How to make the mapping of social value work

This study by Eli Hatleskog and Flora Samuel, winner of the RIBA President’s Awards for Research – cities and community, investigates how collaborative mapping of social value can help create cohesive, happy communities Following the UK government’s Social Value Act, ‘Mapping Eco Social Assets’ explores how practitioners working in the urban environment can, co-design of maps with communities to capture and share attributes of a place which typically remain undervalued or hidden. The research aimed to support negotiations across different points of view and contested interests. While it is generally agreed that broader involvement in planning and design processes can benefit society, specific approaches and methods often remain vague and do not link with the needs of local authorities. The research created and tested methods for inclusive architectural research which included not only local voices and interpretations, but also evolved in response to some of the real challenges and barriers faced by a local authority

Talking architecture: exploring knowledge production through conversation in architectural creative practice research

This paper will discuss the field of Architectural Creative Practice Research (ACPR) with a view to understanding what architects actually do in practice and how what they do may be translated into creative practice research. It argues that, since it is an entrepreneurial profession, a lot of what architects do is talk, but that we do not usually think of talking as a design skill or research method. However, talking about architecture is not just words. Not only can it can inform the production of built form, it can allow for nuanced and diverse views of practice to be shared and developed. This paper will argue that talking about architecture (and not simply drawing it or writing about it) can help us to develop greater understandings of both the role of the architect in practice and the diverse opportunities that an architectural response to creative practice research may provide

Tackling root causes upstream of unhealthy urban development (TRUUD): protocol of a five-year prevention research consortium

Poor quality urban environments substantially increase non-communicable disease. Responsibility for associated decision-making is dispersed across multiple agents and systems: fast growing urban authorities are the primary gatekeepers of new development and change in the UK, yet the driving forces are remote private sector interests supported by a political economy focused on short-termism and consumption-based growth. Economic valuation of externalities is widely thought to be fundamental, yet evidence on how to integrate it into urban development decision-making is limited, and it forms only a part of the decision-making landscape. Researchers must find new ways of integrating socio-environmental costs at numerous key leverage points across multiple complex systems. This mixed-methods study is made up of six highly integrated work packages. It aims to develop and test a multi-action intervention in two case study urban areas: one on large-scale mixed-use development, the other on major transport. The core intervention is the co-production with key stakeholders through interviews, workshops and ethnography three areas of evidence: economic valuations of changed health outcomes; community-led media on health inequalities; and routes to potential impact mapped through co-production with key decision-makers, advisors and the lay public. We will: map the system of actors and processes involved in each case study; develop, test and refine the combined intervention; evaluate the extent to which policy and practice changes amongst our target users, and the likelihood of impact on non-communicable diseases (NCDs) downstream. The integration of such diverse disciplines and sectors presents multiple practical/operational issues. We are testing new approaches to research, notably with regards practitioner-researcher integration and transdisciplinary research co-leadership. Other critical risks relate to urban development timescales, uncertainties in upstream-downstream causality, and the demonstration of impact

Pandemics, vulnerability and prevention: time to fundamentally reassess how we value and communicate risk?

Pandemics have long been recognised on the UK’s National Risk Register as both the likeliest and most severe of threats. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) such as obesity, heart failure and mental ill-health was already crippling our healthcare services and our economy. The quality of the places in which we live and to which we have access, most especially in deprived populations, compound that vulnerability significantly. When vulnerable, as we are now, we are forced to acknowledge what has weakened us, and to fundamentally reassess our actions and priorities

Tackling root causes upstream of unhealthy urban development (TRUUD): Protocol of a five-year prevention research consortium

Poor quality urban environments substantially increase non-communicable disease. Responsibility for associated decision-making is dispersed across multiple agents and systems: fast growing urban authorities are the primary gatekeepers of new development and change in the UK, yet the driving forces are remote private sector interests supported by a political economy focused on short-termism and consumption-based growth. Economic valuation of externalities is widely thought to be fundamental, yet evidence on how to value and integrate it into urban development decision-making is limited, and it forms only a part of the decision-making landscape. Researchers must find new ways of integrating socio-environmental costs at numerous key leverage points across multiple complex systems. This mixed-methods study comprises of six highly integrated work packages. It aims to develop and test a multi-action intervention in two urban areas: one on large-scale mixed-use development, the other on major transport. The core intervention is the co-production with key stakeholders through interviews, workshops, and participatory action research, of three areas of evidence: economic valuations of changed health outcomes; community-led media on health inequalities; and routes to potential impact mapped through co-production with key decision-makers, advisors and the lay public. This will be achieved by: mapping system of actors and processes involved in each case study; developing, testing and refining the combined intervention; evaluating the extent to which policy and practice changes amongst our target users, and the likelihood of impact on non-communicable diseases (NCDs) downstream. The integration of such diverse disciplines and sectors presents multiple practical/operational issues. The programme is testing new approaches to research, notably with regards practitioner-researcher integration and transdisciplinary research co-leadership. Other critical risks relate to urban development timescales, uncertainties in upstream-downstream causality, and the demonstration of impact. [Abstract copyright: Copyright: © 2022 Black D et al.