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

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

10/24/2010

3

I’DGO TOO PartnersAge 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

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

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

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

Freq

uenc

y

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

10/24/2010

7

Under/over 65

Under/over 65

Types of own ROS

Perc

en

t

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 12

1117

14

156

172019

22

25

3337

3

17

10

30

50

39

Type of ROS

Oth

er

outd

oor

space

Allo

tme

nt

Shed

Space for

bin

s

Of f

-str

eet park

ing

Court

yard

Balc

ony

Ya

rd/p

aved a

rea

Pat io/ terr

ace/v

era

nda

Back g

ard

en

Fro

nt g

ard

en

65 or over

Under 65

Age

10/24/2010

8

Types of shared space

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

res

po

nd

en

ts

50

40

30

20

10

0

7

2

11

40

46

12

5

1619

4546

7

15

2926

11

2

107

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

Per

cent

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

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

Per

cent

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

Per

cen

tag

e o

f re

spo

nde

nts

100

80

60

40

20

0

77.2%80.0%

54.4%

82.5%76.8%

41.1%

65 or over

Under 65

Age

Pe

rce

nt

50

40

30

20

10

0 132121125

25

42114

2

12

641

3342

50

17

10

24

16

Barriers

Oth

er

reasons

Lack o

f space

Una

ttra

ctiven

ess o

f th

e

space

Po

or

ma

inte

nance

The e

ffort

involv

ed

Fe

ar

of str

angers

Fe

ar

of

attack

Un

suitability for

ch

ildre

n

Fear

of fa

llin

g

We

ath

er

(ice

/win

d/r

ain

)

Lack o

f privacy

Neig

hbours

Difficu

lty a

cce

ssin

g s

pace

Air

quality

Nois

e

65 or over

Under 65

Age

Barriers to using own ROS

10/24/2010

10

Perc

en

t

50

40

30

20

10

0

47

547

336

12

45

17

563

8

3

911

8

3665

2

24

20

10

54

13

Oth

er re

aso

ns

Lack

of sp

ace

Unattra

ctiv

ene

ss o

f the

sp

ace

Po

or m

ain

tenance

The

eff

ort

invo

lve

d

Fe

ar o

f str

ang

ers

Fe

ar o

f attack

Unsuita

bili

ty f

or child

ren

Fe

ar o

f fa

lling

We

ath

er (

ice

/win

d/r

ain

)

Lack

of p

riva

cy

Ne

ighb

ours

Difficulty

acc

essin

g s

pace

Air q

ualit

y

No

ise

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

Perc

en

t

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

10/24/2010

11

Importance of pleasing view

69.3

56.8

37.9

26.3

4.43.50.90.9

Satisfaction with view/s

34.2

30.6 30.6

21.2

17.716.3

14.212

11.8 11.5

Actual & ideal view/sActual 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)

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

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)

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