Call Girls Aslali 7397865700 Ridhima Hire Me Full Night
Social Sustainability And Collegiate Campuses Measuring Environments Functionality
1.
SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY AND COLLEGIATE CAMPUSES:
Measuring Environments’ Functionality
By
Michael David Grimble
4/29/2009
A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of
the University at Buffalo, State University of New York
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Urban Planning
Department of Urban and Regional Planning
2. Copyright by
Michael David Grimble
April 29, 2009
ii
3.
This thesis is dedicated to all of the people who helped to make it possible.
iii
4. Table of Contents
List of Figures v
Abstract vi
1) Introduction 1
2) Sustainability 5
Journey or Destination 5
Sustainability Defined 7
Social Sustainability and the Three Considerations Model 9
3) Social Sustainability 12
What Is Social Sustainability? 12
What Does More Socially Sustainable Look Like? 15
The Measure of Social Sustainability 18
4) Social Design and Universal Design 19
The Need for Social Design 19
Social Design Defined 21
The Design Cycle and Social Design 22
Universal Design 23
The Seven Principles of Universal Design 24
5) The Measurement System for Social Sustainability 26
Creating an Activity Inventory 26
Surveying the Environment 28
Representing the Environment 31
Indexing Activity Scores 34
6) Limitations 37
7) Conclusion 38
8) Appendix A: Sample Demographic Survey 39
9) Appendix B: Sample Survey Question 40
10) Sources 41
iv
5. List of Figures
Figure 1: The Sustainability Venn Diagram 8
Figure 2: The Design Curve 14
Figure 3: The Design Cycle 15
Figure 4: Path of Travel to an Entrance with Steps 17
Figure 5: Path of Travel to an Entrance with a Ramp 17
Figure 6: The Pruitt‐Igoe Housing Project 20
Figure 7: The Spiral Continuum of Design 22
Figure 8: The Seven Principles of Inclusive Design 25
Figure 9: The Activity Chain 27
Figure 10: Sample Problematic Activity Index with Formulas 36
Figure 11: Completed Problematic Activity Index 36
Figure 12: Sample Problematic Activities Index Score Matrix 36
v
20. Figure 2: As a design progresses over time to become more functional it becomes more usable and socially
sustainable. It never reaches social sustainability but can continually move closers to it. The red line is used
to track a designs progress over time. The dashed line represents socially sustainable design.
Another reason social sustainability is moved toward rather than reached is the cyclical nature
of the design process which is used to move toward this form of sustainability, as seen in Figure
3. Here the design process is described as a cycle beginning with planning and ending with
design evaluation (Zeisel, 1975). The design evaluations look for deficiencies in the design which
can then be addressed starting the cycle over. Lessons learned from one building will also
transfer into other subsequent buildings. This becomes increasingly important in a campus
setting with multiple buildings. This helps take the weaknesses of one design and translate
them into the strengths of another.
In order to move toward social sustainability, the creation of a measurement system and
assessment method will help frame and shape decisions made during the planning,
programming and design of collegiate facilities and their grounds. Creating inclusively designed
environments that do not disadvantage or disable their users, in turn creates environments
which are more functional and more socially sustainable.
Social sustainability can be moved towards by first benchmarking an environment and then
tracking it over time for improvement. Each time an alteration happens in an environment it
14
21. should improve the design to become more inclusive, equitable and functional. By collecting
and indexing information about users’ experiences in specific environments, a system can be
created that provides information about the functionality of those environments.
Figure 3: This is a representation of Zeisel’s cyclical design process.
What Does a More Social Sustainable Design Look Like?
To better understand the relationship between design and social sustainability; consider social
sustainability being used in the comparison and evaluation of architectural designs. In this
hypothetical situation, two designs will be compared and evaluated (e.g., Design A and Design
B). The purpose of the comparison and evaluation is to determine which design is more socially
sustainable. In this instance both designs are paths of travel to entrances designed to address a
level change. Design A (Figure 4) is a path that addresses level changes with the placement of a
couple of steps. Design B incorporates a gently sloped path instead of steps. Here Design B
would be described as more socially sustainable because it is more inclusive, equitable and
functional. Design B (Figure 5) does not require users to cope with abrupt changes in the height
of the path, unlike Design A. Design B can be seen as an improvement over Design A but one
wouldn’t say that Design B is the best design solution for addressing level changes. It may be a
very good solution at the time but a better one could exist.
In order to create environments which move toward social sustainability, provisions must be
made for equitable use. When this is put into the context of the Design A and Design B
15
23. Design A
Figure 4: Above is a picture of a path of travel to an entrance that uses steps to address a level change.
Design B
Figure 5: Above is a picture of a path of travel to an entrance that uses a gently sloped to address a level
change.
17
28. goals can be realized only within the structures of larger organizations, which include
the people for whom a project is planned.” (Sommer, 1983 p.7)
Sommer’s definition for social design shares many of the same user‐oriented values as
social sustainability. Both social sustainability and social design believe that form follows
function. Placing function before form means that a design needs to be first and foremost
useable. If a design is not usable or dysfunctional then it doesn’t matter how good it looks
because it is destine to fail. In social design functionality is important.
The Design Cycle and Social Design
This section will examine the design process set forth by social design that will ultimately be
used to create more socially sustainable collegiate campuses. Social design differs from other
forms of design because it sees the design process as cyclical where other design processes may
view design as a one off case. While other design processes end when a building is turned over
for occupation, the social design process views evaluation of the occupied structure as a
necessary step.
Figure 7 illustrates the steps of social design. When the design cycle finishes its evaluation
phase, the information found is then cycled back into the building’s design and/or fed forward
into the design of other buildings and projects. This creates a continuous cycle of design,
evaluation and redesign. The design cycle in social design can be thought of as a spiral
Figure 7: In the diagram above, on the left is Zeisel’s design cycle. The spiral continuum on the right shows
how the design cycle should look over time.
22
31. The Seven Principles of Universal Design
Principle 1: Equitable Use
The design is usable by anyone. It does not disadvantage, stigmatize or
privilege any group of users.
Principle 2: Flexibility in Use
The design accommodates not only a wide range of individual user
preferences but also users’ varying functional abilities.
Principle 3: Simple and Intuitive
How to use the design is easy to understand regardless of the user’s
experience, knowledge, language skills or concentration level.
Principle 4: Perceptible Information
The design communicates all necessary information effectively to users
regardless of ambient conditions or the users’ varying intellectual or
sensory abilities.
Principle 5: Tolerance for Error
The design minimizes hazards and adverse consequences of accidental
or unintended actions by users.
Principle 6: Low Physical Effort
Everyone can use the design efficiently, comfortably and with minimal
fatigue.
Principle 7: Size and Space for Approach and Use
The building provides an appropriate size and space for approach,
reach, manipulation and use regardless of the users’ body size, posture,
or functional abilities.
Figure 8: Above are the seven principles of universal design.
25
33. activities take place allows for weak links in the chain to be identified. Weak links in the
beginning of the activity chain present a greater problem than activities near the end.
Figure 9: Above is a diagram of an activity chain that could be seen in a campus’s residential unit. The circles
represent activities that are being indexed. The chain starts outside the building and continues into the interior
of the unit.
Something to consider when creating the activity inventory is that environments and buildings
are different and they will all have unique activities. This is not to say that a universal list of
activities couldn’t be created and applied to most buildings. Most buildings will likely all require
that a user is able to find an entrance, access the entrance, open the entrance, maneuver
through the entrance, maneuver through the a building, access a lavatory, and so on. When
identifying the activities that will be included, it is important to decide the purpose of
assessment because this will inform the type of activities that can be included in the
assessment.
If the purpose of the assessment is to benchmark and track an environment over time, then the
activities included in the assessment can be specific to that environment. Any activity can be
benchmarked and measured over time. If one were creating an activity inventory for a chemical
research laboratory, then activities examined may be as detailed as moving from a work station
to an emergency wash station. When compiling a list of very specific activities it is all the more
important to involve an environment’s users in the creation of the list.
If the purpose of the assessment is to compare one environment to another, then the activities
being assessed need to be generalized to both environments. If this is not done then an
accurate comparison of the environments cannot be created. For example, a library has many
unique activities that would not be found in a gymnasium. If the library were being compared
to the gymnasium then the activities being assessed should be common to both buildings.
27
35. • How often does the MOBILITY OF YOUR LEGS/FEET (for example: walking, climbing
stairs, running, etc.) affect your ability to perform routine activities?
• How often does the MOBILITY OF YOUR BACK/NECK (for example: bending, twisting,
etc.) affect your ability to perform routine activities?
• How often does HEARING (for example: hearing loss, ringing in the ears, sensitivity to
sound, etc.) affect your ability to perform routine activities?
• How often does SIGHT (for example: astigmatism, cataracts, etc.) affect your ability to
perform routine activities?
• How often do MENTAL and/or COGNITIVE CONDITIONS (for example: autism, dyslexia,
obsessive compulsive disorder, etc.) affect your ability to perform routine activities?
• How often do OTHER CONDITIONS (for example: height extremes, weight extremes,
respiratory problems, speech disorders, etc.) affect your ability to perform routine
activities?
Participants should be given the option to select whether a specific condition is always, usually,
sometimes, rarely or never a problem. Participants should also be provided with the
information that always is equal to 100% of the time, usually is equal to 75% of the time,
sometimes is equal to 50% of the time, rarely is equal to 25% of the time and never is equal to
0% of the time. This helps participants to better understand how their responses are being
interpreted and how they will be weighted during the indexing process. These questions should
also be paired with an open‐ended questions asking participant to describe why they answered
always, usually, sometimes or rarely. The open‐ended responses provide another layer of
information which can provide a better indication of why an activity is problematic. A sample
demographic survey is attached in Appendix A.
The next component of the survey asks questions about activities that were compiled in the
activity inventory. The questions should be asked in the order which they are experienced in
the activity chain. Each question needs to be paired with a description of the environment and
visual representation of the environment. The description of the environment should call out
the specific characteristics of the design that are intended to be examined. The descriptions
should also avoid using biased language that could influence responses. The visual
representation of the environment could be the actual environment, a photograph or line
drawing. The form of visual representation chosen for the survey needs to be consistent.
Pairing the question with a photograph or line drawing is helpful when a survey participant is
unable to experience the environment directly. Later the different forms of representation will
29
36. be discussed. The questions asked in this portion of the survey should use the same scale as the
demographic question previously described. The question format should look the same as the
following examples:
• If you encountered this design, how often would you have a problem using this DROP
OFF AND PICK UP AREAS (for example: detecting its locations, getting to it, getting into
or out of vehicles, loading or unloading vehicles, etc.)
• If you encountered this design, how often would you have a problem using this PATH OF
TRAVEL TO THE ENTRANCE (for example: coping with level changes, moving on it
comfortably and safely, etc.)
• If you encountered this design, how often would you have a problem using these SIGNS
(for example: detecting their locations, understanding them, etc.)
• If you encountered this design, how often would you have a problem using this SINK
AREA (for example: having enough space to use it, using mirrors, using faucets, drying
your hands, etc.)
These questions would also be accompanied by an open‐ended response asking participants to
describe why they stated that something was problematic for them. This will provide a layer of
qualitative information that can help to understand what makes a certain activity problematic.
A sample survey question is attached in Appendix B.
These surveys can be disseminated to participants in several ways, two of which will be briefly
described. The benefits and disadvantages of each method will also be described. Surveys can
be handed out in paper format at the location that is being assessed or sent out electronically
using a survey software package. Paper surveys handed out on location are beneficial because
people can directly experience the activities while they are taking the survey. Distributing
surveys this way requires more resources and increases the potential for error in recording
responses. Surveys distributed in print form cost money to be printed, they use paper and
require the information to be transferred from paper into an electronic database. Because
open‐ended questions are a large portion of the survey it is imperative that they be transferred
verbatim from the paper survey into an electronic database. One problem that can pose an
issue is the legibility of people’s hand writing on these printed surveys.
Sending out surveys electronically is cost effective and removes the risk of errors that may
occur during the data entry process. Survey packages have the ability to automatically create
databases. Electronic surveys also have the ability to reach a larger audience. On a collegiate
campus the surveys could be sent to people who are known users of an environment. The
30
38. • Preferences in the angle between the façade of the building and the line‐of‐sight of a
photograph.
The findings in this study help to make an informed decision about how to present simulated
environments. They also help decide whether using line drawings (pre‐construction working
drawings) is a valid method of simulation.
For the first variable in Stamps study, participants were asked to look at slides containing pre‐
construction working drawings and post‐construction photographs. After viewing the slides
participants were asked to rate how pleasing the environment seemed. Results from the pre‐
construction working drawings were compared to the results from the post‐construction
photographs using a correlation test. The comparison produced a correlation coefficient of 0.73
(Stamps, 1993). This represents a strong relationship between preferences based on line
drawings and preferences based on photographs. This means that line drawings communicate
as well as photographs.
The second variable tested whether viewing angle effected people’s preferences. The Beaux‐
Arts hypothesis, which states that people have a preference towards visual representations
presented in two point perspective rather than one point perspective, is what made this
variable an issue. To test this variable people were again asked to view slides containing
buildings represented from two different angles. One angle represented a one point
perspective elevation view and the other represented a two point perspective view, shot from
roughly a 45° angle. After the data collection, Stamps concluded that the viewing angle did not
make a difference. His test showed evidence that the Beaux‐Arts hypothesis may be flawed or
in need of revision.
In review, it would make sense to adapt concepts from other literature to create a visual
simulation that represent a specific environment. Showing simulations from various angles may
also increase the ability of our participants to fully understand the concepts and design features
presented.
In addition to a review of other literature, the Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental
Access has conducted an in‐house study. This study consisted of 172 participants who were
students of the University at Buffalo. Each participant was asked to take the same survey three
times over the course of several weeks. All of the surveys participants were asked to evaluate
their activity performance using seven design features. While touring the building the
participants were asked to rate their ability to use these features in four categories:
• The level of effort required to complete the task,
32
39. • the level of difficulty associated with completing the task,
• the level of acceptability for that amount of difficulty and,
• the amount of assistance they would have asked for had someone been present.
For the first survey participants were paraded through the actual environment making their
ratings as the approached and proceeded to use each feature listed above. The second survey
taken the following week asked the same participants to evaluate their ability to use the same
features under the same conditions. The only difference in the second round of surveys
involved the way in which the features were presented. Rather than experiencing the actual
environment participants viewed line drawings of the same features. The third survey taken the
following week was executed the same way the second round of surveys was however, again
the form of environmental simulation was changed. In the third round participants were asked
to evaluate their ability to use the same features they had already seen twice before, but this
time the environments were presented as photographs.
When the analysis of the study was complete it compared the direct experience to the
simulation using line drawings, as well as, comparing the direct experience to the simulation
using photographs. The analysis showed the least discrepancies between the direct experience
and simulation using line drawings. Photographs did not rate as well against the direct
experience as the line drawings. The information found in this study reinforces information
found in other literature stating that, line drawings are acceptable forms of simulation.
Indexing Activity Scores
Having administered the surveys the data can now be analyzed. In order to do this the
information collected in the surveys will be put into the Problematic Activities Index (PAI)
(Danford, Grimble & Maisel, 2009). This index creates a number representative of a single
activity for a single demographic. Multiple index numbers provide information about who is
finding what portion of the environment problematic.
To easily communicate the responses for each activity in the survey, a single index number is
generated. The index number is representative of a single activity for a single demographic
group. This process begins by breaking each question down by condition and activity into
frequency counts. The frequency counts are then placed in the appropriate cells of Figure 10.
The number created is called the Problematic Activities Index Score and is based on how often
the participants’ condition typically affects performance of routine activities in an environment
and how often the specific activity in question is problematic.
33