The interrelationships between kitchen design and food practices for apartment dwellers in Melbourne, Australia: an exploratory study

Figures & data

Table 1. Participant study sample.

ID	Sex	Suburb	Age range (years)	Tenure	Number of bedrooms	Number of days of home cooking/week
P1	Female	Footscray	35–44	Renter	One	4–6
P2	Male	Moonee Ponds	18–24	Renter	Two	Everyday
P3	Female	Moonee Ponds	45–54	Owner	Three	4–6
P4	Female	Moonee Ponds	45–54	Owner	Two	4–6
P5	Female	Footscray	55–64	Renter	Two	4–6
P6	Male	Footscray	45–54	Owner	Two	4–6
P7	Male	Docklands	35–44	Renter	Two	4–6
P8	Female	Docklands	18–24	Renter	One	4–6
P9	Male	Footscray	45–54	Other	Studio	4–6
P10	Male	Docklands	45–54	Owner	Two	2–3
P11	Female	Docklands	45–54	Renter	Two	2–3
P12	Female	North Melbourne	>64	Owner	Three	4–6

Figure 1. ‘A pretty good kitchen’ (P5).

Figure 2. ‘Hell cupboard’ (P9).

Figure 3. Non-existent bench space (P1).

Figure 4. Cramped stove top (P7).

Figure 5. Problem sink design (P11).

Figure 6. Nowhere to store recycling (P10).

Figure 7. Island bench on wheels (P12).

Figure 8. Customised appliance/utensil storage (P6).

Figure 9. Socioecological analysis of the interrelationships between apartment kitchen design and food practices.