Page 116 - IJPS-11-6

International Journal of
Population Studies Redesigning public spaces in South Africa

foster environments that encourage people to stay, making, offering an instructive model for other cities.
socialize, and participate in community life. In contrast, the case of Tunis reveals the challenges of
The use of a circular figure in the HopeScape model was fostering inclusive public spaces in resource-constrained
intentional. Each circle is a symbol of wholeness, indicating settings. The absence of basic safety infrastructure, limited
that these indicators are not isolated but interconnected access to amenities, and weak enforcement of planning
components that work together to create inclusive public policies continue to create environments that marginalize
spaces. The framework suggests that no element can be women and girls (Cities Alliance & USAID, 2022).
successful without the support of the others. For instance, However, this study also observed the emergence of
accessibility cannot be fully realized if safety is not grassroots, community-led initiatives in Tunis, which,
addressed, and multifunctionality loses its value without though limited in scale, indicate the potential for
clear signage to guide users. By placing the circles in close bottom-up transformation of public spaces. Such efforts
proximity to one another, the model visually conveys that resonate with Lefebvre’s (1991) concept of the “right to
the success of one indicator is linked to the strength of the the city–”the idea that spatial justice is shaped through
others, creating a balanced and integrated approach to everyday practice and collective agency. When juxtaposed
inclusive design. with these international examples, the South African
The HopeScape model provides a clear and actionable case studies—the Durban Beachfront, People’s Park, and
guide for transforming South African public spaces Watershed at the V&A Waterfront— illustrate a complex,
into environments that are truly inclusive, where every hybrid reality. These spaces not only feature vibrant
individual—regardless of background or ability—can activity and multifunctional potential but also reveal
feel empowered, safe, and valued. Each of these design persistent shortcomings in safety, accessibility, and gender-
indicators contributes to the creation of spaces that responsive design. For instance, the Durban Beachfront,
promote social cohesion, foster well-being, and reflect the while a popular and scenic site, lacks adequate lighting and
diverse identities and needs of the communities they serve. gender-sensitive amenities, contributing to perceptions
By integrating these principles into public space design of insecurity among female users. Similarly, People’s Park
and planning, urban environments can become more offers open green space but is hampered by unclear signage,
accessible, safe, and welcoming for all users. poor surveillance, and insufficient infrastructure designed
to meet the needs of women and girls. The Watershed,
4. Discussion though integrated with commercial and recreational uses,
fails to embed inclusivity more deeply, particularly for
The findings of this study reveal persistent barriers marginalized social groups.
to inclusive public space design for women and girls,
highlighting critical distinctions and similarities Safety emerged as the most consistent barrier across
across international and South African contexts. The all case studies, reaffirming literature that positions fear of
application of the HopeScape model, underpinned by six violence and harassment as a primary deterrent for women
indicators—including accessibility, safety and security, in public spaces (Ceccato & Newton, 2015; Furlong,
identity and expression, inclusive amenities, clear signage 2016; Valentine, 2007). In the South African context, this
and wayfinding, and multifunctionality—enabled a is compounded by high rates of gender-based violence,
comprehensive analysis of public spaces through both which intensify spatial vulnerability and limit civic
diagnostic and prescriptive lenses. The framework’s engagement among women (Naicker, 2021). The exclusion
application revealed systemic gaps in urban planning of women from public life due to these risks reflects what
that perpetuate gender-based exclusion, echoing broader Crenshaw (1991) defines as intersectional marginalization,
feminist critiques of spatial inequity (Beebeejaun, 2017; where gender-based exclusion intersects with broader
Fenster, 2005). socioeconomic and racial inequalities.
Internationally, Vienna stands out as a leader in gender- The application of the HopeScape model in this context
sensitive urban planning. The city’s inclusive design is pivotal. As a contextually grounded framework, it enabled
practices, such as well-lit pedestrian routes, multifunctional the identification of specific spatial design elements that
parks, and clearly demarcated pathways, demonstrate how either foster or obstruct inclusivity. The results suggest
political will and policy frameworks can produce safer and that inclusive urban development cannot rely solely on
more accessible urban environments (Greed, 2016; Sánchez physical infrastructure; rather, it must be supported by
de Madariaga & Roberts, 2013). Vienna’s use of gender participatory planning processes, policy coherence, and
budgeting and its participatory approach to planning have cultural transformation (Fainstein, 2014). While the
been central to institutionalizing equity in spatial decision- model provides a structured diagnostic tool, its value lies

Volume 11 Issue 6 (2025) 110 https://doi.org/10.36922/ijps.5813