A typological study of the provision and use of communal outdoor space in Australian apartment developments

Authors

Julian Bolleter
Paula Hooper, Edith Cowan UniversityFollow
Alex Kleeman
Nicole Edwards
Sarah Foster

Document Type

Journal Article

Publication Title

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volume

246

Publisher

Elsevier

School

School of Medical and Health Sciences / Nutrition and Health Innovation Research Institute

Funders

Australian Research Council / Western Australian (WA) Health Promotion Foundation / Department of Planning Lands and Heritage (WA) / Office of the Government Architect (WA) / Planning Institute of Australia (PIA) / Development WA and Heart Foundation

Grant Number

ARC Number : DE160100140, FT210100899, LP190100558

Grant Link

http://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/DE160100140 https://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/FT210100899 http://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/LP19010055

Comments

Bolleter, J., Hooper, P., Kleeman, A., Edwards, N., & Foster, S. (2024). A typological study of the provision and use of communal outdoor space in Australian apartment developments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 246, article 105040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105040

Abstract

There is a consensus that higher-density urban settings need to be accompanied by communal outdoor space (COS) to bolster the well-being of apartment residents. Nonetheless, there is a lack of studies identifying COS types in apartment buildings and systematically assessing the degree to which they provide greenery and are used by residents. In response, this study developed a COS typology for apartment buildings in Australian cities, measured the degree to which each COS type provides access to greenery, and examined which COS types received the most frequent visitation via a resident survey (n = 975). Results show that some dominant COS typologies provide scant access to greenery and are underutilised. For instance, the Podium Terrace and Roof Terrace types only contained 24 and 8 % vegetated area, with the remainder hard surfaces. Moreover, the Podium Terrace and Roof Terrace types averaged no substantial trees. Conversely, ground floor types such as Parks and Setback Gardens contained 51 and 53 % planted area, respectively and significant numbers of trees. Policy requirements that target specific COS types could elevate their naturalness and increase use.

DOI

10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105040

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.