Policy - Built Environment Archives

Access symbol: inclusive or exclusive?

Confusion still reigns about the international symbol of access (ISA). Is it exclusively for wheelchair users? Or does it denote access for everyone? The ISA was originally created to denote physical spaces for wheelchair accessibility. The access symbol’s meaning has evolved into something much more complex.

A study with participants who were a mix of people with and without disability revealed some interesting findings. However, some participants who did not identify as having a disability described themselves as having some form of impairment. This illustrates ideological differences about disability per se, and highlights how society uses labels and symbols to define a group or culture in wider society.

The article has lots of statistical results. The discussion and conclusions are worth a read because of the implications across society. It includes a look at all the symbols currently in use to signify different disabilities. Some participants wanted to see characteristics of themselves in symbols, but this creates uncertainty with other groups. As an aside, the use of the word “handicap” showed up in participant responses, indicating it is still in common usage.

The title of the article is Effectiveness of the International Symbol of Access and inclusivity of other disability groups.

The article concludes, “Perhaps a more effective solution would be standards which incorporate universal design, thereby ensuring equitable and intuitive use of products and spaces and eliminating the need to symbolically represent population-based accessibility. Initiatives such as Design for All (DfA) in Europe, which was adopted in the EIDD Stockholm Declaration of 2004, and the Barrier-Free Accessibility (BFA) program in Singapore, promote a social model of disability by encouraging barrier-free design of products, services, and environments for people of all abilities and under varying socioeconomic situations.”

Does the symbol need to be rethought?

“Does the international symbol for disability need to be rethought”? is the title of an article in the FastCompany blog. First question this raises is, “Is it a symbol for disability or a symbol for access?” Actually, it is a symbol for access, not disability.. The article proposes a variety of symbols for different disabilities. But do we need more symbols and if so, what purpose would they serve?

Raising the bar on housing standards

Advocates in several countries have been lobbying for mandatory accessible housing standards for many years. At last Habinteg in the UK has succeeded in getting the topic on the government’s agenda.

A forecast for accessible homes, is an important report covering all the key issues, ending with three key actions. The Habinteg report reveals a “huge postcode lottery in the planned supply of new accessible homes…”. Therefore it is crucial to “set a national policy that will create a level playing field and more certainty for developers”.

The report found that existing basic minimum standards as set out in Part M1 of the building code are insufficient. The planned development of accessible housing is set to fall short of previous official predictions. The report also has personal case studies to highlight the impact the lack of availability has on their lives. Mandatory standards within building regulations are needed because Part M1 is too basic. The shortage of housing with liveable access features, which are suitable for everyone, is now at a critical level.

Is there a market for accessible homes?

The Habinteg site has articles that discuss the market appeal of Lifetime Homes in the UK context. There are some interesting research reports by the London School of Economics, Ipsos MORI, and Habinteg Housing and Papworth Trust. UK homes are traditionally two storey with the bathroom and toilet upstairs. They are generally smaller than Australian homes too, which makes it more difficult in terms of circulation spaces.

It was thought that Part M of the building code would create greater accessibility in homes, but it hasn’t helped much at all. The best part is that it requires a downstairs toilet, which is handy for everyone. Aitken explains his own research project on this topic looking at homebuyers and estate agents. The blog site has attracted several good comments and are worth reading too. By the way, it seems stair lifts are not that popular with purchasers.

Politics of Disability and Universal Design

Book reviews can reveal good information in their own right. One such case is the review of Aimi Hamraie’s book, Building Access: Universal Design and the Politics of Disability. The book traces the history of universal design from the 1950s in the United States to current ideas. Hamraie discusses the issues of the politics of disability from both design and disability perspectives.

Chapter 4 of the book discusses how the curb cut campaign in the USA became disability politics in action. Curb cuts cannot be considered universal design because they don’t benefit everyone. They do not further the rights or inclusion of people with disability. However they became a sign that people with disability had rights that were being ignored.

This is an academic text of value to both design and disability studies.

Other articles about Hamraie posted previously are:

UD: Social justice or just marketing?

The evolution of UD and accessibility

Mapping Access: People, Place and Justice

What drivers can’t see on the road

Here’s a call to traffic planners. A group in the UK is calling for slower speed limits on roads to help reduce pedestrian accidents. They list all the conditions where slower speeds could make a difference and allow people to cross the road safely. Drivers can’t see if someone has anxiety, dementia, post traumatic stress or sleep disorder. Traffic can make them feel vulnerable and fearful. 20 miles per hour equates to 30 km per hour.

People who are deaf or hard of hearing, and people with low vision are also at risk of accidents. Pregnant women, older people, and people with prosthetic legs or chronic illness might not be spotted either. Even if they are, it is unlikely to change driver behaviour or alertness. The 20’s Plenty for Us media release links their call to the disability rights agenda which requires equitable treatment for everyone. Traffic planners should therefore assume everyone is vulnerable.

“At first sight it’s impossible to tell if someone has a mental health problem – anxiety, dementia, post traumatic stress or sleep disorder. Yet sufferers are vulnerable and fearful. Also the partially sighted, hearing impaired, those with a prosthetic leg, cancer, the elderly or pregnant women have protected characteristics not obvious at a distance from a driver’s seat behind a windscreen.”

The evolution of universal design and accessibility

Bess Williamson takes a look at two books and reviews them in tandem, which makes for an interesting read in its own right. Both are about the history of disability, accessibility and universal design, but approach the topic from different perspectives. Aimi Hamraie takes a legal and rights view of history, while Elizabeth Guffey tracks the work of individual designers and the development of symbols and images, particularly the access symbol we know today. They show how accessible design was developed in more than one place at the same time, which shows at least two family trees of access and universal design. One from the bottom up (“crip technoscience”) and one from the top down (standards and codes). An excellent and thoughtful review by someone who understands this field of research. The books are:

Aimi Hamraie Building Access: Universal Design and the Politics of Disability (University of Minnesota Press, 2017)

Elizabeth Guffey Designing Disability: Symbols, Space, and Society (Bloomsbury Press, 2017). Or from Trove (National Library of Australia).

Access to Premises Standard and existing buildings

Michael Small’s Churchill Fellowship report tracks and compares discrimination laws and industry practice in relation to public buildings. He questions whether the control of the Access to Premises Standard is falling more into the hands of industry as Human Rights Commission resources are becoming increasingly constrained.

Three of his recommendations are: that more training is needed for industry to help them understand the standards; more flexibility is needed for building upgrades; and better systems are needed for compliance enforcement and auditing. The title of his report is, Ensuring the best possible access for people with disability to existing buildings that are being upgraded or extended. The countries visited and compared are Canada, United States of America, Ireland and United Kingdom.

Housing quality improves health

Ever wondered what the long term effects of a home modification are? A longitudinal study shows that household improvements in social housing can reduce risk of hospital stays.

The study picked up major improvements in chest and heart health as well as a reduction in falls and burns.

Over ten years, researchers found that modified and upgraded homes correlated with reduced hospital events. That means savings in the health budget or beds freed up for other patients. Obviously it is better for occupants too.

The title of the study is, “Emergency hospital admissions associated with a non-randomised housing intervention meeting national housing quality standards: a longitudinal data linkage study”. Sarah Rodgers et al. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

Universal Design drives Housing Quality

Fundamental changes in the building code and regulations have occurred in Norway. However, it seems that none of this has guaranteed improvements in quality on the usability of homes. Perhaps there are some lessons for Australia in implementing the Livable Housing Design Standard.

Architects, more than any other group in the construction industry are trained to break conventional frameworks. The way regulations are applied is the key to success. This is where the education of architects and building designers comes in.

The title of the article is, Universal Design as a Booster for Housing Quality and Architectural Practice. It seems we could learn from this experience – regulations are one thing, but applying them appropriately and for maximum effect is another. The abstract gives a good overview of the project.

From the abstract

Changes to the Norwegian building code in 2010 gave a clear framework for the implementation of accessibility and universal design. However, neither increased awareness of accessibility requirements and universal design, nor compliance with the building code guarantees improvement of housing quality and usability.

The Norwegian regulations have gone further in the direction of performance requirements than most other countries. This applies to all types of requirements, including requirements for usability, functionality and accessibility. Hardly any specifications are to be found in the regulations.

Ideally, this lack of specifications should give designers the opportunity to develop innovative answers and to respond to different contexts. Still, many architects and builders ask for clear specifications, to speed up design processes. Many architects understand guidelines as minimum requirements. Consequently, they are reproducing the identical solutions without considering users.

They see accessibility as another regulatory pressure and requirements as restrictions rather than positive incentives. However, there are examples of designers who have internalised the regulatory framework. These designers are able to create and integrate inclusive design in their daily work.

This paper presents examples of practice where dwellings have been developed within a framework of universal design. Focus is on the approach of the design team and their understanding and use of the regulatory framework to create better homes.

Relationship between housing and health

A systematic review of the literature found there is a strong association between housing and health. However, it is not clear that there is a causal link. Findings showed that provision of adequate heating, improvements to ventilation and water supply were associated with improved respiratory outcomes, quality of life and mental health. The title of the article is, The relationship between buildings and health: a systematic review.

From the abstract

The built environment exerts one of the strongest directly measurable effects on physical and mental health. This study provides a systematic review of quantitative studies assessing the impact of buildings on health. In total, 39 studies were included in this review.

Findings showed consistently that housing refurbishment and modifications improved health. Adequate heating, improved ventilation and water supply were associated with improved respiratory outcomes, quality of life and mental health. Prioritization of housing for vulnerable groups led to improved wellbeing.

This review found a strong association between certain housing features and wellbeing such as adequate heating and ventilation.

Mapping Norway’s Status of Accessibility

How do you know if your action plan for accessibility and universal design is actually being implemented? The Norwegian Government’s plan to be universally designed by 2025 now has a tool to monitor progress. A standardised method to collect and measure data nationally has been trialled.

The first results show that Norway still “faces many challenges to meet the government’s goals for Universal Design”. Data were collected on buildings and major facilities such as transport hubs, walkways, cycleways and car parks. The techniques are discussed in the article, “Mapping Norway – a Method to Register and Survey the Status of Accessibility“. The authors conclude that while their system is not perfect due to the need to fully standardise and simplify complex data, they believe it will be valuable to municipal and recreational planners and developers. The article and others can be found in the Proceedings of the International Cartographic Association.

2021 Update – next steps

Mapping accessibility in Norway – a Method to Register and Survey the Status of Accessibility in urban areas and recreational areas. You will need institutional access for a free read.

From the abstract:

The Norwegian mapping authority has developed a standard method for mapping accessibility walking in urban and recreational areas. . All data are stored in a geospatial database, so they can be analysed using GIS software. By the end of 2020, more than 230 out of 356 municipalities are mapped using that method.

The aim of this project is to establish a national standard for mapping of accessibility and to provide a geodatabase that shows the status of accessibility throughout Norway. The data provide a useful tool for national statistics, local planning authorities and private users. The results show that accessibility is still low and Norway still faces many challenges to meet the government’s goals for Universal Design.

Hobsons Bay Universal Design Policy Statement

Three circles in blue sitting inside one another. Centre light blue is minimum BCA compliance. Next circle is extension for Australian Standards, and third all embracing circle is for universal design. — Graphic from the Policy Statement

Hobsons Bay City Council is situated south-west of Melbourne with a significant stretch of coastal area. As with many local councils in Victoria they are keen to embrace the principles of universal design in their planning policies. As part of their access and inclusion strategy they plan to implement universal design principles in new buildings, buildings with significant upgrades, retrofits of existing buildings, features and public open space. They started with a Hobsons Bay Universal Design Policy Statement.

The policy statement includes a table where the 7 classic principles of universal design are translated into specific guidelines for council staff. The policy statement discusses the myths, regulatory framework and how to implement universal design, and how to go beyond compliance.

A short document and a good template for other councils to use. Policy statements don’t need to be long and wordy. This one gets to the point.

Staying connected with “third places”

The notion of “third places” is about places in the public domain that encourage informal and casual social interaction. The “first place” is home, and the “second place” is where significant time is spent in a formal sense such as the workplace. Community gardens and town squares are an example of a “third” place.

The Conversation has an interesting article about being lonely in the city. It brings into focus the idea of creating spaces with the human scale in mind. Loneliness is a growing concern and spoken of as the “new smoking”. The article, Many people feel lonely in the city but perhaps third places can help with that also has links to relevant papers.

The Compassionate City

The Dutch idea of the Woonerf has been picked up again, this time by Jenny Donovan of La Trobe University. Using some graphics, she shows how design can affect our decisions to either walk, drive, use public transport or not, and whether you feel welcome in the environment. She covers the key elements of a Compassionate City where various design elements can meet the needs of a range of people and create more harmonious behaviours. There are several links in the article to other related reports and articles. The article originates from The Conversation.

Urban design and social responsiveness

It’s one thing to be accessible, but what other features make a place socially responsive? According to a research paper from Singapore, top of the list is footpaths followed by seating for resting. Concerns over the mix of cyclists and pedestrians and good lighting also feature. The article outlines a method for assessing accessibility and useability of environments. Apart from the method, the results support many other papers on this topic.

The title of the paper is, The Methodology for Evaluating Accessibility as a Tool for Increasing Social Responsiveness or Urban Landscapes in Singapore. Several photos illustrate the text.

From the abstract

Creating a more responsive urban environment enables social integration of people into active public life. This is especially the case for people limited physical abilities.

The author presents a research-based methodology for analysing and evaluating accessibility in public areas of a big city. The originality of the method lays in empowering the disabled persons to play the active role of experts in measuring and evaluating accessibility according the developed assessment tool.

The methodology enables evaluation of accessibility on different urban scales: urban landscapes, in buildings, and in their interiors. The case study performed in Singapore explores the quality of access that people have to public spaces, metro stations, hotels and café.

The paper presents recommendations for improving accessibility in the city by improving the architectural design of buildings. Updating building regulations is also required as well as the maintenances of open spaces and buildings.

The results of this research provide the comprehensive action plan for eliminating barriers in the specific Singapore’s environment and in the other cities. Conclusions present a coherent accessibility monitoring tool and improvement programme to create a socially responsive urban environment.

Category: Policy – Built Environment