This entry begins by reviewing the definitions of “human”, “environment” and “dichotomy”, consequently turning to the debates concerning the human–environment relationship. Synthesizing various studies, the capability of advanced tool use; language, hyper-sociality, advanced cognition, morality, civilization, technology, and free will are supposed to be distinctly human. However, other studies describe how nonhuman organisms share these same abilities. The biophysical or natural environment is often associated with all living and non-living things that occur naturally. The environment also refers to ecosystems or habitats, including all living organisms or species. The concepts of the biophysical or natural environment are often opposed to the concepts of built or modified environment, which is artificial - constructed or influenced by humans. The built or modified environment typically refers to structures or spaces from gardens to car parks. Today, one of the central questions in regard to human-environment dichotomies centres around the concept of sustainability. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781118924396 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
Our society faces many challenges, necessitating collaborative efforts among multiple stakeholders. Our students learn this in living labs. This paper explores preliminary research on introducing co-design to novices. We introduce a case study exploring how design educators can support students in developing co-design competencies. Central to this study is our Co-Design Canvas, introduced as a pivotal tool for fostering open dialogue among diverse stakeholders. This stimulates collaboration through effective teamwork and empathic formation. The research questions aim to discover effective methods for introducing the Co-Design Canvas to living lab students, and to identify the necessary prior knowledge and expertise for both novices and educators to effectively engage with and teach the Co-Design Canvas. The paper advocates for a pedagogical shift to effectively engage students in multi-stakeholder challenges. Through a series of workshops, the Co-Design Canvas was introduced to novices. We found that this required a significant cognitive stretch for staff and students. The paper concludes by presenting a, for now, final workshop format consisting of assignments that supports introducing the Canvas and thereby co design to societal impact design novices. This program better prepares students and coaches for multi stakeholder challenges within living labs.
MULTIFILE
Ageing brings about physiological changes that affect people’s thermal sensitivity and thermoregulation. The majority of older Australians prefer to age in place and modifications to the home environment are often required to accommodate the occupants as they age and possibly become frail. However, modifications to aid thermal comfort are not always considered. Using a qualitative approach this study aims to understand the thermal qualities of the existing living environment of older South Australians, their strategies for keeping cool in hot weather and warm in cold weather and to identify existing problems related to planning and house design, and the use of heating and cooling. Data were gathered via seven focus group sessions with 49 older people living in three climate zones in South Australia. The sessions yielded four main themes, namely ‘personal factors’, ‘feeling’, ‘knowing’ and ‘doing’. These themes can be used as a basis to develop information and guidelines for older people in dealing with hot and cold weather. Original publication at MDPI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16060935 © 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI.
MULTIFILE
HB2006 : proceedings of the 8th international conference healthy buildings. Oliveira Fernandez, E. de; Gameiro da Silva, M.; Rosada Pinto, J. (red). ISBN 989-95067-1-0 2006 4-8 juni, Lissabon, Portugal, volume III, p. 279-282
DOCUMENT
Living labs are complex multi-stakeholder collaborations that often employ a usercentred and design-driven methodology to foster innovation. Conventional management tools fall short in evaluating them. However, some methods and tools dedicated to living labs' special characteristics and goals have already been developed. Most of them are still in their testing phase. Those tools are not easily accessible and can only be found in extensive research reports, which are difficult to dissect. Therefore, this paper reviews seven evaluation methods and tools specially developed for living labs. Each section of this paper is structured in the following manner: tool’s introduction (1), who uses the tool (2), and how it should be used (3). While the first set of tools, namely “ENoLL 20 Indicators”, “SISCODE Self-assessment”, and “SCIROCCO Exchange Tool” assess a living lab as an organisation and are diving deeper into the organisational activities and the complex context, the second set of methods and tools, “FormIT” and “Living Lab Markers”, evaluate living labs’ methodologies: the process they use to come to innovations. The paper's final section presents “CheRRIes Monitoring and Evaluation Tool” and “TALIA Indicator for Benchmarking Service for Regions”, which assess the regional impact made by living labs. As every living lab is different regarding its maturity (as an organisation and in its methodology) and the scope of impact it wants to make, the most crucial decision when evaluating is to determine the focus of the assessment. This overview allows for a first orientation on worked-out methods and on possible indicators to use. It also concludes that the existing tools are quite managerial in their method and aesthetics and calls for designers and social scientists to develop more playful, engaging and (possibly) learning-oriented tools to evaluate living labs in the future. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/overdiek12345/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/mari-genova-17a727196/?originalSubdomain=nl
DOCUMENT
No summary available
DOCUMENT
The aim of the current study was to examine the effectiveness of a school-centered multicomponent PA intervention, called ‘Active Living’, on children's daily PA levels. A quasi-experimental design was used including 9 intervention schools and 9 matched control schools located in the Netherlands. The baseline measurement took place between March–June 2013, and follow-up measurements were conducted 12 months afterwards. Accelerometer (ActiGraph, GT3X +) data of 520 children aged 8–11 years were collected and supplemented with demographics and weather conditions data. Implementation magnitude of the interventions was measured by keeping logbooks on the number of implemented physical environmental interventions (PEIs) and social environmental interventions (SEIs). Multilevel multivariate linear regression analyses were used to study changes in sedentary behavior (SB), light physical activity (LPA) and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) between baseline and follow-up. Finally, effect sizes (ESs) were calculated using Cohen's d. No pooled effects on PA and SB were found between children exposed and not exposed to Active Living after 12 months. However, children attending Active Living schools that implemented larger numbers of both PEIs and SEIs engaged in 15 more minutes of LPA per weekday at follow-up than children in the control condition (ES = 0.41; p < .05). Moreover, children attending these schools spent less time in SB at follow-up (ES = 0.33), although this effect was non-significant. No significant effects were found on MVPA. A school-centered multicomponent PA intervention holds the potential to activate children, but a comprehensive set of intervention elements with a sufficient magnitude is necessary to achieve at least moderate effect sizes.
MULTIFILE
No summary available
DOCUMENT
Quality of life serves a reference against which you can measure the various domains of your own life or that of other individuals, and that can change over time. This definition of the World Health Organization encompasses many elements of daily living, including features of the individual and the environment around us, which can either be the social environment, the built environment, or other environmental aspects. This is one of the rationales for the special issue on “Quality of Life: The Interplay between Human Behaviour, Technology and the Environment”. This special issue is a joint project by the Centre of Expertise Health Innovation of the Hague University of Applied Sciences in The Netherlands. The main focus of this Special Issue is how optimising the interplay between people, the environment, and technology can enhance people’s quality of life. The focus of the contributions in this special issue is on the person or end‐user and his or her environment, both the physical, social, and digital environment, and on the interaction between (1) people, (2) health, care, and systems, and (3) technology. Recent advances in technology offer a wide range of solutions that support a healthy lifestyle, good quality of life, and effective and efficient healthcare processes, for a large number of end‐users, both patients/clients from minus 9 months until 100+ years of age, as well as practitioners/physicians. The design of new services and products is at the roots of serving the quality of life of people. Original article at MDPI; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16245106 (Editorial of Special Issue with the same title: "Quality of Life: The Interplay between Human Behaviour, Technology and the Environment")
MULTIFILE
The Northern region of the Netherlands has beautiful landscapes, a nice diversity of green and blue areas, and dispersed settlements. However, some recent population changes can become threats to health and wellbeing in these areas.The rural areas in the three northern provinces - Groningen, Friesland and Drenthe, see youngsters leave the region for which reason they are aging faster than other regions in the Netherlands. As a result, some villages have faced major population decline that is leading to lose of facilities/amenities and decrease in accessibility and social cohesion. Those who still live in these villages; are relatively old, low educated and have low-income. To develop a deeper understanding of the health status of the people living in these areas, and help them to improve their living environment, the GO!-Method is being applied in this study. This method has been developed by the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) of the Netherlands and is inspired by the broad definition of health by Machteld Huber: the ability to adapt and direct control, in terms of the physical, emotional and social challenges of life, while paying extra attention to vulnerable groups. A healthy living environment is defined as an environment that residents find it pleasant, and encourages and supports healthy behavior. The GO!-method integrates six domains that constitutes a healthy living environment: Health and lifestyle, facilities and development, Safety and hygiene, Social cohesion and active citizens, Green areas, and Air and noise pollution.First of all this method will identify opportunities for a healthier living environment using existing information and perceptions of residents and other local stakeholders in order to strengthen social participation and quality of life in these rural areas. Second this approach will connect identified opportunities with available and effective evidence based interventions in order to develop an action plan from the residents and local authorities perspective which will help them to design their municipalities healthier and more resilient. This method is being used for the first time in rural areas to our best knowledge, in close collaboration with the residents and local authorities of the three provinces to create a sustainable process and stimulate social participation.Our paper will present the outcomes of the first phase of this project in collaboration with the municipality of Westerkwartier, located in the northwest of the province of Groningen. And will describe the current situation, and identify local assets, opportunities, and policies relating to healthier environment; as well as needs and challenges to achieve goals. The preliminary results show that rural demographic changes in the northern Netherlands have negative impacts on service provisions and social cohesion, and there is a need to understand this complicated situation and improve the quality of life in those areas.
DOCUMENT
