Health and Wellbeing in the Built Environment

2.2 HEALTH AND WELLBEING IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

To understand the terms ‘health’ and ‘wellbeing’ as constituent products of pedestrians’ encounter with building facades, it is important to first define those terms regarding the components and functional relationships from which they stem from and expand onto. Through identifying the governing dimensions prescribed in those terms, it is made clearer where façade design situates within the narrative of individual health and wellbeing, and a foundational ground for the conceptualisation of the subject matter can therefore be established.

One of the most widely adopted definitions of ‘health’ stems from the preamble of the World Health Organization constitution (1946) where the term is regarded as, ‘a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’ (p.1). Although the proposed definition has long set a universal aspiration, it has been contested by researchers for the reasons that it miscommunicates the medicalisation of society, it raises disease is an unadaptable circumstance, and sets a problematic and vague criterion, as it posits a non-functional, impracticable, and impossible measure of ‘wellbeing’ (Huber et al., 2011). Alternatively, Bircher and Kuruvilla (2014) propose a new definition for health by recognising the term as a constitute of three dimensions – individual, social, and environmental determinants. The authors establish that health is ‘a state of wellbeing emergent from conducive interactions between individuals’ potentials, life’s demands, and social and environmental determinants’ (p.368). This outlook, which they frame as the ‘Meikirch Model of Health’, acknowledges an individual’s biologically given and personally acquired potential in meeting the demands of life; from such, the authors reinstate the case where health varies depending on the individual’s personal capacity, circumstance, and available resources in facilitating satisfactory life conditions (Bircher and Hahn, 2016). Here, health is expressed as an emergent product of interacting dimensions within a wider, complex system. It is created by ongoing interactions between individual, social, and environmental determinants and is not produced exclusively by a sole driver.

Similar in its definitive nature to that of ‘health’; the term ‘wellbeing’ significantly overlaps with the characteristics that support the former term. It is recognised that while the two states are interdependent, they are not interchangeable (Pineo, 2022). By reason, ‘wellbeing’ continues to be considered a ‘complex and multi-faced’ concept (Pollard and Lee, 2003, p.60). While attempts to define and measure wellbeing have long eluded researchers, Dodge et al., (2012) propose an interpretation that voices simplicity, universal application, optimism, and basis for measurement. The authors recognise that: ‘wellbeing is when individuals have the psychological, social and physical resources they need to meet a particular psychological, social and/or physical challenge’ (p.230). This reinforms Bircher and Kuruvilla’s (2014) perspective on an individual’s varying ‘potential’ in meeting the ‘demands’ of life, and further builds on wellbeing research by Beddington et al. (2008) on people’s ‘ability’ to develop their potential, work productively and creatively, build strong and positive relationships with others, and contribute to their community’ (p.1057).