Natural environments have been shown to promote health, and are, therefore, important for achieving social sustainability in cities. As cities grow and become denser, it is important to develop knowledge about the characteristics of natural environments that work to promote health. Perceived Sensory Dimensions (PSDs) is a tool that defines eight different cultural ecosystem services. They correspond to different human needs (rest, exercise, socialising, pleasure, or security) resulting in rehabilitation and health and well-being promotion. An experiment was conducted to study the potential of PSDs to restore people who experienced stressful accidents. One hundred and fifty-seven participants were recruited and asked first to watch a film clip of serious accidents, then to look at the pictures, depicting one particular type of PSDs, while listening to its respective audio recording. Their stress levels were measured before exposure to the stressor (baseline), after exposure to the stressor (pre-test), and after exposure to a particular type of PSDs (post-test). The results show that all eight PSDs effectively provide mental recovery, but there are statistical differences in their potentials. As such, it is proposed that the combined potential of the PSDs is needed, and should be used to increase the capacity and supply of health-promoting urban green areas.

The architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry has struggled in its efforts to transition to a circular economy (CE) due to lock‐ins, where the industry remains entrenched in practices that resist this much‐needed transition. The solutions implemented so far have been unsuccessful. This failure can largely be attributed to the prevailing paradigm, which assumes that by sequentially removing barriers transition will naturally follow. However, this assessment overlooks the “lock‐in” effect of practices within the industry's linear model. A comprehensive, holistic “whole of industry” approach is essential to uncover these lock‐ins. In this context, O'Brien's “three transformational spheres framework” is introduced to examine how Australia's AEC sector is deterred from transitioning to a CE by three groups of lock‐ins, and provide viable recommendation to tackle them. Fifteen industry experts were interviewed, covering the three dimensions of the framework. The findings specify three levels of intervention that must be addressed in the industry and recommend an order for tackling them: first, political systems and structures; second, practical behavioral and technical responses; and finally, personal beliefs and values. This article contributes significantly to the field by outlining a comprehensive array of strategies for industry transition. Implementing these strategies in the discussed order has the potential to catalyze the long‐awaited transformation of the industry. This advances the theoretical framework concerning the adoption of a CE within the AEC sector and provides a reliable reference for policymakers, practitioners, and advocates who are orchestrating this transformative journey based on circular principles.

Due to constantly changing requirements, future proofing is increasingly seen as an urgent need in hospital building design. However, as knowledge on future proofing hospital building design is yet to be consolidated, this study reviews the literature to clarify understanding of the concept in hospital building contexts. A scoping review methodology was considered appropriate to elucidate concepts in the literature. As future proofing has been developed in multiple industries, an interdisciplinary approach is taken to investigate the concept across three contexts: design (in general), the built environment and hospital buildings. Findings reveal that most studies adopted a crisis-driven approach to conceptualize future proofing – largely limited to consideration of adaptability and resilience. By synthesizing the data, the research provides a comprehensive definition of future proofing by answering the WHY, WHAT and HOW of its application to hospital building design. A future proofing model is proposed that is composed of passive–active and reactive–proactive dichotomies that identify four future proofing objectives. These objectives are addressed via six future proofing capabilities: maintainability, resilience, changeability, mitigation, improvement and transition. The study clarifies future proofing objectives in hospital building design and informs directions for further research and dialogue in policy, research, education and practice.

The rapid increase of rates of change, disruptive events, risk and uncertainty increasingly threaten the long-term utilisation of hospital buildings. This challenge calls for an evolution in the lifecycle thinking that has always been integral to the hospital building design processes; or an approach that is termed ‘future proofing’. Yet the implementation of future proofing as an emerging design requirement is impeded by lack of holistic understanding of the concept, and clarity about its objectives. As such, this research aims to provide a conceptualisation of future proofing via a taxonomic hierarchy. We interviewed sixteen experienced hospital architects from leading consultant firms across Australia to explore their general perceptions, and implementation in practice, of future proofing. The semi-structured interviews were informed by and indeed tested a theoretical model of future proofing previously constructed via literature review and were analysed and validated via thematic analysis and member checking. Our findings align theoretical understanding with hospital architects’ practice-based perceptions and experiences of future proofing; elucidating future proofing as a dynamic meta-capability involving a multi-purpose hierarchy. Accordingly, a hierarchical integrated model of future proofing in practice was developed based on three axes (Survive, Evolve and Thrive), respectively defining three sets of spectrums with two extremes ranging from passivity to activity (Resilience-Mitigation, Maintainability-Improvement, and Changeability-Transition). While in previous research future proofing has been oversimplified and perceived largely in terms of adaptability, our findings support a more expansive definition of future proofing that includes various lifecycle design considerations.

Aim: This study explores how future-proofing is understood and applied in hospital building design, focusing on the perspectives of experienced architects. It aims to examine the practical implications of future-proofing and to identify key barriers to its implementation within contemporary healthcare infrastructure projects. Background: Existing literature often focuses on the general benefits, such as cost savings and sustainability, but lacks detailed analysis of the multifaceted implications and obstacles encountered in real-world projects. This study addresses this gap by directly examining architects’ perspectives, offering critical insights into the practical realities and complexities of future-proofing hospital buildings, thereby contributing to a more nuanced understanding and informed decision-making in this field. Methods: Sixteen semistructured interviews were conducted with experienced hospital architects based in Australia. Data were analyzed using a combination of deductive and inductive thematic analysis. Results: The results of thematic analysis have been categorized under three overarching categories: perceived benefits, perceived drawbacks, and implementation challenges. The findings highlight that future-proofing is neither inherently beneficial nor burdensome, but rather a context-sensitive strategy that must be tailored to each project's evolving operational, economic, and policy. Conclusions: The study underscores the need for more systematic, longitudinal evaluation of future-proofing strategies, as well as greater integration of advanced futures methodologies into healthcare planning and design processes. A more structured and evidence-based approach to future-proofing can support the development of hospital infrastructure that is both resilient and responsive to the long-term evolution of healthcare systems.