Category: Research papers for built environment

Universal design concepts in their pure form are about creativity rather than set standards. However, building practitioners want more guidance than “make it inclusive and accessible for all”. Two researchers in Canada have attempted to solve this dilemma by connecting universal design and BIM (Building Information Modelling).

BIM is a process that uses tools and technologies to form digital representations of physical and functional aspects of places. Building professionals use this information across a wide spectrum of infrastructure. Weaving universal design principles into BIM processes is essential if we are to create an inclusive built environment.

In their paper, the researchers describe the process of developing a model that integrates the BIM database with universal design. In a nutshell, the researchers established a database of universal design elements for designing homes. Then they turned it into a plugin for the BIM system.

Beginning at the conceptual stage

The paper explains in technical terms the creation of the model and database leading to the BIM plugin for universal design. The authors claim designers can instantly access universal design standards and incorporate them at the conceptual stage.

The title of the scientific paper is, Integrating Universal Design Standards and Building Information Modeling at the Conceptual Design Stage of Buildings. The authors continued their research and their next paper in 2024 has a similar title which includes life cycle cost analysis.

There is a similar shorter version of the same study on ResearchGate, titled, Building Information Modeling with Universal Design Requirements for High Accessible Homes. This paper has a case example of a four storey home with four apartments on each floor. Universal design “families” – windows, doors, floors, etc., are applied to create a 3D view and and floor plan. The images in the paper show the results. The paper explains in technical terms how the model was developed and then applied in the case example.

From the abstract

A projection of the Canadian population shows that in 2024 one in five Canadians will be over 65 years old. This shift forces designers to consider the entire lifetime of occupants during the design of new buildings. Universal design aims to house people irrespective of their age, ability, and chronic health conditions.

Building Information Modeling (BIM) significantly helps advance the development of the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction industry in a more collaborative and automated way. Integrating BIM and universal design allows designers to incorporate universal design at the conceptual design stage using the functionalities of BIM tools.

This study presents the development of an automated computer model to facilitate the adoption of universal design processes. A newly created plug-in will assist designers to incorporate universal design at the conception stage.

Public Engagement, Virtual Reality and BIM

This study compares VR platforms for community engagement with a view to creating plugins for the BIM system. The results of this experimental study found significant potential for utilising the methods and tools as part of a collaborative approach to design. This was particularly the case for designing a refurbishing public spaces.

The participants enjoyed using the tools that helped them understand design features and quality. It helped them engage and visualise intricate and challenging aspects of the project. If designers are serious about co-designing with users, having the right tools is the key to success. They move participants past ad hoc discussions to focused thinking.

The title of the study is Enhancing Public Engagement in Architectural Design: A comparative Analysis of Advanced Virtual Reality Approaches in Building Information Modeling and Gamification Techniques. The article is open access.

BIM and accessible bathrooms

There is a related article on BIM and the evaluation of accessible bathrooms. Here is a short extract from the Abstract:

This study aims to demonstrate the practicability and utility of emerging BIM and related digital technologies, applied in the field. Post occupancy evaluation is key to ensuring building access is provided and maintained. Twenty-one accessible bathrooms in three university buildings were assessed in this study.

The study found that across all bathrooms the toilet roll location is unsatisfactory. Other high-risk issues included: Approach: access; Entrance: door fittings and security; and Layout: hazards. The study shows how low-cost BIM and related technologies can form a baseline for ongoing post occupancy evaluation.

The title of the research paper is Building information modelling and related technologies applied to the post occupancy evaluation of accessible bathrooms for people with disability. Authored by Newton, Carnemolla and Darcy.

Or ask for a free copy from ResearchGate.

Three architects discuss their experiences and challenges in a paper about moving to all-gender restrooms. The context is a university campus and the need to be inclusive of all students.

The title of the article is All-gender restrooms: embracing change in the built environment. The article includes case studies of rest room renovations. Building codes and certifiers present barriers to these inclusive designs, and they explain how they overcame them.

The authors provide several floor plans of restroom options. They advise that privacy, safety, and comfort must be kept in mind for all designs and explain a little more about this. In taking a universal design approach they advocate for bringing many voices to the table.

The language used in relation to all-gender restrooms is as important as the architectural changes themselves. Words and identity graphics typically show gendered restrooms, so the authors recommend using neutral signage. Inclusive designs are not just about inclusion, they are also about creating a sense of belonging and of welcome.

Overview of discussion

As architects and designers, we face design challenges that are rooted in the built condition. In our collaboration with student activities professionals, the effective use of space to service, engage, and welcome the campus community is at the forefront of design and planning discussions. We must consider the social implications of our physical designs that evolve as social and cultural norms change.

The all-gender restroom has been a topic of conversation in the projects we have been designing over the last decade. This piece will help bridge the gap between student affairs practitioners and architectural designers with information and understanding of how code influences the design of all-gender restrooms. Campus communities will therefore be better prepared to advocate for building all-gender restrooms.

The term “smart city” refers to the way local authorities use digital information to make planning decisions and create solutions. But is this linked to the real lives of older people and the notion of age-friendly cities? According to UBANAGE, a European project, not enough data is collected on people aged over 65 years.

Researchers found current data sets inadequate for analysis of older populations. One of the reasons is the need for the privacy of personal data. Here we see the dangers of trying to develop algorithms and simulation to solve problems. This is where co-creation enters the picture. Older adults, public servants and other stakeholders worked together to test solutions for addressing the needs of older people.

The title of the research paper is, Older people and the smart city – Developing inclusive practices to protect and serve a vulnerable population. The term “vulnerable” is overused in relation to older people and feeds into stereotypes. Many older people are still active in the workforce and no more vulnerable than younger cohorts.

What is a “Smart City”?

What is a smart city and is it different from other cities? Smart cities use digital technology and data to improve decision-making and quality of life. The aim is to gain a better understanding of current conditions and forecast future changes. The data are also used to improve city functions and create solutions. But how does it work?

More is explained in an article titled, Smart City Design Principles. For a city, town or community to become smart it needs connected technology. Smartphones, sensors and Internet of Things devices connect to the Internet and each other and share the data they collect with city staff. Managers use various applications to take this data and turn it into information they can use. This can have a huge impact on urban development and planning.

There are four key elements:

1. Quality encompasses liveability, environment, and quality of life (which should include accessibility and inclusion).
2. Residential Construction focuses on addressing the needs of current generations without negatively impacting future generations.
3. Capacity is about natural and human resources – population distribution, water, etc.
4. History and Environment is about achieving cohesive regional development, traditional practices and archaeological zones. 

Anyone interested in understanding and applying the elements of the smart cities framework will find the article useful.

Abstract

A smart city should embrace the concept of sustainable growth, as it is an urgent need, and we cannot hesitate in coping with precious natural resources and plunge into crisis.

To make the city run as a smart city, several things should be included in the situation. In the long term, smart city visions that are inclusive, pluralistic, and citizen-centric, focused on developing services and resolving local challenges, would be the most effective and cost-efficient.

They are most likely to avoid potential issues by strengthening both physical facilities and amenities, as well as the city’s sense of culture.

Population ageing and smart cities

An article in The Conversation challenges the idea that older people are a problem and a burden. Apart from being an ageist proposition, it does little to change matters. When we talk of “empowering older adults” to engage in active ageing, who took the power away in the first place? Was it the advent of secluded congregate living that seduced older adults into feeling “secure”? Or was it something else? Regardless, research continues on ways to make people “feel capable and safe”. 

The article in The Conversation begins with older people “need help and encouragement to remain active as they age in their own communities.” It is not clear why this is specific to older people. The article continues to explain how a city can provide digital infrastructure for the local information older people need. Three solutions are proposed for keeping older adults, indeed everyone, active and healthy:

A previous post on Ageing in neighbourhood rather than retirement villages reports a similar approach to population ageing. 

Singapore’s rapid urban development didn’t happen without a plan – indeed, it took several integrated plans. The aim of Singapore’s Long-Term Plan is for liveable and sustainable homes and built environments for residents. It’s basically a land use and infrastructure plan with a 50 year view. The broad ideas in the plan are translated into Master Plans with detail about land use and density.

Singapore’s Liveability Framework

A conference paper by Koh and Lee explains how the Singapore Liveability Framework has brought liveability, sustainability and prosperity. Developing state-owned land comes with government conditions. Consequently, developments are aligned with the Liveability Framework and master plans. Universal design is considered in all built environment plans.

Housing for All

In 1960 there was an acute housing shortage. In five years they built 50,000 flats to solve the shortage. Then they turned towards providing better housing to meet the aspirations of the population for a better quality of life. Singapore encourages home ownership and supports occupants to purchase their government owned flats.

Planning for Mixed-Use

Public housing is not excluded from prime locations and is mixed with retail, commercial and residential zones. Mixed use developments are also found as part of integrated transport hubs. The integration of mixed-use districts starts at the planning stage and encourages innovative development concepts.

Planning for Polycentricity

Decentralisation is key to being able to live, work and play without the need to travel long distances. Each regional centre has industrial estates, business parks, and educational institutions. At a more detailed level there are schools and shops and a transport node.

Connectivity and Walkability

Roads and expressways take up 12% of the land. Consequently, similarly to other countries, plans are prioritising public transport, walking and cycling, and extending the rail network. Better first and last mile connectivity is a must. Covered linkways connect transportation with residential areas to make walking more comfortable in the tropical weather. Repurposing roads for pedestrian space is also part of the plan.

Convenient access to green and blue

Singapore is more than a concrete jungle. The idea of a garden city began in 1967 as part of transforming Singapore into a clean and green haven for tourists and investors. Of course, residents benefit too.

A city for all ages

Life expectancy has risen by 20 years in the last 60 years and the population is therefore ageing. One in four Singaporeans will be older than 65 years by 2030. While there are various options for older residents, the government has introduced new public housing concepts. Co-location of housing with healthcare facilities, retail and dining areas, and community gardens is one solution. Community Care Apartments are another idea where residents can live independently with support services.

Living in a disrupted world

The conference paper is long and detailed with many case studies and photographs. Having government control over development and developers means strategies are implemented according to the plans. Climate change and COVID are now part of life and Singapore has to move beyond liveability and sustainability to build resilience.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.”