Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
I’DGO
Urban form and the
wellbeing of older people
Elizabeth
Burton,
Lynne
Mitchell,
Nicola
Dempsey
WISE
Research
Unit
Content
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
WISE
Outline of I’DGO research
Findings from I’DGO 1 (LM)
Introduction to I’DGO TOO (ND)
WISE
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
WISE (Wellbeing in Sustainable
Environments) research unit
– Investigating impacts of the built environment
on people’s wellbeing, mental health and
quality of life
– Gathering evidence to provide guidance for
architects, urban designers and developers
– Focus on older people to date, but extending
to other ages and groups
Background
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
Resurgence of interest in the 21st century in
the effect of urban form on human health and
wellbeing
Important arguments for focusing on older
people
– Of great relevance to understand the needs and
experiences of this rapidly growing sector of
society
– Some of the main changes/ developments in
UK policy, practice and guidance related to
urban form could be seen as responses to the
ageing of the population
Background
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
Planning, housing and urban policies have
attempted to provide a sustainable solution
(saving greenfield land and reducing the
need to travel by car) to the problem of a
rising number of small households, due
largely to people living longer
Background
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
Policies are based on arguments that higherdensity housing is appropriate for the
growing number of older households
– Older people need less space and may want to
be freed from the burden of looking after a large
house and/or garden
– Living in urban locations allows older people
easy access to public transport, shops, health
facilities etc at a time when they may no longer
be able to drive or afford to own a car
– Living in higher-density, urban locations
provides older people with greater opportunities
for social interaction, and stimulation/interest in
terms of watching the world go by
Background
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
Important to investigate whether policies
intended to address the needs of older
people are in fact delivering benefits to them
The I’DGO Consortium
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
Inclusive Design for Getting Outdoors
– 3 academic partners: OISD: WISE at Oxford
Brookes University; OPENspace at Edinburgh
College of Art & Heriot-Watt University; and
SURFACE at University of Salford
– Wide range of non-academic partners and
collaborators, e.g. Sensory Trust, RICAbility,
Housing Corporation, Dementia Voice
– Funded by UK government research council
(EPSRC, EQUAL Programme) for 3 years, now
further 4 years (I’DGO TOO)
Ricability
Research aims
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
3 main aims
– To investigate how urban form affects older
people’s wellbeing
– To test claims that urban renaissance
development offers benefits for older people
– To identify design characteristics of urban form
that may maximise older people’s wellbeing
Research approach
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
Primarily quantitative
Focus on aspects of wellbeing most likely to
be affected by urban form
Investigate influence of individual aspects of
design
For a large sample of older people in a
range of different locations, measure their
wellbeing plus urban form of their
neighbourhoods, then investigate
relationships between them
Research methods
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
200 in-depth interviews with older people
– In a wide range of location types including
city/town centre, urban district, suburb/edge,
small town and village
– Recruited from cities, large and small towns and
villages in Oxfordshire, Gloucestershire and the
Greater Manchester area
– Using detailed questionnaire with combination
of closed and open-ended questions and sets of
photographs to prompt discussion
– Participants aged 65 and over
Older people’s wellbeing
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
Examples of aspects of wellbeing measured
in interview
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Self-rated quality of life
Self-rated independence
Perceived variety in life
Satisfaction with the neighbourhood as a place
to live
Perceived attractiveness of neighbourhood
Frequency of trips in local neighbourhood
Enjoyment of trips
Access to range of different services and
facilities
Older people’s wellbeing
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
Further examples of aspects of wellbeing
– Perceptions of safety, from crime, traffic and
non-motorised traffic (e.g. bikes)
– Perceived noise problems
– Perceived air quality
– Community spirit
– Extent of social interaction (how many people
known in neighbourhood)
– Whether neighbours are a problem
– Trustworthiness of neighbours
– Helpfulness of neighbours
I’DGO research methods
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
Measurement of urban form/design in each
participant’s neighbourhood
– Using the NeDeCC (Neighbourhood Design
Characteristics Checklist), developed from
previous research (e.g. BESSC)
– Series of items with categorical responses for
indicators of: density, mix of uses, urban
greenery, built form, street configuration and
location
– Surveys conducted within 300m of each home,
excluding areas not possible to walk to
– Surveys carried out between 10am and 3pm
weekdays or during daylight at weekends
– OS maps used for some measurements
I’DGO research methods
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
All interview and NeDeCC data analysed
using SPSS
– Frequencies for overall patterns in use and
perceptions of neighbourhood
– Chi-square tests to identify possible significant
relationships between urban form and
wellbeing
– Multiple regression analyses to test strength of
relationships and control for other variables
Findings
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
24 key significant (p≤.05) associations after
controlling for intervening variables (e.g.
socio-economic class, gender, age, health,
length of residence in neighbourhood) and
other urban form/housing variables
including:
– Satisfaction with the neighbourhood as a place
to live is greater where there is a moderate or
large amount of greenery
– Satisfaction with the neighbourhood as a place
to live is greater for older people living in lowdensity neighbourhoods
Findings
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
Key significant associations cont.
– Perceiving the neighbourhood as attractive is
more likely in villages and less likely in major
city/town centres
– Older residents perceive their neighbourhood to
be more attractive if it has a moderate or large
amount of greenery
– Older people living in lower-density
neighbourhoods feel safer from non-motorised
traffic
– Feeling safe from non-motorised traffic is more
likely in small towns and less likely in districts of
major towns/cities
Findings
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
Key significant associations cont.
– Older residents living in villages feel safer when
they are out in the neighbourhood before dark
– Older people living in neighbourhoods with a
distorted grid street layout go out most often
– Older people rate their quality of life lower if
they live in a neighbourhood which has clusters
of different uses within it
– Older people rate their quality of life higher if
they live in an area with a moderate or large
amount of greenery
Findings
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
Aspects of wellbeing most strongly associated
with urban form
– Satisfaction with the neighbourhood as a place
to live
– Feeling safe from non-motorised traffic (bikes,
skateboards etc.)
– Perceived attractiveness of the neighbourhood
– Feeling safe when out in the neighbourhood
before dark
– Frequency of trips in the neighbourhood
– Self-rated quality of life
– Access to facilities (chemists, food stores, GP
surgeries)
– Enjoyment of trips in the neighbourhood
– Perceived community spirit
Findings
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
Characteristics of urban form most likely to
influence older people’s wellbeing
– The amount of greenery seems to have
strongest influence
• Moderate or large amounts are positive
– The built-up density of a neighbourhood also
seems important
• Low densities are positive
• Moderate densities are negative
– Location seems to have some influence
• Villages are positive
• Major city/town centres negative
Findings
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
Characteristics of urban form most likely to
influence older people’s wellbeing
– The mix of uses may have a small influence
• Residential neighbourhoods or those with
occasional facilities scattered within them are
positive
• Uses clustered together within a neighbourhood
are particularly negative
– The street layout may have a small influence
• Distorted/irregular gird layouts are positive
• Regular/uniform geometric grids are negative
Discussion
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
Urban form has a significant, if small,
influence on older people’s wellbeing
Claims about advantages of higher-density,
urban living generally not supported
Wellbeing seems to be best for older people
in low density, green areas – usually villages
and small towns
High densities not necessarily negative. For
certain aspects of wellbeing, moderate
densities appear to be more negative than
high or low
Discussion
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
Neighbourhoods with a moderate amount of
greenery seem to perform well: negative
impacts stem mainly from having small
amount
A fine grain mix of uses was found to be
more positive than clusters of different uses
Residential areas with occasional other uses
seem to offer significant potential, many
positives but few of the negatives
Conclusions
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
Despite bad press, villages still seem to offer
many advantages
It may be possible to make urban housing
more attractive to older people by
– increasing amount of greenery – some much
better than none
– controlling non-motorised traffic effectively
– creating predominantly residential areas that
have facilities and amenities scattered within
them
– using distorted grid layouts
– designing to encourage social interaction
Conclusions
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
See www.idgo.ac.uk for more findings
and information
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
I’DGO TOO
The impact of residential
outdoor space on older
people’s wellbeing in highdensity urban housing
Elizabeth
Burton,
Lynne
Mitchell,
Nicola
Dempsey,
Amanda
Griffin
WISE
Research
Unit
The research aims
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
To determine what is lost and gained in highdensity urban renaissance 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 different types
of ROS in high-density urban renaissance
housing to deliver maximum benefits to older
people
Features of ROS, including…
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
Type of ROS (e.g. garden/ parking/ storage
space: bins)
ROS area & boundaries (e.g. type, height,
setback)
ROS layout & topography
Threshold between dwelling and ROS (e.g.
access / distance…)
Shade / sunlight
Views (e.g. extent of greenery…)
Wellbeing and ROS?
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
How and how often is ROS used?
Does ROS have potential for different uses
(hanging washing, entertaining, feeding
wildlife…)?
How does spending time in ROS make
residents feel?
How important is the view – more important
than using the ROS?
Do residents chat to neighbours in ROS?
Is maintaining the ROS a concern?
Research Approach
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
Cross-sectional mixed methods
Clustered samples
– Housing developments (age and non-age
specific)
Desk based map/ plan analysis
– Ascertain some ROS/ housing data
Short questionnaire to large sample (n=4000)
Follow-up in-depth interview
– In resident’s home
– Walk-around the ROS
– Map / plan work with resident (Actual/desired
features of ROS)
– Resident diary (Frequency/type of use of ROS)
Age-specific study sites (private)
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
1
2
1. Bluecoat Pond, Horsham
2. Coachman Court, Rochford
3. Newman Court, Bromley
4. Tudor Grange, Blackheath
3
4
Images taken from:
www.cabe.org.uk/
maps.google.co.uk/
http://maps.live.com/
Images taken from: maps.google.co.uk/ http://maps.live.com/ www.cabe.org.uk
Age-specific study sites (social)
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
Darwin Court, London
Glastonbury House, Pimlico
John Knight Lodge, Fulham
Edmanson’s Lodge, Tottenham
Images taken from: maps.google.co.uk/ http://maps.live.com/ www.cabe.org.uk
‘Urban renaissance’ study sites (pr.)
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
1
2
1. Fulham Island, Fulham
2. Putney Wharf, London
3. Port Marine, Portishead
4. Pepys Estate, Deptford
3
4
Images taken from: maps.google.co.uk/ http://maps.live.com/ www.cabe.org.uk
‘Urban renaissance’ study sites (soc)
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
1
2
1. CASPAR, Birmingham
2. Heskey Walk, Nottingham
3. Mealhouse Brow, Stockport
4. Ashley Road, Bristol
3
4
4
Images taken from: maps.google.co.uk/ http://maps.live.com/ www.cabe.org.uk
Current stage
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
Data collection continues
– Questionnaire
• Response rates: 20% (social)-34% (AS private)
– Study sites to do
• Social housing developments (AS and NAS)
• ‘Normal’ housing developments
– To capture existing housing stock
– Clusters around other housing developments
– Data input and analysis
– Qualitative follow-up data collection