Comprehensive assessment methodology for liveable residential environment

Cities 94 (2019) 44–54

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cities journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

Comprehensive assessment methodology for liveable residential environment Vanja Skalickya, Ilka Čerpesb,

T

⁎

a

University of Maribor, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Transportation Engineering and Architecture, Department of Architecture, Smetanova street 17, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia b University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Architecture, Chair of Urbanism, Zoisova street 12, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Residential environment Liveability Urban design Comprehensive assessment Criteria

This paper provides a methodology for the comprehensive assessment of residential environment liveability (REL) as a tool for architects, urban planners, and policy makers. Residential environments are facing challenges to achieve their liveability due to lack of resources, population growth, and urbanization. Over the past decades, a considerable progress has been made towards the evaluation of the quality of urban development and buildings and it mainly addresses environmental indicators. The main objective of this research is the development of a new methodology for assessing the quality of residential environment design in urban areas and to emphasize the significance of the holistic approach based on Scandinavian experience. The Scandinavian role model for housing issues not only comprises of building design, but also provides a development of high-quality residential environment as a whole to improve social well-being. An innovative deductive methodology serves as a platform for developing a system of criteria and quantitative and qualitative indicators for assessing the quality of residential environment while ensuring healthy, pleasant, and attractive environments for living. The REL method is discussed from many different aspects, while the indicators refer to various elements of physical urban form in residential environment. The results of the research show that the criteria system to assess residential environment quality, which focuses on liveability, is of general application.

1. Introduction Residential environment is an important integral part of urban areas and mostly accounts for their largest share (Zapušek & Kučan, 2009). Residential environment consists mostly of dwellings, residential buildings, public services and outdoor space, where people spend their time to meet their needs and involve in various activities. Furthermore, the residential environment should be specified by both spatial and social indicators (Urbanistični Inštitut Republike Slovenije, 2000). “Successful housing design cannot do without good urban design; no matter how good a residential building looks, feels, functions, interacts with the environment, it will only be sustainable (environmentally, socially, economically, etc.) if it is a part of a larger, organic whole”. With the exception of energetic and environmental labelling, the shortage of assessment and labelling of residential environment quality has been noted in comparison to other sectors, such as food industry (De Matteis, 2010, p. 51). Sustainable development is often linked to technological concepts (the use of energy, pollution, waste, etc.); however, these are just physical elements of sustainability. The so-

⁎

called green technology itself does not yet create a sustainable society. The sustainable urban development should be socially and economically stable while providing a good ecological profile (Butters, 2004). The main difference between sustainability and liveability studies is that liveability places a much greater emphasis on human and social factors (Szibbo, 2016). In many ways, liveability could be viewed as encompassing a wide range of issues relating to overall quality of living and well-being (Giap, Thye, & Aw, 2014). “We live in a dwelling, but not just there. We also live in a street, in a village or in the city. Dwelling takes place as part of a greater whole, in an environment that defines the experience of dwelling at varying levels” (Leupen & Mooij, 2011). Living quality does not only relate to housing or dwellings, but also to immediate surroundings and wider environment we live in. Often the residential environment is evaluated from a single perspective; be it sanitary, functional, technical, social or aesthetic. It is necessary to emphasize the need for a comprehensive environment assessment combining both social, functional, and aesthetic dimension and the relationship between the city fabric and residential environment as part of the city. Residential environments are

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (V. Skalicky), [email protected] (I. Čerpes).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.05.020 Received 30 October 2018; Received in revised form 7 March 2019; Accepted 14 May 2019 0264-2751/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Cities 94 (2019) 44–54

V. Skalicky and I. Čerpes

often left out of the urban structures and do not form an integrated unit with other parts of the city. They are defined by uniform building structures with a lack of liveliness and functional connectivity thus not considered as an entity. The identity of residential environment is one of the essential elements of residential environment quality (Jernejec, 1967). Well-defined relations between residential buildings and direct outdoors spaces or the attitude towards a wider area and meeting needs of as many residents as possible create conditions to design a quality residential environment (Zapušek & Kučan, 2009). In this context, the urban design should reflect a certain ambient value, lifestyle and a certain living culture (Urbanistični Inštitut Republike Slovenije, 2000). According to French (2012) the residential environments have been identified at two interconnected levels, that is as sociological and physical structures: residential buildings design, distribution of buildings, environmental interactions of buildings with the physical environment and enabling user activities based on character, social qualities, socioeconomic interactions in the environment with community and general society. According to recent research, poorer health outcomes are also associated with higher housing deprivation (Wan & Su, 2016). Therefore, reflections on innovative and sustainable built environment are of key importance. Urban population is increasing and it is estimated to reach 70% of the total population in the world by 2050. Governments are facing greater challenges in providing inhabitants with a good quality of living in their cities (Shen, Ochoa, Shah, & Zhang, 2011). At the same time, we are facing resource depletion, climate change, unprecedented intensive urbanization, and growing demands for residential environments. Scandinavian countries play a crucial role in tackling most of these challenges (Finnsson, 2015). A special emphasis should be placed on the fact that Scandinavian achievements are based on a long-term and continuous development policy for sustainable residential environment as society as a whole, which is an exception rather than a rule in Europe as well as worldwide. Scandinavian countries are characterized by a highly developed housing culture that has been continuously evolved, while their positive experience in planning quality residential environments arising from human needs and special links to the natural environment was well upgraded over the past decades. After the 1930s, the Scandinavian model served as a role model for numerous European countries concerning housing and urban issues. The past efforts to mitigate climate changes were mainly focusing on building scale – significant progress was made in energy efficiency of buildings – and large utility-scale. The scale of the residential environment, be it building block or districts, is increasingly recognized as an opportunity to connect all systems and streams. Residential environment can integrate transportation concepts, buildings and infrastructure, while incorporating public realm design as well. In addition, it has the potential to become a self-supplying micro-unit. Together with all the principles of environmental sustainable development issues, the trend towards high-quality built environment is clearly emphasized (Fraker, 2013). International practice applies several urban indicators for sustainable cities (Monocle's Quality of Life Survey, Quality of Life Index (QLI), Indicators for Sustainability, European Green City Index, City Blueprint, etc.) (Kaklauskas et al., 2018) on one hand and several rating systems for assessing the environmental impact of buildings (BREEM, CASBEE, DGNB, HQE, LEED, SBTool) on the other. In some cases, these rating systems can also cover urban-scale projects, community projects and infrastructures (Bernardi, Carlucci, Cornaro, & Bohne, 2017). In practice, there are some approaches for the evaluation of residential environment available; however, they are either representing a framework of planning principles (The Housing Quality Mash discussed in Chapter 3, Building for life) or deliver measuring of environmental sustainability through criteria (LEED-ND). LEED-ND rating system fails to critically address important liveability factors, such as the socio-cultural and socio-economic factors. In fact, very little research at all has been done that examines the role of

liveability and social sustainability in LEED-ND neighbourhoods (Szibbo, 2016). In contrast to the above mentioned tools, this research focuses on the comprehensive assessment of liveability at the residential environment scale. This research develops a methodology to assess the quality of residential environment from many different aspects and in a comprehensive and systematic matter using a system of criterion and quantitative and qualitative indicators. The REL method focuses mainly on the human well-being. When designing residential environment, the principles of architecture, urban and landscape design are in parallel to sustainable development objectives; planning does not only focus on buildings, but also on open space and green areas design high-quality. 2. The Scandinavian residential environment quality The REL method is based on Scandinavian experience. In-depth literature review and site work research show that contemporary Scandinavian practice has been continuously developing and upgrading positive experience gained with developing quality residential environments. Historically, Scandinavian countries have been characterized by high housing standards and it is a well-known fact that Scandinavian people are closely connected with nature. Already in the first half of 20th century, Sweden reached one of the highest housing standards worldwide. Scandinavian cities are role models for cities that strive for quality of living for citizens (Ramboll Group A/S, 2018) and for the quality of residential environment in general (Sendi, 2012). The period between 1930 and 1960 is the Swedish golden era of housing development and the peak of the so-called Stockholm School (Di, 2009). The crucial element was to integrate parks and green areas in the residential environments; a model for the buildings of the city in parks (Nilsson, 2006). For Swedish, nature remains a great value (Hörnsten, 2000). Among the Scandinavian countries, Norway is also characterized by a high housing standard (Hansen, 2004). According to OECD Better Life Index (2018), Norway has the highest housing standard in Europe nowadays, followed by Sweden. Of all European countries, the Scandinavian practice of urban development is strongly characterized by further development of their own experience regarding residential environment quality as proven by high scores received by international rating scales. Using past experience, research, and evaluation techniques enabled Scandinavian countries to upgrade their model following contemporary housing trends to discover integrated criteria principles for the quality of residential environments. Human well-being and creating liveable residential environments still are or becoming ever increasingly important through the values of the sustainable development. Therefore, the research of holistic planning approach principles can be built upon the Scandinavian practice. The Scandinavian environment has been defined by distinctive specific circumstances, which led to the development of quality residential environment – unlike other European countries. By the end of 1930s, after the onset of the economic crisis, Scandinavian countries were inspired by a new optimistic approach. Despite, or as a result of a difficult situation, social democrats introduced a series of reforms, especially in matters of social security. In the beginning of the 1930s, the housing culture was poor due to intensive urbanization. Extra small dwellings posed a serious problem, particularly in Sweden and Finland. They were striving to raise the housing standard and developed methods in order to attain this objective under the influence of Modernism. However, this did not only refer to housing design, but also to a higher quality of residential environment design in general (Nordic Associations of Architects, 1978). During the World War II, many Scandinavian architects were active in Sweden, which was not affected by war, as well as in the period after the war. In the post-war period characterized by large-scale construction, Sweden attracted many other architects with its powerful 45

Cities 94 (2019) 44–54

V. Skalicky and I. Čerpes

Fig. 1. Liveability assessment methodology for residential environment.

and human-oriented urban spaces. According to Gehl, the focus of the high-quality urban design – be it a building block, residential environment, city or region – is placed on deep understanding of human living. The quality of living is a new differentiator for city assessment. Today, cities compete with each other about how liveable they are. In the past, they were competing for the number of driving lanes. Global leading cities shift their focus on people (Klarskov, 2014). If a city aims to provide an attractive environment for high-quality urban living, it is necessary to consider urban development using a holistic approach. The main criterion for a quality city is the city's attitude towards its inhabitants (Norn, 2018). Based on theoretical assumptions, the authors proposed a hypothesis: Contemporary practice of residential environment design through the values of the sustainable development returns to Scandinavian premises. And it is the validity of this hypothesis that was thoroughly investigated in our research. Two research questions were formulated: (i) what impact does the physical urban form of the residential environment have on quality of living?; and (ii) in what way does the quality of contemporary residential environments design return to the Scandinavian model premises through the values of the sustainable development?

economic status (Caldenby & Wedebrunn, 2010). The fact that Sweden was not war-ravaged, hence the residential development continued to strive even after World War II, was reflected in mass construction and follows on the Folkhemmet concept meaning “The People's Home” in Swedish (Rudberg, 1998a). This concept said that individuals receive social security and welfare by the community (Malešič, 2013). Parks were seen as an integrated part of the welfare society. The green areas planning model was based not only to improve the aesthetic perspective, but also to promote social networking and public health (Nilsson, 2006). Already in the beginning of 20th Century, nature conservation and parks design represented a national Swedish identity. Furthermore, it underlined the resident's rights to live close to green areas (Nolin, 2006). According to foreign architects and observers, the most important contribution of Sweden architecture during Modernism was housing development. Despite external international role models, Swedish architecture always preserved their own identity and adapted their model to their domestic environment (Rudberg, 1998b). Intensive urbanization resulted in cramped housing and a lack thereof, which intensified the search for answers in the field of housing development. In addition, the Stockholm Exhibition held in 1930 was the breakthrough of Modernism in Sweden and marks a significant milestone in the modernization of Sweden. The main theme of the exhibition was to demonstrate that low income people can also live in quality designed housing. New guidelines for urban planning were set out as well. In the 1940s, a new era of Swedish urbanism was giving rise to the idea of planning neighbourhoods (Creagh, 2011) as an ideal model of modern living. The goal was to integrate residential buildings with a range of social activities. The next stage in the development of this idea was represented by the ABC–town concept (Nilsson, 2006). At the heart of the contemporary urban design lies the issue of how to ensure sustainable development while improving the quality of living defined by various documents emphasizing safe, vibrant and mixed-use residential environments and having regard to the growing population, resource depletion and climate changes as well. J. Gehl is a Scandinavian architect and a central figure in his efforts to create vivant

3. Research methodology As mentioned before, there are several urban indicators for sustainable cities and environmental indicators for the buildings. This research develops a methodology for comprehensive assessment of residential environment quality that is human-oriented and sustainable at the same time. Based on the original deductive methodology, this research developed a system of criteria and indicators to assess residential environments liveability drawn upon Scandinavian experience as a historically sophisticated housing culture. Not only Scandinavian experience, but also the implementation of quality Scandinavian practice to Slovenia during the 1950s and 1970s were considered when developing this system, which ensured transferability and general validity of results. The research focuses on studying built environment elements 46

Cities 94 (2019) 44–54

V. Skalicky and I. Čerpes

that form a stimulating and environmentally sensitive residential environment to live in. Fig. 1 shows the liveability assessment methodology for residential environments developed in this research. The overall framework is based on four main aspects for liveability, including various key objectives and values, set of criteria, and quantitative and qualitative indicators. The research investigates the contemporary Scandinavian planning principles of liveable residential environment. The methodology is based on five phases, which basically consist of: Phase 1. Analysis of different models and frameworks for urban and housing quality development. Phase 2. Comparative review of sources and literature covering quality residential environment development in Scandinavia. Phase 3. A detailed analysis of Scandinavian contemporary case studies of residential environment. Phase 4. Identification of criterion and detail definition of each criterion (indicator). Phase 5. Verification of the REL method using a case study. Phase 5. Verification of the REL method using a case study. In order to achieve the residential environment liveability, the environment is evaluated from various aspects. Each of this aspect is linked with their relevant liveability objectives and values that are further assessed using a developed set of criteria and indicators. The hierarchy established to link all of these factors for liveability assessment is presented in Fig. 2. 3.1. Establishing key aspects of liveability In the Phase 1, the key aspects of REL were defined on analysing different models and frameworks used to evaluate sustainable and quality urban and housing environment. The research includes the Scandinavian model called “Model for assessing liv[e]able cities” (Finnsson, 2015) from the Nordic Built Cities programme, the European framework for quality in housing design “The housing quality mash” (De Matteis, 2010) from the Hopus project: Housing for Europe and “A multi-scale framework for sustainable Housing Policies” (French, 2012) created for developing countries to provide country-wide sustainable housing from the Sustainable Housing for Sustainable cities report. These examples show that the residential environment quality is considered from different aspects providing a human-oriented and environmentally sensitive environment. Based on examples and interpreted in a new manner, the key aspects are defined for assessing liveable residential environments for creating a good place to live. The key aspects of liveability are as follows:

Fig. 2. Hierarchical framework for liveability assessment.

offers protection, safety, and privacy, creates opportunities for communication, and allows for identification (Škapin, Blejec, & Dintinjana, 2010). The quality of residential environment contributes to the prevention of social marginalization (Commission, 2007).

3.1.1. Environmental The development of cities and residential areas focuses on environmental protection and people's health to provide high-quality living. Environmental efficiency is subject to two principles: the reduction of environmental impacts of a building on the site and the use of energy from non-renewable sources. However, the environmental perspective is crucial to achieve general high-quality of residential environment (De Matteis, 2010). The aim is to provide a high standard of living, restrict resource consumption and deliver a compact system (The Nordic Eight, 2012).

3.1.3. Functional High-quality residential environment includes the coexistence of various social groups ensuring them to live in quality residential environment and preventing their users and residential environments from isolation. Particular consideration should be given to vulnerable social groups to provide equal integration and accessibility to a wider social environment. The residential environment as a social space should be regarded from the perspective of different specific population groups. Spatial organization, equipment, supplies, safety, or scale can be regarded very differently by employed people vs. elderly, therefore elderly should be integrated into active and versatile living environment (Mušič, 1980).

3.1.2. Sociological People should be regarded both as individuals and as a part of society. The environment should be able to drive mental and physical wellbeing as well as socialization, i.e. contacts with other individuals on one hand and intimacy on the other. Environmental psychology studies explore and highlight the relationship between people and their environment (De Matteis, 2010). Living meets many of human basic needs as it enables regeneration,

3.1.4. Cultural Space should be integrated with a wider area and designed to attract the users. In order for the environment to gain community spirit and for the users to identify with it, the space needs to build its own identity, be 47

Cities 94 (2019) 44–54

V. Skalicky and I. Čerpes

recognizable and interesting. However, this does not include subjective feelings whether something is good-looking or not, but to realize whether the residential environment supports user integration and its site features (De Matteis, 2010). 3.2. The development of liveability objectives and values In Phase 2, twelve specific objectives and values were identified based on a detailed comparative source and literature analysis discussing Scandinavian quality residential environments development and emphasizing diverse fields of residential environment design. However, what they all have in common is the Scandinavian environment and their tendency towards an integrated residential environment planning approach. As mentioned before, residential environments are part of larger city structures, hence, the research includes literature on innovative Scandinavian solutions for liveable cities design delivering development strategies and planning tools on the one hand and the latest literature and documents of explicitly residential environment scale with an innovative set of urban design guidelines on the other. The publication “Nordic Solutions for Sustainable Cities” (The Nordic Eight, 2012) discusses cases in Nordic cities and residential environments, where the innovative solutions are already implemented, while the book “Cities for People” by J. Gehl (2010) presents the pioneer theoretical discussion on how to improve design principles of urban space and consequently the quality of living, which applies Scandinavian examples among others. How to create a community that is both liveable and sustainable is discussed in the book “The Hidden Potential of Sustainable Neighborhoods” (Fraker, 2013) with the examples of a first generation practice, which also includes the Scandinavian residential environment. In addition, the research encompasses the documents with original methods on design process and implementation, which are incorporated in detail plans of residential environments in Stockholm and Oslo. The article “Decoding Design Coding” (Carmona, 2010) discussing the operational set of the urban design code principles for sustainable communities involved in Stockholm and the quality program “Kvalitetsprogram: Filipstadt” as appendix to master plan of Oslo (Oslo kommune Plan - og bygningsetaten, 2012) tends to assure a high environmental and aesthetic value of the new residential environments. Based on the comparative analysis and in consideration of the Phase 1, the key objectives and values are shown in Fig. 3. They are defined as

Fig. 3. Schematic model for developing the residential environments liveability with aspects and objectives and values.

Table 1 The comparative analysis of selected examples Pilestredet Park (PP) (Development of Pilestredet Park, 2008) and Hammarby Sjöstad (HS) (Fraker, 2013) with their indicators.

Size Population Mixed use (residential/ others) Position

Pilestredet Park (PP)

Hammarby Sjöstad (HS)

7 ha (approx.) 1363 dwellings 101,183 m2/ 52,284 m2 The inner city

200 ha 11,000 dwellings 1,080,000 m2/200,000 m2 The edge of the city/ waterfront

Fig. 4. The landscape design and greenery in the residential environment Pilestredet Park, Oslo 2014 (second line) and in the residential environment Hammarby Sjöstad, Stockholm 2012 (top line). 48

Cities 94 (2019) 44–54

various aspects to form a platform for a system of criteria for liveable residential environment.

Level difference, pavement design, placement of vegetation and water elements. Pavement design, tree lane motive or individual trees, wall openings, specific urban furniture.

3.3. The selection of Scandinavian spatial solutions and measurable data indicators During Phase 3, a detailed case study of contemporary best practice residential environments in Scandinavian cities was analysed and specific measurable indicators as well as spatial solutions were defined. A comparison has been made between two international and multipletime awarded projects in the first two decades of the 21st century: a smaller residential environment Pilestredet Park (PP) in the centre of Oslo and a larger residential environment Hammarby Sjöstad (HS) on the outskirts of Stockholm. The selection of the case studies with the prevailing residential use resulted from the fact that these areas are already built and populated thus allow for the possibility of on-site analysis and a review of technical specifications of the actual state. As presented in Table 1 the residential areas differ according to their size, their integration into the urban structure as well as according to the basic principle of urban regeneration. HS is an example of new urban development on brownfield of former industry sites, whereas PP is an example of the city centre urban transformation. The planning of both residential environments with mixed use follows the principles of sustainable development with an integrated approach to high-quality urban design. While planning the HS and PP residential areas, efforts to design open public spaces and green areas from the perspective of sustainability to connect milieus and biotic diversity as well as from the perspective of physical and mental well-being of residents were also included. The green areas are of key importance in providing quality of living and recognisability of residential environments as presented in Fig. 4. They also act as part of the wider urban green system.

Access and entries to residential environment and urban design elements that clearly define residential environment entries.

Various urban design elements define delimitation between different open space types.

To ensure a clear delineation between different types of open space: clearly defined areas, obviously marked and distinguished. To ensure a clear delineation between residential environment and the wider urban areas.

Public, semi-public, semi-private and private open space. Design of different types of open space in residential environment. To ensure a gradual transition between public and private open space by housing typologies.

90% recycled 25% reuse The proportion of recycled and reused building material.

3.4. The development of liveability criteria

Distinction between private and public space; hierarchy of open spaces in a residential environment

In Phase 4, the set of criteria for designing and assessing REL are identified. In research, these criteria are used to describe the principles that can influence the objectives and values. A set of criteria for residential environment quality are part of different aspects and derive from the objectives and values. The criteria for creating liveable residential environments are based on a comparative sources and literature review on one hand (Phase 2), case studies analyses of Scandinavian contemporary PP and HS residential environments on the other (Phase 3), as well as on available actual urban planning documents of Oslo and Stockholm (The Walkable City 2010 - Stockholm City Plan, 2010; Urban Ecology Programme 2011-2026 - City of Oslo, 2011). The developed set of criteria refer to the scale of the residential environment. Since the residential environment is integrated into the wider urban tissue, it also requires the understanding of the wider urban context. A detailed interpretation of each individual criterion follows a single scheme. An individual criterion derives from defined objectives and values, labelled with an ordered number and detailed definition. A detailed definition of criteria is based on research conducted by numerous experts in different disciplines; from urbanism to environmental psychology (Gehl, 2010; Jacobs, 1961; Jernejec, 1974; Leupen & Mooij, 2011; Lynch, 1962; Newman, 1996; Polič, 2007; Trstenjak, 1984; Wall & Waterman, 2010), who studied urban design and interactions between a physical form of a residential environment and its users. This is followed by the application of the criterion, which drives the implementation of the individual criterion and the selection of indicators. Each criterion is further illustrated with a Scandinavian example of residential environments; reference values are presented with a graphic presentation or measurable data of the selected case study and author's comments. Table 2 shows the example and the segment of entire REL assessment. The entire REL assessment Table is divided into 4 categories with

Sociological aspect Sense of belonging

Recycled and on-site reuse building material Environmental aspect Waste and recycle management

Using recycled building material on-site for the design of open space and building construction.

Reference value Indicator Application of criteria Criteria Objectives and values

Table 2 A segment from the REL method for residential environments liveability assessment. An example of objective and values, criteria, application of criteria, indicators and reference value for a selected criterion “Recycled and on-site reuse building material” (En3.1) of Environmental aspect (En) and “A sense of belonging” (So1.1) of Sociological aspect (So).

V. Skalicky and I. Čerpes

49

Cities 94 (2019) 44–54

V. Skalicky and I. Čerpes

Fig. 5. Comparative analyses of residential environment along the Gosposvetska Street, 1954 (left, central) and residential environment along the Koroška Street, 2017 (right), Maribor, Slovenia, 2016. Table 3 A comparison of residential environments along the Gosposvetska Street (Gs) and Koroška Street (Ks) according to REL criteria/✓ (included)/– (not included)/o (partially included). Objectives and value

Environmental aspect En1 Compact and effective growth

En2

En3

Protection of natural resources

Waste and recycle management

Sociological aspect So1 Sense of belonging

Criteria

En1.1 En1.2 En1.3 En1.4 En2.1 En2.2 En2.3

Sense of safety

So3

Sense of enjoyment and comfort

Functional aspect Fu1 Accessibility Fu2

Integration into a wider urban structure

Fu3

Flexibility of residential environment

Cultural aspect Cu1 Context and identity Cu2

Human-oriented environment

Cu3

Attractiveness and readability

Residential environment Gs

Ks

Prevention of urban sprawl and impact on surrounding natural environment Regeneration within the existing city boundary and development of brownfields Closer proximity to the various amenities of everyday life Promoting walking, cycling, and use of public transport Reduction of energy Supply of energy from renewable sources Improving efficiency in energy supply and distribution by installing district energy networks Decreasing light pollution and energy consumption, necessary for lighting Local use of rainwater and storm water Protection and enhancement of water resources, green areas, vegetation Recycled and on-site reuse building material Waste recycling and use of combustible waste for fuel in energy cogeneration

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – –

✓ ✓ ✓ o ✓ – ✓

1 1 2 1 1

– – ✓ – –

– – – – –

3

✓

–

1 1 2 3

✓ o ✓ ✓

– o – o

So2.1 So2.2 So2.3 So2.4 So2.5 So3.1 So3.2 So3.3

Distinction between private and public space; hierarchy of open spaces in a residential environment A residential environment enabling leisure and strengthens social interactions Maintained residential environment Involvement of residents in the residential environment Awareness, participation, and education of residents – active role of residents in the residential environment Lively and controlled public space Protection of private space and interaction with public space Design of residential environment, enabling orientation in space Lighting of open space in the residential environment Priority for pedestrian and traffic safety The human scale of the residential environment Reducing noise level and creating quiet areas Reducing the heat island effect

3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1

✓ ✓ ✓ o ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

o – – – – – – –

Fu1.1 Fu1.2 Fu1.3 Fu2.1

Integration of different social and age groups into the residential environment Universal design: designing open public spaces accessible to all Open space, i.e. social space Residential environment connecting the residents and other city dwellers

2 1 1 1

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

o o – –

Fu2.2 Fu2.3

Promoting movement: walking and cycling Temporary use and shared use of space

2 2

✓ ✓

– –

Cu1.1 Cu1.2 Cu2.1 Cu2.2 Cu3.1

Engagement with urban context Protection of natural and cultural heritage Recognisability of residential environment Walking-friendly and lively residential environment Empirical and sensory rich residential environment

4 1 4 5 5

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

– – – – –

En2.4 En2.5 En2.6 En3.1 En3.2 So1.1 So1.2 So1.3 So1.4 So1.5

So2

Ind.

different aspects and 4 columns representing objectives and values, criteria, applications of criterion and indicators. The paper presents a set of spatial indicators complemented by indicators of complementary disciplines. Quantitative and qualitative spatial indicators appear for

different elements of residential environment (buildings, open space and green areas, traffic, supply and program). One or more quantitative and qualitative indicators (and application of criteria) correspond to each criterion. Additional column in the Table 2 illustrates the 50

Cities 94 (2019) 44–54

V. Skalicky and I. Čerpes

selected. The REL criteria was verified using two case studies investigating residential environments in Slovenia during different periods; one dating back to 1950s, when the Swedish architecture and urbanism were close to Slovenian architects (Mihelič, 1983), and a contemporary one. During the period of post-war housing development, Slovenia successfully implemented the Scandinavian model within the socialist Yugoslavia and at that time (from 1950s till 1970s) constructed numerous quality residential environment following the Scandinavian principles. This influence can be concluded based on the articles by the then active Slovenian architects, such as E. Ravnikar, L. Humek and F. Ivanšek published in the journal Arhitekt from the 1950s and the article (Bežan, 2017) entitled Mesta ne morejo učinkovito regulirati svoje rasti (in translation Cities unable to efficiently regulate their growth). Later this connection was lost for many different reasons not relevant for this study and consequently the quality of residential environments decreased. The residential environment, which is also the subject of this research, running along the Gosposvetska Street in Maribor, Slovenia, and dating back to early 1950s is the first example of using a motive from a Swedish neighbourhood design (Pirkovič Kocbek, 1982). It can be reasonably expected that the assessment of proposed criteria for the investigated residential environment case studies from these two different periods will clearly demonstrate the difference in quality, which is also confirmed by final results and proved the validity of the evaluation system in whole.

Fig. 6. Results of REL assessment for residential environments along the Gosposvetska Street (up) and Koroška Street (below) according to Table 3 in scores (criteria included = 1, partially included = 0.5, not included = 0).

reference value based on Scandinavian practice. By developing the REL method, 12 objectives and values were defined and categorized into 4 different aspects (environmental, sociological, functional, and cultural), which represent the platform for a proposed set of criteria for liveable residential environment. A set of 36 criteria including applications of individual criteria followed by 62 indicators were developed. The REL presents a set of spatial indicators complemented with indicators of complementary disciplines. Quantitative and qualitative indicators refer to different elements of the physical form of residential environment: buildings, open space and green areas, program, supply, and traffic. The criteria of liveability refer to the scale of the residential environment. As the residential area is integrated into a wider urban structure, the planning of the residential environment requires verification and comprehension of the wider urban structure. The entire system of objectives and values, criteria, and the application of the criteria including indicators is presented in a table consisting of 4 columns and 4 rows, thus representing different aspects. Following a single scheme, each criterion is defined in detail with textual and graphic material.

4. Verification of REL method on case studies: residential environments from Maribor, Slovenia 4.1. Study area The analysis was performed on two case studies in Slovenia from different periods as already mentioned above: the residential environment along the Gosposvetska Street from the 1950s during the period of Scandinavian influence and the residential environment along the Koroška Street from 2007 illustrated in Fig. 5. These two concepts were designed by the Komuna projekt urban planning office with its first and long-term CEO (Chief Executive Officer) L. Humek, the architect who was among the first to travel to Scandinavia and followed the Scandinavian model after his return to Slovenia.

3.5. Verification and confirmation of the REL method During Phase 5, a verification of the REL method using a case study was carried out. To verify the functioning of the criteria system and its general validity, an example outside Scandinavian countries was

REL ASPECTS

0

12

17

46

50

92

100

Koroška Street 2007 100

Gosposvetska street 1954

ENVIRONMENTAL

SOCIOLOGICAL

FUNCTIONAL

CULTURAL

Fig. 7. A comparison of residential environments along the Gosposvetska Street and Koroška Street according to the share of included criteria of the REL methodology for each aspect in % (criteria included = 1, partially included = 0.5, not included = 0). 51

Cities 94 (2019) 44–54

V. Skalicky and I. Čerpes

REL OBJECTIVES AND VALUES 100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Koroška Street 2007

90

SO3

FU1

0

SO2

0

SO1

0

EN3

0

EN2

0

EN1

0

0 0

10

20

33

33 33

88

90

100

Gosposvetska Street 1954

FU2

FU3

CU1

CU2

CU3

Fig. 8. A comparison of residential environments along the Gosposvetska Street and Koroška Street according to the share of included criteria of the REL methodology for each objective and value in % (criteria included = 1, partially included = 0.5, not included = 0).

4.2. Application of REL method

5. Results

Both residential environments were evaluated by using the developed REL method. This research is based on the assumption that Gosposvetska Street (Gs) better meets the criteria, because it was built inspired by the Scandinavian model, and the Koroška Street (Ks) does not, as the planning does not reflect the Scandinavian principles anymore. By reviewing the REL method, based on the Scandinavian principles, and considering the results of a detailed comparative analysis from Table 3, it was established that planning the residential environment along the Gosposvetska Street from the 1950s follows the REL criteria system. It is possible to conclude from the results of the comparative analysis that Scandinavian influence is visible in the planning of the residential environment along the Gosposvetska Street from the 1950s and the quality is comparable to the Scandinavian practice as almost 80% of criteria match, which provides a quality residential environment for living. We have also established that planning contemporary residential environments as seen in Slovenia is not in accordance with the Scandinavian criteria as only around 15% of criteria match. Final evaluation mark by scores is presented in Fig. 6 on a coloured twelve-tier scale. It is evident from Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 that unlike the residential environment Koroška Street, the residential environment along the Gosposvetska Street includes the majority of criteria of the system for liveable residential environment from the sociological, functional and cultural aspect. The shortcomings have been established in the criteria related to the environmental aspect, which could be explained with the time of the construction (1954) when these criteria were not yet relevant. The original flexible design enables an effective renovation of the residential environment also from the environmental perspective. By reviewing the system of criteria and assessing the examples of residential environments in Slovenia from the period under the influence of the Scandinavian model and the period when this was no longer noticeable, we have established that residential environments are liveable if the Scandinavian criteria of REL method are taken into account and vice versa. If these are not included, the residential environment is poor. Based on the results and in accordance with the presented hypothesis it is possible to reasonably advocate the universal applicability and transferability of Scandinavian experience into the planning practice, which enables quality living and has already proved in the past as a useful quality model and transfer.

Designing liveable residential environments represents a complex concept requiring a multidisciplinary approach covering urbanism, architecture, urban design, landscape architecture, sociology, and environmental psychology. The study concerns itself in depth with the issue of comprehensive approach to residential environments based on the Scandinavian experience and related historical positive practice. Based on the original deductive research methodology, it provides a contemporary, sustainable criteria system for designing and evaluation of REL. The methodology includes a detailed comparative analysis of sources and literature for planning quality residential environments, a detailed case study analyses and urban planning documents in the Scandinavian region as well as studies by different experts from the various disciplines concerning urban design. It is necessary to emphasize that the paper is based on two intertwined research fields, the study of the Scandinavian model for planning high-quality residential environments, and the development of methodology for the comprehensive assessment of REL. The result of the analysis is a systematic and detailed review of the criteria and indicators for designing and assessing of REL. The criteria define residential environments for meeting the needs of users and their wellbeing, as well as for protecting the environment. The criteria are based on creating a residential environment pleasant for people and sensitive to nature and space. The results of the study refer to the multitude of elements of a residential environment and consider it as a whole; with integrated relations among buildings and open space and wider urban environments. The criteria were verified on a case study of residential environments in Slovenia, which confirmed their applicability and validity. The developed system and its verification of case studies gives clear answers to both research questions: (i) the impact of physical urban form on quality of living.; and (ii) the comeback of the Scandinavian model through sustainable development. 6. Conclusion and discussion In accordance with the original purpose of the study, a methodology was developed and a universally applicable set of criteria for a comprehensive assessment of the residential environment liveability based on contemporary Scandinavian practice with particular regard to the historically typical highly developed housing culture. The use of the 52

Cities 94 (2019) 44–54

V. Skalicky and I. Čerpes

presented deductive method may be justified with examples requiring a detailed estimation of REL. The study was developed using an innovative approach and a system of criteria including indicators required for designing and the evaluation of liveable residential environments design. The set of criteria enables a systematic review and definition of criteria which need to be included within the planning process as a baseline and evaluation criteria for ensuring liveability and the provision of fast and effective review. This set represents a tool for assessing the condition of the existing residential environments and enables a comparative assessment of residential environment quality. Systematic monitoring in the existing residential environments represents the first step in recognizing and determining the negative flow and hidden potentials and indicates orientation points and measures required for improving the quality of living. The results of the study might be useful for different interest groups. They are specifically intended for the professional public and encourage interdisciplinary and cross-sectional cooperation. The system of criteria provides architects, city planners, landscape architects, policy makers, and others with an analytical approach to the planning process for new residential environments. These criteria are also intended for the involvement of general public into the planning and decision-making process as well as for education to better understand the significance of residential environment design for achieving higher quality of living. In addition, it is evident from the REL criteria that studying liveable residential environments represents a complex task regarding a number of different elements of physical urban form and their role, which is crucial for achieving the quality of living and protection of natural environment. The study breaks down the system of criteria and indicators for creating liveable residential environments. Based on case studies of the Scandinavian best practice, these indicators are quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated. In future, it might be sensible to develop methods for a more detailed assessment of an individual criterion and indicator. In general, the paper accentuates the methodology for comprehensive assessment of residential environment liveability as a composition of external factors affecting the individual or group of individuals and as such has an impact on their personal development, health, wellbeing, and the positive development of the entire society. Furthermore, it concludes with a system of criteria for creating liveable residential environments and their assessment. Using the results will enable developing new liveable residential environments and renovating old residential environments into environments which are subtle to humans and in accordance with the premises of sustainable development. A liveable residential environment places the human domain, i.e. the man and the society, at the heart of its concept.

Creagh, L. (2011). From Acceptera to Vällingby: The discourse on individuality and community in Sweden (1931-1954). Footprint, 9, 5–24. https://doi.org/10.7480/ footprint.5.2.737. De Matteis, F. (2010). Housing Europe. In C. Clemente, & F. De Matteis (Eds.). Housing for Europe: Strategies for quality in urban space, excellence in design, performance in building (pp. 45–70). Roma: DEI -Tipografia del Genio Civile. https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/236353389_Housing_for_Europe_strategies_for_quality_in_urban_space_ excellence_in_design_performance_in_building/, Accessed date: 20 October 2015. Development of Pilestredet Park (2008). Outdoor areas and infrastructure - Utvikling av Pilestredet Park: Utomhus og infrastruktur. Statsbygghttps://www.statsbygg.no/files/ publikasjoner/ferdigmeldinger/678_PilestredetPark.pdf/, Accessed date: 23 January 2018. Di, L. (2009). Landscape research of residential communities in Sweden – From an eastern perspective. Karlskroma: Swedish School of Planning at Blekinge Institute of Technology. Finnsson, P. T. (2015). Nordic urban strengths and challenges – How do we perceive ourselves when it comes to developing sustainable, smart and liveable cities? Holmen: Nordic Innovationhttp://www.nordicinnovation.org/Documents/Nordic %20Built%20Cities-dokumenter/Nordic-Urban-Strengths-and-Challenges_2015.pdf/, Accessed date: 20 May 2017. Fraker, H. (2013). The hidden potential of sustainable neighbourhoods. Washington: Island Press. French, M. (2012). Sustainable housing for sustainable cities, a policy framework for developing cities. Nairobi: UN Habitathttps://unhabitat.org/books/sustainablehousing-for-sustainable-cities-a-policy-framework-for-developing-cities/, Accessed date: 20 March 2018. Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for people. Washington; Covelo; London: Island Press. Giap, T. K., Thye, W. W., & Aw, G. (2014). A new approach to measuring the liveability of cities: The Global Liveable Cities Index. World Review of Science, Technology and Sust. Development, 11(2), 176–196. https://doi.org/10.1504/WRSTSD.2014.065677. Hansen, T. (2004). Housing policy challenges in a country with high housing standards and a marketgoverned housing supply. In J. F. Nystad (Ed.). Building and urban development in Norway: A selection of current issues (pp. 60–65). Husbanken. http:// biblioteket.husbanken.no/arkiv/dok/1437/ifhpheleboka.pdf/, Accessed date: 10 March 2016. Oslo Havn (2012). Kvalitetsprogram Filipstad områderegulering. http://www.ohv.oslo. no/filestore/PDF/2012/20120511KvalitetsprogramFilipstad.pdf/, Accessed date: 10 August 2016. Hörnsten, L. (2000). Outdoor recreation in Swedish forests – Implications for society and forestry. Doctoral ThesisUppsala: Swedish University of Agricuture Sciences. Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House. Jernejec, M. (1967). Kako prebivamo [How do we live]. Sinteza. Vol. 8. Sinteza (pp. 1–42). Jernejec, M. (1974). Stanovanjsko okolje – 1. del: Človek, njegovo okolje in potrebe [residential environment - part 1: Human, his environment and needs]. Urbanistični Inštitut SRS. Kaklauskas, A., Zavadskas, E. K., RadzevicieneI, A., Ubarte, I., Podviezko, A., Podvezko, V., ... Bucinskas, V. (2018). Quality of city life multiple criteria analysis. Cities, 72, 82–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.08.002. Klarskov, K. (2014). Cities for people. Response, 01, 4–10. https://issuu.com/ramboll/ docs/response__1_lowres/3/, Accessed date: 30 October 2017. Leupen, B., & Mooij, H. (2011). Housing design. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers. Lynch, K. (1962). Site planning. Cambridge, Massachussets: The M. I. T. Press. Malešič, M. (2013). The significance of Scandinavian influences for Slovenian housing culture. Doctoral ThesisLjubljana: University of Ljubljana Faculty of Arts. Mihelič, B. (1983). Urbanistični razvoj Ljubljane [Urban development of Ljubljana]. Ljubljana: Partizanska knjiga. Mušič, V. B. (1980). Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba. Urbanizem – bajke in resničnost [Urbanism - myths and reality]. Newman, O. (1996). Creating defensible space. Washington: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research. Nilsson, L. (2006). The Stockholm style: A model for the building of the city in parks, 1930s-1960s. In P. Clark (Ed.). The European City and Green Space: London, Stockholm, Helsinki and St. Petersburg 1850–2000 (pp. 141–158). Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Nolin, C. (2006). Stockholm's urban parks: Meeting places and social contexs from 1860–1930. In P. Clark (Ed.). The European City and Green Space: London, Stockholm, Helsinki and St. Petersburg 1850–2000 (pp. 111–126). Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Nordic Associations of Architects (DAL, NAL, SAR) for the U.I.A (1978). Nordic housing Habitación Nórdica – 1945/1980 - Denmark - Finland - Norway – Sweden. Mexico. Norn, P. A. (2018). Creating liveable cities together - Borgerne har talt: det gør vores byer attraktive. Urban lifehttps://ramboll.com/ingenuity/creating-liveable-citiestogether/, Accessed date: 30 September 2018. OECD Better Life Index (2018). http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/, Accessed date: 10 August 2018. Pirkovič Kocbek, J. (1982). Izgradnja sodobnega Maribora [Building a contemporary Maribor]. Ljubljana: Partizanska knjiga. Polič, M. (2007). Okoljska psihologija [Environmental psychology]. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta, oddelek za psihologijo. Ramboll Group A/S (2018). Creating liveable cities. https://ramboll.com/media/articles/ planning/creating-liveable-cities, Accessed date: 30 September 2018. Rudberg, E. (1998a). Building the welfare of the Folkhemmet. In C. Caldenby, J. Lindvall, & W. Wang (Eds.). 20th-century architecture Sweden (pp. 111–141). Munich; New York: Prestel Pub. Rudberg, E. (1998b). Early functionalism 1930-1940. In C. Caldenby, J. Lindvall, & W. Wang (Eds.). 20th-century architecture Sweden (pp. 81–109). Munich; New York:

References Bernardi, E., Carlucci, S., Cornaro, C., & Bohne, R. A. (2017). An analysis of the most adopted rating systems for assessing the environmental impact of buildings. Sustainability, 9, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071226. Bežan, M. (2017, November 18). Mesta ne morejo učinkovito regulirati svoje rasti [Cities unable to efficiently regulate their growth]. Delohttps://www.delo.si/mnenja/ gostujoce-pero/mesta-ne-morejo-ucinkovito-regulirati-svoje-rasti.html/, Accessed date: 25 May 2018. Butters, C. (2004). A holistic method of evaluating sustainability. In J. F. Nystad (Ed.). Building and urban development in Norway: A selection of current issues (pp. 38–43). Husbanken. http://biblioteket.husbanken.no/arkiv/dok/1437/ifhpheleboka.pdf/, Accessed date: 10 March 2016. Caldenby, C., & Wedebrunn, O. (2010). Living and dying in the urban modernity. Denmark: Docomomo. Carmona, M. (2010). Decoding design coding. In C. Clemente, & F. De Matteis (Eds.). Housing for Europe: Strategies for quality in urban space, excellence in design, performance in building (pp. 13–43). Roma: DEI -Tipografia del Genio Civile. https://www. researchgate.net/publication/236353389_Housing_for_Europe_strategies_for_quality_ in_urban_space_excellence_in_design_performance_in_building/, Accessed date: 20 October 2015. Commission, E (2007). Leipzig charter on sustainable European cities. http://ec.europa. eu/regional_policy/archive/themes/urban/leipzig_charter.pdf/, Accessed date: 22 October 2013.

53

Cities 94 (2019) 44–54

V. Skalicky and I. Čerpes Prestel Pub. Sendi, R. (2012). Druga stanovanjska reforma: Ustanovitev direktorata za stanovanja [Second housing reform: Establishment of the Directorate for Housing]. IB revija, 1, 21–29. http://www.umar.gov.si/fileadmin/user_upload/publikacije/ib/2012/IB-0112-splet.pdf#page=21/, Accessed date: 30 November 2017. Shen, L., Ochoa, J. J., Shah, M. N., & Zhang, X. (2011). The application of urban sustainability indicators - a comparison between various practices. Habitat International, 35, 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2010.03.006. Škapin, D., Blejec, M., & Dintinjana, T. (2010). Razmišljamo in delujemo trajnostno [Suistanable thinking and acting]. Ljubljana: Center RS za poklicno izobraževanje. http://www.cpi.si/mednarodno-sodelovanje/ess/kakovost-in-prepoznavnost/ zakladnica-znanja/trajnostni-razvoj.aspx, Accessed date: 10 March 2016. Szibbo, N. A. (2016). Assessing neighborhood livability: Evidence from LEED® for neighborhood development and new urbanist communities. Articulo – Journal of Urban Research, 14, 1–24. https://journals.openedition.org/articulo/3120, Accessed date: 10 December 2017. The Nordic Eight (2012). Nordic solutions for sustainable cities. Copenhagen: The Nordic Council of Ministershttp://www.hel.fi/static/ymk/esitteet/nordic-catalogue060612.pdf/, Accessed date: 17 July 2017.

The Walkable City 2010 - Stockholm City Plan (2010). Stockholms Stad. Trstenjak, A. (1984). Ekološka psihologija [Ecological psychology]. Ljubljana: Gospodarski vestnik. Urban Ecology Programme 2011-2026 - City of Oslo (2011). https://www.oslo.kommune. no/getfile.php/13166767/Content/English/Politics%20and%20administration/ Green%20Oslo/Plans%20and%20programmes/Urban%20Ecology%20Programme %202011-2026.pdf/, Accessed date: 20 March 2014. Urbanistični Inštitut Republike Slovenije (2000). Stanovanja, kvaliteta bivanja in razvoj poselitve - Prostor SI 2020 [Housing, quality of living settlement development - Space SI and 2020]. Ljubljana. Wall, E., & Waterman, T. (2010). Urban Design. Singapore: AVA Publishing. Wan, C., & Su, S. (2016). Neighborhood housing deprivation and public health: Theoretical linkage, empirical evidence, and implications for urban planning. Habitat International, 57, 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.06.010. Zapušek, A., & Kučan, A. (2009). Stanovanjske krajine in kakovost bivanja. Predstavitev ukrepov za izboljšanje bivalne kakovosti - Residential Landscapes and the Quality of Living. Presentation of Measures for Improving the Quality of Living Annales, Series historia et sociologia. 19(1), 1–19. http://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-RAHYSTCS/ Accessed 15 May 2014.

54