Search results

Spatial arrangement of hospital environments has been proven to have impacts on hospital users such as wayfinding, privacy and operational efficiency. Many studies examined the spatial quality of hospitals, but there is a lack of comparative research between Chinese and Australian hospitals. Hospitals in both countries have salient features that are worth to learn and can inform hospital stakeholders internationally on design decisions. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate and compare the spatial quality of hospitals from both countries using space syntax approach and field observation.

This study uses space syntax analysis and observation to provide qualitative and quantitative data. Illustrative case studies from both countries are selected for comparison. The main benchmarks involved in measuring the spatial qualities, such as step depth and visual connectivity, are analysed using Depthmap X before comparing with the results from observation.

For Chinese hospitals to be more human-centred, public space design and facility management need additional attention. Australian hospitals could learn from Hospital D on how to design highly centralised nursing stations that cope with a high patient flow. Global policy and decision-makers should consider the potential inconsistency between initial design intention and practical use.

Practical implications were made based on the results for bettering hospital environments. It is hoped that the methodology presented in this research is of significance to the enhancement of global healthcare environment research.

Smart Heritage is a recently established discourse that entwines smartness and the heritage discipline. Studies have shown that place identity is at the core of value-based frameworks of built heritage. This study aims to unveil the role of identity in existing Smart Heritage frameworks, which is currently a gap in existing research.

To better understand place identity in the Smart Heritage context and facilitate future framework establishments, this study uses a cross-case analysis method to scrutinise common trends in the identity development of seven current best practices.

The results show that current best practices involve smart technologies in sustaining or rebuilding heritage identities, mostly mapped on the local scale. Catered solutions are essential in this context due to historic cities’ variegated pursuits of identity. Most current Smart Heritage projects are at the transitioning stage from digital to smart, as the autonomous ability of smart innovations is yet to be fully realised on the city or the global scale. Researchers are encouraged to draw essence from existing heritage frameworks considering the built heritage’s place identity, which is at the core of culturally sustainable Smart Heritage transitions.

This study concludes with five recommendations for addressing heritage identity in Smart Heritage frameworks, targeting future research avenues. Also, this study furthers the discussion on the linkage of Smart Heritage, place identity and marketing strategy, contributing to the city branding and tourism management field. Future research should extend the case-study selection beyond Europe, which is a recognised limitation of this study.

The present study aims to inform the requirements for developing a sustainable rating tool for small-scale infrastructure projects (SSIPs) through research findings.

A review-based comparative study of existing infrastructure sustainability (IS) rating tools for assessment of SSIPs is presented. Key stakeholder participants of the existing IS rating tools, are interviewed to identify existing barriers and requirements for sustainability rating. The study further presents possible rating tool options to optimise the sustainable performance evaluation of SSIPs.

Findings of this study indicated that prevalent IS rating tools are majorly applied to large-scale infrastructure projects and sustainability of SSIPs are seldom assessed. Based on a literature review and series of interviews, it was found that user friendliness, efficient structure, training and technical support, cost effectiveness and stakeholder recognition are the five key requirements of a sustainability rating tool for SSIPs. Additionally, six sustainability assessment options were proposed for SSIPs which range from pathways for existing tools through to new, customisable tools. Upon comparison, a new modified tool with verification process and revised tool with defined grouping of sustainable criteria was more effective for evaluation of SSIPs.

Use of case specific information for validation and framework development may lack generalisation. However, methodology can be used for future decision-making by making necessary adjustments to suit different local regional requirements.

Despite lack of generalisation, the findings can lead to future general studies on sustainability of SSIPs. Findings of the study provide foundation knowledge and awareness for sustainability evaluation of SSIPs.