Read this edition’s article delving into psychological effects of improved environments, advancements in prison design, and the role of salutogenic principles and biophilia in fostering therapeutic spaces.
Prison conditions profoundly shape the individuals who live and work there. Investing in better physical environments is not a concession but a pragmatic approach to achieving societal safety and successful reintegration.
Dr. Alberto Urrutia-Moldes, Professional and researcher in correctional design and architecture
Dr. Alberto Urrutia-Moldes
Professional and researcher in correctional design and architecture
There are two types of people in prison. Those held in custody by society’s decision through judicial mandate, and those who work there, either out of a sense of societal duty or for economic necessity. Both groups are deeply affected by the physical environment. Research shows how poor environmental conditions negatively impact human health and well-being.
Yet, society often equates punishment with exposing those serving sentences to harsh living conditions, either to deter crime or to make them “pay” for their actions. This societal pressure combined with pervasive economic constraints makes authorities more likely to overlook the pressing need for better prison environments. This counterintuitive approach undermines the reintegration goals and exacerbates challenges for all involved.
Prison environments often suffer from inadequate natural light, poor ventilation, and overcrowding, all of which harm physical health. Lack of enough daylight reduces vitamin D, and excessive, blue-toned artificial light, disrupts circadian rhythms, affecting sleep, and well-being. In turn, Overcrowding and poor ventilation increase the spread of infections such as TB and elevate stress levels for both incarcerated persons and staff. These are just a few of the many aggressors to health in prison.
But health is not only physical. Psychologically, prisons often intensify feelings of dehumanisation and stress. Lack of privacy undermines dignity and fosters anxiety, while constant noise and light pollution erode mental health. For staff, prolonged exposure to these stressors makes the prison environment one of the most psychologically demanding. Additionally, a constant sense of danger, caused by the poor design and physical environment, increases the mental stress for both staff and residents, leading to burnout and diminished coping abilities.
These conditions also impede the primary goal of corrections: rehabilitation. A punitive environment threatens to reinforce antisocial behaviour, weakening the likability of reintegration. Instead of deterrence, such settings risk perpetuating cycles of violence and dysfunction. Decision-makers must recognise this paradox.
Research consistently shows that humane, well-designed facilities promote healthier, safer environments. For those serving sentences, this translates to better rehabilitation outcomes. For staff, it means reduced stress and improved performance. Prison conditions profoundly shape the individuals who live and work there. Investing in better physical environments is not a concession but a pragmatic approach to achieving societal safety and successful reintegration.
Personal space and proximity of others can be hard to control in a prison environment, and for someone with a trauma history this may potentially cause a heightened negative reaction and raise stress levels.
Sarah Paddick, Senior Associate Architecture, Justice Sector Lead, Grieve Gillett Architects
Sarah Paddick
Senior Associate Architecture, Justice Sector Lead, Grieve Gillett Architects
Incarcerated women often face added harm from the very environment intended to secure them. Custodial environments are restrictive, hard, and often institutional not only in function but also in appearance. Correctional facilities are considered “traumatogenic” environments because women are removed from their families and communities, locked away, stripped of power, and commonly subjected to victimization at the hands of staff and other residents.
The trauma histories that accompany women to prison affect their perceptions of (typically male) authority and inhibit their ability to navigate a seemingly threatening and authoritarian environment. This controlling prison atmosphere increases the potential to trigger a traumatic memory and elicit a reaction that may be perceived by staff as uncooperative or disruptive further exacerbating the problem.
These women may experience the physical environment differently, and potentially more keenly, with stress arising from uncontrollable temperature levels, loud or persistent background noise, bright light etc. The layout of spaces may also have an increased impact on an incarcerated woman with a trauma history.
Hyper vigilance accompanied with a feeling of fear and dread is a known trauma response, and an environment that feels unsafe due to its appearance and spatial layout will exacerbate these reactions. Personal space and proximity of others can be hard to control in a prison environment, and for someone with a trauma history this may potentially cause a heightened negative reaction and raise stress levels.
Noise generated by heavy steel doors and beeping alarms, coupled with distorted voices over public address systems, intercoms and radios adds to an alienating environment. Clinking key bunches and handcuffs on officers’ belts, and vision hatch doors being opened and closed in the middle of the night add another layer creating a soundscape that is unique.
The solutions to some of these things are relatively simple and should be considered in all our secure facility designs if we are genuinely committed to creating environments that do not cause further harm.
Our buildings often reinforce operations that restrict the freedom of movement and choice, that empower hierarchical relationships that do little to heal or support, and that contribute to high rates of reoffending.
Robert Boraks, Principal of Parkin Architects Ltd in Canada, Adjunct professor at Carleton University
Robert Boraks
Principal of Parkin Architects Ltd in Canada, Adjunct professor at Carleton University
Architects design infrastructure to serve a purpose. Designing a hospital? Easy – they are places to heal. Designing a school? Easy – they are places to learn. Architects use their salutogenic and creative tricks of the trade to create well lit, open, and empowering environments that strive to support the best attributes of society.
Designing a prison? Not so easy. The purpose of prison design is often not well articulated to the Architect or at times, they are a jumble of competing and often conflicting visions. Is the purpose of incarceration to protect the community? Heal? Punish? Rehabilitate? Be an efficient warehouse? All the above?
Prisons pose a design challenge to Architects as they are not representative of normal infrastructure. They are places where individuals are banished when society has determined that they can no longer be part of their community. Despite the best intentions of many Architects, our designs far too often support situations that strip the dignity and self worth of both incarcerated persons and staff.
Our buildings often reinforce operations that restrict the freedom of movement and choice, that empower hierarchical relationships that do little to heal or support, and that contribute to high rates of reoffending. At times we pride ourselves in ameliorating difficult situations through incremental improvements, but the unfortunate reality is that our efforts often do little more than to place a band-aid onto an open wound.
While it is easy for us Architects to place our inability to be agents of change on the shoulders of our clients or politics or operational efficiency, we need to recognise that we have an important role to play by providing evidence-based knowledge and process to our clients that will result in clearer purpose and more effective infrastructure.
The lack of investment in maintaining prison infrastructure impacts not only the dignity and health of detainees but also prison staff and surrounding communities.
Terry Hackett, Head of the Persons Deprived of Liberty Division, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
Terry Hackett
Head of the Persons Deprived of Liberty Division, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
Throughout the world the ICRC continues to see antiquated and often poorly maintained colonial infrastructure that negatively impacts on the dignity and health of people deprived of liberty. Within many countries where the ICRC is present, the already fragile infrastructure has been further degraded by years of conflict and lack of funding.
Over 55% of prison systems around the world are operating above capacity with overcrowding placing additional stresses on already inadequate water, sanitation, and ventilation systems.
The lack of investment in maintaining prison infrastructure impacts not only the dignity and health of detainees but also prison staff and surrounding communities.
The absence of proper ventilation, combined with extreme heat and severe overcrowding results in suffocating conditions where the simple act of taking a breath is a struggle.
As anyone who has run a prison or correctional facility knows, infrastructure can dictate daily regimes and divert precious human resources from critical dynamic security functions to static posts. Poorly built or maintained infrastructure can also pose significant challenges in meeting the United Nations Minimum standards for the treatment of prisoners otherwise known as the Nelson Mandela Rules.
Certain operational realities are not always fully accounted for in the planning phase, and once the facility is built, adapting can come at a very high cost.
Mathilde Steenbergen, Director-General of the Belgian Prison Service
Mathilde Steenbergen
Director-General of the Belgian Prison Service
Over the past 20 years, we’ve made substantial investments in prison infrastructure, and today, around one-third of our prison population is housed in new or modernised facilities. We are gradually moving towards having half of the population in these settings. We’ve also been able to close some outdated facilities, such as Forest Prison in Brussels last year.
[…] Projects like Haren allow us to evolve with the times, using concepts that aim to promote more meaningful detention. Architectural features and the use of green spaces play an important role in the well-being of both detainees and staff. However, there are also challenges. One of the biggest drawbacks is the sheer scale of Haren—it is simply too big. Managing a prison with 1,000 people is extremely difficult.
The village structure, while innovative, also has its drawbacks like requiring far more staff to operate effectively. It is an example of how certain operational realities are not always fully accounted for in the planning phase, and once the facility is built, adapting can come at a very high cost.
Another issue is the long lead time for these projects. By the time they are implemented, the initial concept can sometimes feel outdated. For example, in newer prisons, we are already moving towards more open structures and integration into the surrounding environment—things we are learning from projects like Haren.
To address these challenges, we ensure continuous monitoring of all new projects. We regularly consult the directors of these prisons to understand what works and what does not This feedback allows us to improve with each new facility.
