Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

IDGO Inclusive Design for Getting Outdoors Lynne Mitchell.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "IDGO Inclusive Design for Getting Outdoors Lynne Mitchell."— Presentation transcript:

1 IDGO Inclusive Design for Getting Outdoors Lynne Mitchell

2 WISE Wellbeing 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

3 IDGO Consortium Inclusive Design for Getting Outdoors Established in 2003 to identify the most effective ways to ensure the outdoor environment is designed inclusively, to improve older peoples quality of life (QoL) Funded by EPSRC EQUAL

4 IDGO 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

5 IDGO: first phase How the design of neighbourhoods, streets and public open spaces can make a difference to older peoples 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

6 IDGO TOO Pedestrian-friendly approaches (such as Home Zones) in street environments The practical consequences of using tactile paving (designed to assist people with visual impairment) for older people in the urban environment The implications of high-density urban housing on residential outdoor space, such as gardens and balconies

7 IDGO TOO Partners Age UK Building Research Establishment CABE Space Central Council for Physical Recreation Cognatum Ltd Dept of Communities & Local Government Department for Transport EDAW EDI Group Elwood Landscape Design English Heritage Greenspace Scotland Guide Dogs for the Blind Health and Safety Laboratory Homes and Communities Agency Ian Wall Institute of Highway Engineers International Longevity Centre Jacobs Babtie John Gregory Living Streets Marshalls Paving Mayer Brown NHS Health Scotland Peabody Trust Peter Brett Associates Phil Jones Associates Ltd Places for People PRP Architects Ltd RNIB Access Consultancy Services Royal Institute of British Architects Scottish Government Steve Ongeri Sustrans Swindon Borough Council The Orders of St John Care Trust TRANSform Scotland

8 Residential outdoor space To 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 peoples wellbeing To identify how best to design the private outdoor spaces around high-density housing to deliver maximum benefits to older people

9 Residential outdoor space Research based on theoretical framework of person- centred active ageing and the importance of supportive environments for optimising QoL, health and wellbeing

10 Residential outdoor space When 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

11 What we mean by ROS Outdoor 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.)

12 Aspects of design Shape, 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...

13 Aspects of design Boundaries 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

14 Aspects of wellbeing Those 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

15 Aspects of wellbeing Being able to spend time outdoors provides physical and mental exercise and stimulation, which enhances health and 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

16 Aspects of wellbeing Attractive 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

17 Aspects of wellbeing Aspects 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

18 Stage one Clustered 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

19 12 2 3 4 Age-specific study sites (private) 1. Bluecoat Pond, Horsham 2. Coachman Court, Rochford 3. Newman Court, Bromley 4. Tudor Grange, Blackheath

20 Darwin Court, London Glastonbury House, Pimlico 1 2 John Knight Lodge, Fulham Edmansons Lodge, Tottenham Age-specific study sites (social)

21 1 2 3 4 Urban renaissance sites (private) 1. Fulham Island, Fulham 2. Putney Wharf, London 3. Port Marine, Portishead 4. Pepys Estate, Deptford

22 1 2 3 4 Urban renaissance sites (social) 1. CASPAR, Birmingham 2. Heskey Walk, Nottingham 3. Mealhouse Brow, Stockport 4. Ashley Road, Bristol

23 Stage one Map/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 300m 2 walking distance Number of outside parking spaces and garages per dwelling Proportion of openings in boundaries Maximum number of floors per building

24 Analyses Quantitative 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 identify themes and patterns

25 Analyses Hypotheses 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

26 Analyses Hypotheses 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

27 Analyses Hypotheses 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

28 Attached PhD study Shared 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

29 Survey respondents 16,000 survey questionnaires sent to people of all ages 2548 returned questionnaires Around respondents were women Around said their health was good, very good or excellent Nearly ¾ were fairly or very satisfied with their homes

30 Ages from 18 to 98

31 Under/over 65


33 Types of own ROS

34 Types of shared space

35 Most common uses of ROS Warmer monthsColder months Sitting & relaxing Talking to neighbours Entertaining visitors Gardening Feeding/enjoying wildlife Eating outside Hanging washing out Maintaining car Childrens play space Exercising Talking to neighbours Gardening Feeding/enjoying wildlife Hanging washing out Maintaining car Sitting & relaxing Entertaining visitors Exercising Childrens play space Keeping pets

36 Satisfaction with own ROS

37 Satisfaction with shared ROS

38 Usability, enjoyment & importance

39 Barriers to using own ROS

40 Barriers to using shared ROS

41 Respondents ideal ROS

42 Preferred uses of ideal ROS Space for sitting & relaxing An attractive environment Space for visitors Space for children Gardening Hanging washing out Parking space Eating outside

43 Importance of pleasing view 69.3 56.8 37.9 26.3 4.4 3. 5 0.9

44 Satisfaction with view/s 34.2 30.6 21.2 17.7 16.3 14.2 12 11.8 11.5

45 Actual & ideal view/s Actual view/sIdeal view/s Garden Buildings Street Park/maintained green space Off-street parking/garages Outdoor space for bins Woodland/ wild space Countryside Natural greenery Flowers & plants Trees (equal with flowers & plants) Ability to see a long way Well kept lawn/s Hills or mountains Animals & birds Water Well kept borders & beds People (equal with borders & beds)

46 To sum up - ROS Respondents 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

47 To sum up - ROS Weather 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

48 To sum up - views A 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

49 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

50 Early in-depth analysis Small 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

51 Early in-depth analysis The 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)

52 Stage two Multi-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

Download ppt "IDGO Inclusive Design for Getting Outdoors Lynne Mitchell."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google