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 Centre for Urban Research, School of Global Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, 411 Swanston Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia
b Australian Urban Design Research Centre (AUDRC), School of Design, The University of Western Australia, Level 2, 1002 Hay St Perth Western, Australia
c School of Agriculture & Environment, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
HIGHLIGHTS
• 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.
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Communal open space
Policy implementation
Design guidelines
Apartment buildings
Resident use
Australia
ABSTRACT
Background: Communal open spaces (COS) in apartment developments can be an important resource for residents, but little is known about the implementation of COS policy design requirements and its impact on residents’ 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
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 important 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.
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 (Mahdavinejad et al., 2012).
Certain elements of COS design have been identified as important for enabling and encouraging use. One strongly supported design consideration for COS relates to greenery provision, as it connects residents to the natural environment (Wu and Ge, 2020), affects residents’ perceptions of the space’s quality (Easthope and Judd, 2010), provides weather protection by regulating sunlight/wind (Feng, 2016; Leng and Yuan,
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
Availableonline25October2022 0169-2046/©2022ElsevierB.V.Allrightsreserved.
2012), and promotes greater use (Kim and Ohara, 2010; Kimura et al., 2008; Kweon et al., 1998; Fong and Paul, 2011; Huang, 2006). Other research suggests COS should be central and easily accessible, which can be achieved by locating space on the ground floor (Abu-Ghazzeh, 1999; Fromm, 1991; McCammant and Durrett, 1994; Yuen and Hien, 2005). Moreover, COS size can impact both useability and residents’ social interaction frequency, with larger areas affording residents a greater degree of flexibility and control in utilising the space (Bandara et al., 2020). Perceived safety and security are also key considerations in COS design (Wu and Ge, 2020; Xiong, 2000). However, while designs that increase passive surveillance of COS can positively impact real and perceived safety for some (Thompson et al., 2007), it can detract from privacy and negatively impact use for others (Foth et al., 2005; Kennedy et al., 2015), highlighting that a nuanced design approach is required.
The provision of COS in apartment developments elicits a range of views from the development community. Some developers view COS as a powerful tool for marketing luxury developments, with elegantly designed and furnished spaces intended to offer residents not just a residence, but a lifestyle (Domain, 2022). However, other developers resist COS provision due to a loss of marketable floor-space and design and construction complications, resulting in poorly designed spaces that are seemingly an ‘afterthought’ (Foth et al., 2005; Frecker, 2019).
Several Australian states have legislated apartment design policies in response to the boom in apartment construction and concerns about poor design. Policies include quantitative requirements on COS design, although the number and detail of requirements differ (Foster et al., 2020). A recent evaluation of design policy requirements in Australian apartment buildings found more standards were implemented in Sydney –where comprehensive design guidance had been operational since 2002 –than in Perth and Melbourne, where there was limited design guidance until recently (Foster et al., 2022). Moreover, apartment design policies are performance-based, meaning requirements need not be implemented if the overarching policy objective can be achieved via an alternative approach or site limitations prevent the uptake of certain standards (Foster et al., 2022; Allouf et al., 2020). While all state policies recognise the importance of providing COS for residents, a question remains: Does the implementation of these COS policy design requirements increase residents’ use of these spaces? Generating empirical evidence on the role of design standards in creating quality COS that promotes use is essential to understanding the success and impact of the policy; thereby enabling greater insights into the interplay between policy, design, and behaviour.
Table 1
Sociodemographic characteristics and use of COS by city.
2. Methods
2.1. Sample and data collection
The High Life Study is a cross-sectional study that explores the relationship between the implementation of apartment design policy requirements and residents’ health and wellbeing across apartment developments in three Australian cities (Sydney, Melbourne and Perth). The building selection process has been described elsewhere (Foster et al., 2019) with the final sample comprising 172 buildings from 112 apartment complexes (n = 30 in Sydney, n = 51 in Perth and n = 31 in Melbourne).
Between 2017 and 2019, building residents were invited to complete a self-report survey which included questions about their apartment/ building design and a range of health and wellbeing outcomes. The survey is described in full elsewhere (Foster et al., 2019). After excluding participants with missing data, the analytic sample for this study comprised 1175 participants.
Building plans and elevations were accessed to assess the implementation of policy design requirements that could plausibly impact health and wellbeing. Plans were screened for 122 quantifiable policy requirements, including those relating to COS (Hooper et al., 2022), drawn from apartment design policies in New South Wales (NSW) (State Environmental Planning Policy 65 and the Apartment Design Guide) (NSW Department of Planning and Environment, 2015), Victoria (VIC) (Better Apartments Design Standards) (State of Victoria Department of Environment Land Water and Planning, 2017), and Western Australia (WA) (State Planning Policy 7.3) (Western Australian Planning Commission, 2019).
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Outcome variable: Use
High Life survey participants were asked about their use of communal spaces within their complex (e.g., swimming pool, gym, barbecue area, cafe, garden) using the question: ‘how often do you use the following facilities or spaces in your apartment building or complex’ . Response options included: never or almost never; a few times a year; at least once a month; at least once a week; and almost daily or daily. We assessed outdoor COS for use (e.g., outdoor pools, barbecues, gardens, or miscellaneous outdoor areas). If a participant used multiple spaces, the
P values comparing differences by city from Pearson Chi-Square (categorical variables) and one-way ANOVA (continuous variables).
a Mean and standard deviation (SD) for continuous variables.
highest use value was coded. A dichotomous use variable was created capturing more frequent/habitual use – those who used COS at least once a month, week, or daily were coded as a ‘frequent user’ (n = 303), and those who used COS ‘a few times a year’ or ‘never’ were coded as an ‘infrequent user’ (n = 667).
2.2.2. Exposure variables: COS implementation
The method for calculating policy implementation from the extracted design requirements is described elsewhere (Hooper et al., 2022). Briefly, one point was allocated for each COS design requirement implemented. Points were summed to create complex-level COS scores. Scores were then calculated as a percentage of the maximum policy implementation score attainable (maximum scores varied depending on the design requirements stipulated across states). All apartment complexes were scored for the implementation of design requirements stipulated in each state-specific policy (i.e., WA, NSW and VIC policy implementation scores), as well as against the total/combined pool of design requirements identified from all three policies (i.e., the total policy implementation score) to enable comparison between cities. We divided scores by 10 to improve interpretation (i.e., results are for every 10% increment in implementation).
2.2.3. Individual covariates
Sociodemographic characteristics included sex, age, living with a partner, educational attainment, and annual household income.
2.3. Statistical analysis
Participants’ sociodemographic characteristics and COS use were assessed for city differences via Pearson Chi-Square (categorical variables) and one-way analysis of variance (continuous variables) tests (Table 1). City differences for state-level and total COS policy implementation scores were also assessed via one-way analysis of variance tests (Table 2). Logistic regression using Generalised Estimating Equations (GEE) tested the association between COS policy implementation scores and frequent use, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and clustering within developments (Table 3). All analyses were performed in SPSS (version 28.0).
Table 3
Association between COS policy implementation scores and frequent use of COS. OR (95% CI) p
n = 970 (n = 205 participants with no COS excluded/not applicable).
Logistic regression models predict odds of more frequent use.
Policy implementation scores divided by 10.
Adjusted for sex, age, living with a partner, education, income, and clustering within building.
3. Results
Table 1 shows residents’ sociodemographic characteristics and COS use. Females accounted for 61% of the sample and the average age was 42 years. Approximately half of our sample lived with a partner (51%) and had an annual household income over $100,000 (48%) while twothirds were tertiary educated (67%). Overall, 17% of residents did not have access to a COS. Of those that had a COS, 26% were frequent users and 57% were infrequent users (i.e., < once a month). Perth residents were the most likely to be regular COS users, followed by those in Sydney then Melbourne (p < 0.001).
COS policy implementation scores are displayed in Table 2. Sydney apartment complexes had the highest implementation scores against each state policy and the total score. Perth buildings followed, with Melbourne buildings scoring lowest (p < 0.001). The specific COS design requirements from each state policy – documented in full elsewhere (Foster et al., 2022) – are also presented, with NSW and WA having more comprehensive policy guidance than Victoria.
Table 3 presents the odds ratios for the association between state and total COS policy implementation and frequent COS use. All COS policy implementation scores were significantly associated with COS use, with adjustment for sociodemographic characteristics. Implementation of the NSW policy had the largest effect size on COS use (OR 1.35, 95% CI: 1.07–1.71) – i.e., for every 10% increase in NSW policy implementation, frequent COS use increased by 35%. The total implementation score of all design requirements from all three policies was also strongly associated with frequent COS use (OR 1.34, 95% CI: 1.15–1.56), followed by
COS policy requirements
Communal outdoor space provided in
in state policy
P values comparing differences by city from one-way ANOVA.
Note: The ‘COS policy requirements’ portion of Table 2 is modified from Foster et al. (2022) which outlines the quantifiable policy requirements in full.
a Mean and standard deviation (SD) for continuous variables.
the WA score (OR 1.23, 95% CI: 1.11–1.37), then Victorian score (OR 1.20, 95% CI: 1.08–1.32).
4. Discussion
This study found strong positive associations between the implementation of COS design guidelines and residents’ use of COS in apartment developments. However, different effect sizes (and policy content) between states were apparent. The Victorian policy had the fewest COS design requirements (n = 4), focusing on size, passive surveillance, and the presence of trees. Despite being relatively limited, these requirements are important to ensuring COS is green (Kim and Ohara, 2010; Kimura et al., 2008; Kweon et al., 1998; Fong and Paul, 2011; Huang, 2006), appropriately sized (Bandara et al., 2020), and safe (Thompson et al., 2007), and suggest that some targeted design standards are better than none. However, where more comprehensive design guidance was implemented, greater COS use was evident, as demonstrated by the total implementation score. The added combination of design features from the WA policy (e.g., minimum COS dimensions) and NSW policy (e.g., COS location and provision of indoor spaces) may increase the amenity, useability and attractiveness of COS, resulting in greater use. The NSW policy stipulation that COS be located on the ground floor aligns with good practices for accessibility (Abu-Ghazzeh, 1999; Fromm, 1991; McCammant and Durrett, 1994; Yuen and Hien, 2005), while the provision of adjoining indoor spaces can facilitate a more diverse range of activities. Indeed, differing requirements might account for the different effect sizes we observed between state policies (e.g., ground floor location and indoor spaces in the NSW policy may be more powerful predictors of use than minimum size dimensions in the WA policy).
We also identified significant differences in COS use between cities: 32% of Perth residents frequently used their COS, compared to 29% in Sydney and 15% in Melbourne. This may relate to the presence of amenities not captured in the design policies and therefore not represented in COS implementation scores. For example, apartment buildings in Perth have been found to have more pools, barbecues and dining facilities than Sydney or Melbourne buildings (Kleeman et al., 2021), possibly relating to cultural and climatic differences. Perth has a hot dry climate and a comparatively immature apartment market where developers may deliver a high level of amenity to convince homebuyers that an apartment is an attractive alternative to a suburban house (Foster et al., 2022). Conversely, Melbourne has a colder climate and a well-developed apartment market, where some developers have elected to provide little amenity (i.e., no or poor-quality COS) when the market is flourishing (Easthope et al., 2020). State policies suggest that such amenities (e.g., barbecues and dining facilities) should be incorporated in COS (NSW Department of Planning and Environment, 2015; Western Australian Planning Commission, 2019; State of Victoria Department of Environment Land Water and Planning, 2021), but they are not required elements, hence were not included in our implementation scores.
This study provides unique insight, being the first to quantify and compare COS design requirement implementation across three cities with differing state policy contexts and explore their respective associations with COS use. However, the study also has limitations. Our focus was on the holistic implementation of COS design guidelines, as they are not delivered in isolation. Future research might examine the impact of individual COS policy requirements on use to assess their relative importance. Moreover, while our study controlled for sociodemographic characteristics, other contextual factors (e.g., public open space provision in surrounding neighbourhoods) may impact COS use, which warrants further exploration. Indeed, future research would also benefit from investigating the social dynamics between residents in these contexts, as well as a qualitative exploration of residents’ reasons for using COS. A greater understanding of such factors may ensure that apartment complexes and their surroundings are desirable and socially sustainable places to live.
5. Conclusion
This study found strong positive associations between COS policy implementation and residents’ COS use. The increasing effect sizes of the total COS implementation score across the three cities, with more comprehensive policy environments, further highlights this. Overall, our findings have important policy implications, suggesting that more comprehensive design guidance is important for delivering COS that appeals to apartment residents. However, differing design requirements across state policies may account for the differing effect sizes we observed, with further investigation needed on which design requirements have the greatest impact on use.
Data availability
The data that has been used is confidential.
Acknowledgements
AK was supported by an RMIT Research Stipend Scholarship (Healthy Liveable Cities Group) and an AHURI Postgraduate Scholarship Top-up (17/PRO/817); PH by a Healthway Research Fellowship (# 32992) and the Australian Urban Design Research Centre; NE by an ARC Linkage Project (#LP190100558); JB by a Health Promotion Intervention Research Grant (31956) and the Australian Urban Design Research Centre; and SF by an ARC Future Fellowship (FT210100899). The High Life Study is funded by an ARC, DECRA (DE160100140) and the Western Australian (WA) Health Promotion Foundation (Healthway; #31986). Study collaborators providing in-kind support include the Department of Planning Lands and Heritage (WA), Office of the Government Architect (WA), Planning Institute of Australia (PIA), Landcorp and Heart Foundation. The assistance of apartment residents, resident associations, architects, developers and local government in the study is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Abu-Ghazzeh, T. M. (1999). Housing layout, social interaction and the place of contact in Abu-nuseir. Jordan. J Environ Psychol., 19(1), 41–73
Allouf, D., Martel, A., & March, A. (2020). Discretion versus prescription: Assessing the spatial impact of design regulations in apartments in Australia. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science., 47(7), 1260–1278
Bandara, W. D., Rathnayake, R., Mahanama, P. K. S., & Wickramaarachchi, N. (2020). An investigation on community spaces in condominiums and their impact on social interactions among apartment dwellers concerning the city of Colombo. Social Sciences & Humanities Open., 2(1), Article 100043
Domain. Communal spaces in modern apartment designs are being given an Australian edge: Domain; 2022 [Available from: https://www.domain.com.au/sponsor/ communal-spaces-modern-apartment-designs-given-australian-edge/. Easthope, H., Crommelin, L., Troy, L., Davison, G., Nethercote, M., Foster, S., Horne, R. (2020). Improving outcomes for apartment residents and neighbourhoods (AHURI Final Report No. 329) Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute
Easthope, H., & Judd, S. (2010). Living well in greater density Shelter: University of New South Wales
Feng, R. (2016). High-rise & high-density housing in Beijing CBD area - Research on external public communication space Beijing: Central Academy of Fine Arts
Fong, K., & Paul, G. (2011). The importance of nature in people’s lives and how it can contribute to community in Melbourne apartments Melbourne: Swinburne University
Foster, S., Hooper, P., Duckworth, A., & Bolleter, J. (2022). An evaluation of the policy and practice of designing and implementing healthy apartment design standards in three Australian cities. Building and Environment, 207, 108493. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108493
Foster, S., Hooper, P., Kleeman, A., Martinoc, E., & Giles-Corti, B. (2020). The high life: A policy audit of apartment design guidelines and their potential to promote residents’ health and wellbeing. Cities, 96, 102420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cities.2019.102420
Foster, S., Maitland, C., Hooper, P., Bolleter, J., Duckworth-Smith, A., Giles-Corti, B., & Arundel, J. (2019). High Life Study protocol: a crosssectional investigation of the influence of apartment building design policy on resident health and well-being. BMJ Open, 9, e029220. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029220
Foth, M., & Sanders, P. (2005). Social networks in inner-city apartment complexes and the implications for the residential architecture of public space. In A. Aurigi, P. van den Besselaar, F. De Cindio, G. Gumpert, & S. Drucker (Eds.), Digital Cities 4: the Augmented Public Space (pp. 33–43). Italy: Universita’ degli Studi di Milano
Frecker J. The Good, the BADS and the Green in Future Apartment Living: Urban.com.au; 2019 [Available from: https://www.urban.com.au/news/the-good-the-badsand-the-green].
Fromm, D. (1991). Collaborative Communities: Co-housing, Central Living, and Other New Forms of Housing with Shared Facilities New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Hooper, P., Bolleter, J., Edwards, N., Kleeman, A., Duckworth, A., & Foster, S. (2022). Measuring the High Life: A method for assessing apartment design policy implementation. MethodsX, 9, 101810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2022.101810
Huang, S. (2006). A study of outdoor interactional spaces in high-rise housing. Landscape and Urban Planning., 78(3), 193–204
Kennedy, R., & Buys, L. (2015). The impact of private and shared open space on liveability in subtropical apartment buildings. In A. Wood, & D. Malott (Eds.), Global Interchanges: Resurgence of the Skyscraper City (pp. 318–323). Chicago: Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat.
Kim, D., & Ohara, K. (2010). A study on the role of gardening and planning of green environments for daily use by residents in senior housing. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering., 9(1), 55–61
Kimura, M., Nishiwaki, M., & Miyata, M. (2008). Attitudes among residents towards the creation of a community by horticultural activity on the roof top of a housing complex in Tokyo. In E. Matsuo, P. D. Relf, & M. Burchett (Eds.), Acta Horticulturae (pp. 205–211)
Kleeman, A., Giles-Corti, B., Gunn, L., Hooper, P., & Foster, S. (2021). Exploring the design, quality and use of communal areas in apartment developments. Cities & Health https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2021.2001169
Kweon, B. S., Sullivan, W. C., & Wiley, A. R. (1998). Green Common Spaces and the Social Integration of Inner-City Older Adults. Environment and Behavior., 30(6), 832–858
Leng, H., & Yuan, Q. (2012). Planning and design strategies of open spaces at the bottom of high rise buildings based on environment comfort in winter cities. Advanced Materials Research., 450–451, 1041–1044 Mahdavinejad, M., Mashayekhi, M., & Ghaedi, A. (2012). Designing communal spaces in residential complexes. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences., 51, 333–339
McCammant, K., & Durrett, C. (1994). Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves California: Ten Speed Press
NSW Department of Planning and Environment. (2015). Apartment design guide – Tools for improving the design of residential apartment development Sydney: NSW Government State of Victoria Department of Environment Land Water and Planning. Apartment Design Guidelines for Victoria. Melbourne: Victorian State Government; 2017. State of Victoria Department of Environment Land Water and Planning. Apartment Design Guidelines for Victoria. Melbourne: Victorian State Government; 2021. Thompson, S., Corkery, L., & Judd, B. (2007). The Role of Community Gardens in Sustaining Healthy Communities. Adelaide: State of Australian Cities (SOAC) National Conference Western Australian Planning Commission. State Planning Policy 7.3 - Residential Design Codes Volume 2 - Apartments. Perth: Department of Planning Lands and Heritage; 2019.
Wu, W. Y., & Ge, X. J. (2020). Communal space design of high-rise apartments: A literature review. Journal of Design and the Built Environment., 20(1), 1–24 Xiong, J. (2000). Exploration of communication space in neighborhood-high-rise residence. New Architecture, 2, 62–64 Yuen, B., & Hien, W. N. (2005). Resident perceptions and expectations of rooftop gardens in Singapore. Landscape and Urban Planning., 73, 263–276