Communal Areas, Neighbouring and Loneliness in apartment buildings: the CANaL study

The ‘compact city’ model, now a central paradigm of urbanism, positions densification as the main strategy for sustainably housing a growing population. In the Australian context, this represents a particular challenge because – by international standards – Australians live in low-density cities. However, Australia’s housing landscape of low-density urban sprawl is no longer sustainable and is shifting towards higher density residential development. Although the rationale for the shift towards densification in Australia is clear, the long-term consequences of this shift are less so. If carefully planned, high density living has the potential to benefit residents’ social outcomes. However, a lack of consideration for the design, quality and amenity of high-density housing may produce unintended negative social consequences, such as poor neighbour relations or loneliness. This thesis examines communal areas, neighbouring and loneliness in the context of apartment living. It begins with an introduction and literature review in Chapters 1 and 2 respectively. The literature in Chapter 2 shows that neighbouring is linked with a range of positive outcomes, while loneliness is strongly associated with negative health impacts. Moreover, greater engagement with neighbour networks may be protective against loneliness. Indeed, apartment developments are distinct because their residents live in close proximity and because they are characterised by design forms in which some facilities are shared. Thus, neighbour relations in apartment buildings are particularly important to consider, as this more ‘communal’ form of living has the potential to directly impact (either positively or negatively) residents’ social connections, residential satisfaction and quality of life. The literature indicates that communal areas in apartment buildings may be an important resource for encouraging (or providing the opportunity) for residents to interact with their neighbours, with key design attributes relating to an area’s presence, spatial arrangement, amenity and facilities, size, security and privacy, and greenery provision. While numerous studies have explored the relationship between communal areas and neighbouring, several research gaps are evident. Studies lack an objective assessment of design features in communal areas; typically have case study research designs within a single city/setting; lack a consideration of the impact of the wider policy context; and largely overlook loneliness as an outcome. Together, this represents a significant research gap. This thesis (titled the Communal Areas, Neighbouring and Loneliness (CANaL) study) sought to address this knowledge gap. It adopted a social- ecological framework to examine the impact of communal area design and quality on neighbouring and perceived loneliness in apartment buildings (n=113) in three Australian capital cities – Melbourne, Sydney and Perth. Chapter 3 introduces the study context and overall methods for the CANaL study (and larger High Life study, from which the study sample and some measures are drawn for the CANaL study). Chapters 4- 5 are joint CANaL/High Life studies and have been submitted as manuscripts. Chapter 4 describes the study sample and explores residents’ perceptions of their apartment/building and housing satisfaction. Communal area quality was found to be associated with housing satisfaction in unadjusted models, but this association attenuated with full adjustment. Chapter 5 investigates the association between the implementation of communal open space design guidelines and residents’ use of these spaces in apartment developments, finding strong positive associations between policy implementation and use. Chapter 6 (a published manuscript) outlines the development of an on-the-ground and desktop/remote observation approach to auditing indoor and outdoor communal area design and quality. The Communal Areas Audit Tool (CAAT) and Communal Areas Desktop Audit Tool (CADAT), which measured design features that can impact residents use of (and interaction within) communal areas, were assessed for reliability and validity. Most items demonstrated acceptable reliability, with the CADAT emerging as a more time-efficient, inexpensive tool that bypassed the difficulties of accessing private buildings. Using this desktop approach, Chapter 7 (a published manuscript) explored associations between communal area design features and residents’ use of communal areas in apartment developments. For residents with outdoor areas, use was associated with ten features, including greenery, pools and seating. For residents with indoor areas, use was associated with four features, including a ‘green’ outlook and ground floor location. Features were combined into quality scores, where each unit increase was associated with greater odds of outdoor and indoor area use. Chapter 8, submitted as a manuscript, explored a range of objective, subjective, and behavioural predictors relating to communal areas in apartment buildings and their relationship with residents’ neighbouring and loneliness, finding that the relationship was most strongly influenced by behavioural and subjective factors. Residents who used the outdoor communal areas in their building were almost 2.5 times more likely to engage in higher neighbouring, while those who did not use indoor communal areas were 45% more likely to feel lonely. As expected, neighbouring itself was also strongly protective against loneliness, with those in the high neighbouring group being 65% less likely to feel lonely. In terms of subjective factors, residents who had a more negative perception of outdoor communal areas were 55% more likely to have a lower level of neighbouring. Almost all objective factors were not significantly associated with neighbouring and loneliness. The findings reinforce that more proximal influences have a greater impact on the outcomes, yet they also identify that the policy and built environment play a crucial, albeit more distal, role. The policy environment shapes the provision of communal areas and their design factors; which in turn affects apartment residents’ perceptions and use patterns in communal areas; which in turn impacts residents’ social outcomes. Thus, while not independently associated with neighbouring or loneliness, the built environment features are necessary via their impact on use, but not sufficient alone to shape outcomes. These findings have policy and design implications for the delivery of high-density apartments. Communal areas have the potential to benefit residents’ social outcomes, enabling greater neighbouring and protecting against loneliness. However, communal areas must be designed to appeal to residents to facilitate use. Through identifying key design factors that promote use of communal areas and the positive effects use has for neighbouring and loneliness, this research adds to the evidence-base and could inform decision-making for policymakers, designers and planners in creating liveable and sustainable high-density communities.