Category: Research papers for built environment

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. 

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, Jos 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.

Which universal design features benefit the general population and which suit a small group? This is the kind of question economists like to ask. But who to ask? The building users of course. “Stated Preferences” is the term used for asking people what they think something is worth. It’s one way of putting a value on Universal Design.

Building regulations stipulate certain access requirements, but using Stated Preferences analysis and cost-benefit data, researchers found that some features suited a wide group, while others suited only a few. The question then is, if the feature for the few costs the most, should it be included or ignored in a retrofit? 

The technical methods are explained in a conference paper. It includes what was measured and how they were valued. The discussion section of the paper sums up the study. They found that Stated Preferences analysis and cost-benefit data can show the social and economic benefits of different features. For example, a handrail on stairs can pay back six times the investment. Among high benefit features, were good lighting, visual and tactile markings, and stair handrails. However, the story is not quite this simple and the researchers point to this.

The 18 Measures

• Good pedestrian walking surfaces outdoor
• Visual marking of walkways
• Visual and tactile marking indoors
• Stair handrails
• Automatically opening entrance doors
• Visual contrast on entrance doors
• Access ramps for entrances
• Access ramps in swimming pools
• Access ramps at beaches
• Visual marking of doors and glass walls
• Low counters – accessible for wheelchair users and people of below average height
• Universal designed toilet facilities
• Installing elevators
• Modernization of existing elevators – tactile buttons, audio messages etc.  – Improved indoor lighting
• Outdoor lighting
• Assistive listening system/hearing loop
• Floor space for wheelchair access

An interesting study that reveals the preferences of building users and the value they place on certain features and the related costs. This can be compared with features set down in access standards where the value for users is not assessed, or the costs.

The title of the article is, Upgrading Existing Buildings to Universal Design. What Cost-Benefit Analyses Can Tell Us.  It is open source from IOS Press. 

Can homes be both eco-friendly and accessible? If not, it means people with disability and older people are excluded from the benefits of an eco-home. Part M of the UK building regulations require a level threshold and a downstairs toilet. The Lifetime Home standard provides for more flexibility for adaptation. Accessible eco homes are possible with the help of designers 

A study by Amita Bhakta found the following issues with the eco home movement:

• • Sustainability has overridden accessibility in sustainable communities in the UK.
  • Disability requires greater understanding that it is more than mobility impairment. 
  • Space beyond the home should be included in the meaning of home.
  • Top-down policy is not enough – co-design is required.
  • Planners, architects and builders in eco-housing do not consider bodily differences.

The title of the report available from Academia.edu is Accessibility in Sustainable Communities. It includes a discussion about whether sustainable communities should cater for all needs. But Bhakta points out that sustainable communities cannot regard themselves as progressive if they are exclusive. The report concludes with a model for inclusive sustainable communities. See abstract below. 

There is a similar article, Making space for disability in eco-homes and eco-communities. The eco-home movement in the UK is underpinned by collaborative and communal housing and living. The aim of the movement is to minimise environmental impact and to be socially progressive. 

From the abstract

We use three eco-communities in England to explore how their eco-houses and wider community spaces accommodate the complex disability of hypotonic Cerebral Palsy.

We used site visits, video footage spatial mapping, observations, survey and interviews that show little attention has be paid to making eco-houses accessible. There are four ways to interrogate accessibility in eco-communities: understanding legislation, thresholds, dexterity and mobility.

Three factors emerged: ecological living is not designed for disabled people; disabled access was only considered in relation to the house and its thresholds and not to the much broader space of the home; and eco-communities need to be spaces of diverse interaction.

 

Older people know what they want in terms of housing and their neighbourhood. But has anyone asked them? Two researchers in Queensland have. This research came about because of serious concerns about congregate living during the COVID-19 pandemic. In their research findings, the researchers challenge the ideas of local planners. They say we need to look at ageing in neighbourhood rather than retirement villages. The researchers found that local councils can act as a catalyst for the market to change and innovate. They propose infill developments with a mix duplexes and mid rise apartments with easy access to services. The article in The Conversation has lot of images and diagrams to illustrate their arguments. The title of the article is, Ageing in neighbourhood: what seniors want instead of retirement villages and how to achieve it.  It is time to move away from focusing on what older people can no longer do to what they can be encouraged to do. That is the healthy ageing approach. Older people know what’s best for them. Given the opportunity they can create solutions. The table below shows the key features that make a home and neighbourhood a good place to live as they age. The Fifth Estate has an article that extends the discussion on this topic into smart cities. The title of the article is, This is how we create the age-friendly smart city.  Australia was one of the first countries to contribute to the WHO’s age-friendly cities project, but how much has been implemented? The late Hal Kendig explains the situation in a book chapter, Implementing age-friendly cities in Australia, which can be found in Age Friendly Cities and Communities: A Global Perspective. Or you can access a similar publication on ResearchGate. 

COVID re-think on retirement living

Retirement living has to factor pandemics into design now. Separation rather than isolation is the key. Much of the value of specialist retirement living is the easy access to amenities and socialisation. But the pandemic put a stop to both. The constant reminder that older people are more vulnerable to the infection was the last straw. Especially as everyone fell into the vulnerable category. Consequently, everyone got isolated from each other. But how to design for this? Australian Ageing Agenda has an article discussing these issues. If residents have to stay home for prolonged periods, they will likely demand more space. Pocket neighbourhoods could work so that only a section needs to be cordoned off. Other ideas are: The title of the article is, COVID-19 is shaping design of future facilities.     

Ramps are not just good for wheeled mobility devices, they are good for people who communicate by signing. DeafSpace Design means a few extra tweaks in a universal design approach to design thinking. Examples of DeafSpace Design are few and far between. One reason they are hard to find is because the term “DeafSpace” is not used in design briefs. Nevertheless, aspects of DeafSpace Design are sometimes included without fanfare.  Julia Coolen explains how DeafSpace design is, or could be, integrated into general universal design principles. She explains which design aspects are particular to people who sign and/or lip read. Images help with the explanations.  The example of the ramp is a case in point. Importantly, the width of the ramp should allow two people to walk side by side so they can continue signing. Steps and stairways interrupt their vision and therefore their conversation. Coolen discusses three principles: Mobility and Proximity, Space and Proximity, and Sensory Reach. The title of the article is, DeafSpace and Disability: A research into DeafSpace design and its peculiarities in relation to other architectural adaptations for disabilities.  It is an open access thesis, which is relatively short with text that is to the point. The university page has a link to the PDF at the bottom of the page. If you prefer to get a quick grab of the concepts, watch the video featuring Gallaudet University. 

Abstract

Throughout history the built environment has mostly been designed from an able-bodied perspective, which causes a set of challenges for people with disabilities. In the 20th century however, a growing attention for disability in architecture took place that resulted in a shift in architecture. This thesis focusses on DeafSpace design and how architecture has historically responded to the need to design for people with disabilities. This leads to the research question of this thesis: What makes design for DeafSpace so special compared to other architectural adaptations for other disabilities? By analysing three buildings that follow the DeafSpace design principles, this thesis shows what makes DeafSpace special compared to other architectural adaptations for other disabilities. DeafSpace concerns design principles that go beyond the mere application of a ramp for wheelchairs. DeafSpace creates spaces that benefit ‘every-body’, it refuses the ‘normalisation’ and ‘standardisation’ of the able-bodied perspective. It is about creating awareness and it seeks to design and improve spaces to be functional for the deaf and hard-of-hearing. In saying so, it is to be concluded that, in contrast with its name, DeafSpace and its five design principles—Space and Proximity, Mobility and Proximity, Sensory Reach, Light and Colour, and Acoustics—are beneficial to ‘every-body’.

Although Japan has the oldest population in the world, creating accessible urban spaces is making very slow progress. Tokyo aimed to have all parts of the city that linked to the Olympic venues completely barrier-free. That includes buildings, transportation, services and open spaces. Tokyo’s Olympic legacy is discussed in a book chapter, which is open access.  Deidre Sneep discusses the issues regarding the urban design legacy in the Japanese context and commercialisation. The title of the book chapter on page 91 is, Discover tomorrow: Tokyo’s ‘barrier-free’ Olympic legacy and the urban ageing population. It’s free to download, but if you have institutional access you can access the journal article version. One interesting aspect is that some argue that the government’s guide to promote a ‘barrier-free spirit’ makes it sound like an act of friendliness. Any kind of patronising attitude or slogan only serves to maintain marginalisation as the norm. Posters focus on young people and make barrier-free a special design. There are no older people in the pictures. The implementation of the universal design concept is increasingly commercialised says Sneep. This is likely due to the history of universal design in Japan. One of the first international universal design conferences was held in Japan in 2002, and was led by giant product manufacturers such as Mitsubishi. The International Association for Universal Design (IAUD) remains active. 

Abstract from journal article