Motor vehicles have dominated road design and road rules for most of the last century. With public policy promoting walking and wheeling this has to change. With this in mind, the UK Government’s Manual for Streets 2 gives pedestrians a higher priority on streets and roads. It builds on the original manual published in 2007 with a wider application of the principles.
Research carried out in the preparation of Manual for Streets 2 indicated that many of the criteria routinely applied in street design are based on questionable or outdated practice.
Street patterns last for decades so we have to get them right for the future.
Manual for Streets 2
The Manual for Streets 2 begins with a rationale and principles. Photographs and case studies illustrate the design ideas. The main body of the document covers design principles and detailed design issues. It includes:
Street networks, and connectivity
Community involvement
Pedestrian needs
Cycle facilities
Bus facilities
Junctions, crossings, access
Traffic signs
Parking and street furniture
The likelihood of walking goes beyond a level, uninterrupted footway. It is influenced by the quality of the walking experience and how safe people feel. Design that accommodates the needs of children and people with disability will suit all users. this includes easy ways to cross the street in their line of travel.
The Manual advises that there should be little need for dedicated cycle lanes, but doesn’t advise sharing space with pedestrians. Rather, the aim is to create conditions on the carriageway so that cyclists are content to use it. Nevertheless, where there is high traffic volume and larger vehicles, cycle lanes, or combined cycle/bus lanes will be required.
Manual for Streets 2 is a companion to the original Manual for Streetspublished in 2007, which has a handy 8 page summary document. Although it is a UK publication, much is transferrable to Australian conditions.
This is a story from regional Australia where joined up thinking maximised the social and economic benefits for the whole community. Both the school and the library facilities needed an upgrade. So here was an opportunity to develop a ‘joint use’ community hub to service the town and to support lifelong learning in the community. However, the project, underpinned by universal design, had its challenges.
Understanding the place and the community who will use the facility was a key pillar in the success of the project. A strong shared vision and clear identification of needs led to the development of a highly integrated, adaptable facility that will respond to school and community needs. Photo from the book chapter
The New South Wales Department of Education generally encourages schools to engage in shared use of school facilities. The school controls the facility and allows community use out of school hours. However, this is not as effective as it could be due to governance barriers.
The overarching project design guidelines included universal design principles along with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Project specific design principles were developed to embrace life long learning, celebrating art and multicultural heritage, and embedding universal design principles.
The chapter explains the issues, the processes, connection to land, place, history and people. Consultation with the Wiradjuri community had a significant impact on the design, artefacts, and the naming of places. Images help with explaining the concepts.
Policies and protocols
No matter how well the built environment is designed, they way the place and space is used by people can still raise problems. For example, spaces designed for quiet activities will only work well if users keep quiet. Likewise, spaces designed for collaboration do not suddenly give people the ability to collaborate.
This project paves the way for other communities to create community hubs within and adjacent to school grounds. With several stakeholders, a collaborative approach is needed to negotiate the way through governance issues.
An interesting book chapter for designers, local government, community groups, school staff, and library staff. It’s open access.
When the built environment is poorly designed from a user perspective, it limits what people can do if they have a disability. On the other hand, if it is designed well, people can continue to do everyday tasks more easily and for longer. Collaboration between occupational therapists and architects is not new. However, there are barriers to interprofessional experiences that limit universal design solutions.
Architects having a preference for autonomy is one barrier. Differences in terminology, lack of understanding of each profession’s skill set and scope of practice is another.
Accessible built environment advisors and practitioners know that it’s an uphill battle to get clients to go beyond compliance. However, if the client agrees, it might be time to go beyond compliance with occupational therapists.
Occupational therapists (OTs) and universal design have much in common, say James Lenker and Brittany Perez. In their paper they argue the case for including the skills and knowledge of OTs across the spectrum of design disciplines and in research activities. Inter-disciplinary collaboration is the key.
OTs are involved in home modifications, but rarely considered in the public domain. They hold key information about how our minds and bodies interact with the built environment. So they can sometimes bring new solutions to the table with universal design.
Interprofessional Collaboration
A short text and voice video from the UD Project in the United States on occupational therapists collaborating with designer.
Collaboration: do you hide 🫣 or get excited 😁 ? Our student Kaylee discusses a process and protocol that she discovered in her capstone project, PLUS we discuss some collaboration barriers/facilitators and resources to consider for success. #universaldesign#AIP#OTpic.twitter.com/E41N8HjmyN
Apeksha Gohil has devised a universal design guide for OTs. The aim of the guide is for OT practitioners to offer universal design solutions. The guide is a three stage stepwise process to reach universal design solutions beyond compliance and prescriptive standards.
Gohil agrees that stakeholders are primarily interested in what is required by the law. However, it is important to create awareness about user participation and co-design a part of the design process. One of the aims of the guide is to create awareness about role of OTs in universal design and create best practice examples.
The term “smart city” refers to the way local authorities use digital information to make planning decisions and create solutions. But is this linked to the real lives of older people and the notion of age-friendly cities? According to UBANAGE, a European project, not enough data is collected on people aged over 65 years.
Time to develop smart city technologies that account for older people so that policymakers can inform their decision-making with evidence from older people.
Researchers found current data sets inadequate for analysis of older populations. One of the reasons is the need for the privacy of personal data. Here we see the dangers of trying to develop algorithms and simulation to solve problems. This is where co-creation enters the picture. Older adults, public servants and other stakeholders worked together to test solutions for addressing the needs of older people.
What is a smart city and is it different from other cities? Smart cities use digital technology and data to improve decision-making and quality of life. The aim is to gain a better understanding of current conditions and forecast future changes. The data are also used to improve city functions and create solutions. But how does it work?
More is explained in an article titled, Smart City Design Principles. For a city, town or community to become smart it needs connected technology. Smartphones, sensors and Internet of Things devices connect to the Internet and each other and share the data they collect with city staff. Managers use various applications to take this data and turn it into information they can use. This can have a huge impact on urban development and planning.
There are four key elements:
Quality encompasses liveability, environment, and quality of life (which should include accessibility and inclusion).
Residential Construction focuses on addressing the needs of current generations without negatively impacting future generations.
Capacity is about natural and human resources – population distribution, water, etc.
History and Environment is about achieving cohesive regional development, traditional practices and archaeological zones.
Anyone interested in understanding and applying the elements of the smart cities framework will find the article useful.
Abstract
A smart city should embrace the concept of sustainable growth, as it is an urgent need, and we cannot hesitate in coping with precious natural resources and plunge into crisis.
To make the city run as a smart city, several things should be included in the situation. In the long term, smart city visions that are inclusive, pluralistic, and citizen-centric, focused on developing services and resolving local challenges, would be the most effective and cost-efficient.
They are most likely to avoid potential issues by strengthening both physical facilities and amenities, as well as the city’s sense of culture.
Population ageing and smart cities
An article in The Conversation challenges the idea that older people are a problem and a burden. Apart from being an ageist proposition, it does little to change matters. When we talk of “empowering older adults” to engage in active ageing, who took the power away in the first place? Was it the advent of secluded congregate living that seduced older adults into feeling “secure”? Or was it something else? Regardless, research continues on ways to make people “feel capable and safe”.
The article in The Conversation begins with older people “need help and encouragement to remain active as they age in their own communities.” It is not clear why this is specific to older people. The article continues to explain how a city can provide digital infrastructure for the local information older people need. Three solutions are proposed for keeping older adults, indeed everyone, active and healthy:
Replace ageism with agency for improved quality of life.
Connect to smart city data to get the right information.
Include co-design in planning for greater participation and inclusion.
The World Health Organization has updated their resources on age-friendly cities and communities and added a toolkit. In 2007 the Age Friendly Cities and Communities (AFCC) program was rolled out. A Global Network of Age-Friendly Cities followed in 2010. The strength of the program was an early form of co-design with older people in local communities. That is, it promoted a bottom-up process with top-down policy support.
The guide has suggestions for meaningful engagement of older people in creating age-friendly environments. It includes detailed examples of existing national AFCC programmes, and practical steps for creating or strengthening such a programme. The vision is for all countries to establish a national AFCC programme by the end of the UN Decade of Healthy Ageing (2021–2030).
The toolkit is a separate set of resources to the guide.
The glossary lists all the words and labels used for older people and is a useful resource in itself. As with many official guides there are a lot of words and explanations about the history and ideas. The eight domains of action are the same as the 2007 version of the guide. The Framework for implementing national programmes is in section 3.
There are more than 1400 members of the Global Network, and looks like it will continue to grow. The network acts locally to encourage full participation by older people in community life and active ageing. The program is an important step in meeting the goal of the UN Decade of Healthy Ageing. Setting the scene for improved participation by older people benefits everyone. What’s good for older people is good for all people.
The Age Friendly Cities and Communities program puts older people at the centre and covers all aspects of life. It’s where policy meets people. The vision is that older people can transform themselves by transforming the environments in which they live, work and play.
The Livable Housing Design Standard applies to all new Class 1a and Class 2 buildings. Class 1a buildings are detached houses, row houses, terraces, townhouses and villa units. Class 2 buildings are apartment buildings and the design requirements apply inside the apartment. Public access requirements cover the public areas. To aid practitioners, the Australian Building Codes Board has produced a Livable Housing Handbook.
The Livable Housing Design Standard sets out minimum requirements for mainstream dwellings.
The title, ‘Livable Housing Design’ comes from Livable Housing Australia’s voluntary guidelines. The features in these guidelines form the basis of the mandatory requirements, which are similar to Livable Housing Australia’s ‘silver level’.
The Livable Housing Design Handbookaims to help practitioners understand the relevant sections of the building code. These are Part G7 of NCC Volume One, Part H8 of NCC Volume Two, and the ABCB Standard for Livable Housing Design.
The Handbook covers design issues in generic terms and does not provide specific compliance advice. It aims to assist practitioners develop solutions to comply with the NCC requirements.
The intent of livable housing design is “to ensure that housing is designed to meet the needs of the community, including older people and those with a mobility-related disability.”
The appendices have examples of bathroom layouts and a guide for meeting compliance with the NCC.
Going beyond the Livable Housing standard
The Australian Building Codes Board has also produced a guide for going beyond the minimum standard. The voluntary standard is generally based on Livable Housing Australia’s “Gold level”. These features provide a greater level of livability across the lifespan for more people, and go beyond the “silver level”. Consequently, exceeding the minimum mandatory requirements will still achieve compliance.
This additional set of non-mandatory technical provisions will better meet the needs of the community. They are similar to the Gold level in the original voluntary Livable Housing Design Guidelines.
Australian homes are some of the largest in the world and the features in the voluntary standard should not be difficult to achieve.
Extensions and major renovations to existing homes will be based on state or territory requirements to comply with the standard. For example, if the works require a council development application.
Online learning – Livable Housing Design
CUDA has acquired the licence from the Australian Building Codes Board to run their course on Livable Housing Design Standard. The course is based on the Handbook and the Standard. This is a technical course for home-building professionals. Find out more about this course. and all the different ways to achieve a level entry.
The long road to Livable Housing
And the journey isn’t over yet. While the Livable Housing Standard is now in the national code, it is up to each state and territory to implement it. Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania, ACT and Northern Territory have agreed to implementation. South Australia has come late to the party but is now working on an implementation strategy.
Australian Network for Universal Housing Design (ANUHD) has been leading the charge for the reforms for twenty years. They believe that Western Australia could also sign up to implement the standard eventually. However, as of September 2023, NSW remains uncommitted. The livable housing story of citizen advocacy is documented in a conference paper.
Universally designed dream home
Not your average home. This one goes beyond even enhanced standards in the Livable Housing Design Standard. The video is from O’Shea and Sons Builders and shows what can be done with creative thinking. While this is a top-end of the market home, all the features are possible in mainstream homes. As Nick O’Shea says, “… an absolutely amazing home where functionality and style means absolute beauty.”
Singapore’s rapid urban development didn’t happen without a plan – indeed, it took several integrated plans. The aim of Singapore’s Long-Term Planis for liveable and sustainable homes and built environments for residents. It’s basically a land use and infrastructure plan with a 50 year view. The broad ideas in the plan are translated into Master Plans with detail about land use and density.
Given geographical constraints, Singapore has adopted innovative solutions to achieve a high standard of living for residents.
Singapore’s Liveability Framework
A conference paper by Koh and Leeexplains how the Singapore Liveability Framework has brought liveability, sustainability and prosperity. Developing state-owned land comes with government conditions. Consequently, developments are aligned with the Liveability Framework and master plans. Universal design is considered in all built environment plans.
Housing for All
In 1960 there was an acute housing shortage. In five years they built 50,000 flats to solve the shortage. Then they turned towards providing better housing to meet the aspirations of the population for a better quality of life. Singapore encourages home ownership and supports occupants to purchase their government owned flats.
Planning for Mixed-Use
Public housing is not excluded from prime locations and is mixed with retail, commercial and residential zones. Mixed use developments are also found as part of integrated transport hubs. The integration of mixed-use districts starts at the planning stage and encourages innovative development concepts.
Planning for Polycentricity
Decentralisation is key to being able to live, work and play without the need to travel long distances. Each regional centre has industrial estates, business parks, and educational institutions. At a more detailed level there are schools and shops and a transport node.
Connectivity and Walkability
Roads and expressways take up 12% of the land. Consequently, similarly to other countries, plans are prioritising public transport, walking and cycling, and extending the rail network. Better first and last mile connectivity is a must. Covered linkways connect transportation with residential areas to make walking more comfortable in the tropical weather. Repurposing roads for pedestrian space is also part of the plan.
Convenient access to green and blue
Singapore is more than a concrete jungle. The idea of a garden city began in 1967 as part of transforming Singapore into a clean and green haven for tourists and investors. Of course, residents benefit too.
A city for all ages
Life expectancy has risen by 20 years in the last 60 years and the population is therefore ageing. One in four Singaporeans will be older than 65 years by 2030. While there are various options for older residents, the government has introduced new public housing concepts. Co-location of housing with healthcare facilities, retail and dining areas, and community gardens is one solution. Community Care Apartments are another idea where residents can live independently with support services.
Living in a disrupted world
The conference paper is long and detailed with many case studies and photographs. Having government control over development and developers means strategies are implemented according to the plans. Climate change and COVID are now part of life and Singapore has to move beyond liveability and sustainability to build resilience.
The COVID 19 pandemic has given rise to new thoughts about planning and design of the built environment including public transportation. People with psychosocial disabilities respond in different ways to situations. Travelling was easier for some because of less crowding, but others feared contamination. Facial masks increased anxiety in some, but others found that people not wearing masks a problem. This is where a universal design approach can help.
” … universal design should include the social and organisation environments, in addition to physical design, in terms of making the transport system accessible to everyone.”
Between 20% and 25% of the population have a mental illness at any given time. People with psychosocial disabilities travel less than others leading to social isolation and worsening symptoms. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that by 2030 mental health conditions will be the leading burden of disease.
Improving travel with universal design
Few studies include mental health with reference to universal design. Anja Fleten Nielsen’s study asks “How can a broad understanding of universal design be used to improve travel for people with psychosocial disability?” She investigated the impact of COVID-19 and the main barriers to using public transport.
Nielsen’s study involved in-depth interviews focusing on barriers, travel behaviour during the pandemic and suggested solutions. Recruiting participants was difficult in terms of getting written consent – signing a consent form could raise anxiety levels. Nielsen explains more about methods and the literature review.
The key results are fell into: physical environment, social environment, organisational environment, and individual aspects.
Physical environment: Crowding, important information during the journey, lack of toilet facilities and sensory overload.
Social environment: Negative experiences with fellow passengers and interaction with transport personnel, and being afraid to ask for help.
Organisational environment: Availability and ease of access, and lack of seamlessness between modes with long waiting times.
Individual level: Planning difficulties, travel induced fatigue and financial barriers.
COVID-19 made barriers more apparent
Nielsen’s paper discusses each of the four aspects in detail. The pandemic increased symptoms in many participants and has made them more visible to transport planners. To answer the question about universal design, Nielsen claims that environmental factors are of greater importance. This is because the individual factors are related to special and customised solutions.
Planners and designers need to look beyond physical impairments. Universal design is just as relevant for people with psychosocial disabilities. Social and organisational environments are of equal importance for this group. These are factors that also improve journey experiences for the travelling public.
From the abstract
During and after the pandemic, most informants travelled less and/or used their car more than before. Some stopped using public transport due to fear of contamination, while others found it easier to travel during the pandemic due to less crowding.
Use of facial masks were perceived by some as an additional problem increasing anxiety, while others found it more problematic with fellow passengers not wearing masks. In general, findings support prior studies in terms of barriers related to crowding, lack of seamlessness, financial issues, problems with staff, lack of access in rural areas, and low knowledge of support systems.
Lack of toilet facilities, negative experiences with other passengers, sensory overload, travel-induced fatigue, and problems related to planning are considered problematic. Station areas may pose a barrier for people with former drug addictions. Hence, universal design should include the social and organisation environments, in addition to physical design, in terms of making the transport system accessible to everyone.
What’s the best way to evaluate the application of universal design principles in a project? Is it a checklist? A professional opinion? Or something else? And what kind of evaluation are we talking about? Surely evaluation is about the usability of the building from a user perspective. A group of researchers decided to find out how stakeholders were evaluating universal design in their projects.
“Evaluating universal design requires knowledge in many areas … Should not be done by a single person (e.g., architect), but by a board of people knowledgeable in the building environment, universal design, and of course representative users with varied ranges of disabilities.“
The Australian researchers undertook an extensive study involving 157 participants. More than half reported experience of disability, either themselves or a family member. Academics and access consultants represented the largest number of participants. When asked who is involved in universal design evaluation, the most common response was access consultants (45%). Disability advocates represented almost thirty percent (29.8%).
The research paperexplains the processes used and the data gathered. Participants used specific tools or methods with checklists being a favourite, followed by access audits. This is where the understanding of universal design comes into question. However, some respondents were incorporating user feedback from the design conception stage.
Overall, almost all participants rated evaluation of universal design as being important. When asked who should do the evaluation, building users, building construction stakeholders and multiple stakeholders were identified. There was a trend towards access consultants being the people to do the evaluation.
Conclusion
The researchers claim that evaluation of universal design is being called for and carried out in practice. The results appear to divide into two camps. Those who think of universal design as a standard, and those who understand universal design as an iterative process.
However, evaluation from the perspective of meeting standards (did it comply?), or meeting the project scope (deliverables) does not tell you if the design is usable. The researchers conclude the paper with this sentence:
“[We need to] … better understand how people with disability can effectively participate in design processes, and what factors serve as barriers and facilitators to participation.”
Not sure that more research on how stakeholders evaluate universal design is the issue. Understanding the difference between access standards and universal design is still the key point.
Universal design aims to reduce environmental barriers and enhance usability of buildings for all people, particularly those with disabilities.
This study aimed to gather information on current practice and what stakeholders perceive as important to universal design evaluation. A mixed methods approach was employed, and data were collected via online survey (n = 157) and semi-structured interviews (n = 37).
Participants included industry professionals, policy makers, government officials, academics, and people with disabilities. Just over one-third of participants stated that they had experience of evaluating universal design in public built environments.
Checklists were most commonly used, yet participants expressed concern with their suitability for this purpose. Almost all participants perceived evaluation of universal design as important, citing its value to advocacy, professional development and strengthening the evidence base of universal design.
Findings from this study highlight a tension between a checklist approach, and a multidisciplinary method that encompasses the complexity of universal design application.
Research on the business opportunities in accessible and inclusive tourism is extensive. However, the intent of this research is largely staying on the shelf. A mix of attitudes towards people with disability and a sense of “not knowing where to start” are likely reasons. But you can get inclusive tourism with universal design by co-designing with tourism operators.
” Surprisingly, many cases did not meet the minimal requirements for “older people” and “people in a wheelchair.” … but this result did function as an eye-opener”.
A research group in Belgium has devised a method to uncover business opportunities through universal design. Collaborating with 17 accommodation providers they came up with a seven step process to integrate universal design into their business model. The process is also a way to increase knowledge and understanding of diverse guests and their experiences.
The research group documented their project in a conference paper. It begins by explaining inclusive tourism as a right, a business opportunity and a challenge. They devised a method to use the potential of universal design as a “business transformer”.
Co-designing the 7 steps
Step 1: We created a literature-based universal design screening based on mindset, management and infrastructure.
Step 2: We tested and updated the screening in each of the 17 accommodation providers.
Step 3: We analysed the data for each business which was given to them in a report.
Step 4: The results were further processed with the participant, who decided on priorities.
Step 5: An action plan was devised based on step 4.
Step 6: A concise checklist and a guide with relevant information (tools).
Step 7: A re-evaluation of the business to assess the actual improvement after interventions. Unfortunately the COVID pandemic impacted this research and the last step was not possible with the downturn in tourism.
We describe a 2-year project where the possibilities of universal design were explored. The purpose was to structurally uncover and address potential business opportunities.
The method was based on: inclusive customer journey, linking mindset, management and infrastructure, and diverse user needs. We collaborated with seventeen accommodation providers and developed a seven-step process. The process integrates universal design into their business model.
This book addresses a growing demand to hear the authentic voices and understand the lived tourist experiences of people with disability. The latest volume in The Tourist Experience series challenges what is arguably an exclusionary, marginalising, discriminatory, and ableist (tourism) world.
By drawing attention to the ‘dis/’ in ‘disabled’, the authors provoke the need to change binary thinking about people who live with disability so that they may be ‘able’ to assume the role of tourist.
They engage critical tourism and critical disability studies, and their respective theories, perspectives, and debates, around, for instance, models of disability that shape conceptualisations and worldviews, inclusive research and enabling language, and the ethics of care.
These are pivotal to dismantling normative structures to enable a more inclusive, equitable, and socially just tourist experience that promotes a more independent and dignified tourism world for people with disability.
Tourism and Disability: Book review
Tourism and Disability is a new book addressing the existing challenges and opportunities related to tourism for people with disability. The Booktopia review describes this as an underdeveloped and underestimated niche market. While there is a larger market for family group travel, there is also a market for disability-specific tourism products.
The book examines the strategies, policies, and initiatives at regional, national, and international levels. The aim is to foster the development of accessible tourism. It examines the different social, cultural, legal, and information/interactive barriers to inclusion. The book’s focus is on the distinctive travel demands of people with disability and how their needs differ from the preferences of travellers without disability.
The various chapters provide a multidisciplinary approach to the topic covering management, economics, and statistical analysis. This makes it useful for academics and practitioners alike.
The Title of the book is Tourism and Disability: An economic and managerial perspective. Published by SpringerLink you can purchase individual chapters online. The book is also available from other suppliers. The editors and most contributors are based in Europe where tourism is a key part of the European economy.
