Category: Research papers for built environment

What’s the best way to evaluate the application of universal design principles in a project? Is it a checklist? A professional opinion? Or something else? And what kind of evaluation are we talking about? Surely evaluation is about the usability of the building from a user perspective. A group of researchers decided to find out how stakeholders were evaluating universal design in their projects.

“Evaluating universal design requires knowledge in many areas … Should not be done by a single person (e.g., architect), but by a board of people knowledgeable in the building environment, universal design, and of course representative users with varied ranges of disabilities.“

The Australian researchers undertook an extensive study involving 157 participants. More than half reported experience of disability, either themselves or a family member. Academics and access consultants represented the largest number of participants. When asked who is involved in universal design evaluation, the most common response was access consultants (45%). Disability advocates represented almost thirty percent (29.8%).

The research paper explains the processes used and the data gathered. Participants used specific tools or methods with checklists being a favourite, followed by access audits. This is where the understanding of universal design comes into question. However, some respondents were incorporating user feedback from the design conception stage.

Overall, almost all participants rated evaluation of universal design as being important. When asked who should do the evaluation, building users, building construction stakeholders and multiple stakeholders were identified. There was a trend towards access consultants being the people to do the evaluation.

Conclusion

The researchers claim that evaluation of universal design is being called for and carried out in practice. The results appear to divide into two camps. Those who think of universal design as a standard, and those who understand universal design as an iterative process.

However, evaluation from the perspective of meeting standards (did it comply?), or meeting the project scope (deliverables) does not tell you if the design is usable. The researchers conclude the paper with this sentence:

“[We need to] … better understand how people with disability can effectively participate in design processes, and what factors serve as barriers and facilitators to participation.”

Not sure that more research on how stakeholders evaluate universal design is the issue. Understanding the difference between access standards and universal design is still the key point.

The title of the paper is, Evaluating universal design of built environments: an empirical study of stakeholder practice and perceptions. The researchers are based at Deakin University.

From the abstract

Universal design aims to reduce environmental barriers and enhance usability of buildings for all people, particularly those with disabilities.

This study aimed to gather information on current practice and what stakeholders perceive as important to universal design evaluation. A mixed methods approach was employed, and data were collected via online survey (n = 157) and semi-structured interviews (n = 37).

Participants included industry professionals, policy makers, government officials, academics, and people with disabilities. Just over one-third of participants stated that they had experience of evaluating universal design in public built environments.

Checklists were most commonly used, yet participants expressed concern with their suitability for this purpose. Almost all participants perceived evaluation of universal design as important, citing its value to advocacy, professional development and strengthening the evidence base of universal design.

Findings from this study highlight a tension between a checklist approach, and a multidisciplinary method that encompasses the complexity of universal design application.

Many followers of universal design will have critiqued the entry to Museum M in Leuven, Belgium as dangerous. Unfortunately, a Google image search on “universal design” includes images of this entry as examples of universal design. While this design might be architecturally creative, it is not architecturally inclusive or safe for everyone.

The entry steps to Museum M are mistakenly taken as an example of universal design. Consulting people with disability after construction revealed many concerns for safety.

An article by three Belgian researchers gives both sides of the design story. The classic design ideas and objectives of the architects, and the user experience. The article first discusses disability and the built environment from a justice perspective. They emphasise how architect’s human senses are not the same as everyone else. Museum M is used as a case study to explore the differing values of architects and users with disability.

“The descent before entering Museum M is supposed to symbolise its accessibility and openness to all people. When we mention this openness to Philip, he understands the idea, but for him it does not make
the museum more accessible.”

The architect thought it a good idea if visitors didn’t have to separate at the entrance. He could see no problems for wheelchair users by crossing the ramp through the stairs. This design is sometimes called “stramps” With no kerbing to the ramp, wheelchair users would need to be careful not to run off the grade into the steps. Although some wheelchair users might find this workable, it is not the case for people who are blind.

What Charlotte and Philip said

Charlotte is a wheelchair user and Philip has a vision impairment: their experiences are at odds with the grandiose ideas of the architect. Philip understands the idea of the stramps but it does not make the museum more accessible for him. The break in the handrail to accommodate the ramp section means he doesn’t know where the next handrail is.

The colour of the entrance is also causing an obstacle. The white colour when the sun is shining onto the floor it looks like one flat surface. Philip can’t make out the steps and combining it with ramp makes it more confusing. Charlotte isn’t comfortable about entering either because the ramp is not entirely visible for wheelchair users.

The title of the article is Enriching our Understanding of Architecture Through Disability Experience. It was published in 2013 but is still relevant as an example of what happens when you don’t co-design.

The “Go-Along” research method is a way of observing people in their local neighbourhood to see the streets from their perspective. It allows participants to tell their stories about the things they like and don’t like when getting out and about. 

The “go-along walking” method has been used with people with dementia. The findings provided insights into how people get around and their need to feel safe. 

A similar project was undertaken in Copenhagen focused on older people. The data was gathered using a Go-Pro camera and interviews.  Social interaction turned out to be the overall reason for going outdoors. Footpaths, seating and sheltered places were the most important design elements. Of course, these are not limited to older people. A case of “necessary for some and good for others”.

Photographs tell the personal stories and illustrate some of the findings.

The title of the article is, Going along with older people: exploring age-friendly neighbourhood design through their lens.  Springer Link has not granted open access, but you can request a copy from ResearchGate. It was published by the Journal of Housing and the Built Environment in 2020.

Abstract

Neighbourhoods are extremely important to older people, as this is where a great deal of their everyday life is spent and where social interaction happens. This is particularly the case in deprived neighbourhoods, where people with limited economic resources or physical limitations find it challenging to venture outside the neighbourhood.

A growing body of research suggests studying age-friendly neighbourhoods from a bottom-up approach which takes the diversity of the age group into account. This paper aims to investigate how the go-along method can serve to co-construct knowledge about age-friendly neighbourhood design in a deprived neighbourhood of Copenhagen with a diverse group of older people.

Sixteen go-along interviews were carried out with older people aged 59–90. The participants took on an expert role in their own everyday life and guided the researcher through the physical and social environments of their neighbourhood.

The go-alongs were documented with a GoPro camera. The data were analysed using situational analysis and was grouped into thematic categories. Our findings conclude that social interaction is the overall motivator for going outdoors and that dimensions of pavements, the seating hierarchy, the purpose of lawns, sheltered spaces and ‘unauthorised’ places are all neighbourhood design elements that matter in this regard.

The findings suggest to consider age-friendly details as the starting point for social interaction, to target the appropriate kind of age-friendly programs and to enhance empowerment through physical spaces. The go-along interview as a research method holds the potential for empowering older people and appreciating their diversity.

Planning inclusive communities begins with asking the right questions. For example: What makes an inclusive community? What stops communities being inclusive? When we say community, what do we mean? And what does inclusive mean?

Lisa Stafford’s research project sought to answer those questions and more. Her research heard from 97 people aged from 9 to 92 years. Some had a disability or long term health condition, and others were their family members or allies. The findings are presented in a reader friendly format rather than an academic article. 

Findings from Stage 1

The thoughts and experiences from participants with and without disability shared many aspects in common. Here are some of the points in brief.

An inclusive community is about people where everyone is valued and belongs. Everyone is valued and respected regardless of their culture or background. That means communities must be planned for all people – built for equity, fairness and accessibility. Inclusive communities are happy places where people have choices and safe spaces to have fun and socialise. So how do we make it happen?

The answer is planning together from the very beginning. People with disability, diverse groups, government and urban planning practitioners should all be involved. 

The Planning Inclusive Communities website explains the project in plain language with lots of graphics. There is also a link to an Easy English explanation of the project. The video below also gives an overview.

The title of the full report is What Makes Inclusive Communities? Meanings, Tensions, Change Needed and is downloadable in Word. It gives more detail about the background to the research and the findings. 

Stage 2 of this research project will identify people who want to help make change and create a plan for inclusive communities. 

https://youtu.be/s9LFt8LZ81k

Here is a quote from the website that has more information. 

“I feel like it’s all about everyone being able to equally engage in the environment in the community. For people with disabilities there is a lot of restraint and they can’t engage as much as other people. It’s also like equality is not enough, it should be equity so everyone has what they need to be able to engage in that community. Because I feel like a community is about people and engagement, but also being able to access and work around a community.”

Planning Inclusively: Make Communities Just for All

Urban planning is a highly contested and politicised area to work in. The talk is that planning is about people, not roads and buildings. But when do users – people – get a say in planning? Only at the end when plans are put on exhibition. Then you need to be an expert to understand them. Planning inclusively is to make communities just for all. 

Lisa Stafford, in a briefing paper, asks how well do we consider human diversity in planning cities and regions?  Planners and bureaucrats would rarely even consider the concept of “Ableism” in their designs. That’s why we still have marginalisation by design. The lens of the average or the “normal” person is rarely put aside for a lens of diversity. 

Social planning can drive inclusive communities because it operates from a justice framework. Participatory planning is one way to work towards inclusion. 

The tile of Lisa Stafford’s paper is, Planning Inclusively: Disrupting ‘Ableism’ to Make Communities Just for All.  She has four recommendations at the end of her easy to read paper. Briefly they are:

1. 1. 1. Adopt an approach of planning for all
      2. Apply spatial justice thinking to planning
      3. Embed universal design as a core planning principle
      4. Re-emphasise the social in planning

Editorial Introduction 

“Disabled people continue to experience exclusion by design in our everyday spaces, infrastructure and services, which has been magnified through the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, more than ever, there is an opportunity for urban and regional planning practitioners, researchers and disabled people to come together to advocate for and create inclusive, sustainable communities for all. However, to make this transformative, we must first critically question how well do we really consider human diversity in planning cities, towns and regions? This question is examined in this briefing paper by contesting entrenched challenges like ‘ableism’ before providing fundamental starting points for planners in planning more inclusive and just communities for all.”

A manifesto

Design assessment

Hospital design

Architectural Design for Dementia

Kalkbreite Housing Cooperative by Müller Sigrist Architekten. This project used collaborative building processes using residents’ opinions. Quotes from the participants provide the back story. Photo credit Martin Stollenwerk.

Some conclusions from the study

Being free to move around and get out and about helps build and strengthen connections to place and people. Mobility and participation are closely linked and together they improve our sense of wellbeing and belonging. It’s about having choice and control and being able to easily go walking and wheeling in the neighbourhood.

Absent or poorly maintained footpaths, lack of safe crossings, unsafe road speeds, competing with cars, poorly lit streets, and nowhere to rest, prevent people from getting out and about.

An article in The Fifth Estate argues it’s time to stop designing our streets for cars and start to design for the diversity of people. The article is by Lisa Stafford and her work on planning and justice. She lists some must-dos for walkable wheelable neighbourhoods:

• footpaths are essential infrastructure in the same way as stormwater in neighbourhood development
• confront ableism and plan and design for our diversity
• embed inclusive design thinking in the system and day-to-day practice
• integrate planning well: we know universal design and sustainable smart growth approaches work seamlessly together 
• utilise inclusive urban design codes to promote mobility equity, wellbeing, connectivity, and accessibility
• active and public transport infrastructure advocacy must include the perspective of all users
• Queensland Walks and Victoria Walks are good examples of public policy.

As Lisa Stafford says, we have the technical resources, good examples and the skills to do this. It is attitude that is holding us back.

The title of the article is What do truly walkable, wheelable neighbourhoods look like? It is part of The Fifth Estate’s Spinifex collection.

Despite many years of campaigning for disability access across our cities, the results are only piecemeal. But what constitutes an accessible and inclusive city? Australian researchers conducted a global review to find out the enablers and barriers to inclusive design.

“Accessible and inclusive are not common headline city descriptors and even less commonly paired.”

One of the issues is that the concept of accessible and inclusive is multifaceted with many terms alluding to the same thing. The terms that matter most and need to be explicit, are accessible and inclusive. However, these terms are made invisible in the literature and guidelines. Terms such as, Healthy, Age-Friendly, Liveable, Inclusive Smart, and Smart Sustainable have implicit links to access and inclusion. And they are usually aspirational statements without tangible strategies outcomes. That means, they can’t be evaluated either.

“Despite its resonant face validity, ‘accessibility’ is a slippery concept even when applied only to the built environment.”

The researchers include a table of 14 domains of inclusion and access in their paper. Some of these link with the WHO Age Friendly Cities Guide. From these domains they provide a set of key domains that can be used to measure an accessible and inclusive city.

1. Connectivity (spatial & digital);
2. Economic participation, employment and education;
3. Housing;
4. Community and social infrastructure; and
5. Processes of engagement and inclusion.

The researchers conclude that the main obstacle is the lack of agreement on access and inclusion factors. Their paper reviewed the global benchmarks of accessible and inclusive cities to provide some exemplars. They also highlighted ways to enhance the experiences of people with disability.

The title of the article is, Global Benchmarking of Accessible and Inclusive Cities.

From the abstract

Globally, many built environments fail to meet the accessibility needs of people with disability. This is despite people with disability agitating for built environment accessibility improvement for many decades. This paper reviews the global literature to determine what constitutes an accessible and inclusive city and to discover global benchmarks of accessible and inclusive cities for people with disability.

We identified five (composite) domains that an accessible and inclusive city would include: 1. Connectivity (spatial & digital); 2. Economic participation, employment and education; 3. Housing; 4. Community and social infrastructure; and 5. Processes of engagement and inclusion.

We also identified accessible and inclusive city exemplars, including Breda, the Netherlands and Gdynia, Poland. From the global review of exemplars and definitions, domains and indicators, areas of practical action were identified that require multi-entity, multisector collaborations with influential partners addressing all prioritised domains.

These actions included: the need to include people with disability in the planning and design of environments and services; work across the linked domains of the built form, services, attitudes, and economic participation; and the need to revise construction, design, planning and architectural education to foreground the needs and requirements of those with disability.

City life can be noisy, busy and confusing at the best of times. People with neurodiverse conditions such as autism can find this level of stimulation distressing in the built environment. People with dementia and mental health conditions can also find city life and streets distressing. The end result is it becomes easier to stay home as much as possible. This is counter to our need to be physically active and to get out and about.

Children with autism can find urban noise and activity distressing. To discover the specific issues, researchers carried out an observational study of children, with their parents, walking from a transport stop to a park. They identified different elements that pose potential issues for the children. From this, they developed potential design solutions.

“It is essential that planners and policymakers change their neurotypically driven mindset of city planning and design.”

While the noises of transport and street activity can be loud, the park is expected to be a quiet place of retreat. But this is not always the case. Mowers, leaf blowers, and excited children raise the decibel level considerably. So knowing when the park will be quiet is therefore very helpful.

Two routes were the subject of the observational study. Both began at a public bus station and ended at an open green space in the city. The aim was to identify aspects that might inhibit access to the park. The routes included common challenges; footpaths, roads and shopping areas. Both routes were approximately 1 mile (1.6km) in length and covered commonplace streetscapes.

Sensory challenges in the built environment

Not all autistic people have problems with sensory overload and those that do might not react to all senses. Parents need to be aware of the unexpected. Loud noises in the form of drilling machines, heavy trucks and police sirens, and flashing lights, for example. On the day the observations were made, it was sunny and bright – not optimal for those who are light sensitive. One the other hand there are those who find lack of light affects their visual acuity.

Apart from sensory issues, there were several others. Street clutter in the form of bins and sandwich boards on narrow footpaths. Traffic lights were a problem because there was no knowing when the lights would change. The solution is a countdown timer and clearer instructions on when it is safe to cross. Wayfinding guidance is also important because clear instructions are essential for feeling safe.

An uninterrupted, smooth and safe journey is what everyone wants. For autistic people it is essential for feeling safe and comfortable along their journey. The researchers provide detailed design interventions such as transition zones, road safety advice, and quiet spaces.

As with many things, design features essential for this group have benefits for everyone. For example, knowing when the park was going to have the noise of mowers and leaf blowers makes it more pleasant for everyone. And everyone appreciates a quiet space from time to time.

The title of the article is, Autism spectrum condition and the built environment. In the conclusions, the researchers say,

“The issue of accessibility for people with disabilities and autism spectrum condition (ASC) should become common knowledge to those working in the built environment sector. To do so, a design guide for creating inclusive cities and communities for people with disabilities, making specific reference to people with ASC, needs consideration at a strategic level, then implemented at a city and town level. Future regeneration projects should include these interventions and design principles in the planning stages and through to implementation.”

Architecture and autism

Berta Brusilovsky’s eBook, Cognitive accessibility, architecture and the autism spectrum. Keys to design is the last in her series on the topic. The promotional material indicates a basic translation to English, but the book itself is in good English.

Brusilovsky covers the neurobiology in terms of senses, perception, cognition, attention and spatial development. This is followed by design practice using examples in different contexts. Playspaces, classrooms, cinemas, and libraries are discussed in more detail.

The book deals with design and architecture: the route of spatial recognition from the perspective of autism. The objective is to create a framework to approach the design of environments and buildings, in order to facilitate spatial development in everyday life.