Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Inclusive design for_getting_outdoors-idgo
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Inclusive design for_getting_outdoors-idgo

235
views

Published on


0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
235
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. 10/24/2010 1 I’DGO Inclusive Design for Getting Outdoors WISE I’DGO Consortium 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 WISE Wellbeing in Sustainable Environments research group, Schools of Engineering and of Health and Social Studies – 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 Evidence-based design guidance, CPD sessions and consultancy
  • 2. 10/24/2010 2 I’DGO Consortium 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: first phase How 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 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
  • 3. 10/24/2010 3 I’DGO 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 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 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 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
  • 4. 10/24/2010 4 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.) Aspects of design Type/form of landscaping Proportion of area given over to different uses Orientation of spaces Connections between indoors and outdoors Thresholds between public and private space Detailed design of different spaces Views of space from inside housing Relationship with street/neighbourhood Aspects of wellbeing Those likely to be influenced by being able to use or see residential outdoor space: • 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
  • 5. 10/24/2010 5 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 Methodology 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 Map/plan analysis to ascertain some data Survey questionnaire to people of all ages (16,000 sent, 2,548 returned) Follow-up in-depth interviews with 30 respondents aged 65 and over 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
  • 6. 10/24/2010 6 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 Survey respondents 2548 returned questionnaires Around ⅔ respondents were women Around ⅔ said their health was good, very good or excellent Nearly ¾ were fairly or very satisfied with their homes Ages from 18 to 98 Your age (years) in 2009 100806040200 Frequency 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
  • 7. 10/24/2010 7 Under/over 65 Under/over 65 Types of own ROS Percent 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 12 11 17 14 1 56 172019 22 25 33 37 3 17 10 30 50 39 Type of ROS Otheroutdoorspace Allotment Shed Spaceforbins Off-streetparking Courtyard Balcony Yard/pavedarea Patio/terrace/veranda Backgarden Frontgarden 65 or over Under 65 Age
  • 8. 10/24/2010 8 Types of shared space Percentageofrespondents 50 40 30 20 10 0 7 2 11 40 46 12 5 16 19 4546 7 1 5 29 26 11 2 10 7 2018 Type of ROS 65 or over Under 65 Most common uses of ROS Warmer months Colder months Sitting & relaxing Talking to neighbours Entertaining visitors Gardening Feeding/enjoying wildlife Eating outside Hanging washing out Maintaining car Children’s play space Exercising Talking to neighbours Gardening Feeding/enjoying wildlife Hanging washing out Maintaining car Sitting & relaxing Entertaining visitors Exercising Children’s play space Keeping 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 Percent 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 50% 32% 5% 6%7% 33% 36% 8% 13% 10% 65 or over Under 65 Age
  • 9. 10/24/2010 9 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 Percent 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 42% 35% 9% 6%7% 26% 32% 14%15% 12% 65 or over Under 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 Percentageofrespondents 100 80 60 40 20 0 77.2%80.0% 54.4% 82.5% 76.8% 41.1% 65 or over Under 65 Age Percent 50 40 30 20 10 0 13212112 5 25 4211 4 2 12 64 1 3342 50 17 10 2 4 16 Barriers Otherreasons Lackofspace Unattractivenessofthe space Poormaintenance Theeffortinvolved Fearofstrangers Fearofattack Unsuitabilityforchildren Fearoffalling Weather(ice/wind/rain) Lackofprivacy Neighbours Difficultyaccessingspace Airquality Noise 65 or over Under 65 Age Barriers to using own ROS
  • 10. 10/24/2010 10 Percent 50 40 30 20 10 0 4 7 54 7 33 6 12 45 17 56 3 8 3 9 11 8 3 665 2 24 20 10 5 4 13 Otherreasons Lackofspace Unattractivenessofthespace Poormaintenance Theeffortinvolved Fearofstrangers Fearofattack Unsuitabilityforchildren Fearoffalling Weather(ice/wind/rain) Lackofprivacy Neighbours Difficultyaccessingspace Airquality Noise 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 Percent 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 over Under 65 Age 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
  • 11. 10/24/2010 11 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 17.7 16.3 14.2 12 11.8 11.5 Actual & ideal view/s Actual view/s Ideal 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)
  • 12. 10/24/2010 12 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 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 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
  • 13. 10/24/2010 13 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 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 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)
  • 14. 10/24/2010 14 Next steps Multi-level modeling of questionnaire data In-depth interviews • 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