Most people have experienced buildings and places with poor wayfinding features. But the anxiety of not knowing which way to go is increased for people who experience sensory overload. Navigating space without sensory overload is one aspect of Berta Brusilovsky Filer’s work. Minimising disorientation through spatial design solutions is the basis of her design thinking.
Reducing high risk conditions for disorientation and those caused by heightened sensory sensitivity makes sense for everyone. But this is more important for people who experience sensory overload.
Berta Brusilovsky Filer’s Model
The model is based on a universal design approach. This means that something essential for one group makes for greater convenience for others. Here is a brief look at the key aspects for reducing confusion.
Neutralise the labyrinth effect: avoid designs that feel like a maze
Ensure clarity at junctions and crossroads: make it clear where to go next
Remove distractions that make it hard to pay attention: consider patterns and colours
Use clear signage: simple texts, pictures and numbers: make signs specific to each area
Design seamless transitions without abrupt changes for a smooth uninterrupted experience.
“Housing as architecture has been extensively studied, encompassing structural, economic and technical factors, as well as original design solutions. This book incorporates the sensibilities, needs, and variables of neurodiversity, opening our eyes and broadening our horizons, enriching architecture by focusing on people’s quality of life.”
Designing housing for diverse users includes specific and particular characteristics of neuroscience, architecture and design, facilities, materials. Specific conditions for a variety of neurodiverse experiences that are not commonly found compiled in a single text as they are here.
Or contact the author directly – there is a PDF available but with reduced links.
Three practicing architects discuss their perspective on systemic industry failure to create accessible and inclusive cities. This is because traditional thinking pushes accessible design to the margins as an afterthought. And then only in terms of technical and regulatory compliance. So how can we change the mindset to focus on public good and work towards the accessible city?
The architects discuss how their thinking has changed from their early careers to their current thoughts. “None of us conceived the power of the built environment to exclude”. Nor did they realise the complexities of the built environment ‘production system’. The image of the dominoes represents the reliance the many stakeholders on each other to maintain the system.
The image gives an impression of the links between of some of the stakeholders. Clearly, the fragmented nature of the system has an impact on the ability to adapt and change. The key people at each end of the domino line are in local government. Perhaps more could be done to assist them in implementing accessible cities.
With embedded hierarchies, reliance on norms and accepted practices, and “ways of doing things” makes things complex. However, the architects claim a complex problem is not necessarily a wicked problem.
Architects cannot do it alone
In Australia, most architects work with small practices in the private sector. Expanding mindsets within the private market to consider accessibility is therefore problematic. One approach to change is to have people with disability positioned within the industry to be core actors. This will require experts and non-experts working together.
Time to join the 21st Century
The enduring legacy of the charity model in design thinking means people with disability remain excluded as “the others”. This is evidenced by the failure of practitioners to even enforce basic compliance. Industry argues that compliance is both vague and restrictive of creativity.
The architects’ paper provides more detail on their experiences of interacting with other built environment professionals. They discuss the commentary of workshop participants and where progress might begin.
Although there is little professional opposition to the notion of accessible environments, the status quo remains. That’s because the driving force in that direction is countered by a more powerful force in the other. The restraining factors push down to the status quo so the ultimate goal of inclusion remains elusive. The graphic below depicts the imbalance between driving and restraining forces.
Image from the paper.
The architects have both personal and professional experience of built environment inaccessibility. That means they understand the entwining of disability, health and wellbeing. While they share their experiences and have a commitment to change, it “remains somewhat of a mystery” as to how change might be effected.
As practising architects in Victoria, Australia, we see significant, systemic industry failure, impeding the development of accessible and inclusive cities. Contemporary practice and design values push ‘accessible design’ to the margins. It is often considered as an after-thought and only in terms of technical and regulatory compliance.
Built environment practice needs to be challenged into deeper ways of thinking and challenge professional discourse. The industry has both control over built environment accessibility outcomes and its accountability in serving the public good.
Cities invariably comprise neighbourhoods. The design mindset must change to fully engage with socio-ecological, public built environments. Design practice must improve its neighbourhood site analysis approach. It must go beyond private, contractual site boundaries and immediate physical surrounds, to understanding end-user experiences, neighbourhood journeys, and the broader scale of (in)accessibility.
Industry attitudes, practice approaches and the way disability is positioned by industry must change to embrace processes that necessitate diverse actors working together across multiple disciplines and sectors with people with disability being core actors in decision-making.
We believe that opportunities exist in building industry interest and capacity. Research-informed built environment practice embracing systems-thinking, human rights-based approaches, and transdisciplinarity can be effective for aggravating industry change and the way industry positions disability.
This paper adopts an analytical, collaborative autoethnographic approach. We examine case studies of neighbourhood-scale accessibility assessment and outputs from activities. We question why built environment practitioners believe inaccessibility exists, and self-reflection on 10 to 35+ years of working in architectural practice. Importantly, this paper argues that built environment practitioners, and architects in particular, must accept accountability for the impact of their actions on people with disabilities’ lived experiences.
Where are the humans in Human-Centred Design? Well, they are rarely in the design drawings. So what would happen if designers were asked to put drawings of people in their designs? That’s what an interdisciplinary group of researchers from the University of Michigan wanted to find out.
“The simple intention to include representations of people interacting with design ideas can assist designers in centring humans in design processes.”
Human centred design approaches aim to generate better solutions through understanding people’s social, emotional, and physical needs.
All designs begin with basic line drawings and idea sketches. This study showed that if you include people in those drawings, the designs change. This simple change made designers think more about users. Such a simple technique could make a significant difference to creating more inclusive designs.
The image below is from the research paper and shows that designers don’t have to be good a drawing people – stick figures will do. It’s about making designers think beyond their design to the impact it has on people.
Image from the research paper
Just add people
The advantage of the simple instruction of ‘represent people’ avoids specifying how the process of mental visualisation is to take place. This simple instruction produced design outcomes with a deeper consideration of putting people at the centre.
The researchers found that with the instruction to draw people, students focused more on people’s social and physical context of use as well as their personal preferences and values. They also found that depicting people decreased students’ claims that their designs worked for ‘everyone’. This indicates a better understanding of the ways design decisions impact different people differently.
While the researchers did not measure the diversity of people students considered, they saw a shift to recognise justice, and other social practices. Physical and emotional contexts, and a wider variety of stakeholders also became more apparent.
Although this paper does not explicitly mention diversity or disability, the process shows that this is both possible and essential.
From the abstract
How can designers ‘centre humans’ in their design thinking? Creating design ideas and sketches explicitly representing people can help designers think about how their designs impact people. Using a think-aloud protocol, student designers generated ideas without instructions and then with an instruction to depict people in sketches.
When people were represented in sketches, student designers reflected more about how people were impacted by their designs. Results showed that representing people within design ideas led to considering more physical interactions, emotions, contexts, and stakeholder roles.
Research abounds on universal design and inclusive access in the built environment. But is there another role for universities in the built environment? A group of researchers in New Zealand thinks there is.
Research on universal design in the built environment doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. So, should universities to do more to improve the built environment? If so, what should they do? Image of Massey University.
Many academic research findings have not led to real improvement. This is because political activism is not the main function of academics. However, academics have a role in the collation of data from all stakeholders and drawing of conclusions as to what might be useful initiatives. Two universities in New Zealand got together to see if they could improve matters. In their paper, they present a case study in bringing together the key stakeholders.
The research paper explains their method of engagement with students, disability advocates and construction stakeholders. They were able to introduce the concepts of a universal design approach to the design and construction courses.
Students collected data on the perspectives of quantity surveyors, construction site managers, project managers and architects. They carried out access audits of buildings and the people that worked in them. This data collection is ongoing in 2025.
Three steps to improvement
First, they formed symbiotic relationships between advocacy groups, disability organisations and academics. The end result was a petition with nine actions to the government to improve access to the built environment for people with disability.
Second, academics who were supervising students got together with construction sector stakeholders. They shared access to data on case study buildings and construction professionals’ shared their perspectives.
In return, fact sheets and short articles were used to increase the knowledge on different aspects of accessibility. Many public buildings in New Zealand are inaccessible, and few construction sector stakeholders know about the need for universal design.
Third, approximately 200 students a year will get Master of Construction degrees from Massey University’s School of Built Environment. Universal design is included in the master’s program. This means future construction lawyers, quantity surveyors and construction managers will know more about this important topic.
The research results were presented to legislators, construction professionals and advocacy groups. It has helped raise awareness amongst stakeholders with a petition to government with recommendations.
Traditional design frameworks often overlook the lived experiences of women, young people, older people, and other marginalised groups. A paper from South Africa proposes a model that integrates and mainstreams gender and intergenerational needs.
This paper draws on policy frameworks and case studies from Vienna, Zurich, Luxembourg, and South Africa. Safety, social cohesion and environmental resilience are key elements for inclusion. Image of a City Tree in Berlin.
Urban public spaces are traditionally designed with a focus on aesthetics, functionality and efficient infrastructure. However, such approaches are no longer addressing the complexities of urban societies.
Vienna, Zurich and Luxembourg
The concept of gender mainstreaming has its roots in gender equality and women’s rights to public space. Vienna, Austria has a Gender Mainstreaming Strategy. The city has invested in lighting improvements, and improved surveillance through the design of open spaces. Transportation systems also fall under this strategy.
Luxembourg City is a pioneer in creating accessible and gender-sensitive public spaces. Urban planning and design considers people with disability, women, children, and older adults. The city has pedestrian-focused urban spaces that are safe and easy to navigate.
As one of the most inclusive cities globally, Zurich, places an emphasis on its diverse social and cultural society. Zurich’s approach is one of participatory planning by engaging with marginalised groups. The aim is to include the varied voices of residents in planning. Image of Rennweg.
This paper has more detail about different European cities and good urban design examples. Cities like Zurich have set a high standard in making public spaces accessible for people with disability. Transport networks are integral to this strategy along with public parks, toilets and street furniture. It goes beyond regulatory compliance to embrace an ethos of universal design.
While South Africa acknowledges the importance of inclusive cities, there are barriers to implementation. These include institutional silos, budget constraints, and limited professional capacity at local government level. Policies are in place but implementation is lacking. However, the case studies of Zurich, Vienna and Luxembourg show that inclusion is achievable.
A study by the University of Westminster and Arup revealed some important information about LGBTQIA+ perspectives on inclusive public space. Public seating featured in many of the responses to different survey questions along with design features everyone would like. Consequently, this study is a good example of how focusing on a marginalised group can improve the built environment for everyone.
“A legacy of Victorian design culture means that they continue to express institutionalisation, not inclusivity.”
In the past, buildings such as law courts were designed to express authority and to intimidate. This creates feelings of exclusion. Image from Historic England Blog
A survey found that LGBTQIA+ people had a lot to say about public space and buildings. For example, they regarded hospitals as uncomfortable places – they felt impersonal, soulless, and alienating. The most important factors shaping inclusivity were street furniture to relax on, green spaces, easy access to transportation and quality lighting.
Paradoxically, traditional security features such as CCTV felt like hostile architecture because they made the place uncomfortable. It’s about the sense of what is being protected and who is being policed.
The survey report discusses gaybourhoods with mixed thoughts on advantages and disadvantages.
“The prevalence of queer imagery such as the Pride flags were generally seen as welcoming features. However, some respondents raised concerns that there may be a greater risk of hate crime when leaving the space.” Image from report, Janet Echelman TED 2014 Sculpture.
Visibility and privacy
A common theme from the study is the ability to see the whole area and exits without being viewed themselves. For example, street seating behind low walls or screened by shrubs. In effect, a cosy corner without feeling watched.
Rather than active surveillance, respondents prefer busy and diverse spaces with lots of people so they can blend in without fear of being targeted.
What makes public space inclusive?
The survey respondents were far more receptive to sounds, smells and visual ambience of space than heterosexual men. It’s interesting to note that people who are neurodivergent also rate these factors as important. In terms of public monuments, respondents felt more diverse representation would change street ambience to be less intimidating.
Bus stations and hospitals
To some degree the survey respondents were likely expressing similar design dislikes to many others. Bus stations with low roofs, noise and fumes, and poor wayfinding were mentioned in the survey. Entry to hospitals with long blank concrete walls reinforced the messages that this place is about procedures, not people.
An earlier publication by Arup asks the question, ‘How could we make public spaces more inclusive for LGBTIQ+ community?’ Queering Cities in Australia is a collaborative research project with Australian universities. This follows a similar project in with the University of Westminster.
This paper discusses housing implications for planning and operating LGBT-inclusive housing. Barriers identified by older LGBT people include: fear of discrimination, homophobia, transphobia and violence from staff and residents, housing affordability and availability, health challenges, feeling unsafe, intersectional barriers, and building maintenance.
Barriers identified by housing service providers include: no current inclusion practices at their workplaces, lack of LGBT information for staff and residents, health challenges for older people, and housing affordability.
This research was based on a qualitative analysis of a survey of 970 older LGBT people and housing providers across Canada. We discuss the role of housing service providers, health care providers, planners, and others in creating inclusive housing accommodations and services
It is critical to provide better information on housing choices for older people, and implement anti-discrimination policies and LGBT competency training for housing providers and staff. Engaging the older LGBT community in the development of housing and housing policy, is essential.
Airports are typically noisy, busy, and confusing all adding to the general travel anxiety many people experience. But for many autistic people the crowds, noise and confusion is even more challenging. So finding out more about their experience could lead us to better experiences for everyone. A study analysing reports from six Australian airports revealed some autistic-led insights on airport accessibility.
Taking a flight for a holiday, a business trip, or a family visit, requires navigating an airport environment. Preparing for the trip and getting to the airport can be stressful at the best of times. Then comes the ordeal of the airport itself.
The study analyzed reports produced between 2017 and 2024, to find ways to make airports better for autistic travellers. These reports were based on assessments led by autistic people and evaluated areas like sensory experiences and communication needs. The study found that reducing sensory challenges, like loud noises, and improving communication and wayfinding could make things easier.
Insights and recommendations
The way autistic people manage an environment depends on the type, intensity, and duration of sensory inputs and whether a place feels open or confined. Predictability helps reduce uncertainty and anxiety by ensuring that sensory and environmental cues remain consistent. Sight, sound and smell are key design elements to consider:
Choose natural lighting over harsh fluorescents
Reduce glare and reflective surfaces
Select neutral colour palettes (except for signage)
Use sound absorbing materials
Create neutral scents
Clear communication and predictability is the second theme emerging from the study. Autistic people need to plan and prepare every part of their journey so they know what to expect. Knowing what to expect reduces uncertainty and anxiety and helps with maintaining confidence. Every airport is different. That makes understanding airports difficult. Pre-travel information is key to creating a level of predictability. And when at the airport, wayfinding and signage become important.
Clear signage, colour-coded pathways, and pictorial instructions also serve as alternative modes of communication. But these must be consistent too. This image is of abus station in Singapore designed with people with dementia. It serves as an example of a visual wayfinding system.
Crowd levels and general noise cannot be fully controlled, but providing recovery spaces can help. These are places where individuals can temporarily retreat to manage sensory overload. They support their ability to re-engage with the environment and continue their journey.
However, an autism-friendly environment also requires an understanding from staff and the public. They play a key role in recognising and accommodating sensory and social needs to foster a more inclusive and accessible space for autistic people.
This study shows the importance of involving autistic people in the design of more inclusive public spaces – for everyone. An important factor as the tourism and travel industries continue to evolve to create more accessible destinations and experiences.
Autistic people often encounter overwhelming sensory environments, stringent security procedures, and crowded spaces in airports. This study retrospectively analysed reports from Autistic-led environmental assessments conducted at six Australian airports between 2017 and 2024.
The assessments focused on eight key elements, including sensory adaptations, communication supports, and preparation and predictability. Analysis revealed two key themes: (1) navigating the sensory landscape and (2) helping passengers navigate with confidence.
Our findings underscore the importance of sensory adjustments—such as natural lighting, quiet spaces, and clearer visual aids and communication supports. Importantly, this study offers practical, evidence-based recommendations for more inclusive design. This research highlights the need for participatory design approaches to create public spaces that are genuinely accessible and supportive for Autistic travelers
Try before you fly
One of the barriers to flying for neurodivergent people, is not knowing what to expect. So having a practice run makes a lot of sense in terms of minimising stress when the flight day comes. Air New Zealand has a program that replicates all the steps people take at airports before they take off. That is, check-in, security screening, and boarding processes.
“Air New Zealand is helping remove the unknowns of air travel for neurodivergent children and their families by creating a safe, supportive environment to practice the journey – before even taking to the skies. In a first for the airline, and in partnership with Autism New Zealand and Acorn Neurodiversity, it has hosted a flight familiarisation experience for neurodivergent children and their families.”
Practical wisdom, knowledge and experience is a key factor in co-design processes. People with disability have their own lived experience of cities which is essential knowledge for the ongoing design and redesign of urban environments. But it has to mesh with other wisdoms and experiences and here we find tensions between stakeholders. A study from Sweden revealed three kinds of knowledge at play.
Workshops held in three Swedish cities revealed three kinds of knowledge. They are: fact based knowledge, professional knowledge, and practical wisdom (episteme, techne and phronesis).
Knowledge creation is an ongoing endeavour and collaboration between stakeholders is essential for overcoming tensions and working for good outcomes. But personal experience is not well regarded as it cannot be ‘measured’ and quantified.
Tensions and practical wisdom
‘Officials viewed personal narratives about disability as the source of valuable knowledge, helping them understand the reasons behind accessibility requirements – ‘understand in practice’, as one official said. She recommended this for practitioners as a way to avoid building errors.’
Structural tensions centred around resources and who had access, including disability organisations. This creates power imbalances. In some municipalities officials sent people with disability questions to confirm their decisions. Other structural tensions are more mundane such as the best time of day to get the best citizen participation rate. People with disability reported officials’ resistance to applying accessibility standards as another factor.
Categorical tensions centred around the notion that accessibility is an overarching label as being for people with impairments. Proposals about roads, public art or street furniture did not belong to accessibility. Categorising accessibility as a minority interest made it a ‘soft issue’, not like emergency services – a firm box to tick.
Tensions around interpretation revealed uncertainties about judging personal stories in relation to urban experiences.
‘What we can perhaps see as the disadvantage of this way of working: being on site with a somewhat small group – is that it depends a lot on the people involved. After all, it is your personal opinion that you are expressing. And it can then vary, we think, from project to project depending on who is involved … There is still a risk that we interpret something wrong … You don’t know if it’s personal opinions … It’s hard to know whose voice you’re hearing.’
Universal design seen as disability design
So, where does universal design fit into the discussion? While universal design encompasses more than disability, it remains closely associated with it. When interpreted as accessibility, it becomes an afterthought at the end of the process. However, a universal design approach takes inclusion seriously from the outset of a project.
What cannot be quantified and measured “rationally” is seen as ‘soft’ evidence by officials. Nevertheless, universal design endeavours to explain the reasons behind access requirements and why minimum compliance is insufficient.
This paper explores knowledge creation in universal design processes that aim to make cities accessible to all. It contributes insights into the practice of urban development in Sweden. Workshops and qualitative interviews were conducted in three mid-sized cities re-designing a city square, a street, and a new library.
We found that different kinds of knowledge were in play in local collaboration. Universal design was akin practical wisdom. Imbalances of power and divisions between stakeholders caused tensions. The perception that accessibility is limited to a specific target group also played a part. To overcome these tensions, we propose that disability organizations be contributors rather than commentators.
Olav Rand Bringa is credited with bringing a universal design approach to Norwegian planning regulations back in 1999. The result was a forward thinking document, Norway Universally Designed 2025. Bringa has followed the evolution of universal design thinking for 25 years until his retirement last year.
Bringa has given a lot of thought to the evolution of the universal design concept, the language we use, and it’s application. He was part of the early movement and wrote about the processes in, Universal Design and Visitability: from Accessibility to Zoning (page 97). Although it began with the built environment it soon included the digital world.
Here are past posts that refer to Bringa’s work and the landmark document Norway Universally Designed 2025.
Norway universally designed by 2025
The Norwegian Government took the principles of universal design and applied them across all policies to create maximum inclusion. This made everyone responsible for inclusion at every level – in the built environment, outdoor areas, transport, and ICT.
In 2008, Norway launched its first Action Plan 2009-2013 with the goal of a universally designed Norway by 2025.
The focus on was on people with disability, accessible built environments and minimising discrimination. The plan covered the actions of the public service and all ministries. “The Government’s work is based on universal design. Universal design is an expression of a value put on equality by society.“
In 2010, Norway amended its Planning and Building Act, among others, to include universal design. The plan was to take a staged approach to upgrading public buildings and spaces.
The Delta Centre took responsibility to coordinate the actions in Norway’s 2015-2019 plan in 2016. This plan covers ICT and communications to a more detailed level.
He outlines the remaining barriers to implementation along with the successes. This paper draws together Bringa’s extensive experience in the field of universal design.
A guide for universal design is not enough
Guides give guidance, but you need to know the point of universal design. Knowing the point is a key success factor in taking a universal design approach. That’s why a guide is not enough – you need to know the point of it.
The point is inclusion – it’s about society, not just design. The focus on compliance with standards does not tell you the reason, only what to do. An article in Citylab provides some examples of how Norwegian designers are embracing the principles of universal design.
St Olav’s Hospital in Trondheim is a good example of implementing universal design across the whole hospital setting. That’s from the outdoor and external features through to the internal design. The Chief Architect says, “Guidelines are not enough, you need clear intentions. You have to know what’s the point of this”.
“It looks like a nice urban environment,” said Onny Eikhaug, Program Leader at the Norway Design Council. “It doesn’t look like a hospital, it doesn’t smell like a hospital.” DOGA, The Innovation Award for Universal Design.
Accessibility by another name – does it work?
Norway uses the term “accessible” to signify solutions specifically for people with disability when not required generally in the population. An interesting distinction by Olav Rand Bringa using his 20 years of experience working in the field of universal design.
Bringa says succinctly, “The term accessibility for people with disabilities does not broadcast an understanding of qualities beyond the targeted user group”. Consequently other terms try to compensate for this. The image is of the Olso Opera House with a universally graded access.
However, it is difficult to move away from “accessibility” because it is perpetuated in legal and other statutory documents. Bringa writes thoughtfully about the issues of getting language right to get inclusion right. An important contribution to the quest for inclusive societies. The title of the article is, Universal Design as a Technical Norm and Juridical Term – A Factor of Development or Recession? it’s open access.
From the abstract
Norway introduced universal design as an ideological and technical concept in Norway in 1996. Since then universal design has replaced accessibility for people with disabilities in national policies, laws, regulations, standards, projects and everyday language.
“Accessibility” characterises solutions made more exclusively for people with disabilities. Few countries have made extensive use of the concept of universal design with challenges from lawmakers, architects, economists, user organizations, and entrepreneurs.
This paper reflects on more than 20 years of extensive use of the concept of universal design. It asks the question: Is universal design an academic invention with little extra positive impact compared to accessibility for people with disability? Or does the concept defend its supposed role as a step towards a society with equal opportunities for all?
Legal documents favour visible disabilities
Previous papers have highlighted successes and where there is room for improvement. A 2024 Norwegian study looks at universal design through a legislative lens and finds legal documents favour visible disabilities.
In more recent years, people with invisible disabilities have raised their voices in the disability rights movement. However, their voices are yet to be incorporated into legislative documents.
Historically, people with mobility and vision impairments led the way in disability rights. Consequently, legilsation was formed with their needs in mind.
The Norwegian researchers wanted to find out if there is a “disability prestige” at play. This is where some disabilities count more than others. Or is it something as basic as just having your disability visible to others? The researchers concluded that visibility was more important to explain discrimination between groups.
The context of the study was transport. They discuss the wording of documents and how terms such as “reduced mobility” are interpreted. It can mean a person with a physical and/or a cognitive impairment. In legislation, it is most often linked to bodily movement.
Prestige versus visibility
Mobility impairments are mentioned more frequently than other disabilities in Norwegian documents. Vision impairments, also frequently mentioned, come in second. The conclusion is that discrimination between disability types is mostly explained by the visibility of a disability.
Why does this matter? When provision for other disabilities and long term health conditions are absent in legal documents, businesses and services don’t consider them.
There is a statistical link between disability and loneliness according to the UK Office for National Statistics. The more pronounced the disability, the greater the likelihood of loneliness. So what do streetscapes have to do with this? Every journey, for any reason begins with leaving the house and directly interacting with the street. A study of lived experience found that people with disability:
> felt invisible and unheard because of inaccessible streetscapes
> found inconsistent electric vehicle noise complicates navigation, and
> engagement is vital in addressing accessibility and enhancing communication.
The study documents how researchers gathered information from participants with disability and lists the questions asked.
“Planners responsible for streetscapes, as well as the public, need stronger education on disabled people’s needs and barriers.”
Inclusive streetscapes – the challenges
The study revealed challenges with societal design, pavements, societal behaviour, street furniture, wayfinding, and roadworks. Each of these themes are explained in more detail. For societal design, poor consideration of needs and design inconsistency topped the list.
In terms of footpaths, the surfaces, insufficient kerb ramps and footpath camber rated highest. Parking on the footpath was the greatest behaviour gripe followed by aggressive behaviour by others.
Rubbish bins and outdoor dining and chairs were the worst street furniture offenders, and accessible routes are often longer than they need to be. Difficulty navigating temporary paths during roadworks is a key element for improvement.
Providing accessible parking spaces without providing a kerb ramp is considered poor and thoughtless design. Street repairs can make the situation worse.
It’s about the footpath
Participants regularly mentioned poor pavement surfaces, lack of maintenance, the angle of the camber. Shared spaces are particularly challenging. They make it difficult for them to recognise priorities on the road. This is a source of anxiety which is at odds with claims that shared spaces are safer.
There is much more to unpack in this paper about all the other elements including street furniture and wayfinding and navigation. Another key element is the extra energy required when already working from a low energy base because of their disability.
Urban streetscape design has to do more to enable the independent movement of disabled people. Few studies have attempted to capture the lived experience of a disabled person using the streetscape.
We interviewed 26 people with lived experience of a disability (from around the UK) to define the streetscape barriers faced. The systemic reasons as to why these issues exist are identified and we propose a new path forward.
We provide recommendations for streetscape design with direct relevance for local authorities, policy makers and designers for more accessible streetscapes. Embedding people with disability into the decision making is essential. Future work must assess the barriers in collaboration with disabled people, to prioritise actions and aim for an equitable streetscape for all.
Staying put and walking more
An Australian study found that older people who live in separate houses walk more than those in retirement villages. The Curtin University study accounted for several factors before coming to this conclusion. It adds to the literature that for most people, staying in your own home is the best way to age. Of course, we need homes and neighbourhoods designed to support this. While the study has some limitations, it is another angle on staying put versus age segregated living arrangements.
Understanding inlcusion – how can we make it happen?
Architect Mary Ann Jackson has written a thoughtful article about built environment practitioners and their continued lack of understanding of our human diversity. She says that little is known about the extent of inaccessibility. Legislation is all very well, but it doesn’t reflect the real lives of people.
Jackson’s article explores the question of how might an understanding of models of disability and human rights inform the improvement of access at a neighbourhood scale? She argues that built environment practitioners must engage with users, with people with disability to inform their understanding of what makes (unintended) barriers to access and inclusion. There are links to related articles on the page.
The title of the paper is, Models of Disability and Human Rights: Informing the Improvement of Built Environment Accessibility for People with Disability at Neighborhood Scale? It’s an open access article. You can download the full text.
