Category: Research papers for built environment

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, 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.

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. 

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.