HAPPY STREETS LIVING LAB - Happy City · 2 Happy Streets Living Lab Report // Design Team and Partners Research Team + Project Partners Happy Streets Team Happy Streets Living Lab

HAPPY STREETS LIVING LAB

Final Report July 2017

Happy Streets Living Lab Report // Design Team and Partners2

Research Team + Project Partners

Happy Streets Team

Happy Streets Living Lab was carried out by an interdisciplinary team made up of Happy City, the Urban Realities Lab at the University of Waterloo And Modus. The core team consisted of:

Happy City

Mitchell Reardon - Project Lead

Charles Montgomery - Principal

Omar Dominguez - Director of Operations

Veera Lintula - Project Assistant

Ekaterina Aristova - Design & GIS Analyst

University of Waterloo

Colin Ellard - Experimental Psychologist, Director of Urban Reality Labs

Hanna Negami - PhD Candidate, Cognitive Neuroscience

Robin Mazumder - PhD Candidate, Cognitive Neuroscience

Modus Planning, Design & Engagement

Vince Verlaan - Principal

Malcolm MacLean - Planner & Engagement Specialist

Project Partners

http://thehappycitylab.com/about/






http://www.street-plans.com/our-firm/people/








http://www.spacesyntax.com/contact/europe/uk/





Contents

Executive summary

Introduction

MethodologyComparison 1: Residential Laneways

Comparison 2: Intersections

Comparison 3: Greenspace

Results and analysisSite specific findings

Additional insights

Opportunities for further research

Appendix 1 – Demographic information

2 – Data gathering methodology

3 – Happy Streets statistical results

4 – GSR data 5 - Noise, pedestrian and vehicle traffic

4

8

10131314

162023

24

2627284344

Happy Streets Living Lab Report // Executive Summary 4

Executive summary

In recent years, cities have attempted to improve the quality of public life by using interventions that infuse public space with colour, nature, and other features. The success of such tactical interventions has generally been measured in terms of factors such as pedestrian movements and incidents of crime.

Recent insights in environmental psychology suggest that it may be possible to design in ways that alter visitors’ happiness, social trust, and level of care for urban places. But can they also influence visitors’ emotions and attitudes?

This curiosity drove a unique experimental program to measure the psychophysiological effects of public spaces in Vancouver, Canada. The experiment was an interdisciplinary collaboration between Happy City and the University of Waterloo’s Urban Realities Lab, supported by the City of Vancouver Viva Vancouver program, MODUS, and Project for Public Spaces.

Vancouver’s West End presented ideal sites for study. The City, with the support of residents, has invested in several unique public space interventions in the neighbourhood that typify changes happening in cities around the world. Three of these interventions intrigued the research team. In one case, lush gardens for flowers and food production were introduced to a laneway. In another, an intersection in the heart of the city’s LGBTQ+ community was transformed through the replacement of standard crosswalks with rainbows. In another, a vacant lot had been converted into a community-run flower and vegetable garden.

We set out to explore the effect that these public space interventions had on people’s physical and mental wellbeing. In particular, we were interested in people’s

sense of trust in strangers, their feelings of happiness, and their emotional attachment to each location. We were also interested in elements of physical wellbeing, such as indicators of arousal or excitement. To measure these effects, we used a combination of surveys and other tests, and also used skin conductance bracelets to measure physical wellbeing.

Our research subjects were participants from the Pro Walk/Pro Bike/Pro Place conference in September 2016. More than 100 people joined a series of walking tours. The tours paired the City’s intervention sites with everyday sites that are found in many contemporary cities. The pairings were:

Residential lanewaysHardscaped laneway vs. green garden lanewayIntersectionsStandard intersection vs. rainbow intersectionPublic green spacesManicured park vs. community garden

Experiment results suggest that cities can indeed improve wellbeing through interventions that inject nature, colour, and unique elements into public space. Participants who experienced the City of Vancouver’s interventions expressed a greater sense of happiness than they did at the standard sites. They felt more care for these places. They felt that strangers were more trustworthy. And they were more willing to pick up litter.

A unique experiment reveals that tactical interventions that infuse colour and nature into public space can have a powerful influence on visitors’ wellbeing.

Vancouver's West End, Image: Flickr user Kisazaku Watanabe

Participants responding to queries at the West End's colourful rainbow intersection

5

Vancouver's West End, Image: Flickr user Kisazaku Watanabe

Participants responding to queries at the West End's colourful rainbow intersection

Happy Streets Living Lab Report // Executive Summary 6

Notable findings è The experiment confirmed the restorative power of

nature. Our highest wellbeing scores were recorded at a laneway that had been transformed by the City and neighbours into a green oasis.

è Tactical interventions can support social trust among strangers. A colourful rainbow-striped intersection in an LGBTQ+ neighbourhood in Vancouver was correlated with a greater sense of trust in strangers and a stronger sense of place attachment among visitors than a standard intersection.

è Flora and colourful paint can support happiness. There were significant positive improvements in the levels of happiness that participants reported when greenery or colour were present.

è Spaces that reflect elements of community ownership, engagement or management appear to support greater place attachment among visitors. Sites that indicated community involvement – DIY projects, signs of local maintenance, reflections of local culture – all scored highly among participants for likelihood to return and care for the site.

è Place matters. Locations with considerable greenery present were correlated with a reduction in arousal levels (a proxy for stress, as measured through skin conductance). Location also had a strong effect on subjective wellbeing. People reported being happier and more trusting at the locations where gardens had been introduced, compared with their hardscaped counterparts, and at the rainbow intersection, compared with the standard intersection.

Lessons for city-makers

These findings offer powerful support to continue tactical interventions in overlooked public spaces in Vancouver and cities around the world. Many influential interventions can be undertaken relatively quickly and at low cost.

Cities and community stakeholders interested in creating vibrant places that encourage trust among strangers should consider activating blank spaces and dull streetscapes with flora, colourful paint or other features that foster a sense of community identity. Local residents and space users should be invited to co-design, curate and care for public space interventions. Tactical urbanism – the practice of testing ideas before making them permanent – is a low-cost and low-risk way to solicit community input and to observe what works and what doesn’t.

Cities should consider supporting public space revitalization programs that identify and prioritize sites for transformation. Design guidelines or a best practices catalogue could support this initiative.

Developers and property owners can benefit from enacting similar changes on private property, because they attract shoppers and residents, and give them a greater attachment to these places. Evidence shows that communities where people have a higher sense of attachment are correlated with higher GDP growth. Participants expressed a stronger desire to return to sites where interventions had taken place. They were also more willing to care for such spaces. For mixed-use and residential projects, greater place attachment could increase demand for dwelling units, while a greater willingness to act as stewards for the site can ensure it remains attractive over time.

We encourage Vancouver and other cities to continue measuring the links between design and wellbeing. Doing so will strengthen efforts to support health, happiness and social inclusion. The following pages offer a deeper explanation of the experiment, as well as rationale and recommendations from this work.

these learnings more broadly, designers intermonths f

7

Happy Streets Living Lab Report // Introduction 8

Small scale interventions have become a popular way to enhance public life in cities – humanity’s most widely adopted habitat. How do they influence our feelings and behaviour?

Around the world, city streets are being transformed into better places to walk, socialize, and celebrate. People are trading dead street edges and dangerous asphalt for vibrant crosswalks, community gardens, green laneways, and more. But how do these changes influence the way we feel and how we treat other people? Researchers in neuroscience, environmental psychology, and design practice have been working hard to answer questions like this. The emerging field of evidence-based design can help inform efforts to create urban environments that foster health and happiness.

Vancouver has invested in public space enhancement to make the urban environment more people-friendly. From new plaza construction to tree planting and mural painting, improvements are visible across the city. The success of such tactical interventions has generally been measured in terms of factors such as pedestrian movements and incidents of crime. But Vancouver, like other cities, is

focused on improving the physical and social wellbeing of residents. The city is especially interested in boosting positive social connections. Therefore, it is crucial to measure the effects of public space enhancements on visitors’ emotions and attitudes towards other people.

To explore the benefits of these types of interventions, Happy City and the University of Waterloo Department of Psychology’s Urban Realities Laboratory conducted a unique experiment, with the support of MODUS and the City of Vancouver’s Viva Vancouver public space activation program. The experiment offered a unique opportunity to better understand how urban environments can influence people’s physical and mental wellbeing. In particular, we were interested in people’s sense of trust in strangers, their feelings of happiness, and their emotional attachment to various public locations. We were also interested in physical wellbeing, such as indicators of arousal or excitement.

Central research questionsThe team was particularly curious to find out:

è How do interventions in street design, aesthetics, and/or addition of flora influence social relationships and trust among strangers?

è What impact does the introduction of lush greenery into a residential laneway have on visitors’ feelings of comfort, happiness, and social trust?

è What effect can a tactical intersection intervention have on visitors’ feelings of comfort, subjective wellbeing, social trust, and likelihood of return?

è Does an informal green space such as a community garden have a different effect on visitors’ wellbeing than a manicured green park?

Introduction

The "A-maze-ing Laughter" statues in Morton Park, in Vancouver

9

With these questions in mind, we set out to create an experiment that could provide evidence to inform how we design our cities to support sociability, wellbeing, and happiness.

What we talk about when we talk about wellbeingWellbeing is typically viewed as a subjective measure for the condition of an individual or group. Used to broadly describe a state of health and/or happiness, it can include formal and informal social, economic, psychological, spiritual, or medical measures. Interestingly, people who report feeling that they are happy usually score well on quantitative measures of wellbeing. They tend to be healthier, more productive at work, and have stronger and more supportive social bonds. Studies have shown that people who report high levels of happiness are better able to respond to challenging times, work well with others, and are more resilient to change.

A number of contributors to wellbeing can be influenced by environmental conditions. For this experiment, we focused on the following contributors to wellbeing,

which previous research suggests can be influenced by environment and urban design.

Social trust: Positive social connections are the strongest contributor to human happiness. People with positive social connections enjoy greater resilience, health, and economic success. Cities with higher reported social trust also report higher levels of happiness and economic success.

Place attachment: Place attachment is the emotional bond between person and place. People are more likely to regularly visit and care for a location to which they feel a strong sense of place attachment.

Comfort: People’s wellbeing is influenced at any moment by how comfortable they feel. But comfort also influences behaviour. People are more likely to walk, bike, and socialize in public spaces when they feel comfortable.

Belonging: People who feel connected to their communities report higher trust in others and higher levels of happiness.

Happy streets participants

Happy Streets Living Lab Report // Methodology10

To test the influences of various public places on wellbeing, we identified several unique intervention sites in Vancouver’s West End, then created psycho-physiological walking tours to test people’s response to those places. After exposure to each site, participants answered a series of questions on specially-programmed smart phones. Some participants also wore special wrist bracelets that monitored various aspects of physiological arousal. In all, the experiment measured how urban environments influence feelings of trust, sociability, place attachment and subjective wellbeing. Below are the approaches used (see Appendix 2 for a full description of each measure):

Self-reported surveysParticipants answered a series of questions at each site about their moods and perception of the environment. These were vital in assessing social trust, subjective wellbeing, and attraction to place.

Dictator GameThe “dictator game” measured generosity. In this game, participants were led to believe that they received 10 points to be entered into a raffle for a prize. Participants were given the opportunity to share as many of these points as they would like with another anonymous participant. In fact, each participant received one entry in the raffle. The number of points participants believed they were sharing was used as a measure of their generosity at a particular location.

Implicit Positive and Negative Affect Test (IPANAT) To understand how our sites influenced u ser m o od, participants were asked to rate the extent to which made-up words expressed certain moods. IPANAT is a way to obtain an indirect measure of mood.

Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART)For the SART, participants were asked to press a button each time they viewed a number, but to withhold their response when they saw the number 3. The errors that people make in this test provide an indication of the ability to sustain attention. When this test is carried out at two sites, it allows us to compare how easy it is to concentrate at these two places.

Galvanic skin response (GSR)Some participants wore a non-invasive mobile bracelet that measures skin conductance through two sensors that sit against the skin. Skin conductance is a way of measuring physical arousal, allowing us to infer one’s emotional and sympathetic responses to their surroundings. By running a tiny current through the body, the Affectiva Q bracelet measures electrical resistance in ohms, the standard measure of resistance.

DeceptionPrior to taking part in the experiment, participants were provided with information and consent forms. Given that the experiment included some deception in the Dictator

A participant wearing the non-invasive sensor bracelet

Methodology

Participants recording survey responses on their phone

11

Game and IPANAT, once the experiment was completed, they were provided with feedback and information detailing the full nature of the experiment.

ToursIn all, 11 walking tours were conducted in which we measured 103 participants’ physical and emotional responses to city spaces. The tours, which consisted of Pro Walk/Pro Bike/Pro Place conference attendees, were conducted between September 11 and September 14, 2016.

Conference contextThe Happy Streets Living Lab was conducted as part of Project for Public Spaces’ Pro Walk/Pro Bike/Pro Place conference. Attended by more than 1000 city planners, transportation engineers, public health professionals, elected officials, c ommunity l eaders, a nd p r ofessional

walking and bicycling advocates from around the world, the conference’s stated goal is to connect those who are working to create engaging places that are walkable and bike-friendly. The conference took place at the Sheraton Wall Centre in Downtown Vancouver. The Living Lab was open to all conference participants.

WeatherWe had similar weather during all three days that the tours took place: Sunny, with temperatures ranging from 16 to 22 degrees, and little wind.

Participants recording responses at the standard intersection

A mid-tour walk between sites


Noise and pedestrian activity - Baseline observationsPedestrian and noise measures were taken during a two-hour period on a sunny weekday in September. Pedestrian counts were taken at the intersections and residential laneways. They were not taken at the green spaces because these were sites at which people lingered, and due to the many entry and exit points in these spaces. Noise was measured at each site using a decibel meter located in the position that experiment participants stood. For reference, a quiet residential neighbourhood

typically has a decibel rating of 40, while highway traffic has a typical decibel rating of 70. Traffic counts for the intersection comparison were provided by the City of Vancouver. The count at Davie Street and Bute Street took place in June 2011, while the count at Davie Street and Thurlow Street took place in June 2013.

Test sitesSix sites were selected along a 1400-metre walking route. The six sites were curated to create three pairings.

Figure 1: The Happy Streets route and sites

13

The goal in creating these pairings was to identify the influence that key design differences had on participants’ wellbeing. To limit bias, experiment participants were not informed of the site pairings in advance. The tours were conducted in two sequences. Six tours visited sites 1 through 6 in order, while five tours were conducted in the opposite sequence, visiting sites 6 through 1 in order.

Comparison 1: Residential lanewaysOften used simply for utilities access and to store cars and garbage, laneways have significant potential to become important public spaces. This is particularly important as urban land values rise and population density increases. This pairing created a comparison between a standard laneway and a laneway where the city and local residents had narrowed and replaced much of the hardscape with gardens.

Green lanewaySubstantial greenery is present in this laneway. Community managed gardens extend along both sides, while a stream and “little free library” where residents can take or leave books are also present. The stream is not visible to participants, but can be heard. The gardens are used

to grow plants for food and decoration. The laneway is bordered by two and three storey buildings on each side. The surface material of the laneway is differentiated from other streets with the use of paving stones, and the lane also narrows to four metres (12 feet) near the gardens. The laneway and gardens are managed by the City of Vancouver in conjunction with neighbours. The average decibel level in the location was 41.4, while 4 pedestrians passed through the area during a 30 minute period.

Hardscaped lanewayThe hardscaped residential laneway is primarily used for vehicle access, car parking, and garbage and recycling boxes. Access to greenery is restricted to views of trees and shrubs behind property fences. A chain link fence is used to provide secure garbage storage on one side and a series of garage doors are present on the other side. Buildings along the laneway vary in height from 6 to 12 storeys. The laneway is 10 metres (30 feet) wide and the surface material is standard asphalt. The City of Vancouver is responsible for managing waste removal and other issues in the laneway, while the garbage facilities and garage doors are privately managed. The average noise level in the location where the participants viewed the site was 47.2db, while 6 pedestrians passed through the area during a 30 minute period.

The green laneway at the Mole Hill Community Housing Society The hardscaped laneway, one of many in the West End, and beyond


Comparison 2: Intersections

Street intersections are one of the most ubiquitous features of any city. However, they are not all created equal. Street width, traffic speed, and even aesthetic ground treatment can influence how people perceive intersections. In this pairing, two intersections of similar width, streetscapes and uses are compared. The notable difference is that one intersection is painted with rainbow crosswalks, while the other has standard zebra stripe crossings.

Rainbow intersectionThe intersection at Davie Street and Bute Street is located at the “heart” of the West End, which is Vancouver’s predominant LGBTQ+ neighbourhood. Davie Street has two lanes in each direction. One in each direction is often used for parking. Bute Street has one lane in each direction. The presence of a plaza means that the south side of Bute is not open to traffic at this intersection. Building heights around this intersection are one to two stories. The crosswalks have been painted as rainbows and a new, permanent, plaza was opened south of the intersection in June 2016. Both the crosswalks and plaza were tactical urbanism pilot projects undertaken by Viva

Vancouver, the city’s public space activation program. After successful testing over several years, both features have been made permanent. Davie is a main street in the West End, but is not particularly busy at this intersection. 624 vehicles per 24 hour period were counted. Decibel levels at this tour stop were measured at 60.2db, while 515 pedestrians were counted over 30 minute period at this location.

Standard intersectionDavie Street and Thurlow Street is a standard intersection in Vancouver’s West End. One block east of the rainbow intersection, this site is also located in Vancouver’s predominant LGBTQ+ neighbourhood. Davie Street has two lanes in each direction, with one in each direction often used for parking. Thurlow Street is a one-way street, with two lanes for moving vehicles and two lanes for parking. Building heights around this intersection are one to two stories. 5507 vehicles per 24-hour period were counted. Decibel levels at the location where tour participants stood were measured at 63.4db, while 805 pedestrians were counted over a 30-minute period at this location.

The rainbow intersection at Davie Street and Bute Street An example of a standard intersection in Vancouver

15

Comparison 3: Green space

This site paired compared the effects of two distinct types of green space. One space is a manicured, formal, and privately managed plaza park, while the other is an informal, community-managed flower and food garden.

Manicured parkThe Sheraton Plaza is a green space that was included on the Wall Centre Hotel site parcel as a community amenity contribution (a City of Vancouver mechanism where developers contribute funding in return for greater density). It is operated as a privately owned public space and managed by Wall Centre staff. The impeccably maintained lawn is bordered by formally landscaped hedges, planters, and paved pathways. All plants on the site are decorative. The park has glass buildings on two edges and streets on the remaining two edges. It is adjacent to Burrard Street, a busy thoroughfare in Downtown Vancouver. The location where tour participants stood had an average decibel level of 51.2.

Community gardenLocated at the corner of Davie Street and Burrard Street, the Davie Village Community Garden is a more informal space where plants used for food production regularly over grow their allotted spaces. The garden includes a number of wood chip and dirt paths that run between allotments and is bordered by a handmade wooden fence. Posted signs and a number of small do-it-yourself features, including benches and art, indicate that this is a community-operated site. The garden is bordered on one side by a brick wall, an alley with brick wall beyond it on a second side, and by busy streets on the remaining sides. The location where tour participants stood had an average decibel rating of 58.1.The location where tour participants stood had an average decibel rating of 58.1. We found the most significant differences in the alley and intersection pairings.

The community garden at the corner of

Davie Street and Burrard Street

The manicured park at the Sheraton Plaza

Happy Streets Living Lab Report // Results and Analysis16

We found the most significant differences in the alley and intersection pairings.

Our most notable findings were:

è Public space interventions using novel expressions of nature and colour had a strong effect on wellbeing.

Small design interventions can have a big influence on how people feel, how they perceive others, and how attached they feel to place.

Results and analysis

è Interventions that added a range of flora or a spectrum of colour to sites contributed to the subjective wellbeing of visitors. Despite the short distances between the sites, there was a significant difference in the levels of happiness that participants reported between the green laneway and the plain

Figure 2: Participants reported how happy they felt on a scale of 1 to 5 at each site

Location Mean

Green laneway 4.33

Hardscaped laneway 3.05

Rainbow intersection 3.90

Standard intersection 2.79

17

laneway, as well as between the rainbow intersection and standard intersection, as illustrated in Figure 2. These findings support previous Happy City research, which found that urban design and the built environment significantly influence people’s feelings of happiness, anxiety, and other measures of subjective wellbeing.

è Participants expressed greater place attachment to the sites where they experienced interventions to add greenery and brightly coloured paint. As noted in Figure 3, participants were more likely to pick up litter and be upset about vandalism at the green laneway and rainbow intersection relative to their counterparts. This suggests that the low-cost interventions outlined above can encourage people who visit these sites to play a greater role in maintaining and caring for them. It also suggests that low cost interventions that create a distinct sense of place can boost feelings of

care and attachment for a location. These emotions are not just good for visitors' wellbeing; they are good for local resilience and vibrancy. People who feel attached to place are more likely to return, and more likely to spend money locally.

è Tactical interventions can support sociability and trust among strangers. In the Happy Streets case, a colourful rainbow at an intersection in the strongest LGBTQ+ neighbourhood in Vancouver was associated with a greater sense of trust in strangers, and a stronger sense of place attachment among participants. This finding, illustrated in Figure 4, suggests that low-cost, contextually relevant interventions, could provide a foundation to combat growing rates of social isolation in cities like Vancouver.

Figure 3: A willingness to clean up litter is an indication of place attachment

Location Mean

Green laneway 4.05



Standard intersection1.90


è Spaces that reflect a sense of community ownership, engagement, or stewardship appear to support greater place attachment among visitors. The community garden, green laneway, and rainbow intersection share characteristics that indicate community involvement - DIY projects, signs of local maintenance, reflections of local culture. These sites all ranked higher in terms of place attachment and care among experiment participants, something reflected in Figure 3, Figure 5, and Figure 8. This suggests that community involvement in the planning, design, and stewardship of these sites can not only create benefits such as sense of place for those who regularly use the site, but also create immediate attachment for visitors.

è Results from the GSR bracelets indicated that arousal levels at the standard intersection were significantly higher than the baseline and formal greenspace. This suggests that even intersections that

we perceive as “normal” can significantly influence stress levels, even after limited exposure. There was also substantial variation in skin conductance levels between the standard intersection and community garden sites that were visited consecutively on the tour. This suggests that, for a number of participants, the calming effect of this green space was immediate, and quite strong.

Figure 4: Can our environment influence how perceive others? Happy Streets results suggest a resounding yes

Location Mean

Green laneway 4.25




19

Figure 5: Interventions to add lush greenery or vibrant colour contribute to participants’ sense of attachment to the sites

Location Mean

Green laneway 4.66





Site-specific findingsThrough the experiments, we also made a series of site-specific findings. They are detailed in the following section.

Laneway findingsIt appears that the green laneway retrofit created significant returns for wellbeing and trust. The laneway retrofit added greenery, applied a distinct paving surface, and narrowed the space for vehicles. These changes appear to have had a positive influence on feelings of comfort, subjective wellbeing, and trust among pedestrians. As noted in Figure 4, tour participants believed that they could trust strangers more in the green laneway than in the hardscaped laneway. They believed there was a higher chance of having a lost wallet returned. Participants also reported greater happiness at the green laneway, and found it more pleasant.

With this in mind, it’s no surprise that participants' desire to return to the green laneway was much stronger than their desire to return to the hardscaped laneway. This may also help explain the stronger sense of place attachment that participants felt for the green laneway. They reported that they would be more willing to clear litter, and would also be more upset about vandalism, at the green laneway than at the hardscaped laneway. The attachment participants felt towards the green laneway also translated into a greater desire to return and meet friends there. Overall, participants wanted to return to the green laneway more than all the rest of our survey sites.

Intersection findingsThe City of Vancouver’s tactical intervention to create a rainbow intersection appears to be paying dividends in subjective wellbeing and sociability. During the

Figure 6: Perceptions of trust were stronger in the laneway where lush greenery was added

Location Mean

Green laneway 3.40


21

experiment, participants rated the rainbow intersection as more pleasant than the standard intersection. The rainbow intersection also elicited greater ratings of happiness than the standard intersection.

It’s important to note that these results may also have been influenced by significantly lower vehicle traffic levels at the rainbow intersection, and the effect of exposure to the adjacent plaza.

Results from the GSR bracelets showed that people were less stressed at the rainbow intersection, but the results did not show statistical significance. However, this trend does suggest that a reduction in the number of cars travelling through an intersection, as well as design interventions can influence people’s sense of wellbeing at these ubiquitous urban nodes.

People reported a greater sense of place attachment at the rainbow intersection site. Here, participants said that they would be more likely to be upset about vandalism, and more willing to pick up garbage compared to the standard intersection. Further, participants reported feeling that strangers were more trustworthy and that they were more likely to have their wallet returned at the rainbow intersection, as shown in Figure 7. (Interestingly, this higher level of trust was justified: one participant lost their purse at the rainbow intersection and it was returned within hours.) These findings provide a good indication of why participants were considerably more likely to want to return to the rainbow intersection as opposed to the standard intersection. Not only did they want to return, but also wanted to bring friends there. In fact, out of all the sites visited, people were most likely to want to meet friends at the rainbow intersection.

Figure 7: Both sites have high rates of foot traffic, yet participants were more confident of having their wallet returned at the site where colour had been added

Location Mean




Green space findingsThe manicured park and community garden drew the most ambiguous experiment findings. From the self-reported surveys, only minor differences emerged between the sites. However, participants expressed greater willingness to pick up litter at the community garden than the formal green space. They also reported that they would be more upset if the community garden was vandalized. This indicates that participants felt a greater sense of place attachment at the community garden, with all its seeming messiness, compared with the manicured park.

Notably, both green spaces scored low levels of arousal from participants wearing the GSR bracelets. This suggests that whether a green space is manicured or a little unruly makes little difference – both types of spaces have a calming effect on visitors. With this in mind, adding greenery, regardless of the aesthetic choices, can benefit human wellbeing.

Why were the results in this comparison so ambiguous? It is important to note that during Placemaking Week, the manicured park underwent a significant transformation. Located directly outside the conference venue (the Sheraton Hotel), the normally sterile park and plaza became a site for tactical interventions including a pop-up park, bike parking, chalk, and games. Even more importantly, the site was occupied by many people during the conference, but it is usually deserted. These elements may have improved the park’s results on participants’ self-reports. However, this explanation must be qualified by recognizing that there is variation in people’s preferences. Both sites featured pleasant and appealing elements. While the community garden offered a community feel and clear indications that the space was maintained by committed volunteers, the manicured park featured perfectly maintained grass, visually appealing gardens, and a flowing fountain. With these factors in mind, it is unsurprising that there were few cumulative differences in how participants rated the two sites.

Participants recording responses at the Sheraton Plaza

23

Additional insights The experiment found that certain tactical interventions in street and urban design can improve sociability, trust, and place attachment. Introducing greenery or colourful and culturally relevant symbols to public spaces was particularly beneficial.

è Adding gardens, greenery, or culturally relevant art to a location can increase the likelihood that people will want to return and meet friends. Participants expressed significantly higher preferences to return, as well as meet friends, at the green laneway and rainbow intersection, compared to the plain laneway and standard intersection, respectively. With this in mind, and demonstrated in Figure 8, designs and interventions that include these features can make public spaces more attractive to people, thus increasing the likelihood that they will be well-visited and regularly used. This improves safety by adding “eyes on the street”. While this study focused

on public space, these findings are also likely to have relevance for commercial spaces, housing developments, and mixed-use areas.

è Study participants were also surveyed on their primary mode of transport in their home city. Interestingly, we found that that primary mode of transport was associated with participants’ estimation of how likely they were to want to meet friends at the study sites. The faster the velocity of a participants' usual travel mode, the more, on average, they reported wanting to meet friends. People who drove were the most likely to want to meet friends at all sites, followed in order by public transit users, cyclists, and pedestrians. Given the small sample size, this the findings should be taken with a grain of salt, but it could indicate that people who move at faster velocities, and who may be less accustomed to frequenting these urban environments, appreciate what they have been missing.

Figure 8: Participants were more likely to want to meet friends at sites where interventions had taken place

Location Mean

Green laneway 3.42




Happy Streets Living Lab Report // Opportunities for Further Research24

Increasingly, cities, urbanists, architects, developers, and others are waking up to the value of evidence-based approaches to urban planning and design. Further experimentation can help a range of city-makers to refine their work and contribute to an urban environment that supports wellbeing, sociability, place attachment, and more.

Specific questions that could be explored in Vancouver or beyond include:

è Can design that encourages a greater sense of trust among people also lead to greater social interaction between strangers?

è Could greater rates of place attachment among visitors translate into economic returns for local businesses on site?

è Can interventions that support happiness and subjective wellbeing also contribute to social equity?

è Does fostering a place with a strong sense of community ownership, engagement, or stewardship create measurable social and economic benefits?

è How can urban design support a sense of comfort and sociability among people who are walking and cycling?

Using an evidence-based approach, Happy Streets Living Lab underlined the potential of small-scale interventions to improve wellbeing, strengthen place attachment, and enhance trust among strangers in urban environments. In this report, we highlighted three sites where relatively low-cost measures made a significant impact. However, there are many more sites in Vancouver and around the world that have not enjoyed the benefits of these types of interventions. We encourage policy-makers and city-builders to support and undertake more of these

Opportunities for further research

interventions and to continue to measure the connections between design and wellbeing to nurture health, happiness, and sociability. It doesn’t always take massive investment to improve the lives of residents, but it always takes the courage to get started.

25

Happy City425 Carral StreetVancouver, BC

[email protected]

Happy Streets Living Lab Report // Appendix26

Appendix 1: Demographic Information

Frequency Percent

Gender MaleFemaleTotal

3469103

33.067.0100.00

Occupation EngineerDesignerHealthcare ProfessionalArchitectPlannerOtherTotal

24673945103

1.93.95.86.837.943.7100.0

City VancouverOtherTotal

3667103

35.065.0100.0

Nationality CanadianOtherTotal

4459103

42.757.3100.0

Hometown Environment

1 (rural)2345 (urban)Total

514343317103

4.913.633.032.016.5100.0

Transportation WalkingPublic TransitCarBicycleTotal

22262728103

21.425.226.227.2100.0

N Minimum Maximum Mean

Age 102 20.00 69.00 39.2549

27

Appendix 2: Data Gathering Methodology

Self-ReportingAt each site, participants answered a series of questions about their moods and their perception of the environment. The majority of questions were rated on a 1-5 scale. Examples of the types of questions and statements participants rated were, “Rate your happiness in this moment,” and “I feel people in this place can be trusted.”

Dictator GameParticipants were asked to complete a version of the popular social-psychology task called the dictator game, which measures prosocial behavior in an economic context, at the two residential laneways. In this game, participants received 10 points to be entered into a raffle. Participants were given the opportunity to share as many of these points as they would like with another anonymous participant. In reality, the points were not shared (each name was entered into the raffle once), but the number of points participants believed they were sharing is used as a measure of their generosity.

IPANATTo understand how our sites influence user affect, a test called the Implicit Positive and Negative Affect Test (IPANAT) was administered to participants at the formal and informal green spaces. Participants were asked to rate the extent to which made-up words express certain moods, and these ratings were used as an indirect measure of their affect.

SARTA modified version of the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) was administered at the standard and rainbow intersections to measure sustained attention. In this task, digits (1-9) are displayed on the screen one at a time, for one second each. Participants were asked to press a button each time they viewed a number, but to withhold their response when they saw the number 3. The errors made in this response inhibition task are used as an indicator of the ability to sustain attention.

GSR BraceletThe Galvanic Skin Response (GSR) was recorded by placing sensors in two spots on the skin using a GSR bracelet. A heightened GSR response indicates psychological or physiological arousal and allows us to infer one’s emotional and sympathetic responses to their surroundings.

Demographic InformationIn addition to the measures above, participants were also asked to report their age, gender, occupation, the city they currently reside in (as well as how long they have lived there), their nationality, the country/countries they lived in until they were 18, how rural or urban the environment in which they grew up was, their primary form of transportation, and how much time they spend walking in cities, in addition to rating ten personality questions.


Appendix 3: Happy Streets Statistical Results

SummaryHow do interventions in street design, aesthetics and/or addition of flora influence social relationships and trust among pedestrians? Though we found no significant difference between the green and blank laneways in participant generosity, we found that all three green spaces (the formal greenspace, green laneway, and community garden) elicited the highest ratings of trustworthiness of strangers, while the blank laneway and standard intersection elicited the lowest trust ratings. We also found that green spaces apparently elicited feelings of responsibility or stewardship over a space: Participants indicated the most willingness to clear litter at the community garden and green laneway; the least willingness at the blank laneway and standard intersection; and they were more willing to clear litter at the formal greenspace than at the rainbow intersection (in terms of site pairings, we found more willingness to clear litter at the green laneway than the blank laneway, the rainbow intersection more than the standard intersection, and the community garden more than the formal greenspace). Furthermore, we found that participants would be most upset about vandalism at the green laneway and community garden and least at the blank laneway and standard intersection. Pairwise, the data followed the results of willingness to clear litter, though the rainbow intersection and formal greenspace were rated equally in terms of objection to vandalism.

What effect does investment in a green alley retrofit have on pedestrian feelings of comfort, subjective wellbeing, and social trust, compared to a standard alley? We found that participants indicated higher arousal at the blank laneway than at the green laneway. The green laneway was rated as more pleasant than the blank laneway, and participants reported greater happiness at the green laneway than at the blank laneway. In terms of social trust, we found that participants rated higher trustworthiness of strangers and higher likelihood of wallet return at the green laneway than at the blank laneway.

What effect does a tactical intersection intervention have on feelings of comfort, subjective wellbeing, social trust and likelihood of return/further use of that space? Though both intersections were rated equally in terms of arousal, the rainbow intersection was rated as more pleasant and elicited greater ratings of happiness than the standard intersection. The rainbow intersection was furthermore given higher ratings of strangers’ trustworthiness, as well as higher likelihood of a wallet return, than the standard intersection.

ResultsIPANAT. The community garden (M = 2.14, SD = 0.55) and formal green space (M = 2.30, SD = 0.55) did not differ in the implicit positive affect they elicited, t(100) = 1.43, p = .16; nor did the garden (M = 1.69, SD = 0.52) and formal green space (M = 1.65, SD = 0.40) differ in the implicit negative affect they elicited, t(63.82) = -0.49, p = .63 (Levene’s test was violated, p = .023, so equal variances were not assumed).

In comparing the implicit affect at the formal green space location before and during the place-making conference, the site was rated higher in implicit positive affect during the conference (M = 2.35, SD = 0.62) than pre-conference (M = 1.95, SD = 0.47), though this difference was not significant, t(18) = -1.59, p = .130. No significant difference emerged in implicit negative affect between pre-conference (M = 1.69, SD = 0.37) and during the conference (M = 1.70, SD = 0.50), t(18) = -0.07, p = .94.

Dictator Game. The green laneway (M = 6.30, SD = 2.42) and the blank laneway (M = 6.46, SD = 2.63) did not differ in the number of points participants shared with an anonymous partner, t(100) = -0.32, p = .77.

29

SART. Participants made more errors (i.e., a response on trials on which they were instructed to withhold a response) on the SART at the rainbow intersection (M = 4.70, SD = 2.45) than at the standard intersection (M = 4.13, SD = 2.27), though this difference was not significant, t(100) = 1.21, p = .23.

Self-ReportsArousalA one-way repeated measures ANOVA on self-reported arousal revealed a sphericity violation, Mauchly’s W(14) = .76, p ¬= .024, apparently due to high correlations between the formal greenspace and green laneway, r(98) = .33, p < .001; between the blank laneway and standard intersection, r(97) = .38, p < .001; and between the rainbow and standard intersections, r(97) = .29, p = .004 (all other correlations were p > .028). Applying a Greenhouse-Geisser correction, a significant main effect of stop location on arousal emerged, F(4.51, 441.60) = 77.90, MSE = 0.94, p < .001, ηp2 = .44 (see Figure 1). Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc tests showed that participants reported the highest arousal at the standard intersection, which was not significantly more arousal-inducing than the rainbow intersection; but that at both of these intersections, participants reported significantly higher arousal than at all other sites, all p < .001 (see Table 1 for means and standard deviations). Participants also reported significantly higher arousal at the blank laneway than at the green laneway, p = .017. No other differences were significant, all p > .12

Figure 1. Mean self-reported arousal ± SE at each of the six stop locations.


Complexity A one-way repeated measures ANOVA on site complexity revealed a sphericity violation, Mauchly’s W(14) = .69, p ¬= .001, apparently due to high correlations between the formal greenspace and the rainbow intersection, r(98) = .38, p < .001; between the green laneway and the rainbow intersection, r(98) = .26, p = .008; between the green laneway and the community garden, r(98) = .26, p = .010; between the blank laneway and the standard intersection, r(98) = .31, p = .002; and between the rainbow and standard intersections, r(98) = .35, p < .001 (all other correlations were p > .039). Applying a Greenhouse-Geisser correction, a significant main effect of stop location on complexity emerged, F(4.44, 440.00) = 41.92, MSE = 1.22, p < .001, ηp2 = .30 (see Figure 2). Similar to self-reported arousal, Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc tests showed that participants rated the standard intersection as having the highest visual complexity, and did not rate this site as significantly more complex the rainbow intersection; but that both of these intersections were rated as being significantly more visually complex than at all other sites, all p < .001. The blank laneway was rated as having the lowest amount of visual complexity and was rated as significantly less complex than the community garden, p = .006; as well as less complex than all other sites, all p < .001. No other differences were significant, all p > .99.

Figure 2. Mean complexity ± SE at each of the six stop locations.

31

Pleasantness A one-way repeated measures ANOVA on pleasantness revealed a sphericity violation, Mauchly’s W(14) = .73, p ¬= .007, apparently due to high correlations between the blank laneway and rainbow intersection, r(98) = .36, p < .001; between the blank laneway and community garden, r(98) = .29, p = .003; between the rainbow and standard intersections, r(98) = .30, p = .002; and between the rainbow intersection and the community garden, r(98) = .32, p = .001. All other correlations were p > .072. Applying a Greenhouse-Geisser correction, a significant main effect of stop location on pleasantness emerged, F(2.29, 435.79) = 142.14, MSE = 0.68, p < .001, ηp2 = .59 (see Figure 3). Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc tests showed that participants rated the green laneway to be significantly more pleasant than all other stop locations, all p < .001. The blank laneway and standard intersection were rated as significantly less pleasant than all other sites, all p < .001, but were not significantly different from each other, p > .99. Finally, the community garden was rated as being significantly more pleasant than the rainbow intersection, p = .032. No other differences were significant, all p > .67.

Figure 3. Mean pleasantness ± SE at each of the six stop locations.


Interest A one-way repeated measures ANOVA on interest revealed a sphericity violation, Mauchly’s W(14) = .66, p ¬< .001, apparently due to high correlations between the green laneway and rainbow intersection, r(98) = .42, p < .001; between the green laneway and community garden, r(98) = .39, p < .001; between the rainbow and standard intersections, r(98) = .42, p < .001; and between the rainbow intersection and the community garden, r(98) = .31, p = .002. All other correlations were p > .039. Applying a Greenhouse-Geisser correction, a significant main effect of stop location on interest emerged, F(4.37, 428.69) = 111.64, MSE = 0.88, p < .001, ηp2 = .53 (see Figure 4). Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc tests showed that participants rated the rainbow intersection, green laneway, and community garden as significantly more interesting than all other locations, p < .001 (with the community garden being rated as significantly more interesting than the formal greenspace at p = .001), though not significantly different from each other, p > .99. The blank laneway was rated as significantly less interesting than all other locations, p < .001. The formal greenspace was rated as being significantly more interesting than the standard intersection, p < .001.

Figure 4. Mean interest ± SE at each of the six stop locations.

33

Understandable

Figure 5. Mean understandable ± SE at each of the six stop locations.


Attraction A one-way repeated measures ANOVA on attraction revealed a sphericity violation, Mauchly’s W(14) = .53, p ¬< .001, apparently due to high correlations between the green laneway and rainbow intersection, r(98) = .43, p < .001; between the green laneway and community garden, r(98) = .37, p < .001; between the rainbow and standard intersections, r(98) = .33, p < .001; and between the rainbow intersection and the community garden, r(98) = .37, p < .001. All other correlations were p > .055. Applying a Greenhouse-Geisser correction, a significant main effect of stop location on attraction emerged, F(4.17, 404.48) = 105.46, MSE = 0.96, p < .001, ηp2 = .52 (see Figure 6). Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc tests showed that participants rated their attraction to the green laneway as significantly greater than to the community garden, p = .007, as well as to all other locations, p < .001. The blank laneway and standard intersections were rated as significantly less attractive than all other locations, p < .001, but did not significantly differ in attraction from each other, p > .99. No other differences were significant, all p > .140.

Figure 6. Mean attraction ± SE at each of the six stop locations.

35

Familiarity

Crowdedness

Figure 7. Mean familiarity ± SE at each of the six stop locations.

Figure 8. Mean crowdedness ± SE at each of the six stop locations.


LitterA one-way repeated measures ANOVA on likelihood of picking up litter revealed a sphericity violation, Mauchly’s W(14) = .66, p ¬< .001, apparently due to high correlations between the formal greenspace and green laneway, r(96) = .44, p < .001; between the formal greenspace and blank laneway, r(96) = .45, p < .001; between the formal greenspace and rainbow intersection, r(96) = .43, p < .001; between the formal greenspace and standard intersection, r(96) = .35, p < .001; between the green laneway and rainbow intersection, r(97) = .53, p < .001; between the green laneway and standard intersection, r(96) = .33, p < .001; between the green laneway and community garden, r(97) = .47, p < .001; between the blank laneway and rainbow intersection, r(97) = .38, p < .001; between the blank laneway and standard intersection, r(96) = .61, p < .001; between the rainbow and standard intersections, r(97) = .48, p < .001; and between the rainbow intersection and the community garden, r(98) = .31, p = .001. All other correlations were p > .009. Applying a Greenhouse-Geisser correction, a significant main effect of stop location on likelihood of picking up litter emerged, F(4.40, 414.83) = 119.02, MSE = 1.00, p < .001, ηp2 = .56 (see Figure 9). Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc tests showed that participants rated their likelihood of clearing litter at the community garden and green laneway as significantly greater than all other locations, p < .001, but that these locations did not significantly differ from each other, p = .064. Participants rated their likelihoods of clearing litter at the blank laneway and standard intersections as significantly lower than at all other locations, p < .001; but these locations did not significantly differ from each other, p > .99. Participants rated their likelihood of clearing litter at the formal greenspace as significantly greater than at the rainbow intersection, p = .020.

Figure 9. Mean willingness to pick up litter ± SE at each of the six stop locations.

37

VandalismA one-way repeated measures ANOVA on objection to vandalism revealed a sphericity violation, Mauchly’s W(14) = .44, p ¬< .001, apparently due to high correlations between the formal greenspace and green laneway, r(97) = .36, p < .001; between the formal greenspace and blank laneway, r(97) = .28, p = .005; between the formal greenspace and standard intersection, r(97) = .33, p < .001; between the green laneway and community garden, r(97) = .38, p < .001; between the blank laneway and standard intersection, r(98) = .44, p < .001; and between the rainbow and standard intersections, r(97) = .31, p = .002. All other correlations were p > .014. Applying a Greenhouse-Geisser correction, a significant main effect of stop location on objection to vandalism emerged, F(4.00, 384.51) = 84.58, MSE = 0.94, p < .001, ηp2 = .48 (see Figure 10). Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc tests showed that participants rated their objection to vandalism at the community garden and green laneway as significantly greater than all other locations, p < .001 (with the exception that the green laneway was rated with significantly greater objection to vandalism than the rainbow intersection at p = .014); but that these locations did not significantly differ from each other, p = .064. Participants rated their objection to vandalism at the blank laneway and standard intersections as significantly lower than at all other locations, p < .001; but these locations did not significantly differ from each other, p = .112. The formal greenspace and rainbow intersection did not significantly differ in objection to vandalism, p > .99.

Figure 10. Mean objection to vandalism ± SE at each of the six stop locations.


HappinessA one-way repeated measures ANOVA on happiness revealed a sphericity violation, Mauchly’s W(14) = .71, p ¬= .003, apparently due to high correlations between the green laneway and blank laneway, r(98) = .39, p < .001; between the green laneway and community garden, r(98) = .27, p = .007; between the blank laneway and rainbow intersection, r(98) = .39, p < .001; between the blank laneway and standard intersection, r(98) = .33, p < .001; and between the rainbow and standard intersections, r(98) = .51, p < .001. All other correlations were p > .021. Applying a Greenhouse-Geisser correction, a significant main effect of stop location on happiness emerged, F(4.39, 421.09) = 60.56, MSE = 0.63, p < .001, ηp2 = .39 (see Figure 11). Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc tests showed that participants were significantly happier at the green laneway than at the community garden, p = .015, and all other locations, p < .001. Participants were significantly less happy at the blank laneway and standard intersections than at all other locations, p < .001, but these locations did not significantly differ from each other in happiness, p = .182. No other differences were significant, all p > .99.

Figure 11. Mean happiness ± SE at each of the six stop locations.

39

TrustA one-way repeated measures ANOVA on trust revealed a sphericity violation, Mauchly’s W(14) = .75, p ¬= .020, apparently due to high correlations between the green laneway and rainbow intersection, r(98) = .32, p = .001; and between the blank laneway and standard intersection, r(96) = .27, p = .008. All other correlations were p > .010. Applying a Greenhouse-Geisser correction, a significant main effect of stop location on trust emerged, F(4.41, 419.36) = 58.45, MSE = 0.90, p < .001, ηp2 = .38 (see Figure 12). Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc tests showed that participants were significantly less trusting at the blank laneway and standard intersections than at all other locations, p < .001, but that these locations did not significantly differ from each other, p > .99. Participants were significantly more trusting at the green laneway than at the rainbow intersection, p < .001; significantly more trusting at the formal greenspace than at the rainbow intersection, p = .001; and significantly more trusting at the community garden than at the rainbow intersection, p < .001. No other differences were significant, all p > .184.

Figure 12. Mean trust ± SE at each of the six stop locations.


Wallet return A one-way repeated measures ANOVA on perceived likelihood of wallet return revealed a sphericity violation, Mauchly’s W(14) = .71, p ¬= .002, apparently due to high correlations between the formal greenspace and green laneway, r(98) = .28, p = .005; between the green laneway and blank laneway, r(98) = .34, p < .001; between the green laneway and rainbow intersection, r(98) = .42, p < .001; between the green laneway and community garden, r(98) = .33, p < .001; between the rainbow and standard intersections, r(98) = .41, p < .001; and between the rainbow intersection and the community garden, r(98) = .41, p < .001. All other correlations were p > .028. Applying a Greenhouse-Geisser correction, a significant main effect of stop location on likelihood of wallet return emerged, F(4.47, 442.85) = 57.11, MSE = 0.98, p < .001, ηp2 = .37 (see Figure 13). Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc tests showed that participants were significantly perceived the blank laneway and standard intersection as places less likely for a stranger to return a wallet than all other locations, p < .001; but these locations did not significantly differ from each other, p > .99. Participants reported less likelihood of a wallet return at the rainbow intersection than at the formal greenspace, p = .006; and less likelihood of a wallet return than at the green laneway and community garden, both p < .001. No other differences were significant, all p > .190.

Figure 13. Mean likelihood of wallet return ± SE at each of the six stop locations.

41

Desire to ReturnA one-way repeated measures ANOVA on the desire to return revealed a sphericity violation, Mauchly’s W(14) = .68, p ¬< .001, apparently due to high correlations between the green laneway and rainbow intersection, r(98) = .27, p = .007; between the green laneway and community garden, r(97) = .38, p < .001; between the rainbow and standard intersections, r(97) = .38, p < .001; and between the rainbow intersection and the community garden, r(97) = .40, p < .001. All other correlations were p > .10. Applying a Greenhouse-Geisser correction, a significant main effect of stop location on desire to return emerged, F(4.37, 415.09) = 128.73, MSE = 1.03, p < .001, ηp2 = .58 (see Figure 14). Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc tests showed that participants wished to return to the green laneway significantly more than all other locations, p < .001; except the rainbow intersection, from which it did not differ, p = .52. Participants wanted to return to the blank laneway significantly less than all other locations, p < .001; and participants wished to return to the standard intersection significantly less than all other locations except the blank laneway (from which it significantly differed in the opposite direction), p < .001. Participants wished to return to the rainbow intersection significantly more than to the formal greenspace, p = .014. No other differences were significant, all p > .177.

Figure 14. Mean desire to return ± SE to each of the six stop locations.


Meet FriendsA one-way repeated measures ANOVA on the desire to meet friends revealed a sphericity violation, Mauchly’s W(14) = .54, p ¬< .001, apparently due to high correlations between the green laneway and blank laneway, r(96) = .24, p = .016; between the green laneway and community garden, r(98) = .31, p = .002; and between the rainbow intersection and the community garden, r(98) = .31, p = .001. All other correlations were p > .086. Applying a Greenhouse-Geisser correction, a significant main effect of stop location on desire to meet friends emerged, F(4.18, 400.78) = 75.11, MSE = 1.54, p < .001, ηp2 = .44 (see Figure 15). Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc tests showed that participants wished to meet friends at the rainbow intersection significantly more than the formal greenspace, p = .005; the green laneway, p = .016; and all other locations, p < .001. Participants wanted to meet friends at the blank laneway significantly less than all other locations, p < .001; and participants wished to meet friends at the standard intersection significantly less than the formal greenspace, green laneway, and rainbow intersection, p < .001; and the community garden, p = .018. No other differences were significant, all p > .99.

Figure 15. Mean desire to meet with friends ± SE at each of the six stop locations.

43

Appendix 4: GSR Data

Data was collected with Affectiva Q sensors, a non-invasive, wrist-worn mobile device that measures skin conductance through two sensors that sit against the skin.All values were standardized within each participant to enable comparisons across subjects. Values for each stop correspond to the last ten-second interval of the first minute participants arrived at each stop. The baseline value for each participant corresponds to the ten-second interval after the first five minutes of recording.A repeated-measures ANOVA found a significant effect of stop on skin conductance, F(6, 66) = 4.66, MSE = 0.79, p = .001, η2 = .30, such that skin conductance varied significantly across the six tour stops and baseline. Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc tests showed that the standard intersection was associated with significantly higher skin conductance levels than baseline, p = .006, and the formal greenspace, p = .032 (see Table 1 for means and standard deviations). No other comparisons were significant; however, the comparisons between the rainbow intersection and baseline, p = .146, and between the standard intersection and green laneway, p = .107, were trending.

Table 1

Mean standardized skin-conductance levels and standard deviations by stop location

Stop Location Mean (SD)

Baselione -0.66 (0.88)

Formal greenspace -0.30 (0.55)

Green laneway -0.21 (0.66)

Blank laneway 0.16 (0.86)

Rainbow intersection 0.39 (0.71)

Standard intersection 1.02 (0.80)

Community garden -0.23 (1.32


Appendix 5: Noise, Pedestrian and Vehicle Traffic

Noise and weather

Place Date Time Weather Max. dB Avg. dB Min. dB

1. Sheraton Plaza Sept. 9 2.00 pm Sunny, +19 C 72.2 51.2 32.5

2. Mole Hill Laneway Sept. 9 2.10 pm Sunny, +19 C 56.9 41.4 32.3

3. Blank Laneway Sept. 9 2.15 pm Sunny, +19 C 65.6 47.2 38.1

4. Rainbow Intersection Sept. 9 2.25pm Sunny, +19 C 76.8 60.2 46.7

5. Standard Intersection Sept. 9 3.00 pm Sunny, +19 C 74.9 63.4 51.0

6. Community Garden Sept. 9 3.35 pm Sunny, +19 C 69.9 58.1 42.5

30 minute pedestrian counts (only measured at places with through traffic – not community garden or manicured park):

Place Date Time Weather Number of pedestrians in an intersection (30 min)

Thurlow-Thurlow

Davie-Davie

Bute-Bute

Davie-Davie

1. Mole Hill Laneway

Sept. 2 3.00- 3.30pm

Sunny, +19 C 4

2. Blank Laneway

Sept. 2 3.35- 4.05pm

Sunny, +19 C 6

3. Rainbow Intersection

Sept. 9 2.25- 2.55pm

Sunny, +19 C 515 305 210

4. Standard Intersection

Sept. 9 3.00- 3.30pm

Sunny, +19 C 805 279 526

Vehicular traffic counts from the City of Vancouver - 24 hour traffic

Location Number of vehicles per 24 hours Year of study

Davie Street + Bute Street

624 2011

Davie Street + Thurlow Street

5507 2013

Happy City425 Carral StreetVancouver, BC

[email protected]

Documents

HAPPY STREETS LIVING LAB - Happy City · 2 Happy Streets Living Lab Report // Design Team and Partners Research Team + Project Partners Happy Streets Team Happy Streets Living Lab