Urban Design Contents
• What What is is urban urban design? design?
1. What is urban design? 2. The value of urban design 3. Issues in urban design 4. Approaches to urban design
Collection of Ann Forsyth.
5. A history of urban design 6. Scales of urban design 7. Analysis, design and representation techniques 8. Implementing urban design ©2003 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved.Used with the permission of Design Center for American Urban Landscap e.
1. What is Urban Design?
1. What is Urban Design
• Urban design is the the making of better better places for people. people. Community Development Planning
• It is usually done at at a scale larger than a building, and usually with multiple groups involved. • It is an overlapping specialty within architecture, architecture, landscape landscape architecture, and planning. • It tries to balance many many considerations: considerations: physical form, functional needs, social issues, economic issues, community values, environmental sustainability.
2. The Value of Urban Design
©2003 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved.Used with the permission of Design Center for American Urban Landscape.
•
In an era of crowded crowded freeways, freeways, placeless placeless developme development, nt, and environmental problems, urban design offers the possibility of creating places that are more attractive, satisfying, efficient, and environmentally sound.
Physical Planning (includes land use, general plans; some environmental, neighborhood planning etc.
Transportation Planning (includes system optimization, modeling, pricing, scheduling)
Urban Design
3. Urban Design Issues Urban designers must consider a wide variety of issues that affect affect the built environment environment
• • • • •
Physic Physical al form form Functi Function onal al needs needs Human Hum an issue issues s Socia Sociall equity equity Commun Com munity ity valu values es
Allimages ©2003 Regents of the University of Minnesota.All Rights Reserved.Used with the permission of Design Center for American Urban Landscape.
1
Allimages ©2003 Regents of the University of Minnesota.All Rights Reserved.Used with the permission of Design Center for American Urban Landscape.
Allimages ©2003 Regents of the University of Minnesota.All Rights Reserved.Used with the permission of Design Center for American Urban Landscape.
Physical Form
Physical Form
•
•
The arrangement arrangement of of physical physical elements elements in a place place and their their aesthetic character (proportion, scale, surfaces, organization) are the most visible aspect of urban design.
The arrangement arrangement of physical physical elements elements in a place place and their their aesthetic character (proportion, scale, surfaces, organization) are the most visible aspect of urban design.
These are both big streets—how are t hey different?
Physical Form Perception •
Enclos Enclosure ure is is about about dista distance nce and angle
•
Other Other quali qualitie ties s of form form are also important – How memorable it is – How transparent the enclosure is – Human scale of elements – Surface qualities – etc
©2003 Regents of the University ofMinneso ta. All Rights Reserved.Used with the permission of Design Center for American Urban Landscape .
Functional Needs Basic functions such as transportation, economic development, and ecology must be understood and incorporated in urban design.
Spreiregen 1965—Urban Design (AIA)
Human Issues
Social Equity •
Urban design is also concerned with how the built environment supports its users, such as its fit with human needs, sense of vitality, meaning, and history.
Social Social vitali vitality ty and and equal equal access to opportunities can be encouraged through urban design.
©2003 Regents of the University ofMinneso ta. All Rights Reserved. Used with the permission of Design Center for American Urban Landscape.
©2003 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. Used with the permission of Design Center for American Urban Landscape.
2
3. Urban Design Issues Urban designers must consider a wide variety of issues that affect affect the built environment environment
©2003 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved.Used with the permission of Design Center fo r American Urban Landscape.
Community Values
• • • • •
Physic Physical al form form Functi Function onal al needs needs Human Hum an issue issues s Socia Sociall equity equity Commun Com munity ity valu values es
Urban design can help express shared priorities of the community, such as efficiency, fairness, and respect for nature. Allimages ©2003 Regents of the University of Minnesota.All Rights Reserved.Used with the permission of Design Center for American Urban Landscape.
4. Approaches to Urban Design There are different approaches to urban design, which are often used in combination with each
What urban design is not, or at least not often these days: a single vision written into the land
other 1. Civic architecture—big or contextual projects 2. Urban restoration—(re)creating or filling in historical patterns 3. Participato Participatory ry or community community design 4. New town and land land planning planning 5. Urban infrastruc infrastructure ture e.g. streetscap streetscapes es 6. Sustainable Sustainable urban urban form from small to large large scale (health (health typically uses similar techniques)
More on urban design approaches
5. History of Urban Design, • Pre-industrial city: Traditional design • Indu Industria striall city: Aesthetic, Aesthetic, housing, and transportation problems as cities grow • 19th and Early 20th century: Early attempts to beautify cities, rationalize transportation, create suburban alternatives • Early Early 20th century: Increasing gap between planners, housers, and designers doing “civic design”
part 1
Source:Hofstra University Archives, Used bypermission
History of Urban Design,
part 2
• 1950s 1950s and 1960s: 1960s: Urban Urban renewal, renewal, modernist architecture, and suburbs all seem ugly and inhumane • c. 1960: 1960: Urban Urban design design emerges emerges in its contemporary form—key authors include J.Jacobs, Lynch, Cullen. • Education Educational al programs programs develop develop in architecture; landscape architects do a lot in practice • 1990s-: 1990s-: Succe Success ss of big revitalization projects and new rounds of criticisms of sprawl increase urban design interest among the public and in planning
3
6. Scales Urban design can be applied at a variety of scales
Areas • Site
Linear systems • Street
• Block
1990s-2000s
©2003 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved.Used with the permission ofDesign Center for American Urban Landscape. Rightimages, collection of Ann Forsyth.
Success in redevelopment and growing dissatisfaction with sprawling cities fueled new interest in urban design, including sustainable design, new urbanism, ecological reclamation, and places for great coffee shops.
6. Scales
What scales has the class dealt with to date?
Urban design can be applied at a variety of scales
Areas • Site
Linear systems • Street
• Block • Center • District or Neighborhood • Cities
• Corr Corrid ido or
Other • Natu Natura rall Syste Systems ms
• Center
• Corrid rrido or
• District or Neighborhood
Other
• Cities
• Natu Natura rall Syste Systems ms
• Metr Metrop opol olis is
7. Design Processes Aside on Design Process/Thinking • Design Design processe processes—ho s—how w people people come up with ideas ideas – Black box – Analysis/synthesis—rational Analysis/synthesis—rational design: design: set goals, collect collect and analyze data, synthesize design – Precedents—learning Precedents—learning from elsewhere, elsewhere, copying – Generative ideas ideas e.g. analogies/metaphors, analogies/metaphors, a parking lot is a park for cars – Patterns—more abstract abstract version of precedents, precedents, e.g. “light from two sides of every every room” (Alexander et al 1977)
• Metr Metrop opol olis is
7. Design Processes
7. Common Proposals
Design Process/Thinking
When proposing changes, urban designers frequently use organizing strategies, and descriptive terminology, such as:
• Design processes—how processes—how pe people ople come come up with ideas ideas – Black box – Analysis/synthesis—rational Analysis/synthesis—rational design: design: set goals, goals, collect and analyze data, synthesize design – Precedents—learning Precedents—learning from elsewhere, elsewhere, copying – Generative ideas ideas e.g. analogies/metaphors, analogies/metaphors, a parking lot is a park for cars – Patterns—more abstract abstract version of of precedents, e.g. e.g. “light from two sides of of every room” (Alexander et al 1977) Health can use analysis/synthesis but also can use research to find best approaches then precedents or patterns to achieve those
• Areas Areas and districts: districts: revitalize revitalized d blocks, blocks, new urbanist urbanist neighborhoods, neighborhoods, urban villages • Corridors: Corridors: green green streets, streets, waterfront waterfront promenade promenades, s, greenways • Centers: town centers, activity nodes, transit-oriented development, development, landmarks • Gateways: Gateways: gateway gateway treatments treatments,, way-finding way-finding signage signage
4
8. Implementing Urban Design
8. Implementing Urban Design
Ideas become reality through many means, from actually building or planting through first raising awareness
Ideas become reality through many means, from actually building or planting through first raising awareness
• Built projects projects (buildings (buildings,, infrastructure, art) • Master Master plans plans • Regulations Regulations and standard standards s • Policies, Policies, guidelines, guidelines, performance criteria • Incentives Incentives and bonuses • Commissions Commissions and reviews reviews • Education/aw Education/awareness areness (books, tours, talks)
• Built projects projects (buildings, (buildings, infrastructure, art) • Master Master plans plans • Regulations Regulations and standards standards • Policies, Policies, guidelines, guidelines, performance criteria • Incentives Incentives and bonuses bonuses • Commissions Commissions and reviews reviews • Education/aw Education/awareness areness (books, (books, tours, talks)
Where has the class focused to date?
Main Menu Main shows
1
Urban Design (UD)
2
Neig Neighb hbor orho hood od Char Charac acte terr
3
4
BumpBump-ou outs ts,, Add-o Add-ons ns,, PopPop-to tops ps,, Up-and-outs and Teardowns/Fill-ins Hous Housin ing g Inten Intensi sifi fica cati tion(HI on(HI))
5
Fact Factor oryy-bu buil iltt Hous Housin ing g
Reference Maps
Supporting Shows UD: Approaches UD: History UD: Scales UD: Techniques UD: Implementation Bump-out Examples Add-on Examples Pop-top Examples Up-and-out Examples Tear-down/Fill-in Examples HI Density HI Design Issues HI Housing Types HI Land Use Features
Conclusion
1. What is urban design? 2. The value of urban design 3. Considerations in urban design 4. Approaches to urban design 5. A history of urban design 6. Scales of urban design 7. Analysis and representation techniques in urban design 8. Implementation strategies for urban design
5
Ann Forsyth Cornell University
Almere new town town,, Netherlands
Urban Design and Public Health • What What is urba urban n des desig ign? n? • Walking, Walking, urban urban design design,, and and public public health health • Other Other healt health h issu issues—t es—the he Design Design for Hea Health lth project project
Urban Design and Health 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Civi Civic c arch archit itec ectu ture re—b —big ig or or contextual projects Urba Urban n rest restor orat atio ion— n—(r (re) e)cr crea eati ting ng or filling in historical patterns Part Partici icipa pato tory ry or comm commun unit ity y design New Ne w to town and and lan land d pla plann nnin ing g Urba Urban n inf infrast rastru ruct ctur ure e e.g. e.g. streetscapes Sust Sustai aina nabl ble e urba urban n form form from from small to large scale
Ultimately does health add something new or is it just a variation on existing approaches?
Accessibility Air quality Climate change Environment + housing quality Food Healthcare access Mental health Noise Physical activity Safety Social capital Water quality Also special populations, planning process, finance
1
Urban Form and Public Health
1. 2. 3. 4.
Why wa walk in ing ? How environm environment ent affects affects walking walking Twin Twin Cities Cities Walki Walking ng Stud Studyy Movin Moving g to Design Design for Healt Health h
Urban Form + Public Health
Ann Forsyth, Metropolitan Design Center, University of Minnesota Home
Home
1.Built Environment
1. Why Walking? Unanswered Questions from Reforming Suburbia
Start of Recent Interest Popular interest in obesity Weight = food minus activity Early (2002/3) studies at county level found exercise did not vary by environment but weight did Explanations: Research design Food intake Social and cultural factors Non-leisure physical activity Travel research had found commute walking varies with environment Education not working Hope to increase overall activity through utilitarian physical activity (PA)
Finished a study of large-scale planned alternatives to sprawl, evaluated evaluated in terms of 40+/- issues related to: • Aesthetics, Aesthetics, sense of place • Social issues • Efficiency Efficiency and cost • Environmental Environmental issues • Benefits of sprawl sprawl • All well liked by residents; did better than sprawl on all dimensions • Biggest disappointments: disappointments: affordable affordable housing and alternatives to the car Home
Home
1. Why Walking?
1. Why Walking?
Why People Die
Underlying Preventable Causes in US, 2000
US (CDC) World (WHO) 1. Heart Disease 28.5% 12.4% (#1) 2. Cancer 22.8% 2.2% (#10, lung) 3. Stroke 6.7% 9.2% (#2) 4 .E .E mp mp hy hy se se ma ma, ch ch ro ro ni ni c b ro ro nc nc hi hi titi s 5 .1 .1 % 4 .5 .5 % ( #5 #5 ) 5. Accidents 4.4% 2.3% (#9, road)* 6. Diabetes 3.0% 7. Flu & pneumonia 2.7% 6.9% (#3) 8.Alzheimer's/senility 2.4% 9.Kidney disease 1.7% 10.Septicemia/systemic infection 1.4% Other top 10 in the world: HIV/AIDS 5.3% (#4), (#4), perinatal (#6), diarrhoea (#7), tuberculosis (#8) All data for 2002
Tobacco P oo oo r d ie ie t a nd nd p hy hys ic ic al al i na na ct ct iv iv itit y Alcohol consumption
Home
18.10% 1 6. 6.6 0% 0% 3.50%
Home Actual Causes of Death in the United States, 2000. A. Mokdad; J. Marks; D. Stroup; J. Gerberding, JAMA. 2004;291:1238-1245.
1
1. Why Walking?
1. Why Walking
How Much Activity is Needed for Adults to Avoid Health Problems?
The Idea of Active Living “A way of life that integrates physical activity into daily routines. The goal is to accumulate at least 30 minutes of activity each day.” Active Living by Design
Moderate-intensity physical activities for at least 30 minutes on 5 or more days of the week. - CDC/American College of Sports Medicine i.e. walking briskly, mowing the lawn, dancing, swimming, or bicycling on level terrain It is not strolling to the coffee shop
Walking key to active living as almost everyone walks already, every day
OR Vigorous-intensity physical activity 3 or more days per week for 20 or more minutes per occasion – Healthy People 2010 Home
Home
1. Why Walking
1. Why Walking?
What Researchers Did and Didn’t Know about Environment 5 years ago
How Active are People Now? • Have Have only rece recentl ntlyy been finding out • People People are are active active in different parts of their lives
• Knew differences in density, street pattern, mixed use, and pedestrian infrastructure seem to affect walking • But so did income and personal personal preference, preference, etc. etc. • Did NOT know: know: –
• • • •
Work Exerci Exercise se and leisure leisure Care/chores/ Care/chores/errands errands Commut Commuting ing to to work
– – –
Howmuchthe envi enviro ronm nmen entt matter mattered ed and and whowas most most affected Was the the percei perceived ved vs. vs. the realenviro realenvironme nment nt most most import important ant We didn’t didn’t know know which which aspectswere aspectswere key—e. key—e.g. g. resid resident ential ial or or employment density, sidewalks or crosswalks $ Millio Millions ns in rese researc arch h later later we know know someth something ing
• Maybe parks parks matter matter for kids and (lack (lack of) parking parking for adults…
• Up to the early 2000s data data collected collected only for some types types of activity Home
Home
2. How Environment Affects Walking
2. Environment
Three Perspectives on Reasons for Walking
Reasons for Physical Activity: Transportation • Demand for travel travel derived derived from demand to move move between destinations • People maximize maximize personal benefits benefits and minimize minimize costs--time costs--time and money • Benefits of travel (e.g. exercise, time out) not well accounted for • Various camps, particularly particularly car group vs. transit group— all mechanized, economics-oriented
• Trans Transpo port rtat atio ion n • Urban/landsc Urban/landscape ape design (physical (physical planning, architect architecture, ure, landscape architecture) • Physical Physical activity activity research research
Home
Home
2
2. Environment
2. Environment
Reasons for Physical Activity: Urban/Landscape Urban/Landscape Design
Reasons for Physical Activity: Physical Activity Research
• Walking Walking increases with supportive supportive physical features features • Several schools: schools: e.g. New urbanists; urbanists; trails trails and park proponents • Propose that walking walking increases increases with complex, complex, varied environments, with physical dimensions and movement speeds scaled to the human body; and with activity (critical mass) • Study people people already already in in spaces • Overall those in architecture, landscape architecture, physical planning focus on cultivating sensitivity to place; not data driven
• Physical activity occurs in some environment that influences behavior • Focus on barriers barriers to exercise exercise • Until recently environment meant the social environment, the food environment…. Physical activity researchers are often very active people
Home
Home
Different Views of the Same Place
Different Views of the Same Place
• • • •
• Transportatio Transportation: n: What would transportati transportation on planners think? think? • Urban design: design: What What would urban urban designers designers think? think? • Physical Physical activity: activity: What What about exercise exercise people? e?
Transpo Transporta rtatio tion: n: Disinc Disincent entive ives s to drivin driving g Urban design: design: Dynamic, Dynamic, complex complex environme environment nt (Jane (Jane Jacobs) Jacobs) Physical Physical activity activity:: Social/ph Social/physical ysical supports supports and and constrain constraints ts Why this matters…bec matters…because ause of different different solutions solutions
Home
Home
2. Built Environment Confusion over Terms Related to Perspective Walkable = close (relative to costs of alternatives) Walkable = barrier-free Walkable = safe (perceived crime or perceived traffic) Walkable = interesting Walkable = full of pedestrian infrastructure Walkable = upscale, ethnic, leafy, or cosmopolitan
Transportation
Urban Design Journalism
Different Views of the Same Place Transportation: What would transportation planners think? Urban design: What would urban designers think? Physical activity: What about exercise people?
Home
Home
3
2. Environment
3. Twin Cities Walking Study
Interesting New Analysis Methods
Grid
Looped
Big Ideas/Hypotheses Ideas/Hypotheses
Home
1.Density, street pattern, mixed use, pedestrian infrastructure and amenities affect utilitarian walking Results to date: generally true 2.But so do socio-economic factors, perceptions, and individual tastes affect walking Results to date: confirmed 3.Assumed leisure physical activity (PA) similar most places so if travel/utilitarian physical activity is increased, overall physical activity will increase Results to date: we were wrong 4. We were not sure which environmental factors mattered the most (sidewalks, crosswalks) Home Results: for Total PA it’s perceived parking
3. Twin Cities Walking Study Ann Forsyth, Kathryn Schmitz, J. Michael Oakes 36 805*805 meter areas in in corridor from St. Paul to Blaine • Vary by combinations combinations of high/low gross density + median block size • 9 big blocks/high blocks/high density, 9 big blocks/low density, etc.
Urban edge
Downtown Minneapolis
8 km
Downtown St. Paul
Example Study Area, Area 30: High Gross Density—15.8 persons/acre, 39/ha Small Median Block—3.7 acre, 1.5 ha
718 participants: surveys, travel diaries, motion detectors, measured height and weight 50+ environmental variables measured at multiple geographies around each participant Home
Home
3. Twin Cities Walking Study Example Study Area, Area 3: Low Gross Density—4.7 persons/acre, 11.6/ha Large Median Block—11.1 acres, 4.5ha
Data Collection
Home
• Individual Individual Residents Residents (N=718, (N=718, over 25, healthy etc) • 7-day 7-day travel travel diaries diaries • 7-day accelerometer accelerometer records records • Measured height and weight weight • Partici Participant pant-dra -drawn wn maps of selfdefined neighborhood • Telepho Telephone ne interview interview International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) Quality of life, perceptions, demographics Dog ownership Bicycle ownership/use/safety
Environment • Irvine Minnesota Minnesota Inventory • Orthophoto Orthophoto interpretation of street trees, lamps, sidewalks • Plus existing existing GIS data: census, business/employment, parcel Home
4
200m 400m 800m
Context area Focus Area
Home
Home
IPAQ Walking Activity
3. Twin Cities Walking Study
k e 400 e W / s e 300 t u n i M t 200 e M n a 100 e M
Sample and Analysis Study design maximized exchangeability such similar people lived in different places Tried different models and they get the same picture; considered errors in models Using both more complex models (lots of assumptions) and simpler analyses Accounted for clustering by focus area Adjusted for age, sex, race, college-degree, marital status, home ownership, home tenure length, and overall health
by Neighborhood Density & Type
367 319
Leisure 243
Walking 183
Low Density < 5/ac or 12.4/ha High Density > 10/ac or 24.7/ha gross density
Travel Walking
0
L ow ow De De ns ns itit y A re re a
• • • Home
H ig ig h D en en si si ty ty Ar Ar ea ea
Leisure Leisure walkin walking g and travel travel walkin walking g are signifi significant cantly ly different by density (p<0.001) Holds Holds after after adjust adjusting ing for for age age and income income of respondent Neither Neither tota totall Physica Physicall Activit Activityy (PA) nor nor Body Mass Mass Index (BMI) nor total walking differ by density
Home
IPAQ Walking Activity
Total Physical Activity vs. Density
by Neighborhood Block Size & Type
k 400 e e W / s 300 e t u n i M 200 t e M n 100 a e M
300
309 273 231
Leisure Walking
Small Blocks < 5 ac or 2 ha Big Blocks > 8 ac or 3.2 ha
Travel Walking
0
Small Block
• • •
Total Walking vs. Density
Large Block
Leisure Leisure walkin walking g and travel travel walkin walking g are not signi significa ficantl ntlyy different by block size Holds Holds after after adjustin adjusting g for age age and income income of of responde respondent nt Neither Neither total total PA nor nor BMI nor total total walking walking stati statisti sticall callyy differ by block size Home
Home
5
3. Twin Cities Walking Study Subpopulation Analysis
•
• Examined ethnicity, education, sex, self reported health, work status, presence of children in the household, car ownership, and obesity • Less healthy healthy walk more in higher density density areas areas (OR=2.26, (OR=2.26, 95% CI 1.10-4.61) (diary) • Whites and and the non-obese non-obese were less physica physically lly active active overall in high density areas (ORs = 0.66 [0.45-0.98] and 0.63 [0.41-0.99]) (IPAQ) • Unemployed Unemployed and retirees retirees walk more in large block block areas (OR=2.28, 95% CI 1.12-4.66). • Men were less less physically physically active active in large block block areas (OR=0.53 (OR=0.53 [0.31-0.91])
Odds Ratios for Density Above and Block Size Below
Did negative binomial regression and ordinal logistic regression— the latter are reported Home
Comparing Vancouver to Ithaca
Home
3. Twin Cities Walking Study This is True So Far for Other Variables
• West End Vancouver: Vancouver: dwelling dwellings/ha s/ha = 133 (32.7% walk to work, 3.5% bike, pop. 41,000)*
• Few significant significant relationshi relationships ps of over 150 environmental environmental variables variables with total physical activity; small magnitudes • Strongest Strongest effect with with total total PA so far is perceived perceived parking parking difficulty difficulty (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.02-1.37, pooling data with UNC study) • Similar findings findings by others—can others—can increase increase travel travel walking but had to increase total physical activity (reducing parking may work; youth may be more sensitive to recreation e.g. parks….)
• Ithaca City: City: dwellings dwellings/ha /ha 6.8 (41.2% (41.2% walk to work, 2.2% “other means”, pop. 29,000) • West End is approx approx 3 times the the density density of the densest census tract in Ithaca— approximately college town—across a much larger area
But walking is not the only connection between health and planning
• Ithaca has terrific terrific walk walk commute figures: figures: why?
http://www.rockymountaineer.com/images/vacations/destinations/gallery/vancouver_1-full.jpg .jpg
Home
Home
6
Health and Urban Planning Tools 1. Design Design for for Health Health Proje Project ct Overview 2. Linking Linking Plannin Planning g and Health Health 3. Tool Overvi Overview ew (DFH (DFH and and other) • Fiel Field d Inve Invent ntor orie iess and and Checklists • Plan Plan Che Check ckllists ists • Part Partic icip ipat atory ory Proc Proces esse sess (Image centered left to right, 2.5 up from bottom, 2.0 from top) • Tech Techni nica call Impa Impact ct Assessments
1. DFH Project Overview Defining Health •
•
•
“Health “Health is a state of complete complete physical, physical, mental, mental, and social social wellwellbeing, and not merely the absence of of disease or infirmity,” as defined by the Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization (WHO 1948). “Health “Health is the reduction reduction in mortality mortality,, morbidity, morbidity, and disability disability due to to detectable disease or disorder, and an increase in the perceived level of health,” WHO Regional Office for Europe in “HEALTH21: The Health for All Policy Framework for the WHO European Region” (WHO Regional 1999). “Health “Health is the capacity ty of people people to adapt to, respond respond to, or control control life’s challenges and changes,” in Health Impact Assessment Assessment as a Tool for Population Health Promotion and Public Policy (Frankish et al. 1996).
Design for Health: Partner Communities
• What does does having having good good health health mean mean to you? – How is it defined? – What are its features? features? – What does it feel like?
1. DFH Project Overview • Project Project initiated initiated out of of interest interest in connections connections between built environment and health • Takes Takes advantage advantage of 2008 legislat legislative ive deadline for metropolitan area comprehensive plans • Built Built on work work by Design Design Center Center/Acti /Active ve Communities Transportation (ACT) Research Group examining active living and food environments—adds environments—adds a range of other issues • Starte Started d July July 2006 2006 • Separate Separate grants grants given given to technical technical assistance provider and to 19 cities/counties
Evidence-Based Practice – 1. DFH Project Overview
The DFH Angle
Evidence-based Practice Lessons for Urban Planning and Design •
• •
New trend trend in medicine: medicine: “conscientiou “conscientious, s, explicit explicit and judicious judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients/clients” Sackett, D.L. et al. (1996) Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 312 (7023), 71-72 Expanded Expanded beyond beyond the individual individual e.g. e.g. business business Needs careful careful assessme assessment nt of research research as there are are often: – Few studies on a topic – Studies looking at only part of the picture – Studies that define key variables differently – Limitations to data and analysis – Publications bias—studies that find effects are more likely to be published than those that find no/inconclusive effects
1
Design for Health
1. Project Overview
Project Staff
Evidence-based Practice • Consider Consider the challe challenge nge of EPB EPB in planning: planning: – Medline is one of of the major journal databases databases – Type “urban” into Medline topics > 84,351 journal journal articles – Type “city” and get 59,689 59,689 – Type “rural” and get 77,862 – Type “urban planning” planning” and get 181, some some quite specialized e.g. “From nightlife conventions to daytime hidden agendas: dynamics of urban sexual territories in the South of France” (Journal of Sex Research 2005) 2005)
Design for Health www.designforhealth.net
• Rese Resear arch ch Facu Facult ltyy – Ann Forsyt Forsyth, h, Cornell Cornell – Kevin Krizek, Krizek, U. Colorado Colorado – Carissa Carissa Schively Schively Slotterback, Slotterback, U. Minnesota Minnesota • Coor Coordi dina nato tors rs – Amanda Johnson, Johnson, Research Fellow, Fellow, U. Pennsylvania Pennsylvania – Aly Pennucci, Pennucci, Research Assistant Assistant/Coord /Coordinator, inator, U. Minnesota Minnesota • Rese Resear arch ch suppo support rt – Karen Roof, Roof, PhD Student, Student, U. Colorado Colorado – Ashley Ashley Miller, Miller, Sutee Sutee Anantsuksomsri, Research Assistants, Cornell – Joanne Richardson, Richardson, Web
2. Linking Planning and Health •
Topics Topics c cove overed red in in resea research rch summaries and planning information sheets – Accessibility – Air quality – Climate change – Environment + housing quality – Food – Healthcare access – – – – – – –
2. DFH Connecting Planning and Health MN Metropolitan Council Requirements 2008 Topics • Acce Access ssibi ibili lity ty • Ai r q ua ua lili ty ty • Clim Climat ate e Chan Change ge • Envi Enviro ronme nment ntal al and and Housing quality • Food • Healt Healthca hcare re acc acces ess s • Ment Mental al heal health th • Noise • Phys Physic ical al acti activi vity ty • Soci Social al cap capit ital al • Safety Safety (crime (crime & traff traffic) ic) • Wate Waterr qua quali lity ty
Land Use Plan Future land use Housing plan Resource Protection Transportation Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) Allocation Highway & roads plan Bike & pedestrian plan Special traffic situations Transit plan for facilities & service Aviation Plan Water Resources Wastewater & sewer plan Surface water management plan Water supply plan Parks & Open Space Regional parks and open space Optional Elements
Connections Between Health Topics and Plan Elements
A c c e s s
Mental health Noise Physical activity Safety Social capital Water quality Also special populations, planning process, finance
H o E F u n o A s o . v d i r g .
Land Use Plan
M e n t a l
S a f P e A t y
S W o a c t i e a l r
Future land use
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Housing plan
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Resource protection
x
x
x
x
Transportation TAZ allocation
x
x
x
x
Highway & roads
x
x
x
x
Bike & pedestrian
x
x
x
x
x
x
Special traffic
x
x
x
x
x
x
Transit plan
x
x
x
x
x
x
Aviation Plan
x
x
x
x
x
Water Resources Wastewater & sewer
x
Surface water
x
Water supply plan
x
Reg. Parks and O.S.
x
x x
x x x
x
x
x
x
2
Design forTools Health 3. DFH
Air Quality 3. DFH Tools
Design for Health Activities and Tools • • • • • • • • •
Events—tal Events—talks, ks, feedback feedback sessions, sessions, boot camps Research Research summaries summaries (key questions) questions) Informa Information tion sheets— sheets—mode modell plannin planning g and ordinance language/cases Case Case studie studies s of exist existing ing plans plans Health Health impac impactt assess assessmen ments— ts— three planning-oriented tools Image Image resou resource rces s and and PPTs PPTs Plan Plan revi review ew checkl checklist ists s One-onOne-on-one one technic technical al assista assistance nce W eb eb site
Things for Certain (or semi-certain) About Air Quality •
Motor Motor vehicl vehicles es primary primary sour source ce of most fine and ultra fine particles Many Many polluta pollutants nts decre decrease ase with with distance from roadways Vehicl Vehicle-r e-relat elated ed air pollut pollution ion associated with higher levels of certain diseases Living Living above above dry cleane cleaners rs increa increases ses exposure to perchloroethylene Living Living near near factori factories es can incre increase ase risk of preterm birth, respiratory and other diseases Certai Certain n sub-gr sub-groups oups are more vulnerable Full Full revi review ew at www.designforhealth.net
• • • k c a b r e t t o l S y l e v i h c S a s s i r a C
• • •
r e t n e C n g i s e D n a t i l o p o r t e M
Lagos
3. DFH Tools
3. DFH Tools
Things Up In the Air About Air Quality
Similar Issues for Other Variables
•
•
• • •
Concen Concentra tratio tion n of of some some pollutants does not decrease much with distance—but how much under what conditions Geograp Geographic hic scale scale of poll pollutan utants ts Establ Establish ishing ing a reco recommen mmended ded buffer distance is difficult Extent Extent growi growing ng trees trees as buffe buffers rs can mitigate pollution
r e t n e C n g i s e D n a t i l o p o r t e M
•
Different Different definitions definitions of social social capital capital – Homeownership is associated with higher social capital in some studies • In others living living at high densities densities and in larger apartments apartments increase social capital—likely due to different definitions – Williamsom (2004) in a study of 30,000 people in the US found more trust in low density areas and more political participation in high density areas Self Self se selec lectio tion n may well well be at work work – Example: Podobnik Example: Podobnik (2002) found higher levels of perceived friendliness in a New Urbanist neighborhood, based on a survey of 1,180 people in three neighborhoods in Portland, Oregon. However, many people living there selected the neighborhood because they preferred a higher density and more socially active environment
Health and Urban Planning Tools • Important Important to use use more than one study and and read them carefully
1. Design Design for for Health Health Projec Projectt Overview 2. Linking Linking Planni Planning ng and Health Health 3. Tool Tool Overv Overvie iew w (DFH (DFH and and other) • Fiel Field d Inv Inven ento tori ries es and and Checklists • Plan Plan Chec Checkl klis ists ts • Part Partic icip ipat ator oryy Proc Proces esse sess (Image centered left to right, 2.5 up from bottom, 2.0 from top) • Tech Techni nica call Impa Impact ct Assessments
3
3. Tool Overview 1. Field Field Inventor Inventories ies and Checkl Checklist ists s – Urban Design Audit (Ewing et al)—measures main street features – Irvine Minnesota Inventory—new short validated tool actually measures features associated with walking 2. Plan Plan Che Check ckli list sts s – Design for Health Comprehensive Planning Checklist – Design for Health Preliminary HIA checklist
• What are are the potential potential impacts impacts on health, health, positive positive and and negative, arising from the implementation of your plan?
3. Partic Participa ipatory tory Proc Process esses es – Rapid Health Impact Assessment – Corridor Housing Initiative (not really about health) 4. Technic Technical al Impact Impact Assessm Assessment ents s – LEED-ND – San Francisco Healthy Development Measurement Tool – DFH Threshold Health Impact Assessment Workbook
Liberty on the Lake, Stillwater
Is this a healthy environment?
“Walkability” • Dens Densit ityy • Street Street patt pattern ern • Mixe Mixed d use use • Pedestrian Pedestrian amenities amenities
• What are the the potential potential impacts impacts on health, health, positive positive and and negative, arising from the implementation of your plan?
Health Topics • Access Accessibil ibility ity • Air Air quali quality ty • Climat Climate e change change • Enviro Environmen nmental tal and housing quality • Food • Health Healthcar care e access • Mental Mental health health • No is is e • Physica Physicall activi activity ty • Social Social capit capital al • Safety Safety (crime (crime & traffic) traffic) • Water Water quali quality ty
• What change changes s could be be made to the the proposal proposal to: – Enhance the positive impacts on health? – Prevent, minimize or or moderate the negative negative impacts on health?
“Walkability” • Densit Density y • Street Street pattern pattern • Mixed Mixed use use • Pedestrian Pedestrian amenities amenities Health Topics • Accessibility Accessibility • Air quali quality ty • Climate Climate change change • Environmenta Environmentall and housing quality • Food Food • Healthcare Healthcare access access • Mental health • Noise Noise • Physical Physical activity activity • Social capital • Safety Safety (crime & traffic) traffic) • Water quality quality Is this a healthy environment?
4
Health and Urban Planning Tools 1. Design Design for for Health Health Proje Project ct Overview 2. Linking Linking Plannin Planning g and Health Health 3. Tool Overvi Overview ew (DFH (DFH and and other) • Fiel Field d Inve Invent ntor orie iess and and Checklists • Plan Plan Che Check ckllists ists • Part Partic icip ipat atory ory Proc Proces esse sess (Image centered left to right, 2.5 up from bottom, 2.0 from top) • Tech Techni nica call Impa Impact ct Assessments
5
3. Tool Overview
3. Tool Overview How Assessment Methods Vary
1. Field Field Inventor Inventories ies and Checkl Checklist ists s – Urban Design Audit (Ewing et al)—measures main street features – Irvine Minnesota Inventory—new short validated tool actually measures features associated with walking 2. Plan Plan Che Check ckli list sts s – Design for Health Comprehensive Planning Checklist – Design for Health Preliminary HIA checklist 3. Partic Participa ipatory tory Proc Process esses es – Rapid Health Impact Assessment – Corridor Housing Initiative (not really about health) 4. Technic Technical al Impact Impact Assessm Assessment ents s – LEED-ND – San Francisco Healthy Development Measurement Tool – DFH Threshold Health Impact Assessment Workbook
•Level of detail and complexity: –Checklists –Rating scales (scores), and –Holistic assessments assessments such as as workshops •Who does the the rating •Levels of assessment or evaluation –Identifying –Measuring –Evaluating •Time—before or after an environment is created •Issue focus •Whether they measure health or something thought to be associated with health
3. Tool Overview Field: Field: Urban Urban Design Audit Audit •
Developed Developed by Ewing Ewing et al. using using group group of urban design design experts experts
• •
OneOne-pa page ge pa pape perr sheet sheet Weighted Weighted scores for: for: imageability, imageability, enclosure enclosure,, human scale, scale, transparency, and complexity
• •
Focus Focus is on comm commerci ercial a l street streets s S trtr en en gt gt hs hs : – Scores make comparison easy – Make sense to expert observers
•
Chal Challe leng nges es:: – Time consuming (e.g. counting sight lines) – Vary with time/weather – Scores may be overly precise
Ewing, R., O. Clemente, S. Handy, R. Brownson, and E. Winston. 2005b. Measuring Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability. Final report prepared for Active Living Research, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. http://www.activelivingresearch.org/index.php/Urban_Design_Quantities_Related_to_Walkability/357.
3. Tool Overview
3. Tool Overview
Field: Urban Design Audit
Field: Irvine Minnesota Inventory
• Dimensions Dimensions measured measured in field include: • number number of long long sigh sightt lines lines • proportion proportion windows windows at street street level level • average average buil building ding height heights s • number number of small small planter planters s • number of of pieces pieces of street street furniture furniture and other street items • Fruitvale had sections with very high (top) and very low (bottom) measures of human scale • Odd bundle of items but scoring makes sense
•Developed by University of California Irvine team + University of Minnesota Fruitvale high human scale score area
Fruitvale low human scale score area
•Approximately 160 questions •Many urban design items (next slide) •Strengths: –Easy to learn –Useful in many kinds of environments –Can be shortened to create specific indicators •Challenges: –Long –Lacks some items (parking lots) –Provides counts not evaluations Day, K., M. Boarnet, M. Alfonzo, and A. Forsyth. 2006. The Irvine Minnesota Inventory to measure built environments: Development. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 30, 2: 144-52. Day, K., M. Boarnet, M. Alfonzo, and A. Forsyth. 2005b. Irvine Minnesota Inventory.Print version. https://webfiles.uci.edu/kday/public/index.html.
1
3. Tool Overview
3. Tool Overview
Field: Irvine Minnesota Inventory
Field: Irvine Minnesota Inventory
• barrier barriers s
Total Walking Scale
• bicycle bicycle lanes lanes • buildin buildings gs • dogs dogs • driveways driveways • freewa freeways ys • land land uses • lighti lighting ng • maintenance maintenance • neighborhood neighborhood identification • olfactory olfactory character
• parking parking • safety safety • sidewalks—pr sidewalks—presence esence and amenities • steepness steepness • street characteristic characteristics s • street crossin crossing g • street trees • traffic traffic features features • views views • window windows s
Current work is finalizing shorter 412 item inventories of features that predict leisure walking, travel walking, and total walking
• • • • • • • •
Curb cu cu ts ts Traffic/ped Traffic/pedestria estrian n signal(s)/sy signal(s)/system(s stem(s)) Banners vehicl vehicle e lanes lanes for cars? cars? Strip Strip mall mall/ro /row w of shops shops Coffee Coffe e shops shops (leisure (leisure walk association) association) Si de de wa wa lk lk s Buffer
• • • •
gara garage ge doors doors (-) (-) driv drivew eway ays s (-) (-) posted posted speed speed limit limit (-) Angled Angled// On-st On-stree reett parking parking
The items found to be actually associated with more walking Will be published in the next year
3. Tool Overview Checklist: DFH Comprehensive Planning
http://www.designforhealth.net/techassistance/checklists.html
3. Tool Overview Checklist: DFH HIA Preliminary Checklist • Format: Format: Actual Actual checklist checklist + very very detailed detailed description of how to find data for plans or projects
3. Tool Overview Checklist: DFH HIA Preliminary Checklist Part I: Is it significant significant enough to assess? assess? 1. Geographic Geographic extent extent 2. Reversibility Reversibility 3. Population Population or workforce increase 4. Cumulative Cumulative impact impact 5. People affected 6. Land use use change change
• http://www.designforhealth.net/techa http://www.designforhealth.net/techassistance/hea ssistance/healthimp lthimp act.html
(Image centered left to right, 2.5 up from bottom, 2.0 from top) 7. Institutional Institutional capacity capa city
k c a b r e t t o l S y l e v i h c S a s s i r a C
2
Key Questions Preliminary Checklist Geographical extent: Does it apply to a geographic area of a full city block or larger?2
No
Uncertain
Yes
0
1
2
Cumulative impact: Is it occurring in a place where specific local health problems have been identified (e.g. traffic safety, air quality, lack of healthy foods, contaminated brownfield)?
0
People affected: Does the project or plan affect vulnerable groups (e.g. children, older people, and people with low incomes)?
0
Total
3. Tool Overview Checklist: DFH HIA Preliminary Checklist
Part 2: Does the plan/policy/project meet thresholds? 1. Accessibility Accessibility
1
2. Physical activity activity
2
3. Social capital 1
4. Air qualit qualityy
2
5. Water quality +
+
=
If total score is 11 or greater, HIA may be needed, move to Part 2. If total score is 7-10, a HIA is potentially needed, moving to Part 2 recommended.
6. Food Food 7. Safet Safetyy (Image centered left to right, 2.5 up from bottom, 2.0 from top)
k c a b r e t t o l S y l e v i h c S a s s i r a C
If total score is 6 or less, no HIA is required. You may wish to do a HIA on a targeted area or problem.
3. Tool Overview
3. Tool Overview Participation: Rapid Health Impact Assessment
1. Field Field Inventor Inventories ies and Checkl Checklist ists s – Urban Design Audit (Ewing et al)—measures main street features – Irvine Minnesota Inventory—new short validated tool actually measures features associated with walking 2. Plan Plan Che Check ckli list sts s – Design for Health Comprehensive Planning Checklist – Design for Health Preliminary HIA checklist 3. Partic Participa ipatory tory Proc Process esses es – Rapid Health Impact Assessment – Corridor Housing Initiative (not really about health) 4. Technic Technical al Impact Impact Assessm Assessment ents s – LEED-ND – San Francisco Healthy Development Measurement Tool – DFH Threshold Health Impact Assessment Workbook
• Rapid Rapid HIA HIA inc includ ludes es a workshop bringing together stakeholders to identify and assess health impacts • Very Very c comm ommon on in in Europ Europe e – Participation is relatively relatively new for health field so manuals are extensive
http://www.designforhealth.net/techa ssistance/hiarapidassessment.html
Design for Health: Health Impact Assessment 1: Complete HIA Preliminary Checklist 2: Find people: An organizer: technical staff; steering committee; committee; informants; workshop participants 3: Plan work Getting Information Together for a Rapid HIA 4: Inventory of existing plans and policies 5: Profile of the area 6: Talking with people (affected, interested, experts) 7: Predict impacts 8: Develop alternatives 9: Materials for workshop participants 10: Develop the agenda + activities 11: Run workshop Writing the Results and Moving Forward 12: Write up the results 13: Implement 14: Evaluate
Several Types of Results •
[EXAM [EXAMPLE PLES S OF REP REPORT ORTS] S]
Training workshop for Rapid Assessment
3
Technical Health Impact Assessments Tool
Distinguishing characteristics
-114 indicators -Healthy Development Tool -Originally Yes/No; added scales -Very comprehensive comprehensive (San Francisco) -Based on select studies -Point based -50 issues -LEED -LEED - ND -Environmental focus but used report on health -9 topics with 16 thresholds or -Design for Health indicators Threshold -Carefully digests available research http://www.designforhealth.net/techassistance/hiathres -Focuses on dimensions directly holdanalysis.html relevant to planning
3. Tool Overview 1. Field Field Invento Inventorie ries s and Checklis Checklists ts – Urban Design Audit (Ewing et al)—measures main street features – Irvine Minnesota Inventory—new short validated tool actually measures features associated with walking 2. Plan Plan Che Check ckli list sts s – Design for Health Comprehensive Planning Checklist – Design for Health Preliminary HIA checklist 3. Partic Participa ipator tory y Process Processes es – Rapid Health Impact Assessment 4. Techni Technical cal Impact Impact Assessm Assessment ents s
23.6 % are are withi n 400 m of an act ive park (35.2 % w/in 600 m)
– – –
LEED-ND San Francisco Healthy Development Measurement Tool DFH Threshold Health Impact Assessment Workbook
4