Landscape and Urban Planning 246 (2024) 105040
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Landscape and Urban Planning journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan
A typological study of the provision and use of communal outdoor space in Australian apartment developments Julian Bolleter a, *, Paula Hooper a, b, Alex Kleeman c, Nicole Edwards a, Sarah Foster c a
Australian Urban Design Research Centre, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia Nutrition & Health Innovation Research Institute, School of Medical & Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Australia c Centre for Urban Research, School of Global Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, Australia b
H I G H L I G H T S
• This paper establishes a novel typology of communal outdoor space within apartment buildings. • The paper then systematically accounts for their respective green space provision and usage by residents. • Dominant communal outdoor space typologies on podiums and rooftops deliver poor access to green space. • Dominant communal outdoor space typologies on rooftops deliver are poorly used.
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Communal Open Space Communal Outdoor Space Green space Apartments Urban densification Public Open Space Greenery
There is a consensus that higher-density urban settings need to be accompanied by communal outdoor space (COS) to bolster the well-being of apartment residents. Nonetheless, there is a lack of studies identifying COS types in apartment buildings and systematically assessing the degree to which they provide greenery and are used by residents. In response, this study developed a COS typology for apartment buildings in Australian cities, measured the degree to which each COS type provides access to greenery, and examined which COS types received the most frequent visitation via a resident survey (n = 975). Results show that some dominant COS typologies provide scant access to greenery and are underutilised. For instance, the Podium Terrace and Roof Terrace types only contained 24 and 8 % vegetated area, with the remainder hard surfaces. Moreover, the Podium Terrace and Roof Terrace types averaged no substantial trees. Conversely, ground floor types such as Parks and Setback Gardens contained 51 and 53 % planted area, respectively and significant numbers of trees. Policy requirements that target specific COS types could elevate their naturalness and increase use.
1. Introduction Since the adoption of sustainability goals in the 1990s, the compact city model has been enshrined in urban planning policy in most nations (Angel, 2012). Anticipated positive outcomes of the compact city model include reduced automobile dependency and carbon dioxide emissions (Matsumoto, Sanchez-Serra, & Ostry, 2012), the conservation of pro ductive farmland and natural habitat (McDonald, 2015), reduced infrastructure investment for transport, energy and water supply, and waste disposal systems, and a greater diversity of local services and employment opportunities (Matsumoto et al., 2012). Nonetheless, the compact city model has elicited concerns. The adverse effects of higher
densities can include traffic congestion, air and water pollution, expensive housing, diminished quality of life, increased urban heat is land effects, high energy demands, and the loss of green spaces (Mat sumoto et al., 2012). Australia is a microcosm of this situation and is amidst a surge in apartment living. In 2021, the Australian Census of Population and Housing found that an unprecedented 2,620,903 people (10.3 % of the population) resided in apartments. Furthermore, the proportion of apartments continues to increase, comprising 31 % of the rise in pri vately owned dwellings since 2016 (The Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2022). Surging apartment dwelling is partly due to the prevalence of compact city planning policy in all Australian capital cities.
* Corresponding author at: The Australian Urban Design Research Centre, University of Western Australia (M433), School of Design, Clifton St, Nedlands UWA, Perth, Western Australia 6009, Australia. E-mail address: Julian.bolleter@uwa.edu.au (J. Bolleter). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105040 Received 4 October 2022; Received in revised form 27 November 2023; Accepted 14 February 2024 Available online 26 February 2024 0169-2046/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).