Kearns, A. (2022) Housing space and occupancy standards: Developing evidence for policy from a health and wellbeing perspective in the UK context. Building Research & Information, 50(7), pp. 722-737. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Issues of domestic space standards and occupancy levels rarely receive much attention in debates about UK housing and planning policies. This is exemplified by examining the history of space and occupancy standards as applied in England, demonstrating that standards have been under-specified, partial in coverage, and applied inconsistently. The outcomes are seen in the production of relatively small homes, overcrowding and (perversely) extensive under-occupation, residential dissatisfaction and mobility. Evidence for the health and wellbeing impacts of space shortages highlights the consequences for infectious diseases, particularly respiratory illness, mental health and stress, and educational attainment. Moreover, the mediating and moderating roles of domestic space upon the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic show the crucial importance of space and occupancy standards for health, wellbeing and learning in a future where more time is spent at home. Areas of future research are identified which together could help address a probable underestimate of the current health sector costs of inadequate domestic space, this being an important lever for policy action. Such evidence, including crucially more from the UK itself, has an important role to play if stronger, more effective policies are to be developed and implemented in this area in future.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | evidence; health and wellbeing; occupancy levels; policy; space standards |
| Index terms: | pandemic, well-being, illness, evidence, mobility, shortages, history, occupation, COVID-19, housing, health and wellbeing, mental health, planning policy, England |
| Subjects: | infrastructure and transport systems, mental health and wellbeing, health risk and incident analysis, economic analysis, construction type, health conditions and diseases, sociology, public policy, Geography, architectural and construction history, evaluation and assessment methods |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Geographical Context, Governance, Research Practice, Urban Studies, Construction Technology, Health and Safety |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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