The Public Space Service System (PSSS) Method A Systemic, Service-Based and Actor-Oriented Evaluation Framework
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
This paper presents the PSSS - Public Space Service System method, an innovative approach to assessing and interpreting the value of public space, its services, and systemic features, incorporating stakeholders’ perspectives. In recent decades, investment in public spaces has grown in many cities, becoming more important in public policies and in daily users' activities. With recognition comes the need to evaluate the performance of public spaces, whether in decision-making or design contexts. However, public space is inherently complex, diverse, and multifunctional, which complicates the task of defining what makes a good public space. Additionally, different actors view space differently, generating multiple values (sometimes contradictory) rather than a single universal one.
To address this, the PSSS method moves away from conventional practices centred on predetermined attributes to acknowledge subjectivity, treating the values generated by public space as context dependent. The method is structured around four fundamental dimensions: System (spatial relations and connections), Service (benefits provided by public spaces), Actors (users, producers, and regulators), and Value (diversity of recognised values). The paper details the method's development, explaining how the main concepts respond to the new assessment demands and how they are applied within the framework and workflow. The practical implementation is illustrated through case studies from diverse urban settings - historic cores, consolidated cities, suburbs, and dispersed areas - in both European and Latin American contexts, demonstrating its adaptability across different geographies, scales, and urban dynamics. The method proposes an interpretive and collaborative process, emphasising problem identification and resolution within a learning-and-transformation logic, combining interests and viewpoints through interdisciplinary dialogue. This approach responds to the complexity and subjectivity inherent in contemporary urbanism by providing tools that facilitate communication, participation, and collaboration among the diverse actors involved in the production, management, and use of public space, thereby fostering more targeted public policies.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The Authors retain copyright for articles published in The Journal of Public Space, with first publication rights granted to the journal.
Articles in this journal are published under the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial Licence (CC-BY-NC) - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
You are free to:
• Share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
• Adapt - remix, transform, and build upon the material
Under the following terms:
• Attribution - You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
• NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
References
Alexander, C. (1965) A City is Not a Tree. In: Tiesdell S and Carmona M (eds) Urban Design Reader. Routledge.
Appleyard, D. (1981) Livable Streets. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
Belton, V. and Stewart, T. (2002) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Springer Science & Business Media.
Brandão, A. and Brandão, P. (eds) (2018) COMMON PLACES Guide for the Assessment and Interpretation of Public Space. Lisboa: IST-ID, Associação do Instituto Superior Técnico para a Investigação e Desenvolvimento. Available at: https://scholar.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/records/UCemvw8N8ZPmJV1ACsYDD-51gUahYbD5PbyO
Brandão, A. and Brandão, P. (eds) (2019) O LUGAR DE TODOS Interpretar o Espaço Público Urbano. Livraria Tigre de Papel.
Brandão, A. and Negrão, R. (2018) Welcome, Wilkommen, Bienvenut, Bienvenidos to Baixa Pombalina: a review of Baixa Pombalina recent transformation. In: Third International Conference of Young Urban Researchers, Lisboa, 2018, pp. 86–108. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10071/17801.
Brandão, A. L. and Brandão, P. (2017) Public Space, Infrastructure, Landscape: an interdisciplinary matrix for urban spatial continuity. The Journal of Public Space 2(1): 123–134.
Brandão, P., Águas, S. and Carrelo, M. (2002) O Chão Da Cidade: Guia de Avaliação do Design de Espaço Público. Lisboa: Centro Português de Design.
CABE (2001) The Value of Urban Design. London: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment. Available at: http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/the-value-of-urban-design_0.pdf.
CABE (2004) The Value of Public Space: How High Quality Parks and Public Spaces Create Economic, Social and Environmental Value. London: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment. Available at: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/92861/.
CABE (2006) The Value Handbook: Getting the Most from Your Buildings and Spaces. London: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment. Available at: http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/the-value-handbook.pdf.
CABE (2007) Spaceshaper: A User’s Guide. London: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment.
Carmona, M. (2010) Contemporary Public Space, Part Two: Classification. Journal of Urban Design 15(2): 157–173.
Carmona, M., De Magalhães, C. and Edwards, M. (2002) Stakeholder Views on Value and Urban Design. Journal of Urban Design 7(2). Taylor & Francis Group: 145–169.
Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T., et al. (2003) Public Places - Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design. Oxford; Boston: Architectural Press.
Carmona, M., Magalhães C. de and Hammond, L. (2008) Public Space: The Management Dimension. London ; New York: Routledge.
Carr, S., Francis, M., G. Rivlin, L., et al. (1992) Public Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chiaradia, A. J. F., Sieh, L. and Plimmer, F. (2017) Values in urban design: A design studio teaching approach. Design Studies 49: 66–100.
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., et al. (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387(6630). Nature Publishing Group: 253–260.
Cowan, R. (2001) Arm Yourself with a Placecheck: A User’s Guide. 2nd ed. London: Urban Design Alliance.
Cui, N., Malleson, N., Houlden, V., et al. (2021) Using VGI and Social Media Data to Understand Urban Green Space: A Narrative Literature Review. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 10(7). Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute: 425.
Friedmann, J. (1973) Retracking America. A Theory of Transactive Planning. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Press.
Friedmann, J. (2017) Place and Place-Making in Cities: A Global Perspective. Planning Theory & Practice 11(2): 149–165.
Geddes, P. (1915) Cities in Evolution. An Introduction to the Town Planning Movement and to the Study of Civics. London: Williams.
Gehl, J. (1987) Life between Buildings: Using Public Space. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Gehl, J. (2010) Cities for People. Island Press.
Gehl, J. and Svarre, B. (2013) How to Study Public Life. Washington: Island Press.
Graeber, D. (2001) Toward An Anthropological Theory of Value: The False Coin of Our Own Dreams. 2001 editi. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Harvey, D. (1990) The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Oxford England ; Cambridge, Mass., USA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. Vancouver: UBC Press.Hillier B and Hanson J (1984) The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Innes, J. E. (1995) Planning Theory’s Emerging Paradigm: Communicative Action and Interactive Practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research 14(3). Sage PublicationsSage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA: 183–189.
Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.
Keeney, R. L. (1992) Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking. Revised ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Khakee, A. (2003) The Emerging Gap between Evaluation Research and Practice. Evaluation 9(3): 340–352.
Khan, A. Z., Moulaert, F., Schreurs, J., et al. (2014) Integrative Spatial Quality: A Relational Epistemology of Space and Transdisciplinarity in Urban Design and Planning. Journal of Urban Design 19(4). Routledge: 393–411.
Lefebvre, H. (1974) La Production de L’espace. Paris: Anthropos.
Lefebvre, H. (1996) Writings on Cities (eds E Kofman and E Lebas). Cambridge, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell.
Li, S., Ma, S., Tong, D., et al. (2022) Associations between the quality of street space and the attributes of the built environment using large volumes of street view pictures. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 49(4). SAGE Publications Ltd: 1197–1211.
Lynch, K. (1960) The Image of the City. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Madalozzo, N. (2022) Rio e Ferrovia: A Produção Social Do Espaço Urbano Em Ponta Grossa - PR. Porto Alegre, RS: Editora Fi. Available at: https://www.editorafi.org/ebook/459nisiane.
Madalozzo, N. and Monastirsky, L. B. (2016) Memória social e cidade contemporânea: o velho centro ferroviário de Ponta Grossa – PR. Patrimônio e Memória 12(2). Universidade Estadual Paulista: 232–253.
Madanipour, A. (1996) Design of Urban Space: An Inquiry into a Socio-Spatial Process. Chichester, New York: Wiley.
Madanipour, A. (2006) Roles and Challenges of Urban Design. Journal of Urban Design 11(2). Taylor & Francis Group: 173–193.
Madanipour, A. (2023) Rethinking Public Space. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Marcus, C. C. and Francis, C. (eds) (1998) People Places: Design Guidelines for Urban Open Space. 2nd ed. Van Nostrand Reinhold.
McIndoe, G., Chapman, R., McDonald, C., et al. (2005) The Value of Urban Design The economic, environmental and social benefits of urban design. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry for the Environment.
McLoughlin, J. B. (1969) Urban and Regional Planning: A Systems Approach. Faber & Faber.
Neuman M and Zonneveld W (2018) The resurgence of regional design. European Planning Studies 26(7). Routledge: 1297–1311.
Pinto, A. J. and Remesar, A. (2015) Urban Cohesion. A Public Space Network Assessment. On the Waterfront 39(2). Universitat de Barcelona.
Santos JR, Da Costa AB and Silva MM (2024) A territorial design toolbox for metropolitan public space. Towards a Metropolitan Public Space Network: Lessons, Projects and Prospects from Lisbon. Taylor and Francis: 233–270.
Secchi, B. and Viganò, P. (2011) La Ville Poreuse : Un Projet Pour Le Grand Paris et La Métropole de l’après-Kyoto. Métispresses.
Sennett, R. (1992) The Fall of Public Man. New York ; London: W. W. Norton & Company.
Silva, J. B. e (2019) Avaliar e interpretar o método: sobre a complexidade do espaço público. In: Brandão A and Brandão P (eds) O LUGAR DE TODOS Interpretar o Espaço Público Urbano. Livraria Tigre de Papel, pp. 134–139.
Southworth, M. (2003) Measuring the Liveable City. Built Environment 29(4): 343–354.
Tardin, R. (2008) Espaços Livres: Sistema e Projeto Territorial. Rio de Janeiro: 7letras. Available at: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4311.8802.
UN-Habitat (2015) Global Public Space Toolkit: From Global Principles to Local Policies and Practice. Nairobi (Kenya): UN-Habitat. Available at: https://unhabitat.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Global Public Space Toolkit.pdf.
Whyte, W. H. (1980) The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. New York: Project for Public Spaces.
Woolley, H. (2003) Urban Open Spaces. London: Spon Press.
Zhou, Y., Thill, J-C., Liu, X., et al. (2025) Measuring and understanding changes in the physical built environment of cities with street view images. Urban Informatics 4(3). Springer.
Zhu, Y., Zhang, Y. and Biljecki, F. (2025) Understanding the user perspective on urban public spaces: A systematic review and opportunities for machine learning. Cities 156(105535). Pergamon.
Zukin, S. (1995) The Cultures of Cities. Oxford: Blackwell.
