Place value: place quality and its impact on health, social, economic and environmental outcomes

Abstract This paper explores the link between the quality of the built environment and its value, in health, social, economic and environmental terms. This is theorized as ‘place value’ which, alongside ‘place quality’, is conceptualized as existing within a virtuous loop in which quality dictates value and value defines quality. To test this, a systematic review brought together wide-ranging international research evidence. The work confirmed a range of definitive associations between the quality of place and its place derived value. It also makes a clear link back from the evidence on place value to the sorts of qualities that enhance or detract from that value. These, in turn, define the constituent elements of place quality.


Introduction
The urban places that most of us inhabit are made up of buildings, streets, spaces and landscape, various land uses and a community of users. 'Place' is therefore a socio-physical construct, and numerous claims are made about the power of place.
The international literature suggests that whoever we are, our everyday engagement with the places in which we live, work and play will influence, for good or ill, the lives we lead, the opportunities available to us, and our personal and communal happiness, identity and sense of belonging (Speck 2012;Montgomery 2013). Place underpins cultural activities and social opportunities. Place is political, influencing provision of and access to common assets, including to grey, green and social infrastructure (Tonkiss 2013;Inam 2014). The quality of places influences and is influenced by housing conditions, real estate markets and our use of technology, and the experience of place is fundamental to our physical and mental health and sense of well-being (Adams and Tiesdell 2013; Barton 2017). Place has an impact on the way we govern ourselves, on our democracy and local decision making, on community togetherness and empowerment (Netto 2017), and on much, much more. This paper reviews the empirical evidence in order to explore whether the types of benefits outlined above are merely a woolly wish-list of desired benefits advocated by those already convinced about the importance of investing in a high quality built environment, or whether they are statements of fact supported by robust and convincing evidence. If the evidence is clear, then arguably policy makers, developers and built environment professionals would be foolish not to make the pursuit of a high quality built environment a top priority. First, however, the evidence needs to be clear, and second, it needs to be presented in a manner that allows the connection to be made between particular qualities of place and the types of value they give rise to for users of the built environment.
To do this the concept of 'place value' is theorized and linked to the allied notion of 'place quality' . The inter-relationships are conceptualized, before the approach taken to the researcha systematic reviewis discussed. The evidence is summarized against four policy arenas: health, social, economic and environmental, with each summary concluding with what the evidence tells us about the types of value that place can deliver in each field. By necessity these sections are highly curtailed as space does not permit discussion of the large number of sources used, but the 'raw' data can be found in a more expansive form in a new open source wiki: www.place-value-wiki.net. Finally, some overarching conclusions are drawn out of two types. First, concerning what types of place qualities (design principles) the growing body of evidence reveals as most likely to deliver greatest place value, and second, with regard to overarching findings on the value / quality nexus and the significance and coherence of the collective evidence.

What is meant by place value?
Value is most generically defined as 'a measure of the worth of something' (Carmona et al. 2001b, 14), but this generality means that the concept suffers from an unavoidable 'spread of opinion over meaning' (Eccles 1996). Concepts of value have been most comprehensively developed in the field of economics, and while economic value is only one way of defining and measuring value, it is useful to help explain how people establish preferences and make choices that involve trade-offs in allocating resources .
Here, the conceptual distinction between 'exchange' and 'use' value is often made. In economics, exchange value is related to market price as determined by supply and demand and would be derived from some observation of market behaviour of the good which may or may not reflect any universal intrinsic value of the good. Use value, on the other hand, expresses the simple notion that goods can be usefuloffer benefits to peopleand this reflects the use to which a good can be put. These two values will often be quite different, and, for the same good or service, can even accrue to different parties.
A third and more avowedly 'public' conception of value is described by Abelson (2000, 5) when discussing the impact of heritage buildings as a public benefit. In doing so he draws on a 'common distinction in economicsbetween internal and external impacts' . In this respect public benefits are the external benefits that cannot be directly appropriated by the owner.
These three notions of value are rooted in classical and neo-classical economics and so tend not to take into account (or do so inadequately) the social and cultural understandings of the term (Eccles 1996). Taking a broader notion of value, one that extends the public conceptions of value, the former Commission for Architecture & the Built Environment (CABE 2006) in England identified six different types of value that can be delivered by the built environment: • Exchange value: parts of the built environment can be traded; • Use value: the built environment impacts on the activities that go on there; • Image value: the identity and meaning of built environment projects, good or bad; • Social value: the built environment supports or undermines social relations; • Environmental value: the built environment supports or undermines environmental resources; • Cultural value: the built environment has cultural significance.
These conceptual notions demonstrate a much broader scope of the concept than that associated with exchange, although still relate poorly to the types of very tangible policy and practice agendas within which politicians, built environment professionals and policy makers typically operate (Mulgan et al. 2006). An entirely different way of thinking about value, therefore, is more straightforwardly the degree to which the different qualities of the built environment impact, either positively or negatively, on different public policy goals. As the intention when embarking on this review was to create findings that were immediately useful to those considering the case for investing in place quality, this was the view taken in the study. This notion, which might be called 'Place value' , reflects the idea that a complex but inter-related basket of benefits accompanies any intervention in the built environment and ultimately flows to those with a stake in the place: local residents, investors and developers, everyday users, business owners, public authorities, and so forth. Place value can therefore be defined as 'The diverse forms of value generated as a consequence of how places are shaped' .
The analysis that follows gathers research evidence together under four 'big ticket' policy arenas that governments (national and local) everywhere are typically concerned with: health, society, the economy and environment. These are the areas on which elections are won and lost as they impact so directly on the daily lives of citizens. Testing the extent to which these arenas are influenced by the quality of the local built environment is therefore a legitimate means to make a judgement about the value, broadly defined, of investing in the quality of the built environment; in other words, how do the qualities of place deliver value with regard to enhanced health outcomes, greater societal well-being, economic success and environmental sustainability. If a higher quality built environment adds value in and across these policy arenas, it follows that an intelligent approach to public policy should have a clear place quality dimension at its heart.

What is meant by place quality?
The other side of the coin is place quality. Again, the literature points to a host of over-lapping and poorly defined terms that all have relevance. Liveability, sense of place, urban environmental quality, physical capital, urban design, urbanism and even sustainability are all concepts / fields which are related, which overlap, and which incorporate ideas about the quality of the built environment. Equally, they are frequently contrasted or used as repositories in which almost anything fits (Massen 2002;Van Kamp et al. 2003;Brook Lyndhurst 2004).
The different conceptualizations owe their origins to different policy / practice traditions, each being multi-dimensional and multi-objective and often subject to their own normative prescriptions for what is a liveable place, high quality urban design, sustainable development, etc. Thus Witold Rybczynski (cited in Moore 2000, 208) describes such notions as being like an onion: It appears simple on the outside, but it's deceptive, for it has many layers. If it is cut apart there are just onion-skins left and the original form has disappeared. If each layer is described separately, we lose sight of the whole. By way of example, taking just one such conceptualization, Carmona and de Magalhaes (2009) define 12 measurable elements of 'local environmental quality': clean and tidy, accessible, attractive, comfortable, inclusive, vital and viable, functional, distinctive, safe and secure, robust, green and unpolluted, and fulfilling. Each of these elements, in turn, represents a complex amalgam of issues, that is experienced in a relative manner (in the sense that the experience of it can be either positive or negative), whilst the complexity of the whole spirals on and on.
Cutting through this complexity and relating the issue back to the discussion of value, one way of answering the question 'what is meant by place quality?' might simply be that a high quality place is one which returns the greatest value to its users with regard to meeting and sustaining them in healthy, socially rich and economically productive lifestyles that touch lightly on the environment. Reflecting this position, a deliberately broad and unconstrained notion of 'place quality' was adopted to guide the systematic review, with studies included as long as they related some measurable aspect of public and/or private value to one or more tangible 'qualities' of the built environment, for example, the presence of trees, a mix of uses, walkability, and so forth.
In fact, many of the research studies examined in the review define what they mean by 'place' , 'urban design' , 'urban quality' , 'environmental quality' or a whole host of other descriptors of the built environment quite differently, and most focus on particular very limited aspects or dimensions of what is a broad set of concerns. One consequence of this is that whilst place quality might be strongly associated with the quality of design in the built environment, it also goes well beyond by incorporating the processes and outcomes of development, regeneration and the long-term management of places (as well as their design); in other words the complete place-shaping process (Carmona 2014). In turn, this provides further support for the strategy adopted during the systematic review of seeking and including evidence that expands beyond the purely physical built environment to the social workings of place and to environmental sustainability.

Theorizing place value
The discussion so far can be represented in a simple conceptual framework ( Figure 1). This has three elements: • Policy goals from different policy arenas are mediated through particular qualities embodied in the built environment; • In helping (or not) to meet those goals, value is added (or deducted), defining a collective 'place value'; • Measures that add place value can in turn be used as a gauge for place quality, aka the desirable qualities of the built environment.
Following this logic, prioritizing a high quality built environment in decision making and associated public and private investments can (in theory at least) positively influence the delivery of a broad range of public policy goals, just as a disregard can detract from it. There is also (potentially) a virtuous loop, with the degree to which environments deliver value (and facilitate key public policy goals), determining whether they are intrinsically high quality or not. The question the research asks is, what does the empirical evidence say, and is this really the case?

The research
Systematic reviews are a standard approach used in the sciences to establish what is known and what is not known about a particular topic. They are particularly popular in the medical sciences where different studies can present conflicting findings on an issue and where there is a need to gauge the sum total of knowledge quickly and effectively in order to draw robust and reliable overarching conclusions (Brown et al. 2012). In recent years, these methodologies have also become more popular in the social sciences, driven by the spread of evidence-based policy in the 2000s (The Cabinet Office 2001).

Systematic review
Typically, systematic reviews begin with the identification of a key question or issue in order to focus the search. In this case the review focused on mapping out and presenting the wide range of research on the value added by the quality of place. This was guided by the relationships expressed in the conceptual framework in that research was sought that explicitly conflated aspects or qualities of the built environment with aspects of the public policy goals already outlined. The full range of the public policy dimensions eventually covered by the research is included in Figure 2, although it is important to note that at the start the list was more narrowly defined. The categories emerged as the review developed and as evidence coalesced around certain themes.
To start the review, appropriate search terms were identified and entered into a database of likely evidence sources. The narrower the search and the more specific the terms, the more straightforward a review is likely to be. In this case the terms 'value' and 'place' are widely used generic terms with broad meanings, and so initial searches using the Science Direct and Sage Databases narrowed the field down by using these terms alongside other identifiers such as urban design, planning, health, crime, social benefits, social inclusion, place-making and added value.
The search was conducted with a cut-off date of March 2017, with a simultaneous search of academic publications through Google Scholar taking the work up to July 2017. Combined, the initial hunts revealed approximately 3300 possible studies. A later search focusing specifically on environmental evidence was undertaken in late 2017. Using Science Direct, that search used 21 unique combinations of terms including: urban design, place, quality, value, pollution reduction, carbon reduction, conservation of built heritage, hydrology, sustainability and so forth. A review of approximately 6300 potential studies were identified from this work (once duplicate results across searches were removed). However, relatively few of these focused at the urban scale (as opposed to that of the building) or on factors that could be linked directly to particular urban qualities.
Concurrently, earlier similar reviews were examined, including Carmona et al. (2001a); and Woolley et al. (2004) that had been commissioned in the early 2000s by CABE. Since these reviews were conducted, research on the subject has ballooned, as have the scope of studies, the range of primary disciplines within which it is published, and the methodologies employed by researchers. This greater diversity was immediately obvious on launching the new review and informed the decision to take the broader view of 'place  quality' rather than 'design quality' which had been adopted in the earlier studies (Carmona 2016). It was starkly revealed in the percentages of studies from across the decades covered by the review (Figure 3), with the quantity of studies conducted in recent years spiralling. Undoubtedly this is also linked to the greater availability of journals electronically via the World Wide Web in recent years.
Whilst systematic reviews in the medical sciences avoid including publications that have not been through a peer-reviewing process, in the built environment field much valuable research is produced by companies, charities and public sector organizations and distributed via reports. As long as such work met the inclusion criteria discussed below, this 'grey' literature was also included in the review. Once a relevant study was identified, Google Scholar was further consulted in order to identify at least the first 20 related studies. This exercise often tapped into a broader body of similar research that was not always revealed using the key terms alone.
Together, these searches (of earlier similar reviews, the grey literature and related studies) revealed approximately 10,800 records. After removing the duplicates between this and the earlier search results, 13,700 records were identified for possible inclusion in the review.

Inclusion (and exclusion) criteria
From this long list of possible studies, a series of inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to narrow the selection down across three levels: first, through more critically reviewing the title of the publication to determine its relevance; second, at the level of the abstract; and third by exploring the text in full. Four inclusion criteria were used: • The study needed to investigate the relationship, whether positive of negative, between some quality of place, and at least one form of value relating to health outcomes, social well-being, economic success and environmental sustainability. • It needed to report on original research. Review articles were included but only if they drew out a clear new conclusion from a rigorous analysis of the literature. • The research reported needed to result in a clear conclusion relating to place quality and value. Other conclusions from the various studies examined (e.g., relating to process issues or policy recommendations) were not considered relevant for the purposes of this research. • The research methodology needed to be clear and robust. In this respect the grey literature was more carefully examined to ensure studies had used a rigorous methodology or drew from research that had.
When a research project resulted in more than one paper by the same research team looking at a closely related aspect of the work, only the more comprehensive paper was included in the review. The review also excluded research studies that focused exclusively on the construction or internal spaces of buildings, as well as that with only strategic (citywide or regional) relevance. In other words, there was a scale limitation to the studies included, which needed to be 'urban' and 'place' focused.
All 13,700 studies were examined against the inclusion criteria and in total, 271 studies were considered worthy of inclusion in the reviewapproximately 2% of the studies identified. These were classified against the four related public policy dimensions and the various sub-categories already set out ( Figure 2). Here it is important to note that a significant proportion of the research spanned more than one of the sub-categories, and occasionally (as will be discussed) more than one of the policy arenas.
Whilst the evidence reviewed was truly international in its origins, the search itself was restricted to English language articles and this inevitably biased the results. Of the 271 studies, 38% derived from the USA and 34% from the UK. Other significant contributors to the evidence base included other European countries (notably The Netherlands), Australia, China, South Korea and Canada. Whilst there was a remarkable consistency in many of the findings across very different cultural and environmental contexts, inevitably the research reviewed is dominated by a Western, Anglo-Saxon perspective, and so care needs to be taken in extrapolating the findings to other contexts.

The collective evidence on place value
This is not a review article that relates and discusses in detail the literature on a subject, nor is any claim made that every study included in the review was equally rigorous and definitive in its findings. Space simply does not permit a source by source discussion, and instead the contribution of the paper is in bringing together a large number of empirical studies to examine collectively what they reveal.
In this section, the evidence is brought together in four extended tables. 1 Similar studies are (as far as possible) grouped, and observations are made about the nature and scope of the evidence in the different categories and what, collectively, it tells us about the nature of place value. This is followed, as anticipated in the place value framework (Figure 1), by a discussion of the nature of place quality that the revealed dimensions of value in turn expose.

The evidence on place value and health outcomes
There is a large and rapidly growing body of evidence on the importance of place quality for health outcomes, primarily using scientific methodologies to explore the field (Table  1). A diverse range of physical qualities, and perceptions of those qualities, are studied, ranging from intangible issues such as the importance of a positive sense of place to very   tangible issues, including the presence of fast food stores in neighbourhoods. Some place qualities were investigated by multiple studies, notably the impact of greenery and landscape resources (including parks) on the physical and mental well-being of populations. The related issue of walkability was extensively researched, with a focus on whether the design of the built environment can encourage people out of their cars through the creation of attractive, safe settings within which people can walk to a mix of local facilities and amenities. Between these issues there was a tension, as lower density car-dependant environments integrate more greenery (often in private space) but discourage walking. By contrast, higher density walkable places encourage greater exercise, but with potentially negative health impacting side effects including noise, pollution and the absence of greenery.
Collectively the health evidence was remarkably consistent in its direction of travel, demonstrating that the way places are designed can play a major role in delivering place value care of the wide range of positive health benefits that can be delivered. These include: • Better physical health: lower obesity, less type 2 diabetes, lower blood pressure, reduced heart disease, lower rates of asthma and respiratory disease, faster recovery from illness, and from fatigue. • Better mental health: less stress and more psychological restfulness, reduced depression, anxiety and anger, reduced psychosis.  • Better general fitness: increased walking (for both travel and recreation), increased exercise, sport and recreation, and more cycling. • Greater daily comfort: reduced air pollution, heat stress, traffic noise and poor sanitation, and reduced exposure of lower socio-economic groups to the effects of debilitating neighbourhoods. • Enhanced quality of life: increased sense of emotional well-being and satisfaction, greater happiness, reduced fear and higher energy levels.

The evidence on place value and social outcomes
The research relating to social outcomes was more diverse than the health research, and more reliant on social scientific rather than scientific methodologies to explore the links ( Table 2). In this arena much is written, and many assertions are made in the literature, but the evidence is often open to a greater degree of interpretation, with more studies that failed to meet the inclusion criteria on the basis of a lack of research rigour. Large bodies of evidence were nevertheless collected relating to the impact of aspects of the design of the built environment on crime (notably burglary), on dimensions of social inclusion and social capital, and on the impact of design on urban liveability. Less, but still significant, evidence is available on road safety in the street environment, the creation and impact of urban vitality, and designing for play, learning and for physically enabling environments. Whilst there was some contrasting evidence relating to issues of street layout, and its impact on crime and sociability, in general the social evidence demonstrated that the way places are shaped has a major impact on delivering aspects of place value through social benefits that range from lower fearfulness to greater happiness. The social evidence is powerful in what it reveals, notably that the manner in which places are designed has the potential to deliver: • Fewer accidents: reduced collisions and casualties on the road, and reduced fearfulness of accidents. • Social integration: reduced stratification and greater integration of social groups and larger social networks locally, with stronger social support. • Lower rates of crime: reduced burglary from homes, lower street crime, less fear of crime, and stronger perceptions of safety. • Better educational outcomes: increased child independence and positive play behaviours, and enhanced learning and educational achievement. • Enhanced street level vitality and sociability: a richer public life, enhanced social interaction, and greater longevity of use in urban streets and spaces. • Stronger civic pride: an increased sense of pride, local morale, social resilience and community life, and enhanced social capital (social and political engagement) generally. • Greater inclusiveness: enhanced use of the city by marginalized and socio-economically disadvantaged groups, and greater female empowerment and acceptance of cultural and social difference. • Enabling environments: in older age and for those with disabilities.    (2004) Vital neighbourhood spaces green space provision (vs barren spaces) increased use and social activity (particularly amongst women) and reduction in anti-social behaviours B6. Inclusivity and social capital Thompson, Corkery, and Judd (2007) Community gardens and happy communities Presence of community gardens enhancing physical, emotional and spiritual well-being through opportunities to relax, undertake physical activity, socialize, mix with neighbours, learn environmental practices, food production Thompson and Kent (2014) Connecting and strengthening communities High quality, safe streets and spaces and contact with nature significant to health, social interaction and community building Worpole and Knox (2008) The

The evidence on place value and economic outcomes
Evidence relating to the economy was most numerous, accounting for almost 100 of the 271 studies selected as meeting the inclusion criteria (Table 3). Research methods here were diverse, but often related particular place quality dimensions to large-scale quantitative analyses of property datasets with the intention of extracting key explanatory variables for how and when economic value was added. In this task a wide range of studies sought to compare economic value with dimensions of greenness and open space provision, whilst other qualities of the built environment, for example, street layout, permeability, architectural design, and so forth, are typically examined separately in studies that focus on particular property sectors, notably residential or commercial. A smaller but relatively coherent group of studies focused on the impact that streetscape improvements have in their surrounding areas, whilst a more diverse collection of studies focused on the impact of the built environment on larger processes of economic development and regeneration, or on public spending (including on healthcare and social care costs). In this policy arena there was a remarkable confluence in the research, with very little conflicting evidence. This growing body of work suggests strong private as well as public benefits from place quality, and that this is, again, overwhelming given the richness of the available evidence. Caution is required, however, when interpreting the results as certain outcomes such as rising property values, may not always be considered desirable outcomes in every context; for example, where property values are already high and certain users and / or uses are being priced out of the market. Collectively the evidence suggests that how places are shaped can deliver: • Property uplift in the residential sector: influenced by access to views, trees and open space, lower pollution, mixed use (up to a point and as long as homes are not too close to retail), walkability, neighbourhood character, access to public transport (if not too close to homes), external appearance, public realm quality, connectivity and vitality. • Property uplift in the retail sector and reduced vacancy: influenced by urban greenery, walkability, public realm quality, external appearance, street connectivity, frontage continuity; all leading to increased retail viability. • Property uplift in the office sector, and reduced vacancy and depreciation: influenced by walkability, external appearance, design innovation and street connectivity. • Viable investments and extended regeneration benefits: by making investment more attractive, enhancing competitiveness through differentiation, and strengthening community support for development. • Reduced public expenditure: through reduced capital and maintenance costs for roads infrastructure, reduced public realm maintenance and management (including security) costs, support for the historic built environment and urban regeneration, lower crime and policing costs, and reduced health and social care expenditure (thanks to reduced levels of medication, prescriptions and hospitalization). • Higher local tax take: through attracting new development, and generating a greater willingness to pay for place services from businesses and communities alike. • Lower costs of living: through lower car use and public transport costs (more viable / cost effective public transport), and lower costs for health insurance, and reduced energy consumption and smaller carbon footprints (from transport, infrastructure and buildings). Property values are positively associated with accessibility to public transport and jobs, connectivity and walkability and negatively related to auto dominance Dittmar et al. (2007) Valuing sustainable urbanism Qualities of sustainable urbanism enhances development value in all markets (particularly when low demand) savills (2010) The value of residential layout Permeability, connectivity, street layout More permeable and connected street networks exhibit higher property values (connections at the local level only reduce value) asabere (1990) The value of residential street layout Cul-de-sac streets layouts generated a premium over grid street patterns savills (2016a) The value of placemaking investing in place-making investing early in high quality place-making rises values song and Knaap (2004)    There is a positive relationship between building quality and return on investment, notably from the resistance of rental values to depreciation Vandell and lane (1989) The economics of office architecture architectural quality a strong positive influence of design on rents and vacancy Hough and Kratz (1983) good architecture and the market architectural (aesthetic) excellence new architecturally significant office buildings carry a significant premium (not associated with old office buildings) baum (1994) Quality and retail property performance retail design (plan layout, durability, aesthetics) better configuration leads to higher income and capital return through rental growth. better external appearance leads to a higher capital return through yield. Joye et al. (2010) urban greenery, retail experience and spend urban greening, especially trees Trees were associated with higher ratings of amenity and visual quality. Trees are consistently associated with higher price points and higher levels of patronage Wolf (2003) urban greenery and retail valuations urban greenery Higher price valuations are mediated by inferences of district character and product quality, notably the presence of urban greenery nase, berry, and adair High street retail properties and quality of design aspects of quality design (connectivity, frontage continuity and variety, material quality and massing appropriateness) all these aspects of quality add to real estate value

Design and occupier productivity
Well-designed buildings (that better meets occupier needs) Well-designed buildings deliver substantial productivity boosts Carmona et al. (2001b) The value of urban design better urban design (more attractive, accessible, legible, connected, mixed, resilient, etc.) a wide range of economic and social benefits, including higher returns on investments (rental returns and capital values); responding to occupier demand; helping to deliver more lettable area; reducing management, maintenance, energy and security costs; more contented and productive workforces; differentiating places and raising their prestige; boosting civic pride and enhancing civic image Mcindoe et al. (2005) The value of better urban design better urban design (local character, connectivity, density, mixed uses, adaptability, high quality public realm) attracts skilled workers, assists in promotion and branding; reinforces a sense of identity; increases vitality and viability of local services; encourages walking and cycling and greater social cohesion; reduces pollution; enhances social equity and economic activity; encourages safe use of space, civic pride and engagement.  (2016) The value of healthy places Healthy and unhealthy neighbourhoods Many expensive 'lifestyle diseases' are preventable, and are strongly influenced by the built environment, leading to high health costs and loss of productivity. Poor people are also more likely to live in neighbourhoods which are worse for health litman (2004) economic value of walkability increased walkability increases the access (of people to goods) and decreases consumer costs, notably in personal travel, alongside significant health care savings to society leinberger and alfonzo (2012) The economics of walkability increased walkability increase a place's triple bottom line: profit (economics), people (equity) and planet (environment). notably in office, residential and retail rent premiums and capital values. in higher retail sales and lower transportation costs, but also higher housing costs sheldon et al. (2007) Valuing the urban realm good, bright, even lighting after dark; vehicles prohibited from parking on the pavement; direct green man crossings; and pavements with no cracks and which are even People are willing to pay for street improvements through increased local taxation or public transport fares to enhance the quality of streets  • Higher productivity: more efficient property and workers, easier recruitment of employees, the enabling of higher density development and more efficient land use, greater adaptability of buildings and spaces over time, and avoiding the unnecessary costs associated with bad design.

The evidence on place value and environmental outcomes
The final grouping of evidence was also the thinnest with regard to the quantity of robust evidence uncovered (Table 4). This may seem surprising given the quantity of energy related research being conducted globally, but can be explained by the place focus at the urban scale, which excluded in the process the very large number of studies from the sustainability literature that relate to technical construction / building design issues, the many transport related studies that focus on transport modal choices, energy studies focusing on strategic energy generation and use, and the extensive range of generic landscape and ecology focused studies without a clear place dimension. Of those that remained, evidence on the The cost of poor housing Poorly constructed and designed housing The total cost of poor quality housing on health is similar to that of smoking or alcohol simmons, Desyllas, and nicholson (2006) failed design bad design (that which fails) Design that fails carries huge potential costs, economically, socially and environmentally. Those who pay for bad design are typically the community in general.   Wang et al. (2017) Co 2 emissions in megacities urban structure, public transport reductions in urban sprawl and more integrated public transportation networks reduce Co 2 emissions D3. Thermal comfort, cooling and pollution Yahia et al. (2017) urban design and thermal comfort outdoors in warm-humid climates building height, tree cover areas with low-rise buildings suffer from greater heat stress in urban spaces. Dense trees help to enhance the thermal comfort conditions bowler et al. (2010) Cool towns and cities Parks and trees green sites are cooler than non-green sites. larger parks are cooler than smaller ones. shade from trees lowers temperatures. Cooling extends beyond a green area's boundaries Xu et al. (2017) The cooling and energy saving effect of landscape shading and trees optimal cooling benefits can be obtained by a combination of manmade and natural elements, notably designed shading and trees swinbourne and rosenwax (   relationship between the environment and quality of place relied on a mix of natural and social scientific data which were categorized into four types. Most prolific were energy studies relating to particular urban form / density profiles and studies with a focus on urban cooling and thermal comfort. Smaller categories of studies focused, respectively, on transport integration and use and on questions of local ecology and resilience. A remarkable consistency in what the evidence revealed helped to overcome its relative paucity, with many of the findings strongly reinforcing those associated with the other policy arenas. Collectively the research pointed to multiple potential environmental benefits from how places are shaped, including: • Reduced energy use and associated carbon (greenhouse gas) emissions: through the creation of urban forms that need less heating and cooling and require less private (vehicle) travel. • Adaptive reuse: buildings, spaces and urban infrastructure that is adaptable over time and more able to support the changing needs of society within the existing built fabric (and its embodied energy). • A viable local exchange network: with local facilities, amenities and employment opportunities reducing the need to travel further afield and supporting local economic and social resilience. • Reduced heat stress and enhanced thermal comfort: particularly for pedestrians through greater greening and shading in urban areas. • Reduced waste: through a lower demand for construction materials and a reduction in construction waste. • Reduced pollution: including atmospheric pollution and noise pollution (with knock-on health and well-being benefits). • Greater resilience: through accommodating and managing hydrological cycles and working with (rather than against) natural phenomena. • Ecological diversity: through supporting a greater diversity of species and a greener built environment.

The collective evidence on place quality
As well as revealing much about the nature of place value through the lens of the different policy arenas, the collective evidence also revealed a good deal about the types of places that deliver that value, and more specifically about the qualities of the built environment that do that. As was argued earlier, this can be seen as one way of defining what is meant by place quality, in other words, those places that deliver greatest value, in all its guises, are by implication of high quality. They may not be particularly unique, innovative or remarkable in any way, but day-to-day they successfully influence positive health, social, economic and environmental outcomes. Whilst, in order to relate the evidence to the constituent policy arenas, these different forms of value have been separated and discussed individually, much of the research evidence cuts across the different arenas and sub-categories. A few studies cut across three of the arenas (e.g. Carmona et al. 2001b;McInloe et al. 2005;Leinberger and Alfonzo 2012) and explore triple bottom line benefits of investing in place quality. A much larger group connects two policy arenas, reinforcing the multiple potential benefits from well-designed interventions in the built environment 2 : • Health and environmental: notably tying a greener and less polluted environment to better general health across the generations, e.g. Shield and Dockrell (2003); Braubach and World Health Organization (2011);Honold et al. (2012). • Health and social: linking the health benefits of more exercise with that of a safer, more sociable and inclusive public realm, e.g. Jackson (2003) Looking across the 271 studies, many are highly focused on particular types of intervention and particular outcomes. Collectively, however, the results can be aggregated in order to determine which associations between Place value and the different qualities of place are stronger, which weaker and which are negative, or simply still uncertain given the available evidence.
There is, for example, a VERY strong positive association between place derived value of all types (health, social, economic and environmental) and six qualities: greenness in the built the environment (notably the presence of trees and grass, water, and open spacethe latter if of good quality); a mix of uses (notably the diversity of land uses within a neighbourhood); low levels of traffic; the walkability and bikeability of places (derived from their strategic street-based connectivity and the quality of the local public realm); the use of more compact (less sprawling and fragmented) patterns of development; and ready convenient connection to a good public transport network. These can be seen as first order highly desirable qualities that also happen to be very tangible and objective and therefore measurable qualities. By implication, therefore, if the will is there, they can be readily articulated and specified by policy makers through the formal tools of design governance (Carmona 2017) in a manner that can 'require' their delivery.
Next there is a strong positive association between place derived value of all types and fifteen often less tangible, sometimes subjective, and generally more difficult to measure qualities of place. Whilst the evidence on each of these remains powerful, it is not definitive, in the same way as it is for the qualities already discussed. Partly this seems to be because the more 'difficult' nature of these qualities makes researching them more challenging, and so there is often less research available on which to make a definitive assessment. There are also greater challenges in specifying exactly what quality means in these areas, making the evidence that is available more equivocal.
These second order desirable qualities include: visual permeability; sense of place (distinctiveness); pedestrian scale (of streets and buildings); façade continuity; natural surveillance (the creation of defensible space); presence of street level activity / background movement; good street lighting; a denser street network (urban grain); low traffic speeds; low neighbourhood noise; presence of attractive / welcoming / comfortable / adaptable public spaces; positive (sociable) public/private threshold features; integration of built heritage; integration of natural features and a diverse ecosystem; and perceived architectural quality and beauty generally in the built environment. Whilst some of these, for example, façade continuity or traffic speeds are relatively easily specified, most need more careful interpretation in the light of local circumstances and this will lend itself more easily to control through the informal tools of design governance (Carmona 2017). They are therefore likely to be 'aspirational' rather than required qualities.
The other side of the coin are those place qualities where the collective research evidence reveals a VERY strong negative association with place derived value of all types. Here the strength of the evidence is just as strong as for the 'first order' qualities already discussed, but in the opposite direction as qualities to be 'avoided' when shaping the built environment. Eight of these negative qualities were identified: car dependent and extensive forms of suburbanization; relentlessly hard urban space (absence of local green space); too much very local permeability; the presence of rear parking courts and other segregated areas; poor maintenance / dilapidation (including of green spaces); a sense of overcrowding in residential areas; the presence of unfavourable food stores; and the impact of roads with higher traffic loads and speeds, wider carriageway widths, or which are elevated. Like the first order qualities, these qualities are largely tangible and measurable and therefore capable of direct control (in a preventative manner) through the formal tools of design governance.
A final category encompasses those place qualities for which the research evidence is conflicting, and in connection with which it is not possible to be definitive about the value added (or not) by particular qualities. There are nine of these: • Different architectural styles (about which the evidence is simply unclear). • Higher versus lower densities of development (where within the health research, and with regard to sociability versus perceived crime, the evidence conflicts). • Extreme densities (where conflicting evidence is apparent relating to carbon reduction, social welfare and ecological richness). • High-rise living (where the evidence is unclear, although tending to warn against families living in such circumstances). • Street length and pedestrian connectivity (where divergences are apparent within the evidence on health versus crime). • Cul-de-sacs (where, within the evidence on crime and safety and with regard to property value, sociability and children's play, conflicts are apparent). • Vehicle / pedestrian separation (about which the evidence is weak and indecisive).
• Use of shared spaces (where conflicts are apparent, particularly with regard to the evidence on actual and perceived safety). • The economic impact of the proximity of retail to residential properties (about which conflicts exist on the relative size and impact of negative externalities sometimes associated with local retail).
On all these qualities, more research is required, and care should be taken when seeking, without very good reason, to be prescriptive on such issues in policy or guidance. This might include, for example, requiring the use of high-rise residential blocks in urban areas or culde-sacs in suburban ones.
It is possible to envision these different qualities as sitting on a ladder (Figure 4) that climbs from those place qualities to be avoided when shaping the built environment (because of their very possible negative impact on place value); to those where the impact is as yet unknown (and where care should be taken to avoid any negative side effects); to second order place qualities that are strongly associated with the delivery of place derived value of all types (and which should be the aspiration of built environment policy and development-related decision making); to those first order qualities which are fundamental and which should be required as a means to maximize place value through good design.

Conclusions
This paper has examined the notion that place quality and place value are inherently interlinked. It was first theorized that high quality places deliver greater value to their users in terms of the positive impact those places have on the delivery of a large number of health, social, economic and environmental public policy goals. It was also theorized that there is a virtuous loop, with the degree to which environments deliver value (and facilitate key public policy goals) determining whether they are intrinsically high quality, or not. The question the research asked was: what does the empirical evidence say, and is this really the case? Three overarching conclusions can be drawn to address this.
The first reflects the overwhelming nature of the evidence, the very large majority of which points in the same broad direction, that better place quality adds value economically, socially and with regard to health and environmental outcomes. The impacts of place are profound, contribute benefits to society over short, medium and long-term time horizons, and reverberate throughout the lives of citizens across all socio-economic strata and globally.
Second, whilst the different types of value listed under each of the sub-headings in Tables 1 to 4 may not be directly comparable (e.g. mental well-being versus return on a property investment), may flow differentially to different stakeholders and over different time horizons (e.g. short-term profit to developers versus long-term health benefits to society), and perhaps not to those who paid for them at all (e.g. the impact of street trees may not be truly felt until they are fully grown); all are important and can be considered together as a varied and ever changing basket of place value. In this, value of different types flows from the qualities of place, and feeds into a virtuous loop in which quality dictates value and value defines quality.
Finally, in a context where the governance of design (and place) is increasingly a shared endeavour encompassing critical inputs from public, private, third and community sectors, such a shared perspective on the importance of place quality is all the more important and (where it exists) powerful in its impact. Place quality is not a mysterious and luxurious aspiration only to be considered when things are good or only for the wealthy. Instead, as the evidence collected in this paper shows, it is a basic necessity of urban life with profound and far-reaching impacts on the lives of citizens today and tomorrow. It is so important to our basic well-being that it should be the expectation of all. Fortunately, it is also a field of knowledge about which we know a good deal, including the essentials of what makes a good place, and how the way we shape places can add value.
We can use this knowledge to advance the case for quality when place-shaping policy, project or investment decisions are being made. Or we can ignore it and suffer the consequences.

Notes
1. See www.place-value-wiki.net for a more extensive abstract of each study and link to the original source. 2. For convenience and clarity, cross-cutting research was located in only one of the Tables 1 to 4, reflecting the dominant focus of each study.