the MST of great potential for investigating conceptualizations of places and their relationship to
loneliness. The core reason for choosing MST is that, following a long tradition in qualitative research,
it is a mechanism of empowering respondents to use their own words/expressions to reveal the
knowledge.
The study included two relatively small samples with the aim of testing MST’s viability for
exploring people’s perception of public space and its potential for people who are vulnerable to
loneliness in the Stockholm context. While striving to promote itself as a leading sustainable city [40],
Stockholm inevitably faces urban transformation challenges in terms of hosting a growing urban
population, an aging society, a housing shortage, and serving as the capital of the country which has
the highest number of single person households in the EU [41].
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 107 3 of 23

The paper gives a detailed account of how the samples were developed, conducted, and
analyzed. Each sample included six participants of varying ages and backgrounds. Each person was
provided with 20 color photographs of different public spaces in Stockholm. They were asked to
assign the photographs to different categories that they developed themselves. They were requested
to put the photographs into distinct groups on the basis of the activities they anticipated would occur
there. The data were collected in a qualitative fashion. On average each individual MST procedure
was performed over 30-40 minutes (Sample One) and 60-80 minutes (Sample Two), including the
sorting and commentaries by the participants of the ideas behind their assignment of places to
categories. A multidimensional scaling procedure (MSA) was performed to quantitatively analyze
the underlying structure across the combination of the six responses for each sample. The content of
the commentary was analyzed to elicit associations to public space in relation to loneliness.
The relatively small sizes of the samples presents a potential limitation to generalizing the
theoretical implications of the results. However, despite these possible limitations, the results of these
samples showed coherent structures with interesting variations between people. A general multi-
purpose set of places were identified, with others being differentiated in terms of whether they were
‘hard’ or ‘soft’ and ‘open’ or ‘enclosed’. Public spaces were conceptualized differently when
respondents considered conditions under which they felt lonely. An assemblage of public spaces that
are relevant for people when they are in situations of feeling lonely were identified, though these
were slightly different for the young adults of Sample One when compared with the elderly of Sample
Two.
The paper is structured as follows. The theoretical background of the study is presented in
sections 1.1–1.3. This is followed by a detailed account of the material, methods, and procedures in
section 2. Section 3 presents the results of the study, followed by discussion of the findings in section
4. Conclusions are provided in section 5.

1.1. Loneliness in the Urban Context

Loneliness is commonly understood as the discrepancy between one’s desired social
relationships and one’s perceived actual social relationships [42]. Scholars have endeavored to define
this by using various direct [43,44] and indirect measures [45,46]. Robert Weiss expressed his concern
that loneliness could be defined by objective indicators [47] in his influential book Loneliness: The
Experience of Emotional and Social Isolation [48].
While there is a prevailing view amongst societies that loneliness and social isolation are
interchangeable [49], others distinguish social isolation from loneliness [50]. They note that people
who are objectively socially isolated do not necessarily feel lonely if they do not have personal
longings for additional social contact. Solitude, that is noted in some studies as a type of necessary
loneliness, as a means to evoke creativity and concentration [51,52], is not the focus of this study.
Instead, it considers the ongoing rising levels of loneliness as a negative public health issue. This
follows the claims of social psychologist John Cacioppo that loneliness is a fundamental part of
human nature and occurs as a social pain that signals an individual’s longing for social connections
[53].
Studies have found that loneliness does not follow a simple linear progression of when it occurs
in life [54,55]. In fact, it is found across all ages, genders, educational backgrounds, income levels and
cultures [56,57]. Recent research from the US reported that loneliness peaks at three age periods: the
late 20s, mid-50s, and late-80s [58]. Further, according to the European Social Survey data, polled
across 25 European nations [59], adolescents and people of an older age appear to be at higher risk of
self-reported loneliness. The common pattern here is that loneliness occurs more often during
transition periods when people feel compelled to re-identify themselves within the society. People
moving in and moving out of loneliness also adds complexity to evaluating loneliness in individuals
and societies. This said, people can be vulnerable to feeling lost, isolated, alone, and lonely, either
chronically or temporarily at any point in time. Feelings of loneliness can emerge while in a crowd,
in a relationship, or marriage, as well as when one is not in the company of others [60].
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 107 4 of 23

The causes of loneliness and social isolation vary across individuals and groups, and have been
studied by researchers in many fields, including psychiatry, psychology, sociology, neuroscience,
philosophy, gerontology, etc. A number of social demographic factors (e.g., age, gender, education,
income, household structure, perceived health condition, etc.) have been investigated [61,62],
including a few that have identified the neighborhood environment and mobility as factors
contributing to loneliness [63,64]. The latter are closely tied to urban structures and the design of the
environment. Weijs-Perreé et al. found that a higher perceived neighborhood quality relates to lower
level of self-reported loneliness [65]. Other studies claim that people living in low density suburbs
reported higher loneliness [66]; car ownership seems to be associated with lower loneliness [67]
because it provides flexible traveling options for people to move between places for social activities,
while multiple modes and higher frequency of transportation was also found to be associated with
lower loneliness [64]. These suggest that the neighborhood environment and transportation are
crucial aspects of the infrastructure relevant to social interactions, which can impact the different risk
levels for experiencing loneliness.

1.2. Theory of Place

The relationship between humans and the environment has long been investigated. Concepts
such as dwelling [68,69], home(ness) [70,71], place (and placelessness) [72], place attachment [73], and
place identity [74] have all been part of these studies. The driving force of all of these is human interest
of self-knowledge and the search for meaning.
The ongoing debate of environmental determinism [75,76] and environmental possibilism
[77,78] has been traditionally embedded in urban planning and design theory. The former
emphasizes the external factors, such as climate, influence human livelihoods, health, culture,
civilization, politics, intelligence, religion, etc., whereas the latter considers that the “environment is
never more than an advisor”. Science and technology provide strong evidence of the power of human
endeavor rather than environmental factors [79] which in turn has effects on human society and
behavior [80]. Fekadu [81] called for a middle ground where the two stands consider how much the
environment can influence humans and vice versa. Environmental probabilism, as the middle
ground, considers the probabilistic relationship between physical environments and human
behavior. Although features of the physical environment lend themselves theoretically to all
possibilities, the layout, location, and arrangement of space and facilities render some behaviors
much more likely, and thus more probable than others [82–84].
Canter proposes that there are three ways of thinking about the relationship between people and
place: determinist, interactionist, and transactionist [85] (Figure 1). His transactionist view seems to
resonate most closely with the environmental probabilism perspective. A transactionist views
people’s use of place as a mixture of what people expect and think about those locations and what
actually happens there. These conceptions and actions are facilitated by what the physical form
symbolizes and makes possible. It facilitates by filtering, allowing appropriate heat, light, and noise
in, and keeping unwanted heat, light, noise, and other physical processes like rain out, as well as
actually providing space for what people want to do there.
One consequence of this that has direct applications is to recognize that people will give places
meaning and act in accordance with that meaning (e.g., place-making). Designers who follow this
idea do not loosely think of ‘general purpose’ places, but instead explore the possible purposes that
places can support. There is also the implication that different groups will have different purposes
for using places. These can cause conflicts that are resolved through barriers or time sharing. People
bring their purposes and conceptions, previous experiences, and expectations to the use of places.
This view is distinct from Relph’s idea of places that are anonymous and neutral [72]. Canter argues
there is a continuous process of creating the psychological character of places.
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 107 5 of 23

Figure 1. Relationships between people and place: determinist, interactionist, and transactionist.
(Source: created by the author, derived from reference [85]).

Further, people can influence their relationship with the surrounding environment in ways
beyond the modification of its physical conditions. They may change the nature of their surrounding
environment and give meaning to it through manipulation and modification of the physical and
social environment (for instance by selecting people with whom they mix and to whom they respond)
and through interpreting the purposes expected for a place or the importance it holds. For example,
the renowned architect Louise Kahn once claimed that the users of the biology laboratories he
designed, unsympathetically abused his design because they covered the huge window (a key design
feature) with brown paper preventing sun destroying their experiments; Prince Charles’s attack on
the proposal of Mansion House Square designed by Mies von der Rohe was in the same vein [86].

1.3. Investigating Links between Loneliness and Public Space using MST
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 107 6 of 23

Prior to the MST, “sorting” as a model used in psychology studies had utilized Q-sorts [87],
repertory grids [88] to open-ended procedures [38]. Earliest work of this kind is found in explorations
of concept formation and linguistic behavior (e.g., Vygotsky, 1934, Bruner et al. 1956) [89,90]. This
study uses MST to explore people’s conception of public places as well as links between loneliness
and the use of public space. The MST is derived from personal construct theory [91]. It is an open-
ended interview method focusing on the activity of sorting to reveal people’s constructs
(categorizations) of various entities. The underlying principle is derived from two psychological
assumptions: the significance of the respondent’s own view of the world; and that this world view is
built around a pattern of categorizations [38].
The sorting as an activity can be designed around visual material such as photographs, cards,
paper notes, logos, and object elements. It can be conducted with repetitions through multiple sorts
which can enhance the data quality [92,93]. The procedure integrates qualitative and quantitative
aspects and can be performed verbally, non-verbally or combined. Visual methodologies, such as
autophotography and photo elicitation in anthropology and ethnography research, share some
similarities with the MST [94,95], though their analytic frameworks differ. The MST was highlighted
in recent mental health research for its effectiveness for investigating depression [96]. It is also a
relatively time- and cost-efficient method [39,93], which could make its wider application in urban
design research more easily achieved.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants and Material

The study consists of two samples (Sample One and Sample Two), each with six participants,
conducted consecutively in the city of Stockholm. Sample One performed one sorting round and
addressed loneliness only verbally through a commentary session. Sample Two added a second
sorting round directly addressing loneliness in order to record responses from participants gained
by their “doing” (sorting/non-verbal) and “saying” (commentary/verbal) with specific instructions to
consider links between loneliness and public space. The data was collected with the consent of the
participants, who were informed that full protection of their identity was provided and that no
personal information would be disclosed in any form of scientific or other articles.
• Sample One: Adults aged 24–35, three women and three men, all of which had lived in the
Stockholm city area for more than four years, two born and raised in Stockholm, all had lived
abroad for study or work purposes.
• Sample Two: Elderly aged 67–74, all female retirees, all of which had lived in Farsta, a suburb of
Stockholm, for more than four years, all were Swedish citizens.
The principle criteria for recruiting the participants is that they volunteered to take part in the
MST as they became interested in communicating on the study subject which they learned from the
researchers. The age cohorts of the samples reflect the high-risk age groups of loneliness mentioned
in previous section. The residence period takes account of the likelihood of the participants knowing
the actual public places represented through the photographs since familiarity of the places in the
photographs can be an influential factor of people’s conception of places [97]. The background of an
international living experience was viewed as being relevant for the group aged 24–35, as transitions
and changes of the physical environment and social life can increase vulnerability to loneliness within
this age group in particular [98].
The current study does not involve loneliness scale measurements as a criterion for recruiting
participants. This was to reduce the apprehension of the subjects, which might have discouraged
them from participating at the early stage of the study due to the stigma and possible bias around the
concept of loneliness. Further, for urban planning and design to address loneliness, it is more useful
to consider populations who are vulnerable to loneliness rather than only targeting already self-
reported lonely people. According to Johann Hari, the best way to understand loneliness is to deepen
the understanding of where and what may go wrong that leads to the onset of loneliness [99]. The
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 107 7 of 23

responses from participants who did not pre-identify themselves as lonely are therefore relevant and
this can be compared to the data from self-reported lonely people at a later stage (this will be done as
part of the doctoral research underway, of which this study is one part).
Using color photographs to simulate the real environment has been validated in studies of
landscape and architecture [39,97,100,101]. For this study, 20 color photographs of public space
(excluding virtual public space) in Stockholm were chosen by the researchers through internet open
source materials (e.g., Google, Bing) in Sample One (Figure A1 in Appendix A), whereas in Sample Two
the 20 public spaces (Figure A2 in Appendix A) were first collectively nominated by a small group of
the elderly representatives at a workshop and then the researchers utilized the photographs in the
same manner as for Sample One.
The weather appearing in all photographs is consistent. A variety of actions were captured in
the photographs which reflect the three facets of place: physical, actions, and cognitive [102]. For the
physical attributes, the chosen photographs reflect elements such as open, enclosed, old built, new
built, water, green, hard surface, soft surface, and specific objects. The actions consist of walking,
biking, shopping, viewing, eating and drinking, sitting, chatting, reading, waiting, leisure and
relaxation and no action. The cognitive facets are popular, like, dislike, and unknown (Table 1).

Table 1. The three facets and elements reflected in the photographs for multiple sorting tasks (MST)
procedures.

Physical Facet Action Facet Cognitive Facet

open walking P=popular
enclosed biking like
old built shopping dislike
new built viewing unknown
water eating and drinking
green sitting
hard surface chatting
soft surface reading
specific objects waiting
leisure and relaxation
no action

In each sample the 20 photographs were coded with alphabet A-T texts specifying the places or
environment settings. These were printed under each picture. Photographs C, K, L, and P were kept
the same in both samples since these four places were the top rated places to go when feeling lonely
by the participants of Sample One. The remaining 16 photographs of Sample One differed from Sample
Two as these places were imposed by the researchers for the former and the by the participants for
the latter. Notably, Sample Two proposed by the participants from Farsta neighborhood consisted of
twelve places in the local Farsta area and eight places in the city. Half of these places in the city were
also used in Sample One.

2.2. Procedures
The MST applied in the study consisted of (1) sorting, including writing descriptors; (2)
commentary, including discussing aloud the notes of groupings and responding to four specific
questions. The commentary part functions as a member check and verbal elaboration.
In both samples, each participant had a set of the 20 photographs to sort independently. The
instructions given to the participants for the two samples are generally drawn from the Canter’s
sorting chapter [38]:
I am carrying out a study of what people think and feel about public space so I am asking a number of people
chosen at random to look at the following pictures and sort them into groups in such a way that all the
pictures in any group are similar to each other in some important way and different from those in other
groups. You can put the pictures into as many groups as you like and put as many pictures into each group
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 107 8 of 23

as you like. It is your view that counts. When you have carried out a sorting, I would like you to tell me the
reasons for your sorting and what it is that the pictures in each groups have in common.
For Sample One, the instruction for the sorting is as shown above. For Sample Two, the first sorting
round asked the participants to focus on thinking of their experience with the actual places in the
photographs. The second sorting round directly asked how the participants would like to sort the
places if they were in situations of feeling lonely. The order of the two sorts within Sample Two cannot
be reversed as the first sort intended to allow the participants to respond freely to the photographs
against the second sort of “loneliness” imposed as the main focus for the participants’ responses.
During the procedure, each participant conducted the sorting alone at first, followed by giving
descriptors for each grouping assigned. Afterwards in the commentary session, they verbally
elaborated their reasoning for the sortings and associations to the places. A single round sorting took
about 15–20 minutes, followed by commentary of 15–20 minutes. Sample One spent an average of 30
–40 minutes for each individual MST procedure, and for Sample Two it was 60–80 minutes.

3. Results

3.1. Analysis

3.1.1. Multidimentional Scalogram Analysis (MSA)

A multidimentional scalogram analysis (MSA) [38,39,93,96,97] was carried out to see whether
there were similarities or differences amongst the places sorted by different individuals. The software
HUDAP (1997) [103] was used to compute information from the data matrix produced from the
sorting tasks using “MSA-1”, though there is other software available for this type of analysis such
as the NewMDSX suite [93]. In this non-metric multivariate statistical procedure, each participant’s
grouping of the photographs is assigned as a “profile” which can be compared to the profiles of all
the photographs. The overview of the MSA result for Sample One can be seen in Table 2. It specifically
treats each response as a categorical one comparing the categories with each other. The various
categories assigned by different individuals are unique themselves, however their order and meaning
are not incorporated into the MSA.
Each picture is given a coordinate by MSA and can be plotted in a Euclidean space as a point,
which makes a two-dimensional representation possible. MSA measures the distance between given
objects (points in space) [38,93,97]. The closer the points are to each other, the more similar the
photographs are considered to be. The photographs that were more frequently grouped together are
closer together and therefore can be regarded as conceptually more similar to each other. Points
which are further away from each other represent places are that conceptually different to
participants.

Table 2. Overview of MDS report of Sample One.

ID Profile Sco Freq Serial Case Number

V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6
7 1 6 5 3 4 1 20 1 A
2 2 7 4 5 3 4 25 1 BH
8 4 2 6 1 4 2 19 1 C
15 1 2 4 1 6 3 17 1 D
5 5 4 3 2 2 5 21 1 E
9 5 4 1 2 2 5 19 3 FJT
17 3 1 5 3 1 2 15 1 G
3 1 5 2 4 5 5 22 1 I
11 4 6 2 3 1 2 18 1 K
6 3 3 3 1 4 6 20 1 L
16 1 2 3 5 1 4 16 1 M
13 2 4 1 2 3 5 17 1 N
12 1 2 4 5 3 3 18 1 O
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 107 9 of 23

14 3 6 3 3 1 1 17 1 P
10 1 5 3 2 5 3 19 1 Q
1 4 3 4 5 6 4 26 1 R
4 1 5 2 4 6 4 22 1 S

Further, the two-dimensional output of MSA can be divided into regions with lines drawn to
best represent the categorizations of the participants. Points in one region share important common
aspects. Points in other regions show difference between perceptions of participants. Points in
adjacent areas to each other but divided by a line can have some similar aspects. The overall structure
of the output provides a representation of the aggregated data and each data’s reference has a much
stronger influence on where to draw the line to define the boundary of a region. In other words,
places close to the boundaries are ambiguous. The detailed accounts of these places lie in the profile
report. The coordinates, frequency of distribution for the data and the projection for each participant
is included in the MSA report. The descriptors participants used for grouping are essential for the
interpretation of the regions.

3.1.2. Commentary Content Analysis

There are two parts in the commentary session: articulating aloud the reasoning for the sorting
according to the descriptors; and responding to four specific questions directly addressing loneliness
in terms of where people may go in situations of feeling lonely. This part was performed in English
for the adults group aged 24–35 in Sample One, and conducted in both Swedish and English with the
elderly of Sample Two (the questions and description texts of the photographs were written in Swedish
and printed on paper to hand over to the elderly during the MST procedure; the elderly responded
mostly in Swedish occasionally using English words to complement or compare, e.g., lonely, alone,
by myself; in Swedish: ensam, själv, utan sällskap). The questions used are:

1) Which of the 20 places would you be most likely to go to?

2) Which of the 20 places would you be most likely to go to if you felt lonely?
3) Do you think any public space (places you go between your home and work) is missing in this
selection? If yes, please indicate what they are. You can describe their physical environment, the
activities there may be there, with whom you may go or if you may go there by yourself.
4) If you felt lonely (including temporally), where would you like to go and what kind of activities
would you wish to do?
The first two questions are single-choice questions. This allows quick appraisal of public spaces
that people like the most and may go to in situations of feeling lonely (by looking at the highest scored
places in relation to the questions asked). The other two are open questions which allow participants
to freely express themselves. The structured questions and the way they approach loneliness are
designed to enrich the data quality. The assumptions embedded in the question design are: (1) places
of high preference to an individual also have high potential for finding refuge and comfort in
situations of feeling lonely; and (2) any places missed out from the selection of 20 photographs can
be described by the individual, revealing some important aspects of those places to that individual.
These assumptions appear to be validated in the answers from the participants. These are described
in section 3.2 and the illustration provided in subsection 3.2.2.

3.2. Results

3.2.1. Visualization of the Conceptualizations

The sorting of the given public spaces for both samples is based on the participants inferring
their experience of the places in the photographs. The descriptors the participants used in relation to
this experience involve expected activities at those places, as well as emotions, feelings and senses
felt from viewing the environments the photographs depicted. These descriptors either reflect an
element of the three facets of place [102], or some combination of them. For example, descriptors for
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 107 10 of 23

physical activities noted by participants include shopping, meeting friends, passing through, sitting,
motion, etc.; descriptors for emotions, feelings, and senses included tourism, cultural, happy, relaxed,
meditative places or passive places, and other places.
As each picture is coded and given an ID in the MSA procedure, it is possible to insert the
original picture back into the two-dimension MSA outputs, which are originally presented with dots
(with ID number) in the space (Figure 2). For Sample One, five regions emerged from the MSA output.
‘General purpose places’ (GPP) cluster situates in the middle of the plot, ‘enclosed places’ (EP) locates
in the upper part and ‘open places’ (OP) positioned in the lower left area, ‘soft environment places’
(SEP) are on the left side and ‘hard environment places’ (HEP) on the lower right. The structure
progressed from the lower left ‘OP’/‘SEP’ region upward towards ‘SEP’/‘GPP’ then through
‘GPP’/‘EP’ and finally ends at ‘HEP’/‘OP’ which were in the lower right corner.

Figure 2. MSA output of Sample one.

Similarly, for Sample Two’s first sorting focusing on place experience, five regions appear in the
MSA output. After plotting the original picture back to the map (Figure 3), one can see two ‘GPP’
items right in the center of the plot, adjacent to a pair of ‘OP’ in the mid-upper plot and several ‘HEP’
in the mid-upper right area; a group of ‘EP’ hangs in the mid to lower right area; and a set of ‘SEP’
appears at the lower left. The structure progresses from ‘SEP’ on the lower left side up to ‘GPP’ and
‘OP’ then ends at ‘EP’ on lower right side.
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 107 11 of 23

Figure 3. MSA output of the first sorting round of Sample two.

Sorting directly addressing loneliness was carried out in the second sorting round of Sample Two.
It presents a different MSA output than the first sorting. Repeating the same technique, places can be
visualized on a two-dimensional map (Figure 4). Four regions emerged in this map. One is a set of
places noted by the participants as ‘general purpose places in the city that they can go to alone but
are better to go to together with someone’ (GPP-CP- GA/BT) which clusters in the middle of the plot.
A second group of places that features a major presence of nature was given the descriptor ‘local
places that they can go to alone but are better to go to together with someone’ (LP-GA/BT) gather in
the left and upper left region. A set of places featuring mostly hard surfaces or built environment
structures were noted as ‘city places maybe they can go alone’ (CP-MGA) are placed in the middle
right region. A group of four described as ‘local places that they can go alone’ (LP-GA) that feature
enclosed settings are located in the lower region of the plot.
Although the two samples explored have chosen different sets of photographs, which can make
any comparison challenging, they both carried out the sorting with a focus on a general place
experience and their MSA outputs are mostly consistent. The ‘SEP’ region in Figure 2 and Figure 3
are similar with natural features such as water and greenery present. Public architecture venues with
relatively classical building styles, such as museums, appear in the ‘OP’ region of both figures. Places
for shopping and consumption can be seen in the ‘EP’ and ‘HEP’ regions in both samples as well.
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 107 12 of 23

One exception was picture C (a local café), which was located slightly more toward the center in
Figure 2 than in Figure 3, where it is on the edge of the plot. Furthermore, photographs K, L, and P
always stay close to each other in both samples.

Figure 4. MSA output of the second sorting round of Sample two.

A comparison of the two sorting rounds within Sample Two is straight forward because the
photographs are the same. The MSA layouts and regions of the two sorting rounds have minor
differences. Picture M (a local church) changed from in the area of ‘GPP’/‘OP’/‘HEP’ in the first round
to ‘SEP’ (and places where one can go to alone but consider it to be better to go together with
someone) in the second round. Picture N (Skansen) moved from ‘SEP’ in the first sort towards general
purpose and open places in the city where you can both visit alone but it is better visit together with
someone in the second round. Picture A (a second hand store) and G (a supermarket) moved away
in the second sort from C, K, L, P cluster in the first round.

3.2.2. Verbal Elaborations

Drawing from the answers of the first two single-option questions, most participants, did turn
to their favorite place when they felt lonely. For the 24–35 year old adult participants in Sample One,
picture C (a local café) had the highest rate, whereas the highest rate for the elderly in Sample Two
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 107 13 of 23

was for picture O (a local library). The other two open questions managed to provide an assemblage
of types of places, characteristics of the environments, and activities to engage in when feeling lonely
(Table 3).

Table 3. Characteristics of public spaces people like to go to when they feel lonely.

Sample one: young adults (24–35 years old)

Public Space Characteristics Activities
coffee and refreshment, meeting
café cozy, authentic, local friends, reading, people watching,
working, surfing 1

pedestrian friendly, noise or calm, walking, promenading, viewing,

streets
with shopping opportunity people watching, shopping

walking, viewing, relaxing, sports

natural environments access to fresh air, water, greenery activities 2, meeting friends, talking to
strangers 3

sitting, relaxing, viewing, people

sitting environments 4 benches, lounge, seats
watching

book and stuff, community space, hangout, viewing, buying, reading,

local places 5
local meeting people

familiar places used often, necessary/unavoidable hangout, viewing, meeting people

high acoustic effects, busy, crowded,

noisy places running, walking
high energy, in motion

integrated interior-exterior viewing art, coffee, dinning, meeting

museums
environment, relatively quite friends

watching shows, films, listening to

theaters/concert halls acoustic, high visual effects music, drinks and food, meeting
friends

drinking 6, dancing, meeting friends,

bars and clubs noisy, relatively dark
talking to strangers
talking to friends, meeting and talking
virtual space through screens and tele-devices
to friends or strangers
Sample two: female elderly (67–74 years old)
Public Space Characteristics Activities
reading, listening to stories, borrowing
library local, have a café nearby
books
coffee and refreshment, meeting
café familiar with, local, traditional
friends, reading, people watching
integrated interior-exterior
designated place for meeting, learning, workshops, lunch,
environment, local neighborhood
elderly physical activities
(preferred) and city

access to fresh air, water and green walking, viewing, relaxing, sports
natural environments
spaces 7 activities 8, meeting friends

pedestrian friendly, calm, with walking, promenading, viewing,

streets
shopping opportunities people watching, shopping
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 107 14 of 23

benches, lounge, seats, indoor and sitting, relaxing, viewing, people

sitting environments
outdoor watching

second hand stores nostalgia, mixture of things, indoor hangout, viewing, shopping

familiar places used often, necessary/unavoidable hangout, viewing, meeting people

visual, relatively quiet, integrated viewing art, coffee, dinning, meeting

museums and galleries 9
interior-exterior environment friends
watching shows, films, listening to
theaters/concert halls acoustic, high visual effects music, drinks and food, meeting
friends

gym local, indoor individual or group physical training

talking to friends, meeting and talking

virtual space through screens and tele-devices
to grandchildren and family members
1working on computer/screen devices with access to internet; 2 noted running, walking dogs, biking;
3one non-Swedish participant noted that he would do such activities at cafés in other countries, e.g.,
Northern America, Korea, etc. but would not do in Sweden as he was aware of that might not be
considered as ‘normal’; 4 both outdoor and indoor; 5 noted comic bookstore; 6 with alcohol option; 7
noted the access to Swedish woods; 8 noted walking dogs, playing boules; 9 noted that galleries have
a commercial element, they usually present wider art communities than the museums, they are also
small in terms of their physical space on average.

4. Discussion

4.1. Contribution to Methodology: Viability and Value of MST

The samples have effectively demonstrated how MST can help reveal people’s conceptualization
of public space and its potential for investigating the links between loneliness and public space.
Although the two samples used here were very small and the photographs used differed between
samples, the results nevertheless revealed similar underlying structures. This does lend support to
the reliability and validity of this methodology. The results shown are coherent and stable, indicating
that people conceptualize public space differently in accordance to the focus of the conception process
[38,92]. Whether the focus is the general experience of the place, or specific situations such as feeling
lonely, the same places may be perceived differently between people, or even by the same person at
different times in their lives [38].
The benefit of the multiple sorting tasks, together with its opportunities for people to discuss
their category assignments, lies in its participatory process that is engaging and often enjoyable for
the participant. By making sorting the focus of the interview, it allows people to state their
conceptions about places without the need to fully clarify and verbalize how places may affect them.
The commentary session affirms and enriches the references for understanding people’s associations
to places. Overall, the MST has several key qualities that can make it effective. (1) It is a user-friendly
interactive tool for both researchers and participants [93]. It enhances communication with its
enjoyable form and ability to provide a learning opportunity for all involved. (2) It is time- and cost-
effective for exploring people’s conceptual systems or constructs [39]. (3) It is flexible in the choices
of material for the sorting and can be performed both verbally and nonverbally [38,39]. (4) Using
MSA as the analysis tool allows the development of a quantitative structure to reveal the underlying
bases for the qualitative material. It thus merges qualitative and quantitative aspects [93,96].

4.2. Contribution to Understanding the Nature of Interaction with Places

The aggregated results generally align with Canter’s theory of place [85,102] that emphasizes
how people hold their own mental constructs of places which contribute to the meaning of a place
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 107 15 of 23

for any individual. The results suggest that people’s use of public space is likely influenced by their
assumptions and expectations of activities which are afforded by those places. This also suggests that
perceptions of places can be changed through manipulation of the physical environment as well as
social and cultural forces [97]. This proposition could be perceived as being in line with the
environmental probabilism perspective [81–84]. The relationship between people and place is
dynamic, complex and dialectic, demanding careful examination. Acknowledging this can advance
the understanding of the role of urban planning and urban design in relation to public space and the
interrelationship between loneliness and public space.

4.3. Contribution to Understanding the Potential of Public Space in Mitigating Loneliness

The results of people’s conceptualization of public space in this study has complemented the
current understanding of public space by providing an account of users’ subjective experience. This
adds to Alimadanipour’s argument for a multi-dimensional definition of public space, addressing
who public space matters for at a rhetorical and reality level [104], and Carmona’s overarching
typology of contemporary public space as a reaction to the critiques anchored in the management
aspect [11,12]. Through the MST demonstrated in this study, it shows that public accessibility is a key
concern for individuals when considering going to a public space, and that this judgement is based
upon the participants’ everyday living experiences of the city. The five categories ‘OP’, ‘EP’, ‘SEP’,
‘HEP’ and ‘GPP’ of public space discovered through the samples did not happen by chance.
Distinguishing natural environment from the built environment has clearly objective basis, but its
subjective implications, especially in an urban context have been emphasized in this study.
Furthermore, the built environment has been found to be more complex and interesting because it is
a mixture of physical, social, and culture components according to the individual conceptualizations
shown in the samples.
Whether a public space is free of charge was not the primary issue considered when people
search for social interactions in public space. The best evidence demonstrated in the study is that
‘café’ was identified as an effective place for mitigating loneliness for both young adults from Sample
One and elderly from Sample Two. It implies that the café as a ‘third place’ has a unique quality for
people who are vulnerable to loneliness. According to Oldenburg, third places such as cafés, coffee
shops, book stores, bars, hair salons, and other ‘hangouts’ provide people with “a home away from
home” because they are equally open for all who seek social interactions and community building
[30]. Rosenbaum went further to describe the values that third places provide as ‘commercial social
support’ [31]. New York City sought to re-energize urban space for social use by inventing ‘privately
owned public space’ (POPS) [29]. Another recent example includes the U.K. National Trust project
on Loneliness, which is designed to get people to “start talking” to enhance the radical act of
community service [105].
On the other hand, both in Sample One and Sample Two, those “free” public spaces in terms of
streets, libraries, elderly activity centers run by public authorities, as well as natural environments
(like parks and waterfronts) are also important meeting places. As such, their presence in urban areas
may contribute to reducing the loneliness of urban populations, though establishing a direct link
would require further studies. This would be in addition to many other health benefits provided by
the presence of nature that have been evidenced in various studies [17,18,21–26]. The effectiveness of
these spaces as meeting places, however, may change under different circumstances. For example,
one of the elderly participants (Sample Two) commented that in situations of feeling lonely, the picture
of Skansen (picture N - the outdoor museum of Swedish culture and history) could make her feel
comfortable by walking in a natural and nostalgic environment, but it could also emotionally trigger
her loneliness to another level if she saw people around her in that environment were all in pairs or
groups.
Familiarity of the actual places in the photographs during the MST procedure plays a vital role
in people’s conception process [38,39,97]. One of the 24–35 year old adult participants (Sample One)
commented on the picture of a local park (picture S, which features a fountain, trees, benches, and a
circular street) that they would go to the place shown in the picture for lunch or to hang out if they
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 107 16 of 23

did not know that place was “the only place people don’t say hello to each other”. This implies that
the individual experience in terms of one’s perceived social dynamics and invisible local culture has
a strong influence on people’s conceptualization of places. Similarly, one elderly participant (Sample
One) commented on picture C, a local café, that the place looked nice and she may even go there if
she felt lonely without the knowledge of what kind of crowd may hang out there. She emphasized
that she would never go to that café if she knew that the regulars of that place hold an opposing
political view to her own. Hence knowing the place may be more important than the appearance of
the place in influencing an individual’s conception of a place and the decision of whether to go there
and what to do there.
When loneliness was directly addressed as a focus in the conception process during sorting in
Sample Two, the central concern for the groupings of public space was the consideration of whether it
is was better to go there alone, or together with someone else. Compared with Sample One, loneliness
was only addressed in the verbal part in Sample Two, not in the non-verbal part (sorting). Sample Two
also provided new inputs indicating a distinction between the self and perceived self-situation in
relation to the environment. “Going alone” may imply different meanings: one indicates a sense of
safety; the other means going alone to those places where you at least would not feel lonelier.
Nevertheless, the assumptions the participants hold during their cognitive responses during sorting
is that they were physically alone or emotionally felt alone if they are in situations of feeling lonely.
Their perceived feeling of comfortableness influences their decisions on which places they can go to
seek refuge or social interactions. Out of Cacioppo and Patrik’s tips of ways to find social connections
against loneliness, “making the lonely person feel safe” is one of their most genuine pieces of advice
because that feeling can never be logically justified and an unsafe feeling is rooted in feelings of
rejection [53].
Further, besides more common points shared by the young adults in Sample One and the elderly
of Sample Two in their responses to a “place to go in situations of feeling lonely”, there was a slight
divergence between the two groups. This demonstrated that social factors might have a stronger
influence on what people think they can do and where to go when they feel lonely. For example, a
“designated place for [the] elderly” was addressed by the elderly, and “bars and clubs” relating to
alcohol consumption was marked by the young adults’ sample.
The results of the study also demonstrated differences in personality and preferences between
and within the two sample groups. Some young adults prefer to go to noisy places to fight loneliness,
while others found comfort by sitting in a café to do people watching. Members from the elderly
sample on the other hand showed preference for going to the local library or gym when feeling lonely.
Finally, there are a few limitations of the study: (1) The current MST samples are relatively small,
though the non-metric statistic nature of the analysis made the generation of useful findings possible;
(2) the notion of ‘virtual public space’ has not been incorporated into the sorting procedure of the
MST. This was discussed in the commentary session but was not included in the sorting itself; (3)
‘public transportation as public spaces’ was considered to be important but disliked by the
participants. This shows the emergence of issues that need further exploration within the concept of
public space. This leads to results that may undervalue its place in the context of understanding
contributing factors to loneliness (and its mitigation), as public transportation can play a vital role in
moving people between places for social interactions [64,67]; (4) the elderly sample was all female, as
it was more difficult to find engaged males in that community who wished to participate and
communicate. This means that gender differences in conceptualization may not be understood or
included in the findings. Future studies that may increase the size of the sample with to increase the
ability to generalize results should include male and female participants in each age group. Also,
perspectives of the evaluation of planning and design of public space [106], as well as spatial
knowledge acquisition [107] can be brought in to help advance understanding of the study subject.
Nevertheless, the MST’s core strength is measuring proximity of results connoting similarity and
differences in conceptions of place in individuals and between them, which is evidenced in the
samples completed in this study.

5. Conclusions
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 107 17 of 23

The highlight of the study is that it has demonstrated the MST’s viability in eliciting people’s
conceptualization of public space and its positive potential for investigating the link between
loneliness and public space through a combined qualitative and quantitative methodology. Given
the relatively small sizes of the samples, further applications of the MST in this field are
recommended to test and compare results. The samples revealed that people conceptualize public
space differently when they feel lonely. Although natural environments (‘soft environments’) give
people comfort and therefore may be relevant to reducing feelings of loneliness, other social and
cultural factors may change those perceptions of that environment and increase feelings of loneliness.
Built environments with different features, including ‘open’, ‘enclosed’, ‘hard’, and ‘general purpose
places’ (such as a café, library, street, bookstore, second hand store, local places for hanging out, etc.),
were illustrated in the study as being able to provide opportunities for social interactions and social
support in different ways. Further studies may possibly develop a typology of relevant public spaces
that may alleviate specific types of loneliness within specific groups. It could include building a
taxonomy of physical features and contexts of those relevant public spaces relevant to stimulating
beneficial social interactions among and between groups. The uniqueness of the approach applied in
this paper can contribute new pathways in understanding public spaces, and provide theoretical and
practical implications for planning and urban design addressing loneliness.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J,J., D.C. and T.H.; methodology, J.J. and D.C.; software, J.J. and D.C.;
validation, J.J., D.C. and T.H.; formal analysis, J.J.; investigation, J.J.; resources, J.J.; data curation, J.J.; writing—
original draft preparation, J.J.; writing—review and editing, J.J., D.C.; visualization, J.J.; supervision, D.C. and
T.H.; project administration, J.J.; funding acquisition, J.J.

Funding: This research was made possible by the Axel and Margaret Ax:son Johnson Foundation.

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank all respondents whom volunteered to participate in the
MST. Special thanks to Dr. Mats Lundström, Stefan Lundberg and Hannes Hellgren for their support in assisting
the workshops with the elderly in Farsta Stockholm. Additionally the author would like to thank Dr. Andrew P.
Karvonen for his review and comments for the paper’s first draft.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 107 18 of 23

Appendix A

Figure A1. Sample One: 20 public spaces for MST (selected by the authors).
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 107 19 of 23

Figure A2. Sample Two: 20 public spaces for MST (selected by the participants from Farsta
Stockholm).
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 107 20 of 23

References
1. Whyte, W.H. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces; Conservation Foundation: Washington, DC, USA, 1980.
2. Jacobs, J. The Death and Life of Great American Cities; Vintage: New York, NY, USA, 1961.
3. Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I., Angel, S. A Pattern Language:
Towns, Buildings, Construction; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1977.
4. Lynch, K. The Image of the City; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1960; Volume 11.
5. Project for Public Spaces. Available online: https://www.pps.org/article/grplacefeat (accessed on 3
November 2019).
6. Shaftoe, H. Convivial Urban Spaces: Creating Effective Public Places; Earthscan: London, UK, 2008.
7. Gehl, J. Life between Buildings: Using Public Space; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2011.
8. Sennett, R. Building and Dwelling: Ethics for the City; Penguin: London, UK, 2018.
9. Mitchell, D. The End of Public Space? People's Park, Definitions of the Public, and Democracy. Ann. Am.
Assoc. Geogr. 1995, 85, 108–133.
10. Kaydon, J. Using and Misusing Law to Design the Public Realm. In Regulating Place: Standards and the
Shaping of Urban America; Ben-Josef, E., Szold, T., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA; London, UK, 2005;
pp. 115–140.
11. Carmona, M. Contemporary public space: Critique and classification, part one: Critique. J. Urban Des. 2010,
15, 123–148.
12. Carmona, M. Contemporary public space, part two: Classification. J. Urban Des. 2010, 15, 157–173.
13. Low, S. The Erosion of Public Space and the Public Realm: Paranoia, surveillance and privatization in New
York City. City Soc. 2006, 18, 43–49.
14. Turkle, S. Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet; Simon & Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 1997.
15. Zizi, P. The Virtual Sphere 2.0: The Internet, the Public Sphere and beyond. In Routledge Handbook of Internet
Politics; Chadwick, A., Howard, P., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2010.
16. Graham, S.; Aurigi, A. Virtual Cities, Social Polarization, and the Crisis in Urban Public Space. JUT 1997, 4,
19–52.
17. Xu, Y.; Wang, F. Built Environment and Obesity by Urbanicity in the U.S. Health Place 2015, 34, 19.
18. Lopez, R.P.; Hynes, H.P. Obesity, physical activity, and the urban environment: Public health research
needs. Environ. Health 2006, 5, 25.
19. Lutwak, N.; Dill, C. The Mind Body Connection and Cardiovascular Disease. Int. J. Clin. Pract. 2012, 66,
1126–1127.
20. Karren, K.; Smith, N.; Gordon, K. Mind/Body Health: The Effects of Attitudes, Emotions, and Relationships, 5th
ed.; Pearson: London, UK, 2013.
21. Halpern, D. Mental Health and the Built Environment. J. Biosoc. Sci. 1997, 29, 251–256.
22. Alcock, I.; White, M.P.; Wheeler, B.W.; Fleming, L.E.; Depledge, M.H. Longitudinal effects on mental health
of moving to greener and less green urban areas. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 1247–1255.
23. Francis, J.; Wood, L.J.; Knuiman, M.; Giles-Corti, B. Quality or quantity? Exploring the relationship between
Public Open Space attributes and mental health in Perth, Western Australia. Soc. Sci. Med. 2012, 74, 1570–
1577.
24. Oldenburg, R. The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons, and Other Hangouts at
the Heart of a Community, 3rd ed.; Marlowe & Company: New York, NY, USA, 1999.
25. Rosenbaum, M.; Ward, J. A cup of coffee with a dash of love: An investigation of commercial social support
and third-place attachment. J. Serv. Res. 2007, 10, 43–59.
26. Francis, J.; Giles-Corti, B.; Wood, L.; Knuiman, M. Creating sense of community: The role of public space.
J. Environ. Psychol. 2012, 32, 401–409.
27. Kayden, J. The Department of Planning of the City of New York, The Municipal Art Society of New York.
In Privately Owned Public Space: The New York City Experience; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA,
2000.
28. Swapan, A.; Marinova, D.; Bay, J. Understanding the Importance of Front Yard Accessibility for
Community Building: A Case Study of Subiaco, Western Australia. Urban Sci. 2018, 2, 41.
29. Kaplan, S. The Restorative Benefits of Nature: Toward an Integrative Framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 1995,
15, 169–182.
30. Roger, U. View through a Window may Influence Recovery from Surgery. Science 1984, 224, 420.
31. Wilson, E. Biophilia; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1984.
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 107 21 of 23

32. Cacioppo, J.; Cacioppo, S. The Growing Problem of Loneliness. Lancet 2018, 391, 426.
33. Campaign to End Loneliness. Available online: https://www.campaigntoendloneliness.org (accessed on 3
November 2019).
34. Tian, X Loneliness: A Psychological Turning Point in the Reconstruction of the Urban Order in China. Soc.
Sci. China 2010, 31, 147–164.
35. Holt-Lunstad, J.; Smith, T.B.; Layton, J.B. Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review.
PLoS Med. 2010, 7, e1000316.
36. O’Connell, H.; Chin, A.V.; Cunningham, C.; Lawlor, B.A. Recent developments: Suicide in older people.
BMJ 2004, 29, 895–899.
37. Olds, J.; Schwartz, R. The Lonely American: Drift Apart in the Twenty-first Century; Beason Press: Boston, MA,
USA, 2009.
38. Canter, D.; Brown, J.; Groat, L. A Multiple Sorting Procedure for Studying Conceptual Systems. In The
Research Interview: Uses and Approaches, 1st ed.; Brenner, M., Brown, J., Canter, D., Eds.; Academic Press:
London, UK, 1985.
39. Groat, L. Meaning in post-modern architecture: An examination using the multiple sorting task. J. Environ.
Psychol. 1982, 2, 3–22.
40. European Green Capital. Available online:
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/europeangreencapital/winning-cities/2010-stockholm/ (accessed on 3
November 2019).
41. Proportion of Single Person Households, 2017, Eurostat. Available online:
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/4187653/8516146/Proportion+of+single+person+households%2C
+2017.png (accessed on 3 November 2019).
42. Peplau, L.; Perlman, D. (Eds.) Loneliness: A Sourcebook of Current Theory, Research, and Therapy, 1st ed.; Wiley
Series on Personality Processes; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1982; Volume 36.
43. Marangoni, C.; Ickes, W. Loneliness: A theoretical review with implications for measurement. J. Soc. Pers.
Relatsh. 1989, 6, 93–128.
44. Routasalo, P.; Savikko, N.; Tilvis, R.S.; Strandberg, T.E.; Pitkala, K.H. Social contacts and their relationship
to loneliness among aged people—A population-based study. Gerontology 2006, 52, 181–187.
45. Russell, D.; Peplau, L.A.; Ferguson, M.L. Developing a measure of loneliness. J. Personal. Assess. 1978, 42,
290–294.
46. Gierveld, J.D.; Van Tilburg, T. The De Jong Gierveld short scales for emotional and social loneliness: Tested
on data from 7 countries in the UN generations and gender surveys. Eur. J. Ageing. 2010, 7, 121–130.
47. Weiss, R.S. Loneliness: The Experience of Emotional and Social Isolation; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1973.
48. Shaver, P.R.; Brennan, K.A. Measures of depression. Meas. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Attitudes 1991, 1, 195–289.
49. Tanskanen, J.; Anttila, T. A prospective study of social isolation, loneliness, and mortality in Finland. Am.
J. Public Health. 2016, 106, 2042–2048.
50. Jong-Gierveld, J.D.; van Tilburg, T.G.; Dykstra, P.A. Loneliness and Social Isolation; Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge, UK, 2006.
51. Long, C R.; Averill, J.R. Solitude: An exploration of benefits of being alone. J. Theory Soc. Behav. 2003, 33,
21–44.
52. Storr, A. Solitude: A Returen to the Self; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1988.
53. Cacioppo, J.T.; Patrick, W. Loneliness: Human Nature and the Need for Social Connection; WW Norton &
Company: New York, NY, USA, 2008.
54. Mirowsky, J.; Ross, C.E. Age and depression. J. Health Soc. Behav. 1992, 33, 187–205.
55. Ladd, G.W.; Ettekal, I. Peer-related loneliness across early to late adolescence: Normative trends, intra-
individual trajectories, and links with depressive symptoms. J. Adolesc. 2013, 36, 1269–1282.
56. Nicolaisen, M.; Thorsen, K. Who are lonely? Loneliness in different age groups (18–81 years old), using two
measures of loneliness. Int. J. Aging Hum. Dev. 2014, 78, 229–257.
57. Rokach, A.; Neto, F. Age, culture, and the antecedents of loneliness. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 2005, 33, 477–
494.
58. Lafee, S. Serious Loneliness Spans the Adult Lifespan but there is a Silver Lining. Available online:
https://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrelease/serious_loneliness_spans_the_adult_lifespan_but_there_is_a_silv
er_lining (accessed on 3 November 2019).
59. Yang, K.; Victor, C. Age and loneliness in 25 European nations. Ageing Soc. 2011, 31, 1368–1388.
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 107 22 of 23

60. Cacioppo, J.T.; Fowler, J.H.; Christakis, N.A. Alone in the crowd: The structure and spread of loneliness in
a large social network. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2009, 97, 977.
61. Killeen, C. Loneliness: An epidemic in modern society. J. Adv. Nurs. 1998, 28, 762–770.
62. Pinquart, M.; Sörensen, S. Influences on loneliness in older adults: A meta-analysis. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol.
2001, 23, 245–266.
63. Scharf, T.; De Jong Gierveld, J. Loneliness in urban neighbourhoods: An Anglo-Dutch comparison. Eur. J.
Ageing 2008, 5, 103–115.
64. Van den Berg, P.; Kemperman, A.; de Kleijn, B.; Borgers, A. Ageing and loneliness: The role of mobility and
the built environment. Travel Behav. Soc. 2016, 5, 48–55.
65. Weijs-Perrée, M.; van den Berg, P.; Arentze, T.A.; Kemperman, A. Factors influencing social satisfaction
and loneliness: A path analysis. J. Transp. Geogr. 2015, 45, 24–31.
66. Van den Berg, P.; Arentze, T.; Timmermans, H. Estimating social travel demand of senior citizens in the
Netherlands. J. Transp. Geogr. 2011, 19, 323–331.
67. Delmelle, E.C.; Haslauer, E.; Prinz, T. Social satisfaction, commuting and neighborhoods. J. Transp. Geogr.
2013, 30, 110–116.
68. Norberg-Schulz, C. The Concept of Dwelling; Rizzoli: New York, NY, USA, 1985
69. Fischer, C.S. To Dwell Among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City; University of Chicago Press:
Chicago, IL, USA, 1982.
70. Seamon, D. A Geography of the Lifeworld: Movement, Rest and Encounter St; Martin’s Press: New York, NY,
USA, 1979.
71. Dovey, K. Home and homelessness. In Home Environments; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1985; pp. 33–64.
72. Relph, E. Place and Placelessness; Pion: London, UK, 1976.
73. Altman, I.; Low, S.M. (Eds.) Place Attachment; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 2012.
74. Proshansky, H.M. The City and Self-Identity. Environ. Behav. 1978, 10, 147–169.
75. Andrew S Neo-environmental determinism, intellectual damage control, and nature/society science.
Antipode 2003, 35, 813–817.
76. Semple, E.C. Influences of the Geographic Environment; Henry Holt: New York, NY, USA, 1933.
77. Ellen, R. Environment, Subsistence and System: The Ecology of Small-Scale Social Formations; Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1982.
78. Taylor, G. Environment, village and city: A genetic approach to urban geography; with some reference to
possibilism. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 1942, 32, 1–67.
79. Kunz, W.M. Culture Conglomerates: Consolidation in the Motion Picture and Television Industries; Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers: Lanham, MD, USA, 2006.
80. Turkle, S. Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other; Hachette: New York,
NY, USA, 2017.
81. Fekadu, K. The paradox in environmental determinism and possibilism: A literature review. J. Geogr. Reg.
Plan. 2014, 7, 132–139.
82. Lewthwaite, G.R. Environmentalism and determinism: A search for clarification. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr.
1966, 56, 1–23.
83. Bell, P.; Green, T.; Fisher, J.; Baum, A. Environmental Psychology; Psychology Press, Lodon, UK, 2001.
84. Littke, H.; Haas, T. Urban Form and human behavior. In Report of the Centre for the Future of Places; KTH
Royal Institute of Sweden: Stockholm, Sweden, 2018.
85. Canter, D. Applied Psychology. In Inaugural Lecture at University of Surrey; University of Surrey Archive:
London, UK, 1985.
86. Self, J. Mies’s Mansion House Square: The Best Building London Never Had? The Guardian, 2017.
Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/feb/11/mies-van-der-rohe-mansion-house-
square-best-building-london-never-had (accessed on 3 November 2019).
87. Stephenson, W. The Study of Behavior: Q-technique and its Methodology; University of Chicago Press: Chicago,
IL, USA, 1953.
88. Fransella, F.; Bannister, D. A Manual for Repertory Grid Technique; Academic Press, London, UK, 1977.
89. Vygotsky, L. Thought and Language; MIT Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1934.
90. Bruner, I.; Goodnow, I.; Austin, G. A Study of Thinking; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1956.
91. Kelly, G. The Psychology of Personal Constructs; Norton: New York, NY, USA, 1955.
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 107 23 of 23

92. Canter, D.; Comber, M. A multivariate approach to multiple sorting Sequence Analysis. In Surrey
Conferences on Sociological Theory and Method II; Proctor, P., Ed.; Aldershot: Gower, UK, 1985.
93. Morrison, P.; Gluyas, H.; Stomski, N. Structuring educational decisions using the multiple sorting task: An
example focusing on international placements in nursing. Nurse Educ. Pract. 2017, 26, 53–58.
94. Glaw, X.; Inder, K.; Kable, A.; Hazelton, M. Visual Methodologies in qualitative research: Autophotography
and Photo elicitation applied to mental health research. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2017, 16, 1609406917748215.
95. Jung, H. Let their voices be seen: Exploring mental mapping as a feminist visual methodology for the study
of migrant women. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2014, 38, 985–1002.
96. Morrison, P.; Bauer, I. A clinical application of the multiple sorting technique. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 1993, 30,
511–518.
97. Scott, M.J.; Canter, D.V. Picture or place? A multiple sorting study of landscape. J. Environ. Psychol. 1997,
17, 263–281.
98. A Brief Guide to Measuring Loneliness. Available online: https://whatworkswellbeing.org/product/brief-
guide-to-measuring-loneliness/ (accessed on 3rd November 2019).
99. Hari, J. Lost Connections: Uncovering the Real Causes of Depression-and the Unexpected Solutions; Bloomsbury
Publishing: London, UK, 2019.
100. Shuttleworth, S. The use of Photographs as an banks of the Tees Environment Presentation Medium in
Landscape 11. Scaling Dam. An artificial dam used for water Studies. J. Environ. Manag. 1980, 11, 61–76.
101. Hull, R.B.; Revell, G.R. Cross-Cultural Comparison of Landscape Scenic Beauty Evaluations: A case study
in Bali. J. Environ. Psychol. 1989, 9, 177–191.
102. Canter, D. The Psychology of Place; Architectural Press: London, UK, 1977.
103. HUDAP—Hebrew University Software Informer. Available online: https://hudap.software.informer.com/
(accessed on 3 November 2019).
104. Madanipour, A. (Ed.) Whose Public Space? International Case Studies in Urban Design and Development;
Routledge: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 2013.
105. “Start talking”: National Trust Project Takes on Loneliness. Available online:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/01/start-talking-national-trust-initiative-tackles-issue-
of-loneliness (accessed on 3 November 2019).
106. Shahab, S.; Clinch, J.P.; O’Neill, E. Impact-based planning evaluation: Advancing normative criteria for
policy analysis. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 2019, 46, 534–550.
107. Ahmadpoor, N.; Shahab, S. Spatial Knowledge Acquisition in the Process of Navigation: A Review. Curr.
Urban Stud. 2019, 7, doi:10.4236/cus.2019.71001.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).