2016 ACSA & ASPPH Fall Conference

One of the greatest divides we will have to confront in transdisciplinary research and practice is the radically different epistemologies between the fields of public health and design.

• What constitutes standards of research or empirical evidence?
• What are valid methods to test assumptions in complex settings?
• How should sources of bias and confounding be managed in research?
• How should research ethics be implemented?
• Most importantly, how do we translate research results into practice, to achieve healthy built environments?

For both environmental health professionals and designers, “exposure” has traditionally connoted hazards such as air pollutants and toxic chemicals. However, the rise of chronic diseases, the focus on health promoting (“salutogenic”) as well as on dangerous environments, and the growth of ecological models, all emphasize the need for more complex approaches to “exposure.”  Infectious agents remain important, and the microbiome concept (both within the body and in the environment) opens many doors to understanding.  Other important exposures include chemicals, light, sound, nature contact, social interactions, and facilitators of physical activity. Approaches to exposure assessment include direct measurement (such as of chemical levels in air), indirect measurement (such as the use of biomarkers), the development of predictive modeling and simulation frameworks, and the use of innovative metrics such as subjective assessments of views.

• How do we identify and operationalize the exposures that matter for health and well-being?
• How do we build actionable computational models of them?
• And, how do we integrate many different exposures into our research and our practice?

Health is an input of increasing interest, but there is little consensus on standard units of measurement.

• What data are best suited to monitoring the performance of various built environments?
• How should they be validated and verified?
• How should they be implemented, how do we make them actionable, and what will be the process for using them to design in the future, e.g., integrating these metrics into post-occupancy evaluations?
• How can we integrate and interact with real-time health metrics through real or virtual dashboards?

This subtopic seeks projects that show new and novel methods for collecting, analyzing, interpreting, and/or disseminating data relating human well-being and their environments.

A crucial aspect to advancing knowledge on health and the built environment will be on the educational front, not just within schools of architecture but with our partners we depend upon for transdisciplinary collaboration.

• As more and more programs pursue research projects and joint degrees between planning, design,and public health, how will we converge and reconcile radically different pedagogies, as well as reshape existing institutional structures of the academy, departments, and degree programs?
• How do we create a united epistemology that speaks to the strengths of both fields?
• What bodies of literature do we draw from and what are innovative syllabi, teaching methods and class and degree structures that can be used?

The built environment is only one aspect of the complex web of causes behind health inequities, but increasingly recognized as an important one.

• What is the implication of the built environment in increasingly racially and economically stratified cities?
• How can design instead operate on a platform of social justice and work to achieve the visions of the Alma Ata Declaration?
• To date, some of the most successful health and built environment interventions have been focused on specific communities and health issues. How can design work as a tool of empowerment?
• What are the difficulties and opportunities presented by community partnerships and on the ground initiatives?
• Additionally, how can the growing body of policies and guidelines aimed at reconnecting the fields of public health, planning, and design operate as frameworks for the future?

Best practices for designing for human well-being have long been the standard in healthcare design, but how can we go beyond this typology to formulate evidence-based practice in housing, work settings, schools, and even landscape and urban design? How do we start to not only evaluate, but economically value health in a way that make sense for clients and the wider public? How do we establish a body of best practices when building for various ailments and populations?  Is another standard besides best practices necessary? How can post-occupancy evaluations, a hybrid of research and program evaluation, be carried out more routinely, and their results used to inform practice?