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