idgo inclusive design for getting outdoors lynne mitchell
Post on 31-Mar-2015
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
I’DGO
Inclusive Design for Getting Outdoors
Lynne Mitchell
WISEWellbeing in Sustainable Environments research group,
– architect/urban designer, planner/social scientist
Researching impacts of the built environment on QoL, wellbeing, physical & mental health
– at all scales from urban form to detailed design
– indoor and outdoor environments
Influencing policy & practice, evidence-based design guidance, CPD sessions & consultancy
I’DGO ConsortiumInclusive Design for Getting Outdoors
Established in 2003 to identify the most effective ways to ensure the outdoor environment is designed inclusively, to improve older people’s quality of life (QoL)
www.idgo.ac.uk
Funded by EPSRC EQUAL
I’DGO academic partners
OPENspace, Edinburgh College of Art with Heriot-Watt and Edinburgh Universities
• landscape architects
SURFACE Inclusive Design Research Centre + Centre for Rehabilitation and Human
Performance Research, University of Salford• surveyors, access auditors, biomedical engineers
I’DGO: first phaseHow the design of neighbourhoods, streets and public open spaces can make a difference to older people’s QoL
What features facilitate or hinder outdoor activity
Outdoor environment plays important role in everyday lives: meeting daily needs, socialising, physical exercise, contact with nature
At least half our participants faced problems due to environmental barriers and lack of supportive facilities
I’DGO TOOPedestrian-friendly approaches (such as Home Zones) in street environments
The practical consequences of usingtactile paving (designed to assist peoplewith visual impairment) for older peoplein the urban environment
The implications of high-density urban housing on residential outdoor space, such as gardens and balconies
I’DGO TOO PartnersAge UKBuilding Research EstablishmentCABE SpaceCentral Council for Physical Recreation Cognatum LtdDept of Communities & Local GovernmentDepartment for TransportEDAWEDI GroupElwood Landscape Design English HeritageGreenspace ScotlandGuide Dogs for the BlindHealth and Safety LaboratoryHomes and Communities AgencyIan WallInstitute of Highway EngineersInternational Longevity CentreJacobs Babtie
John GregoryLiving StreetsMarshalls PavingMayer BrownNHS Health Scotland Peabody TrustPeter Brett AssociatesPhil Jones Associates LtdPlaces for PeoplePRP Architects LtdRNIB Access Consultancy ServicesRoyal Institute of British ArchitectsScottish GovernmentSteve OngeriSustransSwindon Borough CouncilThe Orders of St John Care TrustTRANSform Scotland
Residential outdoor spaceTo determine what is lost and gained in high-density developments in terms of residential outdoor space (ROS)
To determine how, and to what extent, different types of ROS contribute to older people’s wellbeing
To identify how best to design the private outdoor spaces around high-density housing to deliver maximum benefits to older people
Residential outdoor spaceResearch based on theoretical framework of person-centred active ageing and the importance of supportive environments for optimising QoL, health and wellbeing
Residential outdoor spaceWhen space is at a premium, garden space is often given low priority when developing higher-density housing on urban land
Implications of urban renaissance for older people have not yet been investigated – claimed benefits have not been tested
Also important to ensure these policies contribute to lifelong inclusive sustainable development which benefits everyone
What we mean by ROSOutdoor space attached to housing:
• Private gardens (front and back)• Shared gardens• Balconies/verandahs• Terraces/patios• Courtyards• Parking areas• Outdoor storage areas (for bins, sheds etc.)
Aspects of designShape, size and layout of ROS
Type/form of hard and soft landscaping
Proportion of area given over to different uses
Access & thresholds between public and private space
Detailed design• seating, shelter, storage, lighting,
pathways, planters, ornaments ...
Aspects of designBoundaries
• walls, fencing, trees, hedgerows ...
Orientation/sunlight
Balance between levels of privacy and opportunities for social interaction within ROS
Spaces and buildings immediately beyond ROS
Overlooking of ROS by neighbouring buildings
Views from inside housing and from ROS
Aspects of wellbeingThose likely to be influenced by being able to use ROS
• satisfaction from being able to use the space for practical activities, such as hanging out washing, growing food, storing property, maintaining vehicles and parking
• enjoyment from being able to use the space for leisure activities, such as entertaining visitors, sitting outside,gardening, keeping pets or feeding wildlife
Aspects of wellbeing Being able to spend time outdoors provides physical and mental exercise and stimulation, which enhances healthand wellbeing
Access to natural environments reduces stress and aids memory
Sunlight important for: – production of mood-enhancing
hormone, serotonin
– absorption of vitamin D, important for people at risk of arthritis and brittle bones
Aspects of wellbeingAttractive or interesting views, especially of nature, can have a therapeutic effect and can reduce blood pressure and stress levels
Exposure to natural light and being able to clearly see the cycle of change between day and night helps prevent sleep disorders
Views outside also help maintain a sense of connection to the wider world for people unable to go out
Aspects of wellbeingAspects likely to be influenced by being able to use or see residential outdoor space:
• pleasure from the appearance of the space and the way it enhances the dwelling
• relaxation and comfort• enjoyment from social interaction
with neighbours and passers-by and feeling part of the community
• wellness from gaining exercise and having access to fresh air
Stage oneClustered samples of housing developments
• A range of location types and densities from cities to villages in Scotland, England and Wales
• Age specific and general housing• Private/social• Built post/pre-1999
1 2 2
3 4
Age-specific study sites (private)
1. Bluecoat Pond, Horsham
2. Coachman Court, Rochford
3. Newman Court, Bromley
4. Tudor Grange, Blackheath
Darwin Court, London Glastonbury House, Pimlico 1 2
John Knight Lodge, Fulham Edmanson’s Lodge, Tottenham
Age-specific study sites (social)
1 2
3 4
‘Urban renaissance’ sites (private)
1. Fulham Island, Fulham
2. Putney Wharf, London
3. Port Marine, Portishead
4. Pepys Estate, Deptford
1 2
3 4
‘Urban renaissance’ sites (social)
1. CASPAR, Birmingham
2. Heskey Walk, Nottingham
3. Mealhouse Brow, Stockport
4. Ashley Road, Bristol
Stage oneMap/plan analysis to ascertain further variables:
• Settlement size• Density of dwellings • Era of dwellings e.g. Victorian, Edwardian, Postmodern• % of built up area, ROS and other green space• Density of trees • Size and layout of ROS per dwelling• Measure of in/equality of size of ROS between dwellings• Access to public open space within 300m2 walking distance• Number of outside parking spaces and garages per dwelling• Proportion of openings in boundaries• Maximum number of floors per building
AnalysesQuantitative questionnaire data analysed by Dr Chris Stride, Statistician, University of Sheffield
• Frequencies & descriptives – done• Multi-level modelling – ongoing
Qualitative data from questionnaires & interviews analysed using NVivo software package to identifythemes and patterns
AnalysesHypotheses being tested
• ROS in urban renaissance developments is different to ROS in other developments (e.g. less space, more shared space)
• Older people are different to younger people in terms of how they use their ROS and how they view it (e.g. happier with shared space)
• People are happier with their dwelling if they have some outdoor space
• Quality/type of ROS impacts on satisfaction with home
• People are happier with their ROS the closer it aligns with their ‘ideal’
AnalysesHypotheses being tested
• People are happier with their ROS if they have at least some private space (e.g. balcony, patio)
• People use their space more often if they have direct access to it (or if they live on the ground floor)
• Older people with regularly visiting children use or view their ROS differently
• Using ROS encourages/enables social interaction and sense of community
AnalysesHypotheses being tested
• People use their ROS less if it is overlooked
• ROS overlooked by buildings will feel safer but less private
• Back or enclosed gardens will be more popular and feel safer than front or open gardens (maybe different for older people?)
• Having a pleasant or interesting view is positive for wellbeing
• For older people, views from the home are as important as use of ROS
Attached PhD studyShared residential outdoor space in British towns and cities: how uses and benefits are influenced by their design and management
Same housing developments and questionnaires plus 6 case studies of developments with private shared residential outdoor space
Focus on use of private shared space by people of all ages• How people use their shared space, if at all• Benefits and enjoyment gained from using this space• How the design and management influences use and benefits
Survey respondents16,000 survey questionnaires sent to people of all ages
2548 returned questionnaires
Around ⅔ respondents were women
Around ⅔ said their health was good, very good or excellent
Nearly ¾ were fairlyor very satisfied with their homes
Ages from 18 to 98
Your age (years) in 2009100806040200
Frequency
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Histogram
Under/over 65
Under/over 65
Types of own ROS
Per
cent
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 12
1117
14
156
172019
22
25
3337
3
1710
30
50
39
Type of ROS
65 or overUnder 65Age
Types of shared space
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
res
po
nd
en
ts
50
40
30
20
10
0
72
11
4046
12
5
1619
4546
7
15
2926
11
2
107
2018
Type of ROSO
ther
out
door
spa
ce
Allo
tmen
t
She
d
Spa
ce fo
r bi
ns
Off-
stre
et p
arki
ng
Cou
rtya
rd
Bal
cony
Yar
d/pa
ved
area
Pat
io/te
rrac
e/ve
rand
a
Bac
k ga
rden
Fro
nt g
arde
n
65 or over
Under 65
Most common uses of ROS
Warmer months Colder monthsSitting & relaxingTalking to neighboursEntertaining visitorsGardeningFeeding/enjoying wildlifeEating outsideHanging washing outMaintaining carChildren’s play spaceExercising
Talking to neighboursGardeningFeeding/enjoying wildlifeHanging washing outMaintaining carSitting & relaxingEntertaining visitorsExercisingChildren’s play spaceKeeping pets
Satisfaction with own ROS
Overall, how satisfied are you with your own outdoor space?
Very satisfiedFairly satisfiedNeither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Fairly dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Perc
ent
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
50%
32%
5%6%7%
33%36%
8%
13%10%
65 or overUnder 65
Age
Satisfaction with shared ROS
Overall, how satisfied are you with your shared/communal outdoor space?
Very satisfiedFairly satisfiedNeither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Fairly dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Perc
ent
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
42%
35%
9%6%7%
26%
32%
14%15%12%
65 or overUnder 65
Age
Usability, enjoyment & importance
Importance, Enjoyment and Useability of ROS
My outdoor space is very important to me
I enjoy using the outdoor space I have access to
I am able to do everything I would like to do in my
outdoor space
Perc
enta
ge o
f re
spondents
100
80
60
40
20
0
77.2%80.0%
54.4%
82.5%76.8%
41.1%
65 or overUnder 65Age
Perc
ent
50
40
30
20
10
0 132121125
25
42114 2
12
6413342
50
17
10
24
16
BarriersO
ther
reas
ons
Lack
of s
pace
Una
ttrac
tiven
ess
of th
e spac
e
Poor
mai
nten
ance
The
effo
rt in
volv
ed
Fear
of s
trang
ers
Fear
of a
ttack
Uns
uita
bilit
y fo
r chi
ldre
n
Fear
of f
allin
g
Wea
ther
(ice
/win
d/ra
in)
Lack
of p
rivac
y
Nei
ghbo
urs
Diff
icul
ty a
cces
sing
spac
e
Air q
ualit
y
Noi
se
Percentage of cases who were stopped using OWN residential outdoor space by each reason, split by age
65 or overUnder 65Age
Barriers to using own ROS
Per
cen
t
50
40
30
20
10
04
754
7
336
12
45
17
563
8
3
911
8
3665
2
24
20
10
54
13
Oth
er r
easo
ns
Lack
of s
pace
Una
ttrac
tiven
ess
of th
e sp
ace
Poo
r m
aint
enan
ce
The
effo
rt in
volv
ed
Fea
r of
str
ange
rs
Fea
r of
atta
ck
Uns
uita
bilit
y fo
r ch
ildre
n
Fea
r of
falli
ng
Wea
ther
(ic
e/w
ind/
rain
)
Lack
of p
rivac
y
Nei
ghbo
urs
Diff
icul
ty a
cces
sing
spa
ce
Air
qual
ity
Noi
se
65 or over
Under 65
Barriers to using shared ROS
Respondents ideal ROS
Most important factor as part of your ideal outdoor space
Multiple factors
Other spaceAllotmentShared gardenOff-street parking
BalconyBack gardenFront garden
Per
cent
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
18%
4%1%
7%5%
13%
41%
12% 10%
1%1%1%5%6%
69%
6%
65 or overUnder 65
Age
Preferred uses of ideal ROSSpace for sitting & relaxing
An attractive environment
Space for visitors
Space for children
Gardening
Hanging washing out
Parking space
Eating outside
Importance of pleasing view
69.3
56.8
37.9
26.3
4.4 3.50.90.9
Satisfaction with view/s
34.2
30.6 30.6
21.2
17.716.3
14.2 1211.8 11.5
Actual & ideal view/sActual view/s Ideal view/sGardenBuildingsStreetPark/maintained green spaceOff-street parking/garagesOutdoor space for binsWoodland/ wild spaceCountryside
Natural greeneryFlowers & plantsTrees (equal with flowers & plants) Ability to see a long wayWell kept lawn/sHills or mountainsAnimals & birdsWaterWell kept borders & beds People (equal with borders & beds)
To sum up - ROSRespondents aged 65+ were much more likely to have shared space than younger respondents
All used their ROS for different social, pleasurable and practical uses
Those aged 65+ were much more likely to be satisfied with their ROS
Around ½ felt they could do all they wanted to do in their ROS
Over ¾ enjoy using their ROS and feel it is important to them
To sum up - ROSWeather was the biggest barrier to using ROS for all
Other barriers for all: noise, lack of privacy &/or space, neighbours
Additional barriers for people aged 65+ in shared ROS: fear of falling, difficulty accessing space, unsuitability for children, the effort involved, maintenance problems
Back gardens are the ideal ROS for most followed by balconies and front gardens. A small number of people aged 65+ (7%) would prefer a shared garden.
Uses of ideal ROS same as current uses
To sum up - viewsA pleasing view is very or fairly important to over 95% of respondents
64.8% are very or fairly satisfied with their view/s
Current view/s are generally of gardens, buildings, streets, parks, bins and garages
Ideal views are of natural greenery, trees, flowers and plants
Early in-depth analysis Significant relationship between age and perception & use of ROS in warmer & colder months, regardless of availability
Older respondents more likely to perceive ROS as a source of social interaction
Middle-aged respondents more likely to perceive ROS as safe and comfortable
Middle-aged respondents significantly more likely to use ROS than younger and older respondents
Early in-depth analysisSmall but significant relationships between different age groups and how they use their ROS:
• Younger respondents: growing food and eating outside (warmer months)
• Younger respondents with children: more likely to use ROS in colder months than those without
• Middle-aged respondents: hanging out washing, keeping pets, gardening, a retreat
• Older respondents: feeding/watching wildlife, talking to neighbours, exercising, access route
Early in-depth analysisThe more ROS facilities respondents have (whether own or shared), the greater the satisfaction
Significant correlation between having a green view, a view of trees and a view of a garden and wellbeing and satisfaction with their home (regardless of age or gender)
Stage twoMulti-level modeling of questionnaire data
In-depth interviews with 30 respondents aged 65+• To explore interviewees’ preferences, likes, dislikes, needs and
problems relating to their ROS and views from home
• How these affect their wellbeing and satisfaction with their dwelling and neighbourhood
• A walk around the dwelling and ROS with interviewee
• Plans/photographs of ROS and view/s
Analyses and writing up
top related