Richard Tucker

Ensuring public buildings meet the needs of diverse users has increased interest in co-design, a process in which people without formal design training actively participate in design and decision-making [1]. Universal design provides principles for creating environments usable by all and advocates for the involvement of people with disability in their application [2, 3]. However, limited evidence exists on how co-design is applied in the context of universal design and how participatory processes are experienced by those involved, particularly people with disability. To advance conceptual and practical understanding on this topic, a collective case study research project comprising three qualitative studies was conducted in Australia [4-6]. Workshops and interviews with people with disability, design professionals, and health professionals explored how co-design and universal design are enacted in public building projects, outcomes achieved, and factors influencing participation. The research examined the what, who, when, where, and why of participation, identifying mechanisms that enable or constrain co-design practice. Five integrative themes were developed: (1) Redistributing expertise: Valuing lived experience as design knowledge; (2) Broadening participation: From tokenism to interprofessional collaboration; (3) Temporal justice: Embedding co-design across stages; (4) Contextual boundaries: Where co-design happens and where it does not; and (5) Transformative intent: Why co-design matters for design quality and social justice. Overall findings indicate that co-design can improve accessibility and usability while building capacity among individuals, professionals, and communities. The research proposes a reciprocal relationship between co-design and universal design, whereby each can strengthen application of the other. It highlights the importance of iterative collaboration, accessible methodologies, and critical reflection on power dynamics. Co-design is positioned as an interprofessional practice strengthened by the expertise of people with disability, design professionals, and inclusion-focused disciplines, such as occupational therapy. The findings provide practical and conceptual guidance for embedding meaningful participation of people with disability in the design of public buildings.

Australia's aged care sector, mirroring international trends, is under increasing pressure as populations age and care needs intensify. The number of Australians aged over 85 is projected to nearly...

The involvement of users in design processes is referred to as ‘participatory design’ – a broad term encompassing any activity in which users actively contribute to the design of services, products...

This study examines how building design can enhance residents’ connection with nature in residential care facilities and synthesises existing evidence on their associations with depression. Guided by the Biophilic Design framework, the research explores direct, indirect, and virtual interactions with nature within built environments. A meta-analysis and systematic review of 51 peer-reviewed studies, conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, integrated quantitative and qualitative evidence to identify nature-connected design features linked with reduced depression and its related risk factors, including agitation, loneliness, reduced autonomy, physical inactivity, and sleep disturbance. The analysis utilised the Pathway Domains Framework to examine how biophilic features of the built environment influence these outcomes via interconnected mechanisms: 1) Mitigation (reducing environmental stressors), 2) Restoration (supporting mood and attentional recovery), and 3) Instoration (building autonomy, purpose, and social connection). By applying these pathways to design evidence for the first time, the study identified the specific mechanisms linking socio-spatial design to health outcomes and developed a conceptual framework to guide evidence-based, health-promoting residential care facility design that may influence dementia risk or its progression over time.

The procurement of residential care facilities presents opportunities for design innovation, yet is challenged by various contextual factors, including country-specific policies, regulations, research, care models, organisational practices, and socioeconomic influences. Despite the impact of these factors on built quality, little research has explored the extent to which they enable or constrain design innovation. Defining procurement as four phases (Planning, Design, Construction, and Occupancy), this study provides a cross-stakeholder understanding by integrating diverse perspectives on how these processes and their dynamics shape opportunities for design innovation in residential care environments. Objectives are: (1) to create a diagrammatic representation of the procurement process for new residential care facilities, highlighting key stakeholders and interdependent components; (2) to define what innovation means in residential care building design; (3) to identify and provide a hierarchy of contextual factors (opportunities and barriers) that influence this innovation; and (4) to explore how these factors influence innovation across the procurement process. A multi-method qualitative approach included a rapid review, analysis of 38 case studies, and a two-round national e-Delphi study with 32 experts from 4 stakeholder groups. The findings offer a foundation for policymakers to assess the influence of various factors, reframe power dynamics between key stakeholders, and explore transdisciplinary collaboration models to foster innovation. The study reveals that many challenges are not unique to residential care facilities, but reflect broader systemic issues across sectors and building typologies.

Kitchen design is a critical, yet underexamined, factor in supporting residents’ wellbeing in increasingly densified city landscapes. This study explores how a group of private apartment dwellers in Melbourne (Australia) retrofitted their kitchens to support home food practices. A survey of residents (n = 62) and in-depth photo-elicited interviews (n = 20, including families with children) investigated lived experience within the constraints of current regulatory frameworks. Residents described strong preferences for home cooking shaped by health, cultural tradition, economic considerations, enjoyment and social connection. These motivations drove staged and cost-sensitive retrofits. Thematic findings identify four core dimensions: a) resident preferences and compromises; b) decision-making and timing; c) enhanced functionality and safety through improved storage, work surfaces, lighting, ventilation and layout; and d) the transformation of kitchens into socially and aesthetically engaging communal spaces. Conceptually, the study advances debates around buildings and wellbeing by framing retrofits as corrective affordances that bridge gaps between intended design and the everyday social practice of cooking and eating. It calls for stronger evidence-based apartment design guidance integrating functional, social and wellbeing dimensions. POLICY RELEVANCE This study provides evidence to inform standards for apartment design, housing policy and public health strategy by demonstrating how kitchen design directly shapes everyday food practices and wellbeing. The findings indicate that current apartment design standards provide limited kitchen-specific guidance, leaving residents to privately resolve design shortfalls. These include inadequate storage, limited bench space, insufficient lighting and ventilation and poorly located appliances, all of which can undermine home cooking and safety, particularly for families with children. Resident-led retrofits function as corrective responses to ‘affordance gaps’ between intended design and social practice. Embedding evidence-based kitchen design principles into regulatory frameworks could reduce costly post-occupancy modifications and support healthier food practices at scale.

This study addresses a critical research gap in smart home literature by providing a comprehensive typological analysis of global implementations. Utilising a multiple case study methodology with purposive sampling across six dimensions (target users, technology focus, implementation scale, intended purpose, geographical location, and user status), we systematically examined diverse smart home applications. Data collection followed a structured four-phase process incorporating academic databases, industry reports, technology publications, and manufacturer repositories. Through rigorous cross-case analysis, we developed a novel typological framework categorising smart homes as Integrated, Supportive, Defensive, Lifestyle, Efficient, and Intelligent. Our findings reveal that smart homes are non-monolithic, with most implementations embodying multiple typological categories simultaneously. The analysis demonstrates how technologies adapt to specific user needs—from security systems for vulnerable households to health monitoring for elderly residents and efficiency features for environmentally conscious users. Geographical patterns emerged, with European implementations emphasising healthcare applications while North American cases focus more on lifestyle enhancements. This typological framework enables a structured understanding of smart home complexity and provides valuable insights into technological integration trends. The research advances smart home scholarship beyond isolated technological examinations toward a comprehensive understanding of how these systems address diverse human needs across global contexts, offering significant implications for researchers, industry stakeholders, and policymakers navigating this rapidly evolving field.

Https://doi.org/10.65388/ZAYO9448 This paper explores the potential of integrating digital health technologies within child-friendly smart homes to enhance children’s overall well-being and foster healthy habits across physical activity, sleep, and emotional domains. Despite the increasing prevalence of smart home technologies, there is a need for evidence- based understanding of how these technologies can be specifically...

Https://doi.org/10.65388/HBES5218 Designing indoor environments that support wellbeing is a growing focus in architecture, with much research exploring individual needs in collective settings such as healthcare, education, and offices. Consequently, researchers have developed a range of design frameworks and survey instruments to examine the relationship between indoor environments and the multidimensional construct of wellbeing, informed...