Community wellbeing in the built environment: towards a relational building assessment

Figures & data

Figure 1. A tripartite model of social practices. Inspired by Shove et al.’s tripartite SPT model (2012).

Table 1. Measuring community wellbeing: methods across frameworks.

	Community Wellbeing Questionnaire (Christakopoulou et al. 2001)	Six-by-Six Community Wellbeing (Miles et al. 2008)	Community Indicators Victoria (Cox et al. 2010)	Wellbeing Index for Super Tall Residential Buildings (Lee et al. 2011)	Community Wellbeing Index (Buot et al. 2017, Buot and Dulce 2019)	Community Wellbeing Framework for Design Professions (Markovich et al. 2018)	Community Wellbeing Template (VanderWeele 2019)
Approacha
Aggregate
Single composite index				X	X
Suite of indicators	X	X	X			X	X
Relational
Community input in early development	X	X	X		X	X
Community pilot	X	X	X	X		X
Community sense making and revision		X	X			X
Scaleb
Individual	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Community	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Population		X	X				X
Scopec
Building				X		X
Neighbourhood	X				X	X	X
City/Municipality Region	X	X	X				X
Country		X	X				X
Dimensiond
Environmental	X	X	X	X	X	X
Social	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Political	X	X	X		X	X	X
Economic	X	X	X		X	X
Cultural		X	X		X	X
Health		X	X	X			X
Data Methode
Quantitative	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Qualitative		X	X			X
Data Typef
Objective	X	X	X		X	X
Subjective	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Data Sourceg
Public database (i.e. external source)		X	X		X	X
Self-rated survey(s)	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Community engagement (e.g. focus group)		X	X			X

^aApproach describes how CW is conceptualized and measured as a whole and/or greater than the sum of the whole.

^bScale describes the unit(s) of measurement of all indicators.

^cScope describes how community is defined and, accordingly, where CW takes place.

^dDimension describes the features of CW that are represented. For certain frameworks, the authors’ classification of features overlaps with more than one dimension.

^eData method describes how data is collected. Quantitative refers to a measurable value, including self-rated scales, while qualitative refers to a non-measurable response.

^fData type describes the perspective of data. Objective refers to ‘factual’ data that is the same across multiple sources (e.g. household income, family composition, etc.), while subjective refers to data that changes based on personal attitudes, beliefs, and feelings (e.g. self-rated scales, open-ended questions, etc.).

^gData source describes where data is collected.

Figure 2. What are the skills, meanings, and materials that bring about CW?

a. CW through design for spontaneous gathering/socialization

Framework: Community Wellbeing Framework for Design Professions

Dimension: Social/Cultural

Indicator: Project provides access to spaces for spontaneous, informal, creative enjoyment.

b. CW through design for safety and security

Framework: Wellbeing Index for Super Tall Residential Building

Dimension: Security and Safety

Indicator: Security against crime; safety of public space.

Figure 3. Mapping CW indicators onto SPT dimensions.

Table

	Framework: Community Wellbeing Framework for Design Professionals (Markovich et al. 2018)		Framework: Community Indicators Victoria (Cox et al. 2010)
Dimension	Indicator	Skills/Meanings/Materials	Indicator	Skills/Meanings/Materials
Environmental	Delight and enjoyment Natural Systems Mobility Resilience	S/Me Ma S/Ma S	Open Space Housing Affordability Transport Accessibility Sustainable Energy Use Air Quality Water Biodiversity Waste Management	S/Me S S/Ma S Me/Ma Ma Ma
Social	Welcoming Support Systems Socialization	M/Ma Ma Ma	Personal Health and Wellbeing Community Connectedness Early Childhood Personal & Community Safety Lifelong Learning Service Availability	Me S/Me/Ma S/Me S/Me Me S
Economic	Affordability Complete Community Life-Cycle Value Local Economy	Me S/Me/Ma S S/Me	Economic Activity Employment Income and Wealth Skills Work-life Balance	S S/Me S/Me S Me
Political	Sense of Stewardship Collaboration Integration	S/Me/Ma S/Me Me	19.Citizen Engagement	S/Me
Cultural	Cultural Vitality Sense of Belonging Play Learning	Ma Me/Ma Ma S	Arts and Cultural Activities Sporting & Recreational Activities Cultural Diversity	S S Me

Figure 4. Bridging gaps in CW assessment.

Shove, E., Pantzar, M., and Watson, M., 2012. The dynamics of social practice: everyday life and how it changes. London: Sage.

 Google Scholar

Christakopoulou, S., Dawson, J., and Gari, A., 2001. The community well-being questionnaire: theoretical context and initial assessment of its reliability and validity. Social indicators research, 56 (3), 321–351. doi:10.1023/A:1012478207457

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Miles, R.L., et al., 2008. Measuring community wellbeing: a Central Queensland case study. The Australasian journal of regional studies, 14 (1), 73.

 Google Scholar

Cox, D., et al., 2010. Developing and using local community wellbeing indicators: Learning from the experience of community indicators Victoria. The Australian journal of social issues, 45 (1), 71–88. doi:10.1002/j.1839-4655.2010.tb00164.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lee, J., Je, H., and Byun, J., 2011. Well-being index of super tall residential buildings in Korea. Building and environment, 46 (5), 1184–1194. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.12.010

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Buot, M.M., et al., 2017. Developing community wellbeing index (CWBi) in disaster-prone area of the Philippines. Journal of nature studies, 16 (1), 63–75.

 Google Scholar

Buot, M.M. and Dulce, M.Z.C., 2019. An index to determine community wellbeing along coastal community in Leyte, Philippines. Environment Asia, 12 (1), 56–67.

 Google Scholar

Markovich, J., Angelo, M.S.D., and Dinh, T., 2018. Community wellbeing: a framework for the design professions. Ottawa: The Conference Board of Canada.

 Google Scholar

VanderWeele, T.J., 2019. Measures of community well-being: a template. International journal of community well-being, 2 (3–4), 253–275. doi:10.1007/s42413-019-00036-8

 Google Scholar