Category: Research papers for built environment

This is a story from regional Australia where joined up thinking maximised the social and economic benefits for the whole community. Both the school and the library facilities needed an upgrade. So here was an opportunity to develop a ‘joint use’ community hub to service the town and to support lifelong learning in the community. However, the project, underpinned by universal design, had its challenges.

David Tordoff and Julia Atkins discuss the project and its challenges in a book chapter. The title is Developing a School and Community Learning Hub: A Case Study from Regional Australia.

The New South Wales Department of Education generally encourages schools to engage in shared use of school facilities. The school controls the facility and allows community use out of school hours. However, this is not as effective as it could be due to governance barriers.

The overarching project design guidelines included universal design principles along with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Project specific design principles were developed to embrace life long learning, celebrating art and multicultural heritage, and embedding universal design principles.

The chapter explains the issues, the processes, connection to land, place, history and people. Consultation with the Wiradjuri community had a significant impact on the design, artefacts, and the naming of places. Images help with explaining the concepts.

Policies and protocols

No matter how well the built environment is designed, they way the place and space is used by people can still raise problems. For example, spaces designed for quiet activities will only work well if users keep quiet. Likewise, spaces designed for collaboration do not suddenly give people the ability to collaborate.

This project paves the way for other communities to create community hubs within and adjacent to school grounds. With several stakeholders, a collaborative approach is needed to negotiate the way through governance issues.

An interesting book chapter for designers, local government, community groups, school staff, and library staff. It’s open access.

The term “smart city” refers to the way local authorities use digital information to make planning decisions and create solutions. But is this linked to the real lives of older people and the notion of age-friendly cities? According to UBANAGE, a European project, not enough data is collected on people aged over 65 years.

Researchers found current data sets inadequate for analysis of older populations. One of the reasons is the need for the privacy of personal data. Here we see the dangers of trying to develop algorithms and simulation to solve problems. This is where co-creation enters the picture. Older adults, public servants and other stakeholders worked together to test solutions for addressing the needs of older people.

The title of the research paper is, Older people and the smart city – Developing inclusive practices to protect and serve a vulnerable population. The term “vulnerable” is overused in relation to older people and feeds into stereotypes. Many older people are still active in the workforce and no more vulnerable than younger cohorts.

What is a “Smart City”?

What is a smart city and is it different from other cities? Smart cities use digital technology and data to improve decision-making and quality of life. The aim is to gain a better understanding of current conditions and forecast future changes. The data are also used to improve city functions and create solutions. But how does it work?

More is explained in an article titled, Smart City Design Principles. For a city, town or community to become smart it needs connected technology. Smartphones, sensors and Internet of Things devices connect to the Internet and each other and share the data they collect with city staff. Managers use various applications to take this data and turn it into information they can use. This can have a huge impact on urban development and planning.

There are four key elements:

1. Quality encompasses liveability, environment, and quality of life (which should include accessibility and inclusion).
2. Residential Construction focuses on addressing the needs of current generations without negatively impacting future generations.
3. Capacity is about natural and human resources – population distribution, water, etc.
4. History and Environment is about achieving cohesive regional development, traditional practices and archaeological zones. 

Anyone interested in understanding and applying the elements of the smart cities framework will find the article useful.

Abstract

A smart city should embrace the concept of sustainable growth, as it is an urgent need, and we cannot hesitate in coping with precious natural resources and plunge into crisis.

To make the city run as a smart city, several things should be included in the situation. In the long term, smart city visions that are inclusive, pluralistic, and citizen-centric, focused on developing services and resolving local challenges, would be the most effective and cost-efficient.

They are most likely to avoid potential issues by strengthening both physical facilities and amenities, as well as the city’s sense of culture.

Population ageing and smart cities

An article in The Conversation challenges the idea that older people are a problem and a burden. Apart from being an ageist proposition, it does little to change matters. When we talk of “empowering older adults” to engage in active ageing, who took the power away in the first place? Was it the advent of secluded congregate living that seduced older adults into feeling “secure”? Or was it something else? Regardless, research continues on ways to make people “feel capable and safe”. 

The article in The Conversation begins with older people “need help and encouragement to remain active as they age in their own communities.” It is not clear why this is specific to older people. The article continues to explain how a city can provide digital infrastructure for the local information older people need. Three solutions are proposed for keeping older adults, indeed everyone, active and healthy:

A previous post on Ageing in neighbourhood rather than retirement villages reports a similar approach to population ageing. 

Singapore’s rapid urban development didn’t happen without a plan – indeed, it took several integrated plans. The aim of Singapore’s Long-Term Plan is for liveable and sustainable homes and built environments for residents. It’s basically a land use and infrastructure plan with a 50 year view. The broad ideas in the plan are translated into Master Plans with detail about land use and density.

Singapore’s Liveability Framework

A conference paper by Koh and Lee explains how the Singapore Liveability Framework has brought liveability, sustainability and prosperity. Developing state-owned land comes with government conditions. Consequently, developments are aligned with the Liveability Framework and master plans. Universal design is considered in all built environment plans.

Housing for All

In 1960 there was an acute housing shortage. In five years they built 50,000 flats to solve the shortage. Then they turned towards providing better housing to meet the aspirations of the population for a better quality of life. Singapore encourages home ownership and supports occupants to purchase their government owned flats.

Planning for Mixed-Use

Public housing is not excluded from prime locations and is mixed with retail, commercial and residential zones. Mixed use developments are also found as part of integrated transport hubs. The integration of mixed-use districts starts at the planning stage and encourages innovative development concepts.

Planning for Polycentricity

Decentralisation is key to being able to live, work and play without the need to travel long distances. Each regional centre has industrial estates, business parks, and educational institutions. At a more detailed level there are schools and shops and a transport node.

Connectivity and Walkability

Roads and expressways take up 12% of the land. Consequently, similarly to other countries, plans are prioritising public transport, walking and cycling, and extending the rail network. Better first and last mile connectivity is a must. Covered linkways connect transportation with residential areas to make walking more comfortable in the tropical weather. Repurposing roads for pedestrian space is also part of the plan.

Convenient access to green and blue

Singapore is more than a concrete jungle. The idea of a garden city began in 1967 as part of transforming Singapore into a clean and green haven for tourists and investors. Of course, residents benefit too.

A city for all ages

Life expectancy has risen by 20 years in the last 60 years and the population is therefore ageing. One in four Singaporeans will be older than 65 years by 2030. While there are various options for older residents, the government has introduced new public housing concepts. Co-location of housing with healthcare facilities, retail and dining areas, and community gardens is one solution. Community Care Apartments are another idea where residents can live independently with support services.

Living in a disrupted world

The conference paper is long and detailed with many case studies and photographs. Having government control over development and developers means strategies are implemented according to the plans. Climate change and COVID are now part of life and Singapore has to move beyond liveability and sustainability to build resilience.

What’s the best way to evaluate the application of universal design principles in a project? Is it a checklist? A professional opinion? Or something else? And what kind of evaluation are we talking about? Surely evaluation is about the usability of the building from a user perspective. A group of researchers decided to find out how stakeholders were evaluating universal design in their projects.

The Australian researchers undertook an extensive study involving 157 participants. More than half reported experience of disability, either themselves or a family member. Academics and access consultants represented the largest number of participants. When asked who is involved in universal design evaluation, the most common response was access consultants (45%). Disability advocates represented almost thirty percent (29.8%).

The research paper explains the processes used and the data gathered. Participants used specific tools or methods with checklists being a favourite, followed by access audits. This is where the understanding of universal design comes into question. However, some respondents were incorporating user feedback from the design conception stage.

Overall, almost all participants rated evaluation of universal design as being important. When asked who should do the evaluation, building users, building construction stakeholders and multiple stakeholders were identified. There was a trend towards access consultants being the people to do the evaluation.

Conclusion

The researchers claim that evaluation of universal design is being called for and carried out in practice. The results appear to divide into two camps. Those who think of universal design as a standard, and those who understand universal design as an iterative process.

However, evaluation from the perspective of meeting standards (did it comply?), or meeting the project scope (deliverables) does not tell you if the design is usable. The researchers conclude the paper with this sentence:

“[We need to] … better understand how people with disability can effectively participate in design processes, and what factors serve as barriers and facilitators to participation.”

Not sure that more research on how stakeholders evaluate universal design is the issue. Understanding the difference between access standards and universal design is still the key point.

The title of the paper is, Evaluating universal design of built environments: an empirical study of stakeholder practice and perceptions. The researchers are based at Deakin University.

From the abstract

Universal design aims to reduce environmental barriers and enhance usability of buildings for all people, particularly those with disabilities.

This study aimed to gather information on current practice and what stakeholders perceive as important to universal design evaluation. A mixed methods approach was employed, and data were collected via online survey (n = 157) and semi-structured interviews (n = 37).

Participants included industry professionals, policy makers, government officials, academics, and people with disabilities. Just over one-third of participants stated that they had experience of evaluating universal design in public built environments.

Checklists were most commonly used, yet participants expressed concern with their suitability for this purpose. Almost all participants perceived evaluation of universal design as important, citing its value to advocacy, professional development and strengthening the evidence base of universal design.

Findings from this study highlight a tension between a checklist approach, and a multidisciplinary method that encompasses the complexity of universal design application.

Many followers of universal design will have critiqued the entry to Museum M in Leuven, Belgium as dangerous. Unfortunately, a Google image search on “universal design” includes images of this entry as examples of universal design. While this design might be architecturally creative, it is not architecturally inclusive or safe for everyone.

An article by three Belgian researchers gives both sides of the design story. The classic design ideas and objectives of the architects, and the user experience. The article first discusses disability and the built environment from a justice perspective. They emphasise how architect’s human senses are not the same as everyone else. Museum M is used as a case study to explore the differing values of architects and users with disability.

The architect thought it a good idea if visitors didn’t have to separate at the entrance. He could see no problems for wheelchair users by crossing the ramp through the stairs. This design is sometimes called “stramps” With no kerbing to the ramp, wheelchair users would need to be careful not to run off the grade into the steps. Although some wheelchair users might find this workable, it is not the case for people who are blind.

What Charlotte and Philip said

Charlotte is a wheelchair user and Philip has a vision impairment: their experiences are at odds with the grandiose ideas of the architect. Philip understands the idea of the stramps but it does not make the museum more accessible for him. The break in the handrail to accommodate the ramp section means he doesn’t know where the next handrail is.

The colour of the entrance is also causing an obstacle. The white colour when the sun is shining onto the floor it looks like one flat surface. Philip can’t make out the steps and combining it with ramp makes it more confusing. Charlotte isn’t comfortable about entering either because the ramp is not entirely visible for wheelchair users.

The title of the article is Enriching our Understanding of Architecture Through Disability Experience. It was published in 2013 but is still relevant as an example of what happens when you don’t co-design.

The “Go-Along” research method is a way of observing people in their local neighbourhood to see the streets from their perspective. It allows participants to tell their stories about the things they like and don’t like when getting out and about. 

The “go-along walking” method has been used with people with dementia. The findings provided insights into how people get around and their need to feel safe. 

A similar project was undertaken in Copenhagen focused on older people. The data was gathered using a Go-Pro camera and interviews.  Social interaction turned out to be the overall reason for going outdoors. Footpaths, seating and sheltered places were the most important design elements. Of course, these are not limited to older people. A case of “necessary for some and good for others”.

Photographs tell the personal stories and illustrate some of the findings.

 

 

The title of the article is, Going along with older people: exploring age-friendly neighbourhood design through their lens.  Springer Link has not granted open access, but you can request a copy from ResearchGate. It was published by the Journal of Housing and the Built Environment in 2020.

Abstract

Neighbourhoods are extremely important to older people, as this is where a great deal of their everyday life is spent and where social interaction happens. This is particularly the case in deprived neighbourhoods, where people with limited economic resources or physical limitations find it challenging to venture outside the neighbourhood.

A growing body of research suggests studying age-friendly neighbourhoods from a bottom-up approach which takes the diversity of the age group into account. This paper aims to investigate how the go-along method can serve to co-construct knowledge about age-friendly neighbourhood design in a deprived neighbourhood of Copenhagen with a diverse group of older people.

Sixteen go-along interviews were carried out with older people aged 59–90. The participants took on an expert role in their own everyday life and guided the researcher through the physical and social environments of their neighbourhood.

The go-alongs were documented with a GoPro camera. The data were analysed using situational analysis and was grouped into thematic categories. Our findings conclude that social interaction is the overall motivator for going outdoors and that dimensions of pavements, the seating hierarchy, the purpose of lawns, sheltered spaces and ‘unauthorised’ places are all neighbourhood design elements that matter in this regard.

The findings suggest to consider age-friendly details as the starting point for social interaction, to target the appropriate kind of age-friendly programs and to enhance empowerment through physical spaces. The go-along interview as a research method holds the potential for empowering older people and appreciating their diversity.

 

Planning inclusive communities begins with asking the right questions. For example: What makes an inclusive community? What stops communities being inclusive? When we say community, what do we mean? And what does inclusive mean?

Lisa Stafford’s research project sought to answer those questions and more. Her research heard from 97 people aged from 9 to 92 years. Some had a disability or long term health condition, and others were their family members or allies. The findings are presented in a reader friendly format rather than an academic article. 

Findings from Stage 1

The thoughts and experiences from participants with and without disability shared many aspects in common. Here are some of the points in brief.

An inclusive community is about people where everyone is valued and belongs. Everyone is valued and respected regardless of their culture or background. That means communities must be planned for all people – built for equity, fairness and accessibility. Inclusive communities are happy places where people have choices and safe spaces to have fun and socialise. So how do we make it happen?

The answer is planning together from the very beginning. People with disability, diverse groups, government and urban planning practitioners should all be involved. 

The Planning Inclusive Communities website explains the project in plain language with lots of graphics. There is also a link to an Easy English explanation of the project. The video below also gives an overview.

The title of the full report is What Makes Inclusive Communities? Meanings, Tensions, Change Needed and is downloadable in Word. It gives more detail about the background to the research and the findings. 

Stage 2 of this research project will identify people who want to help make change and create a plan for inclusive communities. 

Here is a quote from the website that has more information. 

“I feel like it’s all about everyone being able to equally engage in the environment in the community. For people with disabilities there is a lot of restraint and they can’t engage as much as other people. It’s also like equality is not enough, it should be equity so everyone has what they need to be able to engage in that community. Because I feel like a community is about people and engagement, but also being able to access and work around a community.”

Planning Inclusively: Make Communities Just for All

Urban planning is a highly contested and politicised area to work in. The talk is that planning is about people, not roads and buildings. But when do users – people – get a say in planning? Only at the end when plans are put on exhibition. Then you need to be an expert to understand them. Planning inclusively is to make communities just for all. 

Lisa Stafford, in a briefing paper, asks how well do we consider human diversity in planning cities and regions?  Planners and bureaucrats would rarely even consider the concept of “Ableism” in their designs. That’s why we still have marginalisation by design. The lens of the average or the “normal” person is rarely put aside for a lens of diversity. 

Social planning can drive inclusive communities because it operates from a justice framework. Participatory planning is one way to work towards inclusion. 

The tile of Lisa Stafford’s paper is, Planning Inclusively: Disrupting ‘Ableism’ to Make Communities Just for All.  She has four recommendations at the end of her easy to read paper. Briefly they are:

1. 1. 1. Adopt an approach of planning for all
      2. Apply spatial justice thinking to planning
      3. Embed universal design as a core planning principle
      4. Re-emphasise the social in planning

Editorial Introduction 

“Disabled people continue to experience exclusion by design in our everyday spaces, infrastructure and services, which has been magnified through the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, more than ever, there is an opportunity for urban and regional planning practitioners, researchers and disabled people to come together to advocate for and create inclusive, sustainable communities for all. However, to make this transformative, we must first critically question how well do we really consider human diversity in planning cities, towns and regions? This question is examined in this briefing paper by contesting entrenched challenges like ‘ableism’ before providing fundamental starting points for planners in planning more inclusive and just communities for all.”

 

Architecture can be a powerful tool for supporting people living with dementia. That is, if it is designed with this group in mind. A special issue of Architectural Science Review consists of articles about people living with dementia. The articles have a medical flavour, especially those focused on residential care design. 

The lead article is Architectural design gives hope for dementia. The author explains that this special edition is dedicated to an exploration of evidence-based and theoretical approaches to design. Architecture is not just the setting for care, but a critical part of the complexity surrounding dementia. 

A manifesto

introduces the values of dignity, autonomy, independence and equality. The manifesto has a short list of values followed by ten design principles. It follows the recommendations from the Alzheimer’s Disease International World Alzheimer’s Report 2020. Open access. 

You can download the World Alzheimer Report from the website.

Design assessment

A design assessment tool for layout planning in residential care for dementia discusses design that can reduce symptoms and improve wellbeing. The authors’ assessment tool provides an evidence-based means of assessing layout planning quality. The authors challenge some of the existing published information used by architects. Open access.

Socio-spatial relationships in design of residential care homes for people living with dementia diagnoses presents a grounded theory approach. The study challenges generalisations of occupants in care homes and focuses on lived experiences. Ethical and methodological issues are discussed and the authors recommend more research to enable co-design methods. Open access. 

Hospital design

Towards human-centred general hospitals: the potential of dementia-friendly design focuses on people with dementia in hospital. The needs of patients with dementia are poorly understood. Therefore, a stay in hospital can increase functional decline. This paper discusses a special care unit specifically to treat people with dementia. This includes a focus on dementia-friendly design. This paper requires institutional access for a free read. 

 You can find similar papers when checking out the links to the papers above.