Review: The value of critique
 Post-occupancy evaluations (POE’s) come in many shapes and sizes. This issue features POE’s that differ in terms of subject; user groups; impacts on users; ambient conditions; and physical design elements, writes Dr Zeisel.
These differences reflect the backgrounds of the investigators, the intent of the investigations, and the intended audience. They also reflect the fact that, although the term and process has been in currency for some time , the field of environment-behaviour research is still ‘an emerging field’.
For this reason we must both celebrate and critique such studies. We must celebrate the fact that POE’s are being carried out, welcomed by professional designers, and enjoying opportunities for widespread dissemination in journals such as World Health Design.
We must critique – not criticise – and learn from the unique aspects of such studies and the particular twists the authors put on them. In Clare Cooper’s article on healing gardens, she uses several observational POE’s of gardens to present readers with thoughtful design guidance – reduce glare, provide choice of pathways, employ furniture to provide semi-private niches.
She makes the point that “the garden has become a potent treatment milieu” and that healing garden design is now in “a third stage” where designers are using sophisticated methods to plan outdoor spaces for the health needs of specific patient and user groups, such as children with autism and elders living with Alzheimer’s.
Stevenson, Humphris and Howells’s careful multi-method POE of the Frank Gehry designed Maggie’s Centre in Dundee, Scotland, compares intent to staff and visitor questionnaire and interview responses. The investigators found major user criticism with “overheating, excessive natural light, excessive dryness of air” layout and use of space in the building, as well as lack of perceived ability to control these ambient conditions.
These user responses were offset by 70% of visitors giving it the highest rating, with 82% rating the views highly, and fully 90% stating the building was “comfortable overall” despite criticising the air and heat. Curiously, the authors conclude with a peculiarly positive assessment of the building – one that might well lead to uncritical design emulation, rather than critical design improvement of future Maggie Centres.
Finally, Kamaree Berry’s operating suite study found that fluorescent lighting, lack of views outdoors, and colour can play a role in lower morale among nurses. But the most interesting point this investigator made is that the nurses she studied felt devalued by not only their working environment, but also the way they are treated – not being included in decisions, and excluded from any design input.
Her respondents seem to feel that they are devalued by what Vischer calls their “socio-spatial contract”1. In this case it is likely that paying the nursing staff more attention would have had a greater effect on morale than an improved environment.
Dr John Zeisel is chair of the international advisory board of the International Academy for Design & Health and president of Hearthstone Alzheimer Care
References
1. Vischer, J C. Space Meets Status – Designing Workplace Performance. Routledge. London 2005
|
1.1.jpg)
|