Public Space in Different Cultural Conditions: The Cases of Glasgow and Poznań

The modern world is a world of cities. Owing to progressive urbanisation, more than half of the human population (56.16%) live in cities, and that percentage rises yearly (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2019). Urban space is developed in the process of social creation of space (Lefebvre 1991; Jałowiecki, Szczepański 2006; Jałowiecki 2010) and, in this way, it is a reflection of the culture present in the community that shapes and uses these cities. In various cultures, the approach towards urban space may differ. Those differences can be observed in such areas as perception of space, norms of public behaviour, or the shape of a built environment itself. Among the classic approaches to this subject, there are Hall’s books about proxemics (Hall 1959, 1966, 1976), as well as Rapoport’s studies about the influence of culture on space and architecture (Rapoport 1969, 1980). While those two academics were ethnographers, researchers from other branches of science also show interest in this field. Psychologists, such as Nisbett (Nisbett 2003; Nisbett, Masuda 2003; Nisbett, Miyamoto 2005), Matsumoto and Juang (2005), and Lewicka (2012), studied the dependency between culture and the perception of space. That aspect, albeit to a lesser extent, is also present in the recognised works of Tuan (1974) and Lynch (1960) that deal respectively with human geography and urban studies. Other examples of studies that connect culture and space take up topics like comparing public spaces in China and the United Kingdom (Cao, Kang 2019), spatial behaviour of tourists derived from different cultures (Dejbakhsh et al. 2011), or the role of the shopping centres in different cultural conditions (Abaza 2001).

Cultural differences are mostly noticed when differences in behaviour, ways of life, or perception of the world are clearly visible. The global dichotomy ‘East-West’, a subject of the detailed works of Nisbett and his co-workers (Nisbett 2003; Nisbett, Masuda 2003; Nisbett, Miyamoto 2005), can serve as an example. Topics such as concepts of time, individualism, and collectivism or holistic versus analytic perception of the surrounding world are often discussed in the above-mentioned context. In the second decade of the 21st century, the subject of cultural differences has been presented in the public debate in Europe to a greater extent, because of the events called the ‘immigrant crisis’ or ‘refugee crisis’. But it is not necessary to compare distant cultures to identify the diversity of behaviours, social norms, and other cultural variables. Such differences are captured, e.g., by the models of culture, which are an attempt to capture cultural characteristics in the form of measurable indicators. Works of Schwartz (Schwartz 1992; Schwartz, Sagiv 1995), Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997), Hofstede (2000), and the GLOBE project (House et al. 2002) are examples of such models that prove the cultural differences within Europe. Also, Hall (1984) who was mentioned before, indicated, that cultural differences can be observed within European cultures as well.

Relations between culture and space are manifested in many aspects of urban life. This paper focuses primarily on public spaces, as it is in them that the widest spectrum of human activities can be observed. At the same time, they are places where it is easiest to meet representatives of other social groups and other cultures. Public spaces have served as meeting places and arenas for interpersonal interactions from the very beginning of the existence of cities and were developing along with them. Users of urban public spaces are connected by a network of interactions (Jacobs 1961) that also occur between people who, in other circumstances than meeting in public space, would not come into contact with each other (Lofland 1998; Baumann 2003).

The role played by public space in cities, the ways in which it is created, shaped and used, as well as its dynamics and characteristics of users, are of interest to scientists, city government, social activists and practitioners, such as architects. The definitions of public space are so numerous, and the concept itself appears in the scientific discussion so often that, according to Nawratek (2012), it belongs to so-called ‘magic words’, commonly used, and not carrying any significant content. The categories of ‘privacy’ and ‘publicity’ themselves and the approach to public spaces are also not fixed and inviolable, as they have changed historically (Mumford 1961; Madanipour 2003; Stanley et al. 2012). In the contemporary discussion, there are voices about the disappearance of real and authentic public spaces, their appropriation, commercialisation, and their role being taken over by quasi-public spaces or private-owned public spaces (Baumann 2003; Langstraat, Melik 2013). A critical look at the condition of a contemporary public space is also related to the fact that its role is increasingly taken over by non-places, a term proposed by Auge (1995) to describe spaces devoid of identity. It is difficult to establish a bond with non-places; they are not memorable due to their lack of any characteristic features. Their examples include shopping malls, which nowadays often take over the role and functions of traditional public spaces, but also airports. At the same time, an approach according to which the public component of space is not defined by its form of ownership but by the way it can be used is becoming more and more common (Carr et al. 2009; Mehta 2014). With this approach, it turns out that semi-private spaces often have the same features and functions as traditional public spaces, and fulfil similar criteria (Langstraat, Melik 2013). For this reason, in the literature about public spaces, there are emerging considerations concerning not only squares, streets, or parks, but also buildings such as the aforementioned shopping malls, libraries, or places like pubs, cafes, etc.

Activities undertaken by users of urban public spaces are very diverse, and over the years many studies in that field have been conducted. Among the most famous are, e.g., works by Jacobs (1961), Gehl (Gehl 2009; Gehl, Svarre 2013), Whyte (1980), and Goffman (1963). These researchers presented both academic considerations and theories, as well as their involvement as practitioners, creating specific guidelines for planning public spaces. In some cases, these works also contained methodological aspects concerning the ways of studying public spaces and their users. The aforementioned activities can be also considered as human relations to space, among which one can distinguish cognition of space, its use, shaping, and valorisation (Jałowiecki 2010). There is a belief that space and social activity are related in two ways: space can shape a social pattern, as well as a spatial layout can be its reflection (Hillier 2005).

The main aim of this article is to identify how different cultural conditions can affect the activities that are undertaken by the users of public space, and also how the public space itself is perceived. Two cities have been compared – Poznań in Poland and Glasgow in Scotland. The subject of Poznań’s public spaces and their use was addressed, among others, by such authors as Parysek and Mierzejewska (2006), Cegłowska and Matykowski (2010), Kotus and Rzeszewski (2013), and Januchta-Szostak (2018), whereas Glasgow was discussed in the works of Zieleniec (2002), Inroy (2007), Sharp (2007), Kearns et al. (2013), Pollock and Paddison (2014). Activities, habits, and aspects of everyday life, which are largely manifested in public spaces, were also the subject of studies (Gardiner 2005; Drozdowski et al. 2014; Sepioł 2014). This paper draws from those achievements; however, its main focus is not on individual ‘case studies’ or the structure of public spaces. It aims to identify general similarities and differences between cities located in countries that are part of the European culture, but remain significantly different. These differences are visible, e.g., in culture models, such as the Hofstede model (2000) or the Globe model (House et al. 2001), according to which Poland and Great Britain are among different ‘cultural clusters’ and have different values of indicators that make up the aforementioned models. Another level of comparison is the difference between an ethnically and culturally diverse city, such as Glasgow, and a city that is relatively homogeneous in this respect, exemplified by Poznań. The collected materials cover the years 2015–2018, so they concern the time before the COVID-19 pandemic, Brexit, and the acceleration of immigration to Poland, related, among others, to Russian aggression against Ukraine.

The study was conducted in two cities: Poznań in Poland and Glasgow in Scotland, the United Kingdom. Besides the differences resulting from various cultural and historical backgrounds, some similarities can be observed in both cities. There are extensive green spaces within their boundaries, connected to the surrounding natural areas through park and forest complexes, and river valleys. The main rivers, the Warta and the Clyde, are the axis of the cities, while several smaller watercourses create a river grid in the urban area. Both cities are vivid academic centres. They are also the central points of urban agglomerations.

Poznań is the fifth most populated city in Poland (534,000 inhabitants) with an area of 261.9 km² and a population density of 2,042 persons per km². It is also a central hub of a metropolitan area, inhabited by slightly above one million people. Spatial and social characteristics of the city can be found, e.g., in the works of Kotus (2006), and Parysek and Mierzejewska (2006). It is an academic city; in 2019 Poznań was home to 102,000 students, and the ratio of the number of students to the number of inhabitants ranked the city at the first place in Poland. It is an example of a mono-centric agglomeration with a clearly visible central part. The spatial structure of the city has been affected by historical factors. The spatial development of the urban fabric was limited because the city was functioning as a Prussian stronghold. Nowadays, reminiscences of the former fortifications can be seen in the green areas that were created in their place. The city structure has undergone many changes during the political and economic transformation after 1989, which makes Poznań an example of a post-socialist city.

Glasgow, with a population stated as 635,000 (as of 2020) is the largest city in Scotland. The ’Greater Glasgow’ agglomeration is inhabited by about 985,000 people. The city is ranked first in Scotland and second in the United Kingdom in terms of the number of students (185,000). Glasgow is an example of a post-industrial city that witnessed serious transformations of its port and production areas. The social structure was also a subject of transformation, which was largely driven by the cultural industries (Tucker 2008) The largest Scottish city is famous for its vivid street culture – murals, street art, and busking. Glasgow is also a very diverse city. It is a home for numerous immigrants from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and also European countries, such as Poland and Lithuania. Slightly over 47% of the total Muslim population in Scotland live there too (Hopkins 2017). In terms of religion, the city is a real melting pot. The tensions between Catholics and Protestants can be observed, and it is not only religious but also national division – Catholics are mostly associated with the Irish minority. Another layer of those tensions is visible in the rivalry between two football clubs: Rangers and Celtic, associated respectively with protestant and catholic communities. This competition takes place not only on the football pitch but used to move on the streets also, starting street fights among football fans (Davies 2006). As in Poznań, historical conditions also left their mark on the spatial structure of Glasgow. In addition to the previously mentioned post-industrial areas, extensive parks that were privately owned in the past are a characteristic feature. At that time, they served as hunting grounds or were part of noble estates, and then they were donated to the city or bought by the city authorities. The transformation of former private green areas was a common way of creating contemporary public parks (Carr et al. 2009).

This paper is based on a survey study regarding cultural differences in the perception of public space and behaviours in such spaces. The empirical material was gathered during the field works in the years 2015–2018.

The very first stage of the research consisted of local vision, gathering of the photographic documentation, and analysis of cartographic materials, as well as other sources, such as planning documents, city politics, and legal acts. The empirical research began with the observations conducted in selected public spaces within both Glasgow and Poznań. Qualitative data collected in that way, combined with the knowledge taken from the literature have been used to create a survey questionnaire. The questionnaire was created in the Polish language, translated by a professional translator, and supervised by the author of the study. It consisted of ten developed questions – four of them were open-ended and the other six were close-ended. The open-ended questions covered topics such as behaviours associated with public space, problems that occur in public space and make it troublesome to use, and places in the city that respondents would like to show a first-time visitor to the city. The close-ended ones concerned topics such as willingness to participate in particular events, access to the types of public spaces, the influence of particular social groups on public space, relations between activities and types of space, and an attitude toward particular public behaviours. Bio data was collected as well. The questions were preceded by information about the study, its author, and the purpose of the research to ensure that ethical research standards were maintained.

The survey study was conducted in both cities by the pool team. In this paper, data gathered from Poles in Poznań and UK citizens in Glasgow has been used. After rejecting the entries that, for various reasons, such as illegibility, damage, and lack of essential information, were not suitable for analysis, the total number of questionnaires counted 545 for Poznań and 690 for Glasgow. They were collected directly in public spaces as well as distributed on the Internet and through institutions such as neighbourhood centres. Different channels of distribution were used to ensure that the survey would reach as many respondents as possible, not only those spending time in the public spaces where face-to-face research was conducted. Information about the socio–demographic characteristics of the participants of the survey study are presented in Table 1 (for Glasgow) and Table 2 (for Poznań). Some of the questionnaires were not complete, this issue was particularly visible in the form of many ‘No data’ entries in Glasgow, but even then they can provide valuable data, especially regarding the open-ended questions that can be a subject of both quantitative and qualitative analysis.

In both cities most of the respondents were young people (under 35 years of age). Over 50% had an academic degree. In Poznań, compared to Glasgow, more respondents lived in multi-family housing, the difference is especially visible in the case of tower blocks. Regarding the years of residence, the most popular answer was ‘above 10 years’ in Glasgow as well as in Poznań. The fewest respondents indicated the answer: between 6 and 10 years.

Although the above-mentioned survey study covers various range of topics, only part of the results are presented in this paper. This section focuses on the concept of public space, its features, and activities that are undertaken in the public spaces of the surveyed cities. In this comparison of Glasgow and Poznań, the cultural context is taken into consideration. Other fields covered by the survey study, such as the normative aspect of behaviours in public spaces, will be the subject of a different paper.

Representative places

The respondents were asked to name three places they would like to show to a first-time visitor to the city. Such places can be considered as the most representative, most interesting, and most closely related to the residents. These were not always examples of typical public spaces, but in most cases, they can be called so. Table 3 shows the percentage rate of respondents who mentioned the selected place as one of their three answers.

Table 3.

The percentage rate of respondents who mentioned the selected place as one of their answers to the question: ‘Please enumerate three places that you would decide to show a person visiting Glasgow/Poznań for the first time’.

No	Poznań			Glasgow
	Place	Description	%	Place	Description	%
1.	Old Market Square	Main square (part of Old Town)	65.3	Kelvingrove Gallery	Museum / art. gallery	31.9
2.	Citadel	Green area / cemetery	32.1	George Square	Main square	22.9
3.	Malta Lake	Lake / recreational area / green area	26.0	Botanic Gardens	Green area	19.9
4.	New ZOO	Zoo / green area	13.0	Glasgow University	University / historic building	15.8
5.	Stary Browar	Shopping Mall / entertainment centre	11.9	Riverside Museum	Museum	11.3
6.	CK Zamek	Cultural centre / historic building	11.7	Buchanan Street	Retail street	10.0
7.	Ostrów Tumski	Island / historic area / sacred area	10.6	kelvingrove Park	Green area	8.6
8.	Palm House	Palm house	9.7	Glasgow Cathedral	Historic church	7.2
9.	Cathedral	Historic church (part of site 7)	6.8	Glasgow Green	Green area / palm house	7.2
10.	Old Town	Central city district	6.2	Necropolis	Green area / cemetery	6.8

Source: own study.

Amongst the top 10 mentioned places, most of them are free of charge. In Poznań, only the Palm House and the New ZOO have an admission fee whereas in Glasgow all of them are accessible without any charge. As for Poznań, five of the most popular sites are open spaces that are (partially or completely) accessible throughout a day (Old Market Square, Citadel Park, Malta Lake, Ostrów Tumski [Cathedral Island], and the Old Town). In the case of Glasgow, there are four such places – George Square, Buchanan Street, Glasgow Green, and Kelvingrove Park. Almost 2/3 of the respondents in Poznań mention Old Market Square in their answers. In Glasgow, the answers are more evenly distributed, without such a visible outlier. There are two museums in the top 10 indications in Glasgow, one of them occupying the first place. For Poznań, the first named museum was classified at the 12th position, the Interactive Centre of Ostrów Tumski, which was mentioned by 5.17% of the respondents). However, it should be indicated that some of the places like Old Market Square, Citadel Park, Ostrów Tumski, or the Old Town consist of many individual tourist attractions or buildings, and some of them are museums as well.

The spatial distribution of places mentioned by the respondents is presented in Figures 1 (Poznań) and 2 (Glasgow). The size of the signature is related to the frequency of indications. In Poznań, the concentration around the city centre can be observed, although there are some outliers, like Malta Lake, and the New ZOO that are located in the eastern part of the city. In Glasgow, two main clusters can be seen: one related to the main city square (George Square) and main shopping streets, and the other located in the western part of the city, where Kelvingrove Park and Gallery are situated, as well as the University, Botanic Garden and Riverside Museum. The popular district West End, rich in facilities like pubs, shops, and restaurant is adjacent as well. Those two clusters are separated by the multi-lane M-8 motorway.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

In order to provide a more general overview, the places selected by the respondents were also categorised. The set of individual, specific places was transformed into a table with general types of spaces, like a park, square, museum, etc. Some degree of generalisation was necessary, as some sites fit into more than one category. In Table 4 the percentage share of individual categories in relation to all responses is shown.

Table 4.

The categories of space most often mentioned in the answers to the question: ‘Please enumerate three places that you would decide to show a person visiting Glasgow/Poznań for the first time’.

No	Poznań		Glasgow
	Category	%	Category	%
1	City square / market square	32.6	Museum	25.5
2	Green area	22.2	Green area	15.0
3	Historic building	7.0	City square / market square	8.3
4	City district	5.5	City district	8.0
5	Shopping mall	5.2	Street	5.7

Source: own study.

When taking the generalised data into account, responses in Poznań were dominated by green areas, squares and market squares, city districts as a whole, and shopping centres. Respondents in Glasgow in their answers indicated mainly museums, green areas, squares and market squares, districts, and streets. It is worth noticing that over 25% of the places indicated by the people surveyed in Glasgow were museums, while in the case of Poznań, this category was only about 3.2%. On the other hand, city squares and marketplaces were very common among the selections made by the respondents in the Polish city – 32.56% versus 8.26% in Glasgow. Green areas occupied the second place in both cities, with 22.16 and 15.01% in Poznań and Glasgow, respectively.

It must be noted that the respondents have chosen places on different spatial scales, from a single example of architecture to the whole city district. Sometimes the spot mentioned was part of the larger spatial structure that also occurred in the responses. For this reason, the results of this part of the study should be approached with caution and treated more like qualitative than pure quantitative data.

Assessment of the types of public spaces

A matrix consisting of a set of places and four statements referring to various public space indicators was presented to the surveyed people. They were asked to answer, whether, in their opinion, the individual statements are true for given spaces. Any number of statements could be marked for every type of space. The results are presented in Figures 3 to 6, as a percentage of respondents who marked the sentence as true. Not only the percentage rate but also the relative order has been taken into account in the analysis of the data.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 6.

The first statement was: ‘This place contributes to building relationships between people visiting them’. The most considerable differences can be observed for river banks, a local marketplace, a neighbourhood space, a park, a club, a local square (all of them were more frequently indicated by respondents from Poznań), and a museum (which was more frequently indicated by people from Glasgow). Apart from a museum, a cemetery, a city hall, and religious buildings were the only ones that had more indications in Glasgow than in Poznań. In both cities, a cemetery, a city hall, and a post office were the places with the lowest number of suggestions, while a pub and a park were among the most often indicated ones.

The second statement was about having clearly stated rules about acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. Apart from a pub and a club, every other place has been indicated more frequently for Poznań, with differences as high as 32% for a cemetery, 31% for a city hall, and 30% in the case of a street. The answers were similar (less than 10% of difference for the types of space such as a local market, a shopping centre, a local square, a restaurant/café, a neighbourhood space, a club, and a pub. It is worth noticing that a pub and a club were among the places that were marked most frequently in Glasgow (respectively the 3rd and 5th place) while in Poznań these kinds of spaces were at the 11th and 13th places. In both cities, a museum was ranked first.

The third statement concerned accessibility. Also in this case, almost every place (apart from a museum) ranked higher in the survey conducted in Poznań. With regard to the percentage difference, it was the highest for the river banks and religious buildings. In both cities the places that can be considered traditional public spaces obtained higher score – a city square, a park, and a street were in top three both in Glasgow and Poznań. Among the rarely indicated places are those that charge a fee for entrance or access to all of their features – a pub, a club, and a sports complex. Also, neighbourhood space has considerable limitations in terms of accessibility, because it was rated 12th in Glasgow and 15th in Poznań.

The last statement was about the importance of the selected places for social life. Significant differences can be observed, up to 30 percentage points for places like a local marketplace, a cemetery, a city hall, and the river banks. A club and a pub were the only ones where the indications were higher in Glasgow than in Poznań. While the order of the places is compared, some positions stand out. The examples are a pub (1st place in Glasgow, 6th in Poznań), a club (4th and 12th), a sports complex (6th and 13th), a shopping centre (8th and 16th), and a local market (13th and 4th) and the river banks (14th and 7th)

There are also correlations between the assessed features. Some places, like a cemetery, a city hall and a post office in Glasgow had a very low percentage rate for the first statement (This place contributes to building relationships between people visiting them) and the fourth one (This place is important for social life). In Poznań, the rate was low for the first statement, but, contrary to the other city, it is quite high for the fourth statement.

Inclinations toward specific activities

Another question in the survey was about the specific events and activities that take place in public spaces. The respondents were asked to evaluate their willingness to participate in the mentioned events using the ordinal scale that consisted of 1 (Absolutely not), 2 (Rather not), 3 (Rather yes), and 4 (Absolutely yes). The results are presented in Figures 7 and 8.

Fig. 7.

Fig. 8.

In general, respondents in Glasgow were more eager to choose answers: 3 and 4, which expressed their willingness to participate in particular events or activities. Religious events were the only entry that received more positive answers in Poznań, but even there, the difference was minor. Particularly large differences were observed for events like celebrations and street performances. Street performing is quite popular in Glasgow to such an extent that the city authorities published a guide to good practices for street performers containing the rules that regulate busking in the city. The other feature that stands out is taking part in demonstrations and protests. In that case, almost 60% of the respondents from Poznań have chosen answer 1 (Absolutely not), and, in general, 86% of them responded negatively. Totally, in Poznań, there were six types of activities for which more than 50% of the answers were either ‘Absolutely not’ or ‘Rather not’. Apart from demonstrations and protests, those were celebrations, religious events, sports events, street performances, and meeting with neighbours. In the case of Glasgow, demonstrations, protests, and religious events were the only activities with more than half negative answers.

Several interesting correlations are noted in the results of the conducted research. Although public administration offices in Poznań are not considered to be places that support interpersonal relationships, which is one of the determinants of the public space (Lofland 1998; Baumann 2003), they are still evaluated as places important for social life. This may indicate that such institutions are the symbols of power, and show how an image of government authority is present in the mentality.

While speaking about power, it is worth noticing that respondents in Poznań paid more attention to the existence of rules and principles of behaviour in public space. It was visible in their answers regarding the offices previously mentioned, but also religious buildings, cemeteries, museums, and even open spaces like streets and city squares. Strict rules that determine acceptable behaviour, especially in the case of formal facilities, fit well into the values typical of Poland in the Hofstede cultural model (Hofstede 2000) – mainly high values of power distance and uncertainty avoidance (Fig. 9). The former cultural dimension covers inequalities related to the power owned and the acceptance of those inequalities by the ones who are lower in the hierarchy. The high value of the uncertainty avoidance dimension characterises societies that are conservative towards new ideas, with strict legal and customary regulations. The role played by sacred buildings and cemeteries, on the other hand, harmonises with a high level of religiosity still observed among Polish citizens. In the Pew Research Centre report (2018), Poland was classified as the 10th most religious in Europe, as opposed to the United Kingdom which was the 30th in this respect. The research conducted shows that such differences can be observed in the approach to public space. Religious buildings in Glasgow often serve not only sacred purposes but offer another range of services too, including gastronomy. Therefore, those places are active also when religious rites are not conducted. This tendency can be observed in Poznań to a much lesser extent.

Fig. 9.

There is also an interesting correlation between the activities associated with the public space and the actual participation in them. It is mostly visible in the case of demonstrations and protests, which were among the activities most frequently mentioned by the respondents from Poznań as characteristic of public space. The results correspond to the image of a public space as a place of protest, which allows the people to control the government (Low, Smith 2006), and where social and political issues can be discussed (Geenens, Tinnevelt 2009; Parkinson 2009). However, over 80% of the surveyed people have stated that they do not want to take part in such an activity. The gap between the perceived role of public space and its actual use can be observed here, especially when other studied activities are taken into account.

The results of the study fit into the discussion about the public space in Poznań, namely the fall of the street. The role of once popular streets in the city centre, like Święty Marcin, has been diminished, and social life, human activity, as well as businesses have been moved to other places, like shopping malls. On the other hand, in Glasgow, two main retail streets, Sauchiehall and Buchanan, which intersect in the city centre, are examples of vivid, dynamic spaces. They not only serve as traffic routes, but they also bring together a lot of business facilities. It is worth noticing that Buchanan street maintains its character and importance even though there is a large shopping mall at the southern end (St. Enoch centre). The streets mentioned, as well as nearby Argyle street, are highlighted in the Glasgow City Development Plan (2017). In this document, the important role of such places is stressed and the policy that protects their retail use is proposed. Those streets also serve as a kind of stage – not only for artists, but various activists, street speakers, and even mobile army recruitment points.

As regards a more general conclusion, this study reveals that green areas within the cities are perceived as particularly important and necessary. Based on the surveys from both cities, parks are comparable to spaces such as city squares or local markets in terms of the association with the characteristics of public spaces. They are also present among the most representative places people are mostly connected with. This is especially true for the sites that have more functions, such as Cytadela in Poznań (that is a historic cemetery and a museum as well as a park) or Necropolis in Glasgow (a historic cemetery too). Green areas are also suitable to host big events, such as outdoor concerts and festivals, which are among the activities indicated by the respondents as most characteristic of public spaces. Sports activities, also a popular choice in the survey, are often connected with green areas too. The conducted research allows presuming that the role of parks and other green areas is more similar in Glasgow and Poznań than it is in the case of the other types of public spaces that were covered by the study. On the opposite spectrum, there are the museums and religious buildings mentioned earlier; for those types of sites, the differences between the two cities seem to be the largest.

To sum up, the results of the conducted study allow identifying several aspects in which the perception and approach to public space differed between the inhabitants of Glasgow and Poznań. These aspects concern involvement in public life (which was generally higher among respondents in Glasgow), an approach to rules and principles (behaviour in public spaces is regulated to a greater extent according to the respondents from Poznań), as well as understanding what is meant by the concept of public space (e.g. the role that public offices or museums play in social life). Some of the above-mentioned differences can be explained by cultural factors, as evidenced by the previously indicated comparisons with studies on models of culture and religiosity. The conducted work shows that cultural differences depicted by indicator models can be also observed in relation to urban public space. Another conclusion that can be drawn is that in the case of Poznań and Glasgow, open public spaces like parks or squares are closer related to their counterparts in the other city in terms of their role and place in social life than the places that are beyond the ‘traditional’ catalogue of public spaces. The research also shows that the differences in the use and perception of space occur and can be seen also within European societies, and not only on larger scales, e.g., between the global East and the West.

As was mentioned earlier, the empirical materials were collected before the occurrence of some important events, such as the Covid-19 pandemic, Brexit, and the war in Ukraine, which had a tremendous impact on the contemporary world, including public life. However, the presented results apart from demonstrating relations between culture and space, which should be quite stable over time, can also serve as a comparative material that allows observing how the spatial habits from several years ago differ from those observed in the cities now.