Architecture + Health

The Role of Human Scale and Healthy Urban Planning on Health and Wellbeing

"First life, then spaces, then buildings - the other way around never works." 1

-Jan Gehl, Life Between Buildings

Abstract

In recent decades there has been an increasing recognition of, and action centred on, the role and importance of the built environment in influencing a population’s health. This dissertation seeks to examine and develop a deeper understanding of the role of human scale architecture and healthy urban planning on public health and wellbeing.

With a focus on Copenhagen, a city which consistently ranks as one of the happiest and healthiest in the world, and where cycling is ‘the norm’ for the majority of the city’s commuters, the research encompasses 3 main areas:

1. Investigation of Copenhagen’s post-WWII urban planning. This research examines the history of the city’s urban plan which was initially shaped by the welfare state, before drifting towards conforming with the modernist movement and the domination of the car, but ultimately seeing its overall general direction being shaped more by chance than careful planning

2. Exploration of the theory and research informing today’s human scale and healthy urban planning. This includes an examination of the healthy urban planning ‘movement’organisations and networks - currently working both independently and in partnership to ensure its inclusion in all urban planning. Also included is close consideration of 3 interventions chosen from Copenhagen’s existing urban plan:

• Strøget – Copenhagen’s first pedestrianised street

• Supercykelstier - Copenhagen’s worldclass cycling network

• Superkilen Park - Copenhagen’s flagship multicultural and multifunctional public space

3. Exploration of student perceptions regarding aspects of Copenhagen’s healthy urban planning on their health and wellbeing – conducted through use of an on-line questionnaire

The findings of the research clearly demonstrate that careful consideration of healthy urban planning as part of the design process can influence and have a marked positive effect on the health and wellbeing of a population.

Acknowledgements

I would like to extend my thanks to all those who have helped me throughout the writing of this dissertation and my university studies. In particular I would like to thank my dissertation supervisors Richard Laing and Rebecca Rogan for their support and guidance throughout. I would also like to thank the staff and students at the University of Copenhagen for their support in participation in the research survey. Finally, I would like to thank my friends and family for their continued support throughout my studies.

Chapter1.Introduction

1.1Aim

This research seeks to examine and develop a deeper understanding of the role of human scale architecture and healthy urban planning on public health and wellbeing. With a focus specifically on the Danish city of Copenhagen, a location deemed ‘The Most Liveable City' by the Monocle Liveability Index in 2021, the research will investigate the history and theory behind 2 aspects of healthy urban planning, and will also explore current interventions and ‘lived’ experience.

1.2Objectives

The research encompasses:

1. An examination of the post-war (WWII) history of healthy urban planning in Copenhagen

2. An exploration of selected aspects of healthy urban planning, chosen in line with the guiding principles policies of the World Health Organization European Healthy Cities Network (WHO EHCN). This will also include the study and analysis of 3 of the city’s current urban planning interventions

3. The final part of the research, a survey of students living and studying in Copenhagen, seeks to elicit views on the ‘lived experience’ and whether they perceive a benefit to their health and wellbeing when considering some aspects of the healthy urban planning and human scale in Copenhagen

1.3HumanScale

“One of the most important items for making good habitats for homosapiens, that is scale, 3 people scale.”

Jan Gehl (2015)

The Danish architect and urban design consultant Jan Gehl (born 1936) has spent much of his professional life researching and promoting the virtues of designing public spaces which are suited to the human scale. In partnership with psychologists, his work has focused on understanding the aspects which make an urban environment a healthy and happy place to live and socialise. Challenging modernist architecture’s drive to design city buildings and landscapes

on an ever larger scale, he has instead urged consideration of “the most important scale, the people scale, the city at eye level and at 5km/hour”.

His mission has been to encourage architects and urban planners to, amongst other things, think about the cityscape from the point of view of the human eye and experience, reorient urban design focus from the car to pedestrians and cyclists, and to consider the importance of green space and public spaces for socialising. His studies have inspired change in cityscapes worldwide, including New York, Melbourne, Christchurch, London, Moscow, Copenhagen, Chongqing and Dhaka, with recognition of the importance of public squares for social interaction, and pedestrian and cyclist-friendly infrastructure - all with a view to improving the habitat, health and wellbeing of the citizens. The Gehl Institute continues to develop and embed Ghel’s research and works in partnerships with governments and organisations globally, including the World Health Organisation European Region (WHO European Region), to improve the cities we all live in.

1.4HealthyUrbanPlanning

Consideration of human scale is an essential component of the healthy urban planning process, which also seeks to maximise the health and well being of a city’s residents through thoughtful and considered planning. Healthy urban planning means designing for people with consideration of the population's needs, which in terms of influencing public health includes factors such as physical activity opportunities, traffic accident risk, pollution exposure, health service access, mental health aspects, and affordability.

1.5WorldHealthOrganisation(WHO)HealthyCities

In parallel with Gehl’s work focused on the built environment, there is wider worldwide interest and action to elevate citizen health and wellbeing. WHO Healthy Cities is a global movement which aims to maximise the priority city governments assign to health, in terms of the political, economic and social agendas. Furthermore, the 100 flagship cities and 30 national networks which make up the WHO European Healthy Cities Network (WHO EHCN) “engage local 4 governments in political commitment, institutional change, capacity-building, partnership-based planning and innovation”. (WHO 2015)

In February 2018 the mayors and political leaders of cities, metropolitan regions, city regions and urban places in the WHO European Region, gathered at the Summit of Mayors in 5 Copenhagen. Following discussion of the wider issues currently affecting citizens, sustainable and practical developments were identified (see figure 1) to help ensure peaceful and prosperous societies - these are captured in the resultant document Copenhagen Consensus of Mayors: Healthier and Happier Cities for All (CCMHHC). The document identifies 6 key areas for consideration as part of healthy urban planning: People, Place, Participation, Prosperity, Peace, and Planet. Although the CCMHHC doesn’t focus specifically on urban planning, it does identify steps which can be embraced by architects and urban planners to design and develop healthier cities.

The aim of the WHO EHCN is for Healthy Cities to lead by example, tackling inequalities through innovation and sharing knowledge. Healthy Cities will act as leaders and partners in combatting common global public health challenges, environmental challenges and health inequalities.

This research explores interventions in Copenhagen which, in addition to having considered human scale, also align with the driving principles of the CCMHHC.

Figure 1-WHO Health Organisation Europe

Chapter 2. A Brief Post-War History of Copenhagen’s Urban Plan

2.1TheFiveFingerPlan

The Copenhagen Regional Plan was developed by the Danish Town Planning Institute in 1947.

6 Commonly referred to as the Five Finger Plan, due to its resemblance to a hand (see figure 2), this strategic plan formed the basis for the urban planning and economic development of Copenhagen following WWII. Delivery of the Five Finger Plan was originally driven by the Welfare State in response to laws including child labour, pensions, and healthcare. The driving principles for implementation were focused on creating equal health and wellbeing opportunities, including access to green space, and so helping the public to make positive lifestyle choices regardless of other economic constraints. The goal of the plan was to ensure controlled urban growth of Copenhagen whilst at the same time creating space for leisure.

The Five Finger Plan evolved further during the 1960’s and 70’s, at a time when the modernist

7 movement was shaping the vision of cities of the future. Traditional European cities featured residential blocks and narrow streets which were considered unhealthy, whereas the American modernist vision was focused on large boulevards to accommodate the car. As cities across Europe developed their infrastructure in favour of the car, following suit, Copenhagen planned to remove the Vesterbro neighbourhood (at the time deemed to be a ‘ghetto’), to make room for a network of motorways and high rise developments. These proposals were drawn up as part of the long-term vision for the Greater Copenhagen area and as part of the Five Finger Plan. However, fortunately for Copenhagen as it turns out, due to a lack of funds in the aftermath of WWII, these plans were never realised - circumstance forced the city to abandon the modernist planning. This turn of events laid the foundation for Copenhagen’s current urban plan and subsequently its reputation as one of the worlds most “livable” cities - an urban model so renowned that copying it even has its own verb “to Copenhagenize”.

6“We were lucky that Copenhagen was poor after the second world war, we thought we were unlucky and very poor. We were actually lucky, but still very poor.”

Søren Elle, City Planner, 2016

In brief, the ‘palm’ of the ‘hand’ contains the city centre; while the ‘five fingers’ are formed from the roads and train lines. The ‘fingers’ are separated by wedges of green space and residential areas. The Five Finger Plan has contributed to the improved health of the population by preventing rapid urban growth resulting in a congested cityscape. The plan also helps meet the daily needs of the Copenhageners by providing its neighbourhoods with easy access to fast and reliable transport to the city centre, and provision of green public spaces located next to residential areas. The transformation has had a positive impact on both the surrounding environment and residents living there - in 2014, for example, it was demonstrated that 96% of citizens could walk to a park or a beach in 15 minutes as a result of the plan, which includes wide bicycle lanes throughout the city. Additionally, soon following implementation of the plan, a 9% decrease in transport-related carbon emission over a 20 year period was recorded.

Figure 2- The Five Finger Plan

Chapter3.ACloserStudyofHealthyUrbanPlanning

3.1Introduction

As highlighted in the introduction, the CCMHHC document identifies 6 key areas for consideration as part of healthy urban planning: People, Place, Participation, Prosperity, Peace, and Planet.

For this research, three of these key areas were selected for closer investigation due to their close alignment with healthy urban planning, namely: People, Place and Participation. For each of these areas a current example of Copenhagen’s urban plan was also identified as a case study to further explore the theory in practice. Selection of the case study models was guided by the following principles:

● the intervention is part of Copenhagen’s existing urban plan

● human scale was taken into consideration as part of its design process

● aspects of the design aligned with one or more of the chosen guiding principles of the CCMHHC

As a result of this selection process the 3 interventions chosen, and the aspect of the CCMHHC they were aligned with for further investigation were as follows:

1 People Strøget to investigate urban planning design which enables accessible balanced lifestyles

2 Place Supercykelstier to investigate urban planning intervention which facilitates health and well-being

3 Participation Superkilen Park to investigate communal space which promotes peace and security through inclusive societies

3.2People

3.2.1Aim

To investigate urban planning design which enables accessible balanced lifestyles

3.2.2Background

“If you invite more cars, you get more cars. If you make more streets better for cars you get

8 more traffic. If you make more bicycle infrastructure you get more bicycles. If you invite people to walk more and use public spaces more, you get more life in the city. You get what you invite.”

Jan

Gehl

‘Designing Cities for People, Not Cars‘ Climate One

At the start of the 1960’s, Europe followed the American modernist urban plan which favoured the car. As mentioned previously, due to circumstance, Copenhagen didn’t adopt this model, however even in its absence, increasing car usage was making its mark on Copenhagen. The city planners recognised that the city centre was becoming increasingly congested with commuter traffic during the daytime however there was little life in the evening as most residents lived in the suburbs. Additionally, the global oil crisis in 1973 reaffirmed that people could no longer afford to travel by car. To address these concerns the planners decided on a challenging combined approach: to increase the attractiveness of the public spaces in the city centre while making access by car difficult. Accordingly cycling and pedestrian culture was championed, and flourished.

3.2.2Strøget

Strøget is one of the oldest and longest pedestrian streets in Europe. The main street is 1.15km 9 long and contains 3 public squares (Gammeltorv, Amagertorv and Nytorv), all of which were originally used for vehicle traffic and parking. It is one of the first examples of pedestrianisation within the city (see figure 3).

Strøget (see figure 4) was initially closed to traffic during the 1950’s for a short period prior to Christmas, but later reopened. It was then closed again during 1962 as part of a 10 pedestrianisation experiment “half disguised” as an extended holiday closure. It has remained closed ever since. Key elements of the pedestrianisation of Strøget involved removing all traffic 11 and kerbs from the street.

Amongst other things the experiment aimed to:

● improve pedestrian routes within the city centre

● provide a high quality and attractive environment for businesses to flourish

● encourage a more people to spend time in the centre

● revitalise the city’s forgotten alleys by transforming them into vibrant lanes.

Figure 4 - Jan Gehl- Sketch of Strøget 12

Figure 3 - Map of Strøget

The conversion was perceived as a pioneering effort, however it also provoked a lot of public debate prior to the change. The debate primarily centred around the identity of the street and changing the way Danes live. "We are Danes, not Italians, they argued. It's too cold here and it rains too much. We like cosy meals at home, not outdoor cafes" (Turner, 2008). Additionally business owners had grave concerns, predicting that no cars would mean less business. Despite the misgivings however, the pedestrianisation of Strøget quickly proved to be a success resulting in a 35% increase in the pedestrian footfall in the first year of conversion. Any initial suspicion regarding a new way of public and outdoor life was quickly forgotten in the new-found liveliness of the city centre.

In 1968 Jan Gehl undertook a study with a 13 team of students and colleagues from The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, School of Architecture in Copenhagen. Together they studied the changing levels of activity following Strøget’s pedestrianisation. The study was the first in a series - in total the study was conducted 3 times over a 30 year period. The studies were comprehensive and were undertaken over the four seasons, and throughout the day, evenings, weekdays and weekends.

One of the most striking results from that data was that the time people spent within pedestrianised areas nearly quadrupled (as seen in Figure 5). This was as a result of people spending more time doing a greater range of activities, and due to the city centre having become an ideal social meeting area. During the summer the street was full with Figure

5 - Strøget development diagram

people enjoying outdoor social and cultural activities. Meanwhile, during the winter months, the public enjoyed attractions such as festivals and outdoor ice skating.

The pedestrianisation created a potential for outdoor public life in Denmark which was previously unimaginable due to the lack of space. Between 1962 and 2005 there was a 600% increase in pedestrian space, from 15,800 square metres to 99,700 square metres in 2005, due solely to the pedestrianisation of Strøget and the gradual pedestrianisation of the surrounding streets. This increase in space is as a result of removing the road, parking spaces and kerbs to provide a pedestrian space which is 10-12m wide.

The success of the Strøget can be attributed in part to the slow development of the urban plan. This gradual change gave members of the public time to change their patterns of driving and parking, instead walking, cycling and using public transport to access key destinations in the city. It also gave time for businesses to develop new ways of using the increased public space and for citizens to also get used to using the space differently - between 1968 and 1996 volumes of stopping and staying activities on the street increased by 400%.

3.3Place

3.3.1Aim

To investigate urban planning which encourages health and well-being

3.3.2Background

2"A healthy city leads by example, with the social, physical and cultural environments aligned to create a place that is actively inclusive, and facilitates the pursuit of health and well-being for all.”

(WHO Europe, 2018, p.5).

During 2017, the Member States of the WHO European Region observed high levels of physical inactivity within their respective populations. Current WHO global recommendations state:

● Children aged 5 to 17 years old should do at least 60 minutes of moderately intense 14 physical activity (i.e. brisk walking, cycling, hiking etc.) every day, and participate in vigorous intensity activities (i.e. running, cycling uphill, swimming etc.) at least three times a week

● Adults should do at least 150-300 minutes of moderately intense activity throughout the week, or at least 75-150 minutes of vigorously intense aerobic activity

In Europe however it is estimated that approximately one third of adults are insufficiently active. This statistic and others like it may seem discouraging, however studies have concluded that simply increasing the levels of walking and cycling within cities will improve the physical health of the population.

Governments throughout the WHO European Region recognise the importance of prioritising physical health opportunities within the city. With more than 80% of the European population expected to live in urban areas by 2030, it has become increasingly important for cities to play a pivotal role in promoting and protecting health and wellbeing. As a result, both national governments and city authorities aim to increase physical activity and decrease physical inactivity throughout European cities.

The Member States have adopted the Physical Activity Strategy for the WHO European Region 2016-2025. This guidance, which includes recommended changes to the built environments where people live, work, move and play, also makes recommendations regarding efficient ways to increase physical activity levels and decrease the sedentary behaviour of a population. The Member States have pledged to work alongside all sectors to ensure that citizens have the opportunity to be physically active as part of their everyday lives.

The WHO Regional Office for Europe and the Gehl Institute both clearly understand that cities hold a large potential for change. Accordingly, the two organisations collaborated and published the document Towards More Physical Activity in Cities. This document supports the aims and 15 vision of the Physical Activity Strategy through focusing on ways to improve the built environment, that is, through shaping the physical infrastructure and spaces in city and town centres. Two concepts are central to the joint document:

● Physical activity as a part of everyday life (active living)

● Built Environment - both organisations believe there are clear aspects of urban planning which can influence the activity levels of the public, including parks, cycle paths and public transportation systems.

Towards More Physical Activity in Cities also highlights 17 Sustainable Development Goals 16 (SDG’s), and details urban planning strategies that can be used to improve public spaces. The aim is that the strategies from the Gehl Institute will develop urban plans to be considerate of the human scale and in turn achieve the Sustainable Development Goals outlined by the WHO Regional Office for Europe.

On a smaller scale, the mayors and local leaders are working to improve the quality of life in urban environments across Europe. They aim to create well-planned, walkable neighbourhoods, affordable housing with access to local services with plenty of green public space, and access to various types of public transport. Also included is a clear focus on the attainment of health goals alongside a more balanced urban development.

Copenhagen is ever evolving and has proven to be a prime example of a city striving to make changes to the built environment to meet sustainability and health goals. In August 2021, the sports company Reebok conducted a study titled The Global State of Fitness. This 17 American

study examined over 60 cities worldwide, and sought to determine which country was the most physically active - its findings were later published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

The identified cities were evaluated on the basis of six key metrics:

1. the average cost of a monthly gym membership

2. the percentage of people walking and cycling to work

3. the level of insufficient physical activity country-wide

4. the percentage of public green spaces

5. the percentage of the city’s population that go to the gym

6. the country-wide obesity rate

The study also considered additional environmental factors including air quality and the number of public green spaces. The study concluded that the top 3 cities in the world, in terms of physical activity, were as follows:

1. Amsterdam, Netherlands

2. Copenhagen, Denmark

3. Helsinki, Finland

As shown above in Figure 6, the results demonstrated a 6% difference between people cycling to work in Amsterdam (1st ranking) compared to Copenhagen (2nd ranking). This difference, however, is significantly larger at 26% when comparing Copenhagen with Helsinki (3rd ranking).

Figure 6 - Reebok Results

Copenhagen was ranked 2nd fittest city in the world, an outcome which is in part attributable to the amount of green spaces in the city, and the number of people cycling to work. These findings help demonstrate that considered urban planning has the potential to significantly influence the amount of exercise a population participates in. It is important to analyse the aspects of Copenhagen’s urban plan which encourage this increased activity, and ultimately contribute to healthier and active lifestyles.

The research and findings of the Reebok study align with the beliefs mentioned in Towards More Physical Activity in Cities. It is therefore reasonable to hypothesise that an urban population’s level of physical activity can be influenced by the built environment, and that an urban plan designed with acknowledgement of human scale, has the potential to benefit the health and wellbeing of a city’s population. Conversely, a lack of understanding of human scale in urban design can create barriers which prevent a population from being physically active - for example, an urban plan that allows traffic to dominate the city landscape and lacks integrated options for active transport. Other potential challenges include lack of access to green or other recreational public spaces - especially in low income areas in the city - or a lack of understanding or consideration of the human scale in the design of public spaces, resulting in the population being discouraged from using the space or finding it impractical. Additionally cities face a range of other issues including: air pollution; environmental degradation; growing inequalities within the population; threats to economic growth, and affordability of housing. It is important therefore to identify the challenges and to create solutions that benefit both the city and the people.

Copenhagen is widely renowned for its simple, safe and connected cycling infrastructure. In 2019, the Copenhagenize Index (an initiative that ranks the most crowned Copenhagen bike 18 friendly cities in the world) ‘The Most Bike Friendly City’ for the third time in a row. This accolade was supported by evidence observed over a 2 year period which showed that 62% of the population travels to school by bike and the Copenhageners cycle approximately 1.44 million kilometres every day. The success can be accounted for by Copenhagen’s dedication to improving its cycling routes - the city pledged more than €40 per head in bicycle infrastructure investments. The goal is to create a healthy, sustainable city where anyone can enjoy being outside. To do this, the city has continued to focus upon a simple, safe and connected

infrastructure which people of all ages and abilities can use. The cycling infrastructure is designed to be easy to use and can be divided into four simple typologies;

● traffic calmed streets

● painted bike lanes

● separated cycle tracks

● green routes

The largest advancement to the infrastructure however, is the Cycle Superhighways.

3.3.3Supercykelstier

Supercykelstier or Cycle Superhighways are a continual investment throughout Copenhagen. The initiative started in 2009 when the Capital Region of Denmark and 16 municipalities 19 collaborated to improve the cycling infrastructure throughout the borders, creating cohesive and interconnected routes to and from the city centre. This infrastructure enables commuters to cycle easily into and out of the city centre, and encourages more sustainable travel options. More than 10 years later, the cycling infrastructure has expanded to 27 municipalities and Copenhagen and is the largest cross-municipal cycling infrastructure in Denmark.

Since the first cycle superhighway opened in 2012, the collaboration has continued to expand 20 the route network and monitor subsequent effects upon the commuters. The total network plan includes 45 routes - 8 routes are currently built and 8 more are to be built in the future. Upgrading the infrastructure had a positive effect upon the residents of Copenhagen. Statistics indicate that the residents are more likely to cycle places than drive. It’s estimated that since the upgrade, there has been a 23% increase in cyclists and 14% previously would have driven21 There are a number of reasons why commuters choose to cycle instead of driving including: it’s healthy, easy, safe and easily accessible to everyone. In rural areas it may not be the fastest form of transport but it appeals to the public as a form of exercise and a way to keep healthy. Within the city however it can often be the fastest means of getting from A to B - truly active living. Cycling also creates opportunities for commuters to take exercise before their working day starts, along with some fresh air and mental space.

Copenhagen has successfully influenced other cities to integrate cycle superhighways into 22 their urban plan. Transport for London (TFL) introduced Cycle Superhighway 3 in July 2010, which has been a success amongst the public ever since. The 24km long cycle path runs from

Barking in the east to Lancaster Gate in central London. Since its opening, there has been an 83% increase in cyclists due to the safe and easy nature of the route. In a survey, the TFL recorded that 80% of respondents agreed that Cycle Superhighways improve safety for the commuter and 78% agreed that the superhighway improved the predictability and reliability of journeys.

3.4Participation

3.4.1Aim

To investigate communal space which promotes peace and security through inclusive societies

3.4.2Background

2"A healthy city leads by example by promoting peace through inclusive societies that focus on places, participation, prosperity and the planet, while putting people at the centre of all policies and actions.”

(WHO Europe, 2018, p.8).

In 2018, the Gehl Institute in collaboration with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), an American foundation focused on access to public health and health equity, published the report Inclusive Healthy Places, outlining the needs for inclusive and equitable public spaces“That’s what this report is about. It is designed to bridge the fields of public health and community planning and design in new ways, with a focus on supporting inclusive healthy public spaces”. The report focuses on outdoor public spaces including streets, pavements, parks, and plazas due to their being the places where the public most commonly interact on a daily basis.

Included in the report is the Inclusive Healthy Places Framework (referred to as ‘the 23 framework’), which The Gehl Institute and the RWJF developed in partnership with a group of global advisors. The Framework is based on a varied but defined range of drivers to help plan and evaluate change towards achieving public spaces which support inclusion, health equity and individual and community health. Not prescriptive, it is designed to be adaptable for use in different circumstances by different practitioners. The aspiration is that use of the Framework will also help build a foundation of practitioners across the disciplines and sectors who shape public space and who put health and health equity at the centre of their respective work. The framework can then be utilised by other public health professionals and policy makers, built environment practitioners, community leaders, engaged community members and residents to improve their public space.

The framework focuses on three areas: public space, inclusion and health equity.

● Public Space - this focuses on the shared physical spaces utilised by the public. It is a flexible physical space where people can socialise, exercise and use recreationally. Additionally, public spaces can be used by local businesses to buy or sell goods, and offer services. Public space offers opportunities for people to make connections, express their political views, appreciate art or architecture or simply enjoy being outside.

● Inclusion - although a complex concept to define, if successfully attained it is an outcome that can be used as a powerful tool for change. It is important that everyone using a space feels welcomed, safe and accommodated regardless of their background, where they’re from, their age, capabilities or how they use the space. An inclusive space is considerate and respectful of the needs of the people using the space. The aim of an inclusive space is to generate trust among the community through the promotion of engagement and creativity. To make it possible, the urban design must consider the context, which includes; the surrounding demographic, socio-economic, health and historic context. These aspects can be researched through actively engaging local and public expertise, experience, participation and local representation.

● Health Equity - similar to the inclusion determinant, however, it focuses upon creating health opportunities for everyone. Health equity emerges from access to the social determinants of health, specifically from wealth, power and prestige and it is achieved when everyone has the opportunity to reach their full health potential. The aim of a public space is that it considers the human scale and offers a place that everyone can use and enjoy. It will reflect social values like dignity and respect and promote trust and participation (particularly for marginalised groups).

The framework includes a set of 4 guiding principles (as seen in figure 7) to shape and assess public spaces, this includes

- Principle 1: Context

- Recognise community context by cultivating community knowledge of the existing conditions, assets, and lived experiences that relate to health equity.

- Principle 2: Process

- Support inclusion in the process that shapes public space by promoting civic trust, participation and social capital.

- Principle 3: Design and Program

- Design and program public space for health equity by improving quality, enhancing access and safety, and inviting diversity

- Principle 4: Sustain

- Foster social resilience and the capacity of local communities to engage with changes in place over time by promoting representation, agency and stability

Figure 7- Inclusive Healthy Places

3.4.3SuperkilenPark

24“An empty public space is a bad sign. A space performs well when people use it— especially when those people come from diverse groups and interact with each other, which promotes inclusion.”

Inclusive Healthy Places

Copenhagen’s Superkilen (nicknamed the Big Wedge) public park (completed in 2012) is located in the Nørrebro district (north of the city centre as seen in fig 8) - a multicultural neighbourhood which is popular amongst the students and creatives. Superkilen was designed by Danish architects Bjarke Ingels Group (referred to as BIG) alongside German landscape architects Topotek1 and Danish independent artists Superflex. The park, stretching 750m, was designed as part of the Green Cycle Route in Copenhagen which runs through Nørrebro.

Figure 8 - Superkilen Location

3.4.3.1Context

Superkilen is located on a narrow site between 1980’s housing projects and an old neighbourhood. Nørrebro has a fairly high crime rate - significant enough that the American embassy in Copenhagen warns their citizens about gang activity within the area. Before Superkilen was built, the area was known as the “shooting gallery” due to the high incidence of violent crimes. This reputation was attributed to drug use, gang activity, lack of cultural 24 integration and the overall disconnect of the area from the rest of the city.

The design of the park was tendered as a competition , seeking new and innovative ways to 25 enhance the architectural and urban qualities of the area. The aim was to establish a creative and diverse public space that would reflect the neighbourhood's cultural diversity and benefit the local residents of different ages, gender, religions and cultures. The competition brief, 26 which required entrants to address the challenges of the site, recognised that although a park in itself could not solve the area's complex social issues, it could elevate the area by bringing visible change to what was essentially an abandoned strip of land made up of small derelict green spaces.

The park is the shape of a narrow wedge stretching between two major roads of the Nørrebro district: the Tagnesvej to the north and the Nørrebrogade to the South. The park was designed to take advantage of the elongated nature of the site, and to improve the connections between the two roads by providing circulation for pedestrians and cyclists. Concurrently, the park was opened up to the east and west to connect the neighbouring areas which were previously disconnected and difficult to access. The collection of public furniture and infrastructure for outdoor activities (including playgrounds, benches, chess tables or sports grounds) enables the space to be a public square as well as a route used by pedestrians and cyclists. Resultantly the park is designed for commuters and to be a hub for the community.

3.4.3.2Process

Superkilen is an example of how communities can be included in designing public spaces. 27 The design process itself was termed an exercise of ‘extreme public participation’ (a method developed by Superflex) to amplify the voice and actions of the users. The architects focused on integration across ethnicity, religion, culture and languages and creation of a meeting space for surrounding residents. Residents from the surrounding neighbourhood were asked to nominate

specific urban objects found in their city of origin or on their travels abroad. The suggestions included benches, playground equipment, lamps, bins, and even trees. The intention was that placement of the objects in the park would create a relationship and a sense of ownership between the residents and visitors to reflect the diverse community of Nørrebro. The nominated objects were either made at a 1:1 scale copy or bought and shipped to Superkilen Superflex travelled with five groups of residents to Palestine, Spain, Thailand, Texas and Jamaica to collect nominated objects for installation in the park. In total, the park acquired 100 different objects from more than 50 different countries.

3.4.3.3DesignandProgram

Superkilen is divided into three distinct zones denoted (as seen in figure 9) by colour and function:

The Red Square - Market / Culture / Sport

The Red Square located on the Southern side of the park, acts as an outdoor extension to the nearby sports centre. Alongside the international objects, it was important to integrate furniture promoting physical movement and play. The sports furniture aims to encourage residents in the surrounding neighbourhood to utilise the space. It also aims to counteract crime by giving young

Figure 9 - Superkilen Plan

people an alternative to gang life, by offering an alternative focus to channel their energies - for example one of the international objects featured is a functional Thai Boxing Ring, and there are various curved surfaces throughout the landscape of the park to attract young skaters and skateboarders. These activities offer opportunities for the diverse neighbourhood to interact in a positive way.

The Black Market - Urban Living Room

The Black Square is located in the central section and is surrounded by a neighbourhood of 5-storey residential buildings on the East and West. The Black Square is a calmer area where people can meet and utilise a variety of urban furniture, for example, a barbeque from Argentina, a star-shaped fountain from Morocco, chess tables from Bulgaria and benches from Brussels28

The Green Park - Sport / Play

The Green Park is located in the longest and thinnest section on the northern side of the park and is dominated by grass and trees. The aim was to design a space centred around sports where people of various backgrounds could play and interact. It includes sports facilities and equipment such as gym racks from Santa Monica, USA and a basketball hoop from Mogadishu, Somalia.

Figure 10- The Black Market

3.4.3.4Sustain

Superkilen has had a positive impact on the area. Since the park opened, pedestrian and cycling circulation has increased which has improved the connection to the surrounding areas to the north and south. Additionally, the park provides improved connections to the housing areas in the east and west which were previously cut off by a fence.

Symbolic mottos of Superkilen park such as 23“A good city could not be found, you have to built it” and “If you have a good hometown, you have everything” can be found by members of the public on the Moroccan Fountain or the benches from Iran.

Superkilen has become a multi-functional space incorporating a variety of outdoor activities 29 and recreation areas, a children's playground, cycling routes, and social space. As a result, the park benefits many groups in the surrounding Norreboro neighbourhood and beyond - locals including students, young families and the elderly, all benefit from the park. Residents from the 30 adjacent, ethnically diverse, social housing project Mjolnersparken are also amongst the people who spend a lot of their time in the park - of the 2,500 people living there, 98% are either immigrants or born to immigrant families from more than 57 nationalities.31

Public Spaces in the Pandemic

The Gehl Institute conducted the ‘Public 32 Space & Public Life’ study during the Covid-19 Pandemic in 2020. At the time, Denmark was one of the first countries to ‘lock down’ with the resultant closure of, amongst other things, businesses, stores, restaurants and schools. The study aimed to investigate how members of the public were using the city with only basic and essential services operating or available.

Superkilen formed part of the study brief so its use was captured in the observations - this showed an increased number of people spending time in public spaces, exercising and playing. Additionally, and more generally, the Institute observed that local meeting places adjacent to city

Figure 11- Graph of activity in public spaces during Covid - 19

neighbourhoods, like Superkilen, were used significantly more. The study reflected that although pedestrian movement within the city centre decreased by as much as 80%, it increased by approximately 20% in public spaces close to residential areas, such as Nørrebrogade and Amagerbrogade.

Alongside quantitative data, the Gehl Institute also collected qualitative feedback. In answer to the question “Have you used a public space during the pandemic?” 65% of the respondents answered ‘yes’. One of the main reasons given was that it was important for their mental health - a small selection of respondent statements are shown below:

● 33“They’ve (public spaces) become more important to my mental health. The roads are less full with cars so there is more space to walk”.

● “I appreciate public spaces more than I did!”

● “I think the pandemic has really shown how much we rely on these spaces for exercise, and for just getting some fresh air and sunshine”.

Respondents who answered in the negative (35%) commonly cited the reason for this as being due to circumstances outwith their control, such as isolating or looking after a loved one throughout lock-down.

The study highlights the increased use of public squares in Copenhagen by people during the pandemic. It observed that the public squares located beside neighbourhoods were utilised for exercise, play, socialising or simply being outside. It also highlighted the importance of including public spaces close to neighbourhoods so that they are easily accessible.

Figure 12 - Map of activity in public spaces during Covid-19

4.1Background

This research has highlighted the strong evidence base concerning healthy urban planning, that can influence the health and wellbeing of citizens, through actively influencing physical activity levels, degree of social interaction and amount of time spent outside, amongst other things.

To complement this, a survey was conducted to gain a better insight and understanding of the reality and ‘lived experience’ of aspects of healthy urban planning.

4.2Aim

The survey aimed to explore students’ views on their ’lived experience’ of aspects of Copenhagen’s healthy urban planning, with regard to their health and wellbeing. More specifically, it aimed to investigate whether students, currently living and working in Copenhagen, consider aspects of the urban design of Copenhagen to have a positive, negative or neutral effect on their health and wellbeing

4.3Method

4.3.1SurveyFormat

An online survey was identified as the most suitable research method for a number of reasons including:

● Allows for relatively easy collection, collation and evaluation of both qualitative and quantitative information

● Cost effective

● Time efficient

● Environmentally friendly - paperless and no associated travel costs

● Remotely bridges the distance between Copenhagen and Aberdeen

4.3.2TargetSurveyGroup

The student population at Copenhagen University was identified as the target survey group due to them being a well defined cross-section of the city’s population, and one which was anticipated to be relatively easy to make contact with through the University’s administrative system. In 2021 almost 37 000 students were enrolled at the University, with over 3 600 (almost 10%) classed as foreign students. Both the number of students and the diversity gave potential for richer feedback.

The first draft of the questionnaire was composed entirely of qualitative questions centred on eliciting the opinions of the students. On reflection however it became apparent that there was a risk the questions would become repetitive or over-complicated. To encourage people to complete the survey it was important that the questions were clear, concise and uncomplicated to answer, and that there were no repetitive questions. Additionally the language and terminology used, required to be simple and straightforward with no architectural jargon.

The second draft of the questionnaire saw a greater emphasis on quantitative feedback with use of a numerical scale (0-10) for respondents’ to rate their level of agreement with predefined statements. Although this format could enable quick and easy completion and simplify collection and collation, it was felt that the numerical scale might result in feedback which would be problematic to categorise clearly.

The third and final draft saw the initial 12 quantitative questions unchanged, but the response statements were re-formatted using a Likert Scale. This type of scale drives respondents to agree with one of a number of closed statements, ranging from one extreme to the other with more neutral responses in the middle. For this survey, the scale comprised 5 statements ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’ with a ‘neutral’ response option in the middle. The perceived advantage of using this scale format was that feedback could be more clearly categorised. The 13th and final question of the survey was an open, qualitative question giving respondents the opportunity to comment further their initial responses if they wanted, and also to express their general thoughts on the importance of Copenhagen’s urban design to their health and wellbeing.

4.3.4Limitations

Although chosen for valid reasons, it was recognised at the time that this type of survey has its limitations, as compared to a telephone or face-to-face interview. There is no opportunity for discussion with regard to answers and therefore generalisations have to be made. If not designed carefully an on-line questionnaire risks generating more questions than answers. Additionally due to a conscious decision to not collect personal data, it removed any opportunity to make contact with respondents to further explore their response.

4.3.5QuestionnaireDistribution

Once finalised a promotional overview of the study (namely a brief description and link to the questionnaire) was emailed to the Administration teams of 3 main schools (IT, Humanities and Law) - all based on one campus - as well as the main University of Copenhagen administration team. The covering email requested (Appendix 1), ideally, that the promotional overview be sent, highlighted or forwarded to all students. 2 of the 3 schools responded that they were unable to email the survey to their students (no explanation was given), however, they both suggested and forwarded the same link to a Facebook group page which is used by students from all the universities and colleges in Copenhagen. There was no response from the 3rd school or from the University's main administrative team.

4.3.6Ethics+DataStorage

Due to physical and mental wellbeing aspects being intrinsic to the questionnaire, it was important to consider the ethics of the questionnaire which contained potentially sensitive topics for some respondents. Resultantly:

● a conscious decision was made to send the survey to university students as they would be aged 18 and above - meaning only adults participated in the online survey

● all responses were kept anonymous to protect participant identities - this meant demographic information such as name, address, age, ethnicity, and occupation weren’t included in the questionnaire

The format of the questionnaire included an introductory cover page (Appendix 2), prior to the start of the questionnaire, which stated the research aims, and an email address in case of any queries or concerns. The cover page also stated that all collected data would be anonymous and would solely be used for academic study. Additionally it stated that results may subsequently be reported more widely through academic papers, in anonymised form. All the data was stored on the secure online survey platform approved by the university. Due to the online nature of the survey, all data submitted by the participant was sent directly into the secure platform.

4.4QuestionnaireFeedback

4.4.1QuestionnaireReturns

In total 12 responses were received, in response to the 2 distinct postings highlighting the survey on the Facebook group page - initially 3 returns were received, followed by a further 9 returns after the 2nd posting.

4.4.2Results

Clearly given the small number of returns, no conclusions can be drawn regarding how the student population of Copenhagen perceives the effect of aspects of the urban planning on their health and wellbeing. However, to help evaluate the feedback received (Appendix 3), the following assumption was made: if the healthy urban planning of Copenhagen is mainly successful from the students’ perception, responses received will largely ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ with the statements.

4.4.2.1Greenand‘Open’Spaces

● 10 people (83%) agreed (n=5) or strongly agreed (n=5) that the green and open spaces encourage them to be outside more

● Interestingly this increased slightly to 11 people (92%) agreeing (n=6) or strongly agreeing (n=5) that the green and open spaces had a positive effect on their health and wellbeing

Comment: A clear majority agreed or strongly agreed with these statements indicating that the students both use and appreciate the benefits of the green and open spaces in the city

4.4.2.2PedestrianRoutes

● Only 6 people (50%) agreed (and nobody strongly agreed) with the statement concerning pedestrian routes encouraging them to be more active. 2 people disagreed.

● 6 people (50%) again agreed (n=4) or strongly agreed (n=2) with statements concerning pedestrian routes having a positive effect on their health and wellbeing. The remaining 6 responses (50%) were neutral

Comment: Only 50% of students agreed or strongly agreed with these statements. Most other responses were ‘neutral’, except for 2 responses which disagreed with the statement concerning pedestrian routes encouraging them to be more active.

4.4.2.3CyclingRoutes

● 10 (83%) people agreed (n=4) or strongly agreed (n=6) with the statement concerning cycle routes encouraging them to be more active

● 9 people (75%) agreed (n=6) or strongly agreed (n=3) with the statement concerning cycling routes having a positive effect on their health and wellbeing

Comment: In contrast with the statements on pedestrian routes, a clear majority agreed or strongly agreed with the cycling route statements, indicating that the students both use and appreciate the benefits of the cycling routes throughout the city.

4.4.2.4TheUniversityCommute

● 8 people (67%) agreed (n=2) or strongly agreed (n=6) with the statements that they would walk or cycle more instead of using a car/bus/train. 1 person strongly disagreed with this statement

● 7 people (58%) agreed (n=4) or strongly agreed (n=3) that there are clearly defined pedestrian routes to the university

● 6 people (50%) agreed (n=4) or strongly agreed (n=2) that there are clearly defined cycle routes to the university

Comment: The majority (67%) of students agreed that they would walk or cycle rather than using the car, bus or train. Further, most of them ‘strongly agreed’ with this statement. There was less agreement (58%) regarding there being clearly defined pedestrian routes to the university, and less still (50%) in agreement that there are clearly defined cycle routes to the city.

4.4.2.5PublicSpaces

● Only 3 people (25%) agreed (n=3) and nobody strongly agreed that the public square/ plazas encouraged them to spend more time outdoors. The majority (7 people/ 58%) were neutral as regards this statement

● Only 4 people (33%) agreed (n=3) or strongly agreed (n=1) that they often use the public squares/plazas for meeting up and socialising with friends and family. Additionally 1 person strongly disagreed

Comment: Only a minority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statements on and use of public spaces. However drawing on the the observations of the Gehl institute regarding the use of Superkilen Park during the pandemic/ lockdown it raises the question as to whether this response might have rated differently if the questionnaire had been conducted during the lockdown.

4.4.2.6OtherFeedback

The final question (question 13) was ‘open text’ to afford the students an opportunity to express any pressing thoughts in connection with the questionnaire - “Explain more about any all of your responses above, and your thoughts on the importance of Copenhagen’s urban design to your health and wellbeing”

Comment:

The 4 ‘open text’ responses provided variable feedback. Generally speaking:

● 2 responses referred positively to aspects of Copenhagen's urban design - although one of the responses was actually based on the observations of the student’s friend who had visited from Toronto - the student themself had “never really thought about it that much.”

● 1 response stated that the weather was the defining aspect for them in terms of how much time they spent outside being active - “In regards to everything that covers being more active, well being and so on, it all has to do with the weather for me. If I didn't have the open spaces in Copenhagen, I would just go somewhere else to be outside and active.”

● The 4th response reflected a fairly negative viewpoint: “I don't find a lot of places in Copenhagen attractive, but maybe I just haven't found any of the hidden gems yet. I do feel like Copenhagen is mostly a transport by vehicle city, and I think that's a shame because I do think it has the potential to be a beautiful city with amazing open and green spaces but I just don't see those as it is right now”

4.5 Discussion

The results of the survey displayed some links with the evidence in the literature review and showed some relationships between characteristics of the urban plan of Copenhagen and effect on the population.

It is encouraging that there was strong agreement with the statements regarding the green and open spaces encouraging the students to be outside, and having a positive effect on their health and wellbeing. Similarly there was strong agreement with the statements regarding cycle routes, although noticeable less with regard to the pedestrian routes. The public spaces provoked least agreement with the statements - both in terms of the public squares and plazas encouraging the students to spend more time outdoors, and in terms of using them to meet up with friends and family.

The small number of questionnaires returned clearly compromises the outcome of the survey in terms of drawing any conclusions as to the effect of Copenhagen’s healthy urban planning on the perceptions of the student population. A larger number of returns would have helped ensure more convincing data and trends, however despite this the feedback received has, partially at

least, indicated a positive correlation between healthy urban planning and perceptions of health and wellbeing.

On reflection, based on the responses and despite the small number of returns, it would have been useful to gain a better understanding of:

● How long the students had been in Copenhagen - this may be relevant as could affect if they are getting out and about in Copenhagen and how much they are socialising

● How familiar they are with the city - again is likely to be relevant to their viewpoint and how much they are commuting/ socialising

● Where ‘home’ is - this is because comparison with their ‘home norm’ is likely to at least partly influence their responses

Answers to these types of questions could be woven in as part of the main questionnaire - for example, those opting for any neutral/ disagree / strongly disagree options could be asked to expand their answer in a free text box whilst being prompted to consider, for example, their ‘home norm’. Although likely to generate varied responses which would be more time intensive to collate, this richer feedback would hopefully allow for greater insight whilst still enabling the survey to be carried out using an on-line survey. Alternatively it might be worthwhile considering asking respondents for consent to follow-up where any response/s would benefit from further discussion.

In effect, the combined feedback from the 12 responses received is comparable with that of a focus group. The benefit of a focus group however is that it offers the opportunity to explore responses more fully.

4.6Recommendations

The process of designing and conducting the study, and the feedback received, has been useful in identifying recommendations for change should the survey be repeated

Survey mode

● Consider a blended approach by offering the option of a telephone or video interview in addition to the online questionnaire

Target Respondents

● Recommend retaining the focus on the student population as contained and relatively easier to make contact with this distinct population

Survey structure

● Consider requesting an email address and agreement to follow-up if required to further explore or clarify responses

● Consider including a limited number of demographic questions to gain greater insight into respondents viewpoint

- for example how long they have been resident in Copenhagen, where is ‘home’

Questions

● Consider requesting additional on-line feedback where respondents choose a neutral/ disagree/ or strongly disagree response to a statement

Promotion

● Contact an increased number of universities in Copenhagen to open the survey up to as many students as possible

● Repeat contact if no response and/ or try a different contact in the university

● Investigate which other popular social media platforms/ pages are popular with student in Copenhagen and also promote the survey via these

● Contact student societies/ newsletters/ clubs to request they share information regarding the survey with their members/ followers

The primary aim of this dissertation was to investigate the role of human scale architecture and healthy urban planning in influencing the health and wellbeing of a city’s population. The research focused specifically on Copenhagen, investigating the key aspects of the urban plan which makes it the ‘Most Liveable City’ in the world. The extensive research also included a focus on the post-war history of the urban plan, and three of the city's key urban planning interventions. Practical research was also conducted to elicit views of the lived experience of students living and studying in Copenhagen.

The first objective examined the history of healthy urban planning in Copenhagen. The research was centred around the Five Finger Plan which was initially developed by the Welfare State to promote equal health and wellbeing opportunities and to make healthy choices despite their economic constraints. The city planned to adopt more road systems during the 60’s and 70’s in line with the modernist movement at the time, however, due to a lack of funding (rather than insight) Copenhagen’s focus changed from the car to the people. This had a positive effect on the wellbeing of the residents as it helped prevent urban sprawl and congestion in the city centre, and instead resulted in increasing pedestrianisation, open spaces and a cycling network amongst other changes.

The second objective explored selected aspects of healthy urban planning, chosen in line with the guiding principles and policies of the WHO EHCN. This included the study and analysis of three of the city’s current and key urban planning interventions; Stroget, the Cycle Superhighways and Superkilen. The evidence highlighted as part of the research clearly showed that a focus on human scale and making public places and routes easily accessible to people resulted in enhanced wellbeing. This was most evident by the volume of people cycling and walking throughout the city. A study conducted by the Copenhagenize Index revealed that 62% 33 of people living in the city cycle to work every day. The study also highlighted that Copenhageners don't necessarily cycle Figure 13 - Reasons for cycling

for exercise - the majority (56%) cycle because it's the quickest and most convenient option. Only 19% of Copenhageners in the study cycled for exercise. This is truly active living in action (see figure 13).

“We bike all the time. We bike to the moon several times a year in Copenhagen, it’s not 34 because it’s the healthy choice. It’s because it’s the easiest choice. The city is designed for bikes and not cars.”

Katrine Schjønning, Head of Public Health for Copenhagen

The pedestrianisation of the city centre and increased cycle routes means that it's easier to travel by bike instead of driving. As seen in figure 14, there is immediate access into the city centre for cyclists which is significantly faster. For the same journey (Frederiksberg to Trangravsvej) use of a bicycle is by far the quickest option, beating the car travel time by 24 minutes - almost half an hour!

Planning for people is making the simple changes that can make a difference. For example, the majority of people like to cycle or walk with a coffee in Copenhagen - as a result the city planners implemented tilted bins on raised platforms beside bike lanes to make it easier for cyclists to throw in their rubbish. Planning for people also includes sensitive design - designing for people and designing with dignity. For example, Copenhagen’s sanitation department implemented similar bins but with collection shelves to make recovery of glass bottles for refund safer and easier for those engaged in this activity.

A study of Superkilen highlighted the importance of siting neighbourhoods close to public open spaces like parks, plazas and green spaces. Doing this has many benefits for the wellbeing of the public and has shown that people are more likely to use public spaces for physical activity

Figure 14- Bike and Car study

and socialising. A study by The Trust for Public (an organisation with the ambition to create parks and protect land for people, ensuring healthy, livable communities for generations to come) found that people living within a half-mile of a park participate in 38% more exercise per week than others who live further away.

The role of human scale architecture and healthy urban planning in influenicing the health and wellbeing of the public is clearly an essential part of the design and planning process. Copenhagen is without doubt a leading example of careful and considered urban planning on a human scale, and for this reason it is an ideal case study for consideration by any professionals involved in urban planning and design. Public health is an increasingly important topic which ahs been brought into sharp focus as a result of the current pandemic. Cities have many opportunities to support the wellbeing of their residents by providing high quality urban spaces, for example, by implementing pedestrian paths, public spaces and cycling paths. Copenhagen has demonstrated that it’s possible to adapt an existing urban plan to fit the needs of the human scale. To borrow, and slightly alter, a quote mentioned earlier in this document, if an urban plan is designed for people, it will invite more people and will result in healthier people. If its designed for the car, it will invite more cars. Copenhagen has been planned for people and as a result, the people , and the city have benefitted from it.

Chapter6.Conclusion

This research aimed to investigate and understand more deeply the role of human scale and healthy urban planning on health and wellbeing. With a focus on Copenhagen, a city considered to be a leading example of healthy urban planning, the research examined the topic from a number of angles:

• Post-war history of Copenhagen’s healthy urban plan

• A literature review focused on human scale and healthy urban planning

• Closer examination of urban planning interventions selected from Copenhagen’s existing cityscape

• Investigation of student perceptions of the ‘lived experience’ of aspects of Copenhagen’s urban plan

Consideration of healthy urban planning is evident from the start in Copenhagen’s post-WWII plan where a conscious decision, albeit partly influenced by circumstance, saw investment favouring human scale rather than the car. The pedestrianisation of large sections of Copenhagen, and the establishment of a world class cycling network have clearly contributed to Copenhagen’s consistent recognition as one of the healthiest and happiest places to live in the world. Additionally, the continuation of Jan Gehl’s research and learning by the expanding Gehl Institute keeps the focus firmly on Copenhagen as a leader in the field of healthy urban planning.

The literature review highlighted strong support and a growing ‘movement’ who are researching, promoting and supporting the healthy urban planning cause, and whose combined efforts are ‘spreading the word’ in a practical, flexible and sustainable manner. This includes involvement of a growing number of worldwide organisations such as the WHO, research institutes such as the Gehl Institute, a range of practitioners including architects and urban planners, and importantly involvement of the citizens themselves who will inhabit these spaces.

Examination of current interventions in Copenhagen’s urban plan highlighted the theory put into practice as part of these designs. Superkilen Park is an example of healthy urban planning which has thoughtfully and successfully resulted in the realisation of a human scale public space which truly is supportive of health and wellbeing, whilst at the same time having taken into consideration the various aspects of equality and inclusion. Evidence of consideration of human scale and ‘dignity’ was captured nicely in another example - Copenhagen’s street bin design

features a shelf for people to place their glass bottles and so enabling quick and easy collection for recycling by those involved in this activity.

A survey seeking to elicit the perceptions of students living in Copenhagen with regard to aspects of urban planning on their health and wellbeing showed promise. Although the number of responses limited the ability to draw any firm conclusions, the feedback gathered reflected promise of insightful results worthy of further investigation. Repetition of the survey, following some adjustments, is recommended with a focus on ensuring an increased number of questionnaire returns.

In conclusion, this research has enhanced and deepened the authors knowledge and understanding of the importance of human scale and healthy urban design in helping to nurture healthy, happy and prosperous communities or populations. Resultantly this learning will be taken into consideration in all future work and projects. Additionally consideration will be given as to how best to widen and support the key messages of this learning ,including to colleagues and other relevant contacts.

ListofFigures/Tables

Figure 1: WHO HEALTH ORGANIZATION EUROPE., 2018. Healthier and Happier Cities for All. Copenhagen Consensus of Mayors, p.3.

Figure 2: Egnsplan., 1947.Storkobenhavn. In: WEBPAGE AUTHOR'S NAME, 2018. A Brief Look at Urban Planning in Copenhagen. [online]. Scandinavia Standard. Available from: https://www.scandinaviastandard.com/a-brief-look-at-urban-planning-in-copenhagen/ [Accessed April 2022].

Figure 3: TRAVEL TO BLUE MOON, 2017. Stroget Shopping Street, National Museum of Denmark - Copenhagen, Denmark. [online]. Blue Moon. Available from: https:// www.traveltobluemoon.com/2017/04/strget-shopping-street-national-museum.html [Accessed April 2022].

Figure 4: GEHL, J., 1970.From Jan Gehl’s diary – standing, sitting, waiting, and talking registrations on Strøget in Copenhagen, Winter and Summer of 1968. In: GEHL INSTITUTE, 2020. Copenhagen as the Labratory. [online]. Gehl Institute. Available from: https:// gehlpeople.com/story-article/copenhagen-as-the-laboratory/ [Accessed April 2022].

Figure 5 : GEHL, J., 1996. Graph from Public Space - Public LIfe. In: LARS GEMZOE, 2013. Cities for People – Copenhagen studies in urban life, p.6. Available from: http://cyclists-world.com/onewebmedia/UK_CYKELBOG_LARS_GEMZ%C3%98E.pdf

[Accessed April 2022]

Figure 6: REEBOK., 2021. The Top 20 Fittest Cities in the World. In: REEBOK, 2021. The Global State of Fitness. [online]. Reebok. Available from: https://www.reebok.co.uk/blog/ 744509-the-global-state-of-fitness [Accessed April 2]. Reebok

Figure 7: GEHL INSTITUTE., 2018. Inclusive Healthy Places, p.15.

Figure 8: AKSAMJA, A., 2012.Superkilen Location. In: AKSAMJA, 2016. Available from: https:// s3.amazonaws.com/media.archnet.org/system/publications/contents/10687/original/DT P103072.pdf?1475511766 [Accessed April 2022].

Figure 9 : BIG.,2012.Superkilen Master Plan. In: FREARSON, 2012. Superkilen by BIG, Topotek1 and Superflex. [online]. Dezeen. Available from: https://www.dezeen.com/2012/10/24/superkilen-park-by-big-topotek1-and-superflex/ [Acceessed April 2022].

Figure 10: BAAN, I., 2012. Black Market. In: ARCHITONIC, 2012. Superkilen. [online]. Architonic. Available from: https://www.architonic.com/en/project/topotek-1-superkilen/20214046 [Accessed April 2022].

Figure 11: GEHL INSTITUTE, 2021. Local Meeting Places in Copenhagen. In: GEHL INSTITUTE, 2021. Public Space & Public Life during COVID-19. [online]. Gehl Institute. Available from: https://gehlpeople.com/announcement/public-space-public-life-during-covid-19/ [Accessed April 2022]

Figure 12: GEHL INSTITUTE, 2021. Map of Local Meeting Places in Copenhagen. In: GEHL INSTITUTE, 2021. Public Space & Public Life during COVID-19. [online]. Gehl Institute. Available from: https://gehlpeople.com/announcement/public-space-public-life-during-covid-19/ [Accessed April 2022]

Figure 13: THE GUARDIAN, 2018. Copenhagenize your city: the case for urban cycling in 12 graphs. [online]. Island Press. Available from:

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2018/jun/11/copenhagenize-case-urban-cycling-gr aphs#img-8 [Accessed April 2022].

Figure 14: THE GUARDIAN, 2018. Copenhagenize your city: the case for urban cycling in 12 graphs. [online]. Island Press. Available from:

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2018/jun/11/copenhagenize-case-urban-cycling-gr aphs#img-8 [Accessed April 2022].

References

GEHL, J, 1971. Life Between Buildings. Island Press.

1 MONOCLE, 2021. Hometown Advantage. Quality of Life Special Edition, July / August 2021

2 (Issue 145).

3 www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cgw9oHDfJ4k [Accessed April 2022]

GEHL, J., 2015. In search of the Human Scale. [online] TedTalk. Available from: https://

ASHTON, J. 2018. The World Health Organisation European Healthy Cities Network 30 years

4 on. WHO European Healthy Cities Network. [online]. Available from: https://www.scielosp.org/ pdf/gs/ 2018.v32n6/503-504 [Accessed November 2021]

5 gehlpeople.com/shopfront/a-mayors-guide-to-public-life/ [Accessed January 2022]

GEHL INSTITUTE. 2017. A Mayors Guide to Public Life. Available from: https://

NICOLE ANNE, J., 2014. How Copenhagen Became the World’s Most Liveable City.

6 [online].Wordpress. Available from: https://jaimenicoleanne.wordpress.com/2014/11/28/ how-copenhagen-became-the-worlds-mo st-livable-city/ [Accessed April 2022].

7 1960s modernist 'utopia'. The Guardian Available from: https:// www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/may/05/story-cities-copenhagen-denmark-modernist -utopia [Accessed April 2022]

CATHCART- KEAYS, A. and WARIN, T., 2016. Story of cities #36: how Copenhagen rejected

GEHL, J. Designing Cities for People, Not Cars. Climate One Conference [online] Available

8 from: https://www.climateone.org/video/jan-gehl-designing-cities-people-not-cars [Accessed April 2022]

9 Timelines. Available from: http://www.engineering-timelines.com/why/ lowcarboncopenhagen/copenhagenPedestrianisatio n_02.asp [Accessed April 2022].

ENGINEERING TIMELINES, 2022. Pedestrianisation in Copenhagen. [online]. Engineering

GLOBAL DESIGNING CITIES, 2021. Pedestrian Only Streets: Case Study | Stroget,

10 Copenhagen [online]. Island Press. Available from: https://globaldesigningcities.org/ publication/global-street-design-guide/streets/pedestrian-priorit y-spaces/pedestrian-only-streets/ pedestrian-streets-case-study-stroget-copenhagen/ [Accessed April 2022]

11 more. p.23. Available from: https://issuu.com/gehlarchitects/docs/694_k benhavn_more_people_walk_mor [Accessed April 2022]

GEHL INSTITUTE, 2021. Pedestrian Priority in Main Shopping Streets. More People to Walk

12 https://gehlpeople.com/story-article/copenhagen-as-the-laboratory/ [Accessed April 2022].

GEHL INSTITUTE, 2021. Copenhagen as the Labratory. [online]. Gehl Institute. Available from:

13 Around the World - Creating Livable and Bikable Cities Available from:http:// cyclists-world.com/onewebmedia/UK_CYKELBOG_LARS_GEMZ%C3%98E.pdf [Accessed April 2022]

GEMZOE, L., 2013. Cities for People - Copenhagen studies in urban life. Cyclists & Cycling

GEHL INSTITUTE. 2017. Towards More Physical Activity in Cities. [online]. Available from: 14 https://gehlpeople.com/shopfront/towards-more-physical-activity-in-cities/ [Accessed January 2022]

UNITED NATIONS., 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable 16 Development. General Assembly. [online]. Available from: https:// www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E [Accessed November 2021].

REEBOK, 2021. The Global State of Fitness [online]. Reebok.

17 Available from: https://www.reebok.co.uk/blog/744509-the-global-state-of-fitness [Accessed April 2022]

18 Wired. Available from: https://copenhagenizeindex.eu/[Accessed April 2022]

COPENHAGENIZE INDEX 2019, 2019. The Most Bicycle-Friendly Cities of 2019. [online].

19 Movement in the City. Retrieved from https://ukdiss.com/litreview/streetdesign-impact-on-way-of-life-3692.php?vref=1

All Answers Ltd. (November 2018). The Urban Street: A Conduit for Vitality and Multimodal

20 Denmark [online]. C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group. Available from: https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/How-we-built-an-inter-municipal-cyclesuperhighw ay-network-across-the-Capital-Region-of-Denmark?

C40 KNOWLEDGE, 2020. Cycle Superhighways: How we built an inter-municipal network in

language=en_US&utm_campaign=Spotligh

t%20On%20Cities%20Work%20Together&utm_medium=Mailchimp%20newsletter&utm_sourc e=Knowledge%20Hub%20newsletter [Accessed April 2022]

21 of Denmark. Available from: https://cyclingsolutions.info/cycle-superhighways/ [Accessed April 2022]

CYCLING EMBASSY OF DENMARK, 2021. Cycke superhighways [online]. Cycling Embassy

22 Cravings Pro . Available from: https://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/cycle-superhighway-3-avictim-of-its-own-success/ [Accessed April 2022]

LONDON CYCLIST, 2012. Cycle Superhighway 3: A victim of its own success? [online].

GEHL INSTITUTE. 2018. Inclusive Healthy Cities. [online].

23 Available from: https://gehlpeople.com/shopfront/inclusive-healthy-places/ [Accessed January 2022]

AKSAMIJA, A., 2016. Superkilen - A Playground for Pluralism. Agha Kham Award 2016.

24 Available from: https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.archnet.org/system/publications/contents/ 12792/original/DTP105176.pdf?1530264048 [Accessed April 2022]

25 Available from: https://www.ft.com/content/1f3599ca-dce5-11e2-b52b-00144feab7de [Accessed April 2022].

MILNE, R., 2013. Copenhagen’s park has something for everyone. Financial Times. [online].

SAMSON, K. and ABASOLO, J., 2021r. The Trace of Superusers - From Santiago Centro to 26 Superkilen in Copenhagen. Mas Context. [online]. Available from: https://www.mascontext.com/ issues/19-trace-fall-13/the-trace-of-superusers-from-santiago-ce ntro-to-superkilen-incopenhagen/ [Accessed April 2022].

AKSAMIJA, A., 2016. Superkilen. 2016 On Site Review Report. p.6. Available from: https:// 27 s3.amazonaws.com/media.archnet.org/system/publications/contents/10687/original/ DTP103072.pdf?1475511766 [Accessed April 2022]

THE CITY AT EYE LEVEL, 2020. Beyond Being Nice [online]. The City at Eye Level . Available 28 from: https://thecityateyelevel.com/stories/beyond-being-nice/ [Accessed April 2022]

ATLAS OBSCURA, 2020. Superkilen [online]. Atlas Obscura. 29 Available from: https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/superkilen [Accessed April 2022]

ARCHELLO, 2020. Superkilen. [online]. Archello. Available 30 from:https://archello.com/project/superkilen [Accessed April 2022]

THE NIFTY FORAGER, 2020. SUPERKILEN URBAN PARK: Did it really achieve what it 31 was aiming for?. [online]. Wordpress. Available from: https:// theniftyforager.wordpress.com/2015/05/03/superkilen-urban-park-did-it-really-achieve- what-itwas-aiming-for/ [Accessed April 2022]

32 Available from: https://gehlpeople.com/announcement/public-space-public-life-duringcovid-19/ [Accessed April 2022]

GEHL INSTITUTE, 2021. Public Space & Public Life during COVID-19. [online]. Gehl Institute.

33 [online] Island Press. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2018/jun/11/ copenhagenize-case-urban-cycling-graphs#img-8 [Accessed April 2022]

THE GUARDIAN, 2018. Copenhagenize your city: the case for urban cycling in 12 graphs.

34 [online] Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/11/how-buildhealthy-city-copenhagen-reveals-its-secrets-happiness [Accessed April 2022]

THE GUARDIAN. 2018. How do you build a healthy city? Copenhagen Reveals its Secrets.