Put simply, hostile designs are intentionally created to restrict behaviours in urban spaces in order to maintain public order.
Examples of this type of design are highlighted in a paper titled, Designing Out: A Framework for Studying Hostile Design. Mostly these are benches with raised or sloping sections. However, low height walls are also used as temporary resting places by pedestrians.
“The universal design approach aspires to create spaces that are not just accessible or usable, but inclusive for everyone.” This is the opening line of a chapter on universal design and workplaces in the Handbook of High-Performance Workplaces.
Authors Imogen Howe and Andrew Martel remind us that disability can be temporary or permanent and at any stage of life. Complying with codes in workplace design is not that same as quality design or even adequate design. That means some people will experience barriers that prevent participation and make them feel unwelcome and second class.
The authors explain how the principles of universal design have moved from the 1997 interpretation to a more contemporary one. The principles were formed primarily with the built environment in mind. Universal design thinking has evolved to embrace a broader concept of inclusion in all aspects of life.
Universal design should remain agile and flexible to respond to socio-cultural advancements. It was never meant to be one-size-fits-all as this is impossible. An inclusive society needs both mainstream and targeted individual solutions as well.
A checklist is included at the end of the chapter where each of the principles is applied to workplace situations. This is one of the difficulties of explaining universal design. On one hand it isn’t about a checklist – it’s a thinking process. But designers need something to guide them. In co-design processes with end users, checklists often become redundant. However, checklists are a good place to start for people new to the concept of designing inclusively.
How do we solve big problems such as pandemics, climate change, and unemployment? Linear step by step processes are no longer the way to address these complex challenges. Something else is needed. Jan Auernhammer discusses the issues in his latest article, Design in Strategy and Strategy in Design.
Auernhammer proposes that complex problems require collaborative processes and capabilities. People with diverse perspectives work on solutions together to come up with the best possible solutions. In other words, co-design processes work best.
Auernhammer first clarifies the vocabulary that’s needed to make sure everyone is talking about the same thing. He then presents three perspectives. First, is a method that uses tools, models and plans. Second, is learning through collective reflection from intent and action. Third, where design and strategy emerge from creative and collaborative processes.
Put simply, the first perspective follows established logic, the second is where designers think about it, and the third is co-design. The third perspective is about deep engagement in a psychologically safe and free environment. This might be in the design studio itself with other designers, or with stakeholders in a community engagement process.
“Integrating Strategy and Design requires building collaborative and comprehensive design capabilities. These collective capabilities have the potential to respond to emerging complex challenges with strategic intent and through sophisticated design capabilities enacted in everyday practice.”
The title of the article is, Strategic Design: The integration of the two fields of Strategy and Design.We are all encouraged to leave the car at home and walk or cycle more. However, road and street infrastructure was built at a time when vehicle movements were the focus. That means a lot of retrofitting and work-arounds are needed now. The intersection of bus stops, pedestrians and cyclists is a good example of this vexed issue. The Living Streets report reviews the literature and the status of cycle tracks in the UK. The case studies in the appendices are highly instructive.
Are infrastructure designs for bus stops with cycle tracks making streets less inclusive? Image from Inclusive design at bus stops, by Living Streets.
What do you do when a cycle lane continues past a bus stop? What do pedestrians do and what do cyclists do? Who has right of way? Are design solutions inclusive? Living Streets in the UK investigated these questions and produced a report.
The most consistent concerns were reported by people who are blind or have low vision. But other pedestrians have problems too. Confusion reigns over who has the right of way on cycle tracks that are not part of the footpath or carriageway.
Several design options were studied and four are presented in the report in the image below.
The researchers found that it was not possible to choose one design over another. While they provide a useful framework, they don’t solve all the design problems in the real world. Consequently, this leads to case-by-case solutions, not a one-size-fits-all ruling or guide.
Some of the main factors are whether:
Briefly, the 11 recommendations focus on:
There are 6 appendices to the main report with details of cycling and pedestrian infrastructure and bus stops. Photographs illustrate the text and provide examples of what does and does not work. A great toolbox of ideas to work with.
Inclusive design at bus stops with cycle tracks: Appendix 1 – (Detailed study sites.) Instructive graphics show the level of both cycling and pedestrian movements in each design type. Key observations are enlightening especially where the bus stop island is used instead of the signalised crossing to cross the road. This is a good example of how people will take the shortest route possible, not necessarily the safest.
Inclusive design at bus stops with cycle tracks: Appendices 2-6 – MARCH 2024. Appendix 6 is titled Transport for All – a summary of the main report written in 2023. It addresses accessibility, floating bus stops and continuous footways.
There is much more to this document titled, Inclusive design at bus stops with cycle tracks – MARCH 2024. Kerb designs, colour, separation of pedestrians and cyclists, kerb-free crossings and signalised crossings. A pertinent point raised by people with disability was about the emphasis on this aspect of street design. That’s because they see so many other serious problems with street design and maintenance.
How difficult can designing a bus stop be? Turns out there are lots of elements to consider. Bus stops are one element of an accessible and inclusive travel chain. Each country has their own format or standards for bus stops. But this doesn’t help visitors who are unfamiliar with the design and how it works.
Accessible bus stops are more than a stop sign and perhaps a seat with a shelter. It has to fit within an accessible urban environment. Footpath materials, information and communication and street furniture all have a part to play. A bus stop outside an airport in Portugal is the subject of a case study. The researchers looked specifically at older travellers. They were able to compare bus stops back home with the one at the airport and give useful feedback and share ideas. Portugal is a favourite destination within Europe so there were many comparisons.
The results were generally consistent across the responses regardless whether the respondent had a disability. Many of the responses were fairly obvious, such as barrier-free footpaths and no obstacles around the bus stop. Shelters with seats at a suitable height and easy to read timetables rated as important. Of course, a bus stop is useless if you can’t use the bus, so low floor buses were important.
The paper is titled, An Evaluation of the Universal Accessibility of Bus Stop Environments by Senior Tourists. It was published in the International Information and Engineering Technology Association. It is open access.
See also:
Contributions of tourism to social inclusion of persons with disability for more about inclusive tourism in Portugal.
Sustainable mobility demands an integrated approach covering all modes of transport in a built environment designed for everyone. Social inclusion strategies requires the improvement of transportation for people with reduced mobility. Accessibility is incorporated into urban renovation processes, settlement, housing and transportation.
Assessments measured the performance of spatial indicators and considered technical parameters and/or user perception. In the context of accessible tourism, infrastructures and services were adapted to be inclusive for all.
Accessible built environments are required hence urban spaces, buildings, transport vehicles, information technology and communication, and services must bear in mind the approach of Age Sensitive Design.
Findings indicate that older tourists with disabilities are more critical of the existing accessibility conditions, and have a greater perception of the inclusive characteristics of bus stops. Although older people take barrier-free spaces into account, there is some criticism around pedestrian crossings, bench design and the lack of room for wheelchair users.
Are personal robots the next best thing for companionship for older people – is this what they want? A study carried out in the UK used three types of robot – abstract, pet, and human-like. Publicly available videos of the robots were used in the study. As with all laboratory and simulated studies there is no guarantee that the results will play out in real life. Nevertheless, it offers a guide of older people’s attitudes to personal robots.
In terms of companionship, older people liked the pet personal robot the most. The pet-like robot responds to human movement and sounds. Image of MiRo pet-like personal robot.
The participants were over the age of 60 years and living in the community, not residential care. The three types of robot were Afobot, MiRo, and Sanbot. Afobot is similar to Siri and Alexa in assisting with activities. MiRo is designed to interact at an emotional level and to respond to actions such as hand clapping and stroking. Sanbot is a human-like robot with a head, arms and a screen and uses face and voice recognition.
Participants viewed publicly available videos of the three robots and then answered a questionnaire. The purpose of the study was to measure the attitudes of older people to the three types of personal robots. The researchers note that as the study participants were “young old”, attitudes might not be attributable to those 70 years and older.
The researchers caution the results because participants did not interact with the robots face to face. This means they were not able to explore the robot’s behaviour and their own reactions. The study was conducted online towards the end of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The title of the study is, Measuring Older People’s Attitudes Towards Personal Robots.
It is important to have a way of measuring older people’s attitudes to personal robots and how they might support them. 249 older people in the UK viewed videos of three different types of robots (abstract, pet, and humanoid). They rated their attitudes to each using a questionnaire.
Analysis revealed three components to attitudes to the personal robots, They were: Positive User Experience; Anxiety and Negative Usability; and Social Presence. There were significant differences between the three personal robots with the pet robot receiving the most positive attitudes.
These results help understand which robots may be useful in helping older people choose appropriate robots to support themselves.
Ageing in place and ageing and place are intertwined but distinct. Both place and home need to support people as they age – one is insufficient without the other. Generally, ageing in place means ‘staying put’. That can mean the staying in the same home or staying in the same community or neighbourhood.
Research with older people suggests that ageing in place is more nuanced than just a home or neighbourhood. It’s also about personal and cultural values, priorities and connections to people and places. It is layered with social, material and symbolic meaning. And it’s about having choices about where and how to age.
Janine Wiles and Tara Coleman found that older people valued highly the ability to have choices about their living arrangements and access to services. Familiarity and connections brought a sense of belonging and security.
Housing is basically an infrastructure concept whereas home is where personal routines and interactions take place. This is what brings meaning. This is why we become attached to places. Wiles and Coleman found that this sense of attachment has positive functional, physical and mental health outcomes all contributing to wellbeing.
The ability to carry out maintenance tasks contributes to attachment. However, when these tasks become difficult, either through ability or financial constraints, the sense of home is disrupted. Homes in disrepair are not only hazardous but lessen the attachment to the home.
‘Home and aging’ by Wiles and Coleman is a chapter in Handbook on Aging and Place. Editors are Malcolm Cutchin and Graham D Rowles. It is available for purchase from ElgarOnline.
Home is a concept both underpinning and animated by ideas about ‘aging in place’ and experiences of place and aging. Home is an important resource during older age. At a time when people typically face changes and challenges, having a secure sense of home and strong attachment to place can give a sense of agency, autonomy, and resilience. A sense of home is intricately entwined with our preferred sense of who we are, and with how we build and sustain relationships with others and with places. Conversely, disruption to the sense of home can create instability and accentuate the feeling of being ‘at the end of life’ or of vulnerability and fragility.
Air travel is an anxious affair for many, but for people with disability the worries are multiplied. The Australian Government has produced an Aviation White Paper which highlights the difficulties people with disability experience travelling by air. For wheelchair users, the US Transport Board’s report found there is no engineering reason why power chairs can’t be secured in the aircraft.
Beginning from September 2024, Melbourne Airport will trial a four-month Airport Assist program. The program will help passengers navigate the airport precinct, check-in and pick-up and drop-off zones.
The hub is open from 10am to 6pm and offers buggy transfers between T4 ground transport areas and departure areas. It will also have lanyard for the Hidden Disability Sunflower Program.
Wheelchair users can stay in their powered wheelchair in taxis, trains and buses, but not in aircraft. Every wheelchair user takes a deep breath and hopes their wheelchair will come through the flight without damage. The risk of personal injury in wheelchair to seat transfers is also a worry. The other inconveniences and indignities just add to air travel with a wheelchair.
Currently, people are potentially put on a flight in a seat that is not appropriate for them. Travellers and airlines risk injury in transfer and in flight. It also risks serious damage to their wheelchair which is set up for their individual requirements.
Preliminary research from the US Transport Research Board (TRB) found no major design or engineering challenges stand in the way of securing personal power wheelchairs in commercial aircraft. The TRB concluded that installing wheelchair securements is a win-win for wheelchair users, airlines, and everyone else involved in transporting wheelchair users. Consequently, that means it is up to the willingness of airlines to make the necessary changes.
No major design or engineering challenges stand in the way of securing power wheelchairs in commercial aircraft.
Transport Research Board.
Photo credit Heike Fabig (in Daily Mail)
While there are mandates for minimum standards for the built environment, airport layout design make life difficult for people with disability and older people. Many airports were designed decades ago when traveller comforts were not considered. Arriving kerbside or at the drop-off is where the problems begin.
Assistance is not available outside the terminal entrance which becomes the first hurdle to overcome. In many instances, help is not available until check-in processes are complete. A kerbside or drop-off check-in would solve that. Or at least provide a means for travellers to contact service staff to help them from the kerbside point.
The US Airport Cooperative Research Program has a detailed report that identifies the issues and provides solutions. The title of the report is, Assessing Airport Programs for Travelers with Disabilities and Older Adults. The aim is to assist airport designers and airline operators to make their places and services accessible and inclusive. There are 8 chapters to the report.
Chapter 7 of the report is about Facility Accessibility. It begins with access on arrival at the airport and the provision of accessible ground transportation. The advice for the design of terminals is to adopt a universal, inclusive approach. That includes addressing long distances between the key points for travellers who don’t use a mobility device.
Self-service kiosks, elevators, power outlets, seating and lighting, along with catering for people with a diversity of cognitive conditions are covered in detail. Case studies provide information about restrooms, adult sanitary change facilities, provisions for assistance animals, and quiet rooms.
The Commonwealth Government is proposing to update the transport disability standards to include aviation standards. The standards will require airlines to set up assistance profiles for passengers which lists what they need. The list could include things like wheelchair battery specifications and assistance animals. The two wheelchair policies will also be under review. A new Aviation Ombudsman will replace the industry-funded Airline Consumer Advocate. This information was taken from a Crikey article.
Financial inclusion should be a top priority for policymakers keen to alleviate poverty. Five of the Sustainable Development Goals feature financial inclusion, including reducing gender based inequalities. Access to financial services is a human right but overlooked for people with disability.
Financial services include banking, credit, insurance and financial advisors. Each of these should be readily available to everyone. A literature review identified five key barriers:
The design of the public built environment has long been problematic for a diverse range of people with disability. And while attempts are made with new or upgraded precincts, barriers are still created. While this is often unintentional, once the concrete is down, it is difficult and/or costly to remedy. And so the barriers remain and inclusive urban environments remain a dream for the future.
A team of researchers from the UK, USA, and Pakistan carried out a qualitative research project with people with disability. The results are not new but confirm existing research and the experience of users. One area not often mentioned in previous research is the role of legislation and accountability.
The research paper discusses the state of play and the methods they used. The text contains quotes from participants which personalises the information. The research was carried out in two urban areas in the UK.
Top of the list of physical barriers was footpaths and the opportunity to rest on a seat. Road crossings was the top hazard for most participants even when signalised. Unexpected maintenance work was also considered dangerous for wheelchair users and people who are blind.
Despite having a legislative framework and access standards, local authorities seem unable to provide accessible environments. Some issues such as footpaths linking with road crossings mean that two authorities are responsible.
Transport barriers included physical access to public transport, lack of information, including cost, and bus driver attitudes. Access to public toilets was also raised. The paper has more detail on the attitudinal barriers and service barriers.
Barriers are interrelated in many cases, but most are related to poor physical designs, inadequate policy considerations and negative attitudes. The findings reinforce previous research but with a user’s perspective. People who are deaf or hard of hearing are mostly absent in the literature. This is because it is assumed they are safe from physical obstructions. However, they experience their own barriers to inclusion.
The title of the paper is Designing out Barriers for Disabled: Towards an Inclusive Urban Environments. Note that the preferred language in the UK is disabled people rather than people with disability.
People with disability often struggle with the complexities of the built environment, hindering their full participation in everyday urban life. Accessibility and social inclusiveness are major challenges for active participation for people with disability.
The lack of legal obligation for authorities to implement inclusive solutions, and lack of training in disability awareness has led to environments full of barriers for the disabled community.
The research explored the nature of barriers faced by persons with diverse disabilities by highlighting a user perspective. The barriers fell into four categories: poor physical design, inadequate policies, negative attitudes, and absence of technical solutions.
Recommendations to overcome the barriers are presented in the research.
The policy push to encourage people to walk and use public transport is one way to reduce emissions and improve health. However, whether to choose the car or public transport, or not to go out at all, depends on many factors. So, do people choose the car because they are constrained from using other forms of transport? Or do they use the car because it just suits them better?
A review of the literature found that people with poor health, older age, low income and lack of access to a car are less likely to get out and about. Difficulties with public transport are linked with walking difficulties. So the design of the public transport system itself is not the total problem.
Some retirees might engage in several activities in one day making public transport a time consuming business. On the other hand, some retirees may only leave the house for medical appointments and grocery shopping. The paper based on the literature review goes into these issues in depth.
Policies aimed at reducing car usage by older people with physical and mental impairments, must be approached with caution. Car mobility represents a crucial means of maintaining independence for older people.
The advantages of allowing older people to drive, despite minor disabilities, often outweigh the risks they may pose to themselves and others. It is noteworthy that France, togethr with the Netherlands and the UK, are nations with the most lenient procedures and minimal medical examination requirements for driving license renewal. However, these countries also report the lowest fatality rates for car drivers within this age group.
The links between mobility, safety, and older people shows that people aged over 65 are considerably more vulnerable to fatal incidents as pedestrians than as drivers. So there is an intricate balance between considering the mobility needs and safety of the older drivers and pedestrians.
Researchers found that physical difficulties are contextual, and decrease when universal design measures are taken. Universal design is not a luxury for a few individuals. Physical accessibility helps a lot a people to move around more smoothly and comfortably.
The title of the article is, Older adults’ immobility: disentangling choice and constraint. It looks at people who are not in the workforce and spend most of their daily lives in their homes.
In a nutshell: the motor car becomes a mobility device as people age and walking becomes more difficult.
Our research challenges the prevailing notion that immobility only occurs in exceptional circumstances. Our work shows instead a close link with individuals’ activity levels and constraints on their schedules.
Retirees and non-working population groups exhibit higher immobility levels than workers. This is influenced by factors such as poor health, old age, low income, lack of access to a car, or rural residency.
Driving and walking difficulties are significant contributors to immobility, with age being a primary explanatory factor. However, living in dense urban areas tends to reduce immobility levels across household categories. Difficulties with public transport, as such, do not trigger immobility, but they are entangled with walking difficulties.
Implications for public action include targeting age-specific interventions for reducing car dependency, and approaching policies aimed at curbing car use by older people cautiously.
Implementing universal design measures to enhance physical accessibility also helps to make mobility smoother and decrease perceived walking difficulties. Finally, this paper underlines the interconnectedness of mobility, social isolation, and sedentary lifestyles.
