15  An international perspective on design for wellbeing

Leandro Miletto Tonetto

Studies on design for wellbeing (DfW) from all over the globe focus on products, technology, services, built environment and sustainability. Such studies are vital to the development of the research field but are not unique to any particular scientific community.1 What seems to differentiate the scientific production within DfW from continent to continent are the underlying theoretical foundations and the social issues addressed by these studies.

The need for developing a view on wellbeing at an international level is related to three specificities and dissimilarities that characterise DfW. First, different theoretical and methodological perspectives (especially pragmatic and phenomenological) shape the way in which wellbeing is understood and investigated by different scientific communities. Second, wellbeing may be viewed as a final desired effect of design, but studies may also focus on stimuli or experiences that are proven to lead to wellbeing, such as the conciliation of internal conflicts and the improvement of social relationships. Third, some differentiation is seen in social issues that are addressed in distinct societies. These three aspects may confuse researchers and practitioners looking for theoretical and methodological parameters to ground their work. These parameters are explored in the following three sections. At the end of the chapter we offer five steps to guide future practice in the field of DfW.

Pragmatic vs phenomenological perspectives: Epistemological level

In design research throughout the globe, wellbeing is explored under distinct perspectives – pragmatism and phenomenology. These methodological roots provide different approaches to understand how wellbeing is addressed at an international level and help define how to conduct research on the subject.

Particular research communities do not adopt a single methodological perspective. Whereas Anglo-Saxon research more often applies pragmatic perspectives, phenomenologically oriented studies are more commonly seen in European and North American publications. Few or no phenomenological studies are observed in South America, Asia or Oceania.

Taken into account that pragmatism and phenomenology seem to be the most widely adopted approaches to DfW, in what follows, these approaches are discussed in more detail.

Pragmatism

Studies within DfW that report the development of industrial or large-scale distribution artefacts, such as products (e.g., Wu & Noy, 2010, UK) and mobile apps (e.g., Carey et al., 2016, Australia), are commonly associated with pragmatic theories and approaches throughout the international community. Design guidelines, tools and frameworks are recurrently aimed outcomes in this type of investigation (e.g., Ozenc, 2014, US).

Following the American tradition represented here by William James, pragmatism is concerned with practical, functional and applicable outcomes to design problems. Such an assumption brings the idea that design problems and artefacts designed to solve them are at different ends of a continuum. Therefore, there is a belief that designers should set a design brief – or receive one that is already clear and focused on a problem – to be able to produce valid and applicable solutions.

Design for wellbeing seems an appropriate expression to define the field, since researchers and practitioners deliberately try to manipulate design variables to influence wellbeing (Desmet & Pohlmeyer, 2013, Netherlands). DfW is clearly related to pragmatic research approaches that somehow try to ‘predict’ the likely effects of design on people’s lives and use this information in applied projects. There is also a root and an inspiration in the positivist tradition that understands life from a cause-and-effect perspective.

Pragmatic approaches adopt both qualitative and quantitative methods to attain their objectives. Regardless of the nature of the data collected, there are clear concerns about neutrality, generalisation and replicability, which are typical of modern science. Two research papers serve as examples in this respect: Eaves, Gyi and Gibb (2016), from the UK, and Zuniga-Teran et al. (2017), from the US.

Eaves, Gyi and Gibb (2016) investigated the health and wellbeing of heavy manual construction workers, collecting qualitative data through interviews from a sample of 80 people. Although the authors did not offer a clear differentiation between health and wellbeing, the research focused on exploring ways to make the workers’ tasks more comfortable, safer and easier to perform. Results pointed to over 250 design ideas aimed at increasing health and wellbeing, making the research strongly connected to pragmatism in its applicability.

In a similar pragmatic path to reach design ideas and guidelines, Zuniga-Teran et al. (2017) investigated how wellbeing is affected by the design of the neighbourhood in which respondents live. The author used a questionnaire to collect data from a sample of 486 individuals. Results point to city vegetation as an inducer of physical activity and wellbeing, and city maintenance as related to improved mental health and wellbeing.

Although research papers usually propose the individual or combined use of methods for pragmatically approaching DfW, some authors have attempted to create frameworks for that purpose. Examples are ‘modes of transition’ (Ozenc, 2014, US), which is briefly outlined next and ‘positive design’ (Desmet & Pohlmeyer, 2013, Netherlands), which is described in the next section.

Modes of transition is characterised by a three-stage design process – structuring human-centred design methods, scenario-based design and research through design. It provides designers with ‘sensitising lenses’ and guidelines to help structure human-centred design methods and processes. The design endorses the functional and experiential needs of users to promote their wellbeing. In the words of Ozenc (2014, p. 41), wellbeing helps users to ‘thrive in their personal and social relationships; discover meaning in their daily and long-term interactions; balance their life modes (e.g., work, home and social time); and embrace their emotions and values’.

Pragmatism in DfW is related to the industrial tradition of design, which tends to split the design process into linear stages. It also points at the problem–solution binomial as different ends of a single continuum. As the examples reviewed in this section indicate, it is a practical approach not significantly connected to any particular geographic region, although slightly predominant in Anglo-Saxon research and practice.

Phenomenology

Focus on experience as a unique phenomenon to design personally shaped artefacts and spaces is usually associated to phenomenological approaches and theories. Clear phenomenological perspectives are less usual in general design studies on wellbeing, but they do consistently appear in architecture and interior design research (e.g., a European–Swedish study on health care experiences in a critical care setting by Olausson, Lindahl and Ekebergh, 2013), especially in research from Europe and North America.

Phenomenological approaches are grounded in the work of authors such as Edmund Husserl and Merleau-Ponty. Phenomenologist designers disregard the presumed neutrality of modern science, refraining from adopting its structured character. These approaches are not connected to generalisations and mass solutions, since every design process and user experience is seen as related to an individual’s subjective consciousness (Mace, 2016, UK). Therefore, designers do not necessarily look for or believe in the clarity of design briefs, structured guidelines, stage-by-stage framework or pre-set tolls.2 Consequently, the binomial ‘problem–solution’ is not representative of this approach. The experience of wellbeing is not seen as evocable by designed artefacts (e.g., built environment, products, services) as an individual response from the designer to the user. The user cannot be dissociated from the design process, and designed artefacts are not necessarily responses to clear design briefings.

General problems that relate to the design of replicable solutions are of no particular interest to phenomenologists, since experience itself is not commonly seen as replicable. In this chapter, a distinction is adopted to allow a clear differentiation between pragmatic and phenomenological approaches to DfW.

Design and wellbeing better characterise phenomenology-based approaches, indicating a relationship between the two concepts rather than an assumption that there is a devisable cause (design) for an intended effect (wellbeing). There is no belief in cause–effect perspectives, since they do not envision wellbeing as a manipulatable linear consequence of particular design stimuli. Therefore, phenomenology-based DfW naturally tends to favour qualitative methods.

The research in Poldma (2011), from Canada, provides a good example of phenomenology-based DfW. The author examines astronauts’ experiences of living in zero gravity, analysing how interior design in space may address the relationships between humanity and technology. The author’s approach was clearly phenomenological: ‘We navigate spaces understanding and reacting to our perceptions, physiological, and psychological responses that are triggered by physical indicators to which all of our senses react’ (p. 546). In this perspective, experience refers to living in a space here and now. Quoting Merleau-Ponty, the author states that the space is in constant movement, being the opposite of a static artefact to which we only respond to. Thus, rather than providing strict guidelines to lead the design process, the author indicates general approaches and design ideas, such as to design flexible small areas and devices that can change quickly in response to different activities astronauts will be involved in. Rejecting pragmatic and quantitative paths, Poldma (2011) indicates the use of qualitative design criteria alongside with current concrete approaches that dominate the design in zero gravity environments.

In a previous work, Poldma (2008) reinforces the ideas discussed above. Her perspective on DfW is grounded on the assumption that people’s place in space at a particular time is in constant change; wellbeing is driven by their living experiences. Designing means not only to approach technical solutions for design problems, but also to work on crafting meaning in space and place for potential users.

In a conceptual study from the Netherlands, Megens et al. (2013) developed ‘experiential design landscapes’ (EDL), which is claimed to be an approach to design that places users in the centre of the design process. Users generate meaning for themselves, since self-generated meaning contributes to people’s wellbeing. The theoretical basis to discuss the creation of meaning is phenomenology: ‘Through the EDL method, by bringing open-ended design proposals based on open scripts and intentionality to society we can open up and explore societal transformation’ (p. 4295).

In conclusion, phenomenology moves away from the industrial tradition of treating design problems and designed solutions as different ends of a continuum, rejecting cause–effect perspectives as a means to work towards a particular ‘truth’. Every design project is seen as a unique phenomenon, which may involve users in an inimitable experience, being representative of reflective practices of the North American and European authors reported in this subsection.

Although inspiring many research articles, it is difficult to identify approaches for design and wellbeing that are solely influenced by phenomenology, as seen in Poldma (2008, 2011). Since design is an applied science, many researchers have also shown influences from pragmatism, as described in the following subsection. These influences are seen in the search for practical and useful applications of their designs that go beyond projects based on a specific person. They are aimed at influencing a broader group of people.

Coherence of integrated frameworks: Pragmatic phenomenology

As explored hereafter, some authors propose approaches that combine pragmatism and phenomenology. These approaches cannot be identified as geographically predominant. As seen in the studies reviewed previously, they vary along a continuum in which, at one extreme, pragmatism appears as a clear practice and, at the other, pure phenomenology is identified.

In philosophical terms, phenomenology and pragmatism have developed distinct methodological traditions. For many pragmatists, phenomenology has been often associated to subjectivism or even metaphysics; phenomenologists traditionally reject the philosophy behind pragmatism, commonly associating it to reductionism. Despite their opposing views, phenomenology and pragmatism have been jointly adopted in contemporary research (e.g., Bourgeois, 2002). In the DfW field the two approaches may be viewed as essentially contradictory, but they may also represent a coherent way of dealing with design as an applied science.

Design is an applied science and, as such, sometimes prioritises application purposes rather than epistemological coherence. To exemplify that, several times in which phenomenology is linked to wellbeing studies in the design field, a pragmatic phenomenological approach emerges, rather than a strict phenomenological approach per se.

Pragmatic phenomenology focuses on sensibility and experience, embracing experimental procedures and attention to particularity and plurality, prioritising uniqueness over generality (Craig, 2010). Such an integrated approach may be justified in design research by its usefulness.

A few authors seem to move towards pragmatic phenomenology approaches while attempting to draw generalisations from their results. An Australian example is found in Page and Richardson (2016) who investigate the design of interactive medical devices. The authors assume that every ‘person centred design approach’ (p. 9) that is inspired by phenomenology focuses on users’ wellbeing. The authors have employed what they defined as a phenomenological attitude to research, though their aims were still connected to applicable results from experimentation (typical from pragmatism), which is the development of common ground to work in the intersections among design, human–computer interaction and medicine.

Ren and Strickfaden (2018) have integrated different research perspectives on wellbeing: existential, ecological and place-based. Although using a strong basis in Merleau-Ponty, the authors still synthesise their ideas in a reduction of the design process, which is a ‘framework for the association of material environments and people with dementia’ (p. 18).

In conclusion, pragmatic phenomenology is an alternative to integrate approaches that are seen as contradictory in other sciences. It adopts the phenomenological philosophy behind the concepts of perception, experience and wellbeing, but it is still grounded in practical applications and, somehow, in the usefulness of pragmatism.

Design for wellbeing or design to influence the predictors of wellbeing: Application level

There are two main ways in which we can design for wellbeing: addressing it directly or targeting its predictors.

In the first way of dealing with wellbeing through design – addressing it directly – researchers investigate and/or design explicitly to evoke higher levels of wellbeing; for example, inciting positive affect, inhibiting negative emotions, improving the general evaluation of people regarding their own lives, encouraging meaning in life and boosting the use of a person’s virtues in everyday situations (Brey, 2015).

In experimental terms, DfW investigates or manipulates independent variables associated with the design, measuring their effects on wellbeing (dependent variables). Such an experimental approach commonly refers to constructs such as psychological or subjective wellbeing by North American and (especially) European authors (e.g., Easterbrook and Vignoles, 2015, UK).

Piper, Weibel and Hollan (2014, US), for instance, used audio-enhanced paper photos enabled by digital pen technology as a research technique to understand emotional wellbeing in late adulthood. The subjects were patients who had aphasia and advanced memory loss following a stroke. Results indicated that the artefacts produced by the technique had embedded emotional information and that they addressed various aspects of emotional wellbeing itself.

In another study, Easterbrook and Vignoles (2015) investigated the long-term impact of shared housing designed to foster positive relationships and wellbeing in its users. The authors have adopted direct measures of wellbeing and concluded that students who live in flats with features that encourage the use of communal areas (e.g., shared bathrooms) reported unintentionally meeting their flatmates more frequently. The number of encounters was a significant predictor of the strength of interpersonal bonds and degree of wellbeing.

Moving away from work focused on the effects of artefacts on wellbeing, but still dealing with the construct in a direct manner, some frameworks have been proposed for DfW. Positive design (Desmet & Pohlmeyer, 2013), which is a movement initiated in the Netherlands, is a meaningful example. Based on a positive psychology background, professional designers aim to evoke higher levels of wellbeing. In this framework, designers target users’ values, pleasure and personal significance to stimulate wellbeing.

In a second way to DfW, which is a research tradition spread throughout the globe, wellbeing itself is not always the primary target. This way consists in designing to stimulate the predictors of wellbeing. Most research work on design, independent of geographical origin, is identified with this pattern. The focus relies on human characteristics and experiences that are supposed to improve wellbeing, such as solving people’s internal conflicts (Carey et al., 2016, Australia; Ozkaramanli & Desmet, 2012, Netherlands) and environmental interferences (Jackson, 2003, US; Taylor & Hochuli, 2015, Australia). These examples are explored next.

Carey et al. (2016) measured the effect of a mobile app called MindSurf on depression, anxiety and stress, which were considered predictors of wellbeing. The app allows people to explore their thinking to help solve internal conflicts. Decreased scores on the three measures were verified in university staff subjects after using the app.

Ozkaramanli and Desmet (2012) also focused on internal conflicts (conflicting concerns), investigating how design could stimulate sustainable eating habits through emotionally appealing concepts. The authors developed tools to support professionals in addressing users’ conflicting concerns in the design process.

Jackson (2003, US) investigated human wellbeing in low-density urban living developments. There are public health arguments to support the improvement of greenery, natural light and visual and physical access to open spaces in urban areas. To increase health and social life, these improvements should be adopted in urban design. To facilitate the preservation of agricultural and natural areas for respite and recreation, urban spaces need to be close to civil and retail resources, and also offer cultural and business opportunities for the population.

In this perspective, there is a need to expand the focus of DfW from single artefacts, or sets of artefacts, to the design of an ecosystem. Theoretical work from Taylor and Hochuli (2015) indicates that fields such as urban design recognise that the delivery of walkable spaces, community spaces and green spaces tend to increase citizens’ wellbeing. Nevertheless, these deliveries are insufficient to foster human wellbeing. The authors encourage the inclusion of environmental aspects, such as biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, in research on urban design. Therefore, both studies recognise wellbeing as achievable through the design of urban ecosystems.

As seen in the examples above, wellbeing is considered to be a long-lasting human experience that is not commonly considered to be directly targetable by design. There is no answer yet on how it can be evoked through design. Even though wellbeing does not have a unique definition, researchers deal with design variables that are perceived as its predictors. As a result, taking into account the lack of a longitudinal measure of wellbeing as outcome of design choices, many researchers – both pragmatic and phenomenologically driven – address its short-term predictors.

Social issues

This subchapter discusses how current research addresses social issues, indicating opportunities for local and intercultural projects. It does not aim to be an assessment of the relevance of the work from the authors hereafter mentioned.

Several papers address general issues that fit any society. Differently, a number of studies seem to reflect social concerns that underlie wellbeing in each culture. They were organised from macro-social issues to individual focuses3, as follows:

  1. a) Macro-social issues: some Australian studies revealed a focus on participatory democracy (Mcintyre-Mills & De Vries, 2010; Mcintyre-Mills, 2010), while European papers endorsed the importance of engaging citizens in the development of public buildings and spaces (Erikson & Wideström, 2014, Sweden), in questions regarding user-influencing design (manipulation of life through design), and in freedom and determination (Dorrestijn & Verbeek, 2013, Netherlands). Educating citizens for environmental issues was also a topic found in European studies (Schulze et al., 2015, Germany and Sweden).
  2. b) Urban life and how the built environment can help shape it: this topic seems to be deeply explored in urban societies, including European research on the effect of green and sustainable spaces on human life (Douglas, Lennon & Scott, 2017, Ireland), and North American studies on urban nature (Knecht, 2004, US) and neighbourhood design (Zuniga-Teran et al., 2017, US). This type of issue was also identified in Australian research that focuses on design that supports midwifery practice in hospitals (Hammond, Homer & Foureur, 2017) and on how biodiversity and ecosystem functioning can enhance urban residents’ wellbeing (Taylor & Hochuli, 2015).
  3. c) Social relationships: they are explored in research carried out in developed countries. Examples include an investigation on cyberbullying in North America (Bowler, Knobel & Mattern, 2015, US) and social relationships in student housing in Europe (Easterbrook & Vignoles, 2015, UK).
  4. d) Wellbeing and health (or wellbeing through health, or vice versa): relationships between the two topics were observed especially in Europe (King, Thomson & Darzi, 2014, UK), North America (Piper, Weibel & Hollan, 2014, US) and Australia (Pedell et al., 2015; Page & Richardson, 2016).
  5. e) Worker´s wellbeing: it is a recurrent research focus in Europe (Edwards & Jensen, 2014, Denmark; Michel, O’Shea & Hoppe, 2015, Germany and Ireland; Eaves, Gyi & Gibb, 2016, UK) and Australia (Tyson, Lambert & Beattie, 2002).
  6. f) Individual wellbeing: there is an emphasis on research to help solve internal (psychological) conflicts through design in Europe (Ozkaramanli & Desmet, 2012, Netherlands) and Australia (Carey et al., 2016), and in therapeutic activities and artefacts in Europe (De Couvreur et al., 2013, Belgium; Diedrichs et al., 2017, UK) and North America (Piper, Weibel & Hollan, 2014, US).

Research from Asia seems to focus on very technical aspects of design. Examples include Siu and Wai’s (2011) study on how the design of public toilets may increase the wellbeing of visually impaired users in China, and Cho and Kim’s (2015) research on cognitive aspects of smartphone usage among different generations. Technicality is not a rule and some exceptions are found, such as in Lee, Hung and Wu (2014, Taiwan), who investigated the relationships between the use of mobile applications for subjective wellbeing among middle-aged adults.

Developing countries, such as Chile, have a smaller body of publications in DfW. Since wellbeing is a very broad concept, research from these countries tends to focus on general topics that are not always connected with social development and wellbeing itself. An example is Vera-Vilarroel et al. (2016), who studied how colour could affect liking and the perception of safety in bike lanes in Chile.

Final considerations: Best practice guidance

International perspectives on DfW indicate that wellbeing can be targeted by design in different ways. They vary from distinct epistemological perspectives to particular application areas that reflect local issues and the scope of the design (e.g., stakeholders and the consequences of design for wellbeing). However, DfW still needs to learn how to deal with such complex issues not yet fully addressed by researchers (Brey, 2015).

Some aspects of design research on the topic may be viewed as examples of best practice. Five steps to best practice guidance in the field of DfW are presented hereafter.

First, define the theoretical perspective that underlies DfW in your study. It may be hard to simultaneously address theories and methods that assume that wellbeing can be objectively manipulated by researchers with others that reject such an assumption. These theoretical and methodological perspectives represent different approaches that were developed from very distinct epistemologies. If you try to mix methods, look for coherence in integrated research approaches. This is not a concern solely based on epistemic issues. DfW is grounded on theoretical contradictory or complementary perspectives on what wellbeing is. The scientific community would benefit from observing consistent theoretical–methodological research perspectives, well represented by works such as Poldma’s (2011). Therefore, a challenge in future studies is the search for coherence between what is understood by the term wellbeing, methodological procedures associated with it and expected results.

Second, connect your research to the cultural particularities of your community. On one hand, of course general issues (e.g., the impact of using a specific device on wellbeing) tend to be of interest to any society. On the other hand, wellbeing is a multi-layered phenomenon that connects to local specificities that help in understanding its complexity. The experience of wellbeing is lived in a connected world, in which the effects of a project can only be evaluated by observing how contextualised users in a particular community are influenced by the design. There is no neutrality to allow us to observe how design affects the wellbeing of people in isolated contexts. Although wellbeing is important in a broad sense, societal issues, such as cyberbullying in North America (Bowler, Knobel & Mattern, 2015), must be addressed in DfW in order for it to reach its maximum potential.

Third, define the scope of your study. If possible, make a shift from an individual perspective (solely the assessment of isolated users) to social contexts, defining the stakeholders who will be involved in the investigation (e.g., policy-makers, urban planners, users). This shift may assist in understanding the complexity of wellbeing as a phenomenon deeply connected to an ecosystem. This shift is well represented by the Australian research on participatory democracy and systemic governance, which may be considered one of the best practices on the matter (Mcintyre-Mills & De Vries, 2010; Mcintyre-Mills, 2010).

Fourth, focus on the evaluation of the long-term effects of design on wellbeing even though its short-term impacts are also relevant. The shift in investigations from the short- to the long-term effects of design on human life is noticeable in research reported all over the globe. Some studies are representative of this shift, such as the European–Dutch framework proposed by Desmet and Pohlmeyer (2013). Although recognising the viability of measuring the isolated effect of a particular design on wellbeing, the need for considering its long-lasting effect is considered one of the foundations of this framework.

Fifth, avoid designing exclusively the material aspects of artefacts, and favour the design of systems. They offer a broader range of possibilities for human–design interaction in opposition to solo artefacts. The focus on designing systems is well represented by the studies of Jackson (2003, US) and Taylor and Hochuli (2015, Australia). These authors indicate the need for designing (eco)systems to foster wellbeing in urban living and exploring design elements, such as greenery, natural light and visual and physical household solutions.

As multifaceted as wellbeing is, so are the international research perspectives on DfW. By observing practices throughout the globe, it was possible to draw best practice guidance, consisting in the aforementioned five steps required in wellbeing studies. The bottom line of this chapter is the effort to understand what wellbeing and DfW are. There is not yet an agreement on what wellbeing is, how to address it in our research and what the most important variables and contexts for study are. Connecting our research communities is a way of looking for coherence in our work and defining how our design can benefit users and our societies.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Dr Tiiu Poldma (School of Design, University of Montreal, Canada) for the very productive dialogues on phenomenology and pragmatism in the field of design for wellbeing. My thanks also to Taiane Malabarba for proofreading its final version.

Notes

References

  1. Bourgeois, P. (2002). Phenomenology and pragmatism: A recent encounter. In A. Tymieniecka (Ed.), Phenomenology World-wide: Foundations – Expanding Dynamics – Life-engagements: A Guide for Research and Study (1st edition, pp. 568–570). Dordrecht: Springer.
  2. Bowler, L., Knobel, C., & Mattern, E. (2015). From cyberbullying to well-being: A narrative-based participatory approach to values-oriented design for social media. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(6), 1274–1293.
  3. Brey, P. (2015). Design for the value of human well-being. In J. Van Den Hoven, P. Vermaas, & I. Van Der Poel (Eds.), Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design: Sources, Theory, Values and Application Domains (pp. 365–382). Dordrecht: Springer.
  4. Carey, T., Haviland, J., Tai, S., Vanags, T., & Mansell, W. (2016). MindSurf: A pilot study to assess the usability and acceptability of a smartphone app designed to promote contentment, wellbeing, and goal achievement. BMC Psychiatry, 16(442).
  5. Cho, K., & Kim, C. (2015). The influence of generation in the usage of smart phone as a means of distributed cognition: An exploratory study on Baby boomer and Generation Y. In Proceedings of IASDR2015: Interplay (pp. 418–430). Brisbane, November 2015. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.
  6. Craig, M. (2010). Levinas and James: Towards a Pragmatic Phenomenology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
  7. De Couvreur, L., Dejonghe, W., Detand, J., & Goossens, R. (2013). The role of subjective well-being in co-designing open-design assistive devices. International Journal of Design, 7(3), 57–70.
  8. Desmet, P. (2015). Design for mood: Twenty activity-based opportunities to design for mood regulation. International Journal of Design, 9(2), 1–19.
  9. Desmet, P., & Pohlmeyer, A. (2013). Positive design: An introduction to design for subjective well-being. International Journal of Design, 7(3), 5–19.
  10. Diedrichs, P., Atkinson, M., Garbett, K., Williamson, H., Halliwell, E., Rumsey, N., Leckie, G., Sibley, C., & Barlow, F. (2017). Evaluating a website designed to improve body image and psychosocial well-being among adolescent girls and their mothers: A cluster randomised controlled trial with mother-daughter dyads. Journal of Adolescent Health, 60(2), S6.
  11. Dorrestijn, S., & Verbeek, P. (2013). Technology, wellbeing, and freedom: The legacy of utopian design. International Journal of Design, 7(3), 45–56.
  12. Douglas, O., Lennon, M., & Scott, M. (2017). Green space benefits for health and well-being: A life-course approach for urban planning, design and management. Cities, 66, 53–62.
  13. Easterbrook, M., & Vignoles, V. (2015). When friendship formation goes down the toilet: Design features of shared accommodation influence interpersonal bonds and well-being. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(1), 125–139.
  14. Eaves, S., Gyi, D., & Gibb, A. (2016). Building healthy construction workers: Their views on health, wellbeing and better workplace design. Applied Ergonomics, 54, 10–18.
  15. Edwards, K., & Jensen, P. (2014). Design of systems for productivity and well being. Applied Ergonomics, 45(1), 26–32.
  16. Erikson, E., & Wideström, J. (2014). Staging the interaction? Explorative interventions for engaging citizens in the development of public knowledge institutions. In Proceedings of DRS 2014: Design’s Big Debates (pp. 1096–1108), Umeå, June 2014. London: Design Research Society.
  17. Hammond, A., Homer, C., & Foureur, M. (2017). Friendliness, functionality and freedom: Design characteristics that support midwifery practice in the hospital setting. Midwifery, 50, 133–138.
  18. Jackson, L. (2003). The relationship of urban design to human health and condition. Landscape and Urban Planning, 64(4), 191–200.
  19. King, D., Thomson, P., & Darzi, A. (2014). Enhancing health and wellbeing through ‘behavioural design’. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 107(9), 336–337.
  20. Knecht, C. (2004). Urban nature and well-being: Some empirical support and design implications. Berkeley Planning Journal, 17(1), 82–108.
  21. Lee, S., Hung, Y., & Wu, F. (2014). Identifying mobile application design to enhance the subjective wellbeing among middle-aged adults. In Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction: Aging and Assistive Environments – 8th International Conference, UAHCI 2014, Held as Part of HCI International 2014 (pp. 289–299), Heraklion, June 2014. Cham: Springer.
  22. Mace, V. (2016). The transfigured phenomena of domesticity in the urban interior. Idea Journal, 15, 16–37.
  23. Mcintyre-Mills, J. (2010). Participatory design for democracy and wellbeing: Narrowing the gap between service outcomes and perceived needs. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 23(1), 21–45.
  24. Mcintyre-Mills, J., & de Vries, D. (2010). Addressing complex needs: User-centric design to enhance wellbeing. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 5(5), 11–31.
  25. Megens, C., Peeters, M., Hummels, C., & Brombacher, A. (2013). Designing for behaviour change towards healthy living. In Proceedings of the 5th International Congress of International Association of Societies of Design Research: Consilience and Innovation in Design (pp. 4289–4296), Tokyo, August 2013. Tokyo: Shibaura Institute of Technology.
  26. Michel, A., O’Shea, D., & Hoppe, A. (2015). Designing and evaluating resource‐oriented interventions to enhance employee well-being and health. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88(3), 459–463.
  27. Olausson, S., Lindahl, B., & Ekebergh, M. (2013). A phenomenological study of experiences of being cared for in a critical care setting: The meanings of the patient room as a place of care. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, 29(4), 234–243.
  28. Ozenc, F. (2014). Modes of transitions: Designing interactive products for harmony and well-being. Design Issues, 30(2), 30–41.
  29. Ozkaramanli, D., & Desmet, P. (2012). I knew I shouldn’t, yet I did it again! Emotion-driven design as a means to motivate subjective well-being. International Journal of Design, 6(1), 27–39.
  30. Page, R., & Richardson, M. (2016). Co-creating narratives: An approach to the design of interactive medical devices, informed by phenomenology. In Proceedings of DRS2016: Design + Research + Society – Future-focused Thinking (pp. 1487–1498), Brighton, June 2016. London: Design Research Society.
  31. Pedell, S., Constantin, K., D’Rosario, J., & Favilla, S. (2015). Humanoid robots and older people with dementia: Designing interactions for engagement in a group session. In Proceedings of IASDR2015: Interplay (pp. 1639–1655), Brisbane, November 2015. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.
  32. Piper, A., Weibel, N., & Hollan, J. (2014). Designing audio-enhanced paper photos for older adult emotional wellbeing in communication therapy. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 72(8), 629–639.
  33. Pohlmeyer, A. (2013). Positive design: New challenges, opportunities, and responsibilities for design. In Design, User Experience, and Usability: User Experience in Novel Technological Environments, HCII 2013 (pp. 540–547), Las Vegas, July 2013. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
  34. Poldma, T. (2008). Dwelling futures and lived experiences: Transforming interior spaces. Design Philosophy Papers, 6(2), 141–155.
  35. Poldma, T. (2011). The interior spatial environment: Dynamic 0g environments and human places. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 15, 539–550.
  36. Ren, H., & Strickfaden, M. (2018). The active role of material things: An environment-based conceptual framework to understand the well-being of people with dementia. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 6, 11–23.
  37. Schulze, J., Martin, R., Finger, A., Henzen, C., Lindner, M., Pietzsch, K., Werntze, A., Zander, U., & Seppelt, R. (2015). Design, implementation and test of a serious online game for exploring complex relationships of sustainable land management and human well-being. Environmental Modelling & Software, 65, 58–66.
  38. Siu, M., & Wai, K. (2011). Designing public toilets to enhance the well-being of the visually impaired. International Journal of Health, Wellness & Society, 1(3), 137–145.
  39. Taylor, L., & Hochuli, D. (2015). Creating better cities: How biodiversity and ecosystem functioning enhance urban residents’ wellbeing. Urban Ecosystems, 18(3), 747–762.
  40. Tyson, G., Lambert, G., & Beattie, L. (2002). The impact of ward design on the behaviour, occupational satisfaction and well-being of psychiatric nurses. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 11(2), 94–102.
  41. Vera-Villarroel, P., Contreras, D., Lillo, S., Beyle, C., Segovia, A., Rojo, N., Moreno, S., & Oyarzo, F. (2016). Perception of safety and liking associated to the colour intervention of bike lanes: Contribution from the behavioural sciences to urban design and wellbeing. PloS One, 11(8), e0160399.
  42. Wu, S., & Noy, P. (2010). A conceptual design of a wireless sensor actuator system for optimizing energy and well-being in buildings. Intelligent Buildings International, 2(1), 41–56.
  43. Zuniga-Teran, A., Orr, B., Gimblett, R., Chalfoun, N., Guertin, D., & Marsh, S. (2017). Neighborhood design, physical activity, and wellbeing: Applying the walkability model. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(1), 76.
..................Content has been hidden....................

You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.
Reset