Author: Jane Bringolf

Professor Ilaria Garofolo writes an interesting essay on the role of universal design and inclusion. Garofolo claims technical handbooks based on regulations related to accessibility have reduced built environmental barriers but they haven’t resulted in inclusiveness. The outdated focus on compliance remains an underpinning feature of design culture.

Built environment professionals argue that universal design is a good principle, but difficult to practice. The belief that universal design costs more doesn’t help matters. Providing readymade solutions or schematics are not the answer either. Such schematics contain stereotypes and generalisations referring to disability. While they might guarantee compliance they limit the continuing improvement aspect of universal design.

The term inclusion should define the orientation of society towards people. However, the term is often juxtaposed, and sometimes even confused, with the word integration. Unlike integration, which tends to counter the differences, inclusion entails the acceptance of all diversities and peculiarities of the individual.

Co-design

The understanding of the relationship between people and their built environment is often missing. Participatory co-design methods, particularly with people with disability, are the way to overcome this divide. All the technical knowledge and expertise does not provide knowledge on how design impacts everyday living.

Fostering universal design through education

Diverse and dedicated subjects and master classes have arisen in higher education worldwide.

Experiential learning is an important part of the universal design curriculum as well as interdisciplinary collaboration. Personal experience and design workshops with users and trained designers provide a practical understanding of universal design.

The title of the short essay is, The Role and Implication of UD to Foster Inclusion in Built Environments.

From the abstract

The level of inclusion of all members of society in community activities is a fundamental indicator of a civil society’s progress. There is increasing evidence that diversity and inclusion are linked to positive outcomes.

The universal design approach is increasingly recognized as the one that helps to shape physical and virtual environments. That’s so that it can be accessed, understood, and used to the greatest extent possible by all people, regardless of their diversity. Thus, making a more inclusive society for all.

This short essay summarizes some reflections resulting from studies, research and field practices reported by literature, and also experienced by the author in her training as a researcher and university professor.

Attention is focused on some critical issues and implications inherent in the practical application of universal design principles. Also, the importance of its multidisciplinary dimension, which also entails a different attitude towards the training of professionals.

The cost of implementing universal design in buildings is little, if any, in new buildings. This is not new information for followers of universal design. However, many developers and designers find this difficult to believe. Consequently, this perceived cost becomes a barrier to implementation. New research by Elke Ielegems and Jan Vanrie shines a light on the real costs.

The researchers looked at other studies on cost and found they used different ways of measuring it. One used fixed prices to determine cost but without contextual factors. Another combined practitioners’ experience to find optimal solutions to provide a more realistic estimation. However, they both rely on hypothetical cases.

Ielegems and Vanrie’s work combined these methods and used real buildings. In their study they focused on accessibility but claim a similar approach could be applied from a universal design perspective.

Comparing renovations with new build costs

The paper takes readers through the methods and the development of universal design evaluation criteria. This is followed by the selection of building projects. The calculations are detailed in terms of where costs were reduced or increased. Comparisons are made by building type and by building elements.

The study focused on direct costs of construction and used a baseline of “as-is situation” for comparison of renovation and new build scenarios. That is, how much more, or less, did each of the proposed changes cost compared to the current as-is situation.

Costs are lower for new build

The building type and size has an influence on costs. In line with previous studies the results showed the costs for new builds varied between 0.94% of total cost and 3.92% of total cost. Renovations were between 2.24% of total cost and 14.9% of total cost. Circulation space and exterior ramps and stairs were the most expensive for the renovation scenario.

The title of the paper is, The cost of universal design for public buildings: exploring a realistic, context-dependent research approach, published by Emerald Insight.

The other question is whether cost should be the deciding factor, or whether equity and inclusion should be the foremost consideration. This would negate the need for carrying out a comparative evaluation.

From the abstract

Implementing universal design faces the challenge of perceived additional cost, which acts as a barrier to its widespread adoption. Other studies that have examined the cost fail to account for the design context that influences construction costs. This article presents a research methodology to calculate the cost in a realistic, context-dependent manner.

A “Research-by-Design” was applied to twelve cases: secondary schools, town halls and small retail shops. Two scenarios are compared: renovating a building to be 100% inclusive, and building fully inclusive from the outset.

Although the methodology is time-consuming, it allows for a fair, realistic and detailed comparison between costs in different cases. Findings show how financial implications are strongly related to its scale.

Both “renovation” and “new build” scenarios involve costs, but these are considerably lower for the latter. “Circulation” and “Exterior stairs and ramps” are among the most expensive to renovate. However, they have almost no additional cost for the “new build scenario”.

This study provides valuable insights for architects, designers and stakeholders involved in the implementation of universal design. It offers a realistic and context-dependent approach to assess the cost implications. This enables informed decision-making during the design and construction phases.

Using real cases and their unique design contexts, the true costs of implementing universal design in the built environment are revealed.

Barriers and drivers for architects

In a 2019 paper, Ielegems reports on the barriers and drivers for universal design within the architectural community. She found that barriers and drivers were attitudinal, practical and knowledge-based.

Practical aspects are based on time and budget limitations and perceptions of extra cost. Time restrictions are related to client demands and commercial interests trump social advantages.

Lack of knowledge about universal design is a perceived barrier for practitioners. Available user information is disregarded in favour of designer needs and preferences. Designers are not willing to to adapt their ways of thinking and working. This is largely due to information not being presented in a design-relevant format.

Information about universal design

Ielegems also found that respondents didn’t need more information, but they needed more centralised information in a design-relevant format. More awareness among key stakeholders and clients is crucial to changing perceptions of universal design. In addition, the current accessibility regulations influence the creation of “tunnel vision” regarding universal design. This leads to an accessibility perspective instead of a perspective of inclusion.

The title of the paper is, Drivers and Barriers for Universal Designing: A survey on architects’ perceptions.

In contrast to other studies, this one specifically focuses on factors that affect the decision to implement universal design at the beginning of the design process. Adopting a universal design strategy at the very start of the process is important for accomplishing the goal of inclusion.

Performance codes and universal design

In another study, 700 Danish architectural firms shared their experience of the accessibility requirements in the Danish Building Regulations. Participants thought a performance-based model would be better suited to support accessibility criteria. However, performance codes would be insufficient to promote universal design in architecture. 

The authors of Do Performance-Based Codes Support Universal Design in Architecture, claim professionals’ understanding is client orientated rather than citizen orientated. In addition, architects’ understanding of inclusiveness was relatively limited. Consequently, a performance-based model would not in itself promote inclusive architecture.

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.

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