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