Introduction

Public spaces provide various activities and social interactions in dense urban areas. As soon as the COVID-19 pandemic spread worldwide, significant changes in the city-dweller’s daily life routines occurred due to the restrictions. Thus, according to the “new norms” of the post-pandemic era, the public space design context has stimulated heated arguments. In contrast to the characteristics of public space, which are open and accessible to everyone, a large percentage of the world population became home-bound at the beginning of the pandemic (Sandford 2020). Access to public space and sociability were restricted (Mehta 2020). Therefore, how COVID-19 may affect public space design and users’ behavior remains somewhat uncertain. Different disciplines, including significant changes in the city-dwellers’ daily life routines, occurred due to the restrictions of public space change, how long these changes would last, or whether the current social behaviors will be permanent or temporary (Honey-Rosés et al. 2020; Mehta 2020; Davy 2021). Whether the COVID-19 has changed the physical and behavioral aspects of public space remains a heated debate (Megahed and Ghoneim 2020; Stevens et al. 2021). The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in more isolated and socially distanced public space design and planning criteria.

In the wake of the emergence of new social life conditions of the pandemic, spending time in crowded interiors jeopardizes the inhabitants’ health. The COVID-19 threats to indoor activities have forced people to engage in outdoor activities more frequently. Thus, public spaces have become frequent destinations for individuals. In line with this, some studies reported that neighborhood parks were more active than before and after the lockdown (van der Berg 2020). However, questions surrounding the transition of frequent use of public open spaces and whether they establish more robust connections between people and the built environment during these challenging times remain under-explored.

This study explores the changing characteristics of public space users’ behavior as a result of the pandemic consequences. It aims to address the following research questions: What are the observed transformations in public space users’ behavior during the pandemic? Do public spaces have the potential to transform into sociofugal spaces by the COVID-19?

The role of public spaces before and during the COVID-19

Public spaces have played essential roles in cities since the emergence of urban life. For chaotic cities, public spaces bring together various people and provide opportunities to contact and socialize (Carmona et al. 2010). The benefits of public spaces could be interrupted or transformed by extreme conditions such as disasters, wars, and pandemics. While the COVID-19 pandemic has brought many changes to cities and urban life, it has also affected public spaces (Van der Werf et al. 2021; El Khateeb and Shawket 2022). With the pandemic, access to public spaces has been limited, public spaces have been redefined in distance measures, and updates have been made in public space designs accordingly. Public spaces were transformed and adapted to pandemic conditions (Honey-Rosés et al. 2020; Erdonmez and Atmis 2021; Liu and Wang 2021).

In various countries, new public space designs have been put forward, considering the hygiene and social distance regulations. Such design ideas are expressed with the concept of post-covid public space. Streets, squares, sidewalks, open eating and drinking areas, children’s playgrounds, and seating areas are redesigned according to social distance rules. One of the most popular examples of post-pandemic public space designs is the circles at Domino Park in Brooklyn. Circles around 6 and 8 m apart, drawn to create social distance, are promising public spaces that practically adapt to the pandemic period (Harrouk 2020). In addition, post-COVID public space designs, such as “Gastro Safe Zone,” reorganize eating and drinking areas in Czechia, a playground design proposal “Rimbin” by Martin Binder and Claudio Rimmele, a post-COVID park design, “Parc de la Distance” developed by Studio Precht. Furthermore, street arrangements prioritizing pedestrian movements in various cities, i.e., Milan, Bogota, Paris, Oakland, New York, and San Francisco, have been planned to prevent adverse impacts of pandemics in addition to socializing in public spaces(Bereitschaft & Scheller 2020; Anggriani 2021; Gregg et al. 2022). Innovative design strategies have been developed using public spaces socially during the pandemic.

Many studies emphasize that the importance of public spaces for urban dwellers has increased during the pandemic (Ugolini et al. 2020; Addas and Maghrabi 2022). These studies suggest that the pandemic may change people’s behavior in public spaces (Venter et al. 2021; Nikolaidou et al. 2023). Besides, the COVID-19 pandemic is an opportunity for more livable cities (Sepe 2021). Studies emphasize that new public space designs that are more accessible, used by fewer people, and more open will occur in future (ConsTable 2020). However, whether they are potential places that strengthen the communication between people (sociopetal) or restrict it (sociofugal) remains unexplored in the literature. What are the sociopetality and sociofugality terms?

Seeking to identify the interior spaces of the hospital based on their design characteristics, i.e., whether they distribute (sociofugal) or gather patients (sociopetal), respectively (Lang and Moleski 2010), the terms “sociofugal” and “sociopetal” were first introduced by Humphry Osmond (Osmond 1966). Sociopetal spaces bring people together and keep social interaction alive by combining and coinciding with different routes. Conversely, sociofugal spaces separate people and cut off social interaction (Lang 1987). While these concepts provide significant parameters for interior design, they are also crucial for public space design. Contrary to sociopetal spaces, the sociofugal space arrangement protects people’s personal space and immunity unless they are willing to communicate with each other. The hospitals’ waiting rooms, government offices, and airport waiting areas are typical sociofugal grid layouts.

Looking at the public open space specifics brings to mind different parameters contributing to this relationship. Beyond the impacts of urban furniture on sociability in public spaces, the users’ behavior and various mutual needs considerably matter. According to the Prospect and Refuge theory developed by Jay Appleton, the “shelter” areas where users feel protected represent sociofugal space characteristics (Appleton 1975). Cultural backgrounds also influence sociopetality since different ethnicities, such as Latin and Anglo-Americans, show different proximity behavior reactions when communicating (Lesan and Gjerde 2021).

Speculating sociopetality of post-pandemic public spaces

The environment–human behavior brings to mind a two-way relationship. While social behavior shapes the place character (Gehl 1987; Carmona 2003; Lang 2005), as a platform of human behavior, the environment generates a transactive relationship with the people (Itelson 1976). Similarly, Altman (1992) also states that the relationship between humans and the environment is interactive (Moser et al. 2002). This reveals a bilateral mechanism between humans and the environment. Thus, additional human–environment situations emerge after revealing the environment and individual behavior, leading to new behaviors (Proshansky 1976).

Similarly, the changes in people’s daily life practices with the COVID-19 pandemic may reflect new behavioral aspects in using the public space. This boils down to whether, as a result of the post-pandemic public space behavior, people can transform sociopetal into sociofugal public space. This study examines how the spatial characteristics of public spaces and the users’ behaviors in public spaces have changed. More specifically, this research addresses how the post-pandemic period affects the users’ behaviors in public space and whether such transformations include transitions from sociopetal to sociofugal characteristics in light of the changing public space requirements imposed by the pandemic. The study uses a case study approach to respond to the research question.

Methodology

Research design

The study performed case study research developed by Robert Yin (2009). It essentially involves “how” and “what” questions, and selecting a case study is appropriate for the concentration of this study. Therefore, the study determined Uc Fidan park as a case design (Yin 2009). The case study methodology is a qualitative research design type and may require different sources, i.e., documents, observations, interviews, and focus groups (Creswell 2014; Yin 2009). Seeking to explore a complex phenomenon or a research question triggers case study research (Merriam 2009; Stake 2013; Yin 2009). In addition, case study research associates a unique case with details and provides a more synergetic and comprehensive view to research questions. (Punch 2005; Flyvbjerg 2006).

The first stage of the case study research is determining the research questions (Yin 2009). The study followed these research questions; what are the observed transformations in public space users’ behavior during the pandemic? Do public spaces have the potential to transform into sociofugal spaces by the COVID-19? If so, how do such spaces utilize those aspects? The second stage follows this phase by determining the research design structure. The dataset included field observation, photography, note-taking, and sketches regarding the research questions. Those data for the case study were analyzed and interpreted by summarizing and comparing them with other studies, converting them into codes, and defining patterns (Yin 2014) (Fig. 1). Another vital point of case study design is that the case area is investigated in its natural context, limited to space and time. In other words, place and time are essential phenomena in case studies (Hancock and Algozzine 2006). Within the scope of this research, the study area—Üç Fidan Park- was visited and observed at certain times of the day.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Adapted from Yin (2014)

Phases of case study research.

Full size image

Study location and context

The study area-Üç Fidan Park- is located in Bursa, the fourth biggest city of Turkey, with a historical background as the first capital city of the Ottoman Empire, natural values such as Uludağ Mountain, many urban parks, and developed industry, the study area-Üç Fidan Park- is located in Bursa, the fourth biggest city of Turkey. The park is in the İhsaniye Neighborhood of Nilüfer District, one of Bursa’s central districts. The district is located on the city’s periphery with new residential areas, more green spaces, and social amenities than the city center. Residential areas surround the neighborhood park. With its accessible location to Nilüfer tram and bus stops, the park is adjacent to the İzmir Highway, where the Bursa tramline is also located. Located at the intersection of several amenities, shopping centers, hotels, and banks are close to the park. Thanks to its visual and physical connection through sidewalks and openness from all sides, the park is highly accessible to pedestrians. Although green areas cover a large portion of the park, it is partially defined by the wooden seating units on the central axis passing through it. Üç Fidan Park is also a memorial and protest place with the Üç Fidan Monument. “Üç Fidan,” which means three saplings in Turkish, is the memory of three Turkish activists who were executed in the 1972 coup. The secular fraction of Turkey respects the activists. The park is used heavily for social events by specific users who live nearby, has no pandemic design rearrangements, and semi-open spaces (pavilion, café) that expand the observation of post-pandemic public space users’ behavior, so the park is appropriate for case study. (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Study area with divided zones

Full size image

The study performed a systematic non-participant behavior observation conducted from the first three weeks of January 2021 -winter period- to August 2021-summer period to observe seasonal changes and lockdown effects on users’ behavior. This method relies upon core landscape architecture studies. As Deming and Swaffield (2011) highlighted, this technique provides rigorous descriptive understanding to research regarding the nature and specified location of public space users’ activities and an understanding of their association with public space design. Also, the study did not need ethics approval as the research did not involve any individuals to get feedback, except by conducting a series of systematic observations from the study area.

Research process

During the first observation in January, with weekend lockdowns, cafes, restaurants, and shopping malls were closed in Turkey. The second observation in August faced no restrictions, however. This observation offered a “thick description” of the scope of the study (Carspecken 1996; Geertz 1973). As many other studies performed, the observations were conducted every morning and afternoon by taking field notes, photos, and drawing sketches on the site (Pitsikali and Parnell 2020). Furthermore, to understand the effects of the environment on user behavior, the researchers noticed three separate virtual zones in the park based on the flexibility and defined use of open space (Fig. 3). Zone-1: Pavilion (Semi-open space), Zone-2: Path with Benches (Open space partially determined with the urban furniture, and Zone-3: Green Areas (Flexible open space in terms of use). The second observation made in August for summer, the area of Zone-3, covered by green space, was separated as Zone-3 and Zone-4 with some changes due to the new construction of the cafe. The observations were evaluated individually for each zone in summer.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Pavilion, path, green area, cafe surrounding

Full size image

During two observations in winter and summer, taking photos and sketching methods were utilized in the park for approximately 20–30 min. Within the scope of the study, the stationary activities observed during the park visit were photographed and documented (Gehl and Svarre 2013).

As a noteworthy explanation of seasons, it is expected that fewer people tend to use public spaces during the winter as summer is more joy and celebration time (Gehl 1990). However, some cultures and cities represent interior or underground cities by protecting individuals from the adverse season effects, i.e., some North American cities (Gehl 1990; Li 1994). However, other cities embrace the environment in all seasons, i.e., Copenhagen (Pressman 1987). So, the study area and the habits of people in this city represent the second type, where people use public spaces all seasons. Furthermore, considering the COVID-19 effects and lockdown periods, people psychologically tend to go out when there is no lockout, no matter the time of the day and the day of the week.

The post-pandemic public space user behavior analysis revealed variables such as the distance between the users during a static activity, changes in body posture, and the equipment/instrument they use to maintain social distance. Stationary activities were categorized into sitting and standing. Additional activities such as eating, drinking, and chatting accompanying sitting and standing were also observed and recorded. The patterns people emerge for social distancing while sitting were observed associating with body posture (i.e., people sitting middle on the bench or lying) and use of additional equipment (i.e., people using baby strollers, scooters, bags for social distance). Additionally, the observation was focused on whether the users were singular or in groups. Park visits repeatedly continued days of the week. Of the 20-day observations made in January, four days were rainy, and three days were snowy, yet the weather conditions were convenient for visiting the park for 13 days.

On the other hand, the weekend showed a decrease in the number of users in the park due to the winter lockdowns. On the weekends, people were allowed to go to the market and pharmacy in January 2021. Therefore, a limited number of people used the park only as a transit pass during that period. In the second phase of observations made in August, there were no restrictions for the pandemic. The weather was sunny and warm for all 20 days of the observation.

Findings and results

The study findings summarize some emerging patterns regarding the research outputs (Fig. 4). Based on this, the study included two phases in different seasons using field trips, photos, and sketches. Having four distinct zones with various subcategories, this section covers the new insights into sociopetality and sociofugality of post-pandemic public space.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Emerging framework

Full size image

Seasonal effects

Phase I winter

Observations show people prefer the Zone-1-Pavilion area- on windy and rainy days. With its appropriate setting for maintaining social distance during face-to-face encounters, group chats constitute the most common activity in Zone-1. We also noted that users sit linearly, leaving a social distance between them. Zone-1 also showed two types of users’ behavior: “Distance” -leaving some space or being at some distance from other people- and “occupying.”

Users of Zone-1 showed “Distance” while chatting and eating there. Some of them stood in a group while others remained seated. The subcategories of distance in Zone-1 include the following: sitting/standing, distanced standing, and distanced sitting. Sitting/standing behavior usually consists of groups of 2–3 people. One of the individuals in the groups was observed sitting while the other was standing to maintain social distance. Another behavior is “distanced standing,” which was followed in the groups that performed this; both people stood and talked while maintaining social distance between them. Besides the third subcategory of the “Distance” behavior seen in Zone-1, “distanced sitting” was observed in people sitting in the pavilion while maintaining social distance. These groups usually consist of 2–3 people. It has been observed that individuals who do the “distanced sitting” behavior eat and chat.

“Occupying,” as the second user behavior for Zone-1, revealed that family members or couples created types of occupations in Zone-1. The number of individuals in these groups is 3–4 people. It has been observed that “occupying” behavior is also matched with playing activities for children, eating, and chatting. As it turned out, they mostly used the pavilion, and strangers could not sit where couples and families gathered.

Zone-2-the path with the benches- is used for the activities such as gathering, chatting, reading, eating, and jogging. The path is also a transit space from the tram stops to surrounding residential units. In Zone-2, three different post-pandemic public space users’ behaviors were recorded. These are as follows: “Distance,” “Occupying with something,” and “Occupying with body posture” (Fig. 4).

Regarding “Distance” behavior, the pattern shows two or more people have conversations. Three different subcategories for “Distance” were detected in this zone. To maintain social distance, a group of two people behaved as one person sat on the bench while the other continued; groups of people sat or stood at a distance. “Occupying with something” emerged as the second behavior pattern in the zone, which prevents strangers when one sat on the bench. Baby strollers, bags, scooters, and bicycles were used to restrict personal space barriers, preventing sitting next to strangers. It has been observed that people who show this behavior do not allow a stranger to sit on the bench. Except for mothers with children, this behavior is carried out singularly.

The third typology of Zone-2 is “occupying body posture” refers to creating a social distance with the body posture as lying or sitting in the middle of the bench. In this behavior, only one person can sit on the bench, similar to “occupying with something.”

With its flexible use of green space, showing groups of people preferring to sit, Zone-3 constitutes the largest zone of the park and allows different user behavior patterns. e-3, thus, shows two emerging user behavior patterns: “Distance” and “Distancing with equipment” (Fig. 5). “Distance” occurred while the people used the picnic tables sitting transversely. Since the picnic table has a sociopetal order to face-to-face sitting, users chose to adopt it to maintain social distancing. Additionally, when two people talk, one sits on the picnic table, and the other leans on a tree to provide personal space.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Sketches of emerging zone patterns

Full size image

In Zone-3, “Distancing with equipment” behavior was observed while groups or individuals used different materials for sitting on the grass. Public space users maintained the social distance requirements by using additional instruments. Camping chairs and rugs were recorded to create virtual boundaries while people ate and drank. Behavior patterns in Zone-3 allow groups to spend time together. It is possible to interpret that the area includes more flexible characters, which affect this situation.

Considering the overall observation of the user density of the park, Mondays and Fridays turn out to be the most crowded days. Due to the curfew, public space users dramatically decrease on the weekends. The park is a transit space on Saturdays and Sundays as people walk with their dogs and families walk with baby strollers. Young adults mainly use the park.

Phase II summer

Within the scope of the study, considering the weekend lockdowns in the winter months in Turkey, conducting a second observation for the summer after the lockdown ended seemed inevitable. In June, the pandemic restrictions were over in Turkey. August turned out appropriate for observation since the schools were closed in mid, providing an opportunity to monitor many users in the park after this period.

In August, the second observation did not differ significantly from winter but showed partial changes in user behavior patterns. The café built in the park at the beginning of the summer months was the most effective of these changes in summer. The cafe located within the boundaries of Zone-3 was observed to affect user behavior. A new category defined the new construction as Zone-4, which has more sociopetal characteristics compared to its surrounding Zone-3. In Zone-4, social distancing rules were rarely observed. The users were sitting close to benefit from the cantilever of the cafe on sunny days. In addition, Zone-4 was used for different purposes: live broadcast- cine vision once and a bazaar twice during 20 days.

The user density of Zone-1 was less in summer compared to winter. The pavilion, which many users prefer during the winter months, such as families and groups of friends, was rarely used in August observation. On the other hand, it was noted that the user profile of the area did not change and was generally occupied by families and groups of friends. The users prefer open spaces such as Zone-2, Zone-3, and Zone-4 to benefit from the sun more in summer. Due to the summer weather conditions, the number of users in these areas has increased.

On the other hand, while a similar intensity of use in winter and summer was observed in Zone-2, it was recorded that people have more flexible behavior patterns compared to the winter observation. It was observed that people rarely sit with a distance between them on the benches. Although the social distance between people is decreasing compared to winter observation, it has been observed that people still sit at a distance. The number of people sitting at a distance has reduced. It has been observed that 2–3 people sit together on the same benches during other observation periods.

Zone-3 was preferred most intensively during the summer observation. It has been observed that some users do not maintain social distance measures, although sitting with a social distance observed in the winter continued. People also continued to practice social distancing by bringing their chairs and blankets.

In Zone-4, involved in the summer observation, the intense use of bean bag seating units predominantly references the sociopetal public space character. Although sociofugal characteristics of the zone are limited, post-pandemic public space users’ behavior in Zone-4 was defined as ‘distancing urban furniture.’ It was observed that the bean bag seating units moved away from the strangers while a group of friends or families sat together. Sociopetal characteristics of Zone-4 were visibly higher than Zone-3 due to the effect of the cafe and additional seating units.

Comparing the summer and winter observations elaborately, it is possible to mention that the number of users of the park increased dramatically. Zone-3 was used more intensely when Zone-1 was rarely preferred, and the social distance limits in the Zone-2 were reduced in summer. The defined patterns of users’ behavior were more flexible in the post-pandemic era than in the winter observation.

Discussion and conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic has spread worldwide in a short time and has been an informative process showing universal cities’ unpreparedness and vulnerability against such disasters. Like cities, the pandemic brought “new norms” for social interaction and people’s engagement with their surroundings. These new norms also caused changes in public spaces (Van der Werf et al. 2021; El Khateeb and Shawket 2022). In many countries, post-pandemic public space designs which consider social distancing and hygiene rules were developed. In this sense, the concept of post-pandemic urban design emerged and was discussed (Honey-Rosés et al. 2020; Erdonmez and Atmis 2021; Liu and Wang 2021). The post-pandemic life dynamics will predictably affect the public space where individuals develop social relations. The environment impacts human behavior, while social behavior also shapes the environment (Gehl 1987; Carmona 2003; Lang 2005). In that context, we questioned whether social distancing precautions during the pandemic caused changes in public space user behaviors and transformed the character of public spaces through this research. Furthermore, public spaces’ conventional sociopetal gathering character morphs into the sociofugal type, which distributes individuals (Lang and Moleski 2010).

Within the scope of this study, a neighborhood park without any design intervention during the pandemic was selected, and user behaviors were observed. Although there are some recent studies on the change in public space with the pandemic in the literature (van der Berg 2020; Honey-Rosés et al. 2020; Stevens et al. 2021), behavior observation studies are still rare. In this sense, this research aimed to observe how individuals change public space behaviors in a not rearranged park during the pandemic. A case study was conducted, and the research questions of the study were sought (Yin 2009). The park visits and photographs taken from the study area recorded that the park users developed new typologies in public spaces. Within the 40 days of winter and summer observations of the park, the public space users continue their interaction with the environment by considering the social distancing rules of the pandemic. As observed, the need for social distancing led to the creation of new behavior typologies in public spaces. Post-pandemic public space users’ behavior typologies in each park zone are differentiated. The observations collected were converted into codes and defined the patterns as “distance” and “occupying” considering structured space between public space users and then subcategorized (Yin 2014). The primary contribution of this case study is to observe and define post-pandemic behavior patterns to illuminate the study’s research questions. Additional equipment uses as well as the human body were recorded with the study to define sociofugal space. In this context, it was observed that public space users created extra spaces while sitting on picnic tables—Zone-3-which have sociopetal seating arrangements. Similarly, the sociopetal character is reduced by being occupied by small communities of individuals in Zone-1-pavilion area, which allows them to sit together and communicate before the pandemic. On the other hand, public space users tend to change to sociopetal space by minimizing the distance between them during the summer observation. It is possible to support this situation with the study of Whyte (2001), which highlights that more variety in temporal conditions (sun, shade, etc.) and choices (bench, movable chair, etc.) of urban furniture increases the use of public spaces.

Many other studies proposed the necessity of new typology and design strategies for public spaces (Erdonmez and Atmis 2021). This study also sheds some light on extending new design approaches by considering the sociopetality and sociofugality dichotomies. Although there are no new design arrangements in the park during the pandemic, public space users can create their personal spaces to be socially distanced. Besides, it remains unclear whether the effect of the pandemic on public space behavior will be permanent in future or whether the tendency of public space users to create their own spaces that respond to their needs will continue to the different dynamics. For this reason, when designing public spaces in future, it made sense to examine the user behavior in the design process and involve public space users in the design by considering pandemic-related circumstances. This research can be used as a case study to understand people’s post-pandemic public space behaviors and direct upcoming studies.

Design requires a broad spectrum of knowledge and skills, open to feedback, a new taste, and usage criteria /norms and it is an interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and trans-disciplinary concept (Seylan 2019). Therefore, it is necessary to understand the human needs well, choose the appropriate answers to these needs with design, and adapt -public spaces to the use of the city. On the other hand, public spaces serve society’s everyday needs and are used by the whole city. Therefore, it should be inquired that the common facts as the pandemic, which similarly affects all public space users, cause some changes to the character of public space. In this context, it is envisaged that in future studies, researchers will consider public space user behaviors as a component that affects the design process, report these behavioral transformations, and advance the process with the support of urban designers and local governments.

Finally, the study faced some limitations. First, the research design did not include human interaction except observation. Also, the time intervals of observations occurred in hectic times due to the lockdown announcements of the pandemic. So, the research could not regulate the observation times. Another limitation of the study is that it may suffer from generalizability aspects as the case study research design faces this concern as it generally deals with the uniqueness of the cases and does not aim to construct theorization or generalization (Yin 2009). Moreover, Flyvbjerg (2006) highlights that case study design generates contributions with its context-based insight. Nonetheless, the study attempted to address critical public space use during the pandemic and how individuals change their public space use and habits accordingly. Therefore, the study calls extra attention that people seek various public space use, even during the pandemic.