Practical considerations for implementing research on the indoor built environment

Abstract

It is increasingly evident that design needs to play a role in reducing sedentary behaviour through macro- and micro-environmental changes to the built environment. Recent research explores how various environments shape health and well-being of different populations, as the findings reported in the Building Research & Information special issue (volume 43/5) entitled ‘Physical Activity, Sedentary Behaviour and the Indoor Built Environment’ exhibit. How can this research reach a wide audience, especially those in charge of making decisions around the design of indoor environments? Research and practice in the field of the built environment and health demands cross-disciplinary and cross-sector collaborations and research results need to be appropriately communicated, translated and adapted for practical use. Practitioners can extrapolate from available research and consult best practices. Forging ahead with implementation also lends new opportunities to collaborate with researchers on evaluation.

Keywords:

• active design
• building design
• design
• health
• physical activity
• professional knowledge
• public interest
• research translation
• sedentary behaviour
• well-being

Introduction

Earlier this year an international group of experts published a set of recommendations for how office workers can avoid prolonged sitting in the workplace (Buckley et al., 2015). That publication brings to mind three points that are considerations for the interpretation and application of the research presented in the Building Research & Information special issue (volume 43/5) entitled ‘Physical Activity, Sedentary Behaviour and the Indoor Built Environment’ (Table 1). First, sedentary behaviour is a major public health concern in many areas of the world, particularly in places where the majority of work time is spent indoors. Second, the indoor built environment is a research focal point for impacting health and well-being. Lastly, and the focus of this commentary, in order to impact optimally on health the research results need to be appropriately communicated, translated and adapted for practical use.

Table 1 Authors and titles of articles in the special issue ‘Physical Activity, Sedentary Behaviour and the Indoor Built Environment’, Building Research & Information (2015), 43(5); guest editors: Alexi Marmot and Marcella Ucci

A. Marmot and M. Ucci	Editorial: Sitting less, moving more: the indoor built environment as a tool for change
M. Ucci, S. Law, R. Andrews, A. Fisher, L. Smith, A. Sawyer and A. Marmot	Indoor school environments, physical activity, sitting behaviour and pedagogy: a scoping review
S. Ahrentzen and E. Tural	The role of building design and interiors in ageing actively at home
Z. Lu, S. Rodiek, M. M. Shipley and L. G. Tassinary	Environmental influences on indoor walking behaviours of assisted living residents
K. Brookfield, C. Fitzsimons, I. Scott, G. Mead, J. Starr, N. Thin, A. Tinker and C. Ward Thompson	The home as an enabler of more active lifestyles among older people
S. Aminian, E. A. Hinckson and T. Stewart	Modifying the classroom environment to increase standing and reduce sitting
M. J. Duncan, C. Short, M. Rashid, N. Cutumisu, C. Vandelanotte and R. C. Plotnikoff	Identifying correlates of breaks in occupational sitting: a cross-sectional study

Sedentary behaviour

Much of the evidence that contributed to the Active Design Guidelines: Promoting Physical Activity and Health in Design,¹ published by the City of New York in 2010, focuses on the built environment and physical activity. Recently, a rapidly growing body of research has linked sedentary behaviour, independent of physical activity, to a number of adverse health outcomes (Biswas et al., 2015). Physical inactivity is, of course, still a major public health concern – in the US, only around one in five adults meet the government-recommended aerobic and muscle-strengthening guidelines (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013). But as the research articles and editorial in the special issue illuminate (Table 1), it is increasingly evident that design needs to play a role in reducing sedentary behaviour through macro- and micro-environmental changes to the built environment.

Indoor built environment

Europeans and Americans spend around 90% of their time indoors.² This figure is often used to highlight the significance of improving indoor air quality, but it also conveys the function indoor environments serve in promoting human movement. The built environments where people live, work and learn should entice their occupants to move throughout the day. Active Design is an evidence-based approach to development that uses architecture and urban design to make physical activity and healthy foods more accessible and inviting.

Research and practice

How can this research reach a wide audience, especially those in charge of making decisions around the design of indoor environments? Published research findings in peer-reviewed journals are an essential forum for communicating results but rarely cross over into design practice without first being translated into practical design strategies. Policy-makers responsible for the design of entire communities or cities, designers at different scales of implementation, and even individuals modifying their personal environments require interpretation of results and concrete action steps. Translation is thus critical for instituting policies. There are many champions of research translation, including professional institutions such as the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), and in some places municipal or national governments. Increasingly, non-governmental organizations and special-interest groups have dedicated efforts to translate new knowledge to diverse constituencies.

Popular media also has a role in conveying research findings³ and organizations such as the Center for Active Design translate research and provide technical assistance to all sectors responsible for the built environment, from policy-makers to designers, from health researchers to property (real estate) developers.

Policy-makers are also critical to the dissemination of research findings. Following the publication of the Active Design Guidelines, New York's Mayor Bloomberg signed an Executive Order requiring city agencies to review the design of construction and major renovation projects to assess opportunities to implement Active Design elements. This requirement applies to the construction or renovation of municipally owned buildings and streets. The order also requires that agencies assess opportunities to promote the use of stairways, and that agencies train design and construction personnel in the use of the City's Active Design Guidelines.

The bridge between research and practice is bidirectional. Practitioners want to implement strategies that are shown to be effective, and those strategies must also be feasible and not cost prohibitive. Therefore, when planning and reporting research, scientists should account for and address considerations that are important to practitioners. For instance, employers are likely to be especially interested in providing work environments that increase productivity, retain staff and attract talent.

The authors in the special issue describe some concrete policy recommendations and consequences for implementation. Aminian et al. even provide the exact cost of the ‘dynamic classroom’ environment, which is found to be less than 60% the cost of a traditional classroom setup. The Community Health Advisor⁴, a programme of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, offers a tool for practitioners to explore the population health and financial impact of certain interventions. We hope to see additional practical tools in the coming years.

Generalizability and applicability

As Marmot and Ucci point out in their editorial, generalizability and applicability pose a challenge for the dissemination of findings. The research presented in the special issue captures a variety of settings, populations and geographic locations. These invaluable contributions have varied implications for practitioners. For instance, the reader learns from the papers that address residential buildings for older populations (Ahrentzen and Tural; Brookfield et al.) that stair design strategies may be different than those recommended for the general population. The environments that increase physical activity and enhance learning and attention for children in an educational setting (Aminian et al.; Ucci et al.) are different from environments that encourage office workers to move more and sit less (Duncan et al.). Additionally, physical activity comes in many forms (Lu et al.), so the aims and outcomes of both research and practice may vary. Research should continue to explore how design impacts behaviour of different populations.

Cross-disciplinary collaboration

Research and practice in the field of the built environment and health demands cross-disciplinary and cross-sector collaborations. Diverse stakeholders, including researchers, architects, planners, property developers, property managers, human resource professionals and investors must work together to create appropriate solutions that address design, health, cost, feasibility, business culture and regulatory concerns. To achieve this, it is necessary to develop a common vocabulary that will resonate with professionals from different backgrounds.

The Center for Active Design, an independent, not-for-profit organization, exists as a model for translating health evidence into practical design strategies, including considerations of the role, mechanisms and compliance needs associated with local regulatory codes, building codes and policies. It is essential that design recommendations are credible and resonate with the existing priorities of the target audience. This requires input from the end users of the recommendations. In working for the Urban Land Institute to develop the Building Healthy Places Toolkit, a group of property developers and health professionals were convened to identify barriers, set priorities and establish the feasibility of implementing the suggested evidenced-based design strategies.

Conclusions

As Marmot and Ucci identify, more research is needed to explore the built environment and physical activity and sedentary behaviour. This field affords endless research potential. However, lack of a comprehensive portfolio of high-quality research for a certain population or given setting should not hinder implementation. Practitioners can extrapolate from available research and consult best practices. Furthermore, forging ahead with implementation lends new opportunities to collaborate with researchers on evaluation.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 Available from http://centerforactivedesign.org/dl/guidelines.pdf/.

2 European Commission press release (2003): Indoor air pollution: new EU research reveals higher risks than previously thought. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-03-1278_en.htm/; US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)/Office of Air and Radiation, The inside story: A guide to indoor air quality. Office of Radiation and Indoor Air. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/insidestory.html/.

3 For example, James Gallagher, Office workers ‘too sedentary', BBC News, 27 March 2015. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/health-32069698/.

4 Community Health Advisor, a programme of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.communityhealthadvisor.org/.