The question of evidence: current worldviews in environmental design research and practice

Abstract

The popularity of the concept of evidence-based design (EBD) has exploded over the past five years, picking up speed as a topic of attention in environmental design conferences, papers and articles, and books. Rooted in the healthcare environment, the EBD concept has now bridged out to design of long-term care settings, housing and workplaces, as well as facilities management. While evidence-based design is indeed a seductive term for those of us interested in advancing research-informed design – portending linkages between research-derived evidence and environmental design – we cautiously note that, as of this writing, in its current conceptualisation, its clout is stronger than its clarity. This paper is a clarion invitation to the environmental design research community to consider the concept of evidence-based design as emergent, warranting careful, critical examination regarding its meaning and underlying assumptions.

Evidence-Based Design and Research-Informed Design: What’s the Difference? Conceptual Definitions and Comparative Analysis

“…The CHD defined EBD as “the process of basing decisions about the built environment on credible research to achieve the best possible outcomes” (2008, p. 1). However, this definition has received much debate into what constitutes credible research and application, and there has been a shift to critically examine the research study’s generalizability, applicability, methodological clarity, fidelity, and overall quality (Moore & Geboy, 2010; Pati, 2011; Rashid, 2013; Taylor & Hignett, 2014). While not explicitly stated in the definition, the expanded the CHD model of EBD emphasizes the importance of working in partnership with the client and interdisciplinary team to foster understanding of the client and population needs, preferences, and resources (Cama, 2009; The CHD, 2009b).…”

“…Based on this analysis, it is proposed that EBD can be defined as the process of making decisions about the creation of an environmental design by critically and appropriately integrating the sum of available, credible evidence, practitioner design expertise, and client or population needs, preferences, and resources, in the context of the project, in order to achieve project objectives. This definition has been modeled from numerous established definitions and defines the client as a constituent that the environment is meant to serve, for instance, the patient, clinical organization, and end user of the environment (Hamilton, 2003; Institute of Medicine, 2001; Moore and Geboy, 2010; Sackett et al, 1996; Satterfield et al, 2009; The CHD, 2008). Figure 3 demonstrates the proposed conceptual model for EBD.…”

“…Although RID has been discussed for many years, no known definition of RID has yet been published. Based on this analysis, it is proposed that RID can be defined as the process of applying credible research in integration with project-, client-, or population-specific empirical inquiry to inform the creation of environmental design and achieve project objectives (Bentley et al, 2013; Burghardt & Hacker, 2014; Moore & Geboy, 2010). Credible research includes qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches with the highest standards of rigor suitable for their methodology.…”

Sources and flow of healthcare built environment design evidence

“…The intention of EBD is to improve healthcare performance through the use of evidence in the design process that demonstrates how built environment interventions can positively influence the outcomes of the healthcare users. However, the evidence that underpins EBD can arguably come from a number of sources, and there is ongoing debate as to what constitutes credible research that is able to validate and indeed warrant the label of 'evidence' (see Stichler, 2010;Moore & Geboy, 2010, for example).…”

“…However, despite such debates, it is generally understood (and accepted for the purposes of this paper) to be evidence grounded in peer-reviewed, scientific enquiry using the '…most up to date credible research conducted according to the highest standards of rigour appropriate for that given research approach….' (Moore & Geboy 2010), with the capacity for practical and experiential enhancements to be made alongside (e.g. Hamilton & Watkins 2009).…”