Landscape and Urban Planning 230 (2023) 104613
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Landscape and Urban Planning journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan
Research note: Associations between the implementation of communal open space design guidelines and residents’ use of these spaces in apartment developments Alexandra Kleeman a, *, Paula Hooper b, Nicole Edwards b, Julian Bolleter b, Sarah Foster a, c a b c
Centre for Urban Research, School of Global Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, 411 Swanston Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia Australian Urban Design Research Centre (AUDRC), School of Design, The University of Western Australia, Level 2, 1002 Hay St Perth Western, Australia School of Agriculture & Environment, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
H I G H L I G H T S
• Communal open space (COS) in apartment buildings can be important for residents. • Implementation of state-level COS policy design requirements was explored against use. • Policy implementation was strongly associated with residents’ COS use in three cities. • Comprehensive design guidance is important for delivering appealing COS in apartments.
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Communal open space Policy implementation Design guidelines Apartment buildings Resident use Australia
Background: Communal open spaces (COS) in apartment developments can be an important resource for resi dents, but little is known about the implementation of COS policy design requirements and its impact on resi dents’ use of these spaces. Methods: Apartment design policies across three Australian states (NSW, Victoria and Western Australia) were screened for quantifiable policy requirements relating to COS. Building plans for 112 apartment complexes across Sydney, Melbourne and Perth were scored for the implementation of state level and total (i.e., pooled) policy requirements. Residents of these buildings also completed a self-report survey on their use of COS. Results: Strong positive associations were found between COS policy implementation scores and COS use, with the NSW and ‘total’ policy implementation scores demonstrating the strongest effect. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that more comprehensive design guidance is important for delivering COS that appeals to apartment residents.
1. Introduction
1998; Easthope and Judd, 2010), and providing access to greenery. However, residents’ utilisation and enjoyment of COS can depend upon their design, with poor design often resulting in unused spaces (Mah davinejad et al., 2012). Certain elements of COS design have been identified as important for enabling and encouraging use. One strongly supported design consid eration for COS relates to greenery provision, as it connects residents to the natural environment (Wu and Ge, 2020), affects residents’ percep tions of the space’s quality (Easthope and Judd, 2010), provides weather protection by regulating sunlight/wind (Feng, 2016; Leng and Yuan,
The relatively recent emergence of apartments as a key component of Australia’s housing landscape marks a significant shift away from traditional detached housing, with many residents living in more compact dwellings with shared building spaces. Some communal open spaces (COS) can provide recreational opportunities and are an impor tant resource for residents – delivering valuable additional space (Foth et al., 2005), promoting residents’ social interactions and sense of community (Kim and Ohara, 2010; Kimura et al., 2008; Kweon et al.,
* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: alexandra.kleeman@rmit.edu.au (A. Kleeman), paula.hooper@uwa.edu.au (P. Hooper), nicole.edwards@uwa.edu.au (N. Edwards), julian. bolleter@uwa.edu.au (J. Bolleter), sarah.foster@rmit.edu.au (S. Foster). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104613 Received 10 May 2022; Received in revised form 11 September 2022; Accepted 18 October 2022 Available online 25 October 2022 0169-2046/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.