Contemporary society has grown seemingly detached from the realities of growing old and subsequently, dying. A consequence, perhaps, of death becoming increasingly overmedicalised, nearly one in two UK nationals die institutional deaths. In this article we, two architectural scholars engaged in teaching, research and practice and a nurse and healthcare scholar with a focus on end-of-life care and peoples’ experiences, wish to draw attention to a controversy resulting from a paucity in current literature on the terms of reference of the dying ‘patient’ as we navigate the future implications of the COVID-19 pandemic. This contributes to a relative lack of touchstones for architects to refer to when designing person-centred palliative care environments. Unlike common building types, architects are extremely unlikely to have lived experience of palliative care environments as patients; and therefore, require the help of healthcare professionals to imagine and empathise with the requirements of a person dying away from home. This paper includes a review of ageing and dying literature to understand, and distil from an architectural perspective, who, design professionals, are designing for and to remember the nuanced characteristics of those we hold a duty of care toward. We ask readers to heed the importance of accurate terms of reference, especially when commissioning and/or designing environments of palliative care. Furthermore, we put forward an appeal for interdisciplinary collaboration to develop a framework for codesigning positive experiences of person-centred care and environments at the end of life.
This study assessed the impact of introducing a Sustainable Urban Drainage (SuDs) scheme to a socioeconomically deprived area, on residents buy-in and sustainable behaviours. Surveys were completed before the scheme was implemented by 180 residents (in affected n = 79 and neighbouring streets n = 101) and 1 year after the schemes completion by 51 residents. Following scheme completion, sustainable behaviours significantly increased by 17% in the scheme area and by 9% in the neighbouring streets. Written feedback indicated increased buy-in from residents affected by the scheme, and from neighbouring areas. Written feedback before the scheme included: (i) Concerns about parking; (ii) Liking the scheme; (iii) Feeling consultation was lacking; and (iv) Feeling the scheme was a waste of funds. Feedback after scheme completion included: (i) Feeling the SuDs improved the area; (ii) Remaining concerns about parking; (iii) Valuing the extra green space in the neighbouring area; and (iv) Wanting the SuDs in neighbouring streets. Introducing Green Infrastructure may improve resident’s sustainable behaviours. Importantly, residents in neighbouring areas became envious of the SuDs once completed and showed increased sustainable behaviours indicating spill-over effects. The 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) recently took place, and England is considering statutory SuDs as seen in the scheme discussed here. Therefore, this research is particularly relevant to local authorities and stakeholders who can struggle to communicate the multi-benefits of sustainable urban design solutions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.