Dementia is a medical diagnosis that needs consideration beyond that of health care. Living with dementia is just that – living. Urban planning has a significant role to play in supporting people with dementia to maintain an active life in their neighbourhood. Samantha Biglieri’s magazine article on dementia and planning provides some useful advice.
Around two thirds of the population with dementia live in the community not a residential care setting. How can planners understand and meet the needs of this group?
Dementia is diverse
Dementia is an umbrella term to describe a set of symptoms that affect memory, visual perception, judgement and ability to sequence tasks. People who are neurodiverse or have an intellectual disability, also have similar experiences. When added together this becomes a significant portion of the population needing consideration in urban planning and design.
Designing urban settings for people with dementia provides benefits for others as well. For example, we all appreciate good wayfinding design with the use of landmarks and signage.
The importance of wayfinding
Getting lost and not knowing your way home is a common fear for people with dementia. When intersections and suburban houses look the same it becomes easier to get lost. Based on a UK study, briefly Biglieri suggests the following:
A short, irregular grid pattern of streets to create identifiable intersections and allow residents to visualize their travel path.
Streets with ample space for pedestrians with wide buffer zones between pedestrian paths, cycling paths and roads;
Variated architectural styles within the same development, mixed land-use, designs incorporating diverse styles of street furniture, public art, and vegetation to provide unique landmarks for improved navigation;
Signage that uses textual information (‘5 minute walk to the library’) and realistic photos (instead of icons, which can create confusion).
Development of memorable landscape features, open public squares, and community facilities.
Population ageing and the design of the built environment are receiving more attention. As with many aspects of inclusive design, it’s the small details that make a difference. Colour and colour contrast is one of those details for older adults.
Visual perception changes for many people as they grow older. So what colours and contrasts are most helpful? Two researchers found some answers.
The researchers found that vision loss and changes in visual perception are linked to disorientation in the environment. Disorientation can increase anxiety levels and impact wellbeing. Suggestions for improved orientation include:
Flooring that contrasts with walls so they don’t blend with each other
Alternate colours of floor coverings to indicate different purposes for each room
Floor tiling free of glare and shine
Door furniture should contrast with doors
Contrast between stairs and walls
Mono-coloured interiors can hinder orientation and identification of architectural elements. However, too many colours can overstimulate sensory perception. People who lose the ability to see bright colours, yellows and pastel colours appear white. Shades of blue, green and purple are seen as grey.
The paper includes detail of the study and includes images demonstrating the different colour choices. Some of it is related to residential care, but the findings are also relevant for individual homes. The discussion section makes links to human-centred design and universal design.
Colour is a powerful tool that can enhance the aesthetics of a design and help older adults feel independent and safe.
Moving in space is a multisensory experience. People use most of their senses such as sight, hearing, smell, and touch in addition to moving their bodies. How we feel indoors depends on the indoor climate, lighting, surface colours, air quality, floor plan, and furniture layout.
Studies show that the materials and colour of products have an impact on how we navigate a space, how we feel and, in some cases, they can even have healing effects. We investigate the association between colours in the environment and the orientation of older adults in living spaces.
We found colours have a significant impact on orientation in space and can be an effective tool for spatial orientation. Warm colour tones such as yellow, orange, and red are preferred over cold ones. Red tones are more easily recognizable for older adults who have a loss of colour recognition.
Colours and contrast in indoor environments help stimulate brain function, shorter reaction times and the perception of space.
Co-design strategies vary according to the context and complexity of the project. Co-design processes are not new – academics have carried out participatory action research (PAR) for many years. Often these studies are about solving a social problem. New versions of co-design are emerging as a means of democratising design decisions. Citizen science is a version of co-design that has its roots in environmental monitoring. This method is now used in urban planning and design.
The transformation of a car park into a multifunctional public space is the subject of a citizen science paper from Turkey. The authors explain the project and how they went about engaging with citizens. The co-design process relies on communication between designers, residents, visitors and the local authority.
An additional outcome of the project was to establish a Citizen Participation Unit within the municipal authority to facilitate citizen coordination.
A key element of successful co-design is finding ways to design with non-designers through every stage of the project. Establishing a common language is essential for understanding the needs and thoughts of all participants.
Local residents provide information and issues about the area to expert designers who then evaluate and document the information. To ensure participation of citizens who are blind or have low vision, 3D and relief formats of design elements were provided. Using roundtable discussions and digital mapping, two conceptual designs were provided to citizens for voting.
Citizen Design Science
Citizen design science is a synthesis of citizen science and design science that uses a bottom-up approach. The authors break down the process into three parts:
Citizen science – type of data collected from participation
Citizen design – citizens actively design
Design science – translation of citizens’ ideas into designs by expert designers
The study showed that people without prior design knowledge are able to work constructively with professional designers.
Citizen Design Science is a co-design strategy for urban and architectural systems that uses design tools for citizens’ observation, experience, and local knowledge. The strategy improves the planning, design, and management of cities, urban habitats, and architectural structures.
This study is about the transformation of Atakent Car Park Area into a public space using a co-design process. Using design science data, two conceptual urban design projects were prepared. This included 178 local citizens’ wishes, needs, and suggestions about the area. Participating citizens were asked to vote for their preferred project and the selected conceptual design was implemented.
The remarkable aspect of this study is the engagement of a layperson without prior design knowledge in utilizing active design tools to establish a common language with a professional designer. Despite the efficacy of this common language facilitated by the tool, it has inherent limitations.
The ideal pattern and symmetry of the human body underpins Vitruvian ideals for architectural design. Three architects challenge this notion as outdated because it fails to account for human diversity. Their discussion paper takes us from the Vitruvian to the variable body and the role of universal design.
“The architectural module has long been associated with the concept of measurement, where standardisation of the human body is used to define absolute modularity.”
Image is of the classic Vitruvian Man by Italian artist and scientist Leonardo da Vinci.
The Vitruvian concept reduces the human body to standard measurements to create ‘human scale’ for designing space. The variability of the human condition is contrary to this notion.
The architectural ‘module’ is a concept linked to measurement. It is associated with the scale of the human body which defines proportions and how people interact with space.
The authors discuss the creation of a module to account for the variables of the human body – to make variability the foundation of the module. Their paper refers to case studies with photos of where designs exclude people.
The quest for best solutions is apparent in the continuous updating of regulations and tools for accessibility. Integrating disability access standards with universal design is a more inclusive approach to design. The universal design element accounts for human variability in practical, social and ethical ways.
The drawing of the Vitruvian Man above illustrates the idea that the dimensions of the individual limbs of a human follow mathematical laws. Therefore, buildings should also be as well-proportioned and well thought-out as humans themselves. This theory it assumes everyone has the same body size and shape, which of course, is not the case. However, elements of Vitruvian thinking continues to reside in the myth of the average human being.
From the abstract
The architectural ‘module’ is about the measurement and standardisation of the human body. This narrow view of the module’s applicability is problematic, particularly in processes of environmental accessibility and inclusion.
This paper critically explores the limits of the traditional measurement module, rethinking the concept of modularity to account for physical and perceptive diversity. We aim to promote social inclusion and universal design in architectural projects for people.
The paper concludes that the evolution of the concepts of the module and the human being requires a revision of their very meanings, calling for a more inclusive approach to design and planning in our contemporary world.
Policy makers have been talking about population ageing, ageing-in-place and age-friendly communities for several years. But has there been any progress? The focus is still on residential care homes and this is the policy blind spot. Most older Australians are living in their own homes. So how do policies support them? And what about renters?
Three housing researchers analysed 85 policy documents against the World Health Organization’s (WHO) guidelines on age-friendly cities. They found these policies reflected outdated views of older age. That’s because the policy focus in on care and support services. This means less attention to housing, transport, walkability and cultural diversity.
Most older Australians aren’t in aged care – they are living in the community.
Policy blind spots mean they live in communities that aren’t age-friendly.
Being age-friendly for older people means age-friendly for all ages.
The research also reveals a failure to recognise the diversity and impact of the ageing process. In particular, is the lack of recognition of diverse cultural needs.
“There is almost a complete blindness to their impacts on ageing and other social determinants of health.” Regardless most older Australians want to live where they are.
In another study, researchers asked what motivates older homeowners and renters to age where they are or to relocate. It seems older renters are not given a fair choice. For homeowners, family ties matter.
Owners with children living nearby were more likely to want to stay. They might then have a reason to call on their housing wealth and become the “bank of mum and dad”. Renters, however, want the same choice but face the most disruption. Many had to move out of their neighbourhood to find a place to rent.
This is another area where policy change is needed and for many, social housing is the answer. However, social housing is in short supply.
There’s a glimmer of hope on the horizon with the new Livable Housing Design Standard. This mandated Standard in the National Construction Code provides for accessible features such as a level entry into the home. It will support many more people to age in place and reduce the need for costly home modifications.
While it will take many years for new accessible homes to make an impact, it does mean that rental housing will be included in mainstream housing stock. However, states and territories are showing reluctance to adopt this essential Standard in the face of industry lobbying. But none of us is getting any younger.
See CUDA’s short online course which provides all the technical detail for implementing the Livable Housing Design Standard.
Professor Ilaria Garofolo writes an interesting essay on the role of universal design and inclusion. Garofolo claims technical handbooks based on regulations related to accessibility have reduced built environmental barriers but they haven’t resulted in inclusiveness. The outdated focus on compliance remains an underpinning feature of design culture.
“Taking into consideration the needs and preferences of persons should be the core of design, and in particular the design for inclusion…”
Built environment professionals argue that universal design is a good principle, but difficult to practice. The belief that universal design costs more doesn’t help matters. Providing readymade solutions or schematics are not the answer either. Such schematics contain stereotypes and generalisations referring to disability. While they might guarantee compliance they limit the continuing improvement aspect of universal design.
The term inclusion should define the orientation of society towards people. However, the term is often juxtaposed, and sometimes even confused, with the word integration. Unlike integration, which tends to counter the differences, inclusion entails the acceptance of all diversities and peculiarities of the individual.
Co-design
The understanding of the relationship between people and their built environment is often missing. Participatory co-design methods, particularly with people with disability, are the way to overcome this divide. All the technical knowledge and expertise does not provide knowledge on how design impacts everyday living.
Fostering universal design through education
Diverse and dedicated subjects and master classes have arisen in higher education worldwide.
Although universal is increasingly permeating design education, it remains difficult to interpret as anything more than a set of good intentions.
Experiential learning is an important part of the universal design curriculum as well as interdisciplinary collaboration. Personal experience and design workshops with users and trained designers provide a practical understanding of universal design.
“To design inclusively means to educate professionals to think inclusively and to work in collaborative teams composed of diverse groups of people.”
The level of inclusion of all members of society in community activities is a fundamental indicator of a civil society’s progress. There is increasing evidence that diversity and inclusion are linked to positive outcomes.
The universal design approach is increasingly recognized as the one that helps to shape physical and virtual environments. That’s so that it can be accessed, understood, and used to the greatest extent possible by all people, regardless of their diversity. Thus, making a more inclusive society for all.
This short essay summarizes some reflections resulting from studies, research and field practices reported by literature, and also experienced by the author in her training as a researcher and university professor.
Attention is focused on some critical issues and implications inherent in the practical application of universal design principles. Also, the importance of its multidisciplinary dimension, which also entails a different attitude towards the training of professionals.
The cost of implementing universal design in buildings is little, if any, in new buildings. This is not new information for followers of universal design. However, many developers and designers find this difficult to believe. Consequently, this perceived cost becomes a barrier to implementation. New research by Elke Ielegems and Jan Vanrie shines a light on the real costs.
Yes, universal design costs more in building renovations, but a lot less in new builds. That’s why it’s important to think universal design from the outset. It’s not an added extra.
The researchers looked at other studies on cost and found they used different ways of measuring it. One used fixed prices to determine cost but without contextual factors. Another combined practitioners’ experience to find optimal solutions to provide a more realistic estimation. However, they both rely on hypothetical cases.
Ielegems and Vanrie’s work combined these methods and used real buildings. In their study they focused on accessibility but claim a similar approach could be applied from a universal design perspective.
Comparing renovations with new build costs
The paper takes readers through the methods and the development of universal design evaluation criteria. This is followed by the selection of building projects. The calculations are detailed in terms of where costs were reduced or increased. Comparisons are made by building type and by building elements.
The study focused on direct costs of construction and used a baseline of “as-is situation” for comparison of renovation and new build scenarios. That is, how much more, or less, did each of the proposed changes cost compared to the current as-is situation.
Costs are lower for new build
The building type and size has an influence on costs. In line with previous studies the results showed the costs for new builds varied between 0.94% of total cost and 3.92% of total cost. Renovations were between 2.24% of total cost and 14.9% of total cost. Circulation space and exterior ramps and stairs were the most expensive for the renovation scenario.
The other question is whether cost should be the deciding factor, or whether equity and inclusion should be the foremost consideration. This would negate the need for carrying out a comparative evaluation.
From the abstract
Implementing universal design faces the challenge of perceived additional cost, which acts as a barrier to its widespread adoption. Other studies that have examined the cost fail to account for the design context that influences construction costs. This article presents a research methodology to calculate the cost in a realistic, context-dependent manner.
A “Research-by-Design” was applied to twelve cases: secondary schools, town halls and small retail shops. Two scenarios are compared: renovating a building to be 100% inclusive, and building fully inclusive from the outset.
Although the methodology is time-consuming, it allows for a fair, realistic and detailed comparison between costs in different cases. Findings show how financial implications are strongly related to its scale.
Both “renovation” and “new build” scenarios involve costs, but these are considerably lower for the latter. “Circulation” and “Exterior stairs and ramps” are among the most expensive to renovate. However, they have almost no additional cost for the “new build scenario”.
This study provides valuable insights for architects, designers and stakeholders involved in the implementation of universal design. It offers a realistic and context-dependent approach to assess the cost implications. This enables informed decision-making during the design and construction phases.
Using real cases and their unique design contexts, the true costs of implementing universal design in the built environment are revealed.
Barriers and drivers for architects
In a 2019 paper, Ielegems reports on the barriers and drivers for universal design within the architectural community. She found that barriers and drivers were attitudinal, practical and knowledge-based.
Attitudinal aspects related to a mindset about the values of dignity and equality and a genuine lack of understanding about universal design. There is also a misconception that this is about a special group and that aesthetics are compromised.
Practical aspects are based on time and budget limitations and perceptions of extra cost. Time restrictions are related to client demands and commercial interests trump social advantages.
Lack of knowledge about universal design is a perceived barrier for practitioners. Available user information is disregarded in favour of designer needs and preferences. Designers are not willing to to adapt their ways of thinking and working. This is largely due to information not being presented in a design-relevant format.
Information about universal design
Ielegems also found that respondents didn’t need more information, but they needed more centralised information in a design-relevant format. More awareness among key stakeholders and clients is crucial to changing perceptions of universal design. In addition, the current accessibility regulations influence the creation of “tunnel vision” regarding universal design. This leads to an accessibility perspective instead of a perspective of inclusion.
In contrast to other studies, this one specifically focuses on factors that affect the decision to implement universal design at the beginning of the design process. Adopting a universal design strategy at the very start of the process is important for accomplishing the goal of inclusion.
Performance codes and universal design
Performance codes could help
In another study, 700 Danish architectural firms shared their experience of the accessibility requirements in the Danish Building Regulations. Participants thought a performance-based model would be better suited to support accessibility criteria. However, performance codes would be insufficient to promote universal design in architecture.
The authors of Do Performance-Based Codes Support Universal Design in Architecture, claim professionals’ understanding is client orientated rather than citizen orientated. In addition, architects’ understanding of inclusiveness was relatively limited. Consequently, a performance-based model would not in itself promote inclusive architecture.
The COVID pandemic made us all realise how important urban public open space is for our wellbeing. However, the enjoyment of public open space is not equally shared across genders. A study from Greece found that all genders found the more “easily accessible” the public space, the more safe they felt.
The notion of “easily accessible” includes visibility from immediate surroundings and from a distance. It also means ease of movement and efficient connections to public transport.
Women felt less safe than men during the pandemic, particularly in the evening and night hours. The researchers found public space maintenance was strongly related to perceptions of safety. Well maintained and managed outdoor spaces were viewed as safer during the evening and night hours.
In summary, well-maintained, accessible, places that feel secure both day and night are more likely to foster feelings of relaxation. The key design elements for urban public space are:
Good visibility and lighting
Increase the number of public spaces in urban area
Design streets with pedestrian safety in mind
Provide safe and accessible public transport
Enhance women’s participation in the design process
The COVID-19 pandemic caused significant disruptions in everyday life, including restrictions on social activities and physical separation. Urban public spaces became popular places for people to relax and socialize while keeping physical distance.
Gender and other social identities, on the other hand, have a major influence on people’s perceptions of safety in these public places. The goal of this research was to look into the relationship between perceptions of safety, relaxation, and gender in urban public places during the pandemic.
We found that women were more likely than men to report feeling unsafe in public places. Women’s feelings of insecurity hampered their ability to relax and enjoy these spaces, possibly limiting their access to public spaces and the benefits they provide.
There is an obvious interrelation between easily accessible open public spaces and safety. The findings outline the significance of inclusive design and planning for public spaces in order to guarantee safety and promote well-being.
Public space for everyone
Not everyone feels safe and welcome in public spaces and some of this is due to the way they are designed. Younger and older people are rarely considered or consulted about built environment decisions. However, age is just one dimension when considering inequity in public space. Disability, gender, cultural background intersect with all ages. A high density low-income area of Los Angeles was used for a study on intergenerational space for everyone.
Nearly all participants expressed enthusiasm about designing public spaces for intergenerational use and interaction.
The article describes the participatory method of focus groups, interviews and site observations. The focus on the study was three parks in the Westlake area. Older adults shared personal memories of the parks, often associated with when they first arrived in Los Angeles. Younger people remembered visiting the parks and times shared with family and friends. These happy times were not to continue, however. The parks became run-down and felt less safe and inclusive.
The research revealed that active engagement appeals to both older and younger residents. Park designers might assume that older adults prefer quieter, less active public spaces, but this ignores those who enjoy active engagement. Similarly the stereotype that younger people want activity dismisses those who want a quiet place to read.
The study is another example of participatory action research, or co-design, which is a processes for producing inclusive, universally designed public spaces.
The title of the article is, “We should all feel welcome to the park”: Intergenerational Public Space and Universal Design in Disinvested Communities. It is open access with PDF and online access.
From the abstract
This article investigates the potential for intergenerational public space in the Westlake neighborhood of Los Angeles. We worked with 43 youth and 38 older adults (over 65), to examine their public space use, experiences, and desires. We seek to identify where the two groups’ interests intersect or diverge. A series of site observations, focus groups, interviews, thick mapping, and participatory design exercises were used.
The potential for complementary approaches to creating intergenerational public space was explored using universal design. The importance of taking an intersectional approach to designing public space is emphasized. There are multiple, often overlapping identities of disability and age, in addition to race, class, and gender.
Our findings yield insights for creating more inclusive and accessible public spaces in disinvested urban neighborhoods. There are also opportunities for allyship between groups whose public space interests have been marginalized by mainstream design standards.
Architects and other design professionals are in a position to educate their clients about universal design. However, their own lack of knowledge is passing up this opportunity. Understanding building industry perspectives on universal design is a good start for unravelling the issues.
Zallio and Clarkson’s study spans disciplines of behavioural science, ergonomics and the social sciences of architecture. It uncovered the challenges architectural practitioners face when designing inclusively.
One of the challenges is the scarcity of standards and policies, and limited willingness to build the business case for inclusion. The research pinpoints where interventions and tools could have a positive impact. This paper builds on previous work shown in the sections below.
Inclusive Design is widely promoted in the fields of product, engineering, and user experience design. However, Inclusive Design is not widely embraced in architectural design practice, where it is often associated with design for disability.
This multidisciplinary study explores the challenges architectural design practitioners face when designing inclusively, and identifies opportunities to promote the adoption of Inclusive Design.
The results of a questionnaire completed by 114 architectural design practitioners underscore the lack of client awareness of the benefits of inclusive design. Practitioners have an important role to play in advocating for Inclusive Design. There is a need to develop practices and tools that enhance the design and post-design phases of buildings to ensure inclusion, diversity, equity, and accessibility.
Inclusive Design Canvas
Many designers know about universal design but don’t yet know what makes a design inclusive and accessible. The Inclusive Design Canvas helps architects to engage in co-design processes and assess their designs for inclusivity.
How is it possible to educate architecture design professionals to reduce points of exclusion for building occupants? With this question in mind, two researchers set out to address the mismatch between design, construction and delivery of a building to meet the principles of inclusion.
Many architectural professionals are overloaded with guides and regulations. So the idea of another design tool was met with ambivalence, but continuing professional development requirements encouraged participation in two workshops. This is where co-design processes can educate users while finding out what their issues are.
As universal design followers know, building and construction standards do not ensure accessibility, let alone inclusion. Well-informed architectural design practitioners understand the benefits. So what is holding back the others? Lack of knowledge or attitude – or both? Matteo Zallio found that poorly informed stakeholders think that:
‘Inclusive design’ means architectural barriers or physical accessibility.
Very few know about cognitive and sensory inclusion and accessibility.
‘Inclusion’ means referring mostly to the Disability Discrimination Act.
‘Inclusive design’ is an extra cost.
‘Inclusive design’ is just a regulatory obligation.
The factors influencing these views were: cultural background, personal knowledge, geographical location and context, lack of understanding of terminology, and lack of focus and details in regulations. Well-informed stakeholders think that “inclusive design”
can be beneficial for clients and occupants;
guarantees and elevated baseline of access; and
is a gold standard for their business and an example for others as well.
Developing the Inclusive Design Canvas
With feedback from stakeholders, Zallio mapped out an “inclusive design canvas”. It’s a matrix of six elements that can help designers think through the issues and solutions. The user journey, capabilities and needs are one dimension, and the other dimension consists of physical, sensory and cognitive aspects. The matrix below shows the elements.
Zallio found there were far fewer well-informed stakeholders than poorly-informed stakeholders. The issue was more pronounced outside major cities. Potentially, in the UK, this can be due to heritage factors, but it is also cultural make-up of these regions. Having to consider more groups within the broader context of equity has diluted the needs of people with disability.
Certification for universal design and accessibility should be tested by different users to be sure it is worthy. An hotel in New York with anisUD certificationwas the subject of such a assessment. The outcome was that it was not well regarded by wheelchair users. The isUD(innovative solutions for Universal Design) certification was devised by the inclusive design centre at the University at Buffalo.
Buildings must meet a minimum score of 70-75 points to be certified by isUD. The newly built hotel in Western New York was used as a case study to test the robustness of the isUD certification.
Researchers tested the hotel’s features with three groups of people. They recruited healthy adults, older adults and wheelchair users. The participants wore lapel microphones to verbally record their feelings and experiences as they happened. They were given tasks for the hotel lobby, the room, the bathroom and the public bathroom.
At the end of the experience they were given a questionnaire to document their stress levels and perceptions of usability. The healthy group were concerned with aesthetics such as being able to watch their preferred TV channels. Operating self-closing doors was a common complaint from wheelchair users.
The paper details the methods and results and provides insights into user perspectives across the three groups. Although this hotel had been certified as meeting universal design criteria, not all features were easy to use. Perhaps a score greater than 70-75% is required so that finer design details are included.
Hotel guests’ expectations varied according to their level of activity. Wheelchair users commented on functional features, such as a walk-in shower. Healthy subjects considered the presence of the provided features as a must and were searching for leisure-oriented or luxurious features. Guests’ demands from a public facility are varied based on the (mis)matches between their abilities and the environment’s features.
Individuals with minimal or no universal design requirements gain benefits from the facility when designed to meet the needs of individuals with severe impairments. Designing for individuals with the most probable impairment supports inclusivity and can be cost beneficial.
This study was designed to encourage hotel managers and stakeholders to recognize universal design and accessibility features as an all-encompassing solution.
From the abstract
This study evaluated the effects of hotel features on perceptions of stress and usability with healthy adults, older adults, and wheelchair users.
Participants completed a guided walkthrough of a hotel that included tasks in the room, bathroom, and lobby. The older adults had the lowest level of perceived stress, whereas the wheelchair users had the lowest rating of usability.
The healthy group had generally positive perspectives on the hotel features, while the wheelchair users had predominantly negative comments. Concerns ranged from concerns, such as not having access to preferred television shows (healthy group), to difficulty with accessibility of basic room features such as stepping into the shower area (older adults) and opening the room door (wheelchair users).
Although inclusive design may pose a challenge to hotel designers, all guests should have access to basic features
