Bridging Perceptions: A Comparative Evaluation of Public Space Design Qualities by Experts and Users

Abstract

In the context of public space research, numerous studies highlight its vital role in fostering public life and social interaction. With urbanization on the rise and most people living in cities, acknowledging public spaces, and especially public squares, as key components of the urban realm is more important than ever. The success of space is frequently determined by its capacity to meet human needs, a condition that, in turn, is largely contingent upon specific design qualities. Literature identifies key qualities such as inclusiveness, accessibility and connectivity, sociability, vitality, perceptual and esthetic satisfaction, and participatory characteristics. While many studies explore these factors, little attention has been given to whether users and designers assign equal importance to them. This research addresses the question: To what extent do experts’ and users’ perceptions converge regarding the variables that determine the success of public spaces? To explore this, the study applies MICMAC method structural analysis that prioritizes variables based on their interdependence and dependence. The method is used with both design experts and public space users. Findings reveal convergence in perceptions regarding key parameters; specifically, strong convergence is observed in the qualities of participation and vitality, followed by sociability and perceptual and esthetic satisfaction. Moreover, the expert group prioritizes parameters related to sociability, accessibility and connectivity, and inclusiveness, reflecting contemporary design principles aimed at creating equitable, easily accessible, and inclusive spaces. In contrast, the user group focuses more on the experiential and esthetic dimension of space, adding variables related to perceptual and esthetic satisfaction and vitality. The study aims to inform more user-responsive public space design by bridging gaps between expert and user perspectives.

1. Introduction

The unprecedented impacts and transformations triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in urban areas, highlighted the need for the international community to reconsider the future of cities and to revise urban typologies that can withstand the evolving challenges of an increasingly dynamic urban world [1]. Within this framework, the United Nations introduced the vision of creating “cities for all,” which aims to enhance inclusivity, active citizen engagement, and the sense of belonging for all residents. A key priority is the provision of safe, inclusive, accessible, green, and high-quality public spaces that respond to the needs of public life. Public spaces like squares, as places that foster public life and social interaction [2,3,4,5,6,7,8], must be welcoming to families, foster social interaction and encourage prolonged presence, promote cultural and political expression, and strengthen social cohesion and inclusion [9]. Ensuring the needs of all people in diverse societies, as well as recognizing the needs of vulnerable minorities, constitutes a critical parameter for shaping inclusive public spaces [1].

Public spaces, and more specifically squares, are places where citizens’ daily activities unfold, which, beyond their social character, can also be classified as either mandatory or optional [4]. The investigation of the parameters that contribute to their success has been the subject of numerous studies in the past. The extent to which squares are deemed successful is directly related to the qualities that characterize them [10]. The question that arises is to what degree designers and users perceive and prioritize the qualities that define the success of these spaces. As such a comparison has not been identified in the literature, a knowledge gap is evident; this notable gap gives the opportunity to explore the convergence or divergence between the perspectives of designers and users; through such research critical insights for rethinking the design of public squares can be revealed.

While existing literature has provided valuable insights into the characteristics of vibrant and inclusive urban environments, relatively little attention has been given to the comparative evaluation of perceptions between experts and everyday users. Bridging this gap is vital, as design professionals often approach public space from a technical or regulatory perspective, whereas users experience it through lived, embodied practices. Understanding the extent of alignment, or misalignment, between these viewpoints can inform more responsive, equitable, and people-centered planning outcomes.

Based on the above, the research question that emerges is: “To what extent is there convergence between the perceptions of professionals involved in the design of public squares and those of their users regarding the variables that determine their success?” To study this relationship, the method of structural analysis (MICMAC Analysis) can be employed, as it allows the evaluation and prioritization of parameters based on the degree of influence and dependency between them. Within the framework of this method, a set of parameters are evaluated and ranked both by experts and users, according to the level of influence and interdependence they exhibit.

This study applies this framework to the case of Greece, where public squares play a central role in daily urban life and constitute a critical arena for testing inclusive design approaches in order to adopt sustainable mobility schemes, as well. The article is structured as follows: Section 2 reviews the relevant literature on public space qualities and perception studies; Section 3 outlines the methodological framework and data collection; Section 4 presents the results of the comparative evaluation along with their implications for planning practice; and Section 5 concludes with directions for future research.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Literature Review on Designing Successful Public Squares

The debate on urban design and public spaces (squares) has been the subject of extensive research in recent decades, focusing on both its theoretical foundations and its practical applications. Urban design is positioned at the intersection of urban planning and architecture [11], with an emphasis on the creation of high-quality public squares that promote social life and human well-being [12,13]. As an inherently interdisciplinary field, it draws from sociology, psychology, anthropology, political science, and urban geography [14], while it continues to adapt to new social and environmental challenges [15].

Public squares constitute a fundamental element of democratic societies [2,16], carrying a strong ideological and social dimension [17,18]. Defined as publicly accessible places, it provides opportunities for meeting everyday needs, fostering social interaction, and enabling cultural and political expression [19,20]. Within this framework, squares have historically played a central role as meeting points, markets, and hubs of community life [3,4,21].

In terms of human activities that may take place in public spaces and squares, Gehl (2013) proposed a widely adopted classification: necessary, optional, and social activities. While necessary activities (e.g., commuting) occur regardless of spatial quality, optional and social activities strongly depend on the attractiveness and usability of squares. Successful urban spaces, therefore, are characterized by high levels of optional and social activity [4].

Various scholars have also proposed frameworks for assessing the success of public spaces and squares. Lynch (1981) defined five key dimensions: vitality, sense, fit, access, and control (participation) [22]. Jacobs (1961) highlighted the importance of diversity and “lively” cities [8], while Whyte (1980) stressed the significance of behavioral observation in understanding social dynamics [7]. The Project for Public Spaces (2010) emphasized accessibility, comfort, sociability, and activity as central criteria [10].

Synthesizing the literature, six core qualities emerge as decisive for successful public spaces:

• Inclusiveness: Design and management of public squares to meet diverse needs, with particular attention to vulnerable populations.
• Accessibility and connectivity: Physical and social accessibility ensure the participation in public life.
• Sociability: The capacity of a space to foster interactions, strengthen social ties, and promote diversity.
• Vitality: The ability of a place to sustain diverse activities and maintain constant activity levels.
• Perceptual and esthetic satisfaction: The sensory and symbolic qualities that enhance user experience and attachment.
• Community engagement: Citizens’ involvement in shaping public squares to ensure legitimacy, sustainability, and long-term use.

Overall, the literature demonstrates that the success of squares depends not only on their physical design but also on their capacity to accommodate social dynamics, respond to historical transformations, and incorporate user perspectives. Understanding these qualities is critical for the creation of sustainable, inclusive, and resilient urban environments. The six categories seen previously (Inclusiveness, Accessibility and Connectivity, Sociability, Vitality, Perceptual and Esthetic Satisfaction, and Community Engagement) emerged from a synthesis of seminal theoretical works [4,8,9,13] and recent empirical research on public space evaluation. Each category reflects a multidimensional aspect of “success” in public squares design, and the included 21 variables were distilled from overlapping frameworks in the literature.

2.2. Analysis of Qualities and Variables

Building on the previous section, design qualities and their associated variables that affect the success of public squares are examined. As urban centers experience growing social diversity [1], fostering inclusiveness is recognized as a core principle of contemporary urban design. An inclusive public square is often defined as “a public place that responds to the needs and interests of all individuals” [9]. Consequently, individuals in a public square should experience a sense of acceptance, freedom, and protection from all forms of discrimination, including those based on gender, age, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, religion, cultural heritage, social class, or personal beliefs [23].

The use of space by different age groups constitutes a fundamental characteristic of a lively, successful, and non-exclusionary place [2,24,25]. According to Nelischer and Loukaitou-Sideris (2022), intergenerational public space provides multiple benefits both at the individual level—such as improving social behavior and promoting a healthy and active lifestyle—and at the collective level, where it strengthens community cohesion and volunteerism [26]. Equally important is a thorough understanding of the needs and experiences across genders, since men and women frequently perceive and interact with space in distinct ways [27]. Gender inequalities in public space, and squares in particular, frequently reflect deeper social structures, making the collection of gender-disaggregated data essential for understanding these disparities [28,29,30,31].

For many years, the needs of people with disabilities were overlooked in design processes [32]. Inclusive design ensures that all individuals can use public squares with ease, while also contributing to crime prevention and the promotion of healthy living conditions.

The concept of accessibility extends beyond mere physical ability to enter or use a space. It includes the capacity of all individuals, regardless of disability, to equally utilize public spaces and infrastructure [33]. This expanded understanding of accessibility highlights its importance not only for people with disabilities but also for society as a whole, as it affects overall ease of mobility and citizens’ participation in daily activities [34]. Moreover, the promotion of accessibility is linked to the creation of urban environments that encourage sustainable mobility. In addition, accessibility and the effective interconnection of different areas within a city are vital for improving quality of life and reducing social inequalities. Well-designed infrastructures facilitate interaction among citizens and their participation in the social and economic life of the city [4]. In conclusion, accessibility is not merely a design issue but a fundamental parameter that contributes to the creation of inclusive, equitable, and sustainable urban environments [35].

Continuity refers to the uninterrupted flow of movement networks leading to public squares [9]. Meeting this condition enables effective and safe movement toward public squares while simultaneously enhancing the functionality of the urban environment [36]. The presence of gaps, obstacles, or dead ends hinders smooth pedestrian movement, discourages access to public spaces [7], and consequently can limit social activity [8]. Connectivity, as a concept, varies across disciplines, but in the context of urban design, it can be defined as the ease or directness of moving from one place to another. Fallah and Fallah (2015) support that public spaces that are connected through defined paths provide to their users sequential environmental affordance [37]. In this way, Hillier (1996) underlines that infrastructure design may support people in moving efficiently and fluidly through urban space in general and squares in particular [38]. Walkability expresses the degree to which the built environment is friendly to the presence of pedestrians and to activities in an area [39,40]. According to Speck (2012), a user chooses walking over other modes of transport when four criteria are met: it is safe, interesting, comfortable, and useful [41]. The concept of walkability is directly connected to quality of life in cities [42], as walkable environments increase social interaction, reduce pollution, and encourage a healthier lifestyle [43]. Accessibility in this sense encompasses unobstructed access and safe mobility for all community members, including youth, the elderly, children, and people with reduced mobility, regardless of income level [39]. Accessibility for people with reduced mobility is both a fundamental right and a prerequisite for inclusive and sustainable urban design. Public transport and soft mobility networks should be distributed across communities to ensure easy access for all social groups [9]. Moreover, a lack of accessibility can lead to social exclusion and reduced opportunities for participation in the economic, cultural, and social life of the city [44].

Sociability is an important parameter of urban design, particularly with regard to the creation of public squares that promote coexistence and human interaction. According to the Project for Public Spaces (2010), sociability denotes a space’s ability to bring people together, encourage social gatherings, and act as a community hub [10]. Sociability is directly related to the sense of belonging and the strengthening of social bonds. When users feel that a public space belongs to them, their connection to the community is reinforced, and the space becomes a site of daily interaction [45]. This process creates conditions of social sustainability, as the space is not only functional but also lively, responding to the needs of the community. The ability of public spaces to enhance the social life of their users is therefore an indicator not only of their functionality but also of their sustainability as places embedded in the life of the city.

The sense of ownership of a public space enhances the ability of users to express a broader range of behaviors compared to typical conditions [9], creating dynamic and vibrant spaces that reflect the needs and desires of communities [19]. Cooperativeness refers to a quality that encourages collaboration, shared responsibility, and group participation among users of the space [9]. This includes active involvement in the maintenance, management, and use of public space, as well as the organization of social activities such as political gatherings, collective sports, and events [46]. A public square maintains a neighborhood character when it promotes a sense of community and interaction among people [9]. This quality is reinforced by the presence of local businesses near it, where relationships are developed between customers and owners [2]. Neighborhood character is also strengthened when the square’s form is enclosed, a term that denotes the presence of stable boundaries or a defined shape. When adequately framed, outdoor spaces can acquire the basic morphology of indoor spaces, with vertical elements such as buildings and trees representing the “walls,” sidewalks and pavements serving as the “floor,” and the sky representing the “ceiling” [47,48]. Human density, the number of individuals per unit of area, significantly influences human experience and behavior (staffing theory), serving as a key factor in environmental psychology [2,5]. Whyte (1980) concluded that what attracts people most is other people, a phenomenon he called self-congestion [7]. However, Hall (1966) and Sommer (1969) argue that the violation of personal space due to increased density may lead to discomfort or avoidance (capacity) [49,50]. At moderate levels of density, public squares can promote human interaction, while very low density may reduce people’s willingness to participate in social activities (maintenance minimum) [4,7]. Evaluating the degree of sociability in a public space also requires examining the presence of groups of people, as this provides insights into social dynamics and the extent of interaction [9]. People tend to gather in groups when the environment is friendly to social interaction and promotes a sense of community [45]. At the same time, a public space should be welcoming to different social groups and give them the opportunity to engage with one another [51].

Vitality refers to the liveliness and active use of a public square, reflected through the continuous flow of people, the mix of land uses, the variety of activities, and the sense of vibrancy the space conveys [52]. Jacobs (1961) argued that vitality is fundamental for sustaining the social and economic life of a city, as lively spaces attract people, strengthen the sense of safety, and create conditions for social interaction [8]. Areas with mixed land uses tend to enhance public life, contributing to the creation of lively public spaces [2,4,53]. Jacobs (1961) noted that land-use mix increases social interaction and reinforces safety, as more people are present at different times of the day [8]. When individuals with diverse needs and schedules use the same space, the chances of spontaneous social encounters increase, creating an environment of social cohesion [4,52]. Public squares depend heavily on the activity and functions provided by their surrounding frontages [54]. Gehl (2013), using the dichotomy of “open” versus “closed,” highlights the importance of permeable ground floors of buildings, in contrast to impermeable facades that discourage interaction and the physical presence of users [4]. Therefore, permeability is a significant parameter in attracting users to public spaces. Kyriakidis (2024) and Mehta (2013) further observe that the number and width of storefronts, combined with the intensity of mixed land uses, reinforces the occurrence of optional and social activities [2,5].

Public squares that provide a wide range of activities are adaptable to users’ evolving needs and can serve different purposes at different times [19,25]. The variety of activities not only attracts individuals with diverse interests but also encourages multifunctional use, offering opportunities for both formal and spontaneous activities [4,52]. The social diversity that emerges from the variety of activities is a key component of a successful public space (square), as it promotes the integration of different social groups and encourages inclusiveness [7,55]. According to Katsavounidou (2023), activities are valuable from three perspectives: (a) as attractions for other activities, (b) as a source of information about the social environment, and (c) as opportunities for developing new relationships or maintaining existing ones [54]. Gehl (2013) emphasizes the creation of public squares that offer users diverse opportunities such as walking, lingering, observing others, communicating, and playing, thereby strengthening social interaction and active participation in space [4]. These elements encourage people not only to visit such spaces but also to return to them [10]. Occasional active uses and activities, including sports, recreation, playgrounds, outdoor workshops, events, and festivals, also contribute to social interaction, users’ health and well-being, and the vibrancy of a place [9]. As Gehl (2013) notes, it is people and human activities that attract other people, with new activities often emerging in proximity to events already taking place [4].

Perceptual and esthetic satisfaction is closely linked to the image and comfort of public spaces. According to PPS (2010), comfort includes individuals’ perceptions regarding personal safety, cleanliness, and the availability of appropriate seating options. A comfortable and welcoming public square influences not only the types of activities that take place within it but also the duration of users’ stays [10]. High-quality public spaces encourage optional and social activities, beyond the mandatory ones [4]. Whyte’s (1980) observational research and Bakogiannis et al.’s (2018) work revealed the importance of seating areas, concluding that people tend to sit where there is space available, and that the most popular squares provide the most seating [7,17]. Contemporary urban design approaches public space both from an esthetic perspective and as a social, political, and cultural field for expression and interaction [36]. The physical design of public squares, such as the integration of greenery and shaded areas, enhances user comfort. Natural features impact various aspects of daily life, from enhancing visual stimuli and strengthening the sense of place to shaping social dynamics [56]. Regarding attractiveness and maintenance, Carmona and De Magalhães (2006) emphasize that the absence of proper care is one of the main factors contributing to the degradation of public space and squares quality, negatively affecting both functionality and attractiveness [57].

Safety and a sense of security are prerequisites for the success of public spaces and squares [14]. Safety is often distinguished between actual and perceived, with various environmental characteristics influencing both [25]. Jacobs (1961) emphasized the concept of “eyes on the street,” arguing that the observation of public spaces by residents and passersby significantly contributes to safety. She also highlighted the importance of mixed uses and human density as essential for safety throughout the day [8]. Similarly, Hillier (1988) argued that the presence of people provides the primary means of protecting a space, while good connectivity through visible and accessible corridors helps reduce crime [58], as deviant behavior tends to occur in poorly integrated areas [59]. Newman (1973) identified three factors related to increased crime rates: (a) anonymity, (b) lack of surveillance, and (c) availability of escape routes [60]. Empirical research shows that perceived safety from crime is influenced by physical condition, environmental design, land uses, interventions, and the characteristics of people using public space [25].

The duration of stay in a space-square reflects its attractiveness, comfort, and amenities; these characteristics are the ones that motivate people to spend more time there [9]. Climatic conditions play a significant role in determining this, as they affect thermal comfort [61]. Gehl (2013) emphasizes that microclimate quality determines whether a space is used or avoided. Adequate shading in summer and protection from wind in winter can increase comfort and prolong stay. The duration of stay is also related to the type of activity: optional and social activities extend exposure, while necessary activities are performed quickly to meet specific needs. Optional and social activities occur when external conditions are favorable and when diverse opportunities are available [4].

Naturalness in public squares and spaces in general refers to the absence of artificial interventions and the preservation of natural character [61]. This includes greenery, vegetation, water features, organic design, and sensory experiences [9,17]. Urban greenery encourages users to stay in public squares [62], with shade being particularly important in summer months [63]. Design decisions, such as material and color selection, influence activity patterns and contribute to either lively or lifeless environments [4]. Authenticity and sense of place also play crucial roles, with authenticity referring to the uniqueness of a space and sense of place relating to the “genius loci” or spirit of a place [14,64]. Appropriation reinforces the concept of place, promoting emotional bonds, participation, and community [65]. The success of public space is linked to users’ ability to appropriate it, actively use it, and perceive it as part of their own lived experience [66].

Legibility refers to the ease with which users can “read” spaces and orient themselves [54]. Lynch (1960) introduced the concept to describe this ability, which enhances user experience by facilitating understanding and engagement [36,67]. The complexity of the landscape—shaped by pedestrians, signage, architecture, seating, artworks, performers, and activities—influences legibility [47,68]. Public squares should also be attractive enough to draw people in and resilient enough to adapt over time. Gehl (2013) argues that public space quality directly affects the frequency and type of activities [4]. Artistic elements, such as public art, enhance cultural vibrancy [69,70]. Maintenance is also critical, as poor care degrades quality [57], while well-maintained spaces promote inclusion [71,72]. Spaces designed to withstand environmental challenges, including climate change, retain resilience and functionality for longer [73]. The use of natural materials, bioclimatic design, and greenery enhances both resilience and attractiveness, strengthening users’ connection to the environment [17,74]

Finally, participation and user control are fundamental to public space and square success. Lefebvre’s (1991) theory of the right to the city emphasizes that citizens should be active co-creators, not mere users [75]; a quite similar perception is expressed in studies on neogeography [76]. When residents, workers, and visitors can influence design, operation, and maintenance, a more user-oriented environment emerges that reflects real needs [24]. Whyte (1980) argued that opportunities for interaction and participation encourage emotional connection, leading to better care and sustainability [7]. Participatory governance and citizen inclusion in planning lead to fairer, more sustainable solutions [77,78]. Incorporating everyday users’ experiences provides authenticity and resilience, while enhancing cohesion and belonging [4,19]. Design that promotes participation gives users opportunities to contribute to decision-making and personalization, creating spaces that respond to preferences and expectations [36]. Adaptability is equally important, as flexible spaces that can be modified for different uses ensure long-term functionality and sustainability [79]. The figure below (Figure 1) provides a summary of the qualities and variables that were analyzed previously, in relation to the existing literature. In parallel, Figure 2 illustrates the features of accessibility, connectivity, and vitality as they appear in four public squares around the Metropolitan area of Athens.

3. Method

As previously outlined, present study investigates the extent to which both designers and non-experts users of public space perceive and prioritize the parameters that underpin its success. To address the research question, the first step was a literature review of these parameters (seen in the previous section).

Consequently, by examining and comparing different approaches, a brief resume was created, consisting of six qualities that were further specified into twenty-one variables. To investigate this topic, the structural analysis method (MICMAC Analysis) was adopted. This methodological framework represents an innovative analytical approach, enabling the prioritization and evaluation of parameters based on their mutual influence and dependence.

This method was applied to both domain experts and lay citizens who use public spaces, thereby enabling a comparative analysis of their respective perceptions. The method was considered appropriate for this research since it enables the study of issues whose expression is qualitative, such as the complex and multi-parameter topic under investigation. According to Chatziioannou et al. (2023), the use of this method allows for the identification of both direct and indirect effects among parameters [82], facilitating the understanding of their interdependencies and the identification of critical elements that influence the effectiveness of squares.

3.1. Recruitment of People and Composition of Groups

The participation process involves certain constraints aimed at ensuring that the final outcome will be valid. Given the subject of this research, the formation of two groups was required, whose members were intended to exhibit diverse characteristics in order to be as representative as possible. In the case of the design experts, participation was requested from specialists in the field of urban and spatial planning, representing a range of academic and disciplinary backgrounds. In the case of non-experts, diversity was sought in terms of age profile and professional field, with emphasis on equal participation of men and women. This approach is also highlighted by Chatziioannou & Alvarez-Icaza (2017), as it serves the nature of the study, which is approached from multiple scientific disciplines [83]. Additionally, it should be noted that the selection of members for each group was carried out in a way that ensures their independence from one another. For the purposes of this study, a group of twelve individuals was formed, consisting of experts and scientists from the Department of Geography and Regional Planning of the School of Rural and Surveying Engineering—Geoinformatics Engineers at NTUA (postgraduate students, PhD candidates, PhDs, and postdoctoral researchers), a staff member from the Ministry of Environment and Energy, as well as professional architects and spatial/urban planners actively working in the field of urban and spatial planning (

Table 1. Composition of the experts’ sample.

Experts	Area of Expertise
1	Dr Urban Planner
2	Dr Transport Engineer
3	Dr Urban Planner
4	Urban Planner
5	Policymaker
6	Surveyor
7	Surveyor
8	Surveyor—PhD Candidate
9	Surveyor
10	Architect
11	Architect
12	Civil Engineer

).

The expert group included licensed urban planners, architects, and civil engineers, alongside surveyors with expertise in urban design assessments. The experts’ group was composed of professionals from different but related specialties, who operated independently of one another. Additionally, it should be noted that all the surveyors considered for this study have completed their master’s studies relative to urban planning, but they also have substantial experience in urban planning. In addition, according to the Technical Chamber of Greece, a large number of urban planning studies—at least in Greece—are implemented by surveyors, hence we consider their participation an essential part for the evolution of the study. To participate in the evaluation process, a series of personal interviews was conducted with the members of the expert group. For a small number of participants who were unable to attend in person, invitations were sent via email, providing an overview of the study, its aims, and the methodological procedures to be followed. To facilitate their participation, in addition to the file containing the structural analysis matrix, they were provided with a document offering a detailed description of the parameters, in order to clarify the key concepts of the methodology. The interviews were conducted over the period from January to May 2025. Participants were asked to complete a matrix, identifying the existence of influence relationships between the parameters, and were given the opportunity to suggest additions and/or modifications regarding these parameters. Their contribution was considered crucial to the success of the study, with the estimated participation time being 15–20 min.

Additionally, a group of twelve non-expert users of public spaces was formed (

Table 2. Composition of the non-expert sample.

Experts	Area of Expertise
1	Education
2	Insurance
3	Food and Beverage
4	Domestic Services
5	Entrepreneurship
6	Logistics-Supply Chain Management
7	Medicine
8	Business Administration
9	Mechanical Engineering
10	Agriculture Engineering
11	Law
12	Product Storage

), consisting of residents from the Athens metropolitan area, employed in a range of professional sectors. For the selection of participants, the snowball sampling technique was utilized. This method has been used in various studies examining the choices, perceptions, and behaviors of the public regarding public spaces [2,84,85,86], as it provides access to a set of members of a population who are part of the sample and can offer access to another set, and so on [87]. In practice, initial contact was established with individuals familiar to the researchers. Subsequently, the participants were asked to suggest other individuals for the study. This method was chosen due to the challenges of (a) recording the population to create a sampling frame, and (b) identifying appropriate participants [86]. At the same time, diversity in age groups and equal representation of the two biological sexes were ensured. For participation in the evaluation process, an in-person meeting was scheduled, for which the group members were informed through personal communication with the researcher. The meeting with the citizen group aimed primarily at clarifying the basic concepts of the study and ensuring the proper completion of the process. The meeting was scheduled for Sunday, 9 February 2025, between 19:00 and 21:00. On the day of the meeting, the first stage involved an introduction to the topic and purpose of the study, followed by a detailed description of the parameters influencing the success of public spaces. The second stage included an introduction to the structural analysis methodology and the presentation of the table containing the parameters. In the third stage, participants were asked to complete the table, thus identifying the existence of influence relationships between the parameters, while also being given the opportunity to propose additions and/or modifications regarding these parameters. The final stage involved discussion and justification of the relationships between the parameters. The total duration of the meeting was approximately 60 min. However, it is worth mentioning that while each participant filled the matrix individually before group discussion, we recognize that the group format may still influence responses. To mitigate this, we consolidated results based on majority convergence across participants rather than on collective consensus. Hence, the final matrix results are solid and in line with several published MICMAC works [82,83].

3.2. Structural Analysis Overview

The structural analysis method is an important tool that facilitates the connection of elements. During its application, the elements of the system are described and linked through a matrix, taking into account their direct and indirect relationships [83]. The MICMAC structural analysis model represents an evolution of the Cross-Impact method, which was initially used by Gordon & Helmer (1966) [88]. The difference lies in the fact that the former includes both the direct and indirect relationships between parameters [89]. The method allows for the correlation of multiple homogeneous quantitative and qualitative parameters through the use of tables and diagrams.

Using the structural analysis method, the parameters that influence the successful functioning of public spaces are compiled into a matrix, and the dependency and influence relationships between them are evaluated. Direct influence relationships are calculated after the matrix is completed by the expert and user groups, while indirect relationships emerge after processing the matrix with the MICMAC software.

In summary, the stages of structural analysis, as reported by Arcade et al. (1993), are: (a) the inventory of parameters, (b) the description of relationships between parameters, and (c) the ranking and identification of the most critical parameters [87], while the whole methodology followed for the implementation of the present study can be appreciated in the following Figure 3.

3.3. Inventory of Parameters and Composition-Invitation of Participants

In the initial stage, the parameters that influence the success of public spaces are identified (see Section 2.2) and systematically compiled into a list [82].

Table 3. Selection of Parameters and Symbolism within MICMAC.

Code	Parameter-Variable	Symbolism (In MICMAC Software)
1	Diversity in Age, Gender, and Physical Abilities	Div_Age_Ge
2	Continuity	Continuity
3	Connectivity	Connectivi
4	Walkability	Walkabilit
5	Accessibility	Accessibil
6	Range of Behaviors	Range_Beha
7	Collaborativeness	Collaborat
8	Neighborhood Character	Neighborho
9	Human Density	People_Den
10	Groups of People	Group_Peop
11	Land-Use Mix	Land_Use_M
12	Variety of Activities and Opportunities	Variety_Ac
13	Occasional Active Uses	Occasional
14	Safety	Safety
15	Duration of Stay	Durat_Stay
16	Naturalness	Naturalnes
17	Authenticity and Sense of Space	Authentici
18	Legibility	Legibility
19	Attractiveness and Resilience	Attractive
20	Adaptability	Adaptabili
21	User Control	User_Contr

presents the list, indicating the corresponding codes and designations as entered into the software.

3.4. Recording Relationships Between Parameters

At this stage, the interconnections between the selected parameters are examined. The connection between parameters is represented in the structural analysis matrix (a square matrix), where the rows represent the influence exerted by one parameter on the others, while the columns indicate the parameters exerting influence on each respective variable [83]. When completing the matrix, the existence of direct influence relationships is identified, without distinguishing whether these influences are positive or negative [83]. In the full version of the method, the matrix is filled with values from 0 to 3, where 0 indicates no direct influence between two parameters, 1 represents weak direct influence, 2 represents medium influence, and 3 represents strong influence. The designation P refers to a potential influence between two parameters [84].

Beyond this version, simpler applications can also be used, such as the one employed in the present study. This specific version involves filling the matrix with a value of 0, which indicates no direct influence between two parameters, and a value of 1, which indicates the existence of a direct influence, regardless of its strength. The primary reason for choosing a simplified application of the method is that the citizen group is not familiar with this procedure, and a more complex approach could create confusion or misinterpretations, which could affect the reliability of the results. In addition, the present study is based upon the MSc thesis of the second author; hence, due to time constraints, in order to complete his studies on time, it was decided to use only 1 and 0. However, even with the binary scale, the MICMAC process is capable of capturing the presence or absence of influence relationships, which was sufficient for the comparative aim of the study (identifying convergence/divergence between experts and users). On the diagonal of the matrix, the value zero (0) is entered by default, since a parameter cannot influence itself. The total sum of the values in a row reflects the influence of a parameter on the others, while the total sum of a column represents the level of dependence of the parameter on the others. Both the members of the expert group and the citizen group completed the matrix individually during their participation in the study. Subsequently, the matrices were collected and, after processing by the researcher, were consolidated, with the final values determined based on the majority. This created a unified matrix for each group, which was then input into the MICMAC software. Below are the final matrices resulting from the completion by the two groups (Figure 4 and Figure 5).

3.5. Parameters Prioritization

Completing the process and having filled the structural analysis matrix with the direct influences between the parameters for each group, this stage of the methodology allows the identification and ranking of the most important parameters included in the matrix. According to the structural analysis method, the direct ranking of parameters is determined from the total sum of the matrix values, calculated separately for rows and columns. The vertical axis represents influence, while the horizontal axis represents dependence. The results of the methodology are presented and analyzed in the next chapter. In addition, for the identification of indirect relationships among the considered variables-parameters, the MICMAC model [87] is used, through chains of influence and feedback [82]. To calculate indirect relationships between parameters, the matrix is raised to successive powers. By repeatedly raising the matrix to different powers, the corresponding order of relationships between parameters emerges. When the matrix value stabilizes, that is, when the influence and dependence relationships no longer change, the hierarchy among the parameters is established, completing the process [83]. By summing the elements of the rows at each iteration, the influence of a parameter on the others is calculated, while the sum of the column elements reflects the degree to which a parameter is influenced by the others [82]. The ranking of parameters is derived from the influence and dependence values throughout the iterative process. The result of the iterative process is represented in a diagram. In both applications of the method, system stabilization occurred at the 4th iteration of the process, raising the relationships between parameters to the 4th power. This produces fourth-order relationships between parameters, calculating the indirect relationships among the matrix elements and establishing the hierarchy of the parameters. Similarly, in the matrix resulting from the iterative process, by summing the values of the rows and columns for each parameter, the degree of influence and dependence on the other parameters is obtained. The result of the iterative process—i.e., the prioritization of parameters along with the localization of parameters in four areas (Figure 6)—is visualized using the MICMAC software through the diagram of indirect influences and dependencies (see following section).

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Structural Analysis Implementation

The structural analysis revealed both convergences and divergences between experts and users regarding the parameters that shape the success of public squares. Overall, both groups recognized that the most critical variables are those located in Area 2 (“key indicators”), since they act as factors of instability: any intervention on them has significant ripple effects on the rest of the system.

Across both samples, parameters associated with participation, sociability, vitality, and inclusiveness consistently emerged as decisive. In terms of participation, adaptability and user control were emphasized as crucial. Experts stressed that user involvement in design processes enhances functionality and fosters a sense of belonging, while users highlighted that such participation ensures environments are more responsive to real needs and expectations. This is in line with various studies, since public spaces become more functional and user-friendly when citizens themselves can influence their design and use [75]. Additionally, when people can participate in decision-making processes, an environment is created that better responds to their needs, while at the same time enhancing the sense of “belonging” [22,79].

Regarding sociability, both groups underscored the importance of neighborhood character, population density, and the presence of diverse groups of people. These factors were viewed as central for strengthening coexistence, interaction, and community bonds [9]. Similarly, vitality-related parameters such as variety of activities and opportunities and occasional active uses were prioritized by both experts and users, as they encourage multifunctional use of space, support both optional and social activities, and promote people’s return to the square [4,54].

Inclusiveness was similarly valued, though the degree of emphasis differed. Experts framed diversity in ages, genders, and physical abilities as essential for social cohesion and intergenerational exchange, something that is in line with the work of Santiago-Pineda (2022) [90], while users considered it important but placed it in a more dependent position (Area 3), meaning it should be managed indirectly through other factors like accessibility or vitality.

Elements of esthetic and perceptual satisfaction were more strongly highlighted by users. They emphasized authenticity and sense of place, legibility, attractiveness and resilience as key to shaping perceptions, ensuring uniqueness, and supporting the viability of squares under changing conditions, including climate challenges. Experts also recognized attractiveness and resilience but primarily linked them to activity levels and long-term functionality even in cases of climate challenges [4,73].

The variables in Area 1 (influential variables) further reinforced these commonalities. Both groups identified land-use mix as a driver of vibrant public life and naturalness as a factor that enhances esthetic satisfaction and encourages longer stays [4,9,82]. Accessibility-related parameters such as walkability and connectivity were also evaluated as critical, since they ensure safe, easy, and inclusive access to public spaces [38,79].

In contrast, the parameters clustered in Area 3 were considered highly dependent and less suitable for direct intervention. For experts, these included range of behaviors, length of stay, authenticity and sense of place, and legibility, while users placed diversity of people, collaborativeness, range of behaviors, and length of stay in this category. This indicates that while these factors are important for sociability and the overall experience of public space, they are better addressed through the variables in Areas 1 and 2 that shape them.

Finally, Area 4 contained the least influential and dependent indicators. For both groups, continuity fell into this category, while users also placed connectivity here, considering it less central, despite experts ranking it as influential, and in this way, the concept of continuity could also be covered.

In summary, both experts and users converge on the view that the success of squares hinges on a combination of participation, sociability, vitality, and inclusiveness, supported by accessibility, naturalness, and land-use mix. The main divergence lies in the stronger emphasis that users place on perceptual and esthetic qualities, while experts focus more on structural and social dynamics. Together, these perspectives offer a holistic understanding of how squares can be designed and managed to maximize their quality and impact. Among the following figures, the first two figures (Figure 7 and Figure 8) show the graph concerning the direct and indirect influences and dependencies among the considered variables as indicated by the consulted experts, while the last two figures (Figure 9 and Figure 10) show the direct and indirect dependencies as perceived by non-expert users.

After raising the matrix to successive powers, the matrix was stabilized, and consequently, the results of the indirect influence and dependence relationships emerged, which are illustrated below (Figure 8).

On the other hand, the indirect relationships, as highlighted by the consulted non-expert users, among the considered parameters can be seen in the following graph (Figure 10).

4.2. Policy Recommendations

In this section, an attempt is made to formulate strategic directions for the development of a guide concerning the design of urban squares. The proposals are shaped on the basis of the comparative results derived from the methodology of the present study, taking into account both the perceptions of experts and those of users who experience public spaces in their everyday lives. Within this framework, particular emphasis was placed on developing guidelines related to variables considered key (Area 2) and influential (Area 1) for both groups. At the same time, an effort was made to manage variables that show dependence (Area 3) through their connection with and management via the key variables, aiming at ensuring an integrated approach to design. This connection was supported by bibliographic evidence.

More specifically:

• The promotion of multifunctionality in the components of public squares constitutes an approach directly associated with the enhancement of resilience and with the diversification of modes of use. Such an orientation renders public space more adaptable, a quality that is widely recognized as a highly influential variable, both by experts and by non-experts. A representative example refers to multifactional object of public square may be related to seating areas—according to literature [4,91,92], it is not limited to benches (primary seating) but may also include ledges around natural features, steps, terraces, or any other surface that can offer a basic level of comfort (secondary seating)—that can urge people to express different types of activities, like people watching, reading a book, eating a snack and working on a laptop. Flexible seating areas can be placed in various spots around a public square; in this way it is transformed into a particularly interesting environment compared to one with conventional primary seating. Such spaces can significantly influence the variety of activities, which is identified by the experts as the most influential variable in order for a square to be a successful one. Flexibility may also be understood as the capacity to design artifacts with dual functionality (polymorphic objectives), thereby enhancing the adaptive resilience of a local community when confronted with conditions of crisis (i.e., for the provision of temporary shelter for part of the population). Recent experiences of natural disasters (i.e., fires in Mati, 2018; earthquake in Samos, 2020; floods in Karditsa—Ianos and Daniel storms, 2020, 2023) in Greek cities foreground the relevance of such a practice within the discourse of urban design.
• Safety and sense of safety are two main variables that may be enhanced in public squares. Experts and non-experts were aligned with the literature [93,94], as they identified this variable as one of great importance for creating a successful public square. This objective may be accomplished through multiple design approaches. One aspect pertains to ensuring appropriate lighting conditions. This does not imply strong lighting, but rather light reflected on vertical surfaces, faces, walls, and so on, in order to ensure the differentiated use of the space across its various sub-areas. It is worth noting that this practice has been observed in recent urban design projects in Athens and across Greece, though to a modest extent, with a preference for the installation of lighting fixtures that provide indirect lighting. In many cases, lighting design even constitutes the core element of the overall design plan.
• Incorporating multisensory elements into public squares can significantly enhance their attractiveness and usability, which is an important variable from the perspective of experts. The integration of greenery, water features, ambient sound, and carefully designed lighting, as mentioned before, not only enriches the esthetic and experiential quality of the space but also encourages diverse activities throughout the day. Experts claimed that this matter is the main key factor that influences the success of a public square.
  It should be noted that this practice is well known worldwide and is also expressed in the literature. The “Power of 10+” theory by PPS is such an example according to which an area requires 10 major destinations—as is commonly stated—each of which should contain 10 distinct places, and within each place, there should be ten different activities for people to engage in [51]. However, in Greek practice, such an approach does not appear to have been widely adopted in the past, a tendency that is now shifting and can be attributed to the significance that experts assign to this variable.
  Although non-experts have not identified this variable (Variety of activities) as a critically important one, such sensory stimuli foster prolonged engagement, encourage social interaction, and support the occurrence of occasional activities, which are recognized as influential for the success of a public square. The facilitation of such activities is further reinforced by local community collaboration (i.e., Neighborhood associations), allowing groups to utilize public spaces for diverse purposes. This approach aligns with non-experts’ view about community engagement, as they recognize this quality as the most important in order for a square to be a successful one.
• Enhancing the degree of land-use mix is particularly important in areas of centrality, such as those surrounding public squares. Although experts did not identify this variable as among the most influential—possibly because in Greek cities land-use mix is the dominant pattern of urban development—non-experts emphasized its role in sustaining the vitality of squares, in line with the existing literature [2,79]. It is important to highlight, however, that there is an optimal degree of land-use mix. In practice, clustering of complementary activities such as recreation, commerce, and housing—particularly in case of neighborhood squares—is prioritized, as these functions encourage continuous public presence in the space.
• Artistic interventions may be applied in public squares, as they are considered a key element for strengthening the attractiveness of a square and for giving it a distinctive character that identifies it and makes it stand out in terms of esthetics and form [59]. Both the attractiveness and the character of an urban space are parameters recognized as quite influential for its success by the expert group. Within this framework, the promotion of public art is considered appropriate, along with the use of colors and a variety of materials that connect with the historical context of an area and the tradition of the respective place. These elements also define and differentiate the ways in which the space can function, as usually happens in cases of reclaiming surfaces from cars for pedestrians. Such a policy, which aligns with the prevailing trend to limit motorized traffic in cities and promote strategies for sustainable urban mobility, enhances continuity of public spaces, accessibility and legibility, which is considered, both by experts and by citizens, as a variable highly dependent on other factors.
• Community engagement was considered the most important quality in order to create successful and inclusive public squares, according to non-experts, as mentioned before. Participatory design allows community members to express their views, actively contribute to the formulation of proposals, and cultivate a sense of collective responsibility and “ownership” of the space, which was considered a variable significantly affected by other variables, according to non-experts. Within this framework, co-creation plays a decisive role, as it fosters cooperation between residents, local businesses, community organizations, and designers, ensuring that the design of public space reflects the real needs of the community [7,75]. At the same time, co-management of the space is vital for maintaining and adapting interventions to the changing requirements of users. To ensure active participation, the planning of participatory workshops and open discussions, combined with online surveys/voting and promotional campaigns, constitutes a key priority. Through these practices, stakeholders are not merely recipients of design proposals but become participants in the decision-making process, contributing to the formation of a space that responds to their real needs and desires. Furthermore, these processes enhance the sustainability of interventions, as social acceptance and local support are critical for the long-term preservation of public spaces. The involvement of different stakeholders in the stages of design and implementation can act as a catalyst in promoting positive changes in neighborhoods and in public spaces as a whole. It should be underlined that active community engagement in urban design practice across Greece was not commonly observed.

The above practices summarize only certain directions for public squares design, based on the main results of the MICMAC analysis. Notably, the importance of accessibility—which was the aim of many plans implemented in Greece during the last decade—and the enhancement of naturalness in urban fabric stand out. These considerations align with the objectives of the 2030 Agenda.

5. Conclusions

This research focused on investigating the degree of convergence of perceptions between professionals involved in urban design and users of public spaces regarding the qualities and variables that determine their success. Addressing the research question required understanding the theoretical framework concerning both the conceptual and functional framework of the urban component of the square and the various historical approaches related to the qualities and variables associated with the successful functioning of public spaces.

By identifying the research gap, as well as the convergence or divergence of perceptions between experts and public space users, it was deemed appropriate to examine this issue using the structural analysis method (MICMAC analysis), which allows the prioritization and evaluation of parameters based on their mutual influence and dependence. Using this method, it becomes possible to determine both the direct and indirect effects among the parameters, contributing to a better understanding of their interdependencies and identifying critical factors that affect the effectiveness of a public space.

This method was applied to two stakeholder groups (experts and users) formed for the purposes of the study. The results are presented below.

There is clear convergence in the most fundamental parameters (Sector 2—60%), indicating that the two groups share a common understanding of the basic principles that define a successful public space. Specifically, strong convergence is observed in the qualities of participation and vitality, followed by sociability and perceptual and esthetic satisfaction. Divergence in perceptions reflects the different experiences, priorities, and ways each group approaches space. The expert group adds variables related to sociability, accessibility and connectivity, and inclusiveness, reflecting contemporary design principles aimed at creating equitable, easily accessible, and inclusive spaces. In contrast, the user group focuses more on the experiential and esthetic dimension of space, adding variables related to perceptual and esthetic satisfaction and vitality.

Convergence decreases in parameters considered influential on others (Sector 1—40%). The differentiation in this sector suggests that perceptions of which factors are considered influential are not homogeneous and reflect the different perspectives of the two groups on how public spaces function. However, both groups recognize naturalness and accessibility as influential parameters, showing that the presence of natural elements and easy access to a space hold widely accepted importance in the design and experience of public spaces. The differentiation lies in the fact that the user group prioritizes walkability in this sector, as it is seen to have tangible effects on their daily activities. Meanwhile, the expert group adds connectivity and land-use mix, reflecting their consideration of public spaces as part of a broader network and their aim to design multifunctional spaces.

Low convergence between the two groups regarding parameters dependent on other variables (Sector 3—33.33%). Convergence in this sector concerns only two parameters: range of behaviors and duration of stay. Experts added variables related to perceptual and esthetic satisfaction, specifically authenticity and sense of place, as well as legibility, considering them shaped by multiple other parameters. Users, on the other hand, considered diversity of people and cooperativity as dependent variables, implying that these are better managed through other variables identified as influential.

Opinions regarding autonomous parameters converge by half (Sector 4—50%), with continuity as a common parameter. Both groups perceive that continuity neither affects nor is affected by other variables. Users additionally added connectivity in this sector, which they perceive primarily at a functional level—that is, as a feature facilitating movement rather than as a variable contributing to the success of a public space.

The above analysis revealed that while there is convergence in certain qualities and variables, creating a shared framework of priorities for shaping urban spaces, there are also differences requiring adjustments in design practices. This dual dynamic—convergence and divergence—demonstrates that participatory processes are not merely a complementary tool for urban design but a critical factor for the successful shaping of the urban environment.

Currently, urban design is required to respond to the increasing demand for carefully conceived public spaces that cater to the evolving needs and preferences of diverse urban populations. For this reason, the final section of this paper focuses on developing a series of guidelines that provide info for creating successful urban squares. These guidelines are based on the results derived from the study’s methodology, aiming to guide designers, relevant authorities, and other stakeholders in implementing public spaces that meet these varied needs.

Achieving this requires the commitment of local authorities to integrate urban square design guidelines into development strategies and local policy, with the primary goal of creating sustainable and functional public spaces that respond to urban populations’ needs. It is also important to recognize that urban environments are never static, and success requires continuous adaptation to evolving community requirements, as well as challenges posed by issues such as climate change and social transformations. Only with ongoing political support and collaboration between public authorities and civil society can the proposals be turned into reality.

Study Limitations and Future Research

Our research is not without limitations. We acknowledge that including a broader range of professionals (e.g., social scientists specializing in public space use) could further enrich perspectives. We also acknowledge that the absolute size of the sample may appear small and could have been bigger; however, our objective was not statistical representativeness but rather generation of comparative insights into expert versus user perceptions in an exploratory manner. Within the MICMAC methodological framework, groups larger than 12 participants typically introduce significant complexity and hinder meaningful dialogue, which makes our chosen sample size the upper limit of what is considered feasible and appropriate for both experts and non-experts. Additionally, it should be noted that the matrix values of 1 or 0 are indeed not as precise, regarding influence and dependence relationships, as they would have been with the classic MICMAC method. Nevertheless, we decided to use values equal to 1 or 0 for the following reasons: (i) Cognitive accessibility for non-expert participants: Non-experts are not accustomed to structural analysis methods. The simplified scale was chosen to avoid confusion, ensure consistency of responses, and minimize the risk of misinterpretation. This approach aligns with previous applications of structural analysis in participatory contexts, where methodological simplifications were adopted to facilitate broader engagement [83]. (ii) Validity of outcomes: Even with the binary scale, the MICMAC process captures the presence or absence of influence relationships, which was sufficient for the comparative aim of the study (identifying convergence/divergence between experts and users). Moreover, the stabilization of matrices in the fourth iteration demonstrated the robustness of the results, despite reduced granularity. Hence, a subject for further research could be the application of the full version of the structural analysis method, which involves quantifying the influence of each parameter by completing a matrix with values from 0 to 3. This gradation could yield more precise relationships between parameters, potentially leading to a more refined prioritization of the policy directions discussed. Moreover, in future research, it will be important to consider the disaggregation of user groups in terms of gender, age, mobility limitations, etc., in order to capture diverse experiences and needs. Finally, a topic that falls within the scope of future research concerns the evaluation of selected contemporary urban interventions, with regard to the extent to which they align with choices summarized in the guide presented in this paper.