Talking about universal design is all very well, but it takes collective action to make it happen. Collective action for accessible and inclusive cities requires everyone to get on board and work together. And “everyone” means governments at all levels, urban planners and designers, construction companies, contractors and tradespeople. Everyone also means citizens and this is where co-design methods come in.
Two case studies form the basis of a research paper on two regional centres in Australia. One is in Geelong in Victoria and the other in Bunbury, Western Australia. The authors describe the collaborative and action oriented process in both studies.
A note of caution. Many local governments have little power over developments that not funded by them limiting what they can achieve. Private and commercial developers can legally challenge any requirements beyond the building codes.
Recommendations for both centres emerged from the research process. The key recommendation is to use a co-design and co-research process. The authors take a universal design to the whole process and recommendations. They also call for enhanced standards including mandating co-design.
This article compares research identifying the systemic barriers to disability access and inclusion in two regional Australian cities. We discuss some of the leadership and design challenges that government and industry need to address to embed universal design principles within urban planning, development.
In Geelong, Victoria, the disability community sought a more holistic and consultative approach to addressing access and inclusion. Systems‐thinking was used to generate recommendations for action around improving universal design regulations and community attitudes to disability. This included access to information, accessible housing, partnerships, and employment of people with disability.
In Bunbury, Western Australia, a similar project analysed systemic factors affecting universal design at a local government level. Recommendations for implementing universal design included staff training, policies and procedures, best practice benchmarks, technical support and engagement in co‐design.
Universal design and local government
Children enjoying the spinner in the playground
Here is an earlier paper from Adam Johnson who used Bunbury in Western Australia as a case study for his presentation at the UD2021 Australian Universal Design Conference. Bunbury set itself an aim, and a challenge, to be the “Most Accessible Regional City in Australia”. Adam explained how he used participatory action research (PAR) methods to meet Bunbury’s challenge. Universal design in local government means involving the people who are the subject of the research. In this case, people with disability and older people.
PAR has three principles:
The people most affected by the research problem should participate in ways that allow them to share control over the research process
The research should lead to some tangible action within the immediate context
The process should demonstrate rigour and integrity.
Adam recruited 11 co-researchers to work with him: 6 people with disability, 3 family carers, and 2 support workers.
Local government is where the ‘rubber hits the road’. Local government is best placed to work with residents and understand the context of where they live, and it means they can be innovative with solutions tailored to local needs.
The research project had a positive impact:
– Greater alignment between policies and practices at the City of Bunbury with universal design. – Co design panel created informing many current infrastructure projects. – Universal design standards adopted. – Staff and contractors trained in Universal Design. – $100,000 per annum allocated for auditing and retrofitting
Disability Justice and Urban Planning is a collection of articles focusing on people with disability and the built environment. Lisa Stafford and Leonor Vanik remind us it is 60 years since the first campaigns for justice began. In their introduction to the articles they argue that despite legislation we still live in an ableist world. People with disability continue to be excluded and subjugated.
In urban planning and design, these prejudices are played out in the built and digital form. … disabled people are constantly reminded that “you don’t belong – the world is not built for you”. Dignity and control are still not realised.
Basic things like using public transport to attend an appointment are taken for granted by many. However, this same activity for disabled people can require exhaustive planning to account for things that might go wrong. Many trips are not make because it’s just too hard.
Then there is the complexity of other social dimensions. Indigenous disabled people, disabled people of colour, queer disabled people and disabled women and girls. However, there is a growing resistance to oppression and exclusion.
The collection of articles brings into view a large and diverse group of people who have been unseen for so long. The aim is to open up conversations about body and mind diversity. The authors are people with disability and so the content is written with heart – it’s not just another academic exercise.
It’s time for planners and designers to not just listen but to act. It could be their future self they are planning and designing for.
The title of this collection of short articles is, Disability Justice and Urban Planning and is open access. Published in Planning Theory & Practice.
The authors use the language of “disabled people” in line with critical models of disability.
According to Deafness Forum Australia, approximately one in six Australians has a significant hearing loss. Participants of any age in any learning situation might need some assistance to get the best learning experience. It could be a Zoom webinar or lecture, an in-person conference, or a roundtable discussion. The important point is, make sure everyone can hear.
Assistance can be as simple as sitting at the front of a lecture or presentation where lip reading can assist comprehension. Or it could be more complex with assistive listening devices and live captioning. Microphones also have a place as does minimal background noise.
Most people lose their hearing after they have learned to speak, so they don’t learn Auslan (sign language). However, always check whether one of you participants or learners needs an Auslan interpreter. People who use Auslan often prefer to be referred to as Deaf rather than hard of hearing.
The ADCET websitehas more information on the impact of hearing loss. Although it is focused on school learners, much of the information is applicable in any learning or information sharing situation.
ADCET strategies for including people with hearing loss include:
Always speak facing the audience
Provide written materials to supplement lectures
Caption videos and provide a transcript
Keep hands away from your face
Choose venues with a working hearing loop or assistive listening devices
Supporting participants online
COVID changed almost everything including being together in learning situations. In July 2020 ADCET surveyed disability practitioners from the tertiary sector to find out how this impacted their work. The result of this work was to develop a guideline for supporting Deaf and hard of hearing learners online.
Download the Guidelines from the ADCET website. They have specific instructions for using captions and transcripts and the different web applications that help the learning process. The free automatic AI captioning works adequately most of the time on Zoom. It can be activated in the settings.
The notion that there are only two genders, female and male, has become a topic of discussion and research. So, there is a growing interest in planning and designing for people who identify outside this binary. But much of the research literature is based on the experiences of women. There is little research on people who identify as nonbinary, trans, intersex or genderqueer. However, in the meantime, some of the research on women’s experiences can act as a proxy for people who identify as nonbinary. The key issue is that gender inclusion is left out of planning conversations.
Masters student Carolyn Chu investigated the constraints women and nonbinary people face when using public space. These constraints have a profound effect on their health, daily living and safety. Chu wanted to understand gender differences in park usage, planning and design in Los Angeles parks.
Chu says that planners should thing critically about gender by leveraging a feminist planning perspective. Participatory methods that favour marginalised voices in planning discussions are essential. And to explore creative design options for diverse populations across gender, ages, ability and housing status.
Key findings
• Women have diverse needs and opinions related to park amenities, services, and preferences. • Women and nonbinary people are not the majority users of Lafayette Park. The most common uses for women park users were leisurely walking and supervising children. Very few women engaged in exercise or vigorous physical activity (other than walking) while using the park. • In planning processes, as with other municipal processes, the loudest voices in a community often have disproportionately more power in decision making. These loud voices have historically been, and continue to be, the voices of white, middle-class, and cisgender people. • Planners need to balance competing needs for space, especially in dense city neighborhoods such as Koreatown and Westlake where Lafayette Park is located. • Parks are not just a place for leisure, but also settings for economic activity and shelter • Women’s past experiences of harassment in public places have created anxiety and fear for their safety in parks. Women are careful about how they dress while using parks to avert unwanted attention on their bodies. • Parks provision and staffing are chronically underfunded and embedded in broader political dynamics.
“The nonprofit planner urged that in order to build gender-inclusive spaces, women must be included in every step of the planning phase, from inception to funding, leading, outreach, implementation, and evaluation. They emphasized that gender inclusive parks are created at the time of park inception, early in the process, and cannot be “tacked on” after foundational decisions have been made.”
Title of the study is, Gender Inclusion: Gender-Inclusive Planning and Design Recommendations for Los Angeles Parks. The research is largely based around women’s experiences, but issues such as safety are shared by other marginalised groups. Community engagement is a core strategy for all aspects of planning and design. And that means more than holding the traditional town hall meeting.
Planning and Policy Recommendations
1. Think critically about gender by leveraging a feminist planning perspective that recognizes that people of all genders have multiple, intersecting, and dynamic identities that hold meaning and power. 2. Use participatory methods that favor marginalized voices, open planning discussions to a wider range of opinions, and make time for collective decision-making. 3. Build a network of diverse parks that can accommodate a range of different desires and partner with nonprofits to explore alternative stewardship and ownership practices. 4. Explore creative design and programming options that are designed with all abilities in mind and maximize limited space in inner cities. 5. Invest and fund our parks equitably with a particular focus on providing resources for communities that are park poor due to historically discriminatory planning practices. 6. Pursue further research on park users across the spectrum of gender, age, ability, and housing status.
Abstract
Urban planning theory and practice have created gendered environments that mainly privilege the needs of cisgender men. Women, nonbinary, and genderqueer people face various constraints on their use of public space which has profound effects on their health, daily living, and safety. This research study seeks to understand gender disparities in park usage, planning, and design in Los Angeles parks and offers recommendations to mitigate those disparities through improvements to planning processes.
What and where are the problems when it comes to implementing universal design in public places? Three Swedish researchers decided to find out. The first step is to consider all the actors that have a role in creating public places and spaces. They all make choices based on particular strategies. Then there are inherent conditions: topography, the space itself, time pressures, cost, and materials. Each one of these can impact how different people might use and design the environment.
How buildings, walkways and public places are designed is based on choices and strategies, affected by laws and policies, but also by the practitioners’ knowledge and experiences.
Knowledge of universal design is still limited among practitioners and even then, it is not understood in the same way. Perceptions that universal design is about access compliance further complicates matters. So how to change the mindset of practitioners? This is where the concept of diversity comes in. Old thought patterns of deviating from the norm have to be discarded as practitioners think of population diversity.
Aim of the study
The aim of the study was to identify the choices practitioners made during the urban development process. And then to find out what they need to better support the implementation of universal design. They used qualitative methods to find out and a quantitative analysis of the findings. The findings are presented in three sections:
Critical choices and aspects – informal decisions also impact final result.
Conflicting visions, goals and interests between departments and public and private actors.
Critical recourses – supports and tools stakeholders need
The paper concludes with 7 recommendations based on their findings.
Despite laws, policies and visions to create cities and societies for all, barriers still exclude persons with disabilities from using buildings and public places. Our study aimed to identify choices made during the urban development process that include or exclude users in the built environment; how and when these choices arise during the process; and what is needed to implement universal design (UD) as a strategy and tool to secure all users equal opportunities in the built environment.
The study involved employees and private actors in city development processes. Four workshops were followed by qualitative interviews with key players. The analysis was based on qualitative data from workshops and interviews.
Aspects impeding and supporting UD and conflicting visions and goals were identified in all phases, as well as the need for tools to implement UD. The findings show that accessibility for all users is dealt with (too) late in the process, often giving rise to special solutions.
The findings also show how UD appears more clearly in remodelling projects than in new constructions. A strong vision from the start to build for all users clearly supports UD throughout the process. Other factors such as pre-studies that include human diversity, allocation of resources and experts’ early opinions also prove to be clear drivers for UD.
Overall, the findings reveal a demand for solutions that can maintain early visions and goals throughout the processes. We conclude by providing seven recommendations for addressing these challenges.
The concept of the Metaverse is a continuous online 3D universe that combines multiple virtual spaces. It’s the next step on from the internet. It means users can work, meet, game and socialize in these 3D spaces. We are not quite there yet, but some platforms have metaverse-like elements. Video games and Virtual Reality are two examples. So, we need to keep a careful watch on developments to make sure the Metaverse is inclusive and accessible.
Another term for the Metaverse is digital immersive environments. It sounds science fiction, but this fiction is becoming a fact. Someone is designing these environments, but are they considering equity, diversity and inclusion? Zallio and Clarkson decided to tackle this issue anddid some research on where the industry is heading.
Several companies are involved in the development of digital immersive environments. So before they get too far in development it’s important to define some principles for the design of a good Metaverse. Zallio and Clarkson came up with ten principles that embrace inclusion, diversity, equity, accessibility and safety.
10 Principles for designing a good Metaverse
is open and accessible
is honest and understandable
is safe and secure
is driven by social equity and inclusion
is sustainable
values privacy, ethics and integrity
guarantees data protection and ownership
empowers diversity through self-expression
innovates responsibly
complements the physical world
Their paper is insightful and provides some important areas for discussion and research. We need developers to consider the essentials of inclusion, diversity and accessibility. Zallio and Clarkson advise that designers can learn from the past to reduce pitfalls in the future. As the Sustainable Development Goals say, “leave no-one behind”.
1. The Metaverse appears as the next big opportunity in the consumer electronics scenario.
2. Several companies are involved with its development.
3. It is extremely important to define principles and practices to design a good Metaverse.
4. Qualitative research pointed out to challenges and opportunities to design a safe, inclusive, accessible Metaverse that guarantees equity and diversity.
5. Ten principles for designing a good Metaverse embrace inclusion, diversity, equity, accessibility and safety.
From the abstract
The Metaverse is shaping a new way for people interact and socialise. By 2026 a quarter of the population will spend at least an hour a day in the Metaverse. This requires consideration of challenges and opportunities that will influence the design of the Metaverse.
A study was carried out with industry experts to explore the social impact of the Metaverse through the lens of Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Accessibility and Safety (IDEAS). The goal was to identify directions business has to undertake.
The results indicated the nature of future research questions and analysis to define a first manifesto for Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Accessibility and Safety in the Metaverse.
This manifesto is a starting point to develop a narrative, brainstorm questions and eventually provide answers for designing a Metaverse as a place for people that does not substitute the physical world but complements it.
Care is both a need and a service, but it is also a social value that helps qualify how services, assistance, and support are provided. The value of care aims to keep people feeling safe and maintains their dignity. And caring cities are inclusive cities. A policy paper for the World Summit of Local and Regional Leaders at local government level proposes some thoughts on this.
A city that cares fulfils its human rights obligations as well as the needs and aspirations of everyone. Places and spaces should be available, acceptable, accessible, and affordable for everyone. This means city and community ecosystems need a new social contract to be caring. This contract should involve collaboration and be based on respect for people and the environment.
The policy paperdiscusses the challenges and sets some recommendations for local and regional governments and some points on taking local action. This paper will be of interest to policy makers in all levels of government.
Enabling Environments for Local Action
“The responsibility for caring extends across all of government. Local and regional governments need to be supported and enabled to make the necessary transformations in favour of caring systems. To this end, this paper recommends taking the following actions at the national level:
a. Enact adequate, inclusive regulatory and policy frameworks establishing the basis for green, sustainable, and accessible public services and infrastructure
b. Sustain adequate transfer and allocation of financial resources to strengthen local-level technical capacity and enable efficient implementation.
c. Establish the legal foundations to institutionalize meaningful participatory and multi-level governance that considers the whole of society, moving past political alliances and promoting government accountability at all levels.”
Joint way forward
Governments at all levels need to share responsibility for creating caring systems by collaborating with communities. The policy paper recommends establishing strong partnerships and collaboration to enable social change. Here are some of the key points:
Care is a human right and a public good and universal access to it
Establishing collaborative platforms and social dialogue
Challenging the gendered division of labour of paid and unpaid care work
Respect for local and indigenous knowledge
Accessible and ethical information management
The title of the policy paper is Caring Systems and was presented at the UCLG World Congress and Summit of World Leaders held October 2022 in Korea.
Transport planners are guided by regulations related to mobility, but accessibility requirements relate to what people can achieve. Accessible transport systems cannot be measured objectively like length or weight but rather by what it enables users to do. So we need a way to merge accessibility measures with infrastructure measures. But how do you measure transport accessibility?
Jonathan Levine presents some interesting concepts about accessibility and mobility in his discussion paper. He explores the conceptual barriers to shifting transport planning from mobility to accessibility. Levine also presents a technique for analysing project-level accessibility analysis.
His thoughts highlight the different goals of accessibility and mobility and how they can be brought together. Transport rules and regulations are the current guiding tools focused on mobility. They are about traffic impact, land use, and transport demands. So embedding accessibility in transport planning requires some new accessibility tools.
One of the issues with adopting equity principles is that they are usually only seen from a transport disadvantage viewpoint. But everyone benefits when their accessibility increases. Using an accessibility approach enables transport planners to focus on human performance rather than infrastructure performance.
Ann Arbor is the subject of a case study where Levine analyses the accessibility impact on three land use development projects. This is where the paper becomes technical.
Levine’s proposed method goes beyond the mobility focus and concepts such as the cost of congestion. The tool takes a standard traffic impact analysis and combines it with an accessibility analysis of an individual land development project.
Everyone is happy when a wheeled mobility user can quickly and easily board the bus or train. And the person wheeling on doesn’t get unwanted attention from other passengers. Based on research in the United States comes a book on accessible public transportation. It covers different technologies, policies and programs with inclusive solutions for everyone. The book is based on research from Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental Access at Buffalo.
The title of the book is Accessible public transportation: designing service for riders with disability. The video below shows what went into the research, and list of chapters following gives an overview of the content. The focus is on people with disability, but of course, designing this group becomes good design for everyone.
1 The Importance of Public Transportation 2 The Culture of Accessible Transportation 3 The Scope of Inclusive Transportation 4 Trip Planning and Rider Information 5 The Built Environment 6 Vehicle Design 7 Demand Responsive Transportation 8 Paratransit Scheduling and Routing 9 Location-Based Information 10 Social Computing and Service Design 11 Learning from Riders 12 Vision for the Future
Work, transport and wheelchair users
How many jobs can a wheelchair user reach using public transport? Combining wheelchair accessibility with potential jobs is a useful way to show how access is good for individuals and the economy. That’s because we can add anyone with difficulty walking, and also people taking their children to childcare near their workplace.
Montreal and Toronto are retrofitting their networks to ensure that all individuals can use the public transport system. But will it be enough? A group of transport researchers created a method to identify the public transport barriers that prevent wheelchair users from getting to jobs.
In Toronto, wheelchair users have access to 75% of jobs compared to non wheelchair users. In Montreal this figure drops to 46%. The main reason for the difference is that Montreal has less accessible subway stations than Toronto.
In countries without a strong federal accessibility act and/or with major financial constraints, some public transport agencies fall behind in applying universal access design principles, making it even harder for people with a physical disability to access opportunities.
The objective of this study is to compare transit services to wheelchair users and the service offered to an individual not in a wheelchair.
On average, wheelchair users in Toronto have access to 75% of jobs that are accessible to users that are not in a wheelchair, whilst their counterparts in Montreal have access to only 46% of the jobs accessible to other users.
Barriers to public transport use
Why do people with disability refrain from travelling by public transport even after years of focus on universal design? Norway has gone to great lengths to create an accessible transport system, but the use by people with disability has not risen significantly. Why? The answers are not what you might expect. The experiences of non-users reveals the actual design of a bus or a train is not enough to ensure accessibility. The barriers to public transport use is that the system itself needs to be universally designed.
You can read more in the article, Public Transport and People with Disabilities – the Experiences of Non-users. There are valuable lessons here for transit designers in Australia. The authors refer to people with “impairments” and having “deficits” rather than people with disability – the preferred term in Australia.
From the abstract:
Universal design is high on the agenda in Norway, but despite years of focus on public transport design, it seems the number of people with disability using it has not increased significantly.
The aim of this paper is to add to the knowledge of why non-users with disabilities refrain from travelling by public transport. The authors’ research question is: “Why do people with impairments avoid travelling by public transport even when it is readily accessible, and are there any further measures that could lead to improvements?”
Assumptions were made and tested in qualitative studies on people with impairments who seldom or never travel by public transport. These were:
1) that insecurity and expectations lead to seldom or non-use of public transport;
2) that the triggering factors causing seldom or non-use of public transport are different from the issues that users experience;
3) that lack of knowledge among (and help from) drivers and personnel is a considerable barrier to non-use;
4) that a ‘travel buddy’ might help increase the use of public transport among non-users; and
5) that some people with disability have alternatives that work better for them in everyday life.
The findings indicate that feeling insecure, and expectations that problems will be encountered, are significant barriers to non-use. It’s the sum of all these challenges, real or anticipated, that stops people from using public transport.
So, is universal design is the solution? Or will individualized solutions provide a sense of freedom and participation for people with disability travelling by public transport?
Barriers in a public transport journey
When people talk about transport they first think of cars, buses and trains. But the key component linking all of these are footpaths. But having a footpath is only one of the barriers in a public transport journey for people with disability.
Hazard-free footpaths without obstacles are essential for people with mobility devices and people with vision impairment. This was one finding in a study of 32 participants with either reduced mobility or vision impairment. The whole journey study compared the barriers for different disability types.
The participants in the study were independent users of public transport. Their trips were mainly for work or education. The barriers fell into two categories: built environment and the public transport service.
There were several problems with buses including driver attitudes making things worse. Trains were not so problematic as stations were generally accessible.
The research paper provides more information about the barriers, and the experiences of the participants. The top three issues were bus driver attitudes, poor presentation of information, and footpath obstructions.
The study investigated the barriers in a typical journey chain and provides the similarities and differences in the key barriers perceived by people with physical and visual impairments.
The main barriers for physically impaired users were terminals and stops, services, and quality of footpaths. The main barriers for visually impaired users were poor presentation of information, and obstructions on footpaths. Bus driver’s attitude and unawareness of disabled users’ needs was a common concern for both groups.
Mobility and mobilising with public transport
Making the transition from driving to using other transportation options can be difficult – not least of all because many options were not designed with older people in mind. Transport policies, equipment and systems are focused on journeys to work, not the day to day needs of people not in the workforce.
Introduction to Senior Transportation considers the physical and cognitive limitations of older adult passengers, the challenges in meeting their needs, and the transportation methods that do and do not currently meet their needs. The chapters in this book cover many topics. Transitioning from driving, volunteer driver programs, technology and transportation, and ageing policy and transport,
New residential developments in Queensland must be walkable and encourage physical activity. Specific legislation requires among other conditions, connectivity, footpaths and street trees. Blocks must be no longer than 250 metres and residents must be within 400 metres of a park or open space. To help with planning walkable neighbourhoods there’s a guide.
The Street Design Manual for Walkable Neighbourhoods supports the Government’s policy. And Walkable, should also mean Wheelable.The manual is designed to help engineers, designers and planners to design more walkable and liveable residential areas. The Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia prepared the guide in conjunction with the Queensland Government,
The guide covers open space, lot design, street design, active travel, public transport, landscaping and much more. At 160 pages is it comprehensive. There is a brief mention of people using mobility devices, children, older people, and parents with strollers.
These street and road design guides divides pedestrians into types of users according to their assumed demands. This implies that different people use different streets for different reasons. For example, only consider children in school locations. But children can be present on any street, and older people take children to school.
This post has four different smart cities playbooks. They are by UNHabitat, the Smart Cities Council, 3Gict’s Smart Cities for All, and the fourth is by two urban planners.
UNHabitat – People-Centered Smart Cities Playbooks webpage introduces a series of playbooks as basic components of their smart cities program. The aim of the playbooks is to empower local government to take a co-design approach to digital transformations. This is so that cities can work on sustainability, inclusivity and human rights for everyone. The playbooks are titled:
Centering People in Smart Cities
Assessing the Digital Divide
Addressing the Digital Divide
Shaping Co-creation and Collaboration
Infrastructure and Security
Building Capacity
Connected Games Playbook
The Smart Cities Council is on the front foot preparing their thinking for the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games. They are focused on the digital aspects of the Games and have devised two smart cities playbooks.
Smart Cities Playbook No 1 sets the digital scene for the Games covering transport, facilities, housing and urban development.
Smart Cities Playbook No 2 provides guidance on the development of a South East Queensland Regional Data Strategy. Data is one the most valuable assets within the region but is undervalued and under utilised. The Strategy should support good governance and lead the implementation.
Five Pillars of Inclusive Smart Cities
A smart city uses communication technology to enhance liveability, workability, and sustainability. While the tech gets smarter it’s not getting more accessible. The most significant barriers to inclusion are lack of leadership, policy, and awareness, and limited solutions. James Thurston lists the five pillars in the Smart Cities for All Toolkit as:
Strategic Intent: inclusion strategy and leadership
Culture: citizen engagement and transparency
Governance & Process: procurement and partnerships
Technology: Global standards and solution development
Data: Data divide and solutions
The Smart Cities for All Toolkit empowers city leaders and urban planners to make their programs truly “smart” by being inclusive and accessible by design.
Toni Townes-Whitley, Vice President, Microsoft.
You can see a 13 minute video of one of James’ presentations that covers similar ground.
Busting myths about smart cities
Chelsea Collier and Dustin Haisler’sSmart Cities Playbook begins with myth-busting. The myths include: it’s all about technology; it’s only for big cities, it costs a lot; and only governments can do it.
The second part of their playbook focuses on best practices covering infrastructure, people and intelligence. The third part introduces seven steps to a smart-er community with practical worksheets for guidance.
cal and Regional Leaders at local government level proposes some thoughts on this.
Everyone is happy when a wheeled mobility user can quickly and easily board the bus or train. And the person wheeling on doesn’t get unwanted attention from other passengers. Based on research in the United States comes a book on accessible public transportation. It covers different technologies, policies and programs with inclusive solutions for everyone. The book is based on research from Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental Access at Buffalo. 
New residential developments in Queensland must be walkable and encourage physical activity. Specific legislation requires among other conditions, connectivity, footpaths and street trees. B
Real life examples are included in a 
