What do people in Switzerland think and know about public space?

Here is an excerpt from Eveline Althaus’s commentary:

“That public space is fundamentally important to our democratic society and that it belongs to everyone seems self-evident to us. But do large segments of the population see it the same way? What do they even consider to be public space? What qualities do they value? And how often, and for what purposes, do they use it?”

In May 2025, a total of 1,110 people from the German-, French- and Italian-speaking parts of Switzerland answered these questions in an omnibus survey.

The representative results are now available.

What’s especially encouraging is this: the value of public space appears to be widely recognised. In response to the open question “What’s the first thing that comes to mind when you hear the term public space?”, the most frequent answer—alongside “a park”—was “that it is accessible to everyone.” And when asked, “What do you appreciate most about public space?”, the most common answer was “that it is free and accessible to all.”

This corresponds to an argument that is central to us as well. Because whether young or old, rich or poor, long-time local or just passing through: public space is there for everyone—regardless of origin, social class, education, lifestyle, gender identity or sexual orientation. In its openness and accessibility, public space is, in a way, the opposite of the often-mentioned “bubbles” into which our society is increasingly fragmenting. It is where very different life realities come into contact.

Also encouraging is that the results suggest people generally have an awareness of their public space. This is evident, for example, in response to the question “Which facilities do you consider to be part of public space?” The highest levels of agreement were for parks, pedestrian zones, plazas and sidewalks. In contrast, government buildings or libraries were mentioned less frequently.

There are also notable differences between language regions. In Romandy and Ticino, schoolyards, train stations and streets are considered part of public space significantly less often than in German-speaking Switzerland—whereas playgrounds are mentioned more often.

In people’s immediate perception, public space is primarily a space that creates publicness and thus enables encounters—of whatever kind—which corresponds to a fundamental human need. In English, this broad understanding is often described using the term “sites of publicness.” Ownership structures and associated regulations, however, do play a significant role in how public space is used.

When it comes to usage frequency, income differences become apparent: people with lower incomes are more likely to say they use public space “to linger and relax” or “for sports and physical activity,” whereas people with higher incomes more often use it “for commuting to work or school” or “for shopping.” Does this mean that those with busy lives in a performance-driven society hardly have time for longer, collective uses of public space? Or does it confirm what the theorist of social inequality Pierre Bourdieu noted in The Weight of the World: that those with sufficient capital not only have access to more private physical space, but also the ability to keep unwanted people or things at a distance?

The opportunity to experience and maintain encounters with other people in public space is also more frequently emphasised as important by urban residents—and by households with children. Yet when asked about the key qualities of public space, the option “places where people can simply meet” received less approval than qualities like safety, cleanliness, and traffic regulation. Is this our reserved “Bünzli Switzerland” side showing through, or is it simply a reflection of the fact that safe, clean and well-functioning places are more inviting and attractive for use?

Relatively few people considered the ability to participate in political demonstrations in public space to be important. Would this perspective be as restrained in a country with fewer democratic participation rights?