Heart of the future home: a multidimensional model of inclusive kitchen for older people in the UK

The paper addresses how aging populations and smart technologies are reshaping domestic environments, emphasizing the kitchen as a central space for older adults’ daily life, safety, socialization, and identity. Drawing on WHO definitions and age-friendly frameworks, the authors argue for inclusive, age-friendly home design to support independence and quality of life. The kitchen’s role extends beyond function to caregiving, emotion, and social connection, necessitating removal of physical, social, and cultural barriers. The study poses three research questions: (Q1) What key factors in current kitchen design research cater to older people’s needs? (Q2) What challenges do older people face using current kitchen designs and how can future designs overcome them? (Q3) How can metaphors effectively capture and integrate older people’s expectations into future kitchen conceptual design? The study combines a literature review, a UK-based focus group with older adults, and metaphor generation to build and refine a future-inclusive kitchen model to guide age-friendly kitchen design.

An aging future and inclusive living: With increasing longevity, societies face complex challenges in health, care, social ties, and lifestyles. Frameworks such as “Designing for our future selves,” ethical guidance from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics (trustworthiness, flourishing, shifting power, equity, challenging ageism, sustainability), and Scotland’s “Inclusive living” (social inclusion and equality; physical space and design; connections and relationships) highlight principles for age-friendly, future-oriented living environments. Inclusivity in kitchen design: Inclusive design principles (people-centered, diversity, choice, flexibility, convenience) are critical for home environments. Research identifies multidimensional inclusivity needs in kitchens: usability and universal design frameworks; personas and needs (comfort, simplicity, safety); ergonomic and spatial optimization for older adults (reach, bending, dexterity, vision); and safety interventions. Technology is integral, spanning smart home systems, assistive robots, intelligent appliances, and multimodal HCI (gestures, voice, BCI, facial expression). Studies show technology can support independence, cognitive/sensorimotor functions, and safer, more efficient cooking. Cognitive/sensory considerations led to cognitive kitchens and assistive systems for those with impairments. Emotional and cultural dimensions frame kitchens as spaces of memory, identity, rituals, and social bonding, with implications for food safety and dietary behaviors (layout, connectivity, fixtures, IEQ). Sustainability research addresses lifecycle use, social inclusion, adaptability, and circularity in domestic kitchens. Synthesis: From the literature, five preliminary factors of inclusive kitchen design were defined (Table 1): Environment (human factors and spatial environments; space security; comfort; appearance and esthetics), Technology (intelligent/assistive technologies; usability; simplicity; cognition/perception), Health (dietary behaviors/habits; food safety; physical health), Emotion (memories; communication; identity; life experiences), and Sustainability (social inclusion; flexibility/adaptability). These informed the initial model (Fig. 3). The literature also notes gaps in addressing older adults’ future expectations, cultural differences, and blurred boundaries of kitchens with other domestic spaces, motivating further user research.

Research framework: A three-stage process combined (1) literature review to extract key factors and build an initial inclusive kitchen model; (2) user research via a focus group with older adults to develop a user insight model and elicit metaphors for future kitchens; and (3) synthesis of literature, user insights, and metaphors into a refined model (Figs. 1, 3–5). Study design and ethics: An exploratory qualitative focus group was conducted at a university in London with ethics approval from Brunel University London (44614-LR-Aug/2023-46925-2). The session lasted ~120 minutes with a moderator and research assistant, using an audio recorder. Participants and sampling: Seven older adults (3 females, 4 males; ages 67–80; Mean = 74.86, SD = 5.46) from Greater London were recruited primarily via the Brunel Older People’s Reference Group. Health statuses included one participant with hearing impairment, one wheelchair user with mobility impairment, and five without specified disabilities. Household types varied (living alone, with spouse/partner, or with children), and participants used their kitchens frequently (often 10–20+ times per day). All provided informed consent and received a small thank-you gift. Procedures: The focus group comprised four steps: (1) Preparation/warm-up (5 min) to introduce the study and encourage rapport; (2) Introduction/overview (10 min) presenting images and case studies of kitchen designs to prompt open discussion; (3) Topic discussion (100 min) across four topics with a short break: Topic 1—Environment, spatial layout, ergonomics (20 min); Topic 2—Smart assistive technologies (20 min); Intermission (10 min); Topic 3—Culinary culture, emotions, health, well-being (20 min); Topic 4—Future kitchen expectations and metaphors (30 min); (4) Reflection/feedback (10 min). Data collection and analysis: Sessions were transcribed and analyzed via qualitative thematic analysis. Two doctoral researchers conducted open coding to generate initial codes and themes; a third researcher reviewed and helped merge themes; an expert with 20+ years of user research experience reviewed and confirmed final themes and sub-themes. The study also explicitly used design metaphors as a method to capture expectations and conceptualize future kitchens, drawing on metaphor theory and applications in HCI, product, and spatial design to inform interpretation and model building.

Literature review outcome and initial model: Five key factors were identified—Environment, Technology, Health, Emotion, and Sustainability—each with sub-categories (e.g., Environment: human factors/spatial environments, space security, comfort, appearance and esthetics; Technology: intelligent/assistive technologies, usability, simplicity; Health: cognition/perception, dietary behaviors/habits, food safety, physical health; Emotion: memories, communication, identity, life experiences; Sustainability: social inclusion, flexibility/adaptability). This formed the initial inclusive kitchen model (Fig. 3, Table 1). Focus group outcome and user insight model: Six dimensions emerged—Environment/space, Technology/interaction, Emotion/affect, Health and safety, Human factors and well-being, and Sustainability—comprising specific themes: - Environment/space: spatial layout and ergonomics; furniture/fixtures & appliances; IEQ and connectivity (air quality, lighting, acoustics, thermal comfort, ventilation); cleanliness and waste management; personalized space design. - Technology/interaction: intelligent automation and assistive technology (e.g., smart fridge tracking expirations, meal suggestions; smart cleaning; voice control); integrated information networks (remote app-based control); human–machine relationships (domestic robots/robotic arm assistants); simplicity (low cognitive load, easy access); openness to new/disruptive tech. - Emotion/affect: family and intergenerational communication; socializing and entertainment; creativity and sense of achievement; happiness. - Health and safety: health (dietary advice, nutritious food support); food safety and hygiene (inventory/expiry reminders); safety design (non-slip flooring, appropriate heights/handles, clear lighting; addressing slips/falls). - Human factors and well-being: adaptability and accessibility (e.g., drawers for visibility, optimized reach); well-being; independence and dignity. - Sustainability: energy and resource management (eco-friendly/renewable materials); economic and policy support (affordability of energy; inflation concerns); future-proofing (long-term adaptability for changing needs). Metaphors of the future kitchen (Table 3): Participants used metaphors to describe expectations—e.g., “10 min” and “Food factory” (efficiency, Technology/interaction); “Center of the home” and “Kitchen living” (well-being, Human factors and well-being); “A place to be proud of” and “A place to create,” “Brainstorming and family,” “My sociable kitchen” (creativity, sociality, Emotion/affect); “Central island” and “Comfortable cooking center” (spatial ergonomics and comfort, Environment/space). Refined model: Integrating literature, user insights, and metaphors produced a refined future-inclusive kitchen model with six dimensions: Environment/space; Technology/interaction; Emotion/affect; Health and safety; Human factors and well-being; Sustainability (Fig. 5). Notable findings include: older adults’ strong interest in adopting emerging technologies provided they remain simple and supportive; heightened priority on cleanliness and safety over appearance/esthetics; and the crucial role of emotional/social functions alongside physical and technological supports. Sample details: n=7, ages 67–80 (Mean 74.86, SD 5.46), diverse household types, frequent kitchen use.

The refined model addresses the research questions by consolidating evidence from literature and lived experiences of older adults. Environment/space aligns across sources, emphasizing harmonized, safe, ergonomic, and efficient layouts. Technology/interaction extends beyond device presence to focus on human–machine relationship quality, simplicity, and integrated control, reflecting willingness among older adults to adopt advanced technologies when cognitive load is managed. Emotion/affect underscores kitchens as hubs for intergenerational connection, socializing, creativity, and happiness—vital to quality of life. Health and safety expands the literature’s health focus to include explicit safety design and food safety/hygiene concerns. Human factors and well-being adds adaptability, accessibility, independence, and dignity as central goals. Sustainability integrates social inclusion, flexibility/adaptability, resource/energy management, economic/policy support, and future-proofing. Metaphors provided unique, actionable insights that translate abstract expectations into design-relevant attributes (efficiency, comfort, centrality, sociability, creativity). Differences between literature and user findings include older adults’ prioritization of cleanliness/safety over esthetics and strong openness to technology if it supports autonomy and simplicity. The model suggests design strategies for inclusive, intelligent, emotionally resonant, and sustainable kitchens that support independence and well-being in aging.

The study proposes and refines a multidimensional model for future-inclusive kitchen design for older adults by integrating literature, a UK focus group, and design metaphors. The final model comprises six dimensions: Environment/space; Technology/interaction; Emotion/affect; Health and safety; Human factors and well-being; Sustainability. It serves as a framework to guide design and policy for age-friendly kitchens that enhance independence, dignity, health, and social connectedness. Practical guidelines include: (1) flexible, adjustable layouts and ergonomics to reduce strain; (2) integrating smart technologies with simple, intuitive interactions to improve efficiency and safety; (3) strengthening safety and health through slip-resistant surfaces, adequate lighting, clear signage, emergency response features, and food safety management; and (4) promoting emotional and social engagement via warm, welcoming spaces that support family interaction and creativity. Future research should validate the model through prototyping and user testing, broaden cultural and socioeconomic scope, and deepen assessment of technology acceptance and skills among diverse older populations.

The literature review emphasized environment, technology, health, emotion, and sustainability while underrepresenting cultural background and intergenerational dynamics, potentially narrowing scope. Participant economic status and technical skills were not fully captured, limiting generalizability. The small, London-based sample (n=7), skewed toward well-educated, middle-class participants with more men than women, may have influenced technology acceptance findings. Metaphors, while insightful, can be abstract and insufficient to capture detailed needs without complementary methods. The proposed model requires further validation through structured, multi-method studies including prototyping and user testing with broader, more diverse samples.