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 The outdated focus on compliance remains an underpinning feature of design culture.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.
Getting into and negotiating a building is one thing. But has anyone thought about the design of the details. These include building interfaces such as light switches, thermostats, window treatments and furniture. They all affect comport, health and energy savings. An article in an architecture journal looks a these issues. The title of the article is, Equitable, ethical and environmental approaches to building control interfaces. This is not open access but the full abstract follows.
Abstract
Long-term change lies in cultural, rather than technological, solutions. Building designs must shift in ways that are equitable, ethical, and environmentally conscious, down to small details, such as the building interface. The many building control interfaces we use each day—from light switches and thermostats to window treatments and furniture—affect access to comfort, health, and energy savings. A thermostat that is difficult to use or even illegible for someone with differing visual acuity hinders an occupant’s ability to enjoy and effectively live within an interior space. As part of an interior’s ecology, building control interfaces influence fundamental ways we interact with our immediate environment, and compound interior behaviors to affect local and global ecologies. The design of building control interfaces rarely engages human-centered approaches, let alone considering how the interfaces relate to equitable access or sustainable use of energy. There is not a clear unified design theory to guide the design and integration of building control interfaces. This essay provides an interdisciplinary framework for ethical building control interface design informed by philosophies of justice, environmental ethics, wicked problem theory, and principles of equity, Universal Design, and human rights.
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
If it’s not difficulty or lack of knowledge about making places and spaces inclusive and accessible, it has to be something else. Whatever it is, can a universal design approach make a difference? And what are the policy and political barriers to inclusion? That’s what Lilian Müller wanted to find out.
Müller’s thesis explores the complexity of why a universal design approach gets lost in planning processes. Paradoxically, solutions are not only exclusionary and stigmatising, they also add cost to projects. We have normalised “accessible/disabled” toilets, ramps and parking places dedicated to wheelchair users. These are viewed as normal add-ons for compliance with legislation. This is not a universal design or even best practice approach, and it’s not inclusive.
Updating heritage buildings for tourists has lead to more inclusive places. But new buildings are not getting the same treatment.
Five ways to look at it
The thesis explores five different aspects and perspectives. Briefly they are:
One: “Young mobile and highly educated cyclists: How urban planning and policy disables users”. Older people and people with disability are made invisible, but youth, health and mobility are put to the foreground as the norm.
Two: “Planning for human diversity – patterns of universal design”. Where this worked well in projects the focus was on people and function. Universal design goals failed to materialise where projects categorised users and high demands were put on their abilities. Interestingly, universal design seemed easier to implement in existing buildings than new constructions.
Three: “Visions of a city for all – resources, choices and universal design in urban development”. Conflicting visions and goals, and resources, support and tools to implement universal design were critical aspects in the process. The challenge is to maintain an early vision and goals throughout the process.
Four: “Citizens’ experiences of inclusion, exclusion and unequal living conditions in the built environment.” Go-along interviews revealed the essential elements in being able to visit the city centre. And also, what made them welcoming and inclusive.
Five: “Who are we building for? Tracing universal design in urban development”. This study is builds on studies one and two. There are competing and conflicting interests inside the city’s organisation and between society interests and profit interests. There is also a distorted conception of user’s conditions and abilities.
When will the barriers drop?
The thesis covers all the relevant literature on the topic. When it comes to the built environment, good policy intentions fall away and a universal design approach remains elusive. Müller deals with the complexities of this dilemma in a practical way. Her findings mirror those in Australia and elsewhere.
We continue to wait for the paradigm shift from special arrangements to designs for all. A policy for an inclusive society is one thing – politically enforcing it is another.
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 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.
Universal design in architectural education
Ageing is a fact of life. It’s something we know happens but don’t want to think about. But policy-makers and designers need to think about it as many of us live longer. Yes, it is a good thing, but also a challenge. Two things need to change – designer attitudes and skills, and building codes. So what are architects doing about it? We need universal design in architectural education if we are to leave behind the age-unfriendly designs of last century.
A paper from Ireland discusses many of the housing issues faced across the world. That is, homelessness, affordability, social housing, and ageing safely at home. The crisis in homelessness led to more funding for local authorities to tackle the issues. Hence, an opportunity to try something different.
The Cork Centre for Architectural Education (CCAE) embarked on a “Live Project” for architecture students. This type of learning allows creativity to meet the real world. It also encourages students to take a moral and social approach to design.
The authors discuss the real life project which was to design a housing development for older adults. It covers the site and the teaching methods related to universal design. Working with the local authority gave students awareness of different housing provisions. It also changed their perceptions of families similar to their own experience.
One of the outcomes was that students found it harder to combine both the effective overall site strategy with an equally well-considered scheme for the interior of the houses. However, this was likely due to the limited time frame they were working with. But there is much more in this paper.
Do footpaths have an economic value to the public? Are pedestrians all the same? These questions are worth asking policy makers when it comes to inclusive pedestrian mobility. There is a tendency to treat pedestrians as one group with some exceptions such as outside schools and aged care facilities. This is not helped by various definitions of inclusive mobility in the literature.
An area that is accessible to and usable by everyone can be described as an inclusive pedestrian area. Because pedestrian space does not have a strict status or economic value, and is a place that quickly adapts to different purposes, special attention is needed to preserve pedestrian areas.
Noa Hamacher’s Masters thesis delves into this topic academically and practically. She looks at human-oriented spaces, pedestrian-friendly areas, and a definition of pedestrian inclusion. The case studies take a national and local context in Norway and The Netherlands.
Given the diversity of pedestrians, designs should consider a wide range of user needs. Fair processes and procedures for decision-making is therefore required.
Pedestrian areas are sometimes used for community activities, which are a good thing. However, these activities, such as markets and other events, should take care not to create barriers to accessing this space.
In terms of evaluation, the study found no useful evaluation tools for inclusive pedestrian spaces. This allows the more powerful voices to claim priority. Consequently, involving marginalised groups in decision-making processes is required.
Walking is the most basic form of mobility. It is used as a mode of transportation in every journey, whether it involves a vehicle or not. Therefore, everyone depends on walking to meet their transportation needs. However, policymakers often assume all pedestrians have a productive age and have the same level of capability.
A variety of definitions of inclusive mobility means inclusivity of pedestrian areas cannot be standardized. On one hand, mobility policy should consider the various demands of individuals. On the other, there is a desire for a uniform approach in practice.
Finding a balance between these topics is the main goal of this research. This study sought a deeper understanding of the definition of inclusive pedestrian areas and factors that influence the level of inclusivity.
The questions regarding inclusivity; “of what”, “for whom, “by whom and “how much’’ are studied. Two cases are examined namely Oslo, Norway and Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
The results show that an inclusive pedestrian area is defined as an area accessible to and usable by everyone. Further, it is an area that quickly adapts to different purposes in comparison to space for other travel modes. Therefore, pedestrian space often comes under strain.
Participation varies greatly by type of project and evaluation is poor. A strong national goal and a strategy is needed to raise awareness and provide binding rules and funding.
Pedestrian connectivity to parks
Green open space and parks are considered good for our health. Accessing this space depends on being able to walk there. That means footpaths are a critical element in using this valuable urban space.
A study in Bloemfontein was prompted by reduced usage of urban parks. It was found inadequate footpaths were the barrier to access. Perceptions of footpath safety have a big role to play.
Public parks play a pivotal role in improving community life in residential neighbourhoods when a walk to a park near home as part of a daily routine. But a decline in the usage of both public parks and footpaths in residential areas of South Africa is an issue.
A crucial element of pedestrian infrastructure that promotes walkability is footpaths. This study analysed the functionality of footpaths in a suburb in Bloemfontein city in South Africa and to propose design guidelines for improvement to promote access to public parks in the suburb.
The study employs the Conjoint analysis technique to identify factors deterring pedestrians from using sidewalks, thus hindering access to public parks. Physical layout, and the perceived and actual safety of pedestrians are the primary factors impacting footpath usage.
For instance, pedestrians frequently opt for roadways over footpaths despite potential risks, mainly due to insufficient pedestrian-friendly infrastructure. The findings suggest that infrastructure upgrades, connected sidewalks and parks, safety measures, inclusive design, community awareness programs, and periodic reviews of pedestrian needs can lead to cities that promote active lifestyles and become more inclusive, sustainable, and conducive to holistic well-being.
Furthermore, this study demonstrates that the Conjoint analysis technique is a powerful tool in urban planning, providing valuable insights into pedestrian preferences and their implications for infrastructure improvement decisions.
Pedestrian pathways should be designed to meet the needs of regular pedestrians and accommodate individuals with disabilities. However, a substantial number of pedestrian routes across Indonesia remain inaccessible for people with disability.
This study aimed to evaluate and design disability-friendly pedestrian pathways for optimal accessibility and safety in Indonesia. A pedestrian pathways model was derived using a literature review, observation and simulation and a focus group discussion. The results found none of the pedestrian pathways meet the criteria for individuals with disabilities.
Pedestrians with physical limitations argue that pedestrian pathways cannot provide comfort to support their movement. The evaluation results show that people with disabilities face difficulty accessing pedestrian pathways. This research produces pedestrian pathway designs based on three universal principles. They are: adequate maneuvering space, clear signage and information, and appropriate surface materials. These universal design principles refer to efforts to create accessible, safe, and comfortable environments for everyone, regardless of age and physical ability.
These four words, planning, diversity, inequity and justice all belong in the same sentence. Being excluded from places and spaces means walking, public transport, work, education, and seeing friends are out of reach. But good design can fix it.
The way we plan and design for human diversity requires serious rethinking if we genuinely want to address inequity and injustices in our suburbs and cities.
Image from the inclusive communities workshop.
Lisa Stafford is a planner and researcher and she urges the planning fraternity to be change agents. Her short article in Urbanet neatly spells out the reasons why and what needs to change. Stafford is leading a research project with people aged 9 to 92 years to identify the details of the changes we need.
The changes needed in planning
To address the injustices we must adapt and retrofit our suburbs and cities for sustainable inclusive futures. People with disability have a right to access everyday spaces, housing, transport and social infrastructure.
Stafford’s article discusses changing the narrative and confronting ableism and adopting inclusive urban governance. Treating people with disability as equals in planning processes requires a universal design approach. Stafford points out that the New Urban Agenda and SDG 11 are about disability justice. Adopting inclusive urban governance, planning, and leadership are a good start.
Stafford concludes the article with a call to action:
“Planning for equity and inclusion is an essential approach. We simply will not have sustainable suburbs and cities if they are not inclusive and just. The message for our profession is simple – we must do better. Be a change agent by considering your ways of working and what it means to plan better for equity and inclusion.”
Diversity is more than disability and urban planners also have to consider many other groups including gender, ages, and cultural background. This is the era of intersectionality – we can be more than one identity.
Evolving perspectives on disability
A literature review of the evolving perspectives on disability focuses on the interaction of the built environment and people with disability. It concludes with some recommendations which are not new to followers of universal design. However, it adds to the growing literature on the topic. Briefly, the recommendations are:
1. Create accessible environments by removing physical barriers to spaces, places and transport. 2. Adequate amendments and enforcement of existing accessibility legislation. Currently, the laws are poorly executed in plans and practice. 3. Adequate funding, investment in specific programs and services for people with disability. 4. Increase public awareness about disability rights and building human resource capacity training of staff and professionals. 5. Involvement of people with disability in policy and design. 6. Strengthen and support research on disability.
This paper discusses social and medical models of disability. The end result is a focus on accessibility rather than inclusive design and universal design. 21st century universal design thinking and practice has moved past describing the models of disability. However, this paper provides historical context for newcomers to universal design and accessibility.
Legislation promotes inclusive design and accessibility in every sphere of life, but doesn’t enforce it. Anti-discrimination legislation also demands equity and inclusion, but people continue to face barriers and stigmatising stereotyping.
Prevailing narratives inform design
Narratives, or the way we talk about about everyday things, are expressed in many forms whether intended or not. Policies, plans and designs are all affected by prevailing societal narratives. But we can turn that around and challenge those narratives with our designs . This is essential if we are to make our world more inclusive and equitable for our diverse population.
A paper from the UK discusses this issue and offers a matrix of concepts for designers to consider when designing. This is not to provide a solution but to stimulate critical reflection on the role of narratives in design.
Remodelling a sloping urban open space with a heritage building is no easy task. Taking a universal design approach is one way to solve the issues. The re-design of Schandorffs Square shows how to turn a parking lot into a park using a universal design framework.
The problem was making a city space, with a heritage wall and gate, on a sloping site into a pleasant place to walk, and to have informal get-togethers.
The height difference of seven metres was the main challenge. But with some universal design thinking to drive the design they came up with a successful inclusive and accessible design. Lots of seating areas and visual contrast increase the accessibility of the site. In addition, designers also found the right mix of plants to suit people with allergies.
See more detailon the story about this universally designed open space and the difficulties they overcame. Several photos illustrate the final design, and the designer explains their universal design approach in a Vimeo video.
Editor’s Note: Norway has almost no flat land and is at the forefront of rolling out universal design everywhere. So the myth that you can’t do UD on sloping sites is put to bed.
Re-modelling a city park
A landscape study brings together aspects of universal design and accessibility with wellbeing. Using an existing park in a Polish city as a case study, researchers had to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of eliminating some features in favour of others.
When the remodelling of the park was complete, the final assessment phase showed increased visitation. However, getting to the park was still problematic due to the poor accessibility from nearby streets. This is a key point and something emphasised in the Everyone Can Play guideline that has the three key elements for a successful play space: Can I get there? Can I play? Can I stay?
Urban population growth, climate change, and the energy crisis pose significant challenges for local authorities in shifting policy-making towards sustainable development. The debate on urban planning has centred on the placemaking approach and the implementation of the 15-minute city and smart city concepts. This approach promotes sustainable urban development reliant on links between the natural environment, the economy, and society.
The aim of this study was to explore the possibilities of urban planning solutions that contribute to sustainable urban development. The study was conducted in a medium-sized Polish city where public recreational spaces were redesigned in line with the principles of sustainable urban development.
The Technical Insights section of the Autumn 2023 edition of Access Insight is about luminance contrast. This is a hot topic of discussion because it is a slippery concept. What is it and how do you measure it are the starter questions, followed by why do we need it.
This image, courtesy the Egress Group, shows discrete silver tactiles against a dark red carpet. The light grey stair nosings are also contrasted against a black carpet.
Howard Moutrie explains that luminance is the amount of light reflected from a surface. The contrast is the amount of light reflected from abutting surfaces. For example the wall and the floor. This is not the same as colour contrast. Red and green are stark colour contrasts but will often provide the same amount of luminance. Therefore there it is not luminance contrast.
So how do you determine luminance contrast? This is where it becomes slippery. Are you measuring this in a laboratory under controlled conditions? Are you measuring it on the street on a rainy day? Or are you measuring it a nighttime? An appendix to the Australian Standard (AS 1428.4.1) is part of the standard with the most up to date calculation.
Moutrie goes on to explain how testing on tactile indicators is not the same as testing on other surfaces. Then there is the issue of how different instruments provide different measurements for the same thing.
The original requirement for a 30% contrast was based on an integrated tactile where the whole surface provided the contrast. Individual tactiles, such as individual stainless steel ones, are supposed to have 45% contrast. Moutrie is critical of the way luminance is measured but the industry has geared up to meet these measurements. He says more research is still needed.
Why do we need it?
People with low vision need the contrast to navigate the environment, including at home. It helps distinguish a door from a wall, and the wall from the floor. It’s also good for people with impaired visual perception. For example not being able to see a white toilet pan in an all white bathroom.
There is more on this topic in, Luminance contrast: how do you measure it? With the cost of measuring apparatus, much is left to doing it by eye. Or relying on manufacturers claims.
