• Save
Wellbeing Seminar and Research Paper Competition - Ecobuild 04/03/2014
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Wellbeing Seminar and Research Paper Competition - Ecobuild 04/03/2014

on

  • 376 views

BRE and UBM called for research papers on wellbeing, with a winner chosen by a panel of judges (http://t.co/7acncJOD4N). BRE also commissioned research into how people feel in their workplaces, ...

BRE and UBM called for research papers on wellbeing, with a winner chosen by a panel of judges (http://t.co/7acncJOD4N). BRE also commissioned research into how people feel in their workplaces, homes, hospitals and schools. The presentation also includes the healthy cities index BRE is developing and John Alker of the UKGBC on measuring health, wellbing and productivity in offices.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
376
Views on SlideShare
376
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • My name is Lesley - Thank you for inviting me along to talk to you today about ‘BIT-Kit’ and Case Study of what can be found out when using BIT-Kit – which I developed in my PhD to define and understand human interactions within the built environment. <br /> My focus in Architecture is in exploring and gaining evidence to define the link between buildings and the wellbeing, enablement, disablement of those who use it – and I now work within the very exciting area of Human Computing Interaction. <br /> In the first part of this talk I will present the BITKit and its use through a Case Study – A way-finding scenario undertaken by real people with visual loss in a non-domestic building <br /> In the second I will talk about my exciting role in my newly funded project BESiDE- which is developing BITKit further within different contexts with the added help of technology <br />
  • Context of the problem and the drivers for this element of the research <br /> The built environment is the context for every single human activity. However, regardless of current guidance and building legislation, buildings still exclude many different types of users <br /> Why – even after the regulations, guidance and the evolution of building design, is the built environment still not supporting the needs of the population <br /> These are real and are some are physically extreme – but I will also highlight some more subtle – real world findings, uncovered by BITKit <br />
  • Even with the existence of Building legislation, Way-finding Interventions and Environments, people with varying degrees of visual loss are still experiencing problems as they way-find through buildings. <br /> In addition to the negative experiences there are also positive experiences. A balanced view of experience needs to be considered. <br /> There is a lack of a way-finding model which incorporates all types of visual ability which is based on both experience and is in relation to a real-world setting (Kitchin, 1997). <br /> There are few evidence-based studies of way- finding in a building. Furthermore, there are no studies of real-life experiences of way-finding undertaken by real- life Participants with a range of visual ability. <br /> BITKIT <br /> This study investigated the social, spatial, temporal and physical ‘hot-spots’ (enabling and disabling elements of a building), as experienced by people with a range of visual impairment. <br />
  • BITKIT– gathering the enabling and disabling way-finding experiences of people with visual impairment has they move through a public building. <br /> The Participants <br /> 1 Purposeful conversation (Burgess, 1982) was adopted as an unobtrusive way to initially gather narrative of general way-finding topics and experiences of Participants’ way-finding in buildings. <br /> 2 The Participants took part in a way-finding task within the same non-domestic, public building and were asked to find their way from a starting point (the boundary wall of the building) to a destination point (an office within the building). (This was the point when I wish that HCI had met Architecture) <br /> 3 A purposeful conversation (Burgess, 1982) about Phase 2 encouraged Participants to talk about experiences of way-finding in a specific building. Participants’ memories of previous way-finding experiences were activated by events that happened during Phase 2 and they also talked about these. <br />
  • Where the Project has stemmed from <br /> The methods used in my PhD – gathering the enabling and disabling way-finding experiences of people with visual impairment has they move through a public building. <br /> I was looking for the hot-spots of way-finding through a building. <br />
  • What enables and disables older people within the context of care environments? <br /> The first Perspective- those designing the built environment <br /> Taking the first section – those who influence what a care home is – Architects - Setting the scene of contemporary design practice <br /> Range of architects, range of projects etc <br /> What is living in a care home like in 2013? Does the building support the persons needs? <br /> With themes of Mobility, Wellbeing, Activity we want to find out what enables and disables older people within Care homes? <br /> These interviews – themes pulled out through coding–opening coding <br /> What is a visit to a care home in 2013 like in the UK? <br /> Where to ‘visits’ take place? <br /> How can we support better ‘visiting’ within Care Homes though design? <br /> The visitors increase residents wellbeing and much of the time are the residents connection to their lives outside of the home – so how can the built environment support a better visiting experience. <br />
  • What enables and disables older people within the context of care environments? <br /> Bit-Kit, again, is made of 3 elements <br /> First uses interviews, observations, and critical analyses from stakeholder interactions <br /> Second provides activity/interaction trace through data from personal and ambient sensors. <br /> In the third these data will be used, in conjunction with floor plans of the project partner care homes to understand and define care home design elements that enable mobility (WP3). <br />
  • Talking about the sensors on a conceptual level – I can tell you what I want them to be able to give us – but now really how. – THIS isn’ t my part of the project and the team in Newcastle are focusing on the development of the Sensors. <br /> The questions we might ask of the data include: <br /> Cricket Sensors <br /> WIFI <br /> Blue Tooth <br />
  • Tracing of physical activity – especially where HCI is meeting architecture. <br /> One using low energy Bluetooth <br /> One using Wi-Fi <br /> track geographical location, length of time spent in any spot, time spent moving (i.e. walking) around both indoors as well as outdoors as well as filming activities to offer further visual information. <br />
  • Observational and conversational data combined… <br /> Long term – observations <br /> Trace/sensor working together with the sensors to understand what is going on <br />
  • BIT-Kit has been introduced and evaluated through a case study of way-finding task in a public building by persons with visual impairment. <br /> The evidence gathered from the way-finding scenarios, direct from the user, has illustrated novel insight into human interaction with buildings. <br /> Bit-Kit is an architectural method that has rigorously defined architectural elements that enable and disable people’s use of a building. <br /> This evidence, along the potential of future evidence from using BIT-Kit, in different buildings experienced by different types of users, provides unique insight for architects to ‘build well’ to ‘live well’ in the future of building design. <br /> Thank you very much for listening and I will take questions if you have any <br />
  • In this session I am going to talk about a framework that we developed with Social Life for the Berkeley Group. <br /> The social sustainability framework was launched last September and Social Life have been using the framework for further assessments with Berkeley. <br /> So I’d like to talk briefly about the context of the research <br /> How we developed the framework, how it was tested and what are the implications of the results. <br />
  • Starting point is that social sustainability is often overlooked? <br /> It can operate at company level, building level, and community level. <br /> But it’s rarely measured –why? <br /> Difficulties in measuring it and that there is a trade off effect between social progress and env. impact. <br /> But it is important? Why? <br /> Firstly Communities matter <br /> Secondly POLITICAL CHANGES#1 the NPPF has developed the key concept of ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ – <br /> #2 the Localism Act is designed to decentralise power and give it back to local communities through a variety of measures including: <br /> Community Rights <br /> Neighbourhood planning <br /> Housing <br /> Thirdly, development teams need to justify projects in more detail. <br />
  • Previous academic work has shown that social sustainability brings together a number of concepts around <br /> Social equity <br /> Social needs and the sustainability of communities. <br /> This often described in terms of non-physical concepts such as social capital, social cohesion and wellbeing, but also physical factors such as urbanity, access to housing, neighbourhood and so on. <br /> In this sense wellbeing can be thought of a dynamic process of how their lives are going—their mental capital. <br /> But measuring sustainability is often overlooked…….. <br />
  • So the starting point for us in the research was developing a coherent and practical definition for social sustainability. <br /> It’s true there are already a lot of definitions—our challenge was to build on our existing work to develop an understandable definition which did not compromise our work. So we felt we needed a definition which would: <br /> 1. Focus on neighbourhood and community <br /> 2. Highlight the importance of physical environment and social capital. <br /> 3. Emphasise SS as a life-enhancing condition. <br /> So this definition is very much an outcome of the process of place-making and is designed to be forward-thinking to try and capture a longer-term stewardship role. <br /> READ DEFINITION <br />
  • But we have to understand communities are complex so developing measurement systems is fraught with difficulty. <br /> To put this into further context during the riots 0f 2011, the shock of witnessing high levels of community instability and fragility but we have to remember that life at local level is complex <br />
  • Strengths and vulnerabilities co-exist: and that is the starting point for SS <br /> That the same communities that rioted also took part in activities that reflect strong communities last year – the Olympics and Royal Wedding etc <br />
  • Review of evidence revealed a gap between simple and crude, or complex and expensive <br /> We have a range of models available but these do not address social sustainability adequately or rigorously enough especially ‘downstream’. <br />
  • Ideally wanted to measure potential social sustainability of a site, pre development, and post development <br /> Eight assessments now complete: four post-occupancy, two “mid-point”, and two early-stage <br /> Wellbeing. Berkeley will be able to demonstrate how they can support the GLA to tackle the issue of wellbeing in the capital (London has second lowest happiness scores out of all English regions) <br /> Thought leadership: this research and the framework is groundbreaking. No other housebuilder is doing this in Europe, or possibly worldwide.  The reputational gains are therefore very strong indeed. <br />
  • Used previous work, and building on the framework Social Life had developed with the Homes and Communities Agency: around THREE of the four elements <br /> Amenities/Social Infrastructure- housing mix, public realm, landscaping etc. (PAST) <br /> Social and Cultural Life –experience of development and how this affects quality of life, wellbeing etc. <br /> Voice and influence –potential for residents to shape the future (FUTURE) <br />
  • Three dimensions, 13 indicators, underpinned by 45 questions. <br /> Majority of questions from nationally recognised surveys or industry frameworks (Citizenship survey, <br /> Understanding Society, <br /> Crime Survey England & Wales, <br /> Taking Part & Building for Life) <br /> Small number created, on amenities & transport <br /> These mapped onto SOCIAL AND CULTURAL LIFE & <br /> VOICE AND INFLUENCE <br /> AMENITIES and INFRATSRUCTURE were created by using questions from the Building for Life Assessment Tool and Public Transport Accessibility Level tool. <br />
  • Resident surveys were benchmarked against geo-demographic classifications for both <br /> VOICE & INFLUENCESOCIAL & CULTURAL LIFE <br /> Output Area Classification –Understanding and Taking Part Surveys <br /> Index of Multiple Deprivation for Crime Survey and Citizenship survey <br /> So we used scores from these to assess diff between actual and expected scores. <br /> Used RAG system –visual system which represents a range rather than a score. <br />
  • The framework has been used in six developments. <br /> Range of types: <br /> Rural/semi-rural <br /> Suburban <br /> Urban dwellings <br /> Urban regeneration <br />
  • Firstly this work is experimental although it has also been applied to Kidbrooke Village development recently. <br /> First time a housebuilder has attempted to operationalise and measure the concept of social sustainability. <br /> Does not explain causality or concerns as to why people feel about a place in the ay they do. <br /> But contextual qualitative work were valuable in helping contextual analysis of the results. <br /> A single cross-sectional analysis—would be interesting but more costly to track any changes. <br /> Because of data limitations we had to use mixed methods –site survey and residents survey are a case in point. <br /> Finally it is a framework designed for use with one housebuilder –and examined the issues that are within its sphere of influence or accountability—did not examine equity/social justice or education/employment issues. <br />
  • Contributing to the way that government, local authorities and the industry understand sustainability <br /> Practical lessons in what can be most effective in creating communities that thrive <br /> Shifting thinking about placemaking to long term stewardship: from point of sale to long term health and wellbeing of communities <br /> Intangibles, lived experience, as important as hard infrastructure <br />
  • On potential health impact <br />
  • WHO process: <br /> A healthy city is not one that has achieved a particular health status <br /> It is conscious of health and striving to improve it (thus any city can be a healthy city, regardless of its current health status) <br />
  • Different types of indicators were studied in order to get a holistic view into how they can be developed and what techniques are predominantly utilised to achieve valuable outcomes. Indicators reviewed related to many different aspects, such as: Sustainability, Poverty, Energy, Age. friendliness… etc. <br /> Indicators reviewed included The Health Poverty Index, The Canadian Index of Wellbeing, BREEAM… <br />
  • HPI, Public Health England… looked at structure <br />
  • Following our review <br />
  • What it might look like. A series of indicators and sub-indicators. <br /> The final HCI for a city should demonstrate the overall score out of a maximum score of 100. It should also refer to how this score relates to the scores on each of the individual indices. In this example, based on an imaginary city, the overall HCI score is 58. Each of these individual indices is likely to include three or more sub-indices. The border colours express the value ranges for the individual indices and sub-indices in the HCI score graphic. It is unlikely that each of the indicators will carry equal weights in the final score; instead, the weighting would have to be determined through calculation and/or consultation. <br />   <br /> It is immediately clear from the example that this city has achieved a good score for Housing, Safety and security, and Open space and leisure. The areas of weakness are Access to education and Air quality. The rest of the HCI report on a city should highlight the scores for each of the individual indicators. <br />

Wellbeing Seminar and Research Paper Competition - Ecobuild 04/03/2014 Wellbeing Seminar and Research Paper Competition - Ecobuild 04/03/2014 Presentation Transcript

  • Designing for Wellbeing Seminar 4th March 2014, Ecobuild 2014 Part of the BRE Trust
  • Designing for Wellbeing AGENDA Introduction and findings of survey on ‘perceptions of indoor environment’ - Dr Deborah Pullen MBE, Group Director – Research, BRE ‘A Case Study of BIT--‐ Kit: A Method Uncovering the Impact Buildings have on People’ –, Dr Lesley McIntyre, University of Dundee, ’Creating strong communities – measuring social sustainability in new housing development’ - Professor Tim Dixon, University of Reading, ‘The Development of a Wellbeing Index for Cities’ - Ian Barnett, BRE ‘Health, wellbeing and productivity in offices: measuring impact and sharing best practice’ -John Alker, UKGBC General discussion – key areas for future research
  • Designing for Wellbeing – Joint programme between BRE and UBM Built Environment launched November 2013 – Online survey of occupier views completed • How would you describe the environment around you, at home, at work or at leisure?! • 2,245 votes cast in total • Thanks to ARUP for delivering the survey
  • Questionnaire Results
  • Questionnaire Results
  • Research Paper Competition  launched December 2013  Include research completed in the last 2 years  Domestic and non-domestic categories  25 entries, 12 non-domestic, 13 domestic  Papers will be available to review online at www.buildingdesign.wiki soon
  • BIT-Kit: A Method of Uncovering the Impact Buildings have on People. Dr Lesley McIntyre @lesleysbubble @BESiDEResearch (B.Sc., B.A. (Hons.), M.Arch. (Dist.), Ph.D.) School of Computing University of Dundee
  • The Problem
  • The Problem (28th Feb 2014) West Dunbartonshire Council = £40,000 - 10 level ramp
  • ‘What’s missing is the evidence. There is no evidence that good design improves people’s lives.’ (Stephen Hodder, 2013 RIBA President ) ‘ The current method of dealing with access and buildings is a real tick-list, there is no story behind any of it and it becomes detached from the whole design process. It needs some of the ‘proper real stuff’ (Architect, 8 years in Practice) “I have been involved in this practice for about eight and a half, maybe nine years and never been to one CPD that has been focused on any of these things, or on design for ageing. There seems to be a gap maybe?” The Research Problem (Architect, 25 years in Practice)
  • How do we gather this evidence? How can Architects be better supported to understand: - Human building interactions -Assess the impact of buildings -Relate built environment design to research Findings & Real world gap in knowledge: People with visual loss are still experiencing problems as they wayfind through buildings. BIT-Kit & The Way-finding Scenario Architecture Part of the School of Environment
  • Designing the Method
  • Defining Hotspots - Critical Events - Spatial Temporal Positive Negative
  • F igure 4.23: Afx ie’s E pe rience of a ‘ roken’ Handrail B
  • @BESiDEResearch
  • The Methods
  • ‘I can’t get the doors open so I don’t go outside anymore’ ‘The corridors are so long and I get lost so I just wait for someone to push me instead of walking’ ‘They brought in a computer thingie and I played tennis with my grandson. I used to play tennis on a tennis court’ ‘There is good light in this room for us to have a read and chat’
  • Dr Lesley McIntyre @lesleysbubble @BESiDEResearch (B.Sc., B.A. (Hons.), M.Arch. (Dist.), Ph.D.) || School of Computing || University of Dundee || lesleymcintyre@computing.dundee.ac.uk
  • CAN WE BUILD PLACES WHERE PEOPLE ARE HAPPIER? Creating strong communities – measuring social sustainability in new housing development Professor Tim Dixon, School of Construction Management & Engineering, University of Reading Saffron Woodcraft, Social Life EcoBuild: 4 March 2014
  • CAN WE BUILD PLACES WHERE PEOPLE ARE HAPPIER? • Context • How we developed the framework • Testing the framework • Lessons/Implications DESIGN FOR SOCIAL S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y A framew ork for cr eating thr iving n ew communities Saffron Woodcraft with Tricia Hackett & Lucia Caistor-Arendar Foreword by Sir Peter Hall
  • CAN WE BUILD PLACES WHERE PEOPLE ARE HAPPIER? Why does social sustainability matter? • Communities matter… • Changes in political and legislative landscape… • Development teams will need to justify projects in more detail… http://ynuk.tv/2011/08/18/peckham-riots-wall-of-love/
  • CAN WE BUILD PLACES WHERE PEOPLE ARE HAPPIER? Urban Social Sustainability • • • Social capital Social cohesion Wellbeing : the dynamic process that gives people a sense of how their lives are going, through the interaction between their circumstances, activities and psychological resources or ‘mental capital’ (NEF).
  • CAN WE BUILD PLACES WHERE PEOPLE ARE HAPPIER? Our definition “Social sustainability describes the way a neighbourhood supports individual and collective wellbeing. It is about people’s quality of life. Social sustainability combines design of the physical environment with a focus on how the people who live in and use a space relate to each other and function as a community. It is enhanced by development which provides the right infrastructure to support a strong social and cultural life, opportunities for people to get involved, and scope for the place and the community to evolve.”
  • CAN WE BUILD PLACES WHERE PEOPLE ARE HAPPIER? What happens in communities is complex
  • CAN WE BUILD PLACES WHERE PEOPLE ARE HAPPIER? Community strengths and vulnerabilities co-exist: this is the starting point for social sustainability
  • CAN WE BUILD PLACES WHERE PEOPLE ARE HAPPIER? Can other frameworks be used?
  • CAN WE BUILD PLACES WHERE PEOPLE ARE HAPPIER? When to measure? • To make better places • To improve the quality of life for residents and support the community to flourish • To demonstrate a commitment to the long term to key partners Eight assessments now complete: four post-occupancy, two “midpoint”, and two early-stage
  • Future communities: space to grow CAN WE BUILD PLACES WHERE PEOPLE ARE HAPPIER?
  • CAN WE BUILD PLACES WHERE PEOPLE ARE HAPPIER? The framework • • • Three dimensions, 13 indicators, underpinned by 45 questions Majority of questions from nationally recognised surveys or industry frameworks Wellbeing (SC3): – Feeling happy? – Useful part in things? – Satisfaction with local area? – Life satisfaction? Design & Design & service service provision provision Potential to Potential to shape future shape future • Building for Life • Public Transport • Travel Data How the How the development development works works
  • CAN WE BUILD PLACES WHERE PEOPLE ARE HAPPIER? Benchmarking • - Results from resident surveys benchmarked against comparable local areas using well established geo-demographic categories: OAC first choice IMD where OAC not possible. • Comparison with average responses from comparable social groups in comparable areas. • RAG system: red, orange and green. Example: The Hamptons OAC categories
  • CAN WE BUILD PLACES WHERE PEOPLE ARE HAPPIER? Six Framework Test Sites
  • CAN WE BUILD PLACES WHERE PEOPLE ARE HAPPIER? • • • Case Study: Kidbrooke Village, Greenwich £1bn : 15-20 years Former Ferrier Estate One of largest regeneration projects in UK – – – – – – – – Improved access and permeability Maximised views and sunlight A park A new 100-acre landscaped public open space An improved natural and social environment Reduced impact for Kidbrooke Park Road, and its conversion into a park road with landscaped metropolitan open land to either side A legible network of streets and spaces SUDs
  • CAN WE BUILD PLACES WHERE PEOPLE ARE HAPPIER? Townhouses are designed with a distinctive 'saw-tooth' roof profile and elevation that is distinctive whilst also being respectful of its context. Open space is clearly distinguished, with private terraces abutting public open space parkland. Distinctions are clear but handled with subtlety. No visible differences between tenures. Buildings are designed to face outwards - with existing and new properties (and the residents they contain) coming together on common streets
  • CAN WE BUILD PLACES WHERE PEOPLE ARE HAPPIER? Social Sustainability Assessment • Independent site survey 2013 • 125 residents (24% of occupied households) interviewed • 10 of 13 indicators are positive-above benchmark for comparable places
  • CAN WE BUILD PLACES WHERE PEOPLE ARE HAPPIER? New and existing communities • Settled and secure/belong —’wellbeing’ • Voice and influence –consultation on environment etc • Returning residents- rehoused near people they know but …… • Links with neighbours (77% lived in homes for 1 yr or less)? • Smaller gardens? Social housing: more neighbourly?
  • CAN WE BUILD PLACES WHERE PEOPLE ARE HAPPIER? What we learned and the limitations • • • • • • Need for analysis of underlying causality Contextual interviews helpful Snapshot approach can be powerful Mixed methods and data sources Impact on neighbourhood? More work needed….. Scope/sphere of influence: this is a bespoke framework -- equity and justice? education and employment?
  • CAN WE BUILD PLACES WHERE PEOPLE ARE HAPPIER? • • • • Contributing to our understanding of sustainability: no other house builder is doing this Shifting thinking about placemaking to long term stewardship ‘Post-occupancy evaluation’ of social sustainability is important to conduct Intangibles, lived experience, and wellbeing are as important as hard infrastructure. Implications
  • Developing a Healthy Cities Index Ian Barnett BRE 04/03/2014 Part of the BRE Trust
  • A Healthy Cities Index (HCI) An Index which will score a city, authority or community on a comparable basis, providing a benchmark for targeted action…
  • Drivers “Poor health wastes potential, causes despair and drains resources across all sectors.” - The World Health Organisation “Building more hospitals is a sign of failure. What I want to see is ‘upstream’ investment to keep people out of hospital” - Dr David Pencheon, Director NHS SDU
  • Best Cities 2013 (Economist Intelligence Unit) 1. Melbourne 2. Vienna 3. Vancouver 55. London Last = Damascus Unhealthy Cities: life expectancy 2010 (men ) • • • UK = 78.2 years Glasgow = 71.6 years Calton = 54 years
  • Characteristics of the HCI? – Allows cities/towns to be compared on their health status – Is independent of the health of the population – Enables a city to improve, to become more healthy
  • Already out there?
  • Population based…
  • Possible city level indicators…
  • Healthy Cities Index – How it might look Access to services Access to medical support Housing Access to nutrition Access to education Buildings and Infrastructure 58 Safety and security Introduced risk Built environment Transport 90 to 100 Open space and Leisure Air quality Noise 80 to 90 70 to 80 60 to 70 50 to 60 40 to 50 30 to 40 20 to 30
  • Housing indicator, applied to London – Based on HHSRS hazard prevalence estimates from English Housing Survey • Excess hot/cold conditions • Slips, Trips and Falls Transpor t • Other Hazards
  • Housing indicator, applied to London
  • Housing indicator, applied to England
  • Safety and Security – A separate on-going BRE project under the future cities programme is looking at this particular indicator Transpor t – Piloting data collection in a small number of cities to determine the feasibility of collecting environmental design information, likely correlated to crime hotspots – Other indicators of Safety and security could include the British Crime Survey
  • Noise – Defra have been working on collecting noise-mapping data for England – The proportion of exposure above 65 dB(A) could be used as an indicator of noise pollution Transpor t – Alternatively, the proportion of the cities area where the noise pollution from individual sources exceeds 65 dB(A) could be calculated for each source as separate sub-indicators relating to road, rail, air and industry
  • Other examples Air Quality: • External air quality • Indoor air quality in dwellings • Indoor air quality in other buildings Transpor t Transpor t Transpor t Open space and leisure: • Proportion of usable green space to residential space • Museums, theatres, art galleries, sports fields, cinemas and gymnasiums, is worth considering Infrastructure includes • Energy supply • Water management • Communications • Solid waste management • Transport links
  • Thank you Further information: barnetti@bre.co.uk Part of the BRE Trust
  • Health, wellbeing and productivity in offices measuring impact and sharing best practice: a new World GBC project John Alker, Director of Policy & Communications, UK Green Building Council @johnalker john.alker@ukgbc.org CAMPAIGN FOR A SUSTAINABLE BUILT ENVIRONMENT © 2013 UK Green Building Council Registered charity number 1135153
  • BACKGROUND CAMPAIGN FOR A SUSTAINABLE BUILT ENVIRONMENT © 2013 UK Green Building Council Registered charity number 1135153
  • HOWEVER… “...there is still some way to go before this kind of evidence informs investment decisions.” CAMPAIGN FOR A SUSTAINABLE BUILT ENVIRONMENT © 2013 UK Green Building Council Registered charity number 1135153
  • KEY OBJECTIVES 1) Provide guidance and best practice information on features of green building that enhance health, wellbeing and productivity, in order to help translate emerging evidence into design. 2) Propose common metrics for measuring health, wellbeing and productivity, which can be translated into financial benefits, for organisations across the world to pilot in their projects. CAMPAIGN FOR A SUSTAINABLE BUILT ENVIRONMENT © 2013 UK Green Building Council Registered charity number 1135153
  • DELIVERY – GET INVOLVED • Steering Group • Technical Committee • Global consultation across GBC networks • Work in partnership – transparent process • Report in the autumn • Beyond: piloting ‘on the ground’ and global resource hub. CAMPAIGN FOR A SUSTAINABLE BUILT ENVIRONMENT © 2013 UK Green Building Council Registered charity number 1135153
  • Questions @johnalker john.alker@ukgbc.org CAMPAIGN FOR A SUSTAINABLE BUILT ENVIRONMENT © 2013 UK Green Building Council Registered charity number 1135153