Speaker
Description
Introduction and research problem
Public space is often defined by accessibility. A space is public because it is open and available to people in principle. In our cities, even though accessibility is formally guaranteed, it does not imply that these spaces have the same capacity to be used. Publicness also depends on the extent to which spatial characteristics allow different people to enter, move, remain, interact and participate in everyday urban life.
Hence, a person may have the formal right to enter a square, street or public open space and at the same time experience limited practical possibilities to remain there, choose where to position themselves, move freely between parts of the space, or use it at different times of the day. This study proposes that this distinction between formal access and actual use is relevant to experienced safety in the city.
The question is especially relevant in Tirana. Since the collapse of socialism, public space in the city has been deeply transformed by rapid urban growth, densification, motorization, privatization and the appropriation of previously open urban land. At the same time, Tirana’s contemporary urban form has emerged through the continuous interaction of planning interventions, informal processes, socio-economic change and everyday practices. These transformations make Tirana a useful context in which to investigate what public space supports and permits for the everyday life of its people.
The study therefore introduces “freedom of use” as an analytical concept: the extent to which public space conditions provide people with a range of reasonable possibilities to move, stay, pause, choose position, interact or remain alone, rather than constraining them toward a narrow set of spatial behaviors. Or, in other words, the degree to which a person chooses where, when, how and with whom to use a public space, without changing these choices in response to experienced safety.
Within this framework, safety is approached through the ways it may shape everyday spatial behavior. A person who changes route, crosses a space rapidly, avoids a particular part or does not remain after dark, may be responding to conditions that restrict their freedom of use. Observation alone cannot determine that such behavior is caused by fear, or unsafety; however, recurring differences in use can reveal patterns of spatial constraint. These patterns provide an empirical basis for identifying where and when the possibilities of using public space become narrowed, and for examining how this relates to the spatial and social conditions of the environment.
The main question is therefore: To what extent do the spatial conditions of public space enable or constrain freedom of use, and what can observable patterns of use reveal about everyday safety in a rapidly changing city?
Conceptual framework
The study connects research on urban form, traditions of direct observation of public life and the continuous work on unequal and gendered use of public space. Urban theory has long established that urban form is not neutral to everyday experience. The morphology and structure of the city can influence how people understand and occupy the spaces within it. At the same time, traditions of public life research have demonstrated the value of observing what people actually do in urban space rather than evaluating space exclusively through formal design.
Systematic observation of sitting, standing, moving and gathering has shown how spatial characteristics, such as edges, seating, pedestrian flows, visibility, and opportunities to stay, can affect patterns of use. More recent public space analysis approaches have extended this into including inclusiveness, comfort, safety and patterns of use.
This approach becomes even more relevant when considering differences between groups. Research on gender and public space has demonstrated that there are differences in patterns of use, which may emerge in the types of activities performed, group composition, duration of stay, timing of use and the areas which get mostly occupied. So, there is a possibility to move the discussion from the topic of accessibility toward the understanding of who actually is able to use a space, in what ways and under what conditions.
Therefore, the study treats freedom of use as an observable spatial condition, rather than a psychological explanation and examines how combinations of spatial characteristics combine with freedom of use, without assuming that any morphological feature directly produces safety.
Methods
The study adopts a comparative method approach, based on a preliminary observation of approximately 8-12 public open spaces in Tirana. This first stage’s purpose is to identify contrasting patterns of everyday use before the selection of the final case studies. Observations will take place at the same time in each space: on weekdays and weekends, during both daytime and evening. Patterns of presence and use, including gender, will be recorded, including where they move or stay, the trajectories, the spaces they occupy, and whether they are alone or accompanied.
The aim is to identify the public spaces where differences related to the research question can be analyzed. Three to four cases will be selected to represent the contrasting patterns of freedom of use. These may include spaces that are used similarly by men and women; where use is comparable during the day but changes in the evening; where men mostly stay while women mostly pass through; or where both groups are present but occupy different parts of the same space.
Once these differences have been identified, the study will ask what differentiates the selected spaces. Observation and behavioral mapping will document movement, staying, trajectories, pauses, stationary activities, duration, group composition, and spatial occupation. This will be combined with spatial analysis through plans, maps, and photographs. The analysis will examine which spatial characteristics emerge in the selected spaces that help explain the first behavioral observations. These may include visibility, enclosure, accessibility, permeability, entrances, lighting, opportunities for staying and so on.
In a later stage, short semi-structured interviews will be conducted to test whether the differences in use are actually related to experiences of safety. Questions will be specific to each case, asking participants whether they use the space alone or they avoid certain areas, and participants may also be asked to mark these areas on a map. Therefore, observations will identify patterns of freedom of use, spatial analysis will examine the characteristics associated with them, and interviews will reveal relations to experienced safety.
Expected results
The study will demonstrate that public spaces that are both legally and physically accessible may still exhibit variations in who stays, who passes through, which areas are occupied and how these change during the day and evening. It is also expected that the differences will be explained by different spatial characteristics. Gender differences may emerge in presence, duration, position, movement or temporal use. What these mean will be explored through the final interview stage, allowing behavior to be compared with users’ own experiences of safety, and choices in public space.
So, the study tests whether freedom of use can operate as an observable spatial-behavioral dimension of everyday safety, while remaining distinct from perceived safety itself.
Discussion and conclusion
Formal access does not necessarily mean equal freedom to use public space. This study therefore begins with observed differences, then examines the spatial characteristics associated with them and uses interviews to understand whether the crossed analysis relates to experienced safety.
Rather than treating behavior as evidence of fear, the study uses it to identify where possibilities for use happen to expand or contract. For planning, the key question is not only who can access public space, but who can choose how, where and when to use it. In this sense, “Who is free to stay?” becomes a way of linking spatial characteristics, everyday behavior and experienced safety.
Keywords: public space, everyday safety, freedom of use, behavioral observation, Tirana
References
Beebeejaun, Y. (2017). Gender, urban space, and the right to everyday life. Journal of Urban Affairs, 39(3), 323–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2016.1255526
Dhamo, S., & Dauti, D. (2026). Complexity-based analysis of Tirana’s urban patterns as a step toward co-evolutionary planning and design. Frontiers of Architectural Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2026.07.015
Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for people. Island Press.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. Random House.
Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. MIT Press.
Madanipour, A. (Ed.). (2010). Whose public space? International case studies in urban design and development. Routledge.
Mehta, V. (2014). Evaluating Public Space. Journal of Urban Design, 19(1), 53–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2013.854698
Sitte, C. (1945). The art of building cities. Reinhold Publishing Corporation.
Pérez-Tejera, F., Valera, S., & Anguera, M. T. (2018). Using systematic observation and polar coordinates analysis to assess gender-based differences in park use in Barcelona. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2299. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02299
Pérez-Tejera, F., Anguera, M. T., Guàrdia-Olmos, J., Dalmau-Bueno, A., & Valera, S. (2022). Examining perceived safety and park use in public open spaces: The case of Barcelona. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 81, 101823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101823
Pojani, D., & Maci, G. (2015). The Detriments and Benefits of the Fall of Planning: The Evolution of Public Space in a Balkan Post-socialist Capital. Journal of Urban Design, 20(2), 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2015.1009013
Whyte, W. H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. Conservation Foundation.