Agnieszka Ptak-Wojciechowska
Helianthe Kort
Dena Kasraian3
Agata Gawlak- 1Division of Public Architecture, Institute of Architecture and Heritage Protection, Faculty of Architecture, Poznan University of Technology, Poznan, Poland
- 2Building Healthy Environments for Future Users, Department of the Built Environment, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands
- 3Urbanism and Urban Architecture, Department of the Built Environment, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands
Introduction: While there is a call for smart and sustainable housing in general and for older adults in particular, little attention is paid to identifying the determinants of such housing and their extent of influence on the quality of life (QoL) of older adults. This study addresses the above gap by re-defining the criteria for house quality assessment, taking into account new needs of older inhabitants, while concerning digital assistive technologies.
Methods: This research uses various methods to identify and validate housing-related criteria and metrics, resulting in a transparent multi-criteria evaluation framework that accounts for the spatial needs of older adults. These include recommendations for multi-criteria decision-making method (MCDM/A), expert workshop to develop new metrics and validate sub-criteria, expert survey to prioritize criteria and sub-criteria and interviews with three employees in the construction-services sector in the Netherlands, to gain knowledge on smart and healthy environments.
Results and Discussion: The results show that age-friendliness of housing function is the most significant criterion, while availability of housing modifications for seniors most important sub-criterion. Our findings can benefit architects in designing improved age- friendly spaces, older adults in evaluating their dwellings and researchers from the field of architecture in selecting most relevant method for their study.
1 Introduction
The 21st century has brought about several global challenges, including an aging population (United Nations. Department of Economic and SocialAffairs, 2022), urbanisation (Ritchie and Roser, 2018), and the environmental crisis, including climate change (World Economic Forum, 2022). The three challenges are interconnected and impact on urban quality of life (QoL). Increasing paved surfaces negatively affect the climate, resulting in a temperature increase and formation of urban heat islands that undermine human health and wellbeing. Moreover, older adults are more vulnerable to climate changes than other age groups (Lee and Kim, 2016). Thus, it is urgent to develop relevant designing and planning support tools, properly adjusted to changing realities and contributing to achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (set to address global challenges).
Present and future older adults prefer to age in place (Gawlak, 2022b; Han and Kim, 2017). The quality of the built-up living environment has a strong impact on the wellbeing of its inhabitants (Abousaeidi and Hakimian, 2020; Jabareen, 2006; Mittal et al., 2020). Here, housing is a spatial unit of particular importance which influences the QoL of older adults (Feng et al., 2018; UK Green Building Council, 2016).
The concept of age-proof houses is not new, yet it needs to evolve to respond to new trends and sociodemographic conditions. Interesting concepts of houses include healthy homes, smart homes, and healthy living environments supported by new technologies. These concepts are worth following because they implement solutions that might currently be underappreciated in senior-friendly residential architecture.
Nowadays, a variety of different appraisal instruments for quality of urban life assessment is available. There are urban rankings, guides, as well as surveys measuring citizens’ satisfaction and frameworks proposed by researchers, to name a few. Similarly, a host of methods are applied in QoL appraisal instruments. Here, Multi-Criteria Decision Making/Analysis (MCDM/A) method (Ferreira et al., 2019; Roy, 1990), among them an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Saaty, 2000), are popular methods used in assessing multi-criteria problems.
The tools that are currently available for the quality of urban life assessment insufficiently address the global challenges of the 21st century (Ptak-Wojciechowska et al., 2003). QoL in a city is often measured only through subjective measures (life satisfaction) or objective measures (living standards) (Gawlak et al., 2021; Mittal et al., 2020), while both measures should be taken into account (Okulicz-Kozaryn, 2011; Rokicka et al., 2014). There is also a lack of transparency in the definition of metrics and methodology (Acuto et al., 2021; Gawlak et al., 2021; Mittal et al., 2020). Moreover, the criteria applied in the tools that are available today are not comprehensive enough to address the varied needs of older adults related to the architectural aspects of housing. Finally, many tools that intend to measure the QoL or the quality of housing disregard or underestimate the opportunities offered by assistive technology (Bridge et al., 2021; O’Brien and Ruairi, 2009). This paper addresses the above gaps by developing recommendations for a transparent multi-criteria evaluation framework that accounts for the spatial needs of older adults, their new abilities and new emerging potentials such as the role of technology in supporting ageing in place.
This study applies one multi-criteria method - Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) - to develop an assessment model and prioritize criteria and sub-criteria of housing design quality evaluation, which impacts the QoL of older people. Moreover, it introduces new metrics for measuring quality of architectural aspects of housing and validates a set of sub-criteria during workshops with experts. Interview with stakeholders from construction-services company completes the results with findings on new areas that need to be further investigated. To the best of the authors knowledge there is no other assessment tool that can be used to measure the impact of architectural aspects of housing on the QoL of the older adults in a comparably comprehensive manner.
This study has three main objectives: (i) to analyse state-of-the-art knowledge and tools for the assessment of the quality of (urban) life in view of an ageing society, environmental risks, and architectural aspects of housing; (ii) to identify a comprehensive set of criteria, sub-criteria and metrics for the measuring instruments assessing the quality of housing, which influences the QoL of older adults; (iii) to develop recommendations for an assessment tool that reliably evaluates the quality of senior housing, while taking into account both the objective needs of the ageing inhabitants and their subjective assessment.
The research reviews studies on the QoL of older people and the built environment focused on residential units. The study started with an analysis of the spatial qualities of Polish neighbourhoods, which influence QoL of older people, conducted within another wider research project, and ended with identification of desirable properties of housing in a broader international context, based on examples in the Netherlands. Thus, the selection of methodology and structure of the criteria of the proposed assessment tool is based on research conducted concurrently in Poland.
Consequently, the remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 describes the background on the relationship between QoL and built environment, and the topics of forms of residences for older adults, healthcare in housing, as well as healthy and smart homes to present varied approaches to designing age-friendly spaces which impact QoL of older people. Moreover, this section discusses the literature about quality of urban life assessment tools and the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Making/Aiding methods in architecture-related research. This is followed by Section 3 with the methodology and Section 4, where results are presented. Section 5 follows with discussion, and finally, Section 6 concludes with insights into the practical implication and directions for future research.
2 Background
2.1 Quality of life and built environment
Quality of life is a broad term that concerns several aspects including nature, health and wellbeing, infrastructure, social environment, development and finally, architecture and urbanism that has an impact on all the above-mentioned aspects (Gawlak et al., 2021). Quality of life and spatial urban structure are interdependent and exert mutual impact on one another (Jabareen, 2006; Mittal et al., 2020). Concepts such as a quality of space, sustainability, liveability, and quality of life often overlap. They all, furthermore, pertain to the relationship between individuals and environmental conditions (van Kamp et al., 2003; Oppio et al., 2022).
2.2 Housing and ageing
In the last two decades, we can observe new and interesting spatial solutions designed with an ageing population in mind. Results of our research on contemporary typology of forms of residences for the older adults show that new types of residences (see example in Figure 1), mainly dedicated to health protection and quality of life improvement, have been developed.
Figure 1. Amsterdam, Amstelring, De Nieuwe Sint Jacob, nursing home for people with dementia; photo by Ptak-Wojciechowska, 2003.
The first type of residential development is senior architecture (Figure 2), dedicated strictly to the needs of an ageing population. It has proven to be a highly functional solution, supported with smart technology, but also governed by legislative frameworks and financial instruments. This type of housing is fully accessible and affordable for older adults.
Figure 2. A complex of residential building wings for the older adults in Stargard Szczeciński, design by DOMINO Grupa Architektoniczna Wojciech Dunaj, photo courtesy of DOMINO Grupa Architektoniczna Wojciech Dunaj.
The other type of residential development for older adults is called assisted living housing, which is an alternative solution to living in a nursing home as it provides certain nursing care services. It offers access to healthcare services 24 h a day, 7 days a week for all inhabitants (Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich, 2012). Its functional scheme typically includes areas dedicated to social integration of older adults, such as gardens, open lobbies or places for professional activities. This type of housing supports independent and safe living for older adults. The third type, known as creative co-housing (Figure 3), which is a shared apartment system, offers access to various types of amenities. The main aim of this solution is to provide social support and foster social bonds between the residents. Feeling part of a community, older adults have a chance to overcome the sense of loneliness and to improve their quality of life.
Figure 3. WoZoCo in Amsterdam in the Netherlands designed by MVRDV; Photo by Ptak-Wojciechowska, 2003.
Another type of housing, called controlled social mix, is based on a concept of a diverse user group living in one area, that can arrive at a certain symbiosis of their coexistence. The concept is based on an assumption that mutual interactions between non-homogeneous residents are beneficial for all age groups. Intergenerational relations support active life of the older adults and provide many different stimuli. Synergic habitat - creative partnership of generations - is a concept of compact self-sufficient estates that underlie harmonious social development, integration of older and younger age group members, and, thus, result in socio-economic synergy. This type of housing for older adults also poses a chance for the integration of a variety of local activities and services (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Wrocław, Nowe Żerniki Housing Estate, A multigenerational house, by Major Architekci, photo courtesy of Major Architekci (author of the photo - Maciej Lulko).
There are also more advanced forms of housing designed with older adults in mind, such as a care farm–a fully self-sufficient organism that guarantees employment, healthcare and inclusion of the elderly. By designing labour-related market mechanisms, such as production, trade, etc., it is also a commercial project with great potential. The above presented types of residential housing for the older adults are just examples and do not exhaust all possible housing types, especially that there are also many other forms of housing, and all concepts are constantly evolving.
2.3 Healthcare and housing
In order to provide older adults with safe living conditions, increasing needs for medical services must be properly addressed. Moreover, future older adults will undoubtedly have different needs regarding housing space. Telehealth systems will require highly functional, supportive and innovative space arrangement. This once revolutionary idea of transferring certain elements of diagnostic tests or therapy into the space of one’s own house or apartment has now a chance to become an efficient solution for older adults to enable them to enjoy ageing in place. The fact that older adults in the future will have other skills and competencies than older adults today, especially when it comes to the use of digital devices, cannot be disregarded. In fact, it creates a potential for implementation of certain medical care services like diagnostic tests, treatment or health monitoring in the space of their own home or apartment (Gawlak, 2022b).
2.4 Innovation and technology
Despite houses designed especially for ageing people, there are other types of living environments worth mentioning here, namely, healthy homes and smart homes. The former are defined as homes facilitating both physical and mental wellbeing, that can be characterised by such aspects as: designed in resilience, ensured comfort, built-in security, sound insulation, proper lighting, windows and layouts maximising views out, systems and sensors, matching colour schemes, materials and well-designed ventilation systems. In addition to that a healthy home will have a bedroom promoting healthy sleep, living space and a kitchen facilitating social interaction, storage options and a laundry room. It will be, furthermore, connected to nature and underlie improved wellbeing (van Dijken et al., 2006; Kort, 2017; UK Green Building Council, 2016). All of these design attributes will undoubtedly contribute to the QoL improvement. The latter (smart homes) can be described as homes equipped with relevant independence, comfort and security supporting technologies, which translate without a doubt to improved QoL. At the same time, costs of living and nursing care are reduced (Amiribesheli et al., 2015; Coutaz and Crowley, 2016; Demiris, 2008; Fakhrhosseini, et al., 2020; Stefanov et al., 2004). Smart home technologies may be classified into three main generations: wireless technology and proxy server home automation, electrical devices controlled by artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics integrated with AI (Fakhrhosseini et al., 2020).
Given the significant negative impact of the construction sector on environment, smart homes, incorporating multiple technologies, have the potential to increase the flexibility and adaptability of spaces, which is one way to achieve sustainability (Radha, 2020), while implementing reverse logistics in construction further enhances these efforts by minimizing waste and optimizing the use of materials (Kadaei et al., 2023).
We can also name another type of healthy living environment based on smart technologies (Lan, 2013) that - according to Mourits et al. (2021) - may be defined in view of the following clusters: spatial quality, conducive to exercise, tranquil, clean and accessible, attractive and relaxing, positive effect on climate change, green space, healthy air, soil and noise levels, that encourages healthy choices, conducive to social connections and promotes personal wellbeing. Healthy living environments are also dedicated to the elderly as they support their daily, independent living (Sinoo et al., 2006; Van Hoof and Kort, 2006). Examples of such environments may be found in the Netherlands (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Maanwijk in Leusden in the Netherlands; Photo by Ptak-Wojciechowska, 2003.
2.5 Assessment tools
Quality of urban life assessment is far from new. Places Rated Almanac - ranking recognised as the first instrument that popularised benchmarking of cities in view of the QoL was published in 1981 (Acuto et al., 2021; Chapman and Pike, 1992; Rogerson, 1999). A few years later, in 1990, the Human Development Index, an index measuring the relationship between economic growth and human development was created (United Nations Development Programme, 1990). From then on, a variety of works on the QoL evaluation have been published and many tools to measure it have been developed. Urban rankings are one QoL measuring instrument. It should be noted that such rankings have been developed by different entities including international organisations, research and government units, or publishing entities, and businesses (Gawlak et al., 2021; Mittal et al., 2020). Another type of QoL measuring instruments are guides that consist of proposed recommendations, e.g., in the form of the so-called ‘checklists’ allowing us to measure the QoL in general or to focus on relevant aspects thereof, such as age-friendliness or street sustainability (National Association of City Transportation Officials, 2013; World Health Organization, 2007). Moreover, many QoL assessment instruments are based on opinion polls, questionnaires or surveys that present subjective perception of inhabitants (Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej, 2020; Eurofound, 2017; Liu et al., 2021; Kemperman et al., 2019; Rokicka et al., 2014; Weijs-Perrée et al., 2019). There are also models of assessment developed by scholars, based on different methodologies and methods, such as multi-criteria decision making/aiding method.
2.6 Multi-criteria decision making/aiding
Multi-Criteria Decision Making/Aiding (MCDM/A) method addresses barriers related to unstructured collaborative decision-making. It allows - with the use of multiple criteria and systematic analysis - to assess variants and select the optimal one (Afshari et al., 2016). This method is often used to assess features of urban environments (Abousaeidi and Hakimian, 2020; Ahmad and Thaheem, 2017; Amin Hosseini et al., 2016; De Toro et al., 2004; Hajduk, 2021). According to the researchers, many methods, such as LEED or BREEAM, that are typically used globally to evaluate green buildings, can be successfully incorporated to form part of more suitable decision-making instruments (Abousaeidi and Hakimian, 2020; Moussaoui et al., 2018).
2.7 Analytic hierarchy proces
What is today known as an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a renowned MCDM/A method developed by Saaty (2000). This method is related to decision making process and allows for finding an optimal variant in the complex multi-criteria problems (Ahmad and Thaheem, 2017). AHP excels over other weighting methods with arbitrarily prioritised metrics. Weights and priority index in the AHP are derived from pair-wise comparisons (Abousaeidi and Hakimian, 2020; Sadiq et al., 2003) often with the use of Saaty’s scale (see Figure 6). Furthermore, this method is commonly used in architecture-related research (Abousaeidi and Hakimian, 2020; Harputlugil, 2018; Morkunaite et al., 2019). The AHP method allows to prioritise criteria according to the preferences of a given Decision Maker, and finally, to evaluate and rank variants from the best to the worst. Such rankings have a great marketing potential. Thus, they attract the attention of municipalities and communities that can subsequently learn on the basis of the best reference example (Acuto et al., 2021).
Figure 6. AHP process overview—pairwise comparisons and Saaty’s scale. Authors’ own work.
3 Material and method
The study approach consists of three main parts reflected in the article structure. Figure 7 shows a diagram depicting an overview of the approach. The first part includes an introduction presenting motivation related to global challenges, and a need of senior-friendly housing assessment, as well as major gaps that the paper is addressing, its aim and methodology. The second part, background, includes topics regarding the quality of life and built environment (2.1), related to housing and ageing (2.2), healthcare and housing (2.3), as well as innovation and technology (2.4), along with appraisal instruments (2.5), MCDM/A (2.6) and selected specific method AHP (2.7). In the next section, methodology (3), both quantitative and qualitative, is presented along with the following methods: literature review (3.1), comparative analysis (3.2), MCDM/A including Analytic Hierarchy Process to recommend appraisal instrument (3.3), experts’ workshop (3.4), questionnaire survey (3.5), and stakeholders’ interview (3.6). Finally, recommendations for appraisal instrument for assessment of smart and sustainable housing for future older adults are presented in the results section (Figure 7). These are followed by discussion in the fourth section and finally conclusions.
Figure 7. Schematic design of the study. Authors’ own work.
A study is structured as follows: the review of literature on the topics listed above is first made, then follows the comparative analysis of housing metrics and recommendations for a relevant instrument in view of the MCDM/A concept. Next, the subsection moves to the description of the experts’ workshop, organised to work up new metrics and validate respective sub-criteria, thereafter, follows prioritisation of criteria and sub-criteria via the AHP-OS method. The section ends with the allocation of weights to relevant criteria and sub-criteria. Next, the subsection moves to the interviews on healthy homes with three stakeholders. Thus, new areas in knowledge that need to be further investigated can be identified. Based on previous steps the article presents recommendations for a reliable assessment instrument. Future step will be to assess single houses, and then compare them and rank them.
3.1 Literature review
In order to develop recommendations for the above-mentioned assessment instrument, a review, labelled as literature review (Grant and Booth, 2009), was conducted on topics related to global challenges, assessment instruments (tools), QoL in cities, ageing in place, new trends in residential environments and healthcare (Cruickshank, 2010; Dentzer, 2018; Gawlak, 2022a; Wilson et al., 2000), importance of technology, both in the area of healthcare provided in one’s own house or apartment and in assisted living (the concept was proposed in the early 1960s and is known as “hospital without walls”).
To select scientific papers and appraisal instruments, the eligibility criteria have been established in relation to both the scope of the research and the features of metrics. Scope of the research was defined as including the urban QoL assessment, measuring the age-friendliness, and involving urban spatial metrics, while metrics should be influenced by architects and related to housing, have influence on the QoL of older adults, and concern global challenges (see Figure 8).
Figure 8. Research screening and inclusion process diagram. Authors’ own work.
Records have been identified through the literature search and recommendations of the two experts from the field of age-friendly design. Then, after screening based on keywords: age-friendly cities; cities for ageing; instrument; zamieszkiwanie osób starszych; wytyczne; quality of life in city; mierzenie/pomiar jakości życia; ranking jakości życia w polskich miastach, and databases, namely, Scopus and Google Scholar, some papers were excluded.
Subsequently, records were assessed for previously defined eligibility. While some of the records were excluded, some records were later included and assessed for eligibility because the appraisal instruments we analysed recommended new records. Finally, the search rendered 19 assessment instruments and 12 scientific papers, which have been included in Supplementary Table S1 (Abousaeidi and Hakimian, 2020; Abusaada and Elshater, 2020; Bendowska et al., 2017; Bentley et al., 2005; Błędowski et al., 2016; Brewer et al., 2014; Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej, 2020; Eurofound, 2017; European Commission. Directorate General for Regional Policy, 2013; Eurostat, 2017; Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministers Responsible for Seniors, 2007; Feng et al., 2018; Garau and Pavan, 2018; Garcia et al., 2017; Giles-Corti et al., 2016; Kubendran et al., 2017; Mercer, 2019; Monocle, 2019; Oppio et al., 2021; Oppio et al., 2022; Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2020; Górniczo-Hutnicza, 2018; Reid et al., 2019; Rokicka et al., 2014; The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2019; United Nations Development Programme, 2019; Van der Weijst, 2015; Wałachowski and Król, 2019; Wojnarowska, 2016; World Health Organization, 2007; Yigitcanlar et al., 2015).
3.2 Comparative analysis
Comparative analysis includes collating assessment instruments and metrics incorporated in them. It is important to note that results of comparison of evaluation tools and criteria of the QoL have been published in the previous study (reference to our article), whereas comparison of metrics related specifically to housing quality is presented in this paper.
The records identified in the literature review rendered 1844 metrics, understood here as the smallest dimension, a component of the main criterion. It should be pointed out here that such terms as metrics, indicators and criteria inherent in one analysed instrument may not correspond to those inherent in another instrument. Some of them were unrelated to the scope of our research (determinants of housing providing quality of life for older people, concerning global challenges, influenced by architects) and some were found to be included in more than one instrument. After an in-depth analysis of particular indicators, having eliminated redundancy, we identified 59 metrics. Analysis was executed based on study of entire publications to get acquainted with the context, reading metrics’ definitions, as well as looking through the cited references, if description of metrics was not provided. Certain metrics were found to be interrelated, thus they were clustered based on the four-eyes principle method and the literature (Bentley et al., 2005; Feng et al., 2018; Gawlak, 2022b; O’Brien and Ruairi, 2009; World Health Organization, 2007). Regarding the latter, clustering was based on criteria and sub-criteria that were frequently mentioned, proposed by impactful source, or assessed as significant. Finally, metrics were clustered to the following topics: accessibility, function, form, environment, adaptability, affordability, senses and innovation and technology, as shown in Figure 9. It should be noted that during the clustering process, gaps in knowledge were identified.
Figure 9. Process of metrics clustering. Authors’ own work.
3.3 Multi-criteria decision making/aiding
In order to develop recommendations for a transparent assessment tool, authors have selected one of the MCDM/A methods, namely, the AHP. In the process of selecting MCDM/A method and defining criteria for the research on the Polish neighbourhoods’ assessment, two experts were involved. The first expert specialised in multiple-criteria decision making and the second - in research methods and techniques applied in architecture. For this study the recommendation from MCDM/A was followed, with the focus on the spatial unit of an apartment.
Application of the AHP method requires the identification of the main goal and a set of measurement criteria, sub-criteria and variants. In this study, sub-criteria have been divided into objective and subjective, former to be measured by experts in the field of architecture, and latter to be assessed in the form of a perception of older people, both with the use of the questionnaire surveys. Following the recommendation from MCDM/A, criteria have been defined as nouns, and their number did not exceed the Miller Number, which is 7 ± 2. This is a concept related to multicriteria problems. According to Miller, people are able to perceive and distinguish only a limited number of elements in one moment (Miller, 1956; Saaty and Ozdemir, 2003). The process of clustering the metrics identified certain gaps in knowledge. Roles of accessibility and technology were limited to the selected aspects only. Metrics related to accessibility accounted only for three principles of universal design. Metrics that defined innovation and technology were narrowed down to such aspects as event driven systems, walking aids, telehealth and telecare, and excluded such aspects as significance of communication, cognitive training, environmental control and object location. Moreover, almost all criteria failed to assess the importance of perceived quality. On the basis of literature and authors’ expert knowledge, the list of sub-criteria related to accessibility (Table 1) and technology was extended with other universal design principles and technology-related sub-criteria found to be missing.
Table 1. Part of the table (Supplementary Table S2) showing the C1 criterion, with its sub-criteria and metrics based on the review of literature.
3.4 Experts’ workshop for the validation of sub-criteria
The workshop was executed to validate sub-criteria with the multicultural group of experts. It was preceded by the pilot workshop with a group of experts with a background in architecture, including three separate experts–one of which took part in both pilot and final workshop.
In the final workshop, the set of relevant sub-criteria was validated by a group of eight experts, in this in the field of architecture (both researchers and practitioners specialising in such areas of architecture (n = 7) as health and the ageing population, sustainable design or interior design), as well as in the field of gerontechnology (n = 1). The experts had to meet the following conditions to be considered in this category: they were required to have at least a master’s degree in a related discipline and demonstrate advanced research activities, evidenced by completed PhDs, ongoing doctoral studies, or equivalent scholarly contributions in professional research settings. For the purpose of the validation of the said sub-criteria, the experts used two tools, namely, Miro1 (white board) and Mentimeter2. In the brainstorming session with the use of Miro, the experts recommended new sub-criteria and metrics. Whereas the voting system as prescribed via the Mentimeter tool allowed the group of experts to decide which sub-criteria shall be finally included in the assessment tool. The workshop commenced with a multimedia presentation and a short introduction, which included an overview of the study, background information, rationale, purpose and methodology. The workshop was structured into two principal sections: the initial identification of housing design qualities and a subsequent voting process on the sub-criteria. Firstly, experts were requested to identify the sub-criteria that should be considered in order to measure age-friendly housing. These were then written on sticky notes and placed on the selected sub-criterion, which was visible on the Miro board. The experts then proceeded to fill in the board in a similar way with sticky notes containing the proposed adequate metrics. Subsequently, the authors of the study [APW, AG] revised the set of sub-criteria prepared earlier in Mentimeter and presented the results to the experts. Eventually, the experts were requested to cast their votes on the sub-criteria that should ultimately be included.
The final set of sub-criteria was based on 50% of experts’ votes. Participants voted on additional sub-criterion no sharp corner or edges that was named after that Architecture without sharp corners or edges. They also proposed to extend the existing sub-criterion of Affordability of property maintenance with the rented property aspect. Consequently, the sub-criterion was named as the Affordability of property and rented property.
3.5 Questionnaire survey
Furthermore, the group of eight multiculturally diverse experts, including six that took part in the workshop and two new experts, prioritized the criteria and sub-criteria in a hierarchical structure in a software package called the AHP online system - AHP-OS, developed by Goepel (2018). This tool consists of a table where relevant hierarchy is assigned under a three level structure: the main goal, criteria and sub-criteria. The experts used the software individually to make pair-wise comparisons of all the criteria and sub-criteria and calculate their weights. Having attributed weights to the criteria and sub-criteria, the said experts verified them for consistency using the Consistency Ratio CR as provided by the software. The acceptable CR rate was below 10% (Liu et al., 2018; Saaty, 1987). Subsequently, weights were averaged to obtain one normalised weight for each criterion and sub-criterion. Afterwards, global priorities that show the importance of particular sub-criteria as a product of weight of a main criterion and weight of a sub-criterion has been computed. All calculations were made by the software. Results will be presented in a tabular form, according to the prioritisation of criteria and sub-criteria made by the experts.
3.6 Interviews with stakeholders
Interviews with three employees in the construction services sector in the Netherlands, who were senior executives and specialist, were validated via data coding. At first, the audio recordings were transcribed by the first author [APW] with the use of ATLAS.ti software3 that assures safety of the collected data. After reading the data, the first author applied codes to particular excerpts, and having repeated the procedure for several times, topic-grouped codes created a network of codes (as shown in Supplementary Figure S1) assigned to quotes. The second round of the coding procedure involved one of the co-authors [AG], and the third - another co-author [HK]. Finally, transcripts with proposed codes were sent to all the interviewees for their acceptance. After implementing minor changes based on the interviewees’ recommendation, the codes were interpreted. Based on the stakeholders’ interview on their view on living environments that influence the quality of life of inhabitants, new areas that need to be further investigated were identified. On the basis of previous results, recommendations for appraisal instruments were developed. In a further step, prioritized criteria and sub-criteria could be used as coefficients for the evaluation of houses for older people that then, might be compared and subsequently ranked.
4 Results
As a result of the research, the set of criteria and sub-criteria were developed based on the experts’ workshop, weights (Wt) of particular criteria were assigned by experts, and finally the global priorities were calculated automatically by the AHP-OS software, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Significance of relevant criteria and sub-criteria regarding global priorities.
All criteria include objective sub-criteria to be evaluated by the experts and subjective sub-criteria, related to perceptual quality of older adults. The set of criteria and sub-criteria may be used in the form of a first screening list to evaluate individual dwellings in view of their age-friendliness (as shown in Supplementary Table S3). It is recommended to use the AHP method to rank variants, which mean different houses, in the further step as shown in Figure 10.
Figure 10. The AHP decision tree indicating the goal, criteria, sub-criteria and variants. Authors’ own work.
4.1 Definition of a variant
In this study, variants are defined as residential units for ageing people who live alone in different configurations, as singles, pairs, or in a group. Architectural form may represent an apartment in the tenement, block of flats, etc., single-family home and different forms of co-housing.
4.2 Description of criteria and sub-criteria
C1. Accessibility of housing for ageing population. This criterion consists of sub-criteria based on seven Universal Design Principles and one based on the perception of accessibility by the older adults, namely,: C1.1 equitable use, which means design that can be used by all people despite their diverse abilities, C1.2 flexibility in use, which refers to design that takes into account a broad spectrum of individual abilities, but also individual preferences, C1.3 simple and intuitive use, which implies the easily understandable design for everyone, at any rate of knowledge, concentration or cognitive skills, C1.4 perceptible information, which shows that design successfully conveys the required information, for instance, different surfaces can be distinguished as a result of the application of different colours and finishing materials, C1.5 tolerance for error, which intends to minimise risk of an accident through eliminating impediments, C1.6 low physical effort, which describes designs that can be effectively used without any forcible strength, for instance, doors should not be too heavy for the user, C1.7 size and space for approach and use, which suggests architecture designed in a way that can be easily accessible and used, where furniture can be easily reached in spite of the user’s limitations, such as mobility, height, etc. and finally, C1.8 perception of seniors on accessibility, which will be measured as a level of satisfaction.
C2. Age-friendliness of housing function relates to an intended purpose and functional program of a given work of architecture. This criterion is further sub-divided into the following sub-criteria: C2.1 robustness of space, which means its adaptability and flexibility of use, C2.2 availability of socialising space, which designates space that fosters social interactions, C2.3 protection, which means assurance of safety in view of meteorological conditions, C2.4 non-interference of private space, which ensures privacy in residential spaces, C2.5 household appliances and furniture, which includes fundamental fit-out and relevant appliances and electronic devices, C2.6 installations and sanitary facilities, which incorporates availability of basic sanitary facilities and connections to the sewage system in the flat, and lastly, C2.7 perception of seniors on function, which aims to verify the degree of satisfaction.
C3. Age-friendliness of housing form evaluates such sub-criteria as: C3.1 space in the dwelling, understood as average surface area per person in the apartment, C3.2 quality of architecture, C3.3 quality of materials, assesses their durability and maintenance options, C3.4 quality of structure, which also means good condition of windows, doors or floors (no rotten structures), and no damp stains or leaks appearing on walls and roofs, C3.5 architecture without sharp corners or edges, which refers to satisfaction with aesthetically pleasing curvilinear forms and interiors, which underlie many positive emotions, such as the feeling of calmness and relaxation, and are, thus, more friendly than the rectilinear forms and interiors (Dazkir and Read, 2012), and increase physical safety of the users. The final sub-criterion contained is C3.6 perception of seniors on housing form, which is to identify the satisfaction of the elderly with all the aforementioned aspects of the housing form.
C4. Environmental friendliness of housing is assessed through the following sub-criteria: C4.1 emission level of harmful substances, which verifies air pollution/air quality, C4.2 share of recyclable materials and pro-environmental materials, which refers to the low emission buildings and carbon neutrality, C4.3 share of environmentally friendly technologies, which focuses on energy saving solutions and renewable energy sources, C4.4 access to nature, which highlights the significance of greenery, i.e., plants, flowers and possibly green walls in interiors, and finally, C4.5 perception of seniors on environmental friendliness of housing, which accounts for positive perception of the use of devices and materials and the presence of greenery.
C5. Adaptability for seniors ageing in place is composed of the following sub-criteria: C5.1 availability of housing modifications for seniors, which refers to installation of additional technological facilities supporting independence of the elderly in their daily lives, C5.2 availability of personalisation, which simply means that older adults can adapt the housing via individualised designs to their own tastes, C5.3 perception of seniors on housing adaptability, which allows them to express their attitude towards possible changes.
C6. Affordability of housing for older people comprises such sub-criteria as: C6.1 affordability of property, which is measured by average price of 1 square meter of an apartment to average salary, C6.2 affordability of property or rental property maintenance, which includes affordability of general maintenance services, taking into account of cost-efficient construction materials, C6.3 affordability of housing modifications and repairs, which refers also to fixed income, C6.4 perception of seniors on housing affordability, which allows to compare numbers with personal feelings.
C7. Quality of multisensory experience of housing concerns relations between housing and different senses of its inhabitants, and in particular, C7.1 adequate illumination sub-criterion refers to sufficient amount of light in view of a relevant situation, C7.2 adequate natural light assess sufficiency of daylight, C7.3 noise quality measures sound-proofness of an interior and delimits loud and silent zones, C7.4 sensual experience relates to a wide range of sensations felt owing to the application of different design components evoking a variety of sensual experiences, such as images, sounds, tactile feelings, smells, C7.5 adequate insulation and aeration represents, e.g., good ventilation, C7.6 adequate temperature designates facilities installed to maintain comfortable room temperature, and finally, C7.7 perception of seniors on multisensory experience represents assessment by the older adults of multisensory comfort of the housing space.
C8. Innovation and technology for ageing in place stresses the opportunities for the elderly posed by new technologies and devices in the field of assisted living. The criterion is composed of the following eight sub-criteria: C8.1 event driven systems: fall detection, fire, security, which verifies alerting technologies that notify caregivers of risks, C8.2 walking aids, which assesses technologies protecting the elderly against falls, C8.3 communication, which includes special on-line platforms where the elderly can keep in contact with family and friends, C8.4 cognitive training, which improves retrospective memory, C8.5 environmental control, which concerns, e.g., maintaining comfortable temperature and controlling vacuum cleaning, C8.6 object locator, which helps finding lost items, e.g., keys, with the use of a network of smart cameras, C8.7 telehealth and telecare sub-criterion, which involves general monitoring, health monitoring (vital signs, medication, food intake), as well as location tracking, and finally, C8.8 perception of seniors on innovation and technology, which enables to find out what the older adults think of the applied new technologies and what is their level of satisfaction with the use of such new technologies.
4.3 Significance of criteria and sub-criteria
The experts prioritised the criteria in the order of significance. They deemed C2. Age-friendliness of housing function as the most important, followed sequentially by: C1. Accessibility of housing, C5. Adaptability for seniors ageing in place, C6. Affordability, C3. Housing form, C8. Innovation and technology, C7. Quality of multisensory experience and finally C4. Environmental friendliness of housing.
The most important sub-criterion - in view of global priorities - is C5.1 availability of housing modifications, which is followed by C5.2 availability of personalisation. The sub-criteria which ranked at the same third position were C1.3 simple and intuitive use and C1.3 protection (see Table 2).
4.4 Metrics based on experts’ recommendations
The experts participating in the workshop proposed new metrics for the quality of senior housing assessment based on such aspects as accessibility, form and function, affordability, sustainability, multisensory experience, and technologies, as shown in Supplementary Table S4.
4.5 Results from the interviews
During the process of coding the interviews, new areas that need to be further investigated, other than those identified in the introduction, were found in relation to the measurement of housing quality and in relation to such aspects as:
• climate adaptation,
• local biodiversity and local nature values,
• circularity of materials,
• indoor climate and indoor air quality monitoring,
• housing design that allows adaptation by predicted space for stair elevator or lift,
• healthy location of housing,
• housing design with less installations as a response to current too complex dwelling design,
• windows design versus energy efficiency and affordability,
• innovation and technology for optimizing use of energy,
• connecting technology to installations and heat pumps,
• transition from fossil towards renewable energy,
• sustainability of building process,
• making housing interactive (allowing a company and a customer to automate maintenance questions),
• platform as a way of contacting inhabitants by municipalities.
Moreover, the interviews revealed new interesting aspects related to life cycles of the buildings:
• design in response to loss of biodiversity, as well as overusing Earth’s resources,
• inhabitants’ footprint,
• considering investment as a part of ecosystem, but also having commercial reasons for environmental friendliness,
• investment affordability and reduced cost due to industrialization,
• platform as a way of contacting customers by the company and automated maintenance solutions,
• affordability and long-term adaptability in view of water-related risks, as well as removable houses as a response to a local Dutch challenge,
• long-term management and lifelong learning,
• and finally, legislation and regulation having impact on every design quality criterion, from affordability, via form, function, sustainability, adaptability, multisensory experience to innovation and technology.
5 Discussion
5.1 Appraisal instrument recommendations
The aim of the study was to address the gaps by developing recommendations that include transparent methodology and comprehensive set of criteria, embracing importance of the role of innovation and technology, in supporting daily living and ageing in place. In effect, a proposed set of prioritised criteria and sub-criteria may be used by architects as guidelines for improved age-friendly design. The tool, developed based on recommendations, allows for verification of the present condition of housing via the first screening list. Whereas, with the use of the interview or a questionnaire measuring perception of older people, a questionnaire for experts, and finally AHP method, potentially it could allow to compare them between one another to learn on the basis of good examples. After a further validation process, metrics based on a literature review, as well as an experts’ recommendation might be used in the form of practical guidelines for architects. Nonetheless, architects, implementing the idea of ageing in place in their designs, should always comply with the prevailing local laws and specific regulations.
5.2 Findings based on interviews
Interviews rendered a number of interesting findings, in this those related to energy efficiency of the building structure and access of natural light to the interior. It cannot be denied that we need natural light in our houses, yet, architects should also remember that too large windows undermine energy performance, environmental friendliness of the building, and also translate into higher energy costs. Considering the topic of sustainability, aspects often omitted in the assessment instruments but recognised by stakeholders are circularity of materials, innovation and technology for optimizing use of energy, and sustainability of building process. Among other vital aspects, health-related housing aspects were named, i.e., healthy location of the living environment and monitoring of indoor climate and air quality. The two latter aspects were confirmed in our research to be significant from the perspective of designing an efficient quality assessment tool, they had, however, already been studied. Whereas the interviews identified a gap in the current state of designing, namely, the designed houses are provided with too many systems, which often leads to new problems solved by means of other technological devices. Thus, the need has been identified to simplify housing designs. The interviewees also raised another issue that is worth considering, namely, predicted space for stair elevator or lift. Their observation can be correlated with the expert’s proposal to include a metric called (Preparing for) sandwich generation–taking into account the phenomenon of a group of middle-aged adults who provide care not only for their children, but also for their aging parents. As this phenomenon can affect anyone, it is worth predicting effective spatial solutions that can be applied in future housing designs. Furthermore, the interviewees also indicated long-term management and lifelong learning as a part of their employer strategy. It is extremely significant to evaluate the already built investment, so as to optimize some solutions and make improvements if needed. Such an approach is also beneficial for the construction services company, as it supports constant progress. Affordability of housing is another important aspect underlying the quality of architecture and predetermining solutions used by developers. Furthermore, life cycle of the building has been brought to our attention. To be able to respond to current challenges such as loss of biodiversity and depletion of natural resources, we need to change our perception of the living environment and to see it as part of the ecosystem, affected by the inhabitants’ footprint. Because the stakeholders who participated in our interviews worked for a Dutch company, local water-related challenges turned out to be of high priority for them, especially in view of affordability and adaptability. The affordability challenge is related to rising loan rates in high-risk areas. Adaptability poses a question about the need of building houses that allow further adaptations, while it is predicted that the house may be removed due to a raise of water level. Considering affordability of houses in general, it should be noted that the Netherlands faces a particular challenge that calls for an urgent solution.
According to the interviewees, the strategy of the company regarding the healthy living environment focuses on the following aspects: area/place attachment, sustainability, healthiness, social connectedness, and smartness. What is crucial is the fact that the company responds to the main local challenges found in the neighbourhood, regarding nature, spatial and social domains. Technologies and innovations can play an important role. Whether in a form of a platform, connecting inhabitants with one another, or with company and municipalities, or system monitoring air-quality. It should be, however, noted that implementing technologies typical for healthy living environments, and the overall ease of doing that in a given neighbourhood, may be affiliated with the smart city policy. The local policy and the approach of the municipalities that want to boost the image of the city can play a key role.
5.3 Innovation and technology
Despite the undeniable potential of smart homes to contribute to assisted living of older adults, they are usually designed to address a particular issue, while they should offer adaptability to inhabitants’ changing needs over time. This is an obvious gap and in response thereto, Sumi Helal and Christopher Bull developed a programmable assistive environment that can support the ageing people by means of the Internet of Things (IoT). Advantages of such solutions, i.e., possibility of personalisation and dynamic changes of applications and interfaces were demonstrated in The Gator Tech Smart House (GTSH). Among GTSH integrated technologies are smart blinds, beds, closets, laundry rooms, bathroom mirrors, bathroom sinks, displays, microwaves, kitchen, floors, plugs as well as smart front doors, smart mailboxes, security monitoring systems, emergency calls and cognitive assistants. Furthermore, Artificial Intelligence [AI] and machine learning techniques were used for the identification of behaviour types, activities, situations and phenomena (Helal and Bull, 2019). It should be noted that at present many studies are pending on opportunities offered by new technologies as regards improvement of the living environments for people with dementia. They are still at their pilot stage; thus, the area of large-scale implementation remains undeveloped (Bowes et al., 2019).
5.4 Strengths and limitations
Studying the selected research problem, authors had to face certain limitations. First, the conception of measuring the quality of housing for the older adults originated in Poland, where the subject of the study are entire neighbourhoods, rather than single houses. Thus, the assessment tools and publications which were analysed and compared, concerned various spatial scales, from an entire city via neighbourhoods to single dwelling units. If the analyses were related only to the smallest spatial unit, which is a single house, the set of developed metrics would be different. Therefore, it is necessary to verify if the recommended criteria, sub-criteria and metrics developed based on the Polish context could be implemented for the assessment of housing in the Netherlands and if the results of the study could be generalised to form universal guidelines.
Moreover, cultural and policy differences were not analysed, thus, the research concerned only a homogeneous context, which may pose a limitation for the developed assessment tool. Co-housing may be used here as an example. Dutch houses often do not offer sufficient area for sharing space with parents and/or grandparents, while in Poland, multi-generational families commonly live in one household, where extra space is foreseen in advance. Finally, the sample of interviewees was limited to only three stakeholders, therefore, it cannot be perceived as a representative sample of the entire construction-services sector. Furthermore, all the interviewees were Dutch and lived in the Netherlands, hence, the number of identified areas that need to be further investigated is notably limited.
The methodology developed as part of this research includes a transparent calculation procedure of Analytic Hierarchy Process. The utilisation of Saaty’s 1-9 scale may have resulted in certain challenges for experts using this scale, as it necessitates consistent and precise judgments, which can prove challenging when comparing sub-criteria that are similar in preference. Moreover, the subjective nature of assigning numerical values to qualitative comparisons can result in errors or inconsistencies, particularly when experts’ comprehension of the criteria or their individual judgement strategies diverge. However, experts received legend with definitions of all criteria and sub-criteria. Furthermore, the AHP-OS system was able to discern instances of inconsistency in expert responses and provide experts with the necessary information.
To develop the set of criteria, sub-criteria and metrics we have used the results of the analysis of existing studies on housing evaluation, among them widely recognised publications and international tools and rankings. The involvement of experts from both the field of architecture and gerontechnology was necessary, to check whether the already prepared set of criteria and metrics was complete, and accurate. The workshops allowed us to incorporate missing aspects and thus improve the set.
Despite the aforementioned limitations, the study came to interesting and vital conclusions. The study created a new set of criteria and sub-criteria for the quality assessment of housing intended for the older adults and prioritised the proposed criteria and sub-criteria following the experts’ opinions. The high number of experts involved in the research is without a doubt its strength. Moreover, experts, participating in the pilot study, workshop and prioritisation of criteria in the AHP-OS questionnaire, represented culturally diverse backgrounds.
Research presented in this article contributes to solving the needs of an aging urban population in Europe in the context of climate change and to achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals:
- by offering recommendations for designing healthy homes that support wellbeing of elderly (3. Good health and wellbeing);
- by fostering innovation, like building smart homes and using newest technologies to facilitate ageing in place. Our recommendations involve aspects such as the use of environmentally friendly materials (9. Industry, innovation and infrastructure);
- by highlighting the importance of housing design for most vulnerable groups, that simultaneously supports design for all, and thus reduces inequalities (10. Reduced inequalities);
- by developing metrics supporting design of inclusive, safe and resilient human settlements (11. Sustainable cities and communities);
- by directing readers’ and architects’ attention to the aspects related to combating climate change through responsible building design that is reflected in criterion C4 Environmental friendliness of housing, as well as in the findings from the interviews (13. Climate action).
A comprehensive first screening list can serve as a valuable reference for architects, outlining the key elements to be considered in their design process. Additionally, insights collected from interviews with professionals can inform the incorporation of sustainable solutions and advanced technologies in housing design.
The findings of this study can be utilised by architects in the following manner. Since the weight (significance) of a given sub-criterion has been determined, it becomes possible to identify which aspects warrant particular attention. For instance, the accessibility of modifications was assigned the highest rating. Therefore, architects should ensure that they have considered the future accessibility of modifications to the apartment, for example, by providing enough space for the installation of a handrail in the bathroom. Furthermore, the use of a set of criteria and metrics proposed in this study, in conjunction with the first screening list, enables the verification of whether specific elements that enhance the quality of life for older people have been duly considered. This may entail the incorporation of a designated space for social interaction, the provision of adjustable lighting, the incorporation of sensory experiences through the utilisation of diverse textures and materials that enrich the architectural experience.
5.5 Future research
On the basis of the experts’ workshop, new metrics for the assessment of senior-friendly housing were developed. They shall be next validated via experts and thereafter, relevant questionnaire surveys shall be worked up to question the older adults both in Poland and in the Netherlands to assess their perception. This shall also allow to verify ecological validity and compare housing, both in the Netherlands and in Poland. The clarity and legibility of the questionnaire form should be validated by the older adults as well. Only after all the validation stages have been completed can relevant metrics be included in the assessment tool, being the scope of our research. In the course of experts’ pair-wise comparisons, it is interesting to note that sub-criterion of seniors’ perception was most often the least important, according to experts’ assessment. This opens up opportunities for further research on an alternative set of indicators, actively involving the older adults in the decision-making process and criteria formulation. Such an approach was not adopted here, as the Decision Maker was a group of architects–either practitioners or academics, while a group of older people were only a stakeholder whose needs were taken into account. Nonetheless, the authors hereof are aware of the importance of the users’ perception, therefore, in their opinion, correlations that shall be diagnosed by comparing both sets of metrics (subjective and objective ones) might prove a highly effective approach in developing the final assessment instrument.
6 Conclusion
The authors of this paper were successful in addressing many current gaps by developing relevant recommendations for an appropriate quality assessment instrument. Taking into account global challenges related to the quality of life and built environment, they have analysed currently available assessment instruments and reviewed scientific papers, in order to consequently come up with a set of proposed assessment criteria. Their preliminary selection was then verified by adopting a multicultural approach and conducting an experts’ workshop. By combining the workshop formula with the AHP questionnaire, authors developed a comprehensive set of relevant and prioritized criteria and sub-criteria. It should be noted that experts ranked C2. Age-friendliness of housing function, with weight 0.227, as the most important criterion and C5.1 availability of housing modifications for the seniors as the most vital sub-criterion with 7.5% score according to global priorities. Using relevant metrics and the AHP algorithm, the authors hereof have formulated final recommendations for the tool intended to assess senior-friendly housing architecture.
Recommendations for architects, worked up in the form of a very extensive first screening list, shall be viewed as valuable part of the research results. Without doubt, they will make an added value for architects, who may regard them as a set of design principles, as well as for the ageing societies, who can utilise the criteria and metrics to assess the suitability of their current living environment or, to inform their decision-making regarding potential future accommodation. Authors see opportunities for further research on the assumption of including older participants in the process of developing relevant criteria and metrics for the quality assessment of senior housing. A comparative analysis of results of the studies in which the older adults would play an active role with those in which they were not directly involved may render interesting results.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
Ethical approval was not required for these studies involving human participants because experts were invited to participate voluntarily and anonymously. They completed questionnaires using the AHP-OS system and collaborated during workshops to recommend research sub-criteria and metrics, including anonymously voting on evaluation sub-criteria. Participation in the survey and workshops was voluntary, and the questions posed did not involve sensitive data. Three stakeholders who agreed to be interviewed, provided written informed consent by completing consent forms. The studies were conducted in accordance with local legislation and institutional requirements. All information that could identify participants was anonymized.
Author contributions
AP-W: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Visualization, Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing. HK: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Resources, Visualization, Writing–review and editing. DK: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Resources, Visualization, Writing–review and editing. AG: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Visualization, Writing–review and editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education (grant numbers: 0112/SBAD/2405).
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank all participants of expert sessions for their meaningful contribution to the development, validation and prioritizing of the set of criteria and sub-criteria of assessment. Furthermore, gratitude is extended to the stakeholders that agreed to grant us the interview which helped us to improve the set of metrics and extend the discussion section. We also want to thank participants of our pilot studies and participants of the Research Meetings that supported us with their insightful comments and guidance. The authors would like to acknowledge Uncle Sam’s English for invaluable assistance in proofreading and editing this manuscript, improving its language and clarity.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbuil.2024.1476249/full#supplementary-material
Footnotes
1Online software allowing to conduct brainstorming sessions on-line together with a team on a digital whiteboard.
2Software allowing for the presentation of interactive on-line polls, word clouds and quizzes, where results of voting are immediately visible on the screen.
3Software allowing to make transcripts of the audio files as well as to code the interviews.
References
Abousaeidi, M., and Hakimian, P. (2020). Developing a checklist for assessing urban design qualities of residential complexes in new peripheral parts of Iranian cities: a case study of Kerman, Iran. Sustain. Cities Soc. 60, 102251. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2020.102251
Abusaada, H., and Elshater, A. (2020). Urban design assessment tools: a model for exploring atmospheres and situations. Urban Des. Plan. 173, 238–255. doi:10.1680/jurdp.20.00025
Acuto, M., Pejic, D., and Briggs, J. (2021). Taking city rankings seriously: engaging with benchmarking practices in global urbanism. Int. J. Urban Regional Res. 45 (2), 1468-2427.12974–377. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12974
Afshari, A., Vatanparast, M., and Ćoćkalo, D. (2016). Application of multi criteria decision making to urban planning—a review. J. Eng. Manag. Compet. (JEMC) 6, 46–53. doi:10.5937/jemc1601046A
Ahmad, T., and Thaheem, M. J. (2017). Developing a residential building-related social sustainability assessment framework and its implications for BIM. Sustain. Cities Soc. C (28), 1–15. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2016.08.002
Amin Hosseini, S. M., de la Fuente, A., and Pons, O. (2016). Multi-criteria decision-making method for assessing the sustainability of post-disaster temporary housing units technologies: a case study in Bam, 2003. Sustain. Cities Soc. 20, 38–51. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2015.09.012
Amiribesheli, M., Benmansour, A., and Bouchachia, H. (2015). A review of smart homes in healthcare. J. Ambient Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 6, 495–517. doi:10.1007/s12652-015-0270-2
Bendowska, M., Bieńkuńska, A., Ciecieląg, P., Luty, P., Sobesjański, K., and Wójcik, J. (2017). “Jakość życia w polsce,” in Edycja 2017 (quality of life in Poland 2017 edition). Central Statistical Office.
Bentley, I., McGlynn, S., Smith, G., Alcock, A., and Murrain, P. (2005). Responsive environments: a manual for designers. Bodmin, United Kingdom: MPG Books Ltd.
Błędowski, P., Szatur-Jaworska, B., Bakalarczyk, R., Łuczak, P., Szweda-Lewandowska, Z., Zrałek, M., et al. (2017). System wsparcia osób starszych w środowisku zamieszkania: przegląd sytuacji, propozycja modelu. Warsaw, Poland: Biuro Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich.
Bowes, A., and Dawson, A. (2019). “Designing environments for people with dementia,” in Designing Environments for People with dementia (s. 1–92). Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Publishing Limited. doi:10.1108/978-1-78769-971-720191004
Brewer, G., Parkinson, L., Tucker, C., and Landorf, C. (2014). Socially sustainable suburbia: linking neighbourhood characteristics to health outcomes in an ageing population. Int. J. Interdiscip. Soc. Community Stud. 8, 1–18. doi:10.18848/2324-7576/CGP/v08i04/53522
Bridge, C., Zmudzki, F., Huang, T., Owen, C., and Faulkner, D. (2021). Impacts of new and emerging assistive technologies for ageing and disabled housing. AHURI Final Rep. 372. doi:10.18408/ahuri7122501
Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej (2020). Zadowolenie z życia (Life satisfaction) (Komunikat z badań CBOS 2020(2)). Warsaw, Poland: CBOS.
Chapman, K., and Pike, L. E. (1992). Sources of city rankings. Behav. and Soc. Sci. Libr. 11 (1), 1–11. doi:10.1300/J103v11n01_01
Coutaz, J., and Crowley, J. L. (2016). A first-person experience with end-user development for smart homes. IEEE Pervasive Comput. 15, 26–39. doi:10.1109/MPRV.2016.24
Cruickshank, J. (2010). Healthcare without walls: a framework for delivering telehealth at scale. 2020health.
Dazkir, S. S., and Read, M. A. (2012). Furniture forms and their influence on our emotional responses toward interior environments. Environ. Behav. 44 (5), 722–732. doi:10.1177/0013916511402063
Demiris, G. (2008). Smart homes and ambient assisted living in an aging society. New opportunities and challenges for biomedical informatics. Methods Inf. Med. 47 (1), 56–57. doi:10.1055/s-0038-1625127
De Toro, P., Droste-Franke, B., Omann, I., Stagl, S., Carbone, F., Hansma, K., et al. (2004). “Criteria for quality assessment of MCDA methods,” in Developing alternatives for valuing nature.
Eurofound (2017). European Quality of Life Survey 2016: quality of life, quality of public services, and quality of society. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
European Commission. Directorate General for Regional Policy (2013). Quality of life in cities:perception survey in 79 European cities. Luxembourg: Publications Office. Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2776/79403.
Eurostat (European Commission) (2017). Final report of the expert group on quality of life indicators. 2017 edition. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2785/021270.
Fakhrhosseini, S., Lee, C., and Coughlin, J. (2020). Home as a platform: levels of automation for connected home services. 451–462. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-50249-2_32
Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministers Responsible for Seniors (2007). Age-friendly rural and remote communities: a guide. Federal/Provincial/Territorial Minist. Responsible Seniors.
Feng, I., Chen, J.-H., Zhu, B.-W., and Xiong, L. (2018). Assessment of and improvement strategies for the housing of healthy elderly: improving quality of life. Sustainability 10 (3), 722. doi:10.3390/su10030722
Ferreira, F. A. F., Ilander, G. O. P.-B., and Ferreira, J. J. M. (2019). MCDM/A in practice: methodological developments and real-world applications. Manag. Decis. 57 (2), 295–299. doi:10.1108/MD-02-2019-017
Garau, C., and Pavan, V. M. (2018). Evaluating urban quality: indicators and assessment tools for smart sustainable cities. Sustainability 10 (3), 575. Art. 3. doi:10.3390/su10030575
Garcia, D. A., Cumo, F., Pennacchia, E., Pennucci, V. S., Piras, G., De Notti, V., et al. (2017). Assessment of a urban sustainability and life quality index for elderly. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 12 (5), 908–921. doi:10.2495/sdp-v12-n5-908-921
Gawlak, A. (2022a). Szpital bez ścian. Nowe technologie w projektowaniu architektury mieszkaniowej dla seniorów przyszłości. Środowisko Mieszk. N. R. 38, 4–12. doi:10.4467/25438700sm.22.003.16103
Gawlak, A. (2022b). “Mieszkanie dla zdrowia. Projektowanie dla przyszłych seniorów,” in Wydawnictwo politechniki poznańskiej. Available at: https://sin.put.poznan.pl/publications/details/i45010.
Gawlak, A., Matuszewska, M., and Ptak-Wojciechowska, A. (2021). Inclusiveness of urban space and tools for the assessment of the quality of urban life—a critical approach. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18 (9), 4519. doi:10.3390/ijerph18094519
Giles-Corti, B., Vernez-Moudon, A., Reis, R., Turrell, G., Dannenberg, A. L., Badland, H., et al. (2016). City planning and population health: a global challenge. Lancet 388 (10062), 2912–2924. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30066-6
Goepel, K. D. (2018). Implementation of an online software tool for the analytic hierarchy process (AHP-OS). Int. J. Anal. Hierarchy Process 10 (3), 469–487. doi:10.13033/ijahp.v10i3.590
Grant, M. J., and Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf. and Libr. J. 26 (2), 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Hajduk, S. (2021). Multi-criteria analysis of smart cities on the example of the polish cities. Resources 10, 44. doi:10.3390/resources10050044
Han, J. H., and Kim, J.-H. (2017). Variations in ageing in home and ageing in neighbourhood. Aust. Geogr. 48 (2), 255–272. doi:10.1080/00049182.2016.1240021
Harputlugil, T. (2018). Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as an assessment approach for architectural design: case study of architectural design studio. Iconarp Int. J. Archit. Plan. 6, 217–245. doi:10.15320/ICONARP.2018.53
Helal, S., and Bull, C. N. (2019). From smart homes to smart-ready homes and communities. Dementia Geriatric Cognitive Disord. 47 (3), 157–163. doi:10.1159/000497803
Jabareen, Y. R. (2006). Sustainable urban forms: their typologies, models, and concepts. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 26 (1), 38–52. doi:10.1177/0739456X05285119
Kadaei, S., Nezam, Z., González-Lezcano, R. A., Shokrpour, S., Mohammadtaheri, A., Doraj, P., et al. (2023). A new approach to determine the reverse logistics-related issues of smart buildings focusing on sustainable architecture. Front. Environ. Sci. 10. doi:10.3389/fenvs.2022.1079522
Kemperman, A., van den Berg, P., Weijs-Perrée, M., and Uijtdewillegen, K. (2019). Loneliness of older adults: social network and the living environment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16 (3), 406. doi:10.3390/ijerph16030406
Kort, H. S. M. (2017). Healthy building environments for ageing adults. Gerontechnology 16 (4), 207–210. doi:10.4017/gt.2017.16.4.001.00
Kubendran, S., Soll, L., and Irving, P. (2017). Best cities for successful aging 2017. Milken Institute. Available at: https://milkeninstitute.org/reports/best-cities-successful-aging-2017.
Lan, J. H. (2013). Designing a sustainable and healthy living environment with smart technology. Scopus, 495–499. doi:10.1201/b15002-96
Lee, J. Y., and Kim, H. (2016). Projection of future temperature-related mortality due to climate and demographic changes. Environ. Int. 94, 489–494. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2016.06.007
Liu, F., Zhao, Q., and Yang, Y. (2018). An approach to assess the value of industrial heritage based on Dempster–Shafer theory. J. Cult. Herit. 32, 210–220. doi:10.1016/j.culher.2018.01.011
Liu, Z., Kemperman, A., and Timmermans, H. (2021). Influence of neighborhood characteristics on physical activity, health, and quality of life of older adults: a path analysis. Front. Public Health 9, 783510. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2021.783510
Mercer (2019). Quality of living—location reports. Mercer. Available at: https://mobilityexchange.mercer.com/Insights/quality-of-living-rankings.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol. Rev. 63, 81–97. doi:10.1037/h0043158
Mittal, S., Chadchan, J., and Mishra, S. K. (2020). Review of concepts, tools and indices for the assessment of urban quality of life. Soc. Indic. Res. 149 (1), 187–214. doi:10.1007/s11205-019-02232-7
Morkunaite, Z., Kalibatas, D., and Kalibatiene, D. (2019). A bibliometric data analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods in heritage buildings. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 25, 76–99. doi:10.3846/jcem.2019.8315
Mourits, K., van der Velden, K., and Molleman, G. (2021). The perceptions and priorities of professionals in health and social welfare and city planning for creating a healthy living environment: a concept mapping study. BMC Public Health 21 (1), 1085. doi:10.1186/s12889-021-11151-7
Moussaoui, F., Cherrared, M., Kacimi, M. A., and Belarbi, R. (2018). A genetic algorithm to optimize consistency ratio in AHP method for energy performance assessment of residential buildings—application of top-down and bottom-up approaches in Algerian case study. Sustain. Cities Soc. 42, 622–636. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2017.08.008
National Association of City Transportation Officials (2013). Urban street design guide. NACTO. Available at: https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/.
O’Brien, A., and Ruairi, R. M. (2009). “Survey of assistive technology devices and applications for aging in place,” in 2009 second international conference on advances in human-oriented and personalized mechanisms, technologies, and services, 20-25 September 2009, Porto, Portugal: IEEE, 7–12. doi:10.1109/CENTRIC.2009.9
Okulicz-Kozaryn, A. (2011). City life: rankings (livability) versus perceptions (satisfaction). Soc. Indic. Res. 110, 433–451. doi:10.1007/s11205-011-9939-x
Oppio, A., Bottero, M., and Arcidiacono, A. (2022). Assessing urban quality: a proposal for a MCDA evaluation framework. Ann. Operations Res. 312, 1427–1444. doi:10.1007/s10479-017-2738-2
Oppio, A., Forestiero, L., Sciacchitano, L., and Dell’ovo, M. (2021). How to assess urban quality: a spatial multicriteria decision analysis approach.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2020). How’s life? 2020: measuring well-being. Cracow, Poland: OECD. doi:10.1787/9870c393-en
Ptak-Wojciechowska, A., Januchta-Szostak, A., Gawlak, A., and Matuszewska, M. (2021). The importance of water and climate-related aspects in the quality of urban life assessment. Sustainability 13 (12), 6573. Art. 12. doi:10.3390/su13126573
Polityka and Akademia Górniczo-Hutnicza (2018). Ranking jakości życia. Wymiary szczęścia (Quality of life ranking. Dimensions of happiness). Polityka and Akademia Górniczo-Hutnicza.
Radha, R. K. (2020). Smart home design flexibility as an enabler of sustainability and the reception in Sulaiymaniah, Kurdistan Region-Iraq. J. Build. Pathology Rehabilitation 5, 29. doi:10.1007/s41024-020-00094-y
Reid, J., Nicol, C., and Allen, H. (2019). Mapping the World’s prices 2019. London, United Kingdom: Thematic Research. Deutsche Bank AG. Available at: https://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/RPS_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000494405/Mapping_the_world%27s_prices_2019.pdf?undefined&realload=F2∼{}IVP2mCVDyfT99gzd7uKrqddmpspNMhF8BAP9Ave1vRpxfiznJaIQdrVH3WOK73x∼{}GZGNgCWzIHs∼{}wiDkeQw==.
Ritchie, H., and Roser, M. (2018). Urbanization. Our World Data, 512–528. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190630577.013.14
Rogerson, R. J. (1999). Quality of life and city competitiveness. Urban Stud. 36 (5–6), 969–985. doi:10.1080/0042098993303
Rokicka, E., Petelewicz, M., Woźniak, W., Dytrych, J., Przybylski, B. K., Kruczkowska, P., et al. (2014). Jakość życia mieszkańców Łodzi i jej przestrzenne zróżnicowanie (E. Rokicka, Red.). Łódź, Poland: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
Roy, B. (1990). Decision-aid and decision-making. Eur. J. Operational Res. 45 (2), 324–331. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(90)90196-I
Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich (2012). Strategie działania w starzejącym się społeczeństwie. Tezy i rekomendacje. RPO.
Saaty, R. W. (1987). The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used. Math. Model. 9 (3), 161–176. doi:10.1016/0270-0255(87)90473-8
Saaty, T. L. (2000). Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.
Saaty, T. L., and Ozdemir, M. S. (2003). Why the magic number seven plus or minus two. Math. Comput. Model. 38 (3), 233–244. doi:10.1016/S0895-7177(03)90083-5
Sadiq, R., Husain, T., Veitch, B., and Bose, N. (2003). Evaluation of generic types of drilling fluid using a risk-based analytic hierarchy process. Environ. Manag. 32 (6), 778–787. doi:10.1007/s00267-003-0009-2
Sinoo, M. M., Van Hoof, J., Van Dijken, F., and Kort, H. S. M. (2006) Design of a healthy living environment for older adults with low vision, 3, 279–282. Scopus.
Stefanov, D. H., Bien, Z., and Bang, W.-C. (2004). The smart house for older persons and persons with physical disabilities: structure, technology arrangements, and perspectives. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabilitation Eng. A Publ. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 12 (2), 228–250. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2004.828423
The Economist Intelligence Unit (2019). The global liveability index 2019. EIU. Available at: https://www.eiu.com/public/topical_report.aspx?campaignid=liveability2019.
United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2022). World population prospects 2022: summary of results. Summary of results. New York, NY: United Nations. Available at: https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/content/World-Population-Prospects-2022.
United Nations Development Programme (1990). Human development report 1990. Concept and measurement of human development. New York, NY: UNDP.
United Nations Development Programme (2019). Human Development Report 2019. Beyond income, beyond averages, beyond today: inequalities in human development in the 21st century. New York, NY: UNDP. Available at: http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr2019.pdf.
Van der Weijst, L. (2015). Measuring the age-friendliness of cities: a guide to using core indicators. Kobe, Japan: WHO. Available at: http://www.who.int/ageing/publications/measuring-cities-age-friendliness/en/.
Van Dijken, F., Hoof, J., and Kort, H. (2006). Healthy buildings for older adults. Build. Environ. - BLDG ENVIRON 3.
Van Hoof, J., and Kort, H. S. M. (2006) Healthy living environments for older adults with Dementia, 3, 89–93. Scopus.
van Kamp, I., Leidelmeijer, K., Marsman, G., and Hollander, A. (2003). Urban environmental quality and human well-being: towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts; a literature study. Landsc. Urban Plan. 65, 5–18. doi:10.1016/s0169-2046(02)00232-3
Wałachowski, K., and Król, S. (2019) “Uciekające metropolie,” in Ranking 100 polskich miast (Runaway metropolises. Ranking of 100 Polish cities). Cracow, Poland: Klub Jagielloński. Available at: https://klubjagiellonski.pl/publikacje/uciekajace-metropolie-ranking-100-polskich-miast/.
Weijs-Perrée, M., Dane, G., van den Berg, P., and van Dorst, M. (2019). A multi-level path analysis of the relationships between the momentary experience characteristics, satisfaction with urban public spaces, and momentary- and long-term subjective wellbeing. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16 (19), 3621. doi:10.3390/ijerph16193621
Wilson, L. S., Gill, R. W., Sharp, I. F., Joseph, J., Heitmann, S. A., Chen, C. F., et al. (2000). Building the Hospital without Walls—a CSIRO home telecare initiative. Telemedicine J. Official J. Am. Telemedicine Assoc. 6 (2), 275–281. doi:10.1089/107830200415225
Wojnarowska, A. (2016). Model for assessment of public space quality in town centers. Eur. Spatial Res. Policy 23, 81–109. doi:10.1515/esrp-2016-0005
World Economic Forum (2022). The global risks. Report 2022. 17th Edition. Geneva, Switzerland: Insight report. WEF.
World Health Organization (2007). Global age-friendly cities: a guide. France: World Health Organization. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241547307.
Keywords: housing architecture, perceptual quality, smart and healthy built environment, sustainable housing, community well-being, analytic hierarchy process, multi-criteria decision-making method
Citation: Ptak-Wojciechowska A, Kort H, Kasraian D and Gawlak A (2024) An assessment framework for smart and sustainable housing for older adults using analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Front. Built Environ. 10:1476249. doi: 10.3389/fbuil.2024.1476249
Received: 05 August 2024; Accepted: 20 September 2024;
Published: 02 October 2024.
Edited by:
Assed N. Haddad, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, BrazilReviewed by:
Ximena Ferrada, Universidad del Desarrollo, ChileRoberto Alonso González-Lezcano, CEU San Pablo University, Spain
Copyright © 2024 Ptak-Wojciechowska, Kort, Kasraian and Gawlak. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Agnieszka Ptak-Wojciechowska, agnieszka.ptak-wojciechowska@put.poznan.pl