Design for community happiness—an approach and framework

Abstract

The paper addresses the emerging notion of “happiness” and “community happiness” as means and an objective in site planning and community design highlighting its complexities and illusive nature in terms of scope, aspects, and components to formulate a conceptual “framework” and a design tool for monitoring, enhancing, and developing community happiness, in limited scale urban settings. The research presents and follows the proposition that “happiness” is inherently addressed in site planning and design processes and the closely related notions and drives of “sustainable development” and “quality of life”. The design for the “community happiness” framework is formulated through a sequence of relational matrices, for “happiness”, “sustainable development”, and “quality of life”, each comprising selected international approaches and agendas, related indicators, and key aspects, physical, and non-physical, emphasizing similarities and overlapping. The proposed “framework” and underlying propositions were validated through a pilot questionnaire, targeting a sample of specialists, and practicing academics. The participants generally accepted the research key propositions, adopted the method and the proposed “framework”, and interacted with them, emphasizing the relative weights of the selected “happiness” key indicators and relations to site planning elements, and criteria. The relative importance of the design criteria, the related “happiness” indicators, and the likely products, as well as the cost of achieving “happiness” deserve to be further addressed, in future research.

Introduction

Design for “community happiness”, groups, and individuals, addressing and covering acceptance, satisfaction, belonging, safety and security, freedom and liberty, and privacy (psychological and physical), among others was always an undeclared objective and effective action in the processes of urban design and development of sites and settings, post-industrial revolution and through the modern drives and till the present.

Urban design and site planning for people, users, and communities’ needs, physical, and nonphysical was a major concern in the writing, and propositions of the pioneering authors and advocates, including Lynch K, Cullen G, and Alexander C [1], and Rapoport A [2].

Similarly, and with the emergence of “sustainability”, and the related drives, and directives of “sustainable” development and design, the key aspects, criteria, and indicators, recognized “communities”, groups, and individuals, well-being, satisfaction, health, and comfort, this is evident in the works and agendas of UNDP [3], UNESCO [4], and Japan for sustainability [5].

Furthermore, the said trends and concerns of “sustainable” design and development evolved and adopted the drives and work on the “quality of life”, “friendly” urbanism, and settings, presented as means and objectives to secure and realize “communities” satisfaction, safety, and well-being—with urban design and site planning as the tools and processes, deployed to achieve Mercer [6], EIU [7], and HDI [8].

Closely related to the adopted tools of urban design and site planning for “sustainable” development, “quality of life”, and “friendly” urban settings is the conception and practice of “community design”. Regarded as a shift in the evolving realm of urban design from the physically biased and aesthetically focused origins to a three-fold process of caring for and addressing communities’ needs and aspirations and related settings. An endeavor to enhance and appropriate urban design and truly address people, individuals, and groups as the prime concern, objective, and drive behind the physical manipulation of urban settings [9,10,11].

The design for “community happiness” emerged, presented, and celebrated in the wake of the said established realms and practices and addressed closely related issues and challenges, including urban environments’ characteristics, implications on emotional “happiness”, and well-being [12], “happiness” of the population in urban neighborhoods [13], urban life, urbanism, and “happiness” [14], images of urban “happiness”, and self-representation of “happiness” in urban places [15], and even “happiness” as an alternative objective for “sustainable development” [16].

Despite the endeavors and quality insights into the notion, conception, and processes of “community happiness”, the rationale and objective framework linking and integrating the realms, drives, and approaches are still missing or rather loose. Hence, there is a need to follow and formulate a framework for addressing and the design of “community happiness” development and point out its likely links to community, urban design, and site planning.

The development process and the closely related notions of “sustainable development” and environmental quality planning for “quality of life” and “friendly settings” collectively span and include actions to secure and realize “happiness” for communities and individuals. Hence, it is justifiable to point out that design for “happiness” is inherent in enhancing and supporting site planning and design in related settings, realizing its underlying criteria and indicators, covering the objectives of “sustainable development”, provisions for “quality of life”, and shaping “friendly” environments and urban settings.

Propositions

Happiness, “community happiness”, is closely related to the notions and drives of “sustainable development”, “quality of life”, and “friendly” urban settings and built environments, which in turn is closely related to an undeclared objective in site planning and design processes. Hence, pointing out and delineating the interrelations through the targeted “community happiness development framework” is likely to enable monitoring, enhancing, and designing for “community happiness”.

Objectives

The prime objective of the present work is to formulate, develop, and preliminary validate a conceptual framework to help in monitoring, designing, and developing “community happiness” in newly developed (urban) settings, integrating and linking site planning and design tools and criteria to “happiness” aspects and indicators; hence enabling enhancement and realization. The main objective is related to the secondary objectives of linking the notion of “happiness” to the closely related notions and drives of “sustainable development” and “quality of life” through the selected, and briefly presented, approaches, key aspects, and indicators addressing the three notions.

The “propositions” and “objectives” delineate the present research’s likely “contribution”, which may be reiterated as recalling and presenting “happiness” as a design goal and objective, addressing its complexities, and pointing out its close links with “sustainable development”, and “quality of life”, agendas and frameworks as well as highlighting its relation to “community happiness”, community design and site planning, both as means and objectives. The said “contribution” is summed up in developing, presenting, and validating the proposed “framework” for “monitoring, and enhancing community happiness”; a design and decision-making tool that integrates happiness key indicators with site planning elements and criteria.

Methods

The formulation of the targeted “community happiness” development framework starts by pointing out the conceptual structure of the key notion of “happiness” emphasizing “community happiness” through selected approaches, combining key aspects, components, indicators, and attributes, as well as linking it to the closely related notions of “sustainable development” and “quality of life”.

Happiness development, a collective framework, is formulated through comparative analysis, presentation, and juxtaposition of the three notions’ relational matrices (preliminary frameworks) based on selected published approaches—as presented in Table 1 (Formulation of the “community happiness” framework”) and elaborated in “Design for community’s happiness development—formulation of the framework” section—in three phases, namely:

• First phase, defining the relational structure of each notion, pointing out its key aspects and underlying indicators.

• Second phase, combining the subtracted indicators for the notions and drives of “sustainable development”, and “quality of life”, and in turn combine with the subtracted indicators of “happiness”, thus reaching the preliminary delineation of the targeted relational framework, addressing the illusive and complex notion; and leading to

• Third phase, developing a “happiness” collective relational framework, through linking to site design and planning components and criteria, resulting in the targeted framework, highlighting the conception, and allowing further development and validation, with the help of experts, questionnaires, and interventions.

Table 1 Formulation of the “community happiness” framework—phases and matrices

Community happiness

Aristotle presented the concept and definitions of happiness through his questions on the necessity and pursuit of happiness, how to get and achieve it, linking happiness to morals and virtue, and securing the physical necessities throughout life [17]. He further confirmed the “dependence of happiness on human beings” as a main goal in life, stressing its many physical and mental aspects, including virtue, ethics, and well-being, as well as “moderation” and “equilibrium” between the “alternatives” and “contradictions” in dealing with [18]. Anthropologists emphasized the “inevitability of happiness” and its connection to humans from the isolated primitive tribes to the inhabitants of contemporary cities, referring to the association between “smiling and happiness” [19]. Research, literature, and empirical studies on “happiness” conceptions and definitions, invariably pointed out the complexity, illusive structure, and attributes of the notion of happiness.

On happiness—conceptions and definitions

Despite the acceptance of the complexity and intricate structure of the notion of happiness and the varying meanings among individuals, there is “uniformity in the feelings of happiness and misery” [20]. Happiness is simply presented as the feeling of “happiness” and “well-being” as well as the product of the positive evaluation of the state and quality of life, and its (comparative/relative) state through time (past and present) [21] as well as feeling and experiencing pleasure(s) and pain(s) [22]. Happiness is also expressed as “a conscious judgment of the extent of an individual’s satisfaction with life and evaluation of his emotional and mood aspects [23]; in other words, it may be defined as “the general assessment of the various aspects of an individual’s life”; hence, the importance of “happiness” as a concept and a goal is highlighted in its presentation as a general judgment on life through standards (references) and comparisons (the criteria of a good life [24]).

It is argued that once the basic needs are satisfied, actual happiness is represented by non-material factors, including self-acceptance, meaning, and love [25]. Layard proposed a set of factors that affect happiness, comprising family relationships, financial status, work, community and friends, health, personal freedom, and personal values [26]. Happiness may be presented as a set of subjective and objective features, which contribute to the distinguished quality of human life [27]. Other factors that help in initiating and enhancing happiness were pointed out, including religion, family, volunteer work, donation, freedom, employment, and enhancing chances of success, rather than economic growth or economic equality [20]. Furthermore, happiness is related to the family (settings and relations), as well as meaningful friendships, economic success, (higher) levels of education, and freedom of choice, and the interrelations are extended to stable government systems and demographic variables: social and cultural aspects, spirituality, employment, and income [28].

Happiness and well-being

The concepts and definitions of “happiness” are related to and overlap with those of “well-being” which in turn is related to valuable experiences, positive beliefs about self, the environment, psychological and positive performance—and in the treatment of happiness in psychology, happiness is treated as a basic emotion in the “psychology of emotions” [29]. Happiness spans and combines various philosophical and psychological concepts, including pleasure, a good life, meanings, and approaches to functional/utilitarian and ethical philosophies [30]. The pursuit of defining and analyzing happiness was also associated with attempts to develop its components and criteria into empirical/tangible indicators that can be monitored and assessed.

The notion of “happiness” was also used as a description of the state of mind and mood, represented by feelings of contentment and positive emotions, “happiness as a state of mind”—contrasting the concept of intangible and emotional “happiness” with that of “well-being”, which is generally associated with quantitative and qualitative indicators and criteria that can be traced and evaluated. To reiterate, “happiness” is accepted as a supreme goal that humans and communities strive to achieve through “well-being”, “quality of life”, welfare, and pleasure.

On happiness: selected theories

The said definitions, structure, and components of happiness can be elaborated through the rational attempts to deal with, and the resulting theories and propositions, delineating and covering: the concept, structure, components and attributes, assessment, and evaluation, subjective and objective—causes of happiness, among others—focusing on the three aspects of the concept: biological (health)—personal/subjective—and external/social (objective). Table 2 summarizes selected attempts at delineating and synthesizing; “happiness”, “well-being”, and “satisfaction”, highlighting, common key components, elements, and attributes [29].

Table 2 Happiness—selected theories and components [29]

The selected theories and rationales to define and analyze happiness (Table 2) could be briefly presented as follows:

• Onion theory: happiness includes three complex layers: the core (desire and will to live), a mid-layer (contentment and self-acceptance), and an outer layer (positive experience and satisfaction with life) [31].

• Objective happiness: focuses on positive experiences (enjoyable, pleasant, and good) in terms of good versus bad as the indicator of utility [32].

• Subjective well-being: emphasizes positive personal experience and life satisfaction; a balance that serves as the basis for assessing life (satisfaction levels) [23].

• Authentic happiness: combines interaction and engagement with the context, competence, achievement, meaning of life, positive experience, positive relationships, well-being/living, and fun/enjoyment [33].

• Social-psychological prosperity: refers to positive performance in expressing happiness and focuses on social and psychological relationships, that combine interaction and participation with contexts, as well as listing elements of positive functioning across diverse domains [34].

• Eudemonia well-being: focuses on self and personal expression, and positive feelings as an additional result or a by-product of these pursuits [35].

• Psychological well-being: emphasizes positive psychological characteristics of happiness, including autonomy, environmental mastery, and personal growth [36].

On happiness: selected approaches

Following the brief recalling/presentation of “happiness” definitions and common theories towards the formulation of the targeted framework on the design for “community happiness” development, this section prepares the structure of the preliminary relational framework for “happiness”, through the brief presentation of the (sample) selected approaches and guidelines (to emphasize the methodology adopted throughout), each suggesting the structure of “happiness” and pointing out likely components and indicators. To enable summing/integrating and development of the said structures, the components, indicators, and attributes are qualitatively categorized according to a number of “key aspects” common to and derived from the presented “happiness” theories and approaches, spanning the physical and the nonphysical, namely, environmental, urban, physical and built form (related), health, political, institutional, economic, social, and cultural.

This, in turn, will enable the integration of the sample-selected approaches and related attributes and indicators into collective sets based on the key aspects (and related common attributes/indicators). Hence, the preliminary matrix for “community happiness” development comprising key aspects and attributes (Table 3 matrix (1)) shows the selected sample approaches, namely, Better Life Index [37], Happy Plant Index [38], Gallup Well-Being Index [39], Sharecare Community Well-Being Index [40], and Layard’s Seven Happiness Principles [26]; the related indicators (to each), the 6 key aspects, and the designation of the indicators too.

Table 3 Happiness—selected approaches, indicators, and key aspects (matrix 1)

Sustainable development and quality of life—two underlying notions

Continuing the drive to the formulation of the framework for the design of “community happiness” and adhering to the methodology followed in the preceding “Methods” section, the delineation of the relational framework for happiness, matrix (1) (Table 3), combining the selected approaches, components and attributes, and designation to key aspects. This section presents the relational tables; matrices (2) and (3) in the drive, for the two underlying notions of “sustainable development” and “quality of life”. Each is presented through selected approaches, related attributes/indicators for each approach; and the designation of the indicators to the adopted six key aspects, presented earlier, and again common to and derived from the selected approaches.

Table 4 (Sustainable development, selected approaches, indicators, and key aspects, matrix (2)) in the drive combines four approaches and collective agendas, namely, United Nations Development Program [3], UNESCO [4], Japan’s for sustainability [5], and Egypt’s vision 2030 [41], the related indicators for each of the four, and designation of indicators to the adopted 6 key aspects.

Table 4 Sustainable development—selected approaches, indicators, and key aspects (matrix 2)

Similarly, Table 5 (Quality of life, selected approaches, indicators, and key aspects, matrix (3)) completes the 1st phase of the drive, toward the formulation of the targeted framework. It combines 5 sample selected approaches and collective agendas to the “quality of life”, namely, NUMBEO [42], Mercer [6], the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) [7], the Human Development Index (HDI) [8], and Quality of life in “Boston” [43]. The related indicators for each are presented and designated to the six key aspects.

Table 5 Quality of life—selected approaches, indicators, and key aspects (matrix 3)

Design for community’s happiness development—formulation of the framework

As indicated earlier (“Methods” section), the formulation of the proposed target framework for the design and development of “community happiness” is carried out through three interdependent phases, as presented in Table 1; a progressive sequence deploying selected sample approaches and the related attributes and indicators, addressing the three notions: “happiness”, and the closely related “sustainable development” and “quality of life”, namely,

• Phase 1—introducing the procedure and presenting the (sample) selected approaches together with related indicators and attributes classified according to the six key aspects related to the brief introduction of “happiness” definitions and theories, as well as the two underlying notions of “sustainable development” and “quality of life” in “Community happiness” and “Sustainable development and quality of life—two underlying notions” sections comprising matrices 1, 2, and 3, Tables 3, 4, and 5 respectively.

Phase 1—introducing the procedure and presenting the (sample) selected approaches together with related indicators and attributes classified according to the six key aspects related to the brief introduction of “happiness” definitions and theories, as well as the two underlying notions of “sustainable development” and “quality of life” in “Community happiness” and “Sustainable development and quality of life—two underlying notions” sections comprising matrices 1, 2, and 3, Tables 3, 4, and 5 respectively.

The formulation sequence continues through phases 2 and 3:

• Phase 2—progressively formulating the targeted framework in three steps, namely

  • Step 1. Combining the relational tables, matrices (2) and (3), covering the sample selected approaches for “sustainable development” and “quality of life” indicators and attributes, and the key aspects into a collective representative set of indicators against the 6 key aspects resulting in the relational matrix (4) (Table 6).

  • Step 2. Juxtaposing and integrating matrix (4) the combined set of indicators and those of matrix (1), “happiness” indicators, through the governing 6 key aspects, matrix (5) (Table 7).

  • Step 3. Synthesis of phase 2 representing the collective combination of matrices (4) and (1), and matrix (5), into the preliminary “happiness” development integrated matrix (6.1) (Table 8), highlighting key aspects, main indicators, and attributes. The brief set of “happiness development” key indicators are then presented together with the likely levels of action and spatial settings (macro-micro) regional, national, and local, as well as the quality/presence and relative strength; concluding step 3 and presenting integrated matrix (6.2) (Table 9), which provides “happiness development” framework 1, for monitoring and assessing “happiness” in localities and limited scale settings.

• Phase 3—happiness key indicators versus site planning and design criteria and elements.

Table 6 Sustainable development and quality of life—key aspects and indicators (matrix 4)

Table 7 Happiness, sustainable development and quality of life—key aspects and indicators (matrix 5)

Table 8 The proposed framework (1), happiness development framework—integrated, indicators and attributes, and key indicators, (matrix 6.1)

Table 9 The proposed framework (1), happiness development framework—selected key aspects, key indicators, levels, and presence/quality–monitoring and assessment tool (matrix 6.2)

This concludes the formulation of the proposed framework for “happiness development”, allowing monitoring, design, and development of community happiness. A relational matrix (7), framework 2 (Table 10) combining selected brief attributes/indicators of happiness development (environmental, physical/built form, and socio-cultural) against a sample set of site planning and design components and criteria [44,45,46,47].

Table 10 The proposed framework (2)–“happiness development” selected attributes versus site planning and design elements and criteria, (matrix 7)

The preliminary framework (1, 2) provided the basis for the validation of the research propositions, pointing out the potential of “happiness development” attributes and indicators to delineate and answer the question of the relative importance of, guided by designers and developers, and to be further checked (later) by target users and communities, groups, and individuals.

Results and discussion

An integral part of developing the proposed “community happiness development” framework is the preliminary validation of the concluding matrices (6.2) and (7), the proposed frameworks 1 and 2 respectively. The proposed framework and underlying propositions were presented to a validation group comprising a limited sample of specialists; practicing academics, combining teaching, research, and professional practice, in the closely related fields of architecture, urban design and planning, site planning, design, and landscape.

A questionnaire backed by the relational matrices (5), (6.1 and 6.2), and (7) was presented to and completed by the validation group. The validation questionnaire, supported by the attached related research products, comprised 4 parts, namely:

• The participants’ profiles, key data, specialization, and years of experience,

• The research key propositions, matrix (5), and methodology of formulating the framework (Table 1).

• The proposed “community happiness development” framework 1, matrices (6.1 and 6.2), (Tables 8 and 9).

• The proposed “community happiness development” key indicators and attributes versus site planning and design criteria and elements framework 2, matrix (7) (Table 10).

The four aspects of the preliminary validation sequence are briefly presented and discussed in the following sections.

The validation group—participants

The questionnaire was distributed to a selected sample of academic practitioners, with experience spanning some 15 years and more. The pilot sample totaled 15 academic professionals. The profiles of the 15 respondents covering the questionnaire and interacting with the proposed framework 1 and 2, matrices 6.2 and 7, Tables 9 and 10 respectively, may be summarized as follows:

• Areas of specialization: research, teaching, and professional practice, spanned; architecture, urban design and planning, site planning, design, and landscape,

• The academic ranks and current positions: professors (4), associate professors (4), and lecturers (7).

• The years of experience range from 15 to 50 years, with an average/mean of 17 years.

Key propositions

With a semantic differential response range varying between 1 and 5, namely; fully accept/agree (5), agree (4), fairly accept (3), do not accept/agree (2), and do not know and no response (1); the respondents generally accepted the 3 key research propositions, namely

• Happiness was always and still is an undeclared objective in urban and site planning and design, a total of 10 (66.6%).

• Happiness is closely related to the notions and drives of sustainable development and quality of life and is attained by the implementation of the related processes and drives, accepted by all 15 respondents.

• All three notions are integrated and covered by site planning and community design, drives, and processes, accepted by all respondents.

Happiness development framework

The respondents invariably accepted the adopted procedure to follow the propositions, towards the formulation of the proposed framework; the sequence of integrating approaches to the three notions was checked and accepted, the principles and product, the proposed preliminary relational matrices, and the happiness monitoring and enhancing framework. The respondents emphasized the key aspects’ relative importance in physical planning and site development and highlighted the weights and impact of the environment, built environment, and sociocultural aspects on community happiness. They recognized the importance of the levels of actions, macro, and micro emphasizing the local, namely, districts, neighborhoods, and designated communities. Furthermore, they accepted the format of the preliminary framework, pointing out the ease of usage and application.

Happiness versus site planning and design

The respondents accepted and agreed with the suggested relational matrix (7), Table 10 (The proposed framework (2), “happiness development” selected attributes versus site planning and design elements and criteria) [44,45,46,47] and were asked to use and complete in the light of their combined experience, research, and practice, emphasizing the relative weight, the strength of the relations among the selected “happiness” aspects, attributes and indicators and site planning and design elements and criteria.

Epilogue

The purpose of the preliminary validation was to assess the acceptance and applicability of the proposed framework; its role in taming the complexities of the addressed notions and pointing out means of integrating “community happiness development” into the site planning and design principles, criteria, and processes, as well as supporting its potentials, for further development.

The validation was an added phase of the propositions and proposed framework formulation, following the presentation and integration of approaches, to the three inter-wined notions of “happiness”, “sustainable development” and “quality of life”, and the progressive integration of their attributes towards the preliminary framework, for monitoring, enhancing, and developing “community happiness”.

Conclusions

The present work addressed the notion of “happiness” and “community happiness” as means and an undeclared objective in site planning and community design presented and followed its complexities and illusive nature, developed a preliminary framework for interacting with, monitoring, enhancing, and developing community happiness, in limited scale urban settings. It presented “happiness” as a worthy design goal, highlighting its close links to the closely related notions and drives of “quality of life”, “friendly settings”, and “sustainable development”.

The paper secured its prime objective of formulating, developing, and validating the said conceptual framework for “community happiness” monitoring and development; integrating, and linking site planning and design tools and criteria to “happiness” aspects and indicators; hence, enabling, enhancing, and achieving. It also realized the secondary objectives of linking the notion of “happiness” to the closely related notions and drives of “sustainable development” and “quality of life” through the presentation and integration of the selected approaches, key aspects, and indicators, addressing the three notions.

The formulation of the proposed framework, for monitoring and developing “community happiness”, highlighted in Table 1 was carried out through 3 interdependent stages, in a progressive sequence, deploying the selected approaches, and the related attributes and indicators, together with the governing key aspects; covering the three notions; “happiness”, and the closely related “sustainable development” and “quality of life”.

The resulting brief set of “happiness development” key indicators are presented together with the likely levels of action and spatial settings (macro-micro) regional, national, and local, as well as the quality/presence and relative strength (Table 9), providing “happiness development” framework (1) for monitoring and assessing “happiness” in limited scale localities and settings. Selected attributes and indicators of “happiness development”, namely, environmental, physical/built form, and socio-cultural from the resulting set are presented against a sample set of site planning and design components and criteria, framework (2), (Table 10).

The preliminary framework (1) and (2) provided the basis for the preliminary validation of the research propositions. The validation is regarded as an integral part of developing the proposed framework and underlying propositions; carried out, through a pilot questionnaire, presented to a small sample of specialists; practicing academics, combining teaching, research, and professional practice, in the closely related fields of architecture, urban design, and planning, site planning, design, and landscape.

The respondents generally accepted the research propositions, and the adopted procedure to follow, towards the formulation of the proposed framework; and the resulting “happiness” monitoring and enhancing framework. The respondents emphasized the key aspects’ relative importance in physical planning and site development, as well as the levels of action and the format of the preliminary framework (1), pointing out the ease of usage and application. Furthermore, they accepted and interacted with the proposed framework (2), “happiness development” selected attributes versus site planning and design elements and criteria.

The preliminary qualitative validation highlighted the applicability of the proposed framework, its role in taming the complexities of the addressed notions and presenting means of integrating “community happiness development” into site planning and design principles, criteria, and processes, as well as supporting its potential for further development.

The “proposed framework” is a two-fold tool; on the one hand, framework (1), “happiness development” (Table 9) combines key indicators, action and spatial levels, and presence, quality, and relative strength, allowing field monitoring, and assessment of “community happiness”, on the various spatial levels, macro, and micro, including neighborhoods and local areas, by specialists, designers, and developers, as well as by targeted communities. Framework (2) (Table 10); on the other hand, comprises “happiness development” selected attributes, key aspects, and indicators, together with, site planning and design selected elements and criteria, provides a design tool, supporting and complementing, site planning processes, allowing, deployment of its elements and criteria, to secure communities’ happiness and satisfaction.

“Happiness” is likely to continue as a supreme goal, that individuals and communities strive to achieve, through; “well-being”, and “quality of life”; justifying, recalling, and addressing “happiness” as a design goal, and an integral part of site planning, community design, and development, with its clear objectives of securing “quality of life” and “sustainability”.

The relative importance of the design criteria and related “happiness” indicators, and the likely products, as well as the cost of achieving “community happiness”, collectively deserve to be further addressed and investigated, in future research.