The Evolving Scholar | ARCH22Community hosting publication
article
UrbanCare Sahlgrenska, a hospital landscape co-creation case to integrate sustainable development goals
1 Aug 2022
| By
Alvaro Alvaro Valera Sosa
Göran Göran Lindahl
357 Views
0 Comments
Version 1
Disciplines
urban health
capacity building
research workshops
integrated urban planning
green hospitals
Keywords
Urban Health
Capacity Building
Research Workshops
Integrated Urban Planning
Green Hospitals

Track: 

Inclusive Design/health Promotion

Abstract

In planning an urban hospital, the complex priority-setting of goals often neglects how landscape designs impact ecosystem quality and threatens public health. As a result, the difficulty in counteracting the urban heat island effects and reaching sustainable development goals on time exponentially increases. In this context, a research workshop conducted with facility managers, planners, designers, and various groups of hospital users helped to analyze and propose actions to solve climate and health environmental issues for the future redevelopment of the Sahlgrenska University Hospital campus. The groups participated in community-led research and applied landscape planning tools to visualize and problem-solve climate, energy, and urban environmental health issues that affect outdoor campus users and pedestrians. This research is an illustrative case study that depicts how the methods employed in the four-session research workshop and the development of its results on (i) visualizing the street environment and spatial inequities in urban scenes, (ii) reviewing heat, runoff, and biotope data at the pedestrian level, (iii) applying prioritized planning at critical urban scenes, and (iv) proposing spatial design solutions centered on vulnerable hospital outdoor users. The results are descriptions of the group dynamics and their outputs on how public transportation stops, street crossings, free-seating areas, and spaces at building en-trances affect the local urban ecosystem, the energy balance of buildings, and mobility of vulnerable pedestrians, including outdoor workers.

Preview automatically generated from the publication file.

Alvaro Valera Sosa | BHL Building Health Lab

Research and Technological Development (RTD)

CityLab, Platz der Luftbrücke 4, 12101 Berlin, Germany

T +49 (0)30 20339334 | email: info@buildinghealth.eu | www.buildinghealth.eu

Göran Lindahl | ACE/BD, Center for Healthcare Architecture

Professor/Head of Division Building Design, Architecture and Civil Engineering

T +46317725495 | email: goran.lindahl@chalmers.se

Abstract

The complex priority-setting in urban hospital planning often neglects the environmental sustainability issues and inequities that hard landscapes exert. As a result, the difficulty in counteracting the urban heat island effects and reaching sustainable development goals on time exponentially increases.

A research workshop was tested at the Sahlgrenska University Hospital Campus in Gothenburg. It introduced a comprehensive landscape planning approach to solve climate, energy, and health issues through community-led research and integrated urban planning.

With a case study approach, the methods included an input lecture on urban ecosystem degeneration and four workshop sessions that allowed participants diverse in age, sex, and academic skills to team up and: (i) visualize the street environment and rate spatial inequities in urban scenes, (ii) review heat, runoff, and biotope data at the pedestrian level, (iii) apply prioritized planning at critical urban scenes, and (iv) propose spatial design solutions centered on vulnerable outdoor users.

Workshop results showed that at least 80% of the 40 participants rated spaces at building entrances, seating areas, and street crossings as unfit for vulnerable pedestrians such as the elderly and patients. Public transportation stops were found convenient but unsafe, uncomfortable, and unattractive. All twenty-five urban scenes analyzed presented environmental issues threatening urban ecosystems. Five were the most critical and problem-solved through planning and design sketches.

The four-hour workshop accomplished a knowledge transfer for participants to understand complex urban scenes and practice planning processes that integrate sustainable goals.

Keywords: urban health; capacity building; research workshops; integrated urban planning; green hospitals

Objectives

A research workshop format was tested at Chalmers University in early 2022 to include SDGs in a landscape regeneration plan for the Sahlgrenska University Hospital Campus and accelerate its decision-making. It presented a comprehensive approach to solving urban climate, energy, and health issues with spatial solutions at the pedestrian level. The workshop applied community-led research and integrated urban planning & design strategies.

Implementing the research workshop required reaching three main objectives and several sub-objectives.

Objective 1. Structure a case for decision-makers in hospital planning

The case is structured with mixed research methods that require (i) collecting quantitative environmental data of the site and (ii) processing of qualitative data from outdoor users.

Objective 2. Develop a capacity-building framework

The framework enables community led-research and innovation by first enhancing knowledge in urban climate, landscaping for energy conservation, and environmental health and secondly by increasing the problem-solving skills of participants (stakeholders) for integrated urban planning and design.

Objective 3. Define the research workshop as a method

Two sub-objectives define the workshop as a research method for case studies: (i) define the site's environmental issues and possible solutions, and (ii) improve the workshop's design and performance to increase its efficiency and effectiveness.

Background

As cities around the globe grow, congestion and environmental degradation also increase. Sealed pavements taking over green soils result in rainwater runoff and hazardous urban heat spots impacting soil, water, and air quality. Among these, streets have historically formed impervious layers disrupting hydrological cycles, requiring expensive stormwater infrastructure to manage stormwater runoff and protect ground and surface water quality (National Association of City Transportation Officials, 2021). The consequence is an environmental degradation capable of destroying local ecosystems, habitats, wildlife, and our health (WHO, 2015).

Hospitals add to this urban health problem as a significant contributor to environmental degradation. In perspective, the health sector is above emissions compared to the air traffic and shipping sectors, with a production of 4.4% of global greenhouse gases such as CO² (WHO, 2016). The complex priority-setting in planning an urban hospital often leaves out the environmental sustainability issues that hard landscapes bring and exert on health and its determinants. As a result, the difficulty in counteracting the urban heat island effects and reaching sustainable development goals on time exponentially increases.

This section describes the use of the UrbanCare research workshop for structuring case studies for Urban Health spatial interventions, its usability in capacity building, and the theory and steps supporting its development process.

1. Case structuring for decision-makers

As a research strategy, case studies are one of the most convincing methods researchers use to investigate a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between the study object and context are not evident (Ebneyamini and Sadeghi Moghadam, 2018). Cases rely on multiple evidence sources and prior development of theoretical propositions to guide data collection, analyses, and decision-making. This process involves collecting quantitative data from multiple sources and applying qualitative techniques such as interviews and questionnaires.

The UrbanCare methodology used in this study employs a mixed-methods design with the purpose of structuring case studies for Urban Health spatial actions that improve climate, energy, and health outcomes (Valera Sosa, 2021). Therefore, enabling progress across all the UN sustainable development goals.

Sahlgrenska University Hospital Case

In the summer of 2021, a case study for the Sahlgrenska University campus in Gothenburg started. The focus is to review the site for the upcoming Life project, an urban proposal for 2023 to connect the University Hospital campus with buildings of the University of Gothenburg.

Quantitative data collection and processing methods were prepared and used to investigate the urban structure and its dynamics. This first phase of the methodology (Urban Health Research) generated databases for urban heat, surface runoff, and biotope loss. A data model and data visualization tools followed development in phase two to enhance the analytical power of researchers, practitioners, citizens, and other stakeholders.

Within a real-life context, the case study approach generated a multi-faceted understanding of the physical-environmental complexities and issues of the campus. The quantitative findings describe a car-focused environment with large surfaces of hard pavers that exacerbate heat spots, surface runoff, and biotope loss.

Among the urban scenes studied was the hospital’s recently renewed plaza, the Blä sträket (Blue Line). This pedestrian space is disconnected by car lanes, generating a persistent heat spot where the most visited buildings and seating areas are. This public space disserves climate comfort and presents surfaces that increase rainwater runoff and a low biotope area factor. Altogether, the urban scene offers a poor ecosystem service to the community that might reduce the users’ quality experience. However, a qualitative study is still needed to gain knowledge on environmental development plans to protect vulnerable outdoor users, especially staff, patients, and slow groups such as children, the elderly, and people with different kinds of impairment.

2. Capacity building

Structuring a case study facilitates the transfer of local knowledge and the development of holistic approaches (Tan et al., 2019) and systems thinking, a critical interdisciplinary skill requiring cognitive flexibility to collaboratively work on problems societies face (Grohs et al., 2018). In the current climate and health twin crisis, capacity-building becomes crucial for addressing complex, interdependent issues.

The UN Sustainable Development Goal 17 includes targets for capacity-building, including increasing technology and innovation in the least developed countries and improving data collection and monitoring for the achievement of the SDGs themselves (United Nations, 2022).

In climate change adaptation, capacity building addresses associations, groups, and individuals involved in a particular climate threat or sector, or dealing with a multi-sector and multi-threats perceptive (Capacity Building on Climate Change Adaptation, 2019).

In the health sector, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) affirms that a comprehensive capacity-development strategy of enhancing national systems for health, rather than a siloed approach, creates greater resilience and long-term sustainability of investments (UNDP and Capacity Development, 2022).

The UrbanCare project develops capacity building for knowledge development to address SDGs and the impacts on human health. Furthermore, enhance problem-solving skills to create climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies with community-led research & innovation (International accountability project, 2018) and accelerate change and decision-making with integrated urban planning (Milojević, 2018).

The knowledge development with a holistic approach starts with an input lecture on ecosystem degradation mechanisms and correlations with health. Specifically, the rise of allergies, heat strokes, inflammatory diseases, auto-immune diseases (Flies et al., 2019), cardiovascular diseases, kidney failure, respiratory problems, metabolic disorders, and other health conditions affecting the elderly, children, socially isolated groups or individuals, and outdoor workers (Paravantis et al., 2017). A second input focuses on the relation of landscapes with microclimates (Gkatsopoulus, 2017). Its mitigation properties on environmental stressors (Sharifi, 2019c), and its impacts on the energy balance of hospital buildings (Shen et al., 2019), specifically on non-operational energy consumption (Teke 2015). A third and last is about urban planning and regenerative landscape design (Everard, 2018) as a tool to improve Urban Health (Urban Health, 2021).

The lecture series creates the framework of shared goals for the workshop participants to develop informed arguments for urban development and accelerate planning and design decision-making steps.

3. Research workshop development

In research by Ørngreen and Levinsen (2017), workshops as a research methodology aim to produce reliable and valid data about a case and its subject areas (domains) in question. The workshop results feed back into: (i) the case description, (ii) theory and practices related to the domains, and (iii) improving procedures, techniques, tools, and other applications related to the workshop as a method. In this study, these three outcomes define the process for the continuous development of the UrbanCare research workshop.

The case description reports on a site's environmental issues and possible solutions for urban ecosystem degradation processes at four walkway connectors or pedestrian-level situations such as public transportation stops and stations, street crossings, seating areas, and spaces close by building entrances.

The case data help understand how the four domains of urban ecosystem degradation included for analysis (stormwater runoff, heat spots, biodiversity loss, and spatial inequity) are risk factors for urban-associated diseases enriching the conceptual framework. Consequently, giving insight into how urban-associated diseases can be reduced or avoided through urban regeneration.

The new insight and renewed knowledge allow iterative refinement of the workshop itself. It offers robustness to the conceptual framework, procedures, techniques, tools, and other applications involved in gathering evidence from case analyses and case problem-solving.

3A. Workshop design

The principles to develop the workshop are followed to design the digital and analog interfaces that allow citizens and decision-makers to visualize street-level environmental issues threatening urban ecosystems and assist in co-creating spatial solutions that improve climate and health outcomes.

The digital interface is UrbanCare Data Viewer, a web-based immersive journey for citizens and other stakeholders to navigate urban scenes, such as Google Streets, but from a pedestrian perspective instead of a vehicle perspective. It shows 360° urban scene images with clickable icons for urban heat, surface runoff, and biotope loss that display climate-related infographics to help participants understand the possible environmental impacts on pedestrians. A fourth clickable opens an online survey for participants to rate the environmental conditions of walkway connectors in pedestrian loops.

The analog interface is the printed version of the data viewer that also includes infographic boards, cards, surveys, and other didactic materials accessible and easy to read for broad community participation.

The designs of both the digital and analog versions of the Data Viewer make data available and intuitive to enhance knowledge and improve problem-solving skills.

Persona cards express the gait conditions and mobility needs and requirements of vulnerable outdoor users.

Image 1: Persona cards

Pedestrian challenge cards (image 2) instruct the participant on where to locate pathway street connectors and rate their level of convenience, safeness, comfort, and attractiveness (Speck, 2018).

Eco killer cards (image 3) provide definitions and terminology used in both versions of the Data Viewer.

Image 2: Pedestrian challenge cards Image 3: Eco-killer cards

The pedestraian disease cards (image 4) offer short descriptions on urban-associated diseases.

Image 4: Pedestrian disease cards

3B. Workshop iterative development process

Describing the workshop along with the five performance objectives according to author Greasley (Operations Performance Objectives, 2008) helps assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the research workshop to inform future iterations and versions.

First is quality, the visual sign of how well the workshop performs. It is a consistent indicator that participants base their expectations around. Does the workshop deliver the outputs? Do the materials and format undermine its integrity?

Speed without compromising on quality can allow for faster results that increase user satisfaction and save costs in lengthy decision-making processes.

Dependability means that participants can rely on the workshop to enhance knowledge and skills and describe the case regarding issues and possible solutions.

Flexibility is the means of changing the workshop format to match new conditions of the site, terms of the project, or the number of participants and their requirements.

Fifth is to keep costs as low as possible while maintaining quality, speed, dependability, and flexibility. The minimalization of costs can allocate resources to advancing concept designs of possible solutions and action plans or reinvesting in the iterative design process that improves the overall quality of the research workshop.

Methods

Overview

After completing phases I and II of the UrbanCare methodology (the Urban Health Research and the Data Viewer development), the preparation and conduction of the research workshop involved five steps: 1) an online input lecture on the UrbanCare framework; 2) preparation of the workshop material and working table configuration; 3) a site visit; 4) an introduction lecture to the workshop sessions, and 5) the execution of the research workshop in fours sessions.

Materials and process

A principal investigator, a GIS analyst (assistant 1), and an environmental data analyst (assistant 2) were involved in the preparation and conduction of the research workshop. The principal investigator conceptualized the procedures and defined the five steps and their tasks to guide the assistants' contributions.

1. In the first step, the principle investigator gave to the 43 participants of the workshop an online input lecture to introduce the concept of pedestrian health and describe its risk factors from spatial inequities in streetscapes and urban ecosystem degeneration mechanisms such as urban heat, impervious surfaces and runoff, and biotope loss.

2. The second step defined the workshop requirements with four tasks.

Task 1 was to group the participants into six teams, two teams for each of the three pedestrian loops researched in the first phase of the UrbanCare Methodology as seen in table 1. Each team was assigned to a working table. Based on the number of participants, a program was tailored and agreed upon with the local partner (See annex 1).

Loop No. Urban scenes with walkway connectors Working tables

Number of participants per

working table

1 9 A, B 7 in Table A, and 8 in Table B
2 8 C, D 8 in Table C, and 8 in Table D
3 8 E, F 8 in Table E, and 8 in Table F

Table 1: UrbanCare Workshop setup of participants into working tables.

Task 2 was to list stationery and supplies needed for the workshop sessions (See annex 2) and produce printouts according to the number of working tables and participants. The list of printouts included: user persona chips, pedestrian challenge cards, eco-killer cards, pedestrian disease cards (see images 1 to 4; see list in annex 3), satellite maps of pedestrian loops in format A0, and thermal images of urban scenes in format A5 (see images 5 and 6). Supplies and printouts were distributed on the working tables (see image 7).

Image 5: Site plan with loop 1 marked, A0 format.

All three loops were mapped over satellite photos and printed.

Image 6: Thermal cards providing information of heat spots in urban scenes.
Image 7: Working table with workshop materials.

Task 3 was to measure the workshop room to verify it had the spatial capacity to arrange six tables and a presentation area equipped with a projector, speakers, and microphones.

Task 4 was to prepare the workshop schedule for the participants and send it via email with a reminder to bring a laptop and a smartphone fully charged.

3. In step three, workshop participants had a guided walk on the site to visit short segments of the three pedestrian loops and some of its four walkway connectors: spaces close to building entrances, seating areas, street crossings, and public transportation stops.

4. In the fourth step, the main investigator introduced the workshop sessions offering an overview of the materials placed on the working tables, objectives, and deliverables for each of the four workshop sessions.

Sessions Objectives Deliverables
S1: Gap Finder Identify urban scenes that hinder active travel. Hand-written and online survey replies.
S2: Diagnostics Describe for the scenes selected the urban ecosystem degeneration mechanisms present and how they affect human health. Selection of the most critical urban scene in each pedestrian loop.
S3: Planning Gather information on Policies, Technical Resources, and Economic resources available for climate and health spatial projects. Written comments on each domain.
S4: Design Communicate visually the urban issues found and possible solutions addressing vulnerable outdoor users.

Conceptual sketches and drawings.

Presentation of the sketches including session 3 comments.

Table 2: UrbanCare Workshop sessions objectives and deliverables

5. The fifth step was the execution of the workshop’s four sessions. Both assistants mentored the working tables to help the participants follow instructions and ensure time-keeping. The main investigator responded to questions and doubts from the mentors and participants.

Session 1: Gap Finder

This session had two parts. In part 1, the participants opened a QR code to access the UrbanCare Data Viewer. In 25 minutes, they individually visited the pedestrian loops with their laptops or phones, visualized urban scenes, and clicked on urban heat, surface runoff, biotope loss, and spatial inequity icons (see images 8a and 8b). The latter opened an online multiple choice survey to fill out and rate the environmental conditions of walkway connectors within the urban scenes of the pedestrian loop assigned to their working table (see results 1.1).

Image 8a: Data viewer showing the pedestrian loop with pins to its urban scenes
Image 8b: Data viewer shows an urban scene walkway connector and clickable icons with environmental data

In part two, the participants had 15 minutes to team up, select one user persona chip per working table and make a second tour of the loops. This time, the persona chip moved along the site plan printout (shown in image 5). The pedestrian challenge and pedestrian health cards enriched the group discussions on the urban scenes to fill out a written survey (see results 1.2). The viewer was also available to enhance the discussion with infographic data.

Session 2: Diagnostics

In 45 minutes, each working table had to discuss the findings from session 1, considering how the selected user persona’s health is affected by spatial inequities and ecosystem degeneration processes. Each working table had to narrow down the urban scene selection to one scene (see result 2).

Session 3: Planning

In this session, participants had 25 minutes to follow three steps. 1, Prioritize climate, energy, and health goals for the urban scene selected. 2, Create a team to align goals and develop actions. And 3, Create a time plan (see result 3).

Session 4: Design

In 45 minutes, the participants were instructed to sketch in A4 sheets the various pedestrian and environmental issues found in the urban scene previously selected and their possible solutions. The data viewer was used to revisit urban scenes while sketching the before and after scenarios. At the end of the session, each working table team had 10 minutes to present their findings from session 3 and show the sketches (see results 4.1 to 4.6).

Results from the workshop sessions

The UrbanCare Sahlgrenska research workshop was conducted in four sessions. This section presents the results and outputs attained in each session.

Session 1 results

The following tables show aggregated results attained with the individual online survey and notes taken by the mentors from the group handout surveys. The tables are organized and presented by loops.

Result 1.1 Online survey, aggregated results by loops

(see annex 9: Online survey aggregated results; see annex 10: Online survey disaggregated results)

Walkway Connectors Question

Aggregated results by loops

(based on a Likert scale response survey)

Strongly agree | Agree | Neutral | Disagree | Strongly disagree

Loop 1 Loop 2 Loop 3
Public Transportation Stops & stations Convenience Disagreed N.A. Neutral.
Safeness Disagreed N.A. Agreed
Comfort Disagreed N.A. Disagreed
Attractiveness Disagreed N.A. Neutral
Priority Entrances to open spaces and buildings Convenience Strongly disagreed Disagreed Disagreed
Safeness. Disagreed Neutral Neutral
Comfort Disagreed Neutral Neutral
Attractiveness Disagreed Disagreed Neutral
Public free seating Convenience Strongly disagreed Neutral Disagree
Safeness Disagreed Disagreed Neutral
Comfort Disagreed Disagreed Neutral
Attractiveness Strongly disagreed Disagreed Disagree
Street crossings Convenience Neutral Strongly disagreed Disagree
Safeness. Neutral Strongly disagreed Neutral
Comfort Neutral Neutral Agree
Attractiveness Neutral Neutral Neutral

Result 1.2 Hand-written group surveys

(See annex 11: hand-written survey templates)

Loop 1 Written Survey
Walkway Connectors Persona selected What are the main barriers and challenges of your persona?
Public Transportation Stops & stations Cane User Different levels create obstacles in the journey.
Kids & Parents Lacking landmarks and pathway finding

Priority Entrances to

open spaces and buildings

Cane User Difficult to find and locate priority entrances
Kids & Parents Difficult to find
Public free seating Cane User Very few seating spaces. Eg. Only one bench at the parking spot
Kids & Parents Very few and oddly placed
Street crossings Cane User Long crossings with no markings
Kids & Parents Long and vague crossings, no safety from traffic
Loop 2 Written Survey
Walkway Connectors Persona selected What are the main barriers and challenges of your persona?
Public Transportation Stops & stations Kids & Parents None Nearby
Wheelchair user Difficult to find. No signages. Unsafe
Priority Entrances to open spaces and buildings Kids & Parents Green areas are relaxing but difficult to find. Priority entrances are difficult to find.
Wheelchair user Difficult to find entrances to different types of healthcare clinics. No orientation.
Public free seating Kids & Parents None Nearby
Wheelchair user No pause spaces found.
Street crossings Kids & Parents Unsafe and informal crossings
Wheelchair user No markings for crossings, risky to get through traffic. Only stairs, no ramps, or elevators.
Loop 3 Written Survey
Walkway Connectors Persona selected What are the main barriers and challenges of your persona?
Public Transportation Stops & stations All personas Very hot to wait at the stops. No shade. Poor accessibility due to heavy traffic
Kid Heavy traffic flow, sharp curved roads.
Priority Entrances to open spaces and buildings All personas Difficult to find entrances. Blocked by cars.
Kid Not obvious that it is an entrance. No orientation. Scary impression and dead spaces.
Public free seating All personas Few free seatings are available but not shaded
Kid No spaces to play. Few unshaded seatings.
Street crossings All personas No proper markings for crossings, pedestrian safety at risk.
Kid Long crossings. No signages

Session 2 results

The Diagnostics session results are a selection of urban scenes with the highest levels of urban heat, surface runoff, and biotope loss at the pedestrian level. Teams A to D selected four urban scenes, two for loop 1 and two for loop 2. Teams E and F selected the same scene for loop 3.

Result 2

Loop No. Urban scenes with walkway connectors

Working tables

(teams)

Urban Scenes

with walkaway connectors selected

1 9 A, B

Working Table A, Loop 1, Urban Scene 6 | Bus stop

Working Table B, Loop 1, Urban scene 2 | Priority entrance

2 8 C, D

Working Table C, Loop 2, Urban Scene 1 | Priority entrance

Working Table D, Loop 2, Urban Scene 2 | Tram stop

3 8 E, F Working Table E and F, Loop 3, Urban Scene 8 | Free seating

See all five urban scene graphs in annexes 4 to 8.

Example of an urban scene selected.

Selected urban scene with infographics from Working Table A | Loop 1, Urban Scene 6

Session 3 results

The Planning session results summarize the planning strategies for critical urban scenes in the loops discussed by the participants and noted by the two workshop mentors. The notes reflect the consensus upon the environmental issues from the urban scenes selected in session 2.

For each urban scene selected, it highlights (i) climate, energy, and health problems, (ii) the configuration of the technical team that aligns climate, energy, and health goals and develops actions, and (iii) the ideal timeframe to execute the project.

Result 3: Planning strategies

Loop No.

Urban Scenes

with walkaway connectors selected

Climate, Energy, and Health problems

Who develops the plan?

Technical team required

Ideal timeline

(years)

1

Working Table A, Loop 1, Urban Scene 6

Working Table B, Loop 1, Urban scene 2

  1. Large paved asphalt surfaces and low green aggravates urban heat.

  2. Lack of safety from vehicles.

  1. Landscape designers and architects

  2. urban planner, traffic authorities, landscape designer, climate specialist

  1. 3 to 5

  2. 3 to 5

2

Working Table C, Loop 2, Urban Scene 1

Working Table D, Loop 2, Urban Scene 2

  1. No orientation and landmarks to identify entrance. No seating leading to fatigue.

  2. Unsafe from vehicles. Low biotope and high runoff.

  1. Architect, climate designer

  2. Biodiversity planner, botanist, landscape designer

  1. 1 to 2

  2. 3 to 5

3 Working Table E and F, Loop 3, Urban Scene 8
  1. Poor biotope and high runoff.

  2. Unshaded seating spaces.

  1. Urban planner, landscape designer

  2. Landscape designer, architect

  1. 2 to 3

  2. 1 to 2

Session 4 results

Results from the Design session are concept notes and sketches of urban scenes that improve the pedestrian quality experience of vulnerable outdoor users and outdoor areas close to buildings to optimize their energy efficiency. The sketches express before and after scenarios.

Result 4.1: Working table A problem-solving sketches

Loop 1, Urban Scene 6

Before: High surface runoff, no biotope, unsafe and unaccessible spaces.

Loop 1, Urban Scene 6

After: Start up village with shaded cafeterias and green spaces.

Result 4.2: Working table B problem-solving sketches

Loop 1, Urban scene 2

Before: Lack of orientation and landmarks, lack of resting and social spaces, cars are prioritized.

Loop 1, Urban scene 2

After: Connecting water stream and a fountain, recreate entrance at the plaza.

Result 4.3: Working table C problem-solving sketches

Loop 2, Urban Scene 1

Before: High surface runoff and urban heat, lack of safety from vehicles, buildings exposed to heat.

Loop 2, Urban Scene 1

After: Shaded parking spaces with green room, green facades for adjacent building, tree avenues.

Result 4.4: Working table D problem-solving sketches

Loop 2, Urban Scene 2

Before: Lack of social spaces, low biotope, high urban heat.

Loop 2, Urban Scene 2

After: Incorporate botanical garden to protect pedestrians, creating a sense of social community.

Result 4.5: Working table E problem-solving sketches

Loop 3, Urban Scene 8

Before: High surface runoff and low biotope.

Loop 3, Urban Scene 8

After: Creating more green spaces, a water stream running along the plaza.

Table 12: showing sketch inputs given by participants for Loop 3

Result 4.6: Working table F problem-solving sketches

Loop 3, Urban Scene 8

Before: Lack of orientation and social spaces

Loop 3, Urban Scene 8

After: Permeable surfaces, shared spaces for community cohesion, adding greenery to the plaza.


Results from the research workshop format

This second set of results focuses on describing the efficiency and productivity of the workshop through five performance objectives that will contribute to the iteration development process.

The evaluation with a five-point Likert scale is a composite score of response rates and the degree of knowledge and skill retention (coherence) shown in the deliverables (results).

Results

Performance objectives

(Poor – Fair – Good – Very good – Excellent)

Speed Dependability Flexibility Cost Quality
1.1 Fair Excellent Excellent Poor Good
1.2 Fair Excellent Excellent Fair Very good
2 Excellent Very good Excellent Excellent Excellent
3 Excellent Good Excellent Excellent Very good
4 Very good Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent

Speed. Whether the session was done on time or exceeded the time slot.

Dependability. Degree to which participants followed instruction without further clarification.

Flexibility. Impact of adjusting the existent format to new conditions and requirements of the site and participants.

Cost. Investment in the session preparation and setup vs output coherence.

Quality. Overall score.

Conclusions

Objective 1: Case structuring for decision-makers

The Sahlgrenska case was structured using the quantitative data gathered and processed in Summer 2021 and the qualitative data collected during the research workshop. The case outputs are consolidated data on environmental problems at 25 urban scenes critical for vulnerable pedestrians. The urban scenes include all four types of walkway connectors (stops & stations, street crossings, free-seating, and priority entrance areas). Further research on these types will help develop informed streetscape design principles to improve pedestrian health and battle UHI effects locally. The next steps include using the data for in-depth analysis of the Sahlgrenska Life proposal to inform decision-makers about possible weaknesses and threats to the project.

Objective 2: Capacity-building

Regarding capacity-building, 95% of the participants that attended the online input lecture were present at the workshop, with no need for clarification of concepts or terminology in the four main research topic areas: urban heat, surface runoff, biotope loss, and spatial inequity. The knowledge check was positive, survey participation was high and most responses included terminology and concepts discussed in the input lecture and in the cards. The teams' configuration at the venue was swift and engaged in community-led research by taking notes on climate, energy, and health issues and drafting sketches in groups while investigating through the UrbanCare Data Viewer and table boards.

The integrated planning & design aspect was proven efficient with the final presentation of sketches and a round of concept design pitches per working table. However, the prioritization of problems included climate and energy aspects only and did not list impacts on any subgroup of the vulnerable groups depicted in the persona chips. Emphasizing the assessment and development of concept designs for vulnerable outdoor users must be reinforced in the input lecture and during the workshop. The technical team configuration for developing solutions at the urban scenes selected was diverse and adjusted to the climate and energy needs. Execution time plans were discussed and agreed upon throughout the presentations, indicating that decision-making in urban development processes can shorten significantly.

Objective 3: Research workshop development

The research workshop's overall performance was rated as very good. It is excellent in adjusting its format to new cases, kinds of audiences, and upscaling to a higher number of participants. The worse rating performance objectives are speed and cost, specifically in the first two sessions of the workshop using the online Data Viewer. The learning curve to use the tool is steep for the first two sessions and improves substantially in the second half of the workshop. The Data Viewer is essential for participants unfamiliar with the site and to revisit urban scenes for discussions. Although it needs to be improved and automatized to save time during the workshop and its development systematized to cut costs.

References

Capacity building on climate change adaptation. (2019). Climate-ADAPT. https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/metadata/adaptation-options/capacity-building-on-climate-change-adaptation

Ebneyamini, S., & Sadeghi Moghadam, M. R. (2018). Toward Developing a Framework for Conducting Case Study Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 160940691881795. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918817954

Flies, E. J., Mavoa, S., Zosky, G. R., Mantzioris, E., Williams, C., Eri, R., Brook, B. W., & Buettel, J. C. (2019). Urban-associated diseases: Candidate diseases, environmental risk factors, and a path forward. Environment International, 133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105187

German Healthcare Partnership. (n.d.). GHP GREEN HOSPITAL STUDY STAGE 1 - DETERMINATION OF BASICS. https://gha.health/pdf/GHP_Green_Hospital_Study.pdf

Gkatsopoulos, P. (2017). A Methodology for Calculating Cooling from Vegetation Evapotranspiration for Use in Urban Space Microclimate Simulations. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 38, 477–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2017.03.139

Grohs, J. R., Kirk, G. R., Soledad, M. M., & Knight, D. B. (2018). Assessing systems thinking: A tool to measure complex reasoning through ill-structured problems. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 28, 110–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.03.003

International accountability project. (2018). Community action guide on community-led research. https://accountabilityproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/IAP-Comm-Act-Guide-web.pdf

Martin, D., Shulman, K., Santiago-Sorrell, P., & Singer, P. (2003). Priority-setting and hospital strategic planning: a qualitative case study. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 8(4), 197–201. https://doi.org/10.1258/135581903322403254

Milojević, B. (2018). INTEGRATED URBAN PLANNING IN THEORY AND PRACTICE. САВРЕМЕНА ТЕОРИЈА И ПРАКСА У ГРАДИТЕЉСТВУ, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.7251/stp1813323m

NACTO. (2017, June 29). Streets are Ecosystems. National Association of City Transportation Officials. https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-stormwater-guide/streets-are-ecosystems/

Operations Performance Objectives. (2008). Operations Management, 18–22. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446213025.n3

Ørngreen, R., & Levinsen, K. (2017). Workshops as a Research Methodology. The Electronic Journal of eLearning Volume 15 Issue 1 2017, (pp70-81) available online at www.ejel.org. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1140102.pdf

Pan American Health Organization. (2017). Smart Hospitals Toolkit. https://iris.paho.org/bitstream/handle/10665.2/34977/9789275119396_eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Paravantis, J., Santamouris, M., Cartalis, C., Efthymiou, C., & Kontoulis, N. (2017). Mortality Associated with High Ambient Temperatures, Heatwaves, and the Urban Heat Island in Athens, Greece. Sustainability, 9(4), 1–22.

Sharifi, A. (2019). Resilient urban forms: A review of literature on streets and street networks. Building and Environment, 147, 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.09.040

Shen, C., Zhao, K., Ge, J., & Zhou, Q. (2019). Analysis of Building Energy Consumption in a Hospital in the Hot Summer and Cold Winter Area. Energy Procedia, 158, 3735–3740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2019.01.883

Speck, J. (2018). Walkable City Rules: 101 Steps to Making Better Places (3rd ed.). Island Press.

Streets are Ecosystems. (2017, June 29). National Association of City Transportation Officials. https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-stormwater-guide/streets-are-ecosystems/

Tan, D. T., Siri, J. G., Gong, Y., Ong, B., Lim, S. C., MacGillivray, B. H., & Marsden, T. (2019). Systems approaches for localising the SDGs: co-production of place-based case studies. Globalization and Health, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-019-0527-1

Teke, A., & Timur, O. (2014). Assessing the energy efficiency improvement potentials of HVAC systems considering economic and environmental aspects at the hospitals. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 33, 224–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.02.002

UNDP and capacity development | United Nations Development Programme | about. (2022). UNDP CD Health. https://www.undp-capacitydevelopment-health.org/en/about-us/capacity-development/

United Nations. (2022). Capacity-Building. UN.ORG. https://www.un.org/en/academic-impact/capacity-building

Valera Sosa, A. (2021). UrbanCare Methodology – Building Health Lab. Building Health. https://buildinghealth.eu/therapeutic-landscaping-and-climate-design/

WHO. (2015). CLIMATE AND HEALTH COUNTRY PROFILE – 2015 Germany. https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1031213/retrieve

Annexes

Annex 1: Schedule of the day with requirements

8:15 Lecture

  • Bio of the speakers_Host Institute

9.30: Coffee Pause + Site walk

  • Location for site visit meet up

  • Pick up coffee and coffee-to-go (10 min)

  • Walk around the site (20 min)

  • Back to Workshop location (20 min)

10:30 Workhsop start

  • Introduction slides host institution_Host

  • Introduction slides from Alvaro_BHL

  • A “stage” area, with screens and microphones (for our presentations and groups presentations)_Host Institution

  • Participant team name tags on tables_Host Institution

  • Inform participants that one laptop per 2 people is needed_Host Institution

10:35 Session 1 instruction with a warm-up (25 minutes)

11:00 Session 1 exercise (15 minutes)

  • Prints at the table: A0 Maps + persona cards + pedestrian challenge cards + A4 pedestrian challenge templates_BHL + Host Institution.

11:15 Session 2 instructions (5 Minutes)

11:20 Session 2 exercise (40 minutes)

  • Ensure access to all tables for BHL team to assist participants_Host Institution

  • Prints at working tables: A0 Maps + Street Eco Cards + Pedestrian disease cards_BHL + Host Institution

12:00 Lunch

Location of the venue:

  • Lunch nearby or at same building_Host Institution

13:00 Discussion of findings Sessions 1 & 2 (25 minutes)

  • Microphones and pin-up boards for participants to present the findings._Host Institution

  • Central space for the presentations, such that the presenter's voice will be audible to all attendants._Host Institution

13:25 Session 3 instructions (5 minutes)

13:30 Session 3 exercise (20 minutes)

  • Preparation of planning post-its

13:50 Coffee Break

Location of the venue

  • Coffee nearby the venue_Host Institution

14:05 Session 4 instructions (5 minutes)

14:10 Session 4 exercise (40 minutes)

  • Sketching pages, pens, and other drawing material on tables_Host Institution + BHL

14:50 Group Presentations of findings Sessions 3 & 4

  • Space and technical requirements for the presentations_Host Institution

15:45 End

Annex 2: Stationery

  • 14 Ballpoint pens black

e.g., Pen Uni-Ball Eye Fine UB-157 - Liquid Rollerball Pen - 0.7mm Tip

  • 7 sets of sketching pencils:

e.g., FABER-CASTELL 119063 Set of 6 pencils

  • 6 Pencil erasers

e.g., Tombow EN-DC Mono Dust Catch Eraser for Residue-Free Erasing (Pack of 5)

  • 6 Pencil sharpeners

e.g., Faber-Castell 2 mm/3.15 mm TK Lead Sharpener

  • Sticky notes: yellow; light blue; light green; light red. (they must be pastel – light color)

e.g., Pack of 24 Coloured Sticky Notes - 50 x 38 mm Sticky Notes, Self-Adhesive Sticky Notes, Colourful Notes for Office Home, 2400 Sheets in Total (12 Colours)

  • Highlighters 6 of each: light yellow; light blue; light green; light red (pastel)

e.g., 6 packs of Stabilo Boss Original Text marker, pastel. pack of 5 colors.

  • 1 A4 paper blocks- 120 grams, minimum 100 sheets

  • 6 A3 folders

e.g., Art folder, grey cardboard thick = 1 mm

  • 1 Double-sided Tape to mount the posters on the wall

e.g., Scotch Poster Tape Removable-.75"X150"

  • 5 rectangular cardboard boxes size A4 to store the cards. Dimensions in cms 21.0 (b) x 29.7 (h) x 5-10 (w). Approx. cardboard thickness 1.5 mm

  • 6 A1 size foam board panels (if planning boards not pasted on foam boards at the printing shop) e.g., Cathedral A1 Foam Board - White (Pack of 10) 5mm thick

  • Foam board spray glue

e.g., SprayMount - Spray Adhesive Repositionable When Wet 400 ml, red

  • Foam board cutter / sharp art cutter

Annex 3: Printing material

Cards

  • Pedestrian Challenge cards: print page 30 times, printed on A4 pages

  • Persona cards: print page 2 times, printed on A4 pages

  • Eco killer cards: print page 30 times, printed on A4 pages

  • Pedestrian disease cards: print page 15 times, printed on A4 pages

  • A5 thermal card ppt: print the pdf 2 times, 24 pages, printed on A4 pages

A4 Template

  • Pedestrian challenge template: print page 24 times, printed on A4 pages

  • Participant team templates: 6 A4 prints, printed on A4 pages

A1 Planning boards

  • A1 Sheets: print each sheet 2 times,6 sheets, printed on A1 sheets and pasted on foam boards

A0 Loop Maps

  • A0 Sheets: print each sheet 2 times, 6 sheets, printed on A0 sheets

Important printing info - read carefully!

  • Printing quality: 230 grams minimum, coated matte

  • Does the university have a cutting machine for cards to be cut?

  • A1 Planning boards to be pasted on foam boards. Will that be possible at the printing shop? If not we need to buy foam boards and a foam board glue spray.

Annex 4: Loop 1, urban scene selected #6

Loop 1, Urban scene 6,

Urban scene with infographics selected by Working Table A

Annex 5: Loop 1, urban scene selected #2

Loop 1, Urban scene 2, Urban scene with infographics selected by Working Table B

Annex 6: Loop 2, urban scene selected #1

Loop 2, Urban scene 1, Urban scene with infographics selected by Working Table C

Annex 7: Loop 2, urban scene selected #2

Loop 2, Urban scene 2, Urban scene with infographics selected by Working Table D

Annex 8: Loop 3, urban scenes selected #8

Loop 3, Urban scene 8, Urban scene with infographics selected by Working Tables E & F


Annex 9: Online survey aggregated results

Loop 1 Online Survey
Walkway Connectors Scene location Question

Aggregated results

(based on a Likert scale response survey)

Public Transportation Stops & stations

Loop 1

Urban scenes 1, 3, 5, 6

Convenience | This stop fits well with my mobility condition and needs. In scenes 1, 3 and 5 the responses were neutral while in scene 6 most voters strongly disagreed.
Safeness | I feel safe and protected as I wait for my ride.

In Urban Scene 1 is mostly agreed, Urban Scene 6 most disagreed or strongly diasagreed, the rest remained neutral.

In scene 1 most voters agreed while in scene 6 responses varied between mostly disagree or strongly disagree. In scenes 3 and 5 were neutral.

Comfort | Even if the weather is bad, I don’t mind waiting here 30 minutes. In Urban Scenes 1 and 6 most voters disagreed while in 3 and 5 the responses were neutral.
Attractiveness | I’m proud to show visitors how cool our public transportation is. In all scenes most voters either disagreed or strongly disagreed.
Priority Entrances to open spaces and buildings

Loop 1

Urban scenes 2, 8

Convenience | It was easy to find the entrance and uncomplicated to access. In both scenes the voters strongly disagreed.
Safeness | As I approach the location, I feel safer and more protected. In Urban Scene 2 voters either disagreed or strongly disagreed, while in Urban Scene 8 the responses varied between neutral and disagree.
Comfort | “I can wait outside, no problem! “ In both scenes the voters either disagred or strongly disagreed.
Attractiveness | The outdoors of this place is worth taking a picture of! In Urban Scene 8 most of the voters either disagreed or strongly disagreed while less than 10% agreed.
Public free seating

Loop 1

Urban scenes 7, 8b

Convenience | Along my walk, it was quick to find a place to sit. A majority either disagreed or strongly disagreed for both scenes.
Safeness | Even at night, I feel safe and protected sitting here. In Urban Scene 7 all voters strongly disagreed, while for Urban Scene 8b all remained neutral.
Comfort | If it gets hotter or starts raining, I don’t have to leave in a hurry and stay a bit longer. In both scenes choices strongly disagreed or were neutral.
Attractiveness | This is a place to enjoy being outdoors, a place for contemplation. In Urban Scene 7 all voters strongly disagreed while in Urban Scene 8b all were neutral.
Street crossings

Loop 1

Urban scene 4

Convenience | Despite my mobility condition and needs, it is easy to cross this street. Half of the voters strongly disagreed and the other half agreed.
Safeness | I feel safe and protected waiting for the stoplight and crossing. Half of the voters strongly disagreed and the other half agreed.
Comfort | On a hot or rainy day, traffic lights work for me to cross quickly. Half of the voters strongly disagreed and the other half agreed.
Attractiveness | This crossing looks more like a boulevard than a road lane. Half of the voters strongly disagreed and the other half agreed.
Loop 2 Online Survey
Walkway Connectors Scene location Question

Aggregated results

(based on a Likert scale response survey)

Public Transportation Stops & stations

Loop 2

Urban scene 2

Convenience | This stop fits well with my mobility condition and needs. N.A.
Safeness | I feel safe and protected as I wait for my ride. N.A.
Comfort | Even if the weather is bad, I don’t mind waiting here 30 minutes. N.A.
Attractiveness | I’m proud to show visitors how cool our public transportation is. N.A.
Priority Entrances to open spaces and buildings

Loop 2

Urban scenes 1, 3, 4, 5, 8

Convenience | It was easy to find the entrance and uncomplicated to access. A majority disagreed, while in Urban Scene 3 the responses were mostly neutral and in Urban Scene 1 almost all voters disagreed.
Safeness | As I approach the location, I feel safer and more protected. In Urban Scene 3 almost all voters agreed while in other scenes almost everyone disagreed.
Comfort | “I can wait outside, no problem! “ A majority disagreed, with an exception to Urban Scene 5 where responses were either neutral or agreed.
Attractiveness | The outdoors of this place is worth taking a picture of! Almost all voters disagreed with the exception to Urban Scene 3 where all voters agreed.
Public free seating

Loop 2

Urban scene 7

Convenience | Along my walk, it was quick to find a place to sit. All responses were neutral.
Safeness | Even at night, I feel safe and protected sitting here. All disagreed.
Comfort | If it gets hotter or starts raining, I don’t have to leave in a hurry and stay a bit longer. All disagreed.
Attractiveness | This is a place to enjoy being outdoors, a place for contemplation. All disagreed.
Street crossings

Loop 2

Urban scene 6

Convenience | Despite my mobility condition and needs, it is easy to cross this street. All either disagreed or strongly disagreed.
Safeness | I feel safe and protected waiting for the stoplight and crossing. All either disagreed or strongly disagreed.
Comfort | On a hot or rainy day, traffic lights work for me to cross quickly. More than half agreed while others strongly disagreed.
Attractiveness | This crossing looks more like a boulevard than a road lane. Half of the voters agreed while half disagreed.
Loop 3 Online Survey
Walkway Connectors Scene location Question

Aggregated results

(based on a Likert scale response survey)

Public Transportation Stops & stations

Loop 3

Urban scene 7

Convenience | This stop fits well with my mobility condition and needs. All responses were neutral.
Safeness | I feel safe and protected as I wait for my ride. All the voters agree.
Comfort | Even if the weather is bad, I don’t mind waiting here 30 minutes. All voters disagree.
Attractiveness | I’m proud to show visitors how cool our public transportation is. All responses were neutral.
Priority Entrances to open spaces and buildings

Loop 3

Urban scene 1, 3, 5

Convenience | It was easy to find the entrance and uncomplicated to access. In Urban Scene 1 all voters disagree while in Urban Scene 3 responses varied between strongly disagree and strongly agree. In Urban Scene 5 all responses were neutral.
Safeness | As I approach the location, I feel safer and more protected.

In Urban Scene 1 all voters mostly disagree while in Urban Scene 3 the responses varied between agreeing and neutral,

In Urban Scene 5 all responses were neutral.

Comfort | “I can wait outside, no problem! “ In Urban Scene 1 all the voters disagree while in Urban Scene 3 the responses varied between disagreeing and agree. In Urban Scene 5 the responses varied between agreeing and neutral.
Attractiveness | The outdoors of this place is worth taking a picture of! In Urban Scene 1 all voters disagree while in Urban Scene 3 the responses varied between disagreeing and agreeing. In Urban Scene 5 the responses varied between agreeing and neutral.
Public free seating

Loop 3

Urban scenes 2, 4, 8

Convenience | Along my walk, it was quick to find a place to sit. In Urban Scene 2 all voters disagree while in Urban Scene 4 almost all voters disagree and in Urban Scene 8 all agree.
Safeness | Even at night, I feel safe and protected sitting here. In Urban Scenes 2 and 4 all voters mostly disagree while in Urban Scene 8 all voters agree.
Comfort | If it gets hotter or starts raining, I don’t have to leave in a hurry and stay a bit longer.

In Urban Scene 2 all voters disagree while in Urban Scene 4 the responses varied between disagreeing and agreeing.

In Urban Scene 8 the responses varied between agreeing and neutral.

Attractiveness | This is a place to enjoy being outdoors, a place for contemplation. In Urban Scene 2 the responses varied between neutral and disagree, while in Urban Scene 4 almost all voters disagree. In Urban Scene 8 most voters disagree.
Street crossings

Loop 3

Urban scene 6

Convenience | Despite my mobility condition and needs, it is easy to cross this street. Almost all voters disagree.
Safeness | I feel safe and protected waiting for the stoplight and crossing. The responses varied between agreeing and disagreeing.
Comfort | On a hot or rainy day, traffic lights work for me to cross quickly. Almost all voters agree.
Attractiveness | This crossing looks more like a boulevard than a road lane. Almost all responses were neutral while some voters agree.


Annex 10: Online survey disaggregated results

Loop 1
Walkway Connectors Scene location Question Likert scale
Public Transportation Stops and stations

Loop 1

Urban scene 1

Convenience | This stop fits well with my mobility condition and needs.
Safeness | I feel safe and protected as I wait for my ride.
Comfort | Even if the weather is bad, I don’t mind waiting here 30 minutes.
Attractiveness | I’m proud to show visitors how cool our public transportation is.

Loop 1

Urban scene 3

Convenience | This stop fits well with my mobility condition and needs.
Safeness | I feel safe and protected as I wait for my ride.
Comfort | Even if the weather is bad, I don’t mind waiting here 30 minutes.
Attractiveness | I’m proud to show visitors how cool our public transportation is.

Loop 1

Urban scene 5

Convenience | This stop fits well with my mobility condition and needs.
Safeness | I feel safe and protected as I wait for my ride.
Comfort | Even if the weather is bad, I don’t mind waiting here 30 minutes.
Attractiveness | I’m proud to show visitors how cool our public transportation is.

Loop 1

Urban scene 6

Convenience | This stop fits well with my mobility condition and needs.
Safeness | I feel safe and protected as I wait for my ride.
Comfort | Even if the weather is bad, I don’t mind waiting here 30 minutes.
Attractiveness | I’m proud to show visitors how cool our public transportation is.
Priority Entrances to open spaces and buildings

Loop 1

Urban scene 2

Convenience | It was easy to find the entrance and uncomplicated to access.
Safeness | As I approach the location, I feel safer and more protected.
Comfort | “I can wait outside, no problem! “
Attractiveness | The outdoors of this place is worth taking a picture of!

Loop 1

Urban scene 8

Convenience | It was easy to find the entrance and uncomplicated to access.
Safeness | As I approach the location, I feel safer and more protected.
Comfort | “I can wait outside, no problem! “
Attractiveness | The outdoors of this place is worth taking a picture of!
Public free seating

Loop 1

Urban scene 7

Convenience | Along my walk, it was quick to find a place to sit.
Safeness | Even at night, I feel safe and protected sitting here.
Comfort | If it gets hotter or starts raining, I don’t have to leave in a hurry and stay a bit longer.
Attractiveness | This is a place to enjoy being outdoors, a place for contemplation.

Loop 1

Urban scene 8b

Convenience | Along my walk, it was quick to find a place to sit.
Safeness | Even at night, I feel safe and protected sitting here.
Comfort | If it gets hotter or starts raining, I don’t have to leave in a hurry and stay a bit longer.
Attractiveness | This is a place to enjoy being outdoors, a place for contemplation.
Street crossings

Loop 1

Urban scene 4

Convenience | Despite my mobility condition and needs, it is easy to cross this street.
Safeness | I feel safe and protected waiting for the stoplight and crossing.
Comfort | On a hot or rainy day, traffic lights work for me to cross quickly.
Attractiveness | This crossing looks more like a boulevard than a road lane.
Loop 2
Walkway Connectors Scene location Question Likert scale
Public Transportation Stops and stations

Loop 2

Urban scene 2

Convenience | This stop fits well with my mobility condition and needs. MISSING
Safeness | I feel safe and protected as I wait for my ride. MISSING
Comfort | Even if the weather is bad, I don’t mind waiting here 30 minutes. MISSING
Attractiveness | I’m proud to show visitors how cool our public transportation is. MISSING
Priority Entrances to open spaces and buildings

Loop 2

Urban scene 1

Convenience | It was easy to find the entrance and uncomplicated to access.
Safeness | As I approach the location, I feel safer and more protected.
Comfort | “I can wait outside, no problem! “
Attractiveness | The outdoors of this place is worth taking a picture of!

Loop 2

Urban scene 3

Convenience | It was easy to find the entrance and uncomplicated to access.
Safeness | As I approach the location, I feel safer and more protected.
Comfort | “I can wait outside, no problem! “
Attractiveness | The outdoors of this place is worth taking a picture of!

Loop 2

Urban scene 4

Convenience | It was easy to find the entrance and uncomplicated to access.
Safeness | As I approach the location, I feel safer and more protected.
Comfort | “I can wait outside, no problem! “
Attractiveness | The outdoors of this place is worth taking a picture of!

Loop 2

Urban scene 5

Convenience | It was easy to find the entrance and uncomplicated to access.
Safeness | As I approach the location, I feel safer and more protected.
Comfort | “I can wait outside, no problem! “
Attractiveness | The outdoors of this place is worth taking a picture of!

Loop 2

Urban scene 8

Convenience | It was easy to find the entrance and uncomplicated to access.
Safeness | As I approach the location, I feel safer and more protected.
Comfort | “I can wait outside, no problem! “
Attractiveness | The outdoors of this place is worth taking a picture of!
Public free seating

Loop 2

Urban scene 7

Convenience | Along my walk, it was quick to find a place to sit.
Safeness | Even at night, I feel safe and protected sitting here.
Comfort | If it gets hotter or starts raining, I don’t have to leave in a hurry and stay a bit longer.
Attractiveness | This is a place to enjoy being outdoors, a place for contemplation.
Street crossings

Loop 2

Urban scene 6

Convenience | Despite my mobility condition and needs, it is easy to cross this street.
Safeness | I feel safe and protected waiting for the stoplight and crossing.
Comfort | On a hot or rainy day, traffic lights work for me to cross quickly.
Attractiveness | This crossing looks more like a boulevard than a road lane.
Loop 3
Walkway Connectors Scene location Question Likert scale
Public Transportation Stops and stations

Loop 3

Urban scene 7

Convenience | This stop fits well with my mobility condition and needs.
Safeness | I feel safe and protected as I wait for my ride.
Comfort | Even if the weather is bad, I don’t mind waiting here 30 minutes.
Attractiveness | I’m proud to show visitors how cool our public transportation is.
Priority Entrances to open spaces and buildings

Loop 3

Urban scene 1

Convenience | It was easy to find the entrance and uncomplicated to access.
Safeness | As I approach the location, I feel safer and more protected.
Comfort | “I can wait outside, no problem! “
Attractiveness | The outdoors of this place is worth taking a picture of!

Loop 3

Urban scene 3

Convenience | It was easy to find the entrance and uncomplicated to access.
Safeness | As I approach the location, I feel safer and more protected.
Comfort | “I can wait outside, no problem! “
Attractiveness | The outdoors of this place is worth taking a picture of!

Loop 3

Urban scene 5

Convenience | It was easy to find the entrance and uncomplicated to access.
Safeness | As I approach the location, I feel safer and more protected.
Comfort | “I can wait outside, no problem! “
Attractiveness | The outdoors of this place is worth taking a picture of!
Public free seating

Loop 3

Urban scene 2

Convenience | Along my walk, it was quick to find a place to sit.
Safeness | Even at night, I feel safe and protected sitting here.
Comfort | If it gets hotter or starts raining, I don’t have to leave in a hurry and stay a bit longer.
Attractiveness | This is a place to enjoy being outdoors, a place for contemplation.

Loop 3

Urban scene 4

Convenience | Along my walk, it was quick to find a place to sit.
Safeness | Even at night, I feel safe and protected sitting here.
Comfort | If it gets hotter or starts raining, I don’t have to leave in a hurry and stay a bit longer.
Attractiveness | This is a place to enjoy being outdoors, a place for contemplation.

Loop 3

Urban scene 8

Convenience | Along my walk, it was quick to find a place to sit.
Safeness | Even at night, I feel safe and protected sitting here.
Comfort | If it gets hotter or starts raining, I don’t have to leave in a hurry and stay a bit longer.
Attractiveness | This is a place to enjoy being outdoors, a place for contemplation.
Street crossings

Loop 3

Urban scene 6

Convenience | Despite my mobility condition and needs, it is easy to cross this street.
Safeness | I feel safe and protected waiting for the stoplight and crossing.
Comfort | On a hot or rainy day, traffic lights work for me to cross quickly.
Attractiveness | This crossing looks more like a boulevard than a road lane.

Annex 11: Hand-written survey templates

Image 6: Pedestrian Challenge Handout Image 9: Persona template / handout

Figures (128)

Publication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication ImagePublication Image

No comments published yet.

DOI:
10.24404/62c4ac18e37b1e1aef408269
Preprint
Submitted by1 Aug 2022
User Avatar
Alvaro Valera Sosa
Download Publication