Category: Research papers for built environment

Academic papers and publications

Beyond minimum standards

Urban landscape with shade trees and lots of casual seating with people sitting. Going beyond minimum standards.Why does the design of built environment continue to fail people with disability? Many have asked this question since Selwyn Goldsmith raised it in the 1960s. Many have found answers. But these are not enough to make a difference to the results. New buildings continue to pose barriers in spite of regulations and standards. Going beyond minimum standards is therefore a big ask. 

Imogen Howe, an architect with 10 years experience, wants to find the answer in her PhD study. Her research questions are something we can all think about:

    • Why and how does the Australian built environment continue to marginalise people with disabilities, despite the Disability Discrimination Act (1992)?
    • How does building design reproduce exclusion and segregation? How is this underpinned by design assumptions and approaches both contemporary and historic?
    • Do building and design codes in Australia, NZ, Canada and the UK address dignity?
    • How do we educate becoming architects about the need for inclusive design and then how to enact it in their designs?

References are made to key thinkers and writers on the topic such as Amie Hamraie, C.W. Mills, Joss Boys and Michel Foucault. 

These questions are posed in an article framed as a discussion piece in Academia.edu. The key provocations for the discussion are: eugenics and stigma in design, society structures, and how could this be different. The title of the article is, “The need for inclusive design: going beyond the minimum standards in the built environment”.

Beyond compliance with universal design

Front cover of the guide. A guide book from Ireland on the built environment draws together Irish standards with a practical universal design approach. Many of the standards mirror those in Australia so most of the information is compatible. Parking, siting, pedestrian movement, steps, ramps, lifts, seating and bollards are all covered. 

Building for Everyone, External environment and approach covers each of the features in detail. While the style of tactile indicators varies from the Australian design, the advice on placement is still useful. There is a reference list of related documents including Australian Standards. The guide is undated, but probably published circa 2010. This means some of the technology, such as parking ticket machines is a little outdated.

There is also a section at the end on human abilities and design. It covers walking, balance, handling, strength and endurance, lifting, reaching, speech, hearing, sight, touch and more.

Published by the Centre for Excellence in Universal Design in Ireland it is very detailed. Checklists help guide the reader through the material. This booklet links with others in the series, particularly the one on entrances and circulation spaces. The good aspect of these guides is the perspective of a universal design approach rather than proposing prescriptive design parameters.

Universal design is invisible

The entry to Stortinget metro in Olso showing the uncluttered design with easy access for everyone.
Stortinget Metro Station

Universal design is invisible: that is, until it is not there. Refurbishments and upgrades to buildings can embed universal design without anyone noticing. Using a case study of a train station in Norway, Richard Duncan explains how it was done.

Duncan’s article, Right Under Your Nose: Universal Design in Norway is an easy to read article and is based on Olav Rand Bringa’s work. When done well, universal design minimises the need for separate designs for people with disability. For example, ‘accessible’ exit routes were previously signed with the international symbol. In the new scheme, many of the signs were removed. Yet travellers with disability did not comment on their absence. The design itself indicated where to go. 

And there is more…

There is more in the article about the work of Bringa that traces the history of universal design in Norway. Two surveys from 2018 reveal a gradual change in attitude about universal design. More people understand the concept and agree with the principle of, “Universal design is necessary for some and useful for many”. 

Norway is a global leader in implementing UD strategies. Their landmark document, Norway Universally Designed by 2025, focuses on inclusive policies where everyone is made responsible.

Olav Bringa has written several articles beginning in 1999 when Norway first embraced universal design principles. They are:

Universal Design and Visitability: From accessibility to zoning.  It’s Chapter 6.

Progress on Universal Design in Norway: A review 

Universal Design as a Technical Norm and Juridical Term – A Factor of Development or Recession? Bringa discusses the importance of language in the quest for inclusion. It’s open access.

Richard Duncan has written a similar article on the invisibility of good universal design. This one is about automatic doors. 

Photo by Olav Rand Bringa showing the improved and uncluttered entrance to the station.

Maximise inclusion for ageing in place

A row of red brick terraced houses where people will age in place.
An image from the report

What does ‘ageing in place’ actually mean? For some it means staying put in the family home in their later years. For others it means staying in the same community. A co-design method was used to maximise inclusion for ageing in place. 

Researchers at the University of Manchester developed a ‘village’ model of support based on those in the US. The residents came together to identify the services that they need and how they could be better managed. Storytelling was an integral part of the data collection. Ideas were generated for supporting ageing in place at a local level. 

Front cover of the report on ageing in place.
Front cover of the report

The report on the project provides more detail about the diversity of the people they worked with. It recounts the difficulties recruiting volunteers and participants as well as overcoming distrust of decision-makers. Access to formal and informal meeting places was also an issue.

Recommendations include building social infrastructure and strengthening organisations led by older people. The title of the report is, Community interventions to promote ‘ageing in place‘. 

To move or not to move?

We expect to grow old, but because we don’t aspire to grow old, we rarely plan for it. “I’ll worry about it when the time comes” is a usual response. A report from AHURI looks at the housing situation for older Australians and some previous research is confirmed.

Most respondents felt their current home would suit them as they grow older, but they are not planning ahead. If they are, they lack information on how to go about it, what to look for, and what their options are other than age-segregated housing. A significant proportion of respondents hadn’t thought about planning ahead for their living arrangements. This is one reason why we need the Livable Housing Design Standard adopted in all states and territories. It is in the 2022 edition of the National Construction Code and there is a handbook for designers.  

Plenty of material in this report for anyone interested in housing and older people. Title of the report is, Older Australians and the housing aspirations gap. There’s a full report and an executive summary. 

But do all older people want to stay put?

Apartment block with blue windows and balconies with plants and washing drying.It is often said that older people want to stay put, but this may not be the case for everyone. A study from Berlin, Germany looked at this issue in depth. While some of the findings might be specific to Berlin, the article raises interesting questions.

The researchers found that social class, gender, age and migrant history were not necessarily measures of movement behaviour. The top three reasons that emerged were: to have a smaller apartment, an obstacle-free apartment, and to have to a cheaper apartment. 

The title of the article is, Why Do(n’t) People Move When They Get Older? Estimating the Willingness to Relocate in Diverse Ageing Cities.  This is an open access article in Urban Planning journal. The results indicate decisions to move are multifaceted. Older adults are not an homogeneous group with the same needs. As with other studies, older people want the same things as younger people. 

Related reading

Jem Golden provides an overview of the research project in a LinkedIn article.  The main objectives are:

    • Advance understanding of ‘ageing in place’ in cities using interdisciplinary perspectives
    • Examine policies and age-friendly initiatives aimed at supporting ageing in place across seven cities
    • Explore experiences of ageing in place among diverse ageing populations (reflecting different ethnic, gender and class backgrounds) living in urban neighbourhoods
    • Develop methods and tools for measuring and reporting the impact of age-friendly interventions
    • Co-produce innovative models of dissemination with various stakeholder groups

Age and Dementia Streetscapes Toolkit

front cover of the toolkit showing a streetscapeAround 70% of people with dementia are staying in their home environments. They can continue with their everyday lives for many years in the community if they get a bit of help in the form of supportive urban design. To the rescue comes the  Age and Dementia Toolkit. 

The toolkit is a practical guide based on participatory research. People working in local government will find it very useful as well as: 

1. Councils and built environment contractors
2. Planning processes
3. Design of infrastructure and maintenance
4. Use as and auditing tool for assessing compliance with age and dementia friendly design principles

Encouraging walking

We know that walking has health benefits for all age groups and it’s also important for dementia prevention and management. But for people with dementia, walking the neighbourhood becomes more challenging.

A street scene showing a wide footpath and a row of shops in the suburbsMoonee Valley City Council in Victoria wanted to know how to make environments more welcoming. They commissioned a project to find out what design features are most important to older residents. The toolkit is the result of much consultation within local communities and shows how a few tweaks can make places more vibrant, supportive and accessible.

The consultation process focused on one main street. It was chosen because it was surrounded by a high density of older people. They found that shops had a role to play especially where shopkeepers knew residents by name. 

The toolkit is easily accessible and simple to read for a variety of audiences, from members of the community to people working across all social and built environment disciplines. The toolkit has good examples and case studies.

Getting out and about in the community is part of the picture – home design needs to be considered too. 

yellow background with a black call-out box with Age n Dem in it

The process of developing the toolkit was also published in the Journal of Transport and Health. Extracts from the abstract follow.

Extract from Abstract

Age’n’dem was a participatory design process with older residents of Moonee Valley. It informed streetscape design, ensured access for older people including people with dementia, and to ensured measures were inclusive. The experiential learning process informed redesign of Union Road streetscape in Ascot Vale, Victoria. This street operated as an intact and attractive environment for shopping, and was surrounded by the highest density of older people in the municipality. Shops played an important role in supporting people to age in place.

Shopkeepers played an informal role by looking out for regulars, and helping out when and if something happened. Residents relied on it. Walking up the street, passing the time in a familiar place and dropping in on shopkeepers had become part of a daily ritual for many locals. What the shopkeepers did informally was better than any response any community service could offer.

Our role became one of supporting a natural and organic response by listening, watching and learning. We knew that If we made the street more comfortable we could sustain older residents’ interest as they age. We also knew that walking plays a key role in dementia prevention. Investing in local’s knowledge was important. Process is everything. Our most articulate supporters are the older residents themselves talking on national radio, and statewide press.

 

Architecture, aesthetics and universal design

A view of the open plan kitchen. The home has a lot of timber in the construction and the furniture. It is architecture, aesthetics and universal design.
Frank Lloyd Wright considered aesthetics in architecture

The principles and goals of universal design have no criteria for aesthetics. It’s focus is on functional requirements rather than sensory experiences. It doesn’t help when architects and planners continue to associate universal design with regulations and standards and leave aesthetics out. But the key to designing environments for everyone is to draw together architecture, aesthetics and universal design.

Carolyn Ahmer’s paper discusses universal design in the context of renowned architects. She explains how their designs include inclusive elements together with aesthetics. For example, Frank Lloyd Wright’s work which includes the famous Guggenheim Museum. The article covers visual and non-visual information and movement through space.

The aim of the paper is to highlight the qualities of design essential to creating buildings that stimulate our senses. One source of inspiration is in our architectural history. 

She concludes that inclusive architecture should be based on qualitative and quantitative measures. Quantitative assessments are based on controllable data and standardised specifications. Qualitative assessments focus on sensory experiences of an architectural project. These are features that cannot be measured but should not be discounted. 

The title of the article is, The Qualities of Architecture in Relation to Universal Design.  The paper was presented at the UD2021 conference in Finland. It’s published in Universal Design 2021: From Special to Mainstream Solutions. 

Putting a value on universal design

Entry area to a large building that has light grey poles with handrails around and steps between. All is grey tones.
Entry to a new office block in Parramatta

Which universal design features benefit the general population and which suit a small group? This is the kind of question economists like to ask. But who to ask? The building users of course. “Stated Preferences” is the term used for asking people what they think something is worth. It’s one way of putting a value on Universal Design.

Building regulations stipulate certain access requirements, but using Stated Preferences analysis and cost-benefit data, researchers found that some features suited a wide group, while others suited only a few. The question then is, if the feature for the few costs the most, should it be included or ignored in a retrofit? 

The technical methods are explained in a conference paper. It includes what was measured and how they were valued. The discussion section of the paper sums up the study. They found that Stated Preferences analysis and cost-benefit data can show the social and economic benefits of different features. For example, a handrail on stairs can pay back six times the investment. Among high benefit features, were good lighting, visual and tactile markings, and stair handrails. However, the story is not quite this simple and the researchers point to this.

The 18 Measures

• Good pedestrian walking surfaces outdoor
• Visual marking of walkways
• Visual and tactile marking indoors
• Stair handrails
• Automatically opening entrance doors
• Visual contrast on entrance doors
• Access ramps for entrances
• Access ramps in swimming pools
• Access ramps at beaches
• Visual marking of doors and glass walls
• Low counters – accessible for wheelchair users and people of below average height
• Universal designed toilet facilities
• Installing elevators
• Modernization of existing elevators – tactile buttons, audio messages etc.  – Improved indoor lighting
• Outdoor lighting
• Assistive listening system/hearing loop
• Floor space for wheelchair access

An interesting study that reveals the preferences of building users and the value they place on certain features and the related costs. This can be compared with features set down in access standards where the value for users is not assessed, or the costs.

The title of the article is, Upgrading Existing Buildings to Universal Design. What Cost-Benefit Analyses Can Tell Us.  It is open source from IOS Press. 

Public Toilets and social and economic participation

Outback dunny in a field of orange grass against a deep blue sky.Public toilets are not dinner party conversation, but they are essential to our wellbeing. They are costly to build and maintain yet we need more of them. They also need to be fit for purpose because they are about social and economic participation. The Changing Places toilet campaign is a case in point. There wouldn’t be many people passionate about public toilets, but Katherine Webber had plenty to say at the UD2021 Conference. 

Katherine’s presentation was titled, Access and Inclusion in Public Toilets: Impacts on social and economic participation. The presentation slides show lots of different examples. Toilet design is often dismissed as just needing to be functional and designs vary little. But public toilets are “difficult to get right. And no wonder. They are mired in cultural baggage, struck in the fixedness of fixtures and bound by massive, often ancient infrastructure (Lowe 2018:49). 

Public toilets also support tourism and economic development, night-time economy, and access to public spaces and public art. 

Katherine describes more in her written paper on this topic. She was awarded a Churchill Fellowship to study toilets in other countries. 

Accessible Eco Homes

Front cover of report.Can homes be both eco-friendly and accessible? If not, it means people with disability and older people are excluded from the benefits of an eco-home. Part M of the UK building regulations require a level threshold and a downstairs toilet. The Lifetime Home standard provides for more flexibility for adaptation. Accessible eco homes are possible with the help of designers 

A study by Amita Bhakta found the following issues with the eco home movement:

    • Sustainability has overridden accessibility in sustainable communities in the UK.
    • Disability requires greater understanding that it is more than mobility impairment. 
    • Space beyond the home should be included in the meaning of home.
    • Top-down policy is not enough – co-design is required.
    • Planners, architects and builders in eco-housing do not consider bodily differences.

The title of the report available from Academia.edu is Accessibility in Sustainable Communities. It includes a discussion about whether sustainable communities should cater for all needs. But Bhakta points out that sustainable communities cannot regard themselves as progressive if they are exclusive. The report concludes with a model for inclusive sustainable communities. See abstract below. 

There is a similar article, Making space for disability in eco-homes and eco-communities. The eco-home movement in the UK is underpinned by collaborative and communal housing and living. The aim of the movement is to minimise environmental impact and to be socially progressive. 

From the abstract

We use three eco-communities in England to explore how their eco-houses and wider community spaces accommodate the complex disability of hypotonic Cerebral Palsy.

We used site visits, video footage spatial mapping, observations, survey and interviews that show little attention has be paid to making eco-houses accessible. There are four ways to interrogate accessibility in eco-communities: understanding legislation, thresholds, dexterity and mobility.

Three factors emerged: ecological living is not designed for disabled people; disabled access was only considered in relation to the house and its thresholds and not to the much broader space of the home; and eco-communities need to be spaces of diverse interaction.

 

Architects and empathy: the key to inclusive design

A man wearing simulation gloves and glasses tries to open a sticky note padLoughborough University has a good track record for inclusive design research. The latest article reports on a study to find out if “empathetic modelling” could influence architects’ design thinking. Impaired vision and manual dexterity are the most common losses as people age. So these factors were used in the study to improve architects’ empathy and understanding of users.

The method involved using glasses and gloves that simulate loss of vision and loss of hand dexterity. Participants were given reading, writing and dexterity tasks while wearing the gloves and glasses.

The results show that the tasks challenged their traditional view of disability. Participants began to see it more as a continuum and effecting a wider population. The key themes are summarised below.

Key themes

      • Inadequacy of the current building standard, Access to and Use of Buildings. It only recommends minimum access standards.
      • There is no incentive for developers to go beyond minimum compliance.
      • Developers often commission design briefs so the end user is often unknown.
      • In the absence of knowing their end user, they tend to design for themselves.
      • They feel there is a stigma associated with accessible designs and this reinforces the disability-centric concept of able bodied versus disability designs.
      • It challenged their traditional view on disability and capability loss and the current polarised view within design, between ‘able-bodied’ and ‘disabled-users’.
      • A lack of inclusive design training within their undergraduate and post graduate training and a desire to include more in their continuing professional development.
      • Participants felt strongly that commercial, accessible design decisions, mainly addressed physical impairments.
      • All participants reported an increased awareness of the psychological effects of the simulated capability loss, reporting frustration and fatigue.

The title of the article is, How ‘Empathetic modelling’ positively influences Architects’ empathy, informing their Inclusive Design-Thinking.  Arthritis is rarely recorded as a disability but it affects one in seven Australians. Opening packages, lifting the kettle and turning door knobs can be difficult and painful. 

Abstract

Empathy is described in the literature as being the first stage in the Design-Thinking cycle. Architects and Design professionals should ‘Empathise’ with their users to understand their needs and gain insight into the exclusion barriers that many users face within the Built Environment.

This paper presents the results of a study conducted with a cohort of Architects, investigating whether an ‘Empathetic Modelling’ intervention could influence their intrapersonal state empathy levels and inform their inclusive Design-Thinking.

A validated empathy scale was used to measure Architects empathy levels, pre and post intervention. Visual acuity and hand dexterity were the two capability losses simulated, with participants performing common Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and two design tasks.

Results showed that all participants empathy scores increased, when comparing pre and post-test measures. This was supported with qualitative data, with results suggesting that all participants gained unique and useful insights into how they can incorporate more accessibility, adaptability and inclusivity into future designs, to reduce user exclusion within the built environment.

This increased awareness of incorporating an inclusive design philosophy, has positive implications for design professionals understanding the diverse needs of the wider user population and especially for the increasing ageing population, who want to maintain their independence and enjoy barrier-free access to the built environment.

The video below shows the gloves and glasses in action.

Ageing in neighbourhood rather than retirement villages

long view of a Perth city mall with shops and cafes under awnings and trees for shade. Tall buildings are in the background. A nice neighbourhood.Older people know what they want in terms of housing and their neighbourhood. But has anyone asked them? Two researchers in Queensland have. This research came about because of serious concerns about congregate living during the COVID-19 pandemic. In their research findings, the researchers challenge the ideas of local planners. They say we need to look at ageing in neighbourhood rather than retirement villages.

The researchers found that local councils can act as a catalyst for the market to change and innovate. They propose infill developments with a mix duplexes and mid rise apartments with easy access to services. The article in The Conversation has lot of images and diagrams to illustrate their arguments. The title of the article is, Ageing in neighbourhood: what seniors want instead of retirement villages and how to achieve it. 

It is time to move away from focusing on what older people can no longer do to what they can be encouraged to do. That is the healthy ageing approach. Older people know what’s best for them. Given the opportunity they can create solutions.

The table below shows the key features that make a home and neighbourhood a good place to live as they age.

The Fifth Estate has an article that extends the discussion on this topic into smart cities. The title of the article is, This is how we create the age-friendly smart city. 

Australia was one of the first countries to contribute to the WHO’s age-friendly cities project, but how much has been implemented? The late Hal Kendig explains the situation in a book chapter, Implementing age-friendly cities in Australia, which can be found in Age Friendly Cities and Communities: A Global Perspective. Or you can access a similar publication on ResearchGate. 

COVID re-think on retirement living

Single storey homes in the late afternoon sun suggesting a retirement community.Retirement living has to factor pandemics into design now. Separation rather than isolation is the key. Much of the value of specialist retirement living is the easy access to amenities and socialisation. But the pandemic put a stop to both. The constant reminder that older people are more vulnerable to the infection was the last straw. Especially as everyone fell into the vulnerable category. Consequently, everyone got isolated from each other. But how to design for this?

Australian Ageing Agenda has an article discussing these issues. If residents have to stay home for prolonged periods, they will likely demand more space. Pocket neighbourhoods could work so that only a section needs to be cordoned off. Other ideas are:

The title of the article is, COVID-19 is shaping design of future facilities. 

 

 

Accessibility Toolbar