If you live in Ulaanbaatar in Mongolia, air pollution and staying warm in winter are major considerations for home design. The other major consideration is how to make homes accessible using inclusive design principles. Oidov Vaanchig has done just that and written a short article explaining his eco-inclusive house.
Oidov writes detail about the cost of construction and the carbon footprint. The house relies on solar with minimal electrical consumption. Air quality is controlled with a filtration system because Ulaanbaatar has high levels of air pollution. Replacing the traditional ger and wooden housing stock with homes like this would reduce air pollution by 85%.
Oidov Vaanchig has done a great job in promoting his experimental house to the point where he received a visit from the United States Ambassador to Mongolia.
Social exclusion
The ger areas surrounding Ulaanbaatar present many challenges for inclusion and accessibility. This house serves as a model for inclusive design as well. As Oidov says, implementing inclusive design principles can break the cycle of disability and poverty.
Oidov concludes his article by saying that the house “stands as a beacon of hope” in addressing air pollution and social exclusion. A lesson to all house builders in the developed world.
While the design might not meet Western standards for accessibility, it is a groundbreaking attempt at a fully inclusive and passive house in extreme conditions.
The GDI Hub featured the house as a case study and has more detail. The Asia Development Bank supported the study.
Oidov Vaanchig takes a tour through his eco-inclusive house
The Autumn 2023 Access Insight magazine has an article by John Van der Have on designing for autism. He introduces a design guide by Magda Mostafa and her work on design for the autistic community.
Van der Have begins his article with an older medical description of autism (ASD) and some statistics. As many people know, sensory overload is common for people within the neurodivergent community. Too many sights, sounds, smells and tactile experiences can cause stress and anxiety. That’s why the choice of building materials and systems need additional consideration.
Minimising noise and unwanted sounds through good acoustic design is a vital criterion. But how much acoustic insulation is enough, and how much is too much? Questions such as these have implications for construction costs.
Biophilic principles are beneficial for everyone, but for the autistic community, these elements can enhance their sense of wellbeing. Natural lighting, natural ventilation and views of nature are especially helpful.
Van der Have discusses educational settings and a time-out room where children can still learn in a supportive environment. A calming space at home, as well as a room fitted out to suit a child’s preferences is also a good idea.
As we begin to understand autism and neurodiversity, it’s possible there will be moves to regulate suitable designs. However, regulation should not be needed if designers take action themselves to be more inclusive. Van der Have’s article is on page 18 of Access Insight. It is titled, Design for People on the Autism Spectrum and introduces the work of Magda Mostafa.
Autism friendly design guide
Magda Mostafa, an architect and researcher, developed a design framework for incorporating the needs of the neurodivergent community. The framework is based on 7 design concepts:
Acustics
Spatial Sequencing
Escape
Compartmentalisation
Transition
Sensory Zoning
Safety
In Cities People Love, Mostafa talks about her experiences as an architect working as an autism design consultant. She says designers have to rethink the tools they need. A human-centred approach to design, such as focus groups, assumes everyone is able to speak and participate. She wants to see the principles from the Autism Friendly University Design Guideapplied more widely.
The Autism Friendly University Design Guide was developed in collaboration with the Dublin City University and is applicable in other settings. The first half of the 116 page detailed guide covers the research, and the second has the guiding principles. Mostafa’s work is worth following for anyone interested in designing for neurodivergence.
This Autumn 2023 edition of Access Insight also has an article on water safety for autistic children on page 4.
University lecture theatres
An article from the UK discusses the different design elements needed for students to feel comfortable in university lecture theatres. Autistic students were asked about their experiences in higher educational settings.
Several elements were reported as distracting such as bright lights, echoey rooms, smells, and textures of seats. Coping strategies were also explored. The title of the article is,
Currently, there is little empirical research exploring autistic students’ experiences of teaching spaces, in particular in lecture theatres. The aim of this study was to explore autistic university students’ lived experiences of teaching spaces and how aspects of these spaces affect them.
We conducted a qualitative study comprising one-to-one semi-structured interviews with 10 autistic students from three UK universities. Participants were asked about the aspects of teaching spaces that affect them, the effect these aspects have, and the adaptations they would consider helpful.
We identified 3 themes: Aspects of Teaching Spaces, Outcomes, and Coping Strategies and Adaptations, each of which contained sub-themes. Aspects of Teaching Spaces included sensory aspects, people, seating, screens, and predictability and control. Outcomes included physical symptoms (e.g. headaches, nausea), mood (e.g. anxiety) and cognition (e.g. attention). Coping and Adaptations included personal coping strategies (e.g. wearing headphones, dressing in layers) and environmental modifications (e.g. have dimmer switches).
This study identifies both personal and environmental modifications and adaptations that could be adopted to support university students’ learning experiences. Future research should explore how differently adapted teaching spaces can increase positive learning experiences.
All the universally designed places, spaces, and services are of no use if a person cannot access them due to lack of the assistive technology they need. On the other hand, a wheelchair, for example, is of little use without level access in the built environment. Together, assistive technology and universal design form the disability inclusion continuum. Both are needed but are rarely discussed together.
Assistive technology and universal design work together for disability inclusion
Together, assistive technology (AT) and home modifications are essential for independent living. But access to the funding schemes is somewhat haphazard, especially for the majority of people who are not NDIS participants. The cost of AT and home modifications is the cited as the reason for letting the status quo remain. But who is really paying for NOT funding AT for the people who need these devices? Until now, there has been little research on this issue.
A team at Monash University set up a study to identify the many AT and home modification schemes in Australia. They also conducted an economic analysis of the data they collected to form policy recommendations. The fact that there are 88 government funders administering 109 schemes tells us there is a problem here. Difficulties obtaining data from these schemes confounds the issues further.
Recommendations
The NDIS, and the misplaced assumption that it will cover everyone with a disability, has caused greater inequity in the provision of AT. It now makes the matter more urgent.
The most obvious recommendation is to take a whole of government approach to tackle the inequity of access to AT and home modifications. The second, is to devise a way of capturing data for more informed decision making. Data are essential for measuring needs and outcomes. The third recommendation is to co-design – a universal design concept – with stakeholders.
Governments cannot expect to achieve significant change within Australia’s new Disability Strategy unless people with disability have access to AT and HM they need. The current study offers new evidence to inform government responses to realise the potential of AT and HM through public policy reform.
Assistive technology was peviously known as “aids and equipment for people with disability”. That’s because it is not mainstream equipment such as a pair of scissors, or a bicycle. Anyone requiring assistive technology requires a prescription by a health professional to access a funding scheme. The same goes for anyone requiring a home modification so they can live safely at home.
Australians with disability have inequitable access to assistive technology (AT) and home modifications (HM). This is inconsistent with human rights obligations and fails to capitalise on internationally recognised potential return on investment.
This study quantifies the public provision of AT and HM in Australia by identifying all publicly funded schemes and comparing data on the spend per person.
An environmental scan and data survey identified 88 government funders administering 109 schemes. Data were available for 1/3 of schemes. Economic evaluation of available cost and participant data estimated the annual AT/HM spend per person per scheme.
Data demonstrated significant AT/HM spend variability across schemes. Modelled costs are presented for a $16 billion national scheme where all Australians with disability are funded NDIS-equivalent. There are substantial service provision gaps and an urgent need for change in disability policy. A cost model and policy principles are proposed to achieve economies of scale and equity in the provision of AT and HM.
Transport, both public and private, is the glue that holds our everyday lives together across our lifespan. Consequently, it is expected that inability to get to places and activities will have a negative effect on our lives, physically and mentally. One group that is often left out of transport studies is later age teenagers. So researchers in New Zealand decided to look at the issues for teenagers and transport.
The rate at which young people are getting their drivers licence is reducing in developed countries. Walking, cycling and using public transport are all good for physical health. But if social and economic life is restricted, how does this affect mental wellbeing?
The researchers wanted to find out how transport impacted the wellbeing of students aged 16-18 years.They used the photovoice method which puts cameras into participants’ hands to help them document and communicate issues of concern. This participatory method puts the power with those who usually have little power to generate new knowledge.
Teenagers photographed their feet to document walking as the key aspect of getting around. They all walked at some point in their journey.
Image from ScienceDirect
What teenagers said
Regardless of the destination, photos and narratives of those who lived close to town and were able to walk displayed independence, happiness and positive aspects of wellbeing. The key themes emerging from the study were financial, social and mental wellbeing, safety, and barriers to choice.
The financial aspects included the cost of getting a licence and the cost of fuel when a car was available to them. Getting to sport without a car was difficult. According to one participant, even if the bus ran regularly, rugby gear wasn’t allowed on the bus.
Social and mental wellbeing was enhanced by walking and for some, listening to music at the same time. Those who lived out of town did not walk as much due to distance, but they were willing to walk to school or to a friend if it was less than an hour.
Safety for cyclists was based on infrastructure where they were competing with pedestrians or vehicles. Safety for pedestrians was related to cars and the worry about whether they would stop for crossings. Pedestrians felt more unsafe at busy times when cars are coming and going with pick ups and drop offs. Out of town there are no footpaths and the hilly terrain reduces visibility for cars.
Barriers to choice and feeling trapped at home. Weather and the dark early mornings restricted choices of how to travel. Female students said wearing skirts prevents them from cycling. The public bus system is considered inadequate and perceived by all as a major barrier.
Walking is good
Delaying licencing and driving due to financial costs had the benefit of encouraging walking and therefore improved wellbeing. However, not having a licence was an obstacle which had a negative impact on wellbeing. Safety featured prominently in the photographs especially the dilemma of whether cars would stop for them on crossings. Complicated trip chains discouraged the teenagers from making the trip.
There is no reference to teenagers who are unable to walk or walk long distances. Perhaps they self-selected themselves out of the project.
From the abstract
Transport mobility greatly affect teenagers׳ ability to independently access their social networks, key activities and destinations. Consequently, it makes sense to consider the role that transport plays in influencing well-being among older adolescents. The aim of this study was to investigate how older teenagers perceive the impact of transport on their well-being.
“Photovoice” uses photographs to enhance assessments of community needs, to empower participants, and to provide a comprehensive description of an issue. This method was utilized among senior secondary school students aged 16–18 in Southland, New Zealand (n=18; 50% male). Group discussions concerning transport and well-being provided richness and depth to each photograph displayed.
Transport infrastructure played a key role in supporting well-being among participants. Regardless of the destination, photos and narratives by participants who lived close to town, and who were able to walk to destinations as part of their daily trip chain, displayed independence, happiness and positive social aspects of well-being. Living farther away from town elicited photo stories of loneliness and decreased autonomy, with respect to transport.
Photovoice projects are a valuable way to engage youth and provide context for new research topics such as this. New knowledge generated by this project will inform future research focused on transport and the well-being of young people.
When money becomes a barrier to designing inclusively, it doesn’t mean you can’t do anything. From Qatar comes a paper which describes assessment criteria for prioritising inclusive design features. The research study assumed that designers were responsible for coming up with the right solutions rather than including users in the process.
The authors used a higher education context for their study. Educational environments lack adequate furniture in classes, auditoriums, libraries and eating areas.
Image of Qatar University showing the passive ventilation and cooling chimneys.
For building upgrades, the authors concluded the need to prioritise criteria where the buildings were either partially or fully inadequate for physical access. The highest ranked criteria were, external access route, design and surface of exterior ramps and operation of entrance doors. These criteria indicate that people with limited mobility were the only consideration.
The participants in the study were access practitioners and experts within the facilities management team. It would be interesting to see if students with disability agreed with the proposed ranking of criteria. They would likely agree that getting into the building is the most important, but is that enough?
The title of the article is, Criteria and Challenges of Inclusive Design in the Built Environment. There is little new knowledge in this paper for universal design practitioners as many have moved on to embrace co-design processes. However, it is interesting to see a different perspective on the issues when funding is a barrier.
From the abstract
Ensuring an inclusive environment is the responsibility of architects, planners, engineers and facility managers. It is essential to ensure that buildings’ design and operation align with inclusive principles through regular assessments.
Many comprehensive assessment tools exist and are used in the industry. Decision-makers should be able to prioritise inclusive design criteria when issues such as funding arise.
This study aims to identify prioritized accessibility assessment criteria for people with disability in higher education facilities through the lens of experts. A targeted sampling methodology was adopted for the semi-structured interviews.
This study aimed to identify the accessibility assessment criteria in higher education facilities. The lens of experts provided justification for selecting the highest and lowest priorities.
The findings resulted in a list of highest and lowest criteria, and criteria with significant differences. Justifications for selections, and a close-up look into the influence of experts’ experience on the rankings was also part of the study.
This paper provides insight into significant inclusive design criteria for improved facility management decision-making processes and the strategy for managing the challenges of inclusive design in new and existing facilities.
While the principles of universal design aim to enable people to stay in their own home for as long as they wish, the principles are also applicable to aged care settings. Four principles underpin the Australian Government’s National Aged Care Design Principles and Guidelines. These principles are:
Enable the person
Cultivate a home
Access the outdoors
Connect with community
The four principles are, of course, applicable to any dwelling or place of accommodation. This is an example of universal design where specific features are essential for some and good for everyone. Consequently, the document is useful for anyone designing any type of home.
The guideline provides detail on each principle. For example, the first principle covers acoustics, air quality, lighting, tonal contrast, supportive seating and comfortable temperatures. Before and after illustrations as shown below provide additional information. At the end of each sub-section is a checklist.
The authors have chosen to use six personas to bridge the gap between abstract concepts and lived experience of residents and staff. Three personas for each group is possibly too few and runs the risk of limiting a designer’s vision of the breadth of diversity. For example, cultural diversity is considered, but other characteristics such as marital status and sexual orientation are not.
The outcomes for the resident personas are explained alongside each checklist. They provide some of the “why” certain features are required by individuals.
Overall, this is a useful guide for aged care in any context – indeed for all people. After all, home is the centre point of our lives. Below is a page from the guidelines showing before and after illustrations.
The University of Cambridge’s Inclusive Design Team, have applied their Inclusive Design Wheel to transport. As with many frameworks, it lists a step-by-step process, but with a twist. It is a co-design process. The key principle of the Inclusive Design Wheel is that the process is highly iterative and involves users.
The Inclusive Design Wheel for Transport consists of four phases of activity: Manage, Explore, Create and Evaluate
The Wheel is flexible and it is not always necessary to carry out all activities in every iteration. Successive cycles of Explore, Create and Evaluate are used to generate a clearer understanding of needs.
Each of the four phases is broken down into guiding tasks. For example, in the Explore phase, engage with users, examine user journeys, and capture wants and needs. In the Create phase, involve users, stimulate ideas, and refine ideas. In the Evaluate phase, agree success criteria, gather expert feedback and gather user feedback.
The Inclusive Design Team completed their Dignity project on digital access to transport. They worked in four European cities to see how best to help travellers and providers. The aim of the project was to see how all stakeholders can help bridge the digital gap. They did this by co-creating more inclusive solutions using co-design methods. Their Inclusive Design Wheel is the result and is applicable to all aspects of public transport.
The evolution of paper-based train and bus timetables to digital formats has benefits and drawbacks. On one hand, digital formats offer more detailed information to help plan journeys. On the other, the amount of information can be overwhelming – that is, if you can find what you are looking for. And if you don’t have access to digital services then this format is of no use at all.
At first glance the Inclusive Design Wheel looks complex. The research team used feedback from the research project to fine tune the framework to its current form.
The Dignity report is long, comprehensive, and uses academic language. It details the methods in all four cities: Ancona Italy, Barcelona Spain, Flanders, Belgium, and Tilbug Netherlands.
Universally designed infrastructure planning
One of the underpinning tenets of universal design is to involve users in the design process – at the beginning. Involving citizens in early stages of design can avoid costly retrofits, but more importantly, it is more likely to give people what they want. That means they are more likely to use it. Transport planning can also be universally designed. An article in The Fifth Estate argues that to leave out citizens is asking for trouble, and it is also undemocratic. Infrastructure is a public thing regardless of who owns it, runs it or controls it. It is about good city governance. Planners need to do three things:
consult and engage citizens early in infrastructure planning
improve quality and access of citizen engagement at the strategic planning stages
use more sophisticated strategic planning tools and practices to improve decision-making
Many car trips in Australia are less than 2km. So there is room for a re-think in personal e-mobility and digital solutions. The Future of Place project recently ran an online workshop on the digital last mile. It drew together technology and data solutions to support first and last mile experience. The key question was what does the last mile of the future look like? It therefore follows: will everyone be included in the digital first and last mile solutions?
Four guests gave their expertise to the workshop. Katherine Mitchell reminded us that regular commuters have high levels of digital literacy. But not everyone has a smart device. She focused on accessibility, safety, confidence and wayfinding.
Damien Hewitt posed the idea of bus stops offering more local information, not just about transport or timetables. Stephen Coulter discussed the opportunities for micro-mobility and e-mobility. With 12 billion car trips of less than 2km made each year it’s time for transformation.
Oliver Lewis advocated for a greater level of digitisation to manage assets for real time experiences for users. He also introduced the idea of “Digital Twins”. An example of a digital twin is a digital 3D model of a real physical object or process. It helps predict how a product will perform.
The stories of lived experience provide important nuanced details that are rarely picked up in survey questionnaires or comparing one group with another. One way to capture lived experience is by using “photovoice” – a method of visually recording experiences. This method reveals detailed ways of creating healthy and inclusive communities for all.
Five Canadian researchers used the photovoice method to discover the everyday barriers and facilitators mobility device users face. Participants not only provided photographic evidence, they related what it meant for them as an outcome. Unsurprisingly, footpaths, road crossings and road maintenance and construction featured strongly in their findings.
Photos of environmental barriers provide important information for urban planners. They can see more clearly how the small details matter. This image shows an uneven footpath and no clear access to the bus stop.
Participants in the study captured physical characteristics that both helped and hindered their ability to navigate the environment. Objective assessments such as access audits, do not reveal the complex interaction of social participation and health. Lived experience and the everyday stories, on the other hand, provide this valuable information.
This image shows a woman with a walking aid and a man with a baby stroller need to pass on a narrow path encroached by gravel and mulch.
Image by John Evernden
Key points and themes
Five key themes emerged from the study.
En Route: the usability and safety of the physical path to reach a destination, road crossings and traffic signals. Included in this theme are footpath width, maintenance and surface materials.
Thresholds: Accessibility issues in the transition spaces from outdoors to indoors at a destination. Difficulty getting into shops and other public places limited access to goods and services.
Temporal Rhythms: Fluctuations of accessibility with circadian and seasonal variations as well as urban practices. Differences between day and night where it is easy during the day but not at night. Temporary closures to footpaths due to maintenance meant going back home or trying to find another route.
The Paradox of Accessibility: Fluctuation of accessibility due to inappropriate usage or of conflicting user needs. Participants also found examples of poor attempts at accessibility such as a ramp leading to sand or gravel, or a ramp with a steep grade. The conflict of cyclists using the wider footpaths was also an issue.
Making Change Happen: Actions and solutions to improve the accessibility. Participants were not passive in accepting the status quo. They showed pictures where they had successfully lobbied for changes to a business or a community building. Participants also showed the converse – places where their lobbying had not yet brought about change.
Installing kerb ramps, footpaths and pedestrian crossings are essential physical improvements. However, changing social and urban practices have a role to play as well. The participation of people using mobility devices needs to go beyond tokenism. That means involving users in decision making process – a universal design concept.
Staying active and being healthy is a good thing. 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 designs that support healthy behaviour and reduce 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. Clear definitions, using a rating system, created a list of criteria from the research.
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.
An opinion piece on the Design Council website gives an overview of the study they did with Social Change UK. More than 600 built environment practitioners across the UK completed the survey. They found that healthy placemaking often sits outside mainstream housing, public health and placemaking policy.
The article explains the economic benefits of healthy placemaking. The Design Council defines healthy placemaking as, “tackling preventable disease by shaping the built environment so that healthy activities and experiences are integral to people’s everyday lives.”
Neighbourhoods that enable include:
Physical activity: To increase walkability in buildings and neighbourhoods and encourage healthy modes of transport
Healthy food: To improve access to healthier foods
Social contact: To design well-connected housing and neighbourhoods that provide access to facilities and amenities to reduce social isolation and loneliness,
Contact with nature: To provide access to the natural environment, including parks
Pollution: Reducing exposure to air and noise pollution.
This all adds up to compact, mixed-use, walkable and wheelable neighbourhoods with leafy streets and great parks.
Health promoting urban design
The links between urban design and physical and mental health are well established. So how do you take an evidence-based approach to health-promoting urban design and green spaces? Swedish landscape architects wanted to know how to translate existing evidence into design and looked to researchers to help.
Researchers and landscape architects collaborated on a project using participatory action research methods. Researchers used existing evaluation tools and two case studies to test the processes.
Aspects such as safety, vegetation, water flow, and traffic management were considered in the design. Residents with homes and gardens next to the park were concerned that this would attract visitors from other areas. New users were apparently not welcome to “their” space.
The article explains the collaborative processes that involved the researchers, the landscape architects and other stakeholders. The Quality Evaluation Tool was used as the framework for the study. Some landscape architects found it took time to learn how to use the tool. Others found it wasn’t easy to use it either – they needed something simpler.
We need healthy architecture – that is, architecture that supports human health and wellness. Louis Rice claims that human illness is related to the design of the built environment.
Key issues are discussed in a book chapterthat covers social, mental and physical health and “restorative” design. He proposes a “healthy architecture map” based on materials, environments, agency and behaviours. The title of the chapter is A health map for architecture: The determinants of health and wellbeing in buildings.
There is more useful information and research in the book including a chapter from Matthew Hutchinson,The Australian dream or a roof over my head. An ecological view of housing for an ageing Australian population.
The World Health Organization also links health and the built environment in the WHO Housing and Health Guidelines. It includes a chapter on accessible housing.
Health, Technology and Buildings: a review
Abstract: Research into health, particularly social and psychological health, is crucial. Ultimately, an in-depth understanding of social and psychological health will more than promote well-being.
Technology research is indispensable, particularly concerning health and the built environment, given the need to create holistic and supportive frameworks for well-being. Moreover, because literature reviews establish the foundation for academic inquiries, they provide valuable overviews for foresight into grey research areas, particularly multi-disciplinary research like health technology and the built environment.
Hence, this study aims to discover the existing themes on health, technology, and built-environment nexus subjects while revealing the grey areas and suggesting proactive areas for future research.
A research paper from The Netherlands poses the need for participatory and nature-inclusive design approaches. A nature-centered perspective prioritises non-human species at the forefront of the design process.
“As we strive for an inclusive and sustainable society, it is crucial to develop and implement new behaviors and design methods that enable individuals to effectively coexist with nature.”
Nature-inclusive design has the potential to encourage people to reconnect with nature and value non-human species as much as humans. Non-human actors need to be recognised as part of the community and given a chance to coexist in an urban context
Design impacts both social and economic value to a community, but how do you measure and track it? The RIBA Social Value Toolkit has the answer. The Toolkit makes it easy to evaluate and demonstrate the impact of design on people and communities. A research project by the University of Reading provided the evidence for the Toolkit.
“If we cannot define what we mean by value, we cannot be sure to produce it, nor to share it fairly, nor to sustain economic growth.” (Mazzucato, 2018)
“Social value is created when buildings, places, and infrastructure support environmental, economic and social wellbeing to improve people’s quality of life.” (UK Green Building Council)
The underpinning concepts for the Toolkit are based in the wellbeing literature. Social value of architecture is in fostering positive emotions, connecting people, and in supporting participation. The Toolkit has two parts. A library of post occupancy evaluation questions, and a monetisation tool that links to other post occupancy evaluation processes.
Eilish Barry says that if we don’t define and measure the social impact of design, it will be pushed further down the priority list as costs rise. Generating social value is useful for potential future residents as well as designers and developers. Barry poses five recommendations for industry in her Fifth Estate article:
Knowledege sharing is vital
We need a common language
Social value should be part of the design process
Methodologies need to be flexible
Opportunity for collaboration (Eilish Barry pictured)
The Social Value Toolkit
The library of questions means you don’t have to reinvent the wheel. They cover positive emotions, connecting, freedom and flexibility, and participation. Each of these has a monetary value attached.
The dimensions of social value in the built environment context.
The approach to monetising social outcomes is based on Social Return on Investment. There are several different ways to measure this.
Value for money: Willingness to pay extra for something you value.
Time is money: The value of savingtime.
Subjective Wellbeing valuation: Putting a value on wellbeing – most appropriate to understanding the impact of design on end users.
The Toolkit references the UK Social Value Bank, an open access source that contains a series of values based on subjective wellbeing valuation. There is also an Australian Social Value Bank with resources.
The Toolkit is briefly explained on the Royal Institute of British Architects website where you can download the 2MB document. Or you can access the document here.
The term “vulnerable” was used repeatedly during the COVID pandemic to label people with certain health conditions, and anyone over the age of 70 years. Transport professionals also talk about vulnerable pedestrians as if other pedestrians are “normal” pedestrians. So, is there such a thing as vulnerable groups, or are people subject to vulnerabilising conditions? In the context of housing, Ilan Wiesel and Emma Power discuss the question of vulnerable groups or vulnerabilising housing.
Much has changed in housing design and technology yet homes remain inaccessible. The authors discuss the role of the housing industry and their role in maintaining the status quo on inaccessibility.
Wiesel and Power discussinaccessible housing as a ‘vulnerabilising assemblage’. There is a growing body of literature that lists the direct harms of inaccessible housing. However, their study considers both direct harm and future harms and documents these. The paper begins with an academic focus, but many readers will find the case study more interesting.
The paper discusses the conceptual shift from vulnerable to vulnerabilising, and then conceptualises the groupings of vulnerabilising things and processes. The authors side-step housing as a market or a system and think about it as a group of different ideologies and subjectivities. The assembly of this collection of ideas, actors and markets is not fixed but changing.
Exposure to harm
The case study explores the nature and experience using an online questionnaire and in-depth interviews. “Exposure to harm” is used to identify participants’ concerns about how they are exposed to possible harm in their home. The risk of injury or further injury emerged strongly. It creates significant emotional stress and this is harmful as well.
A man with spinal cord injury broke his leg several times transferring from his wheelchair in the bathroom. Many years later, a major bathroom modification prevented his falls. This is an example of home design vulnerabilising his body. (Image courtesy Caroma)
The fear of homelessness and risk of house fires and the ongoing stress and worry about these risks also affected mental health. And then the worry of forced institutionalisation.
There is much to unpack in the case study and a long list of the many harms inaccessible housing brings to occupants. And not only current occupants but to those who will occupy the home in the future. Disabling conditions are a fact of life and can happen to anyone at any time.
From the abstract
The concept of ‘vulnerabilising’ marks a shift in the focus of analysis and intervention away from individuals and groups labelled vulnerable, towards the processes that generate and reproduce vulnerability.
To that end, we develop a framework that conceptualises how ‘vulnerabilising assemblages’ operate. We mobilise assemblage thinking and engage with theoretical debates on the nature of vulnerability as a universal, albeit unequal, human condition.
Addressing inaccessible housing as a case study, we identify three mechanisms through which people with physical disabilities become vulnerable:
through exposure to harm;
through erosion of defenses against harm; and by
legitimising or motivating harm.
We call on researchers, policymakers and grassroot activists to shift their attention from vulnerable bodies to vulnerabilising assemblages.
