The classic and often quoted 7 Principles of Universal Design were devised in the 1990s. The world has moved on, but many academics and practitioners remain committed to these principles. Steinfeld and Maisel updated them in 2012 to include cultural awareness as an 8th principle. In the 2020s we need to think more broadly again. A new paper proposes safety as the 8th principle, but maybe it should be the 9th.
The 7 Principles of Universal Design were devised at a time when designers were considered responsible for creating accessible designs. Now we know the benefits of involving users in the design process as well. Of course safety should be automatically considered in all designs, but are all designs safe for everyone? A group of researchers from Ireland make the links between universal design and safety.
Now we understand diversity better, perhaps 7, 8 or 9 principles are insufficient to cover all aspects of our lives and design. The concept of universal design is much broader than just accessibility. Image is a photo taken in 2004 at Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental Access.
Feeling safe gives confidence
What do we mean by ‘safe’. Being safe and feeling safe are two different but related concepts. Not feeling safe can be just as limiting and exclusionary as lack of physical access. A conference paper from Ireland looks at this issue from a fear of falling perspective. Accessibility and safety don’t always go together.
Fear is a natural and essential reaction. Some people might limit or avoid activities outside the home because of the fear of falling. Others at an actual risk of falling might not consider falling as a risk. Neither condition is ideal.
The authors of the paper use examples of how design can make people feel safer. An obvious one is a handrail on a stairway. Having confidence to participate in everyday activities is good for health. Maintaining and restoring that confidence is another element of universal design.
The title of the paper is Widening the Circle: Is There an Eighth Principle for Universal Design?
From the abstract
The advantage of universal design over barrier-free design is it benefits everyone, regardless of age or ability. However design for personal safety outranks accessibility as a design The imperative to include design for personal safety even outranks accessibility as a requirement of a design.
The Seven Principles of Universal Design did not anticipate advanced standards of safety in today’s world. Whilst Principle Five – ‘Tolerance for Error’ gets close, it implies the user who is at fault not the designer. The very fear of falling, inability to find a public toilet, or feeling incapable erodes confidence.
We discuss the design of facilities that lead to lack of confidence. Fear of falling is one of the most limiting when it comes to getting out and about. We propose an additional principle: Reduction of Fear.
By joining forces with health and safety issues, universal design becomes more inclusive, desirable to client bodies, and attractive to everyone. There are areas where improvement in design is urgently required.
Politicians and planners make frequent calls for older Australians to give up their three bedroom homes to make way for “working families”. They expect them to move into apartments. But is urban density the answer? Regardless of the ageist inference that older people are “hogging all the houses”, with the political focus on working families, little room is left to discuss the housing needs of older cohorts. 
This is a major work by Bruce Judd, Diana Olsberg, Joanne Quinn and Oya Demirbilek (2010). It challenges the often held assumption that older people are “taking up space” in big houses that they no longer need – assumptions that their homes are “underoccupied”. 
Three bedrooms and urban living are what most older people want. These are two of the key findings in a new Australian report from AHURI. Age specific housing is not a preference. So researchers suggest more innovation to attract the older cohort so they can age in place after all. 
What do government representatives think is the best way to supply homes suitable for people with disability? Mandating accessible features in all new mainstream housing is the way to go. That means both owners and renters would benefit. Plus accessible housing would suit ageing in place and not be detrimental to the rest of the population.
This article was written when the Australian Building Codes Board called for responses to their Options Paper on Accessible Housing in 2017. Using facts and figures, she challenges the many false assumptions that the industry and others hold about the need for universal design in housing. She also covers assumptions about costs. So yes, it’s possible.
If you ask an older person if their home will suit them in their later years, they are likely to say yes. But how will they know and will they find out when it’s too late? That is the key issue when policy makers talk about ageing in place. Are we actually prepared for it? And not only are they people’s homes, they are potentially the workplaces for care service staff. So what next for an ageing Australia?
