“I like seeing people, different cultures, and hearing different music”: Exploring adolescent perspectives of inclusive and healthy high-rise and dense urban environment designs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Due to urbanization more young people will live in high-rises and dense urban areas. • We explored teen perspectives (n = 22) of healthy high-rise and dense area designs. • Social, cultural sites; unique places; and multipurpose designs supported health. • Crowded places, weak social connectivity, and poor transport designs abated health. • Urban designers might consider social/cultural activity sites, connectivity designs. As countries continue to urbanize, an increasing number of adolescents will live in densely populated urban areas, often residing in high-rise buildings. Despite these trends, many high-rises, and their surrounding areas, sparsely consider the needs of adolescents. This results in urban environments that are often ill-suited to sufficiently support the health and development of adolescents. In the present study, we conducted geo-logged and participant-led go-along interviews lasting between 40–120 min and travelling ∼ 1 km, from July-December 2023 to explore how adolescents (13–18 years; n = 22) perceived the inclusiveness and health-promoting qualities of high-rise and densified urban environments. We employed Gehl’s Inclusive Healthy Place Framework (IHPF) to inform our abductive thematic analysis and frame our ensuing discussions via its four guiding principles (i.e., context, process, design and program, sustain). Our findings outline 11 distinct themes highlighting the importance of desirable social and cultural activity options, meaningful local sites, and diversity in the local active use designs and spaces. Conversely, adolescents expressed worries regarding weak social connectivity, poor sanitation, lacking place legibility, and ‘anti-social’ designs. We discuss specific implications for urban design, planning, and health audiences regarding building (e.g., communal space) and neighborhood (e.g., streetscapes with patios) design.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".