Category: Research papers for built environment

Health professionals say the lack of walking is a major factor in poor long term health. But do planners consider the breadth and diversity of the population? Perhaps we need a broader definition of walkability in neighbourhood design.

Lisa Stafford and Claudia Baldwin discuss the issues in their paper. They say few articles on walkable neighbourhoods include people with diverse abilities across the age spectrum. We need to design equitable space – places where everyone is welcome. They recommend that studies on walkable neighbourhoods encapsulate diverse abilities and ages. 

The title of the article is, Planning Walkable Neighborhoods: Are we overlooking diversity in ability and ages? It is available through Sage Journals via your institution. Or you can access for a free read through QUT e-prints. 

Walkable, rollable, seatable, toiletable

We need a broader term than walkable to explain how everyone can be actively mobile in the community, says Lloyd Alter. In his blog article he adds that unless you are “young and fit and have perfect vision and aren’t pushing a stroller… many streets aren’t walkable at all…” Alter takes his point from a new book where other terms are coined:

• • Rollability. Walkability isn’t enough anymore
  • Strollerability, for people with kids
  • Walkerability, for older people pushing walkers
  • Seeability, for people with vision impairment
  • Seatability – places to sit down and rest
  • Toiletability – comfortable places to go to the bathroom

“All of these contribute to making a city useable for everyone. So we need a broader term for this” says Alter. His suggestions are activemobility, or activeability to cover all the ways different people get around in cities. He says he is open to suggestions for a better word. 

The title of the blog article is, We need a better word than ‘walkable’. The title of the book is Walkable City Rules by Jeff Speck.

Pedestrians First: A Walkability Tool

Cities are expected to hold seventy percent of the the world’s population by 2050. In planning terms that is very soon. Encouraging walking is talked about as if it was just a matter of persuading us to do it. However, planners and urban designers need to focus more on pedestrian needs and find out what the barriers are to getting out and about on foot and with wheels. The Institute for Transportation and Development has a new tool, Pedestrians First: Tools for a Walkable City.

Joe Chestnut, author, says, “but walkability is not just a sidewalk, it’s a whole system of design and infrastructure”. The tool aims to create a better understanding of walkability and ways to measure features. Their interpretation of walkability also includes people with disability. Best practice examples from around the world are provided.  But note – an even footpath or sidewalk is still required!

What about the stairs?

Walkability is discussed as the solution to keeping people active and engaged in their community. A research study on stairs and older people concludes that the presence of stairs “may deter older persons (and others) from walking outdoors.” The study was a systematic review of the literature. The full article is available online from BMC Public Health. Or you can download the PDF. The title is “Examining the relationships between walkability and physical activity among older persons: what about stairs?” by Nancy Edwards and Joshun Dulai. 

Older adults spend more time at home compared to other age groups and want to stay in their home as they age. Ageing in place is a broad concept. Attachment to home and place play a key role in the wellbeing of older adults. Consequently, remaining “in place” minimises early entry into supported accommodation. An article by Hing-Wah Chau and Elmira Jamei compares Australia with some of the work on age-friendliness in other countries.

The article covers familiar ground of the WHO Age Friendly Cities program and discusses three aspects related to the built environment. Public spaces, housing and buildings, and public transport. The title of the article is, Age-Friendly Built Environment.  

Housing

The UK Lifetime Homes Standard eventually influenced the development of a mandatory code for accessible housing in the UK. The lowest level of the code is now considered too low and will be upgraded. 

So far, the 2010 Australian Livable Housing Design Guidelines have failed to bring about change to the building code. However, in April 2021, state and territory jurisdictions agreed to a basic level of accessibility in all new homes. However, two states have specifically refused to act on this. For more on this check out the posts in the Housing Design Policy section of this website.

The European Homes4Life scheme covers more than building design. It covers physical, outdoor access, economic, social and personal domains for new and existing residential buildings. Affordability, privacy, dignity and connectivity are all considered. Also included is smart technology.

Public spaces and transport

Outdoor spaces need to be welcoming of older people and encourage social interaction. Mixed use developments, housing diversity, pedestrian safety and natural landscapes all get a mention.

Walkable neighbourhoods and frequent, reliable and safe transport options are key to ageing in place. Affordability is also a consideration for people with minimum incomes. Cycling is also part of the active ageing agenda. However, car ownership is the best mobility option for people living in outer suburbs.

The article compares some of the work in other countries with Australia rather than offering something new. However, the conclusions draw attention to an important point. The design and planning of the built environment needs to hear the voices of those often excluded. Co-design collaboration is worth the time taken, and should be extended to other decision-making processes that affect their neighbourhoods and ability to remain active. 

Dr Hing-Wah Chau presented a paper at the 2021 Universal Design Conference in Melbourne. The topic is about introducing students to universal design through community design studios.

Town access audits are not new, but these alone do not gauge accessibility for everyone.  Mapping the inconveniences of urban life for people with disability gives a better understanding of why isolated access features are insufficient to provide access for everyone.

Access features are required in new works and major refurbishments. That means a lot of infrastructure remains inaccessible in our cities. It also means that accessible places aren’t joined up very well, or not at all. 

In a book chapter about the urban circle of life of people with disability, Katarzyna Ujma-Wasowicz explains her mapping project.  The project involved a diverse group of people with disability. The aim was to see how they navigate the built environment. This sounds like a simple and obvious thing to do, but few planners and architects do this. 

The mapping process

The mapping process involves the person with disability specifying a path from home to a destination and back home again. An auditor or researcher follows the person and takes detailed notes along the way. The results of these observations can inform decisions about the most critical rectifications needed. 

Ujma-Wasowicz acknowledges that designers think, “in best faith” about access for each disability group independently. At the end of the chapter she has a section on Post-Pandemic and Universal Design. Ujma-Wasowicsz notes that COVID has changed our behaviours but these changes don’t affect everyone equally. She proposes a universal design approach for design strategies in the summary. 

 “Therefore, a holistic approach to planning is necessary, where one of its elements should be audit of public spaces accessibility. The “urban circle of life” can be a useful tool for such inspection.”

The title of the article is, The Urban Circle of Life of People with Disabilities: Mapping urban inconveniences.  The chapter and the book, Mapping Urban Spaces is available online from Taylor Francis. It is open access. 

This is a wordy read, but worth the effort if wanting to replicate this process and model. Although some local councils have embarked on similar exercises, there is little written about them in the literature. 

The classic design of a mosque makes access difficult for people who have difficulty with mobility, removing shoes, hearing the call to prayer, and generally using facilities. The three critical elements for making mosques accessible are the prayer hall, the ablution area and sanitary facilities. 

People cannot enter the mosque with a personal mobility device or shoes. This is to stop dirt from the outside entering the mosque. But it also creates major barriers, especially for older people. The United Arab Emirates, and Dubai in particular, is keen to promote the inclusion of people with disability in all aspects of life. Consequently, the Ministry of Community Development commissioned an access plan and that includes mosques. As a result, Nazem Fawzi Al-Mansoor has come up with a checklist for making mosques accessible. 

The title of the short conference paper with the checklist is, Universal Mosque/Masjid Design. It was presented at the 3rd Universal Design Conference held in UK in 2016.

The checklist includes some basic features found anywhere such as the width of doorways. Seats for shoe removal, space to park mobility devices, and an accessible ablution area feature in the list. 

Mosque detail

Mosque Bukhara

Photos: Bolo Hauz Mosque, Bukhara, Uzbekistan.

Why does the design of built environment continue to fail people with disability? Many have asked this question since Selwyn Goldsmith raised it in the 1960s. Many have found answers. But these are not enough to make a difference to the results. New buildings continue to pose barriers in spite of regulations and standards. Going beyond minimum standards is therefore a big ask. 

Imogen Howe, an architect with 10 years experience, wants to find the answer in her PhD study. Her research questions are something we can all think about:

• • Why and how does the Australian built environment continue to marginalise people with disabilities, despite the Disability Discrimination Act (1992)?
  • How does building design reproduce exclusion and segregation? How is this underpinned by design assumptions and approaches both contemporary and historic?
  • Do building and design codes in Australia, NZ, Canada and the UK address dignity?
  • How do we educate becoming architects about the need for inclusive design and then how to enact it in their designs?

References are made to key thinkers and writers on the topic such as Amie Hamraie, C.W. Mills, Joss Boys and Michel Foucault. 

These questions are posed in an article framed as a discussion piece in Academia.edu. The key provocations for the discussion are: eugenics and stigma in design, society structures, and how could this be different. The title of the article is, “The need for inclusive design: going beyond the minimum standards in the built environment”.

Beyond compliance with universal design

A guide book from Ireland on the built environment draws together Irish standards with a practical universal design approach. Many of the standards mirror those in Australia so most of the information is compatible. Parking, siting, pedestrian movement, steps, ramps, lifts, seating and bollards are all covered. 

Building for Everyone, External environment and approach covers each of the features in detail. While the style of tactile indicators varies from the Australian design, the advice on placement is still useful. There is a reference list of related documents including Australian Standards. The guide is undated, but probably published circa 2010. This means some of the technology, such as parking ticket machines is a little outdated.

There is also a section at the end on human abilities and design. It covers walking, balance, handling, strength and endurance, lifting, reaching, speech, hearing, sight, touch and more.

Published by the Centre for Excellence in Universal Design in Ireland it is very detailed. Checklists help guide the reader through the material. This booklet links with others in the series, particularly the one on entrances and circulation spaces. The good aspect of these guides is the perspective of a universal design approach rather than proposing prescriptive design parameters.

Universal design is invisible: that is, until it is not there. Refurbishments and upgrades to buildings can embed universal design without anyone noticing. Richard Duncan uses a train station in Norway as a case study and explains how it was done.

Duncan’s article, Right Under Your Nose: Universal Design in Norway is an easy to read article and is based on Olav Rand Bringa’s work. When done well, universal design minimises the need for separate designs for people with disability. For example, ‘accessible’ exit routes were previously signed with the international symbol. In the new scheme, many of the signs were removed. Yet travellers with disability did not comment on their absence. The design itself indicated where to go. 

And there is more…

There is more in the article about the work of Bringa that traces the history of universal design in Norway. Two surveys from 2018 reveal a gradual change in attitude about universal design. More people understand the concept and agree with the principle of, “Universal design is necessary for some and useful for many”. 

Norway is a global leader in implementing UD strategies. Norway Universally Designed by 2025, is their landmark document, which focuses on inclusive policies where everyone is made responsible.

Olav Bringa has written several articles beginning in 1999 when Norway first embraced universal design principles. They are:

Universal Design and Visitability: From accessibility to zoning.  It’s Chapter 6.

Progress on Universal Design in Norway: A review 

Universal Design as a Technical Norm and Juridical Term – A Factor of Development or Recession? Bringa discusses the importance of language in the quest for inclusion. It’s open access.

Richard Duncan has written a similar article on the invisibility of good universal design. This one is about automatic doors. 

Photo by Olav Rand Bringa showing the improved and uncluttered entrance to the station.

The principles and goals of universal design have no criteria for aesthetics. It’s focus is on functional requirements rather than sensory experiences. It doesn’t help when architects and planners continue to associate universal design with regulations and standards and leave aesthetics out. But the key to designing environments for everyone is to draw together architecture, aesthetics and universal design.

Carolyn Ahmer’s paper discusses universal design in the context of renowned architects. She explains how their designs include inclusive elements together with aesthetics. For example, Frank Lloyd Wright’s work which includes the famous Guggenheim Museum. The article covers visual and non-visual information and movement through space.

The aim of the paper is to highlight the qualities of design essential to creating buildings that stimulate our senses. One source of inspiration is in our architectural history. 

She concludes that inclusive architecture should be based on qualitative and quantitative measures. Quantitative assessments are based on controllable data and standardised specifications. Qualitative assessments focus on sensory experiences of an architectural project. These are features that cannot be measured but should not be discounted. 

The title of the article is, The Qualities of Architecture in Relation to Universal Design.  The paper was presented at the UD2021 conference in Finland. It’s published in Universal Design 2021: From Special to Mainstream Solutions.