Keywords

1 Introduction

Well-being is both objective and subjective. Objective measures of well-being are basic human needs such as food, education, health, safety, and shelter. Subjective well-being relies on less tangible measurements such as satisfaction, social well-being, happiness, and sense of meaning. Both objective and subjective well-being can be measured by asking people how they feel about their well-being (CDC, 2018). To understand well-being, it is important to understand health because it is one of the essential components of well-being. The World Health Organization defines health as not merely the absence of illness but a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being. Physically healthy means an optimal functioning of the body and the absence of illness. Mental health indicates an absence of mental illnesses and encompasses positive issues such as peace of mind, commitment, confidence, and social connections. There is a lack of comprehensive literature explaining how designing housing projects impacts occupants’ well-being in the Indian context. This study aims to explain the importance of design aspects and their impact on the health and well-being of residents in urban housing projects.

1.1 Design of Indoor Spaces in Housing

The quality of housing and its condition are important indicators of health and wellness. Lack of basic infrastructures such as access to safe drinking water, ineffective waste disposal, and inadequate food storage are associated with possibilities of infectious diseases. The quality of a house depends on size and scale. Crowded housing with too many people living in the same house indicates the possibility of tuberculosis (Krieger & Higgins, 2002). Adequate house size for a particular family size is essential for efficiently carrying out daily functions. The ability to own or rent a particular house depends on people's affordability.

The number of rooms, size of rooms, and the number of people living in a house are studied to relate to their subjective well-being. In a study conducted by Chrys Foye to understand the satisfaction levels of males and females, an increase in living room size shows a weak positive linear satisfaction on men's mental health (Foye, 2017). When there are more occupants and less pace, people feel congested and experience a lack of privacy (Fuller, 1993). The house space should be adequate to carry out all routine functions and should be flexible to accommodate additional activities such as physical exercise, yoga, or meditation space. A functional design should also be flexible for unexpected situations and changes in the post-pandemic lifestyle, such as working from home and virtual training in education (Zarrabi et al., 2021). Another lifestyle change after COVID-19 pandemic is that more people are seeing physical activity as a way to maintain good physical and mental health. Although there are numerous health benefits of exercising outdoors in nature, certain people may also prefer exercising or doing yoga in their houses, depending on their cultural restrictions. The design of the house should also address these changing needs by providing flexible space arrangement options with adequate ventilation. Open and semi-open spaces such as balconies and terraces can also help reduce stress by providing spaces for social interactions (Zarrabi et al., 2021). Providing adequate balcony space can be a valuable design component of a house as the balconies, terraces, and extended windows can be suitable spaces for visual contact with the outside environment; they can be spaces for physical exercises, gardening, or simply enjoying outside views. Making balconies usable is an essential task as they need to be well-designed to ensure proper shading from harsh sunlight and heavy rains.

The design of a house should focus on satisfying the basic needs of adequate air circulation, daylighting, and indoor thermal comfort for comfortable living. Houses designed with adequate provision of daylighting; airflow are two essential factors for the mental health of residents. Low natural light exposure is associated with diminished health and well-being, and it can lead to reduced sleep quality, depressed mood, lack of energy, and reduced social relations (Christoffersen, 2020). Studies show that exposure to daily sunlight can decrease the disease risks for tuberculosis and leprosy, along with the most common vitamin D deficiencies (Osibona et al., 2021). Lack of insufficient natural lighting is shown to have more individuals reporting depression in Europe (Brown, 2011). Morning illumination is also associated with sleep quality (Youngstedt et al., 2004). Sensory comfort from sound, touch, and smell is essential for occupant comfort (Andargie et al., 2019). Designing homes with acoustically appropriate materials, selecting ergonomically safer and comfortable materials, and avoiding toxic paints can be helpful for indoor sensory comfort; similarly, outdoor lighting is associated with perceived safety and improves public activities. Indoor air quality and air change rate are other factors that influence health and well-being. Rooms with natural cross ventilation provision can positively affect the mental health of inhabitants. Inadequate air changes are associated with respiratory disorders and an increased risk of airborne viruses (Du et al., 2012). The indoor conditions of a house, such as dampness, coldness, and mold growth, may lead to chronic respiratory problems.

1.2 Design of Outdoor Housing Environment

The outdoor environment of housing can be broadly classified under two levels: the site level and the second is the neighborhood level. The Housing projects at the site level typically contain all the required amenities as part of the site plan. Sites usually contain common community spaces such as green open spaces, open gymnasiums, walking tracks, gathering spaces, and landscaping elements. The neighborhood level is where the housing projects interact with the surroundings for necessary functions and amenities.

Studies show a significant correlation between accessible green open spaces and the health and well-being of residents. The size and scale of the open spaces and opportunities for various activities by different user groups directly impact people's activity levels (Wang et al., 2019). Neighborhoods with access to green open spaces, recreational sites, schools, shopping, walking, and sociable spaces can promote good health and well-being (Jackson & Kochtitzky, 2010; Krieger & Higgins, 2002; Stansfeld et al., 2000). Activities such as Walking in a natural environment are shown to positively affect emotions and reduce anger/depression (Hartig et al., 2003). Areas with dedicated walking and jogging tracks offer safer and more enjoyable spaces for people's physical activities. Comfortable surface materials and regular maintenance are crucial for sensory and thermal comfort. Design Features like the availability of water bodies offer multiple benefits in residential areas; they mitigate the urban heat island effect and distressed people, create a calm and relaxing environment, encourage biodiversity, increase interactions among residents, and generate play opportunities for children (White et al., 2020). The health and well-being of residents are directly related to the quality and quantity of trees and forests in the surrounding areas. Some of the benefits of trees and dense vegetation include reducing pollutants in the air, reducing surface temperature, reducing crime, increasing property values, increasing cognitive function and mood state improvement, etc. (Wolf et al., 2020). A greater amount of canopy cover is associated with a lower prevalence of overweight and obesity at the neighborhood level. Both indoor and outdoor gardening is a therapeutic activity that can improve residents’ mental health (Thompson, 2018).

Residential spaces are becoming more mechanical and less social because the primary concern of urban residents has reduced to have a place to live. Sociability is primarily a privilege because the present situation in cities shows that sociability comes at the cost of time and affordability. Humans are primarily social beings, and the purpose of human settlements should be to strengthen the social ties among people in communities. Sociability should be an essential component of housing design, and it should be affordable and accessible to a wide range of economic groups. The site plans of housing projects allow for designing various incidental and spontaneous activities for people to engage in conversations. The interactions can be as short as mere eye contact, but the possibility of looking at others and interacting with others is essential for well-being of residents. Sociability also depends on the way spaces are designed for diverse ages, genders, abilities, and likings. Participation of residents is a helpful method of understanding what kind of spaces people like to use and interact in the outdoor environment should also offer third places that function as unique public spaces for social interactions and provide opportunities for sociability, spontaneity, community building, and emotional expressiveness. Third places, such as restaurants, cafes, and shopping destinations, are virtual spaces for social interactions. Regardless of where people go, meet and greet each other, the mere feeling of having access to third places enhances the quality of life (Jeffres et al., 2009). Here the quality of life is closely associated with the subjective aspects of well-being (Salvador-Carulla et al., 2014). Literature suggests that newcomers in communities require time to adjust to what people consider third places for meeting. Well-designed community spaces should decrease the time of familiarization for the newcomers.

The quality of the neighborhood is an essential determinant of health and well-being for residents. The location and surrounding context of housing projects affect how members can organize their everyday lives. At the site level, the spatial organization of buildings, open spaces, and other services are the primary focus for designers to ensure basic functioning. The urban design concepts like legibility, imageability, serial vision, or urban form can be helpful in the housing projects to organize the built environment because the urban housing projects mainly deal with large areas of land compared to individual residential projects. The building bylaws also allow a small amount of built-up commercial space in the urban housing projects to facilitate the requirements for daily essentials. The design of these commercial spaces could become a point of contact for the housing projects and surroundings if they are designed so that the outsiders can also have access to the facilities. The design should focus on achieving a sufficiently controlled yet seamless urban environment where the boundaries can be blurred between the housing projects and surroundings.

Neighborhood density is vital for the overall well-being of the residents. Increased neighborhood density impacts the availability of green open spaces resulting in fewer outdoor play opportunities, and people tend to spend less time outdoors for children (van der Burgt & Gustafson, 2013). Some problems associated with surroundings, such as poor air quality because of proximity to emissions from vehicles or industries, noise exposure, and sites closer to improper waste disposal, are essential to consider while selecting a location for housing. Noise disturbances differ across different population groups; compared to youth and children, older people are usually more affected by notice and experience sleep disturbances. Moderate to high noise levels impact verbal memory tasks and attention (Stansfeld et al., 2000). Neighborhoods with higher traffic also limit children's independent mobility, and it affects their physical and mental health (van der Burgt & Gustafson, 2013).

The outdoor environment of housing should lead to a sense of community and belonging. The sense of community is significantly associated with participants’ evaluation of the quality of their community (Davidson & Cotter, 1991). It indicates the association of people with their community forming belongingness to the place where they live. Studies show that context influences the sense of belongings of individuals with a variation in age and gender (Cicognani et al., 2014). The level of opportunities, also called affordances, is essential for the feeling of being included and belonging to a community. Affordances for active leisure such as exercise or playing sports typically relate to children's more positive well-being than passive leisure activities such as watching television, reading, or computer usage (Holder et al., 2009). For adults, structured leisure relates to high-skill development and overall well-being. Here, structured leisure leads to specific skills or competencies, whereas unstructured leisure is enjoyable but does not necessarily develop any skills (Bartko & Eccles, 2003).

A sense of safety is another critical design factor for the well-being of people. Studies show that when people perceive an area to be unsafe, it impacts people's mental health (Blackman et al., 2001). Mental health problems are also higher in deprived areas with poor housing conditions. People living in multi-dwelling homes who refrain from going out based on their perception of safety are predators of ill-health (Berglund et al., 2017). outdoor lighting is associated with perceived safety and improved public activities (Christoffersen, 2020).

Owning a house is not just a need; it is also a mental satisfaction and gives a sense of pride to people. Apart from owning a house, renting a house is a common situation in India when people migrate to other cities for employment. Studies show a direct relationship between increased housing prices and the physical and mental health of house owners (van der Burgt & Gustafson, 2013). Although housing prices seem to be outside the design purview, housing projects’ design, materials, and operationalization can significantly increase or decrease prices. Table 1 shows the housing design factors of consideration for health and well-being identified from the literature review.

Table 1 Factors for Indoor and Outdoor design of housing projects
Full size table

2 Methodology

A mixed-method approach was adopted to understand residents’ perception of their health and well-being in the housing projects they are presently living in. A mixed-method approach is appropriate for this research because it offers flexibility in using different methods to identify the design aspects that influence health and well-being. The methodology of research was divided into three step processes.

Step-1: Identifying appropriate housing projects for the case study.

In India, depending on the annual income of households, they are categorized as Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), Low-Income Group (LIG), Middle-Income Group (MIG), and High-Income Group (HIG). There are no variations in the family size of each economic group, but the size of houses changes as the affordability of each category of the economic group is different. This study is focused on low-, middle- and high-income categories.

Case studies were eight different housing projects from Mangalore and Manipal Cities in India. All eight housing projects were selected based on the “building height” as a parameter, and there were both low-rise and high-rise housing projects in the selected case studies. The details of all the housing projects are shown in Table 2 and the locations of projects are shown in Figs. 1 and 2. An equal number of low-rise and high-rise projects were selected to understand the variations in the residents’ perceptions of health and well-being in the low-rise and high-rise projects. Four low-rise and four high-rise residential projects were identified through preliminary visits and observations. Necessary permissions were obtained before finalizing the list of case studies. The images of all eight case studies are shown in Figs. 3–10. Figure 3—Veekay Park Apartments, Fig. 4— KEB Quarters, Fig. 5—Rajeev Nagar Colony, Fig. 6—Spas Garden, Fig. 7—Mandavi Emerald, Fig. 8—Inland Windsor, Fig. 9—Raheja Waterfront, Fig. 10—Brigade Pinnacle.

Table 2 Details of low-rise and high-rise housing projects in Mangalore and Manipal
Full size table
Fig. 1
A map exhibits the locations of 7 housing projects in Mangalore. The projects are Raheja Waterfront Apartments, Inland Windsors, Brigade Pinnacle, Veekay Park Apartments, S P A S Villas, Rajeev Nagar Housing Colony, and K E B Quarters.

Locations of 7 housing projects in Mangalore

Full size image
Fig. 2
A map exhibits the location of a housing project in Manipal. The first housing project is Mandavi Emerald.

Location of 1 housing project in Manipal

Full size image
Fig. 3
A photograph of the bottom view of Veekay part apartments imposing buildings and a prominent staircase serving as the entrance.

Veekay park apartments

Full size image
Fig. 4
photograph of K E B Quarters features charming houses lining the sides of tree-adorned roads, with a backdrop of network poles. The central road adds a picturesque element.

KEB quarters

Full size image
Fig. 5
A photograph of Rajeev Nagar Colony captures a two-storey house against the backdrop of a pole and a foreground road. A woman is seen diligently working inside the house, and clothes are hung on the balcony.

Rajeev nagar colony

Full size image
Fig. 6
A photograph of the spa's garden with lush surroundings with an abundance of trees and small plants. A charming wooden plank gate and cabin are visible.

Spas garden

Full size image
Fig. 7
A front-view photograph of Mandavi Emerald Apartments reveals a multi-storey architectural marvel, complemented by a lush garden with vibrant trees and grass.

Mandavi emerald

Full size image
Fig. 8
A bottom view photograph of the multi-storey Inland Windsor apartment with a road in the foreground.

Inland windsor

Full size image
Fig. 9
A photograph captures the grandeur of the multi-storey Raheja Waterfront Apartments, with a foreground exhibits a well-organized parking area filled with cars.

Raheja waterfront

Full size image
Fig. 10
An aerial view photograph of Brigade Pinnacle with a well-defined parking area, lush gardens, and elegant fountains. In the backdrop, a vegetative forest and residential buildings.

Brigade pinnacle

Full size image

Step 2: Conducting Case Studies and Interviews

Case studies were conducted using two methods, i.e., observations and semi-structured interviews. The observation method was used to identify the design aspects of housing projects and the spatial quality. The observations were based on the activities happening in and around the housing project at the time of visit by the research team. The interactions of the people with their built environment were noted. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to understand residents’ perceptions of housing design for their health and well-being.

Step:3 Data collection and data analysis.

The data collected through a mixed-method approach were categorized into 2 types one is the notes from observations, and the second is questionnaire responses. The observations by the research team were used to interpret the design and usability of each residential project. The interview data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to conclude residents’ perceptions.

2.1 Case Studies

The case studies were conducted using Observations and Interviews. The study was conducted by the author as lead researcher along with a team of 24 undergraduate students of B.Arch. program. One low-rise and one high-rise housing project was assigned to a team of 6 students for conducting onsite observations and semi-structured interviews using both closed-ended and open-ended questionnaires. Each team thoroughly gathered secondary data about the project, such as project location, project age, surrounding facilities, and the number of housing units and the information is shown in Table 2.

A base plan of the site was prepared to map the observations and activities happening at the site level. Building floor plans were not available in most of the projects, so each team prepared a hand-drawn representative floor plan by going into at least one house with the residents’ permission. The observations were conducted at two different levels. One was the indoor level (house level), where a few numbers of selected houses were observed for their internal planning, design, and space utilization by the occupants. The second was at the outdoor level (site and surrounding level); placement of buildings, location of entrances, green open spaces, parking spaces, materials, and other amenities were observed for their usage by the residents. In the neighborhood, a walkable distance of 500 m was observed for existing facilities and the perception of residents of the housing project towards their surroundings.

A semi-structured interview method was used to study residents’ perceptions of their health and well-being with respect to the design of their house, site, and surroundings. The survey team conducted 100 household (families) interviews in March 2022 for one week in the selected low-rise and high-rise housing projects. The average outdoor temperature was between 33 and 38 degrees Celsius, which was comfortable for conducting indoor and outdoor surveys. A random sampling process was used for conducting surveys. A target of 15 families in each housing project was set for all survey teams to bring uniformity to the survey data. The number of surveys differed from the target because of the unavailability and unwillingness of respondents. Each team conducted interviews by asking questions from the semi-structured questionnaire, and responses were recorded on questionnaires. All responses were recorded using a Likert scale with five choices: very unsatisfactory, unsatisfactory, neutral, satisfactory, and very satisfactory. The data from the responses are then analyzed using statistical methods of mean and standard deviation.

Observations of all eight projects show that there are house typologies that are 2bhk or more with a minimum carpet area of 900 Square feet. Individuals own houses in seven out of eight projects, and one project is under the ownership of industry. The primary indoor design of the houses in all projects meets the user requirements in terms of various rooms.

The observations from all eight projects show some variations in the results from low-rise and high-rise housing projects in terms of the cost of housing units and available amenities. Aspects like the cost of the houses, nature of control inside the premises of housing projects, and facilities available to the residents are common aspects observed. The housing projects are primarily focused on fulfilling the basic needs and amenities following building bylaws. In both low-rise and high-rise housing projects, internal roads, green open spaces, and clubhouses with basic facilities are noticed. Although these projects contain the required amenities, there is a significant gap between the observations and interview responses.

3 Results

Result analysis is done based on the satisfaction rates given by the participants in the interview. The scores of interviews under each parameter were coded using the Likert scale, and result analysis was performed using descriptive statistics. The interview scores from low-rise and high-rise housing projects were compared to draw the observations as shown in Table 3. At the indoor level, the mean scores of functional comfort and safety in the house are close to a very satisfactory rating in both project types; the mean score is slightly lower in the low-rise housing projects (4.20) than in high-rise projects (4.68). Indoor thermal comfort is close to average in both typologies, with a slightly lower mean score in high-rise (3.15) than low-rise (3.38). Adequacy of daylighting is nearly similar in both typologies, with a slightly lower mean score in low rise (4.52) than high rise (4.70). Adequate shading to balcony and openings in satisfactory in both categories with low rise (4.48) being slightly better than high rise (4.11). The adequate space for physical activity is unsatisfactory in low-rise typology (2.16) and nearly satisfactory in high-rise (3.85). Visual comfort and contact with nature are unsatisfactory in both low rise (1.92) and high rise (2.40). The ratings of usability of windows and balconies during the rainy season are nearly average in low rise (3.40) and high rise (3.38). The water leakage, dampness, and maintenance issues are unsatisfactory in low rise (2.74) and high rise (2.53).

Table 3 Indoor-level health and well-being in the low-rise and high-rise housing projects
Full size table

Out of eight selected parameters selected for understanding the perception of indoor health and well-being in the low-rise and high-rise housing projects, the observations from mean and standard deviations show that the scores are slightly better in low-rise housing projects in four parameters idoor, i.e., indoor thermal comfort, adequate shading to balconies and openings, the usability of balconies and windows during rains, water leakage, dampness, and other maintenance issues. High-rise housing projects have better scores in the remaining four parameters, i.e., functional comfort and safety in the house, adequate daylighting in all rooms, adequate space for physical activity, and visual comfort and contact with nature.

The perceived health and well-being of the residents in the outdoor level of housing projects comprising the site and the surrounding context are evaluated based on eight parameters, as shown in Table 4. Each parameter's mean and standard deviations across projects are analyzed and compared to interpret the results. The results show that the mean scores of Accessible parks/green open spaces for physical activity in both low-rise(1.68) and high-rise(1.62) housing projects are very unsatisfactory. Sensory comfort in the area (from sound, air quality, and odor) is satisfactory in low rise (4.08) and unsatisfactory in high rise(2.72). The sense of safety and privacy is very satisfactory in both low rise(4.78) and high rise(4.88). Sociability is satisfactory in the low rise(4.34) and nearly satisfactory in the high rise(3.90). The availability of daily needs within walkable distance is rated as just above average in the low rise (3.46) and satisfactory in high rise (4.12). The outdoor thermal comfort is satisfactory in both low rise (4.20) and high rise (4.02), a slightly higher score is received in the low rise. The functional comfort for children and older people is nearly satisfactory in low rise (3.76) and high rise (4.28). The ease of navigation in the site and surrounding area is rated as average in low rise (3.02) and high rise (3.28).

Table 4 Outdoor level health and well-being in the low-rise and high-rise housing projects
Full size table

Out of eight parameters, low-rise housing projects have received higher scores in four parameters, i.e., Accessible park/green open spaces for a physical activity near the house, sensory comfort in the area (Sound, air quality, and smell), and sociability outdoor thermal comfort in the surrounding area. The high-rise project score is higher in the remaining four parameters, i.e., sense of safety and privacy in the surrounding area, availability of daily needs within walkable distance, functional comfort for children and older people, ease of navigation, and walkability in the site and surrounding area.

From the literature, it is expected that the health and well-being vary with the design factors of indoor and outdoor environment. There were no similar studies in Indian contexts that identified the health and well-being factors in low- and high-rise housing projects. The study expected some level of variation in the perceived health and well-being of inhabitants as the design of indoor and outdoor environments of housing projects were observed having differences; the results identified more specific factors under the formulated interviews where the variations are evident among the two typologies in Mangalore city.

4 Discussion

From the identified conceptual list of factors from the literature, this research has evaluated the housing projects based on direct observations, and the other aspects were evaluated through semi-structured interviews. The observations show that all housing projects have fulfilled the basic space requirements and offer functional comfort in their spatial planning. Some projects are observed to have compromised on the amenities, such as providing accessible green spaces for physical activity. Even though most of the housing projects in the study consist of parks, there seems to be a difference in the availability of parks and perceived accessibility to physical activity. Accessible physical activity for various user groups, such as children, older people, and women, is crucial for their health and well-being. The residents also indicate the lack of physical activity-based designs and facilities through the rating in the interviews. In some projects, the playgrounds are provided, but not usable as they are not planned for the affordances of diverse use groups. This study also validates that even though the selected projects are mostly in the affordable range of LIG, MIG, and HIG groups, the accessible green open spaces are still not affordable. The housing projects with the existing regulations on the provision of green open spaces may not be able to satisfy per-capita green open space requirements within the projects’ premises as they only regulate ground coverage and indicate minimum open space based on site area but not on the population density of the project. The planning and policymakers should also consider this while setting rules for open spaces in the group housing projects.

The usability of balconies and windows during rain is another important design factor in housing projects. Cities such as Mangalore receive rainfall for more than six months. The balconies, windows, and openings need sufficient covering and should offer usability throughout the year. Water leakage and dampness issues are prevalent in places with heavy rainfall, the buildings should have more protective cover spanning over the walls, and protection from water absorption and quick drying is essential. The daylighting is adequate in all projects, whereas the thermal comfort is not satisfactory. Due consideration to the usage of materials, orientations, shading, and air-change rates are essential to ensure thermal comfort during housing design. An important observation is that in all the selected projects, there were no technical calculations or performance analyses conducted at the time of designing these projects. The newer projects have an opportunity to utilize advanced thermal comfort tools and design visualizations to estimate the levels of indoor comfort for occupants. The COVID-19 pandemic restrictions and the new normal of post-pandemic show the importance of flexible spatial planning to make adequate space for daily exercise or yoga to ensure physical health. An important realization has visual comfort and interaction through windows. The existing housing projects are not prepared for this kind of resilience in spatial planning, and it shows that the new projects must learn from these experiences by addressing the changing needs according to new normal. Introducing flexible spaces for indoor physical activity can be a way forward to ensure physical and mental well-being in the housing projects.

5 Limitations

Health and well-being are broad and complex topics with many subjective and objective variables. Health alone is divided into two main aspects called physical and mental health. Physical health is the lack of disease, and it can vary with a person's genetics, eating habits, diet preferences, sleep quality, physical exercise, work conditions, and many other aspects. This study is only focused on the built environment of the housing projects but not on the physical health conditions and related parameters. This study has attempted to understand the perception of residents in housing projects towards their physical environment and how they feel using it to evaluate their well-being.

Further studies can focus on measuring the variability of physical health parameters to understand the health and well-being of low- and high-rise residential projects. This study is also limited to the housing projects of LIG, MIG, and HIG under the low-rise and high-rise projects. This study shows that the perception of health and well-being varies with the type of house, height, and design. There is a scope of research in other housing types like independent, rental, hostels, and institutional housing. The study also shows that the site design, facilities, and surrounding context play an important role in people's perceived health and well-being of the people. Further research can be conducted from urban planning point of view to understand the variability of health and well-being based on the city, population density, economy, land uses, and availability of facilities and amenities. Development control regulations like land uses and building bylaws can also be studied from a health and well-being point of view to gain an understanding of how to use these statutory tools to achieve health and well-being in cities.

6 Conclusion

This study helped in culminating the existing research on health and well-being and related it to housing design. The main contribution of this study is the review of literature from indoor and outdoor housing design viewpoints. This study is helpful for architects and built-environment experts to understand which design factors influence the perception of health and well-being of people in housing projects. This study has comprehensively listed factors for designing indoor and outdoor housing environments through the literature review. The case studies of different project types showcased the existing housing design situation for various income groups. The results of the study were consistent with the expected outcome that the perception of health and well-being varies with the indoor and outdoor design factors; in addition, it is also observed that the type of housing, its scale and height are also important factors from the inhabitant’s viewpoint. The surveyed housing projects were primarily satisfying the occupants’ basic infrastructure and space requirements but showed dissatisfaction at both indoor and outdoor levels. In the indoor house design, factors such as indoor thermal comfort, adequate space for physical activity, visual comfort and contact with nature, Usability of windows and Balcones during rains, water leakage, dampness, and other maintenance issues are observed to be not very satisfactory and, they are to be considered for indoor health and well-being. The study shows much variability in each factor in low-rise and high-rise housing projects outdoors. Accessible parks/green open spaces for a physical activity near to house and ease of navigation and walkability in the surrounding area are two factors that are unsatisfactory in both low-rise and high-rise housing projects that indicate a need to improve these factors. This study has contributed by giving a perspective of two levels of design consideration for housing projects to ensure the health and well-being of inhabitants.