Prochorskaite, A (2016) An investigation of the 'soft' features of sustainable and healthy housing design: exploring stakeholder preferences and their provision in new housing developments. PhD thesis, Liverpool John Moores University, UK.
Abstract
Despite the widely recognised importance of the impact that built environment has on health and well-being, the concept of sustainable housing is still regarded largely in terms of environmental sustainability. However, given the urgent need to increase the quantity and sustainability of new homes in the UK, it is essential that the design and delivery of sustainable housing does not neglect health and well-being aspects that are essential for enhancing the quality of life and the development of sustainable communities. This study focuses on the ‘soft' features of sustainable housing, that is, the non-technological components of housing and neighbourhood design that can affect occupants' health and well-being as well as their satisfaction with their homes. The research aims to conceptualise and identify these ‘soft' features of housing design and establish whether the opinions of housing users regarding their importance are aligned with those of the housing providers. Using a case study approach, the study also assesses the extent to which such features are being provided by new housing developments. The research begins with a review of literature of the sustainable housing and healthy housing concepts, which lead to the development of a framework for sustainable housing design with an emphasis on health and well-being. Building on this foundation, three phases of the methodology were developed to address the aims of the research: Firstly, a content analysis of sustainable housing standards is carried out, followed by a survey to ascertain the relative importance that housing stakeholders attach to these ‘soft' features, and lastly, six housing developments are evaluated with regards to their provision of these features. The findings reveal that housing user preferences are not always aligned with those of housing providers, and indeed, a number of notable differences in opinion are also found between the private sector and social housing providers. Lastly, assessment of the six case studies indicates a low level of provision of such features new housing developments. These findings indicate that a more comprehensive approach is necessary for addressing and providing for the softer features of housing and neighbourhood design.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Maliene, V and Couch, C |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | built environment; case study; content analysis; housing design; housing development; private sector; stakeholders; survey; sustainability; UK |
| Index terms: | preference, environmental sustainability, housing, housing design, methodology, content analysis, quality of life, health and wellbeing, survey, sustainable community, housing development, relative importance, social housing, sustainable housing, neighbourhood design, built environment, investigation, private sector, user preference, case study, low level, satisfaction |
| Subjects: | infrastructure and transport systems, industry analysis, measurement and scaling, public and environmental health, data analysis and analytics, project delivery, risk assessment, data collection methods, mental health and wellbeing, communities and social development, housing and residential development, health safety and environment, design process, urban design, research methods, decision-making and reasoning, construction type, client relations |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Health and Safety, Project Management, Urban Studies, Design Practice, Stakeholder Management, Construction Technology, Business Strategy, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here