Category: Research papers for built environment

Certification for universal design and accessibility should be tested by different users to be sure it is worthy. An hotel in New York with an isUD certification was the subject of such a assessment. The outcome was that it was not well regarded by wheelchair users. The isUD (innovative solutions for Universal Design) certification was devised by the inclusive design centre at the University at Buffalo.

Buildings must meet a minimum score of 70-75 points to be certified by isUD. The newly built hotel in Western New York was used as a case study to test the robustness of the isUD certification.

Researchers tested the hotel’s features with three groups of people. They recruited healthy adults, older adults and wheelchair users. The participants wore lapel microphones to verbally record their feelings and experiences as they happened. They were given tasks for the hotel lobby, the room, the bathroom and the public bathroom.

At the end of the experience they were given a questionnaire to document their stress levels and perceptions of usability. The healthy group were concerned with aesthetics such as being able to watch their preferred TV channels. Operating self-closing doors was a common complaint from wheelchair users.

The paper details the methods and results and provides insights into user perspectives across the three groups. Although this hotel had been certified as meeting universal design criteria, not all features were easy to use. Perhaps a score greater than 70-75% is required so that finer design details are included.

The title of the article is, Understanding Hotel Design Priorities for Individuals of Different Physical Ability Levels. Note that in the U.S. the term universal design is used interchangeably with accessibility and has a focus on disability.

From the conclusion

Hotel guests’ expectations varied according to their level of activity. Wheelchair users commented on functional features, such as a walk-in shower. Healthy subjects considered the presence of the provided features as a must and were searching for leisure-oriented or luxurious features. Guests’ demands from a public facility are varied based on the (mis)matches between their abilities and the environment’s features.

Individuals with minimal or no universal design requirements gain benefits from the facility when designed to meet the needs of individuals with severe impairments. Designing for individuals with the most probable impairment supports inclusivity and can be cost beneficial.

This study was designed to encourage hotel managers and stakeholders to recognize universal design and accessibility features as an all-encompassing solution.

From the abstract

This study evaluated the effects of hotel features on perceptions of stress and usability with healthy adults, older adults, and wheelchair users.

Participants completed a guided walkthrough of a hotel that included tasks in the room, bathroom, and lobby. The older adults had the lowest level of perceived stress, whereas the wheelchair users had the lowest rating of usability.

The healthy group had generally positive perspectives on the hotel features, while the wheelchair users had predominantly negative comments. Concerns ranged from concerns, such as not having access to preferred television shows (healthy group), to difficulty with accessibility of basic room features such as stepping into the shower area (older adults) and opening the room door (wheelchair users).

Although inclusive design may pose a challenge to hotel designers, all guests should have access to basic features

It’s not a case of difficulty or lack of knowledge about how to make places and spaces inclusive and accessible. It has to be something else. Whatever it is, can a universal design approach make a difference? And what are the policy and political barriers to inclusion? That’s what Lilian Müller wanted to find out.

Müller’s thesis explores the complexity of why a universal design approach gets lost in planning processes. Paradoxically, solutions are not only exclusionary and stigmatising, they also add cost to projects. We have normalised “accessible/disabled” toilets, ramps and parking places dedicated to wheelchair users. These are viewed as normal add-ons for compliance with legislation. This is not a universal design approach, and it’s not inclusive.

Updating heritage buildings for tourists has lead to more inclusive places. But new buildings are not getting the same treatment.

Five ways to look at it

The thesis explores five different aspects and perspectives. Briefly they are:

One: “Young mobile and highly educated cyclists: How urban planning and policy disables users”. Older people and people with disability are made invisible, but youth, health and mobility are put to the foreground as the norm.

Two: “Planning for human diversity – patterns of universal design”. Where this worked well in projects the focus was on people and function. Universal design goals failed to materialise where projects categorised users and high demands were put on their abilities. Interestingly, universal design seemed easier to implement in existing buildings than new constructions.

Three: “Visions of a city for all – resources, choices and universal design in urban development”. Conflicting visions and goals, and resources, support and tools to implement universal design were critical aspects in the process. The challenge is to maintain an early vision and goals throughout the process.

Four: “Citizens’ experiences of inclusion, exclusion and unequal living conditions in the built environment.” Go-along interviews revealed the essential elements in being able to visit the city centre. And also, what made them welcoming and inclusive.

Five: “Who are we building for? Tracing universal design in urban development”. This study is builds on studies one and two. There are competing and conflicting interests inside the city’s organisation and between society interests and profit interests. There is also a distorted conception of user’s conditions and abilities.

When will the barriers drop?

The thesis covers all the relevant literature on the topic. When it comes to the built environment, good policy intentions fall away and a universal design approach remains elusive. Müller deals with the complexities of this dilemma in a practical way. Her findings mirror those in Australia and elsewhere.

We continue to wait for the paradigm shift from special arrangements to designs for all. A policy for an inclusive society is one thing – politically enforcing it is another.

The title is, Bridging the Gaps: Realising Human Diversity in the Built Environment Through Universal Design.

From the abstract

The ongoing exclusion of persons with disabilities from the built environment does not result from a lack of knowledge on how to remedy existing obstacles nor of how to avoid creating new ones. There must be other reasons.

This thesis explores how to achieve more equal and inclusive environments by using universal design to incorporate human diversity in all stages of planning and construction. The thesis consists of three studies which are the bases of five articles.

The first is the theoretical framework that involves planning and construction processes and forms of governance. The second is the view of the users of the built environment and how they are categorised, and choices and priorities in the planning process. The third is theories of universal design.

The studies included a document study, a multiple case study, semi-structured interviews, workshops and go-along interviews in three cities. The findings show numerous factors that influence the conditions for how human diversity is included or not in urban development processes.

These factors include the norms and categorisations of the users, current urban building trends, and planning practices. Examples show how universal design can be implemented in the entire process – from idea to finished construction. The findings show the need for several changes.

All studies demonstrate the importance of protecting significant societal goals throughout planning and construction processes. This indicates that public actors must take greater responsibility to lead planning processes and follow up on the results.

The municipalities are at the forefront of defending social goals and operationalising conventions that Sweden has undertaken to follow. Being able to access and use the built environment is a fundamental human right.

Do footpaths have an economic value to the public? Are pedestrians all the same? These questions are worth asking policy makers when it comes to inclusive pedestrian mobility. There is a tendency to treat pedestrians as one group with some exceptions such as outside schools and aged care facilities. This is not helped by various definitions of inclusive mobility in the literature.

An area that is accessible to and usable by everyone can be described as an inclusive pedestrian area. Because pedestrian space does not have a strict status or economic value, and is a place that quickly adapts to different purposes, special attention is needed to preserve pedestrian areas.

Noa Hamacher’s Masters thesis delves into this topic academically and practically. She looks at human-oriented spaces, pedestrian-friendly areas, and a definition of pedestrian inclusion. The case studies take a national and local context in Norway and The Netherlands.

Given the diversity of pedestrians, designs should consider a wide range of user needs. Fair processes and procedures for decision-making is therefore required.

Pedestrian areas are sometimes used for community activities, which are a good thing. However, these activities, such as markets and other events, should take care not to create barriers to accessing this space.

In terms of evaluation, the study found no useful evaluation tools for inclusive pedestrian spaces. This allows the more powerful voices to claim priority. Consequently, involving marginalised groups in decision-making processes is required.

The title of the Masters thesis is, Inclusive mobility in pedestrian areas: Defining and evaluating inclusive pedestrian areas in Oslo, Norway, and Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Photos of case study examples are included in the document.

From the abstract

Walking is the most basic form of mobility. It is used as a mode of transportation in every journey, whether it involves a vehicle or not. Therefore, everyone depends on walking to meet their transportation needs. However, policymakers often assume all pedestrians have a productive age and have the same level of capability.

Additionally, there are a variety of definitions of inclusive mobility found in literature and policy. Because of this, inclusivity of pedestrian areas cannot be standardized. On one hand, mobility policy should consider the various demands of individuals. On the other, there is a desire for a uniform approach in practice.

Finding a balance between these topics is the main goal of this research. This study sought a deeper understanding of the definition of inclusive pedestrian areas and factors that influence the level of inclusivity.

The questions regarding inclusivity; “of what”, “for whom, “by whom and “how much’’ are studied. Two cases are examined namely Oslo, Norway and Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

The results show that an inclusive pedestrian area is defined as an area accessible to and usable by everyone. Further, it is an area that quickly adapts to different purposes in comparison to space for other travel modes. Therefore, pedestrian space often comes under strain.

Participation varies greatly by type of project and evaluation is poor. A strong national goal and a strategy is needed to raise awareness and provide binding rules and funding.

These four words, planning, diversity, inequity and justice all belong in the same sentence. Being excluded from places and spaces means walking, public transport, work, education, and seeing friends are out of reach. But good design can fix it.

The way we plan and design for human diversity requires serious rethinking if we genuinely want to address inequity and injustices in our suburbs and cities. 

Image from the inclusive communities workshop.

Lisa Stafford is a planner and researcher and she urges the planning fraternity to be change agents. Her short article in Urbanet neatly spells out the reasons why and what needs to change. Stafford is leading a research project with people aged 9 to 92 years to identify the details of the changes we need.

The changes needed

To address the injustices we must adapt and retrofit our suburbs and cities for sustainable inclusive futures. People with disability have a right to access everyday spaces, housing, transport and social infrastructure.

Stafford’s article discusses changing the narrative and confronting ableism and adopting inclusive urban governance. Treating people with disability as equals in planning processes requires a universal design approach. Stafford points out that the New Urban Agenda and SDG 11 are about disability justice. Adopting inclusive urban governance, planning, and leadership are a good start.

Stafford concludes the article with a call to action:

“Planning for equity and inclusion is an essential approach. We simply will not have sustainable suburbs and cities if they are not inclusive and just. The message for our profession is simple – we must do better. Be a change agent by considering your ways of working and what it means to plan better for equity and inclusion.”

The title of the article is, Celebrating Human Diversity – Urban Planning for Disability Equity and Inclusion.

Diversity is more than disability and urban planners also have to consider many other groups including gender, ages, and cultural background. This is the era of intersectionality – we can be more than one identity.

Staying active and being healthy is a good thing we are told. So, what can designers do to encourage active healthy living? And does it go beyond the level of the built environment? How can we encourage people to venture out of their homes and engage in “healing” activity? Two researchers have devised a multidisciplinary healthy living tool to help.

The researchers looked at many theories and design practices to find potential building design that supports healthy behaviour and reduces stress. From this work they devised a multidisciplinary tool to guide design decision for shared spaces. The ultimate aim was to encourage people to engage physically, socially and psychologically in different built environment settings.

Level footpaths, seating, and shade create an attractive and inclusive place to walk and sit.

The recent pandemic tells us to take another look at how we maintain (or not) healthy minds and bodies.

The research paper describes the methods they used for developing the tool for inclusive self-directed healthy behaviours. A matrix of theories was created from urban planning, biophilia, active living and social engagement design. A list of criteria was generated from the research to create clear definitions using a rating system.

Although the tool continues to be modified, the article describes an interesting multidisciplinary approach to design for human wellbeing. The process of discussion on design features takes thinking another step forward. The authors found that the dialogue between individuals with different experiences facilitated a blending of knowledge for a holistic, inclusive approach to design.

The title of the article is, Evaluating design features to support inclusive, self-directed, and active healthy living behaviours.

From the abstract

Active healthy living design has typically focused on urban and community environments to support physical activity. This article looks at an expanded definition of active healthy living opportunities at building level design for various groups. We engaged with a diversity of people through a form of inclusive design that encourages individuals to explore areas of shared spaces or get outside of personal environments and buildings for self-directed, restorative activity.

The objective is to promote features that support health and wellbeing. We propose a multidisciplinary tool to facilitate decisions around creating shared spaces in different settings to encourage active behaviour.

Theories and design practices were examined for potential applications to building-centred design that supports healthy behaviour, reduces environment stress. We included the Biophilic Healing Index that helps encourage healthy behaviours.

A rating scale was then associated with criteria representing evidence-based guidelines, and capable of being fitted for use as a teaching-learning and discussion aid. An overview of data from demonstration of the tool is presented, along with feedback on proposed improvements and how these might impact professional practice.