Category: Research papers for built environment

Academic papers and publications

Gender neutral toilets: are they inclusive?

Gender neutral toilet facilities are the subject of discussion in academic research, legislation and architectural briefs. Urban planners say any toilet away from home should be informed by the proportion of needs in society. Enter the gender neutral category of amenity as the solution that can best resist bias and discrimination. But maybe it doesn’t.

Nicole Kalms and Laura McVey argue that “the proposed legislative changes for the provision of ‘all gender’, ‘gender-neutral’ or ‘unisex’ toilets operate under an incorrect assumption that gender neutrality will lead to greater inclusion”.

A gender neutral toilet sign with a graphic of the top half of a person and a graphic of a wheelchair user. The text says this facility is for everyone.

The proposed legislative changes note that one in 500 people in Victoria identify as trans, but fail to note that one in two Victorians are women. Kalms and McVey claim that rather than offering inclusivity, it will further penalise those already disadvantaged in amenity design.

The issue of signage

Repurposing women’s public facilities or accessible toilets as gender-neutral is an ad hoc response to the real issues.

“This will multiply the ad hoc arrangements where a sign and/symbol on an existing ‘female’ or ‘disabled’ toilet provides a ‘gender-neutral’ or ‘all genders’ amenity, leaving the men’s facility intact”. Indeed, it will double men’s toilet options.

A toilet door sign with four icons: access, man, woman, baby change with a woman and a baby.

The article goes on to discuss different sections of the population including people who are homeless, and women from culturally diverse backgrounds. Public toilets are also places of personal care and of refuge from sexual violence. An important discussion paper which shows how the default to the male toilet is the norm – they remain the same. Women’s toilets have become the “adaptable” quick-fix place for all other groups. But at the cost to whom?

In summary

“We therefore suggest that current reform proposals for inclusivity do not go far enough, and put forward the need for a more ‘radical redesign of public sanitary facilities. Such a radical redesign, we argue, requires a needs based design ethos based on users’ requirements. This approach reiterates the importance of more inclusive design, but does so by considering and prioritising those most significantly and disproportionately impacted and neglected by current design.”


The title of the book chapter is, Commentary on Let Us Pee in The Feminist Legislation Project. An important discussion on how easy it is to exclude people in design, albeit unintentionally. Another reason for engaging in co-design and co-creation processes.

Preferences for shared space design

Pedestrians and cyclists sharing space is based on the idea of everyone being socially responsible. It’s expected that whoever is present in the space will politely negotiate the right of way. That’s because there are few, if any traffic controls, barriers or road markings. More recently, shared space has come under scrutiny because some pedestrians avoid such routes. So what are the preferences for shared space design? Researchers in Germany used a video-based survey to find out.

Shared space revolves around integrating different road users into a common physical space. 408 participants evaluated different case designs and considered the placement of street furniture. Image of a street in Frankfurt, Germany.

A street in Frankfurt Germany with old and new buildings, a wide footpath with bollards on the kerbside and bike racks on one side of the road.

For some people who do not drive or own a car, a bike is a good way to get around. However, everyone needs to feel safe. Safety is all down to perception and that’s why dedicated lanes for pedestrians, bikes and cars is the optimum.

The title of the article is, Exploring pedestrian and cyclist preferences for shared space design: A video-based online survey. There’s a lot of detail in this paper.

From the abstract

This paper explores the preferences of pedestrians and cyclists for shared space design. It looks at configurations that emphasise the sense of place, integration, and informal segregation. In an online survey, 408 participants experienced videos of virtual environments with different designs. They were asked to assess various attributes and their influence on the perception of the space and crossing behaviour.

The results indicate that pedestrians and cyclists do favour similar attributes and space configurations. Both find motor vehicles undesirable, but they hold a positive view of the central placement of design elements and protective barriers.

Do Bike Lanes Slow Traffic?

Compared to many other countries, Australia has a low rate of bike riding. Researchers from Swinburne and Melbourne universities decided to check out the issue of cycling infrastructure. That’s because cities that prioritise cycling infrastructure have higher rates of people cycling. But there is community resistance to this infrastructure with comments such as bike lanes slow traffic

The researchers used a modelling technique to find out if retrofitting separate bike lanes into residential streets slowed traffic. When done well, it increased car travel times by 7%. Cycling times increased marginally due to avoiding streets without bike lanes.

Two street images showing bike lanes for cyclists, pedestrian footpaths and a roadway.

Images from the article. Cycle lanes are narrow (less than 0.6 m wide) with no physical separation by a concrete kerb. (left) Kensington and (right) Collins Street Melbourne.

Reduction in vehicle speeds are another key factor, but this alone does not prevent traffic injuries for cyclists. Running into car doors due to poor separation is the reason for most accidents. Safe and separated cycling lanes are good for pedestrians too, especially those who fear shared paths.

The title of the article is, Do Safe Bike Lanes Really Slow Down Cars? A Simulation-Based Approach to Investigate the Effect of Retrofitting Safe Cycling Lanes on Vehicular Traffic. There is much more to this research project to digest.

From the abstract

Cycling is a sustainable transportation mode that provides many health, economic and environmental benefits. Cities with high rates of cycling can better address challenges of densification, and carbon-neutral goals. Participation rates in Australian cities are critically low and declining.

This low participation rate is often attributed to the dangers of Australian cycle infrastructure that mixes cyclists with car traffic. Residents of car-dependent Australian suburbs are resistant to the installation of cycle infrastructure. That’s because they are perceived as a threat to traffic flow and less on-street parking.

This low participation rate is often attributed to the dangers of Australian cycle infrastructure that mixes cyclists with car traffic. Residents of car-dependent Australian suburbs are resistant to the installation of cycle infrastructure. This is because they are perceived as a threat to traffic flow and less on-street parking.

We investigated the effects on traffic behaviour of retrofitting safe, separate cycling lanes into existing residential streets in a Melbourne suburb. We utilised only the widths available on the existing roadway of these streets.

Travel demand was modelled using travel demand that suits suburban trips to services and shops. We also selectively applied separate cycling lanes to suitable residential streets and varied the effect of lowering speed limits.

Simulations showed at worst case the selective inclusion of safe cycling lanes leads to a 7% increase in the average car travel times. And cyclists only increase their travel distance marginally to avoid streets without dedicated cycling lanes.

Dementia and empowering environments

A new open access book is a must for anyone interested in design with and for people with dementia. “Creating Empowering Environments for People with Dementia” is exactly what the book is about. It addresses inclusive design both inside and outside the home, including agricultural settings.

The book features the voices and opinions of people living with dementia. The chapters showcase individual homes, public spaces, landscapes and urban design. Care homes and special dementia facilities are also featured.

The focus is on person centred design that enables and empowers, and includes cultural differences in people’s needs. That means co-design.

Front cover of the book Creating Empowering Environments for people with dementia. A green band top and bottom with black text on a white backgrouns.

A book for built environment practitioners and researchers in the fields of gerontology.

Chapter topics

Part 2 is titled “People with dementia are central to the design process”. It is about people with dementia being at the core of environmental design. A co-design approach to both home and neighbourhood design is essential in this context. People with dementia have a voice and know what they need.

Part 3 is about neighbourhoods. It includes chapters on public organisations, transport systems and spaces, and participatory health research. Toilets are a key feature for inclusive design, both newbuilds and refurbishments.

Part 4 has two chapters on hospital design, and Part 5 covers care home design. There is an interesting chapter on “care farms”. Not everyone with dementia lives in the city so some people respond well to an agricultural care setting.

The book is open access on ResearchGate and also from Taylor and Francis Group.

From the introduction

This edited volume addresses the environments that exacerbate, exclude, and stigmatise those living with dementia to explore designs and processes that can optimise well‑being and independence.

An older man sits with his back to the camera in a cafe. Empowering environments.

Featuring the voices and opinions of people with dementia, the chapters showcase individual homes, special dementia facilities, different forms of care homes, and public spaces, from landscape to urbanism, as examples of how to meet the needs and preferences of those living with dementia now.

This book demonstrates a range of research methods that can be used to inform and investigate good co‑design of dementia‑enabling environments. Furthermore, the book addresses cultural differences in people’s needs and illustrates past, ongoing, and novel initiatives worldwide.

Ultimately, this timely volume focuses on person‑centred design that enables empowerment, quality of life, health, and citizenship in people living with dementia. It will be of value to researchers, scholars, and postgraduate students studying gerontology, dementia specifically, and those involved with architecture and the built environment for societal benefit more broadly.

Dementia-friendly assessment tool

Front cover of the Dementia Friendly Assessment Tool. It has lime green with text and a man bending down to pet a wallaby.

The Dementia Friendly Community Environmental Assessment Tool provides a relatively simple checklist. It takes in many of the regular aspects of accessibility overlaid with design thought for people with dementia. A good place to start your thinking.

The more recent online resource from Dementia Training Australia expands on the 2015 edition and goes into more detail. Sections can be downloaded separately. There are three parts in the handbook:

  • 1 ‘Key Design Principles’ contains a description of key design principles.
    • 2 ‘The Dementia Friendly Community – Environmental Assessment Tool introduces the tool and provides directions for its use.
    • 3 ‘Using the Spreadsheet’ contains a guide to scoring and showing the results graphically.  

This assessment tool is No. 5 in a set of 7 resources within the Environmental Design Resources Handbook.

There is also a free app to guide you through an assessment on the strengths and weaknesses of buildings for people with dementia. The website has more resources covering both community living and residential care.  

Urban design for mental health

Is having urban green space enough to make a difference? That’s a question posed by researchers in Brazil. They wanted to find out whether the quality of nearby green spaces and nature has a positive impact on mental wellbeing. They found that the longer people spent in natural environments, the more their wellbeing improved. However, any green space is not enough – the quality of the space is the key. It also has to be accessible, safe, and welcoming.

The title of the article is, Is Having Urban Green Space in the Neighborhood Enough to Make a Difference? Insights for Healthier City Design.

A young woman and man are walking their dog in an urban park.

From the abstract

This study delves into whether simply having urban green space in the neighborhood is enough to significantly impact residents’ mental well-being. Most research overlooks the suitability of green spaces for recreational use, limiting urban planning strategies. Recent findings highlight the multifaceted benefits of green spaces, such as improved sleep and lower blood pressure.

Although research in developed nations highlights the mental health benefits of green spaces, similar studies are lacking in developing countries. The socio-economic and environmental contexts in the Global South differ significantly from those in developed nations.

This study hypothesizes that accessibility to urban green space with suitable infrastructure for physical activities, leisure or recreation, provides more significant benefits. The aim is to deepen the understanding of the role of UGS in promoting mental health and to guide the creation of urban environments conducive to well-being.

The Ageing City and mental health

Front cover of the Urban Design and Mental Health Journal, Aging City Edition.Walkability has been the focus of good public spaces to encourage physical health. However, the recent pandemic increased our awareness of the need for urban design for mental health. The Aging City Edition of the Journal of Urban Design and Mental Health looks at the dimension of cognitive decline. Here’s what’s in the 7th edition of this academic publication:

The Editorial focuses on the need for new directions in interdisciplinary research. 

Dementia-friendly neighbourhoods is about the methodological challenges and opportunities. 

The role of green spaces in preventing cognitive decline calls for “research-by-design”.

Older residents’ mental health status is compared in suburbs versus traditional neighbourhoods is compared to find key design solutions. 

Case studies include Guy Luscombe’s Age n Dem Toolkit, the role of community square dancing in China, and a look at design culture to to empower older people. City Case Studies are Lagos and Sydney. 

Although this is an academic journal, the research and findings provide direction for urban planners and support the need for more pedestrian friendly neighbourhoods. 

Urban planning and Coronavirus

Aerial view of a major intersection in the Melbourne CBD.The daily disadvantage of marginalised groups is more clearly revealed as others fall into the ranks of disadvantage during this pandemic.  A discussion paper from Berkeley argues that this current pandemic is an opportunity to consider similar urban health reforms that followed previous epidemics. Promoting inclusive and healthy cities for all is the bottom line in this thoughtful discussion.

The discussion paper takes the perspective of people with functional limitations. For many people worldwide, disability is about health, human rights, and poverty. It’s an urban development issue and time to move from the medical model to the social model of disability. Also discussed are how people with disability are left out of economic responses, such as one-off support payments, and not included in planning to prevent future crises.

The authors provide recommendations for how this pandemic can best support people with disability and how this makes cities healthier for all. They warn that pandemics also run the risk of exacerbating further marginalisation through racism and segregation. The abstract below is the essence of the paper.

The title of the paper is, Disability, Urban Health Equity, and the Coronavirus Pandemic: Promoting Cities for All. 

BIM can ensure accessibility

BIM – Building Information Modelling – is a process to ensure the planning, design and construction of buildings is efficient and collaborative. It’s a collegial way of different building professionals sharing their data to create a 3D model of the building. Consequently, with informed decisions, BIM can ensure accessibility of homes and buildings at all stages of construction. 

AI also has the potential to ensure accessibility so it’s time to join the dots. A research team from Griffith University presents a framework that brings together machine learning and BIM. The context of the study is accessible housing as outlined in the Livable Housing Design Standard in the 2022 NCC. It also has relevance to the government funded Specialist Disability Accommodation.

There is an increasing need to integrate machine learning and BIM to detect access features and universal design requirements. This is particularly important in housing.

Exterior of a modern single level home.

This study, Enhancing accessibility in smart cities: AI-based autonomous inspection and certification framework, is of particular interest to building certifiers.

From the abstract

This research emphasises the importance of accessibility in current building codes. The focus is on universal design features and their compliance within urban environments. We investigated challenges in conventional and advanced building inspection methods and explored how machine learning (ML) technologies can transform accessibility inspections. 

Key points from the study

We aimed to develop a conceptual framework leveraging OpenCV and ML to detect accessible housing features and ensure compliance with accessibility standards. Key findings from the review include:

  • highlighting universal design by addressing the needs of ageing and disabled populations
  • identifying significant limitations in conventional inspection methods, such as inefficiency and subjectivity
  • emphasising the role of datasets, photogrammetry, and Lidar point cloud data in improving accuracy for accessible design evaluation
  • demonstrating how integrating BIM and ML can enhance consistency in compliance verification

The framework is yet to be implemented, but it provides a strong foundation for certifying accessible housing and offers future directions for real-world applications.

Automating accessibility compliance in homes

Two researchers from the Technological University Dublin tackle the same topic focusing on Part M of the Irish building code. They say their research shows how their tools reduce time, cost and liabilities associated with manual checks. At the same time they promote universal design principles.

This is about embedding Part M accessibility parameters into visual programming scripts. For example, corridor widths and door dimensions are colour-coded where correction is needed.

Figure 13 from the article showing a 3D view of a BIM model post visual programming assessment.

The image above is Figure 13 from the research paper showing a 3D view of a BIM model post visual programming assessment. The paper is necessarily technical but gives an idea of where assessment and certification are heading.

This process could be applied where local authorities ask clients or designers to demonstrate how they are achieving accessible design for a mass development. Note that Ireland’s Centre for Excellence in Universal Design promotes government policy on universal design.

The title of the article is, Automating accessibility compliance in a building design: A visual programming approach to Part M of Irish building regulations using BIM. Scroll down the page – the article comes up first in these proceedings.

From the abstract

We investigated the use of visual programming within Building Information Modelling (BIM) to automate compliance checking with Part M of Irish building regulations, focusing on accessibility in design. We propose a method for real-time evaluation of design models to identify compliance and non-compliance.

The tool allows adaptive inputs such as corridor widths and door dimensions—linked to colour-coded visual indicators highlighting areas needing correction. The tool can adapt to integrate with changing regulations.

We can compare designs against minimal regulatory requirements and the more inclusive Universal Design (UD) standards. Testing with a BIM model confirmed real-time feedback on compliance and non-compliance with Part M, suggesting improvements aligned with universal design principles.

Challenges such as varying interpretations of regulations and the need for greater digital literacy were noted, suggesting areas for further improvement.

Use BIM to ensure accessibility

The purpose of Magdalena Kladz’s paper is to show the application of BIM in designing for accessibility. She uses an existing single-family home to illustrate how it works and explain some of the technicalities. The home was chosen because of population ageing and the desire to age in one’s own home. 

The case study looks at different means to make the home accessible. The illustrations and images are useful supports for the text. The image is an example of a 3D model of a construction framework applied to a bridge from Trimble Construction.

A 3D model of a construction framework applied to a bridge.

The case study looks at different means to make the home accessible. The illustrations and images are useful supports for the text. While the case study is a single home, the process is applicable to any building. As Kladz says, 

“… designing accessible housing contributes to urban sustainability and reduces the negative impact of construction on the environment. Adapting existing buildings and constructing new ones according to universal design principles allows for long-term fulfilment of residents’ needs, without the necessity of demolishing and rebuilding.”

The title of the of the article is Using BIM for the development of accessibility. The video below provides an overview of BIM and how it works. 

Hostile design: what is it for?

It’s one thing to create inaccessible built environments through thoughtlessness. It is another to do it intentionally. Hostile design has emerged as an architectural response to homelessness, specifically rough sleepers. Rough sleepers need a flat surface on which to lie down, but flat surfaces are also a place of rest for other citizens. A solid rectangle of concrete that has an undulating surface which makes it impossible to lie on and uncomfortable to sit or perch. This is hostile design.Put simply, hostile designs are intentionally created to restrict behaviours in urban spaces in order to maintain public order. Examples of this type of design are highlighted in a paper titled, Designing Out: A Framework for Studying Hostile Design. Mostly these are benches with raised or sloping sections. However, low height walls are also used as temporary resting places by pedestrians.
A purple coloured wall surrounds a street planting. The wall is at sitting height but it has anti-seating bars across it. A man is crouching down in front of the wall.
Photo by Jonathan Pacheco Bell
The author considers hostile design a reflection of the prevailing social values which ends up defining who has access to public space and who doesn’t. Finding ways to hide homelessness is not the answer to the problem. Everyone has an equal right to use public space. The article discusses the issues from a rights perspective – the right to the city. The removal of rough sleepers from the public domain appeases the discomfort of people who have a home to go to. But it does not deal with the issue of homelessness. Indeed, architecture should be looking at ways to minimise homelessness, not hiding it with uninviting design. The title of the article is, Designing Out: A Framework for Studying Hostile Design. 

Hostile design doesn’t solve social problems

If nothing else, hostile design shows the power of design – it makes it obvious. But does it? According to Semple, most people don’t notice it, but when they do, they get angry about it. And urban design should not be street police – the problems only move elsewhere. Designers cannot solve societal problems with street furniture.  Design Week’s article Hostile design is still a problem in our pubic spaces, has an everyday look at the issues. 

The City as Home

The City as Home is a landscape-led response by Logan Bunn to the treatment of rough sleepers. His thesis challenges this form of social control as it instils injustice and inequality within the urban fabric.  The overarching methodology of this thesis is research through inclusive design, supported by participatory research. “This thesis highlights the need to humanise rough sleepers and integrate their needs into the design of public space, whilst also demonstrating the positive impact of inclusive and empathetic design practices on the broader community. It underscores the potential of landscape architectural practice to address social justice issues and create more inclusive public spaces through proactive collaboration and activism.”

Inclusive urban environments: but when?

An urban street scene showing tall buildings, some traffic and people walking on a pedestrian crossing.The design of the public built environment has long been problematic for a diverse range of people with disability. And while attempts are made with new or upgraded precincts, barriers are still created. While this is often unintentional, once the concrete is down, it is difficult and/or costly to remedy. And so the barriers remain and inclusive urban environments remain a dream for the future.

A team of researchers from the UK, USA, and Pakistan carried out a qualitative research project with people with disability. The results are not new but confirm existing research and the experience of users. One area not often mentioned in previous research is the role of legislation and accountability.

The research paper discusses the state of play and the methods they used. The text contains quotes from participants which personalises the information. The research was carried out in two urban areas in the UK.

Footpaths, seating and toilets

Top of the list of physical barriers was footpaths and the opportunity to rest on a seat. Road crossings was the top hazard for most participants even when signalised. Unexpected maintenance work was also considered dangerous for wheelchair users and people who are blind.

Despite having a legislative framework and access standards, local authorities seem unable to provide accessible environments. Some issues such as footpaths linking with road crossings mean that two authorities are responsible.

Transport barriers included physical access to public transport, lack of information, including cost, and bus driver attitudes. Access to public toilets was also raised. The paper has more detail on the attitudinal barriers and service barriers.

From the conclusions

Barriers are interrelated in many cases, but most are related to poor physical designs, inadequate policy considerations and negative attitudes. The findings reinforce previous research but with a user’s perspective. People who are deaf or hard of hearing are mostly absent in the literature. This is because it is assumed they are safe from physical obstructions. However, they experience their own barriers to inclusion.

The title of the paper is Designing out Barriers for Disabled: Towards an Inclusive Urban Environments.  Note that the preferred language in the UK is disabled people rather than people with disability. 

From the abstract

People with disability often struggle with the complexities of the built environment, hindering their full participation in everyday urban life. Accessibility and social inclusiveness are major challenges for active participation for people with disability.

The lack of legal obligation for authorities to implement inclusive solutions, and lack of training in disability awareness has led to environments full of barriers for the disabled community.

The research explored the nature of barriers faced by persons with diverse disabilities by highlighting a user perspective. The barriers fell into four categories: poor physical design, inadequate policies, negative attitudes, and absence of technical solutions.

Recommendations to overcome the barriers are presented in the research.

Go-along techniques inform design

There’s nothing like getting instant feedback as people negotiate the built environment. Go-along techniques inform design because they really get to the key points. Some of the exclusions are only obvious when pointed out and that’s valuable information. The go-along technique is where researchers walk with the participant and observe the barriers they experience as they encounter them. The dialogue that ensues provides rich information about design – how to do it and how not to do it.  

Image taken from the research paper 

Researchers in Sweden used this method and found there is an ongoing multifaceted exclusion of citizens in the built environment. This is despite current building regulations. Also, it doesn’t meet the aim of inclusion and international conventions.  However, there are opportunities to change this with knowledge about enablers in the built environment. The researchers point universal design as an important planning variable to bring about change.   The research paper has a lot of excellent information, much of which planners and disability advocates hear anecdotally. This paper documents the issues well and in detail. 

The necessary enablers

    • Benches, or seating were the most mentioned during the go-along activities. These are a decisive factor for spending a day in the city centre. People would walk more if they could also sit. 
    • Access to public toilets was also critical. Finding them, having access, and in some cases, navigating payment systems all pose problems. Again, another factor in visiting the city. 
    • People who live outside the city centre need flexible mobility systems – public transport, plus being able to use a car and then parking the car. 
    • Lighting in public places, clear signage and orientation board were also important along with handrails in challenging environments. 

Planning process needs a re-think

The researchers argue that there is an urgent need to rethink the planning processes to account for human diversity. It’s essential to move away from notions of an ‘average’ person or the idea of normal. There is a gap between what building regulations state as accessible and the the lived experience of accessibility (or inaccessibility).  As the researchers say,

 “The pointing out of the necessary enablers is important knowledge to achieve accessibility also in an overall, entire-city-perspective. The concept and practice of Universal Design is a key to pursuing such a development.”

The title of the research paper is, Is the City Planned and Built for me? Photos highlight some of the key issues experienced by participants. There is a lot of really good information in this paper. 

Go-along neighbourhood research

The “Go-Along” research method is a way of observing people in their local neighbourhood to see the streets from their perspective. It allows participants to tell their stories about the things they like and don’t like when getting out and about. 
Three mobility device users meet at the widest street corner. It serves as a meeting point for neighbours. Go-along walking research.
Image from the article. A wide corner is a meeting place for neighbours.
A similar project was undertaken in Copenhagen focused on older people. The data was gathered using a Go-Pro camera and interviews.  Social interaction turned out to be the overall reason for going outdoors. Footpaths, seating and sheltered places were the most important design elements. Of course, these are not limited to older people. A case of “necessary for some and good for others”. Photographs tell the personal stories and illustrate some of the findings. The title of the article is, Going along with older people: exploring age-friendly neighbourhood design through their lens.  Springer Link has not granted open access, but you can request a copy from ResearchGate. It was published by the Journal of Housing and the Built Environment in 2020.

From the abstract

Sixteen go-along interviews were carried out with older people aged 59–90. The participants took on an expert role in their own everyday life and guided the researcher through the physical and social environments of their neighbourhood. The go-alongs were documented with a GoPro camera. The data were analysed using situational analysis and was grouped into thematic categories. Our findings conclude that social interaction is the overall motivator for going outdoors and that dimensions of pavements, the seating hierarchy, the purpose of lawns, sheltered spaces and ‘unauthorised’ places are all neighbourhood design elements that matter in this regard. The findings suggest to consider age-friendly details as the starting point for social interaction, to target the appropriate kind of age-friendly programs and to enhance empowerment through physical spaces. The go-along interview as a research method holds the potential for empowering older people and appreciating their diversity. 

Go-along walking for dementia research

An older man with a walking cane walks along a path in a park. He is by himself. Go-along-walking research.Understanding the experiences of people with dementia is difficult if they cannot express those experiences well. The next best thing is to observe those experiences. That’s what the go-along walking method is – an observation of how people with dementia experience the environment.  Researchers carried out go-along walking interviews with fifteen people with dementia. They followed this up with sit down interviews that included a family member. The participants’ stories of venturing outdoors showed that they were aware of their changing circumstances. They all shared a sense of vulnerability and not knowing if they could trust strangers to help if they needed it. Dementia also has a gender dynamic. Male participants were willing to relinquish control to their wives, whilst female participants were prepared to adapt to changing family dynamics. Men still wanted to be seen as independent as this equated to ‘manliness’.  A dementia-friendly environment is one thing, but alleviating the pervading personal sense of vulnerability is also important. Regardless, the research showed that people with dementia are able to take responsibility and create other ways of being in the outside world.  The title of the article is, On being outdoors: How people with dementia experience and deal with vulnerabilities. It’s available for download from ResearchGate. 

From the abstract

This paper advances understanding of how vulnerability is experienced and dealt with by people with dementia when outdoors, and at times shared with family carers. We found that for the person diagnosed with the condition, an awareness of failing knowledge about oneself or the ‘rules’ of outdoor life, which individuals experienced emotionally and dealt with civically. People with dementia attempted to manage risks and anxieties, often doing this independently so as not to burden family members.  Ruth Bartlett has a follow up article that builds on this work. The title is, Inclusive (social) citizenship and persons with dementia. It is published in Disability & Society and needs institutional access for a free read. Or request a copy from the author.     

Ableism in planning

Attempts to avoid catching COVID caused people to change their behaviour in many ways. Working from home and not being able to travel meant more people walked in their local neighbourhood. Open space was at a premium. This led to pop up cafes and parklets and a few more planter boxes to make places more appealing. Planners said “we can’t go back to the way things were”. In that case says Lisa Stafford, we have to discuss ableism in planning.

“Pop-up cafes and parklets used tape barriers and step-up platforms, while planter boxes or pallet seating were positioned to create what seemed like another obstacle course in getting about.”

A group of people, some wearing face masks, are crossing the road. They are walking a safe distance apart.

Lisa Safford says that ableism is an insidious, unspoken prejudice that favours an idealistic view of an “able body”. It is not just having negative views of people with disability, it is a way of thinking about bodies that rejects difference. It’s thinking that “normal” is a real thing.

Ableism is entrenched in walkability metrics such as walking speed, our ideas of liveability, and approaches to older people. Stafford claims that ableism is rampant in planning and design decisions. The misinformed catch cry is that it’s only for a small portion of the population.

“Time and again I have heard universal design omitted in the provision of social infrastructure, due to budget shortfalls or inclusivity being too hard…”

A child wearing a pink jacket sits on a stone wall. A pair of crutches are propped up next to her. They have red and blue handles. Footpaths are key for children.

Let’s talk about ableism

First, we do not lack literature, guides and other tools on the topics of disability, diversity, equity and inclusion. Planners need to talk about the issues with each other, welcome disabled planners and connect with disability communities and their expertise. Do some real co-design processes.

Ableism is just one lens and individual experience ableism and discrimination in different ways. Embracing diversity is critical for people with disability who are Indigenous, female, low income and LGBTIQA+

Planning can make social change – in shapes lives and livelihoods. If we want real change we must confront ableism and the idea of “normal” or “average”. The Australian Bureau of Statistics counts people with disability (18%) separately from people with a long term health condition that limits their daily activities (22%). It’s not a small portion of the population.

The title of Stafford’s book chapter is, Planners, We Need to Talk about Ableism. The chapter is open access in Disability Justice and Urban Planning.

Are architectural competitions a good thing?

Architectural “products” involve many stakeholders which makes a complex process even more difficult. So where do architectural competitions fit in and do the winning designs reflect the diversity of society? A group of Austrian researchers checked out 15 competitions with 76 entries to see if they included universal design concepts.

A major finding is that there is room for better consideration of universal design in the early phase of the building process.

Almost all people spend a large part of their lives in a built environment whether their home, their work or leisure activities. Therefore architecture concerns everyone, not just architects and interior designers. An inclusive approach should be a necessity – a non-negotiable principle. But is it?

In the German speaking area of Europe the construction industry is highly regulated. To get attractive and economically viable designs, the competition method has evolved. Competition is an integral part of the the project as well as the tendering process. Once the competition process is over, a new process begins to realise the design. The aim of this method is to provide transparency in decision-making as well as good design.

Researchers found that at the competition stage of the process, universal design was reduced to wheelchair users. Also, while the term “accessibility” is used in documents, it is not reflected in graphic representation. Indeed, many graphics showed barriers to access. Accessibility emphasis, where it existed, was on entrances and sanitary facilities.

Another issue was found in jury statements which focused on specific architecture aspects without addressing diversity or disability. Accessibility is reduced to minimum standards such as the number of designated parking places.

Are competitions a good thing?

The overarching question of this research was whether architectural competitions are a good way to consider the diversity of disability. On a superficial level, organisers and participants deal with some basic access features. However, there is little space in competition entries to flesh out the detail beyond that of wheelchair users.

In summary: “Fundamentally, the term accessibility is considered important, but is very often only used as a superficial buzzword.”

A work table is filled with paper and folders and a woman is cutting a piece of paper with scissors. It looks like a group of people are working on a design.

The title is, The Built Environment and Universal Design: Are Architectural Competitions a Qualified Instrument to a Better Consideration of the Diversity Dimension Impairment? The writing style of the paper indicates that English is not the authors’ first language.

Architecture competitions for universal design

picture of a modern building Norway Opera House. Architecture competitions.

How juries assess universal design in architectural school competitions is critical to the level of innovation that can be expected. Norwegian Leif D Houck gives an excellent analysis of the way competitions are run and improvements for the future.

Houck says the reason to organize an architectural competition is to achieve maximum quality in a project. The idea is not to have a competition to see if anyone manages to comply the regulations, building codes and the competition brief. The idea is to achieve qualities beyond the regulations.

As Houck says, an architectural competition will likely result in different designs and solutions. In addition, the whole process from design through to the building stage has stages where the project has opportunities for improvement.

The title of the article is, How Juries Assess UD in Norwegian Architectural School Competitions. The article was published in Universal Design 2016: Learning from the Past, Designing for the Future H. Petrie et al. (Eds.) © 2016  

The picture is of the Oslo Opera House

Urban planning competitions

People sit around round tables discussing questions. There are four round tables shown in this picture

It’s time for planning competitions to have residents involved in design decisions and planning solutions. A select panel of judges are not looking for the same things. Planning competitions are used as a way to determine alternatives and promote innovative solutions in the early phase of urban planning.

The book  New Approaches, Methods, and Tools in Urban E-Planning, has an interesting chapter that outlines the findings of how e-participation can be implemented in urban planning competitions. You will need institutional access for a free read. The chapter is “Enhancing E-Participation in Urban Planning Competitions”.

From the abstract

Front cover of the book New Approaches methods and Tools in Urban E Planning

This chapter describes how web-based public participation tools are utilized in urban planning competitions. Public opinion is included alongside the expert view given by the jury. This chapter focuses on how public participation can be arranged in competition processes. It shows how the contestants use the information produced, and how it has been utilized in further planning of the area.

Based on two Finnish case studies, web-based tools can augment public participation in the competition process. However, the results indicate that the impact of participation on selecting the winner is weak.