Have a look at this Q&A which is a bit similar to your question: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_difference_between_space_and_place?_iepl%5BgeneralViewId%5D=WOoklLp13jpCTlaEaaWFu1lmLtLgNXiGh7Zy&_iepl%5Bcontexts%5D%5B0%5D=searchReact&_iepl%5BviewId%5D=OKGEaGljr6jxuLAq3bgBtMJI7EPLQIqHqN0t&_iepl%5BsearchType%5D=question&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BcountMoreThan20%5D=1&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BinteractedWithPosition3%5D=1&_iepl%5Bposition%5D=3&_iepl%5BrgKey%5D=PT%3A5c7ec03f3d48b7523541d05e&_iepl%5BtargetEntityId%5D=Q%3A5c7ec03f3d48b7523541d05e&_iepl%5BinteractionType%5D=questionView

• Lefebvre distinguishes between space and place from a philosophical standpoint.
• Lynch differentiates the two concepts from an architectural standpoint.
• They both regard urban spaces. You might wanna check if there is literature that addresses healthcare.
• Good luck with your thesis :)

Thank you Aryan Shahabian

I looked at the discussion threat. I think it might be useful, yet i am mostly interested in people who mention why it is problematic to not make a distinction, not what the distinction is.

Thank you Maral Babapour

I will try to see if they specifically address what the problem is.

Hi Elke,

I think you are right when you say built environment is part of the setting but not the same as setting. However, for my research, a completely sustainable (psychological, social, environmental, economic, etc) setting is a one where every element within the setting contributes towards achieving this goal of complete sustainability. Therefor, in my opinion, I would also include anthrpogenic landscape and agriculture as also a part of the built-environment. I see a place-based setting as a collecting of elements that harmoniously come together and it is difficult to read one element's role independent of the other. Given this, I would see setting as a continuous flow and shades of elements, where shades define certain elements momentarily and then blend back into setting.

There is some literature that I think I can suggest. Please let me know if you are interested.

Best.

Naji Akbar thank you for your reaction!

Very well appreciated! I would like that literature.

This thing is, i completely understand that the built environmnet is just one of many components of a setting. However, it is one of the fixed structured when it is built and therefor allows or hinders certain other changes to the setting.

Also, I find that it is sometimes overlooked as an important aspect of a setting. I am sure others have written about this, but i haven't been able to find them thus far.

Hi Elke,

I wrote a detailed answer this morning but it has seemed to got lost. I will try some other time.

As a student, practitioner, and researcher at various stages of my career, I would say that the PROBLEM with not differentiating them is the same with any definition - especially when terms are used in a disciplinary subset! In short, even if you are using "accepted" definitions in a recognized disciplinary context, it is ALWAYS best to define your specific terms exactly at the outset. Whether they are aligned with other definitions is a separate issue, but at least anyone reading your research can understand what YOU mean the terms to convey.

Communication must be clear and unambiguous as much as possible to be effective. Muddling terms (even with some consensus definitions) will always be a problem when an individual's understanding (right or wrong) is somewhat different from anyone else's.

Hi Steven Cooke , I completely agree with that you need to define such words when you use them and that is what i wrote in my PhD thesis. The main question I had is if there is anyone else that also makes this point. Because i am pretty sure i am not the only one that discovered this.

What I found is that the terms built environment, physical environment and environment or setting are used interchangeable. Especially physical environment is used for multiple dissimula concepts which makes it difficult to understand without the indications of definitions.

As I see it there are several interpretations of physical environment which are often used:

- Physical environment is the same a built environment: referring to the tangible objects that are made by people and do not live.

- Physical environment is the combination of the built and natural environment: this includes both objects that are made by people as well as non-human living organisms and ecosystems.

- Physical environment is the same as environment or setting: meaning it is a combination of the built, natural and social environment.

Obviously the social, natural and built environment are interlinked (the setting), but by neglecting one of the components it can not be fully understood is my argument. But again, i am not the first to make this conclusion I am sure, but who else problematizes this (rather than just making the distiction).

Elke Miedema , yes, I for one mention it almost continually in topics, lectures and student discussions. Others do as well, but not really as many as need to. Too many people get so caught up in their "SPECIALTY" that they forget that MOST of the 'regular' world does not use the same definitions. Acronyms are the worst, but many common terms also get appropriated without explanation.

Nice Dear Maral Babapour

I agree! Both built environment and setting are dffierent and form the overall physical environment.

Finally, I decided to base my argumentation on the work of Canter (1977) and (Schulz & Northridge, 2004). I also made the image attached to indicate the differences.

I wrote:

The term ‘built environment’ refers to ‘buildings, spaces, and products that are created or significantly modified by people’ (Schulz & Northridge, 2004). The built environment, as a concept, has also been described by others in terms of the constructed environment, designed environment, or human-made environment. The built environment is an aspect of a setting (Figure 2). Figure 2 visualises the distinction between the main spatial concepts: setting, built environment and building design.

I guess this will be already in your list.... but H. Lefevbre on writing on Cities, there is good distinction between habitat and to habitat:

' tate rationality is pushed to the limit. In the new housing estate habitat is established in its purest form, as a burden of constraints. Certain philosophers will say that large housing estates achieve the concept of habitat by excluding the notion of inhabit, that is, the plasticity of space, its modelling and the appropriation by groups and individuals of the conditions of their existence. It is also a complete way of living (functions, prescriptions, daily routine) which is inscribed and signifies itself in this habitat. '

1968 (Le Droit à la ville), 1996 (English translation as The Right to the City)

Hope it helps...