Author: Jane Bringolf

LGBTQIA+ perspectives on inclusive public space

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 different 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.”

In the past, buildings such as law courts were designed to express authority and to intimidate. This creates feelings of exclusion. Image from Historic England Blog

Manchester town hall and St Peter's Square - a public space designed in Victorian times.

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 about the sense of what is being protected and who is being policed.

The survey report discusses gaybourhoods 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.

A giant brightly coloured aerial sculpture that looks like a closely woven fine web of threads. It soars above the urban space below. LGBTQIA+ perspectives on public space

Visibility and privacy

A common theme from the study is the ability to see the whole area and exits without being viewed themselves. For example, street seating behind low walls or screened by shrubs. In effect, a cosy corner without feeling watched.

Rather than active surveillance, respondents prefer busy and diverse spaces with lots of people so they can blend in without fear of being targeted.

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 people who are neurodivergent also rate these factors as important. In terms of public monuments, respondents 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, and 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.

The title of the full report from Arup is Queer Perspectives on Public Space. Or you can read the shorter version from the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) titled LGBTQ+ perspectives on safety and inclusion in public space.

Queering cities in Australia

An earlier publication by Arup asks the question, ‘How could we make public spaces more inclusive for LGBTIQ+ community?’ Queering Cities in Australia is a collaborative research project with Australian universities. This follows a similar project in with the University of Westminster.

You can download the publication and other Arup reports on their Insights webpage.

Front cover of Queering Cities in Australia featuring to men and a girl child.

A Canadian policy response to LGBT housing

Below is the abstract from an article in the Canadian Planning and Policy Journal about housing. The title is, Identifying barriers associated with LGBT seniors’ housing: Opportunities moving forward in the Canadian context.

From the abstract

This paper discusses housing implications for planning and operating LGBT-inclusive housing. Barriers identified by older LGBT people include: fear of discrimination, homophobia, transphobia and violence from staff and residents, housing affordability and availability, health challenges, feeling unsafe, intersectional barriers, and building maintenance.

Barriers identified by housing service providers include: no current inclusion practices at their workplaces, lack of LGBT information for staff and residents, health challenges for older people, and housing affordability.

This research was based on a qualitative analysis of a survey of 970 older LGBT people and housing providers across Canada. We discuss the role of housing service providers, health care providers, planners, and others in creating inclusive housing accommodations and services

It is critical to provide better information on housing choices for older people, and implement anti-discrimination policies and LGBT competency training for housing providers and staff. Engaging the older LGBT community in the development of housing and housing policy, is essential.

Autism-friendly museums and co-design

Museums Victoria worked with autistic user/experts to co-design museum spaces and resources. Taking a flexible approach is essential to meaningful participation of autistic people. The experience showed the concept of co-design can be interpreted in different ways. Of course, design outcomes of autism-friendly museums are good for everyone – universal design.

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.

A family of two parents, three children and a baby in a stroller walk through a museum corridor. The image is part of the museum's autism-friendly museum promotion.

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.

An exhibit of native animals and birds in Melbourne Museum.

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.

The title of the research paper is, Co-designing autism-friendly museums: insights from autistic individuals and museum professionals.

From the abstract

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.

Social inclusion through participatory planning

The relevant ministries of the five Nordic countries are concerned that cities are becoming more socially divided. For countries known for supporting social justice and inclusion, 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.

Front cover of the report, Beyond segregation: Nordic approaches to socially inclusive cities.

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.

This is a long report because each part has an in-depth look at each country. However, it is easy to read and will be of interest to anyone involved in community participation. The title is, Beyond segregation: Nordic approaches to socially inclusive cities.

The webinar below is in English.

Autistic-led insights on airport accessibility

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.

Long view of the inside of an airport building.

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 a bus station in Singapore designed with people with dementia. It serves as an example of a visual wayfinding system.

Long view of a Singapore bus interchange showing the different coloured directional arrows on the floor. Public transport and dementia.

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.

The article is titled, Autistic-led insights on airport accessibility: A retrospective analysis of environmental assessments

From the abstract

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

Try before you fly

One of the barriers to flying for neurodivergent people, is not knowing what to expect. So having a practice run makes a lot of sense in terms of minimising stress when the flight day comes. Air New Zealand has a program that replicates all the steps people take at airports before they take off. That is, check-in, security screening, and boarding processes.

The Air New Zealand media release says:

“Air New Zealand is helping remove the unknowns of air travel for neurodivergent children and their families by creating a safe, supportive environment to practice the journey – before even taking to the skies.  In a first for the airline, and in partnership with Autism New Zealand and Acorn Neurodiversity, it has hosted a flight familiarisation experience for neurodivergent children and their families.”

Practical wisdom for accessible cities

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).

A woman with long blonde hair is reaching across the meeting table to point to a piece of paper. Three other people look on. Sharing practical wisdom.

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.

Handwritten word on glass saying regulations.

The title of the paper is, Practical wisdom for accessible cities: Creative tensions in universal design processes for Swedish urban development. An important exploration into why we cannot move past minimum compliance both in Sweden and Australia.

From the abstract

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

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.”

A view from the back of a classroom with adult learners and a presenter at the front of the room teaching the course.

An interesting look at introducing co-creation, or co-design as a means of both learning and shaping course material. The title of the paper is, Collaboration and co-creation: fostering student learning through syllabus redesign.

From the introduction

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.

Cities for all ages

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
Front cover cities for all ages, four people walking across a zebra crossing reminiscent of the Beatles Abby Road album cover.

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.

Active transport and disability

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

A cycle path and a walking path separated by plantings of mid height grasses. All good for active transport.

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.

This is a good article with photos by George Xinos titled, Active transport and people with disability.

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.

Surveys don’t capture everyone

A literature review of surveys for accessible transport shows that minority groups are underrepresented. Also, surveys use questions and measures that show a lack of understanding of mobility inequities and challenges. The literature review concludes with a “standardised measure of mobility justice”.

The most extensively researched groups are older people and women.
disadvantaged socio-economic groups in mobility justice-related surveys.

A older woman in a red dress cycles along a path towards the ocean.

Therefore it’s important to expand research to gain a better understanding of mobility justice across diverse socioeconomic groups. An intersectional lens is essential for understanding how these ‘layers’ shape and influence human life and experiences.

The title of the article is Exploring the focus and gaps in mobility justice-related surveys. A scoping review approach.

From the abstract

Surveys offer an opportunity to capture individual beliefs and extract subjective evaluations of justice. However no standard approach exists for measuring mobility justice through surveys. This scoping review examines 56 studies that use surveys to understand perceptions of mobility justice.

We distinguish between direct justice measures, where individuals are directly asked about the perceived fairness, and indirect justice measures, which ask individual opinions on assumed fair concepts.

Minority groups are underrepresented in mobility justice surveys. This means we need an additional focus on these target groups. Also, surveys use justice measures that fail to capture the experiences of disadvantaged groups.

We have developed a conceptual framework for the future design of mobility surveys. It aims to advance the development of a standardised measure of mobility justice.

Co-designing inclusive communities

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.

Front cover of Where we belong report. It shows a map of the inner city area laid out in small different coloured rectangles representing blocks of land.

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.

Image from the UTS Belonging report showing a group of people standing around a table and a display of post it notes.

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 title of the report is, Where We Belong: Creating inclusive and accessible communities across Glebe, Haymarket, Pyrmont and Ultimo.

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.

Are we there yet? Norway universally designed 2025

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.

Front cover of the book.

Here are past posts that refer to Bringa’s work and the landmark document Norway Universally Designed 2025.

Norway universally designed by 2025

Top half of the front cover of the Norway Universally Designed 2025. The graphic is various shades of blue with a woman operating an automatic teller machine.

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.

Picture of the front cover of the Norwegian Action Plan on universal design.

Olav Rand Bringa provides extra insights in his paper, From Visions to Practical Policy: The Universal Design Journey in Norway. What did We learn? What did we gain? And what now?

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.

An aerial view of a hospital courtyard showing gardens, seating and children's play equipment.

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”. 

relates to With a Deadline In Place, Norway Warms Up to Universal Design

“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.

picture of a modern building. Norway Opera House has a wide graded access and no steps.

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.

A man's hand is writing the word regulations in large script style writing.

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. 

In Australia the Access to Premises Standard also favours people with mobility and vision impairments. 

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. 

The title is, How laws of universal design discriminate between different types of disabilities – Lessons learned from Norway.