THEMES, FACTORS AND CRITERIA USED IN PROJECT EVALUATION
For interpreting the results of the analysis of each of the selected BlueProfiles case studies this table provides more detail on how the criteria were applied. These are summarised as scores on a 0-5 rating scale (where 0 means not present, 1 means the project was rated poorly according to that specific criterion and 5 means it was rated highly) and presented as spidergrams for easy visual interpretation. Some text then explains the meanings of the scores. Please note that while all the projects are considered to be outstanding examples, for a number of reasons, often practical or functional, not every project can fulfil every criterion to its maximum potential. Thus some factors may be rated lower for some projects.
The factors used for site assessment and the interpretation of the criteria used in the BlueProfiles.
|Interpretation of the criteria
|How easy it is to see the site from outside – is it hidden or can it be seen and provides visual access to the water?
|How easy it is to gain access to the site on foot (perhaps from public transport)?
|How easy is it to gain access to the site by bicycle (including connections to a wider network of bicycle paths)?
|Is car access necessary, e.g. due to a remoter location, and if so it is well-provided?
|If car parking is necessary, is it logically located and provides enough spaces?
|Is it possible for people with various disabilities to reach the site (e.g. surfaces, street crossings, absence of steps etc)?
|An overall judgement on the entire project (sense of unity, organisation of spaces, fit to the context, uniqueness and originality).
|How well the pedestrian and bicycle circulation works within the site (more important for larger sites than smaller ones, e.g those in Chapter15)
|Views and landmarks
|The degree to which unique or special views or iconic landmarks have been incorporated into the overall site design.
|Inclusion of cultural heritage values
|The extent to which, where there are cultural heritage remains or values present on the site, these have been incorporated into the design.
|Site furniture fitting the context
|The design and appropriateness of materials used in the site furniture.
|Cost effective maintenance
|The degree to which the cost effectiveness of maintenance of the site has been incorporated into the design (e.g. the use of materials, technology associated with water features or art installations).
|Range of facilities
|The general breadth of the range of facilities provided which are appropriate for the setting and its size.
|Accessibility of facilities
|How accessible are all the facilities provided for people with a range of disabilities?
|Amount of seating
|How much seating is available – not only formal seats or benches but also other elements which provide sitting affordances.
|Quality of nature
|Depending on the character of the site, how well have natural elements been sensitively included in the design?
|Degree of shelter
|Where the site is exposed and in a windy location, how well sheltered it is.
|Degree of shade
|Where the site is exposed to strong sun (depending on climate and season), how well shaded it is.
|Presence of lighting
|Depending on the location and use of the site as well as seasonal aspects, the quality and functionality of lighting provided on the site and its impact on the surroundings.
|Health and well-being
|The special qualities of the site, landscape and design, which give a unique and rich aesthetic experience.
|Sense of being away
|The degree to which, depending on site location and limitations, it is possible to feel away from the normal environment.
|Contact with nature
|The degree to which it is possible to have direct contact with some aspects of nature on land and on or in water.
|The richness of different possibilities for all the senses to be stimulated in a harmonious way.
|The potential offered by the site for people to be alone and to be able to sit and think.
|Safety and security
|The physical safety of the site – especially in regard to water edges – and feeling of security against crime that the design presents (good maintenance, lack of damage etc.)
|The degree to which there is direct contact and connection between the terrestrial and aquatic part of the site.
|The extent to which water is visible or hidden from all or part of the site.
|Access from and to water
|Depending on the context and practical possibilities, the degree to which opportunities for providing access to the site from the water have been used.
|Water safety equipment
|Where appropriate and necessary, how well-provided the site is with water safety facilities and equipment (e.g. lifeguards, life-rings etc.).
|Formal sport activities
|Depending on the size and context of the site, the degree of provision of fields and pitches for formal sports on land.
|The degree to which the site design supports a range of informal games and sports depending on the size and types of surfaces used.
|Depending on the nature of the land-water interface and the risk and safety aspects specific to the site, the degree to which water activities and sports are supported.
|The degree to which children’s play – on land in in the water, using formal equipment of just the site affordances – is supported.
|The extent to which, depending on the size of the site and its range of physical activities supported, these are zoned for maximum effectiveness.
For more details see the pdf download here