Author: Jane Bringolf

Hostile design: what is it for?

It’s one thing to create inaccessible built environments through thoughtlessness. It is another to do it intentionally. Hostile design has emerged as an architectural response to homelessness, specifically rough sleepers. Rough sleepers need a flat surface on which to lie down, but flat surfaces are also a place of rest for other citizens.

A solid rectangle of concrete that has an undulating surface which makes it impossible to lie on and uncomfortable to sit or perch. This is hostile design.Put simply, hostile designs are intentionally created to restrict behaviours in urban spaces in order to maintain public order.

Examples of this type of design are highlighted in a paper titled, Designing Out: A Framework for Studying Hostile Design. Mostly these are benches with raised or sloping sections. However, low height walls are also used as temporary resting places by pedestrians.

A purple coloured wall surrounds a street planting. The wall is at sitting height but it has anti-seating bars across it. A man is crouching down in front of the wall.
Photo by Jonathan Pacheco Bell

The author considers hostile design a reflection of the prevailing social values which ends up defining who has access to public space and who doesn’t. Finding ways to hide homelessness is not the answer to the problem. Everyone has an equal right to use public space.

The article discusses the issues from a rights perspective – the right to the city. The removal of rough sleepers from the public domain appeases the discomfort of people who have a home to go to. But it does not deal with the issue of homelessness. Indeed, architecture should be looking at ways to minimise homelessness, not hiding it with uninviting design.

The title of the article is, Designing Out: A Framework for Studying Hostile Design. 

Hostile design doesn’t solve social problems

If nothing else, hostile design shows the power of design – it makes it obvious. But does it? According to Semple, most people don’t notice it, but when they do, they get angry about it. And urban design should not be street police – the problems only move elsewhere. Designers cannot solve societal problems with street furniture. 

Design Week’s article Hostile design is still a problem in our pubic spaces, has an everyday look at the issues. 

The City as Home

The City as Home is a landscape-led response by Logan Bunn to the treatment of rough sleepers. His thesis challenges this form of social control as it instils injustice and inequality within the urban fabric. 

The overarching methodology of this thesis is research through inclusive design, supported by participatory research.

“This thesis highlights the need to humanise rough sleepers and integrate their needs into the design of public space, whilst also demonstrating the positive impact of inclusive and empathetic design practices on the broader community. It underscores the potential of landscape architectural practice to address social justice issues and create more inclusive public spaces through proactive collaboration and activism.”

Universal design and workplaces

Multi-generational workforce depicted through an office meeting. “The universal design approach aspires to create spaces that are not just accessible or usable, but inclusive for everyone.” This is the opening line of a chapter on universal design and workplaces in the Handbook of High-Performance Workplaces. 

Authors Imogen Howe and Andrew Martel remind us that disability can be temporary or permanent and at any stage of life. Complying with codes in workplace design is not that same as quality design or even adequate design. That means some people will experience barriers that prevent participation and make them feel unwelcome and second class.

Seven principles expanded

Howe and Martel turn to the seven principles of universal design and take them one step further. They should be applied to assistive technology, tools, organisational or operational decisions, as well as the physical space of the workplace. Integrating these elements into a universal design approach benefits all workers.  

The signboard says, Diversity is a fact, Equity is a choice, Inclusion is an action Belonging is an outcome.The authors explain how the principles of universal design have moved from the 1997 interpretation to a more contemporary one. The principles were formed primarily with the built environment in mind. Universal design thinking has evolved to embrace a broader concept of inclusion in all aspects of life. 

Universal design should remain agile and flexible to respond to socio-cultural advancements. It was never meant to be one-size-fits-all as this is impossible. An inclusive society needs both mainstream and targeted individual solutions as well. 

A checklist is included at the end of the chapter where each of the principles is applied to workplace situations. This is one of the difficulties of explaining universal design. On one hand it isn’t about a checklist – it’s a thinking process. But designers need something to guide them. In co-design processes with end users, checklists often become redundant. However, checklists are a good place to start for people new to the concept of designing inclusively. 

From the conclusion

Since the pandemic many businesses have introduced flexible work arrangements which have proven to be efficient and productive. Urban-based office buildings are just one place to work. Working from home is one strategy that suits people who struggle with transport or have caring duties. 

A universal design approach is a way employers can attract people with diverse needs when seeking work. The principles of universal design can assist designers to implement inclusive thinking in their designs. Implementing these principles early in the design process is inexpensive and can result in more flexible, sustainable buildings that benefit all users.

The title of the chapter is Universal Design and it is open access.

Design in strategy and strategy in design

An international group of adults stand behind a big board. It says, Make Things Happen. There are lots of coloured post it notes on the board. Design in Strategy.How do we solve big problems such as pandemics, climate change, and unemployment? Linear step by step processes are no longer the way to address these complex challenges. Something else is needed. Jan Auernhammer discusses the issues in his latest article, Design in Strategy and Strategy in Design.

Auernhammer proposes that complex problems require collaborative processes and capabilities. People with diverse perspectives work on solutions together to come up with the best possible solutions. In other words, co-design processes work best. 

Auernhammer first clarifies the vocabulary that’s needed to make sure everyone is talking about the same thing. He then presents three perspectives. First, is a method that uses tools, models and plans. Second, is learning through collective reflection from intent and action. Third, where design and strategy emerge from creative and collaborative processes. 

Put simply, the first perspective follows established logic, the second is where designers think about it, and the third is co-design. The third perspective is about deep engagement in a psychologically safe and free environment. This might be in the design studio itself with other designers, or with stakeholders in a community engagement process. 

From the summary

“Integrating Strategy and Design requires building collaborative and comprehensive design capabilities. These collective capabilities have the potential to respond to emerging complex challenges with strategic intent and through sophisticated design capabilities enacted in everyday practice.”

The title of the article is, Strategic Design: The integration of the two fields of Strategy and Design.

From the abstract

This article outlines the evolution of Design in Strategy and Strategy in Design and discusses the differences and similarities. Examination of the evolutions reveals three different perspectives on integrating Strategy and Design in both fields.

The article provides a nuanced understanding of Strategic Design by purposefully establishing the vocabulary of each perspective.

The first perspective is a planning practice containing strategic tools and design methods to create conceptual models and plans. The second perspective is a learning practice through collective reflection from intent and action.

The last perspective is the enablement of a comprehensive design practice in which tangible design and strategy emerge from the messiness of creative and collaborative design practice.

These three Strategic Design practices require different organization and design capabilities and produce distinctive outcomes. The integration of Design and Strategy is becoming increasingly imperative as there is the need to address the more complex, interrelated socio-technological and economic-environmental challenges. 

Bus stops: pedestrians and cyclists

We are all encouraged to leave the motor car at home and walk or cycle. However, road and street infrastructure was built at a time when vehicle movements were the focus. That means a lot of retrofitting and work-arounds is needed now. The intersection of bus stops, pedestrians and cyclists is a good example of this vexed issue.
Are infrastructure designs for bus stops with cycle tracks making streets less inclusive? Image from Inclusive design at bus stops, by Living Streets.
graphic showing one design of a cycleway bypass at a bus stop.
What do you do when a cycle lane continues past a bus stop? What do pedestrians do and what do cyclists do? Who has right of way? Are design solutions inclusive? Living Streets in the UK investigated these questions and produced a report. 
The most consistent concerns were reported by people who are blind or have low vision. But other pedestrians have problems too. Confusion reigns over who has the right of way on cycle tracks that are not part of the footpath or carriageway. 
The Living Streets report reviews the literature and the status of cycle tracks in the UK. Several design options were studied and four are presented in the report (see below).  Four design scenarios are depicted in the drawings where the bus stop and the cycleway are positioned in different configurations. The researchers found that it was not possible to choose one design over another. While they provide a useful framework, they don’t solve all the design problems in the real world. Consequently, this leads to case-by-case solutions, not a one-size-fits-all ruling or guide.   

The main factors

Some of the main factors are whether:
  • The cycle track passes in front of, behind, or between, elements of the bus stop area.
  • Passengers wait on an island or on an ordinary stretch of the pavement, and whether they alight onto the cycle track, near the cycle track, or onto an obvious island
  • A bus stop island is part of something bigger (e.g. with multiple shelters, seats, trees, etc), smaller and well defined (e.g. dominated by a single bus shelter), or so small and/or insignificant that people wouldn’t wait on it.
  • Cycle tracks are one-way or two-way (unidirectional / bi-directional).
  • A bus stop island is separated from the rest of the pavement by a cycle track, by a road, or by some less conventional access arrangement (e.g. mostly used by cyclists, but open to some other vehicles)
  • Pedestrians are crossing an area of cycle track, cyclists are crossing an area of pavement, or whether cyclists and pedestrians both cross something that feels to be neither quite part of the pavement nor of the cycle track.

Recommendations for bus stops

Briefly, the 11 recommendations focus on:
  • working with the disability community on local projects
  • amending design guidance to be clear that cycle tracks are not part of the footpath or carriageway, and options for designs
  • the risks of disadvantage to a wider group of pedestrians, particularly people who are blind, should be acknowledged.

Appendices are instructive

There are 6 appendices to the main report with details of cycling and pedestrian infrastructure and bus stops. Photographs illustrate the text and provide examples of what does and does not work. A great toolbox of ideas to work with.  Inclusive design at bus stops with cycle tracks: Appendix 1 – (Detailed study sites)

Inclusive design at bus stops with cycle tracks: Appendices 2-6 – MARCH 2024

There is much more to this document titled, Inclusive design at bus stops with cycle tracks – MARCH 2024. Kerb designs, colour, separation of pedestrians and cyclists, kerb-free crossings and signalised crossings. A pertinent point raised by people with disability was about the emphasis on this aspect of street design. That’s because they see so many other serious problems with street design and maintenance. 

Personal robots: what older people think

Are personal robots the next best thing for companionship for older people – is this what they want? A study carried out in the UK used three types of robot – abstract, pet, and human-like. Publicly available videos of the robots were used in the study.  As with all laboratory and simulated studies there is no guarantee that the results will play out in real life. Nevertheless, it offers a guide of older people’s attitudes to personal robots. 

In terms of companionship, older people liked the pet personal robot the most. The pet-like robot responds to human movement and sounds. Image of MiRo pet-like personal robot.

A white personal robot resembling a cat or dog with black ears and a red collar.

The participants were over the age of 60 years and living in the community, not residential care. The three types of robot were Afobot, MiRo, and Sanbot. Afobot is similar to Siri and Alexa in assisting with activities. MiRo is designed to interact at an emotional level and to respond to actions such as hand clapping and stroking. Sanbot is a human-like robot with a head, arms and a screen and uses face and voice recognition. 

Participants viewed publicly available videos of the three robots and then answered a questionnaire. The purpose of the study was to measure the attitudes of older people to the three types of personal robots. The researchers note that as the study participants were “young old”, attitudes might not be attributable to those 70 years and older. 

The researchers caution the results because participants did not interact with the robots face to face. This means they were not able to explore the robot’s behaviour and their own reactions. The study was conducted online towards the end of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The title of the study is, Measuring Older People’s Attitudes Towards Personal Robots.

From the abstract

It is important to have a way of measuring older people’s attitudes to personal robots and how they might support them. 249 older people in the UK  viewed videos of three different types of robots (abstract, pet, and humanoid). They rated their attitudes to each using a questionnaire.

Analysis revealed three components to attitudes to the personal robots, They were: Positive User Experience; Anxiety and Negative Usability; and Social Presence. There were significant differences between the three personal robots with the pet robot receiving the most positive attitudes.

These results help understand which robots may be useful in helping older people choose appropriate robots to support themselves.

Ageing in place, ageing and place

A fireside, a hot drink in a mug and slippered feet up on the recliner.Ageing in place and ageing and place are intertwined but distinct. Both place and home need to support people as they age – one is insufficient without the other. Generally, ageing in place means ‘staying put’. That can mean the staying in the same home or staying in the same community or neighbourhood. 

Research with older people suggests that ageing in place is more nuanced than just a home or neighbourhood. It’s also about personal and cultural values, priorities and connections to people and places. It is layered with social, material and symbolic meaning. And it’s about having choices about where and how to age. 

Janine Wiles and Tara Coleman found that older people valued highly the ability to have choices about their living arrangements and access to services. Familiarity and connections brought a sense of belonging and security. 

Meaning of home

Housing is basically an infrastructure concept whereas home is where personal routines and interactions take place. This is what brings meaning. This is why we become attached to places. Wiles and Coleman found that this sense of attachment has positive functional, physical and mental health outcomes all contributing to wellbeing. 

Home maintenance

The ability to carry out maintenance tasks contributes to attachment. However, when these tasks become difficult, either through ability or financial constraints, the sense of home is disrupted. Homes in disrepair are not only hazardous but lessen the attachment to the home. 

‘Home and aging’ by Wiles and Coleman is a chapter in Handbook on Aging and Place. Editors are Malcolm Cutchin and Graham D Rowles. It is available for purchase from ElgarOnline. 

Chapter Introduction

Home is a concept both underpinning and animated by ideas about ‘aging in place’ and experiences of place and aging. Home is an important resource during older age. At a time when people typically face changes and challenges, having a secure sense of home and strong attachment to place can give a sense of agency, autonomy, and resilience. A sense of home is intricately entwined with our preferred sense of who we are, and with how we build and sustain relationships with others and with places. Conversely, disruption to the sense of home can create instability and accentuate the feeling of being ‘at the end of life’ or of vulnerability and fragility.

Legal documents favour visible disabilities

A man's hand is writing the word regulations in large script style writing.Norway has been following the underlying concepts of universal design for 25 years. This means they have a history of policy and activities to reflect upon. Previous papers have highlighted successes and where there is room for improvement. A new 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. Historically, people with mobility and vision impairments led the way in disability rights. This means their needs were front of mind when legislation was formed. 

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. 

The Norwegian study can be generalised to many other countries. In Australia the Access to Premises Standard also favours people with mobility and vision impairments. 

The Norwegian researchers carried out their study in the context of 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. However, it is most often linked to movement of the body. 

Prestige versus visibility

In the Norwegian documents mobility impairments are mentioned more frequently than other disabilities. Vision impairments, also frequently mentioned, come in second. The researchers conclude that discrimination between disability types is mostly explained by the visibility of a disability.  

Why does this matter? Because when provision for other disabilities and long term health conditions are not mentioned in legal documents, businesses and services don’t provide them. 

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

Air travel with a wheelchair

Air travel is an anxious affair for many, but for people with disability the worries are multiplied. The Australian Government has produced an Aviation White Paper which highlights the difficulties people with disability experience travelling by air. For wheelchair users, the US Transport Board’s report found there is no engineering reason why power chairs can’t be secured in the aircraft.

Melbourne Airport trials disability access hubs

Beginning from September 2024, Melbourne Airport will trial a four-month Airport Assist program. The program will help passengers navigate the airport precinct, check-in and pick-up and drop-off zones.

The hub is open from 10am to 6pm and offers buggy transfers between T4 ground transport areas and departure areas. It will also have lanyard for the Hidden Disability Sunflower Program.

A man sitting in a wheelchair is talking to a woman standing at a kiosk. The sign says Melbourne Airport Assist.

Air travel with a wheelchair

Wheelchair users can stay in their powered wheelchair in taxis, trains and buses, but not in aircraft. Every wheelchair user takes a deep breath and hopes their wheelchair will come through the flight without damage. The risk of personal injury in wheelchair to seat transfers is also a worry. The other inconveniences and indignities just add to air travel with a wheelchair.

Currently, people are potentially put on a flight in a seat that is not appropriate for them. Travellers and airlines risk injury in transfer and in flight. It also risks serious damage to their wheelchair which is set up for their individual requirements.

Close up of a row of aircraft seats which are bright blue with grey backs.

Preliminary research from the US Transport Research Board (TRB) found no major design or engineering challenges stand in the way of securing personal power wheelchairs in commercial aircraft. The TRB concluded that installing wheelchair securements is a win-win for wheelchair users, airlines, and everyone else involved in transporting wheelchair users. Consequently, that means it is up to the willingness of airlines to make the necessary changes.

No major design or engineering challenges stand in the way of securing power wheelchairs in commercial aircraft.

Transport Research Board.
Photo credit Heike Fabig (in Daily Mail)
A 12 year old girl is distressed in an aircraft aisle chair after her power wheelchair was taken away.

Airport experience begins arrival kerbside

While there are mandates for minimum standards for the built environment, airport layout design make life difficult for people with disability and older people. Many airports were designed decades ago when traveller comforts were not considered. Arriving kerbside or at the drop-off is where the problems begin.

Assistance is not available outside the terminal entrance which becomes the first hurdle to overcome. In many instances, help is not available until check-in processes are complete. A kerbside or drop-off check-in would solve that. Or at least provide a means for travellers to contact service staff to help them from the kerbside point.

The US Airport Cooperative Research Program has a detailed report that identifies the issues and provides solutions. The title of the report is, Assessing Airport Programs for Travelers with Disabilities and Older Adults. The aim is to assist airport designers and airline operators to make their places and services accessible and inclusive. There are 8 chapters to the report.

Airport facilities

Chapter 7 of the report is about Facility Accessibility. It begins with access on arrival at the airport and the provision of accessible ground transportation. The advice for the design of terminals is to adopt a universal, inclusive approach. That includes addressing long distances between the key points for travellers who don’t use a mobility device.

Self-service kiosks, elevators, power outlets, seating and lighting, along with catering for people with a diversity of cognitive conditions are covered in detail. Case studies provide information about restrooms, adult sanitary change facilities, provisions for assistance animals, and quiet rooms.

August 2024 Update

The Commonwealth Government is proposing to update the transport disability standards to include aviation standards. The standards will require airlines to set up assistance profiles for passengers which lists what they need. The list could include things like wheelchair battery specifications and assistance animals. The two wheelchair policies will also be under review. A new Aviation Ombudsman will replace the industry-funded Airline Consumer Advocate. This information was taken from a Crikey article.

Financial inclusion for all

Looking upwards to the gable of a federation building with the name Bank on it.Financial inclusion should be a top priority for policymakers keen to alleviate poverty. Five of the Sustainable Development Goals feature financial inclusion, including reducing gender based inequalities. Access to financial services is a human right but overlooked for people with disability. 

Financial services include banking, credit, insurance and financial advisors. Each of these should be readily available to everyone. A literature review identified five key barriers:

  1. People with disability have a lower demand for formal financial services than those without disability
  2. Banks do not expect or welcome customers with disability
  3. More appropriate technologies are needed to overcome communication barriers because communication technology (ICT) fails to meet the web content accessibility requirements 
  4. Financial services are not tailored to meet the needs of people with disability 
  5. The formal financial system requires accessible public infrastructure to include people with disability.

What are the solutions?

Multi-stakeholder collaboration to counter stigma and attitudinal barriers is the starting point. Financial education and accessible assistive technology and ICT is essential as well as the physical environment of financial institutions. 

The title of the research article is, Financial inclusion for people with disability: a scoping review. 

From the conclusion

Access to financial services is a human right that seems to have been overlooked for people with disability. The push for financial inclusion of people with disability is a matter of economic strategy as well as a moral imperative rooted in justice and equity.

The financial sector’s landscape, shaped by innovations in ICT, provides an unparalleled opportunity to bridge the financial divide faced by people with disability. However, it will take more than technological advancements to solve the problems.

True financial inclusion necessitates a paradigm shift in attitudes, policies, and strategies. Our findings underscore the urgency to redesign financial systems that are accessible to all and cognisant of the preferences and needs of people with disability.

Addressing the multiple dimensions of financial exclusion of people with disability requires a comprehensive, multifaceted approach, integrating attitudinal change, ICT accessibility, and a commitment to disability justice. There is an emphatic call for banks, policymakers, and society to converge their efforts.

From the abstract

Financial exclusion is a human rights issue affecting health equity. Evidence demonstrates that financial exclusion is exacerbated for people with disability and those in low- to middle-income countries. Barriers to financial access include limited demand for services, banking inadequacies in catering to people with disability, and insufficiently accessible information technologies (ICT) and infrastructure.

Recommendations include using ICT, digital innovation and multi-stakeholder collaboration to address the financial barriers experienced by people with disability. These efforts, rooted in social justice, aim to include people with disability as valued financial sector participants, promoting health and equity.

 

Inclusive urban environments: but when?

An urban street scene showing tall buildings, some traffic and people walking on a pedestrian crossing.The design of the public built environment has long been problematic for a diverse range of people with disability. And while attempts are made with new or upgraded precincts, barriers are still created. While this is often unintentional, once the concrete is down, it is difficult and/or costly to remedy. And so the barriers remain and inclusive urban environments remain a dream for the future.

A team of researchers from the UK, USA, and Pakistan carried out a qualitative research project with people with disability. The results are not new but confirm existing research and the experience of users. One area not often mentioned in previous research is the role of legislation and accountability.

The research paper discusses the state of play and the methods they used. The text contains quotes from participants which personalises the information. The research was carried out in two urban areas in the UK.

Footpaths, seating and toilets

Top of the list of physical barriers was footpaths and the opportunity to rest on a seat. Road crossings was the top hazard for most participants even when signalised. Unexpected maintenance work was also considered dangerous for wheelchair users and people who are blind.

Despite having a legislative framework and access standards, local authorities seem unable to provide accessible environments. Some issues such as footpaths linking with road crossings mean that two authorities are responsible.

Transport barriers included physical access to public transport, lack of information, including cost, and bus driver attitudes. Access to public toilets was also raised. The paper has more detail on the attitudinal barriers and service barriers.

From the conclusions

Barriers are interrelated in many cases, but most are related to poor physical designs, inadequate policy considerations and negative attitudes. The findings reinforce previous research but with a user’s perspective. People who are deaf or hard of hearing are mostly absent in the literature. This is because it is assumed they are safe from physical obstructions. However, they experience their own barriers to inclusion.

The title of the paper is Designing out Barriers for Disabled: Towards an Inclusive Urban Environments.  Note that the preferred language in the UK is disabled people rather than people with disability. 

From the abstract

People with disability often struggle with the complexities of the built environment, hindering their full participation in everyday urban life. Accessibility and social inclusiveness are major challenges for active participation for people with disability.

The lack of legal obligation for authorities to implement inclusive solutions, and lack of training in disability awareness has led to environments full of barriers for the disabled community.

The research explored the nature of barriers faced by persons with diverse disabilities by highlighting a user perspective. The barriers fell into four categories: poor physical design, inadequate policies, negative attitudes, and absence of technical solutions.

Recommendations to overcome the barriers are presented in the research.