Healthy Placemaking: Practitioner perspectives

Why do built environment practitioners create places that contribute to preventable disease and early death, despite evidence on healthy placemaking? That was the question the Design Council wanted to answer. And you could ask the same thing about access and inclusion. According to their survey of over 600 practitioners, many said they often have to convince clients and other professionals to invest in healthy placemaking. They also found that more emphasis was given to outdoor places than indoor places. Physical activity was given priority over buildings that could support job creation and boost employment rates. Homes were given the lowest priority. Not using available information to inform designs was a major concern. The 10 key insights capture the overall picture that emerges from the report.

There is much to take in with this report as it covers systemic issues, and competing priorities and individual attitudes. There is a web page with the introduction where you can download the report document in PDF.

There’s a related post on this topic: Healthy view of placemaking.

Editor’s note: The same issues are found within the industry in terms of access and inclusion. Many issues are systemic and that means individuals who support healthy inclusive environments cannot make a significant difference if the rest of the system does not support the ideas. And evidence is not the game-changer.


Accessibility Toolbar