A study by the University of Westminster and Arup revealed some important information about LGBTQIA+ perspectives on inclusive public space. Public seating featured in many of the responses to survey questions along with design features everyone would like. Consequently, this study is a good example of how focusing on a marginalised group can improve the built environment for everyone.
“A legacy of Victorian design culture means that they continue to express institutionalisation, not inclusivity.”
Historically, buildings such as law courts were designed to express authority and to intimidate. This creates feelings of exclusion. Image from Historic England Blog
A survey found that LGBTQIA+ people had a lot to say about public space and buildings. For example, they regarded hospitals as uncomfortable places – they felt impersonal, soulless, and alienating. The most important factors shaping inclusivity were street furniture to relax on, green spaces, easy access to transportation and quality lighting.
Paradoxically, traditional security features such as CCTV felt like hostile architecture because they made the place uncomfortable. It’s all to do with the sense of what is being protected and who is being policed.
Gaybourhoods are discussed in the survey report with mixed thoughts on advantages and disadvantages.
“The prevalence of queer imagery such as the Pride flags were generally seen as welcoming features. However, some respondents raised concerns that there may be a greater risk of hate crime when leaving the space.” Image from report, Janet Echelman TED 2014 Sculpture.
Visibility and privacy
Seeing without being seen was a common theme. Respondents wanted places where they could see the whole area and the exits, but not be obviously viewed themselves. For example, street seating behind low walls or screened by shrubs. In effect, a cosy corner without feeling watched.
Busy and diverse spaces with lots of people where they could blend in without fear of being targeted was preferred over active surveillance.
What makes public space inclusive?
The survey respondents were far more receptive to sounds, smells and visual ambience of space than heterosexual men. It’s interesting to note that these factors are also mentioned by people who are neurodivergent. Underrepresentation of marginalised groups in public monuments and was highlighted by half the respondents. They felt more diverse representation would change street ambience to be less intimidating.
Bus stations and hospitals
To some degree the survey respondents were likely expressing similar design dislikes to many others. Bus stations with low roofs, noise and fumes, poor wayfinding were mentioned in the survey. Entry to hospitals with long blank concrete walls reinforced the messages that this place is about procedures, not people.
Museums Victoria worked with autistic user/experts to co-design museum spaces and resources. The experience showed the concept of co-design can be interpreted in different ways. Taking a flexible approach is essential to meaningful participation of autistic people. Design outcomes of autism-friendly museums are good for everyone.
Participants reported improved design outcomes, increased knowledge, and positive emotional experiences as outcomes gained from co-design. An autism-friendly approach to design enhances the universal design of public buildings.
Autism is considered a normal variation of human neurodiversity rather than a diagnostic disorder. More than 80% of Australians who identify as autistic also identified as experiencing disability. This is due to their inability to go places and participate comfortably.
Museums play an important role in society and should therefore be accessible and usable by everyone. They offer valuable opportunities for learning, social interaction and cultural engagement. Autistic visitors have diverse experiences and the built environment plays a big part. Lighting, noise, unclear signage, inaccessible bathrooms are all barriers.
It’s not just bricks and mortar, it’s how people physically interact in that space that can create barriers. Crowded spaces and staff attitudes also matter. Participants emphasised that consideration of accessibility across all museum spaces and facilities is crucial.
Key findings from co-design
Involving autistic people in the design process can result in better design outcomes for autistic people, their families, and other museum users.
Future projects should include autistic people and people with disability in all design stages and decision making.
When planning co-design it is important to be flexible and accommodating of people’s different needs.
Working with autistic people and people with disability in co-design projects can improve designer’s knowledge and confidence about neurodivergence, disability, and inclusive design.
Researchers investigated how co-design processes with autistic people were implemented by a museum to enhance its usability. The museum partnered with an autism advocacy organisation. The researchers interviewed four employees of the museum and two employees of the advocacy organisation.
Four major themes emerged. 1. Museums Victoria prioritises usability for all people. 2. Co-design is more than consultation. 3. Collaborative, iterative, and flexible co-design should occur throughout design stages. 4. There are challenges, but co-design leads to positive outcomes.
Findings strongly support the participation of autistic people in the co-design of museum facilities and the factors that facilitate this process. Participants reported improved design outcomes, increased knowledge, and positive emotional experiences as outcomes gained from co-design. Findings also suggest that an autism-friendly approach to design can enhance universal design of public buildings.
The relevant ministries of the five Nordic countries are concerned that cities are becoming more socially divided. For countries known for supporting social justice, this is a relatively new development. So what is going on, and what to do about it? Fortunately Nordic countries have laws supporting the concept of social inclusion through participatory planning. However, it’s more complex than that.
Participation is a prerequisite for democracy. It enables the redistribution of power by involving citizens in making decisions both for their own good and in the public interest. A Nordic group is looking beyond segregation to social inclusion.
Population segregation has emerged as a growing issue in the five Nordic countries and policy-makers are looking to improve social inclusion. Citizen participation is strongly emphasised in national legislation and the governance of municipalities. So the concept of community involvement is already present. However, legislation alone is insufficient to bring about change.
Social inclusion: beyond segregation
A research report looks at all five countries and compares policies and practice. Part three of the report looks at polices for counteracting segregation and encouraging social inclusion. Part 5 looks at the participatory planning aspects in each of the countries. The discussion in part 7 draws together the research findings.
Participatory planning approaches
Part 7 of the report covers the types of participatory planning approaches used. Each country has a national strategy and policy programs emphasising participation. However it falls to the local municipalities to implement the strategies and policies. Some municipalities go beyond the policy requirements and legal frameworks.
Each of the Nordic cities has a good story to tell about creative ways of involving citizens in planning. This includes engaging with children and young people, older people and people with disability.
However, challenges remain, particularly engaging with more silent, passive or marginalised groups. While there is a strong public desire to participate, limited understanding of the processes can hold things back. In other situations, citizens are uncertain whether their voices will play out at the implementation stage.
Limited resources are also an issue. Norwegian municipalities tend towards informing rather than involving. A shortfall of competence at municipal level is also a factor. Consequently, there is less participation in the early stages of planning.
All five Nordic countries are ultimately seeking to promote democratic decision-making and inclusive urban development. They seek to address challenges such as legal ambiguity, resource constraints and the engagement of marginalised groups. The different participatory approaches demonstrate advances in overcoming barriers to engagement.
Airports are typically noisy, busy, and confusing all adding to the general travel anxiety many people experience. But for many autistic people the crowds, noise and confusion is even more challenging. So finding out more about their experience could lead us to better experiences for everyone. A study analysing reports from six Australian airports revealed some autistic-led insights on airport accessibility.
Taking a flight for a holiday, a business trip, or a family visit, requires navigating an airport environment. Preparing for the trip and getting to the airport can be stressful at the best of times. Then comes the ordeal of the airport itself.
The study analyzed reports produced between 2017 and 2024, to find ways to make airports better for autistic travellers. These reports were based on assessments led by autistic people and evaluated areas like sensory experiences and communication needs. The study found that reducing sensory challenges, like loud noises, and improving communication and wayfinding could make things easier.
Insights and recommendations
The way autistic people manage an environment depends on the type, intensity, and duration of sensory inputs and whether a place feels open or confined. Predictability helps reduce uncertainty and anxiety by ensuring that sensory and environmental cues remain consistent. Sight, sound and smell are key design elements to consider:
Choose natural lighting over harsh fluorescents
Reduce glare and reflective surfaces
Select neutral colour palettes (except for signage)
Use sound absorbing materials
Create neutral scents
Clear communication and predictability is the second theme emerging from the study. Autistic people need to plan and prepare every part of their journey so they know what to expect. Knowing what to expect reduces uncertainty and anxiety and helps with maintaining confidence. Every airport is different. That makes understanding airports difficult. Pre-travel information is key to creating a level of predictability. And when at the airport, wayfinding and signage become important.
Clear signage, colour-coded pathways, and pictorial instructions also serve as alternative modes of communication. But these must be consistent too. This image is of abus station in Singapore designed with people with dementia. It serves as an example of a visual wayfinding system.
Crowd levels and general noise cannot be fully controlled, but providing recovery spaces can help. These are places where individuals can temporarily retreat to manage sensory overload. They support their ability to re-engage with the environment and continue their journey.
However, an autism-friendly environment also requires an understanding from staff and the public. They play a key role in recognising and accommodating sensory and social needs to foster a more inclusive and accessible space for autistic people.
This study shows the importance of involving autistic people in the design of more inclusive public spaces – for everyone. An important factor as the tourism and travel industries continue to evolve to create more accessible destinations and experiences.
Autistic people often encounter overwhelming sensory environments, stringent security procedures, and crowded spaces in airports. This study retrospectively analysed reports from Autistic-led environmental assessments conducted at six Australian airports between 2017 and 2024.
The assessments focused on eight key elements, including sensory adaptations, communication supports, and preparation and predictability. Analysis revealed two key themes: (1) navigating the sensory landscape and (2) helping passengers navigate with confidence.
Our findings underscore the importance of sensory adjustments—such as natural lighting, quiet spaces, and clearer visual aids and communication supports. Importantly, this study offers practical, evidence-based recommendations for more inclusive design. This research highlights the need for participatory design approaches to create public spaces that are genuinely accessible and supportive for Autistic travelers
Practical wisdom, knowledge and experience is a key factor in co-design processes. People with disability have their own lived experience of cities which is essential knowledge for the ongoing design and redesign of urban environments. But it has to mesh with other wisdoms and experiences and here we find tensions between stakeholders. A study from Sweden revealed three kinds of knowledge at play.
Workshops held in three Swedish cities revealed three kinds of knowledge. They are: fact based knowledge, professional knowledge, and practical wisdom (episteme, techne and phronesis).
Knowledge creation is an ongoing endeavour and collaboration between stakeholders is essential for overcoming tensions and working for good outcomes. But personal experience is not well regarded as it cannot be ‘measured’ and quantified.
Tensions and practical wisdom
‘Officials viewed personal narratives about disability as the source of valuable knowledge, helping them understand the reasons behind accessibility requirements – ‘understand in practice’, as one official said. She recommended this for practitioners as a way to avoid building errors.’
Structural tensions centred around resources and who had access, including disability organisations. This creates power imbalances. In some municipalities officials sent people with disability questions to confirm their decisions. Other structural tensions are more mundane such as the best time of day to get the best citizen participation rate. People with disability reported officials’ resistance to applying accessibility standards as another factor.
Categorical tensions centred around the notion that accessibility is an overarching label as being for people with impairments. Proposals about roads, public art or street furniture did not belong to accessibility. Categorising accessibility as a minority interest made it a ‘soft issue’, not like emergency services – a firm box to tick.
Tensions around interpretation revealed uncertainties about judging personal stories in relation to urban experiences.
‘What we can perhaps see as the disadvantage of this way of working: being on site with a somewhat small group – is that it depends a lot on the people involved. After all, it is your personal opinion that you are expressing. And it can then vary, we think, from project to project depending on who is involved … There is still a risk that we interpret something wrong … You don’t know if it’s personal opinions … It’s hard to know whose voice you’re hearing.’
Universal design seen as disability design
So, where does universal design fit into the discussion? While universal design encompasses more than disability, it remains closely associated with it. When interpreted as accessibility, it becomes an afterthought at the end of the process. However, a universal design approach takes inclusion seriously from the outset of a project.
What cannot be quantified and measured “rationally” is seen as ‘soft’ evidence by officials. Nevertheless, universal design endeavours to explain the reasons behind access requirements and why minimum compliance is insufficient.
This paper explores knowledge creation in universal design processes that aim to make cities accessible to all. It contributes insights into the practice of urban development in Sweden. Workshops and qualitative interviews were conducted in three mid-sized cities re-designing a city square, a street, and a new library.
We found that different kinds of knowledge were in play in local collaboration. Universal design was akin practical wisdom. Imbalances of power and divisions between stakeholders caused tensions. The perception that accessibility is limited to a specific target group also played a part. To overcome these tensions, we propose that disability organizations be contributors rather than commentators.
Co-creating course material and teaching practices with students is essential in courses such as social work. How can a student social worker understand equity and inclusion if they experience discriminatory approaches to the subject and teaching practices?
“As courses transitioned to online learning, it became clear that course syllabi are not neutral documents; rigid policies, deficit-based language, and unconscious biases disproportionately impacted students from historically marginalized backgrounds.”
Four approaches for re-designing course material are explored as a means of achieving student engagement: universal design, human-centered design, the liquid syllabus, and anti-racist pedagogy materials. We also offer examples from our own anti-oppressive teaching practices. We conclude with our shared experiences and a reflection from a former student.
From the abstract
The social work profession continues to prioritize diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility within curricula and the classroom. Consequently, instructors must consider the syllabus as a foundational element. Often overlooked in discussions of power and oppression, the syllabus not only sets the tone for the course but also establishes the policies and practices that influence student engagement with both instructors and course content.
This article explores the approaches to teaching and co-creating course material and design. It focuses on the importance of language and tone, and the process of cocreating course content, assignments, and grading schemas with students. We conclude by sharing lessons learned and implications for both instructors and students. We hope to encourage ongoing dialogue on fostering classroom inclusion through syllabus redesign and a reflexive examination of the power dynamics that exist within the classroom.
An “age-inclusive” approach – such as accessible public transport, diversified housing options, and telemedicine – has immediate benefits. It enhances wellbeing and economic growth and generates long lasting benefits for creating inclusive cities. A new OECD report considers these factors and the economic and social costs of inaction. Cities for all ages should mean children to older age, but the report focuses on older age.
The report provides a checklist of nine key actions that governments can take to create age-inclusive cities. The 80 page document covers the rationale for action based on changing demographics. The second section explores policies for age-inclusive cities including housing. The checklist is in section 3.
The checklist is based on:
Strategy setting for a structured policy approach
Resource development and increasing capacity
Stakeholder co-ordination to involve local citizens to help solve problems
Checklist for creating cities for all ages
The report provides a checklist of concrete actions for governments. It builds on the initiatives from the previous chapters which review existing guidance and standards.
As this is an OECD document it necessarily includes the actions and ideas from across the globe – both developed and developed nations. Consequently, some of the actions listed are well known in Australia. However there is always more to learn from others especially as there is no one-size-fits-all in urban development even in the one city.
The title of the OECD urban studies report is, Cities for All Ages. Potentially if cities are good for older people they will automatically be good for everyone regardless of age.
Governments are expanding cycling infrastructure for health, climate and congestion reasons. An active transport network creates connections between significant destinations and transport nodes. Done well, they connect schools, community buildings, shops and recreational areas. But this is not all good news.
Cycling networks are often based on shared paths. For people with disability shared paths are a big problem. So, the way they are designed is critical for both cyclists and pedestrians. Image George Xinos
People with vision, hearing and/or mobility disabilities have particular difficulty with shared paths, even where there are few cyclists. Many see shared paths as discriminatory because they avoid them due to safety concerns. The answer is segregated paths, but what is the best way to design them? George Xinos offers some suggestions.
Visual cues help active transport
A separated path is divided into two separate sections, one for cyclists and the other for the exclusive use of pedestrians. The Austroads Guide to Road Design lists colour and texture contrasting finishes, signage, line marking and footpath symbols. However, a distinct separation is better from an accessibility perspective.
Physical separation is much better for people who are blind or have low vision. Providing a semi-mountable kerb or dividing strip or turf or similar allows them to shoreline along the path. It prevents them from wandering onto the cycle lane.
In a survey of 607 people in Victoria with vision impairment, 8% had a collision, and 20% a near collision in the previous five years. 24% of those were with bicycles. A survey by Guide Dogs Australia found 50% of respondents with low vision reported difficulty in using shared paths. Note that most people with low vision are over the age of 65 years. Consequently, this group experiences the risk of loss of both vision and agility.
Floating bus stops
In 2024, six local residents lodged a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission regarding ‘floating bus stops’ in the City of Sydney. This is where bus passengers have to cross a bike lane to get on and off the bus.
They claimed the bicycle lane is unsafe for the community and especially for older people and people with disability. They were concerned that cyclists often travel at high speeds and many ignore traffic lights and pedestrians. People with hearing and vision impairments may not realise that cyclist could be coming at them from either direction.
How many people have a vision impairment?
According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, more than 13 million Australians have one or more chronic eye conditions. Some lead to more vision loss than others. The prevalence of colour blindness reminds designers that colour contrast is more than colour choice. For example, both red and green can be seen as the same colour grey depending on colour density.
The Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010 has been updated rom 2009 to 2021 version. Andrew Heaton explains the changes and the issues for Development Assessment Panels.
Action-based research and participatory methods are long-standing academic research practices. These methods are now more widespread and more usually known as co-design and co-creation. The same principles apply to both: ask the people, listen, and work together. Nevertheless, university researchers bring their particular skill-set to co-designing inclusive communities.
“By exploring perspectives on inclusive and accessible public and private spaces, this work builds on a multi-year effort to foster community led change.” Image of the front cover of the report.
The University of Technology Sydney (UTS) focused on inner suburbs of Sydney for their research project. It was carried out in partnership with local community members who shared their time and stories. The resulting report highlights the best experiences of inclusive and accessible spaces. These stories provide a strong basis for building on what already exists to create even more of these places.
Co-designing places and spaces expands the skills of individuals and builds on the strengths within the community. It is so much more than creating a “nice” building or park.
Key points for policy and practice
The project found that loneliness and isolation was a community priority and that programs and initiatives should have this as a focus. A sense of belonging for all citizens is therefore the main aim. Briefly the key take-aways from the project are:
increased investment in free and low-cost community spaces and events
prioritising social infrastructure in urban planning; improving public transport and walkability
embedding co-design and participatory decision making in policy development
strengthening social inclusion policies for diverse and marginalised group
prioritising funding for safe and livable housing
funding for place-based organisations
Co-designing inclusion
The project was grounded in an asset-based framework which explores the strengths held in the community. These are the skills, knowledge, and community networks and organisations.
By embedding community leadership throughout the process participants gain a significant sense of ownership and long-term commitment that is often missing from both academic and professional initiatives. Image from the report.
By focusing on community strengths, an asset-based approach captures people’s visions of ‘the best of what is’. It also mobilises existing networks and resources to create opportunities for social change.
The report explains the underpinning concepts for the co-design method which covered nine-month’s of work. The iterative cycle included finding out what is good now and upskilling community members to make change. Co-designing real-world community driven projects was another essential element of the process.
The UTS media team provide an overview of the project and some of the outcomes. Local developers, building managers and community organisations are using the findings to advocate for the community.
The UTS Centre for Social Justice and Inclusion is focused on suburbs surrounding UTS.
Olav Rand Bringa is credited with bringing a universal design approach to Norwegian planning regulations back in 1999. The result was a forward thinking document, Norway Universally Designed 2025. Bringa has followed the evolution of universal design thinking for 25 years until his retirement last year.
Bringa has given a lot of thought to the evolution of the universal design concept, the language we use, and it’s application. He was part of the early movement and wrote about the processes in, Universal Design and Visitability: from Accessibility to Zoning (page 97). Although it began with the built environment it soon included the digital world.
Here are past posts that refer to Bringa’s work and the landmark document Norway Universally Designed 2025.
Norway universally designed by 2025
The Norwegian Government took the principles of universal design and applied them across all policies to create maximum inclusion. This made everyone responsible for inclusion at every level – in the built environment, outdoor areas, transport, and ICT.
In 2008, Norway launched its first Action Plan 2009-2013 with the goal of a universally designed Norway by 2025.
The focus on was on people with disability, accessible built environments and minimising discrimination. The plan covered the actions of the public service and all ministries. “The Government’s work is based on universal design. Universal design is an expression of a value put on equality by society.“
In 2010, Norway amended its Planning and Building Act, among others, to include universal design. The plan was to take a staged approach to upgrading public buildings and spaces.
The Delta Centre took responsibility to coordinate the actions in Norway’s 2015-2019 plan in 2016. This plan covers ICT and communications to a more detailed level.
He outlines the remaining barriers to implementation along with the successes. This paper draws together Bringa’s extensive experience in the field of universal design.
A guide for universal design is not enough
Guides give guidance, but you need to know the point of universal design. Knowing the point is a key success factor in taking a universal design approach. That’s why a guide is not enough – you need to know the point of it.
The point is inclusion – it’s about society, not just design. The focus on compliance with standards does not tell you the reason, only what to do. An article in Citylab provides some examples of how Norwegian designers are embracing the principles of universal design.
St Olav’s Hospital in Trondheim is a good example of implementing universal design across the whole hospital setting. That’s from the outdoor and external features through to the internal design. The Chief Architect says, “Guidelines are not enough, you need clear intentions. You have to know what’s the point of this”.
“It looks like a nice urban environment,” said Onny Eikhaug, Program Leader at the Norway Design Council. “It doesn’t look like a hospital, it doesn’t smell like a hospital.” DOGA, The Innovation Award for Universal Design.
Accessibility by another name – does it work?
Norway uses the term “accessible” to signify solutions specifically for people with disability when not required generally in the population. An interesting distinction by Olav Rand Bringa using his 20 years of experience working in the field of universal design.
Bringa says succinctly, “The term accessibility for people with disabilities does not broadcast an understanding of qualities beyond the targeted user group”. Consequently other terms try to compensate for this. The image is of the Olso Opera House with a universally graded access.
However, it is difficult to move away from “accessibility” because it is perpetuated in legal and other statutory documents. Bringa writes thoughtfully about the issues of getting language right to get inclusion right. An important contribution to the quest for inclusive societies. The title of the article is, Universal Design as a Technical Norm and Juridical Term – A Factor of Development or Recession? it’s open access.
From the abstract
Norway introduced universal design as an ideological and technical concept in Norway in 1996. Since then universal design has replaced accessibility for people with disabilities in national policies, laws, regulations, standards, projects and everyday language.
“Accessibility” characterises solutions made more exclusively for people with disabilities. Few countries have made extensive use of the concept of universal design with challenges from lawmakers, architects, economists, user organizations, and entrepreneurs.
This paper reflects on more than 20 years of extensive use of the concept of universal design. It asks the question: Is universal design an academic invention with little extra positive impact compared to accessibility for people with disability? Or does the concept defend its supposed role as a step towards a society with equal opportunities for all?
Legal documents favour visible disabilities
Previous papers have highlighted successes and where there is room for improvement. A 2024 Norwegian study looks at universal design through a legislative lens and finds legal documents favour visible disabilities.
In more recent years, people with invisible disabilities have raised their voices in the disability rights movement. However, their voices are yet to be incorporated into legislative documents.
Historically, people with mobility and vision impairments led the way in disability rights. Consequently, legilsation was formed with their needs in mind.
The Norwegian researchers wanted to find out if there is a “disability prestige” at play. This is where some disabilities count more than others. Or is it something as basic as just having your disability visible to others? The researchers concluded that visibility was more important to explain discrimination between groups.
The context of the study was transport. They discuss the wording of documents and how terms such as “reduced mobility” are interpreted. It can mean a person with a physical and/or a cognitive impairment. In legislation, it is most often linked to bodily movement.
Prestige versus visibility
Mobility impairments are mentioned more frequently than other disabilities in Norwegian documents. Vision impairments, also frequently mentioned, come in second. The conclusion is that discrimination between disability types is mostly explained by the visibility of a disability.
Why does this matter? When provision for other disabilities and long term health conditions are absent in legal documents, businesses and services don’t consider them.
