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.
The authors used a higher education context for their study. Educational environments lack adequate furniture in classes, auditoriums, libraries and eating areas.
Image of Qatar University showing the passive ventilation and cooling chimneys.
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.
Photos of environmental barriers provide important information for urban planners. They can see more clearly how the small details matter. This image shows an uneven footpath and no clear access to the bus stop.
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.
This image shows a woman with a walking aid and a man with a baby stroller need to pass on a narrow path encroached by gravel and mulch.
Image by John Evernden
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.
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.
Level footpaths, seating, and shade create an attractive and inclusive place to walk and sit.
The recent pandemic tells us to take another look at how we maintain (or not) healthy minds and bodies.
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.
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.
The article explains the economic benefits of healthy placemaking. The Design Council defines healthy placemaking as, “tackling preventable disease by shaping the built environment so that healthy activities and experiences are integral to people’s everyday lives.”
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
The links between urban design and physical and mental health are well established. So how do you take an evidence-based approach to health-promoting urban design and green spaces? Swedish landscape architects wanted to know how to translate existing evidence into design and looked to researchers to help.
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.
We need healthy architecture – that is, architecture that supports human health and wellness. Louis Rice claims that human illness is related to the design of the built environment.
Key issues are discussed in a book chapterthat 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
Abstract: Research into health, particularly social and psychological health, is crucial. Ultimately, an in-depth understanding of social and psychological health will more than promote well-being.
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.
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.
“As we strive for an inclusive and sustainable society, it is crucial to develop and implement new behaviors and design methods that enable individuals to effectively coexist with nature.”
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
Design impacts both social and economic value to a community, but how do you measure and track it? The RIBA Social Value Toolkit has the answer. The Toolkit makes it easy to evaluate and demonstrate the impact of design on people and communities. A research project by the University of Reading provided the evidence for the Toolkit.
“If we cannot define what we mean by value, we cannot be sure to produce it, nor to share it fairly, nor to sustain economic growth.” (Mazzucato, 2018)
“Social value is created when buildings, places, and infrastructure support environmental, economic and social wellbeing to improve people’s quality of life.” (UK Green Building Council)
The underpinning concepts for the Toolkit are based in the wellbeing literature. Social value of architecture is in fostering positive emotions, connecting people, and in supporting participation. The Toolkit has two parts. A library of post occupancy evaluation questions, and a monetisation tool that links to other post occupancy evaluation processes.
Eilish Barry says that if we don’t define and measure the social impact of design, it will be pushed further down the priority list as costs rise. Generating social value is useful for potential future residents as well as designers and developers. Barry poses five recommendations for industry in her Fifth Estate article:
Knowledege sharing is vital
We need a common language
Social value should be part of the design process
Methodologies need to be flexible
Opportunity for collaboration (Eilish Barry pictured)
The Social Value Toolkit
The library of questions means you don’t have to reinvent the wheel. They cover positive emotions, connecting, freedom and flexibility, and participation. Each of these has a monetary value attached.
The dimensions of social value in the built environment context.
The approach to monetising social outcomes is based on Social Return on Investment. There are several different ways to measure this.
Value for money: Willingness to pay extra for something you value.
Time is money: The value of savingtime.
Subjective Wellbeing valuation: Putting a value on wellbeing – most appropriate to understanding the impact of design on end users.
The Toolkit references the UK Social Value Bank, an open access source that contains a series of values based on subjective wellbeing valuation. There is also an Australian Social Value Bank with resources.
The Toolkit is briefly explained on the Royal Institute of British Architects website where you can download the 2MB document. Or you can access the document here.
Built environment designs and research studies rarely consider children. At best, research singles out children for attention as needing special arrangements. The same happens for older people. However both generations often want or need the same things. Indeed, footpaths are key for children, older people and everyone else.
A research paper by Lisa Stafford focuses on children with disability – a group rarely considered in environmental planning and policy. That’s despite the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities including children.
It’s important to study everyday practice, actions, meanings and understandings children have about places and spaces.
“Taken for granted” mundane activities of an individual’s life reveal how people use and act in everyday places. Conversely, it also shows how those places shape the lives of individuals – especially in what they cannot do. Stafford’s qualitative study reveals the everyday lives of children with disability and what they can and cannot do outside the home.
From the findings
Children with disability lacked freedom to move and engage in everyday activities. For example, driveways and disconnected footpaths meant this was as far as they could go. Cars going too fast meant that riding a bike did not feel safe. “I’d like to go over the road to say hi without having to worry about people speeding”, said one participant.
Stafford’s paper reports verbatim conversations with children which makes for interesting reading. Children had their movements constrained, not by disability, but by the design of the environment.
What a street looks like, the function it serves and the activities it permits are based on socio-cultural norms. Streets are full of assumptions about the people who use them.
Although footpaths are key for all pedestrians they are not consistently provided in local streets. Walkability continues to be measured by the road rather than the footpath.
The neighbourhood is influential in encouraging children’s independent mobility and activity participation. However, its influence on the everyday experiences of children with disabilities is not well understood. This article is about the accounts of ten nine-12 year olds from south-east Queensland, Australia, who have diverse mobility impairments. The study reveals that mobility is a conditional act.
Conditionality is understood by the way social and spatial factors intersect to influence one’s mobility about the street – or in this case coerced immobility. The mismatch between children movement and the neighbourhood environment is revealed. It is intensified by the absent footpath, with repercussions for their activity participation.
The findings suggest the importance of understanding diverse body-space practices in mobility studies and the need to contest ableism in street design to create inclusive walkable neighbourhoods for all.
Typical engineering courses have plenty of design content but they lack concepts of design justice. Engineers have done much to improve lives for the better. However, there are instances where the opposite occurs and unintentional harms are caused. Time to introduce the concepts of design justice into engineering courses, according to a recent paper.
Using a design justice lens, the inequities in the built environment come to light. Design justice seeks to address the ways in which design decisions perpetuate systemic injustices.
The paper describes how undergraduate students were tasked to assess an established neighbourhood where major highway now divides what was a thriving neighbourhood. Students were asked to review the case using principles of design justice.
Principles of design justice
The 10 principles of design justice are compared to the Engineering Code of Ethics. This is important because engineering ethics are about engineer practice, not who they design for. For example, avoiding conflicts of interest is not the same as being collaborative and a facilitator of design. The list of principles focus on the users of the design and introduces elements of co-design. These principles shift the focus from their skills as engineers to their skills of listening to and understanding users.
Self reflection on the learning
The author tracks the methods used and then uses direct quotes from students to highlight the learning. Here are two examples:
“The real lesson of the exercise though is just how big of an impact design can have on people and how long that the impact can be felt even generations later.”
“I have been aware that design can cause unintended harm but have never had a list of principles to reference when creating a design. I can now use this list to create just designs in my life.”
The principles of design justice are a good framework for engineers and others involved in design. The engineering profession is seeking ways to improve diversity and inclusion within their ranks. Now it is time to ensure diversity and inclusion is part of their everyday activity.
This article explores the relevance of universal design and empathic design in education. Universal design focuses on creating accessible and usable products, environments, and systems for individuals with diverse abilities.
Empathy involves understanding and sharing the feelings of others, encompassing cognitive, emotional, and compassionate empathy. Teaching empathy to engineers is emphasized as a crucial aspect. By developing empathic skills, engineers gain a deeper understanding of user needs and perspectives, leading to more inclusive and user-centered design solutions.
Effective communication techniques such as asking open-ended questions, active listening, observation, and perspective-taking are explored. The article also explores methods for measuring empathy, thus enabling engineers to assess the effectiveness of their empathic design approaches. The challenges facing students, teachers, and university authorities in implementing such courses are also bulleted.
Co-design and engineering education
Project-based learning is common within engineering education, particularly in design courses. This is where students follow a standard design process to solve a specific problem. In some cases, students are paired with community partners to solve real-life problems.
A research paper documenting how engineering students engaged in co-design methods uses the design of a clip mounted on a mop bucket as an example. The aim was to make the mop and bucket easier to move and transport. What began as a two-week design assignment turned into a 10 month iterative co-design experience. The result was the implementation of a successful product for multiple users across campus.
The commercial mop bucket did not have a restraint for the mop when the bucket was being wheeled to a new place. The users were concerned that the mop could cause an accident on campus. They had complained about it, but until the student project nothing had been done.
The case study
Over time, using the mop bucket, the “pet peeve” eventually became something really annoying. The community partners became worried about the unpredictability of the mop handle. The new clip not only secured the mop handle, it improved the ergonomics for the users. The co-design process also revealed how users felt their worries were ignored and how they felt belittled.
The paper, Embracing Co-Design: A Case Study Examining How Community Partners Became Co-Creators explains the process and the outcomes. Both the actions and reactions of the students and community partners are documented. With the success of this project, the authors hope more engineering educators will promote co-design in their project-based assignments. A good example of how good solutions emerge when everyone works together.
Co-design ensures the desires, opinions, and concerns of people affected by the design, are incorporated. This widens the circle of designers and improves the final design and the experience for all participants. Incorporating community partners early in the process produces more novel ideas and improved ergonomic products.
In addition, communities tend to embrace the solution more and support its long-term maintenance because they were involved in decisions. However, it’s important to make sure no marginalised voices are excluded, unintentionally or otherwise.
From the abstract
Co-design increases the number of voices in a design project, which enhances the experience for all co-creators and produces a better product. A case study is presented of a ten-month co-design project-based learning experience between two engineering design students and two community partners during a first-year engineering design course, which resulted in the implementation of the device across campus.
This paper evaluates the elements of co-design in the design process that was employed, documents the design product that was produced, and examines the experience of the community partners through a qualitative study. The design process demonstrated an increase in the amount of collaboration between co-creators as the project progressed and identified 15 iterations of the design.
Comparing the experience of community partners throughout the design process, five themes emerged from the semi-structured interviews: (1) emotional effects, (2) physical and mental effects, (3) productivity, (4) safety, and (5) job satisfaction. Documenting the experience of community partners throughout the design project can encourage educators to adopt co-design practices in project-based learning.
Creating inclusive, universally designed places and spaces includes many professions, but it is often the architects who take the design lead. However, architects around the world understand universal design in different ways. For some it means complying with minimal disability access legislation at the end of the project. But for the enlightened, it means thinking universal design first – from the outset. For many it is somewhere in between.
Two academics, an architect and a social scientist, applied a set of universal design criteria to various projects to find good examples. They present their findings in a paper along with their selection criteria and examples.
Four case studies are central to this research on the application of universal design principles. The Dialogue Centre in Warsaw, the Alexandrina Library in Alexandria, the Issam Fares Institute in Beirut, and the Winter Visual Arts Center, Philadelphia. Image: Dialogue Centre Przelomy by KWK Promes.Photo by Juliusz Sokołowski.
The paper begins with an introduction and a literature review. The method of the study includes their parameters of analysis and selection criteria. Diagrams and photographs add to the explanations and provide a deep view of each of the projects. A table presents a comparison of the four projects on 6 criteria: community involvement, access and equitable use, transgenerational, legibility, flexibility and equity of gender and age.
What they found
Overall, the Dialogue Centrehad more universal design ideas, whereas the other three focused on people with mobility impairments. The Issam Fares Institute‘s main function is to research solutions for all ages and genders. However, this was not architecturally evident. The architects involved the students at the Winter Visual Arts Center in the design, but flexibility for access is low. The Alexandrina Libraryis the oldest building in the case studies, completed in 2001. The building has separate access for people with mobility impairments, but the library content is good for all ages and has sections for people who are blind.
The researchers conclude that universal design is a solid starting point for design, and their assessment criteria are a good basis for creating inclusive and equitable use of major public buildings.
Image of Bibliotheca Alexandrina in Egypt. Photo: Gerald Zugmann
From the abstract
Architecture is for everyone. It needs to give a chance to everyone to feel included in facilities and public spaces. When architects design built environments following disability regulations they tend to think of it as a burden. But what’s needed is an innovative architectural approach. A universal space is a place where all people can fit and feel equal and satisfied regardless of individual characteristics or social grouping.
Taking a universal design approach is either used wrongly or divided into accessible or/and inclusive architecture. This research investigates the significance of universal design to create spaces and environments that everyone can use.
This research uses a scientific methodology by first reading the literature on universal design and its application in the design of spaces. This is followed by examining and comparing four chosen case studies, which are from Poland, Egypt, USA and Lebanon. The findings support the authors’ argument that universal design is a solid starting point for appropriate design solutions. A series of recommendations are made about the effective use of this architectural approach.
Transport planners and engineers will be familiar with both the Safe System approach and the Movement and Place framework. The implicit assumption is that these approaches will put pedestrians first. But will they? The quest for reducing car use is focused on people walking and cycling more. Bike riders have successfully advocated for better cycling conditions in major cities. But has the infrastructure been beneficial for walkability and wheelability?
A universal design approach takes and inclusive whole of population view. It acknowledges that pedestrians are diverse and have varying abilities in negotiating street infrastructure.
Transport planners and engineers are guided by regulations related to the concept of mobility. However, this means things like transport demands, traffic impact and land use. A pedestrian’s view of mobility is more about moving around easily, safely and without impediments.
When the issue of equity arises, it is often framed from a transport disadvantage view. That means identifying specific pedestrian groups who need special treatment or accommodations. A commonly used collective term for all these groups is “vulnerable pedestrians”. But all pedestrians are vulnerable in the presence of motor vehicles. This terminology implicitly perpetuates negative stereotypes which lead to planning assumptions that are not necessarily accurate.
Older pedestrians are not all “slow walkers” and not all slow walkers are older. Given that most older people live in the community, it is a nonsense to just do special pedestrian treatment around aged care facilities. Same thing for children – they do more than just go to school.
See more on this discussion in Jane Bringolf’s article in Sourceable titled, Planning for walkability: Put pedestrians first. If we are serious about encouraging people to get out of their cars, it’s time to put pedestrians at the top of the road user hierarchy.
Making streets safer for pedestrians
This Fast Company article poses the idea that these painted designs are safer for pedestrian. However, not everyone will be safer if there is too much visual “noise”.
There’s a simple way to make streets safer for pedestrians.
According to aFast Company article, most serious accidents happen at intersections. One way to prevent them is not a new traffic signal but a bucket of paint. Street art, literally on the roadway at intersections, seems to provide one solution.
The bright colours are difficult for drivers to miss and tend to cause them to slow down. Or at least, to be more cautious and more attentive to pedestrians. If it works as a traffic calming solution then it’s a good idea. However, is it a good idea for all pedestrians?
People with cognitive conditions and reduced visual perception could find the painted surfaces distracting. While the street art is welcome on the endless asphalt, it would be good to get user testing from different groups.
Don’t need new signals, just a bucket of paint.
The Fast Company article has many pictures of attractive brightly coloured artworks at intersections which tell the story. The pilot project was funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies and now it’s being rolled out in different states.
More than three quarters of the projects studied saw reduced traffic crashes after the artworks were installed. Now Bloomberg Philanthropies plans to continue the work in Europe.
The title of the article is, “The ridiculously simple way to make streets safer for pedestrians”.
There are several good guides on planning and designing cities and suburbs. But how many are unwittingly based on ableist and ageist polices and plans? If they are based on a narrow body type of “young, adult, fit white male” then they are likely ableist. This narrow view makes other bodies and minds invisible and therefore excluded. Lisa Stafford challenges the planning community to be change-makers in creating inclusive suburbs for mind and body.
“Realising this vision will require a drastic shift in the way we think, in our planning and design systems, and in our ways of working.”
Stafford’s article in Cities People Love, explains how ableism plays out in policies and planning systems. When change doesn’t come from those in power, the advocacy has to come from citizen action. Citizen advocacy for disability inclusion has been running for 30 years, and the fight continues. If planners take a universal design mindset, so much more could change for a significant proportion of the population.
5 Elements of inclusive planning
Here is a brief overview of Stafford’s key elements for inclusive planning.
Human diversity is valued and embedded in all aspects of planning. To be inclusive, planning must that humans are diverse in both mind and body across the lifespan.
All people centred public planning processes and decision (urban governance). Collaborative processes encompass a diversity of minds, bodies, ages and languages for all people to be actively involved.
Inclusively designed spaces and infrastructure are assets of a community with equity at the core. This means moving beyond compliance with minimum standards to a performance-based planning approach informed by universal design.
Planning for connectedness between nature, people and place. Infrastructure such as footpaths, seating, public spaces, community green spaces, and treed streets, supports encounters and gatherings that help build and strengthen a sense of place and belonging.
Vibrant places and experiences. Vibrant places give a sense of fun, friendliness, creativity, and participation. A diverse cross-section of people are attracted to vibrant and accessible places where they feel comfortable to stay longer.
The lived knowledge and experience of affected citizens should guide design processes. Everyone learns from co-design processes.
Stafford invites planners to reflect on the five elements and become leaders and change-makers. “Planning for equity and inclusion in our suburbs is the only way we can create fairness of access, and uphold everyone’s rights to live in the suburbs and participate fully in everyday life.”
Architectural competitions can bring design quality to cities. But the design competition process misses the opportunity to engage deeply with the public. And that means social value could be missing too. The process of community driven design competitions addresses unequal access to design decisions and cultivates social ties.
“Design has a role in building social capital. During a design competition, there are opportunities for placemaking and designing in social connectors.” Georgia Vitale
Image: 11th Street Bridge Park. Courtesy OMA + OLIN
Community consultation takes many forms, some of which are perfunctory while others are more meaningful. That is, meaningful for the public – the users of places and spaces. The judges of architectural design competitions are other architects. So how does community consultation and engagement fit into this process?
Vitale’s article explores the drawbacks of limited or no meaningful public participation or interaction with users of the building or place or other stakeholders in design competitions. This is at a time for an increased need for social capital to be included in the planning and design process for more socially sustainable communities.
Social infrastructure, shared spaces and streets, and public transport are the outputs of design. However, community engagement with diverse community members helps create new connections. it also encourages people to become involved in the lives of their neighbours. That’s the social benefit of community driven design competitions.
Case Study
Vitale uses 11th Street Bridge Park DC as a case study. The goal is to knit together the two communities on either side of the river. And that’s without displacing people in the marginalised neighbourhoods on the eastern bank.
Are pedestrians getting a fair share for walking and wheeling on our streets? Or are they forced to drive because footpaths are either not present or poorly maintained? Lack of seating, shade, and too few pedestrian crossings all add to a preference to take the car. More significantly, poor pedestrian infrastructure prevents people with disability and older people from making the journey at all.
Most people value walkability, yet most communities underinvest in pedestrian facilities. We need more investment in footpaths and pedestrian crossings to better serve community.
The percentage of total trips made by walking by country
People who cannot drive or own a car are most disadvantaged because they have little choice but to walk or wheel. If the infrastructure is unsupportive or feels unsafe, many will avoid an area or just not make the journey. Consequently the prevalence of disability is invisible to planners.
Assumptions about older people all living in aged care also makes invisible the 95% of older people living in the community. However, plans or designs recommended as suited to aged care locations can, and should, be applied throughout the community.
Why people don’t walk
A graph from Litman shows the reasons people don’t walk by age group. The graph supports statistics of prevalence of health issues in the community. While it is expected that older age groups would cite health as a reason for not walking more, 25-30% of younger age groups also cite health.
Not feeling safe due to traffic is another factor with an average of 40% saying this is an issue. The lower statistical count on this question for older people is likely due to only making journeys where they feel safe as they are more risk averse.
Walkability solutions
The solutions rest on a connected network of footpaths and to services such as shops, cafes, and medical centres within walking distance. These footpaths need to clearly separate pedestrians from cyclists and motor vehicles. Shared paths are particularly problematic for older people, people with dogs, and people with vision and hearing impairments.
The title of the Todd Litman article isFair share for walking. He mentions universal design standards for footpaths that are smooth and wide. They also need kerb ramps compliant to standards for all pedestrians. Cost arguments need to be met with counter arguments of the human and environmental cost of not creating pedestrian environments that encourage walking and wheeling.
The research paper mentioned in the Litman article is titledOverview of Walking Rates, Walking Safety and Government Policies to Encourage More and Safer Walking in Europe and North America. European countries have shown the way on how to encourage walking and wheeling.
From the abstract
This paper documents variation in walking rates among countries, cities in the same country, and in different parts of the same city.
Our international analysis shows that walking rates are highest for short trips, higher for women than for men, decline with increasing income, and remain constant as age increases. Walking fatality rates are much higher in the USA compared with the other countries we examined, both per capita and per km walked.
Government policies for increasing walking rates and improving pedestrian safety include: integrated networks of
safe and convenient walking infrastructure;
roadways and intersections designed for the needs of pedestrians;
land-use regulations that encourage mixed uses and short trip distances;
lower city-wide speed limits and traffic calming in residential neighborhoods;
reduced supply and increased price of parking;
traffic laws that give priority to pedestrians;
improved traffic education for motorists and non-motorists;
tax surcharges on large personal vehicles; and
strict enforcement of laws against drink and distracted driving.
