Category: Research papers for built environment

Certification for universal design and accessibility should be tested by different users to be sure it is worthy. An hotel in New York with an isUD certification was 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.

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.

The title of the article is, Understanding Hotel Design Priorities for Individuals of Different Physical Ability Levels. Note that in the U.S. the term universal design is used interchangeably with accessibility and has a focus on disability.

From the conclusion

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

It’s not a case of difficulty or lack of knowledge about how to make 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 approach, and it’s not inclusive.

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 title is, Bridging the Gaps: Realising Human Diversity in the Built Environment Through Universal Design.

From the abstract

The ongoing exclusion of persons with disabilities from the built environment does not result from a lack of knowledge on how to remedy existing obstacles nor of how to avoid creating new ones. There must be other reasons.

This thesis explores how to achieve more equal and inclusive environments by using universal design to incorporate human diversity in all stages of planning and construction. The thesis consists of three studies which are the bases of five articles.

The first is the theoretical framework that involves planning and construction processes and forms of governance. The second is the view of the users of the built environment and how they are categorised, and choices and priorities in the planning process. The third is theories of universal design.

The studies included a document study, a multiple case study, semi-structured interviews, workshops and go-along interviews in three cities. The findings show numerous factors that influence the conditions for how human diversity is included or not in urban development processes.

These factors include the norms and categorisations of the users, current urban building trends, and planning practices. Examples show how universal design can be implemented in the entire process – from idea to finished construction. The findings show the need for several changes.

All studies demonstrate the importance of protecting significant societal goals throughout planning and construction processes. This indicates that public actors must take greater responsibility to lead planning processes and follow up on the results.

The municipalities are at the forefront of defending social goals and operationalising conventions that Sweden has undertaken to follow. Being able to access and use the built environment is a fundamental human right.

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.

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.

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.

The title of the Masters thesis is, Inclusive mobility in pedestrian areas: Defining and evaluating inclusive pedestrian areas in Oslo, Norway, and Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Photos of case study examples are included in the document.

From the abstract

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.

The title of the article is, Pedestrian connectivity: A focus on residential neighbourhood sidewalks to promote accessibility to public parks.

From the abstract

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.

Enhancing inclusivity for pathways

This paper is not open access but it takes a universal design approach to pedestrian access for people with disability. The title of the paper is, Enhancing Inclusivity: Designing Disability Friendly Pedestrian Pathways. It might also be available from the authors on ResearchGate.

From the abstract

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.

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:

The title of the article is, Celebrating Human Diversity – Urban Planning for Disability 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.

The title of the paper is, Design as an agent of narrative: A matrix and framework for incorporating narrative into deign processes.

When money becomes a barrier to designing inclusively, it doesn’t mean you can’t do anything. From Qatar comes a paper which describes assessment criteria for prioritising inclusive design features. The research study assumed that designers were responsible for coming up with the right solutions rather than including users in the process.

For building upgrades, the authors concluded the need to prioritise criteria where the buildings were either partially or fully inadequate for physical access. The highest ranked criteria were, external access route, design and surface of exterior ramps and operation of entrance doors. These criteria indicate that people with limited mobility were the only consideration.

The participants in the study were access practitioners and experts within the facilities management team. It would be interesting to see if students with disability agreed with the proposed ranking of criteria. They would likely agree that getting into the building is the most important, but is that enough?

The title of the article is, Criteria and Challenges of Inclusive Design in the Built Environment. There is little new knowledge in this paper for universal design practitioners as many have moved on to embrace co-design processes. However, it is interesting to see a different perspective on the issues when funding is a barrier.

From the abstract

Ensuring an inclusive environment is the responsibility of architects, planners, engineers and facility managers. It is essential to ensure that buildings’ design and operation align with inclusive principles through regular assessments.

Many comprehensive assessment tools exist and are used in the industry. Decision-makers should be able to prioritise inclusive design criteria when issues such as funding arise.

This study aims to identify prioritized accessibility assessment criteria for people with disability in higher education facilities through the lens of experts. A targeted sampling methodology was adopted for the semi-structured interviews.

This study aimed to identify the accessibility assessment criteria in higher education facilities. The lens of experts provided justification for selecting the highest and lowest priorities.

The findings resulted in a list of highest and lowest criteria, and criteria with significant differences. Justifications for selections, and a close-up look into the influence of experts’ experience on the rankings was also part of the study.

This paper provides insight into significant inclusive design criteria for improved facility management decision-making processes and the strategy for managing the challenges of inclusive design in new and existing facilities.

The stories of lived experience provide important nuanced details that are rarely picked up in survey questionnaires or comparing one group with another. One way to capture lived experience is by using “photovoice” – a method of visually recording experiences. This method reveals detailed ways of creating healthy and inclusive communities for all.

Five Canadian researchers used the photovoice method to discover the everyday barriers and facilitators mobility device users face. Participants not only provided photographic evidence, they related what it meant for them as an outcome. Unsurprisingly, footpaths, road crossings and road maintenance and construction featured strongly in their findings.

Participants in the study captured physical characteristics that both helped and hindered their ability to navigate the environment. Objective assessments such as access audits, do not reveal the complex interaction of social participation and health. Lived experience and the everyday stories, on the other hand, provide this valuable information.

Key points and themes

Five key themes emerged from the study.

En Route: the usability and safety of the physical path to reach a destination, road crossings and traffic signals. Included in this theme are footpath width, maintenance and surface materials.

Thresholds: Accessibility issues in the transition spaces from outdoors to indoors at a destination. Difficulty getting into shops and other public places limited access to goods and services.

Temporal Rhythms: Fluctuations of accessibility with circadian and seasonal variations as well as urban practices. Differences between day and night where it is easy during the day but not at night. Temporary closures to footpaths due to maintenance meant going back home or trying to find another route.

The Paradox of Accessibility: Fluctuation of accessibility due to inappropriate usage or of conflicting user needs. Participants also found examples of poor attempts at accessibility such as a ramp leading to sand or gravel, or a ramp with a steep grade. The conflict of cyclists using the wider footpaths was also an issue.

Making Change Happen: Actions and solutions to improve the accessibility. Participants were not passive in accepting the status quo. They showed pictures where they had successfully lobbied for changes to a business or a community building. Participants also showed the converse – places where their lobbying had not yet brought about change.

Installing kerb ramps, footpaths and pedestrian crossings are essential physical improvements. However, changing social and urban practices have a role to play as well. The participation of people using mobility devices needs to go beyond tokenism. That means involving users in decision making process – a universal design concept.

The title of the article is, Creating inclusive and healthy communities for all: A photovoice approach with adults with mobility limitations.

Healthy Living Tool

Staying active and being healthy is a good thing. So, what can designers do to encourage active healthy living? And does it go beyond the level of the built environment? How can we encourage people to venture out of their homes and engage in “healing” activity? Two researchers have devised a multidisciplinary healthy living tool to help.

The researchers looked at many theories and design practices to find designs that support healthy behaviour and reduce stress. From this work they devised a multidisciplinary tool to guide design decision for shared spaces. The ultimate aim was to encourage people to engage physically, socially and psychologically in different built environment settings.

The research paper describes the methods they used for developing the tool for inclusive self-directed healthy behaviours. A matrix of theories was created from urban planning, biophilia, active living and social engagement design. Clear definitions, using a rating system, created a list of criteria from the research.

Although the tool continues to be modified, the article describes an interesting multidisciplinary approach to design for human wellbeing. The process of discussion on design features takes thinking another step forward. The authors found that the dialogue between individuals with different experiences facilitated a blending of knowledge for a holistic, inclusive approach to design.

The title of the article is, Evaluating design features to support inclusive, self-directed, and active healthy living behaviours.

Healthy View of Placemaking

An opinion piece on the Design Council website gives an overview of the study they did with Social Change UK. More than 600 built environment practitioners across the UK completed the survey. They found that healthy placemaking often sits outside mainstream housing, public health and placemaking policy. 

Neighbourhoods that enable include:

• Physical activity: To increase walkability in buildings and neighbourhoods and encourage healthy modes of transport
• Healthy food: To improve access to healthier foods
• Social contact: To design well-connected housing and neighbourhoods that provide access to facilities and amenities to reduce social isolation and loneliness,
• Contact with nature: To provide access to the natural environment, including parks
• Pollution: Reducing exposure to air and noise pollution.

This all adds up to compact, mixed-use, walkable and wheelable neighbourhoods with leafy streets and great parks. 

Health promoting urban design

Researchers and landscape architects collaborated on a project using participatory action research methods. Researchers used existing evaluation tools and two case studies to test the processes. 

Aspects such as safety, vegetation, water flow, and traffic management were considered in the design. Residents with homes and gardens next to the park were concerned that this would attract visitors from other areas. New users were apparently not welcome to “their” space.

The article explains the collaborative processes that involved the researchers, the landscape architects and other stakeholders. The Quality Evaluation Tool was used as the framework for the study. Some landscape architects found it took time to learn how to use the tool. Others found it wasn’t easy to use it either – they needed something simpler.

The title of the article is, Health-promoting urban planning: A case study of an evidence-based design process.  There are reflections on participatory action research as part of the concluding comments.

Building health and wellness

Key issues are discussed in a book chapter that covers social, mental and physical health and “restorative” design. He proposes a “healthy architecture map” based on materials, environments, agency and behaviours. The title of the chapter is A health map for architecture: The determinants of health and wellbeing in buildings. 

There is more useful information and research in the book including a chapter from Matthew Hutchinson, The Australian dream or a roof over my head. An ecological view of housing for an ageing Australian population.  

The World Health Organization also links health and the built environment in the WHO Housing and Health Guidelines. It includes a chapter on accessible housing.

Health, Technology and Buildings: a review

Technology research is indispensable, particularly concerning health and the built environment, given the need to create holistic and supportive frameworks for well-being. Moreover, because literature reviews establish the foundation for academic inquiries, they provide valuable overviews for foresight into grey research areas, particularly multi-disciplinary research like health technology and the built environment.

Hence, this study aims to discover the existing themes on health, technology, and built-environment nexus subjects while revealing the grey areas and suggesting proactive areas for future research. 

The title of the paper is, Health, Technology And Built Environment Nexus: A Systematic Literature Review.

Nature-inclusive design approaches

A research paper from The Netherlands poses the need for participatory and nature-inclusive design approaches. A nature-centered perspective prioritises non-human species at the forefront of the design process.

The title of the paper is Preliminary study of participatory and nature-inclusive design approaches.

Nature-inclusive design has the potential to encourage people to reconnect with nature and value non-human species as much as humans. Non-human actors need to be recognised as part of the community and given a chance to coexist in an urban context