Category: Research papers for built environment

Academics like to approach the issue of exclusion by developing guides, tools, and playbooks. But are evaluation tools useful for promoting inclusive design in the built environment?  Perhaps. From the Inclusive Design Team in the UK comes a post-occupancy evaluation tool. That is, a tool to find out if the design actually works.

Existing post occupancy tools usually focus on the performance of the building itself. For example, energy and sustainability measures. Very few measure the building holistically or from a universal design approach.  

An article by Zallio and Clarkson lists the many evaluation tools available internationally. It explains the methods used in the research process. Participants for the workshops in the study were drawn from the ranks of built environment professionals. These participants were deemed to have experience in inclusive design. 

The process for developing the tool included an element of education for participants and eventually the users of the audit tool. The audit takes a snapshot of the building, with its occupants, and offers insights about inclusion, diversity, equity and accessibility (IDEA).

The goal of the tool is to provide meaningful information to improve well-being, comfort, and inclusion. It does this by highlighting the points of exclusion and the pain points experienced by users. 

The title of the article is, The inclusion, diversity, equity and accessibility audit. A post-occupancy evaluation method to help design the buildings of tomorrow. It’s by Matteo Zallio and P. John Clarkson from the Inclusive Design Team at the University of Cambridge. It’s open access and a relatively easy read for an academic text. 

The key points in the article are: 

• • • Inclusive Design is not widely adopted in architectural design practice.
    • There is a scarcity of post-occupancy evaluation methods on inclusion and accessibility.
    • Mapping the building occupant’s perception of inclusion and accessibility is key to designing inclusively.
    • Mixed method evaluation can help professionals to understand points of exclusion in the building.
    • The IDEA audit helps to understand people’s perception of inclusion and accessibility.

From the abstract

There is a general lack of awareness about Inclusive Design among building industry professionals. This is partly due to the scarcity of available tools to evaluate occupancy feedback on inclusion, diversity, equity and accessibility. How can we implement an evaluation tool that works for the building industry?

This study aims to inform the development of a post-occupancy method to evaluate Inclusion, Diversity, Equity and Accessibility (IDEA) in the built environment. 

With the IDEA audit, researchers, building owners, design teams, developers, facility managers, tenants, and organisation leaders can achieve a baseline of understanding of what people feel in regard to inclusion, diversity, equity and accessibility. They can clearly identify pockets of inconsistency and use data to decide how to address challenges and points of exclusion.

Note: Unlike many other countries that use the UN term ‘universal design’, organisations and researchers in the UK have maintained their ‘brand’ of ‘inclusive design’. However, these terms mean the same thing – the goal of creating an inclusive world.

The problem with standards for accessible places and spaces is they don’t keep up with current thinking. Consequently there are no standards for the neuro inclusive city.

In Australia, standards focus on mobility, vision and hearing. Consequently they don’t cover invisible disabilities or health conditions. That’s why it’s dangerous to think that meeting legislated standards is sufficient to create access and inclusion for everyone.

In the absence of standards, which are based on minimums, we now have a plethora of guidelines. These either focus on a disability, such as Down syndrome, or a built space, such as a playspace. Guidelines are not mandated and so they often disappear into cyber-space or gather dust on a shelf. But that doesn’t stop more attempts at guidelines and design principles.

There is a growing awareness that a significant portion of the population is neurodiverse. This term captures people who appear to have different behaviours and/or have a specific diagnosis such as autism or ADHD. Sensory factors such as noise and crowds, pose barriers for some people who are neurodiverse. However, these factors are rarely considered in urban planning and design. Until now.

Natasha Mickovski tackles the issues in her Master of Architecture thesis. Her thesis is comprehensive with drawings and case studies illustrating her ideas and key points. Of interest is her adaptation of the 7 Principles of Universal Design.

It’s good to see these principles taken as a starting point and adapted to suit this context. To this end, Mickovski presents her Enabling Design Guidelines which are briefly outlined below.

Enabling Design Guidelines

1. Spatial Organization: Spatial organization is an integral part of neurodiverse design. People who are neurodiverse require a continuous and organized loop of circulation. The use of common and repetitive elements provide a sense of order which allows for them to easily navigate through a building. Repetition within the design also promotes a point of predictability.

2. Spatial Character: A variety of types of spaces such as alcoves, nooks, refuges or clusters are essential. The colours, patterns, and textures are also important for creating a sensorial environment.

3. Lighting, Acoustics, Thermal Quality: Dimmed lighting in low-stimulation zones is good for rational decision-making tasks. These spaces also need a high level of acoustic control. Adjust thermal qualities through a high-performance building envelope. Include spaces such as naturally ventilated atriums or outdoor terraces.

4. Ease of Transition: Wide corridors are good transitional zones which can be used for occupational therapy and movement breaks. It is also important to provide enough space within the corridors for programmable seating options.

5. Sensory Grouping: High stimulus zones such as the music room, makerspace, flex space, café, and marketplace should be grouped together. Group together low stimulus zones such as counselling centres, study rooms, reading zones, and studios.

6. Escape / Reset Zones: Retreat areas and alcoves are essential in the overall planning of a neuro-inclusive building. These are important places for people when they feel overwhelmed.

The title of the thesis is, Design Enabled: The Everyday Refuge for a Neuro-Inclusive City. This is a 15MB document downloadable from the Laurentian University website.

Abstract

One of the most pressing issues within the built environment is the ever-evolving conversation of accessibility and its relationship to obsolete building standards from the past.

Standards such as the Ontario Building Code and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) provide insufficient solutions to users with invisible disabilities, particularly the underrecognized realm of neurodiversity.

This thesis explores the possibility for a new set of design guidelines, adopting principles to enable the users’ senses and, in turn, create a neuro-inclusive environment. It also presents the design of a neuroinclusive library centre with a secondary urban park to mitigate the challenges neurodivergents experience at both a human and city-wide scale.

By designing a community-oriented project within the already-established arts and cultural hub of downtown Sudbury, this thesis creates a network of inclusive, user-centered, and sensorial design that can begin to decode the issue of accessibility

Cities are expanding year on year and the design of urban environments needs to cope with this. That means urban planners and designers have to think about both people and planet. 

Environmental degradation and population inequalities require a shift in understanding the nature of healthy urbanism. We need policies and decisions that positively shape neighbourhoods and buildings. That’s what Helen Pineo argues in her paper on an urban design and a planning framework. 

The WHO and UN are working with property development and urban planning professionals on the topic of healthy urbanism. Pineo notes that not all built environment professionals accept responsibility for safeguarding health and sustainability. 

It appears that the architecture profession is divided on this topic. Some say it is not their responsibility and others say it is time for them to act. 

Pineo’s article discusses the state of play internationally and reports on her findings. Structural barriers to health and a reliance on “lifestyle choices” is not effective going forward. We need broader solutions, and we need them urgently. 

To the extent that it is possible, all design and policy decisions should be inclusive, equitable and sustainable.

The THRIVES Framework

THRIVES is the acronym of Towards Healthy uRbanism: InclusiVe Equitable Sustainable. Pineo presents the Framework as a new way of conceptualising the connection between health and built environments. 

There are three core principles, inclusion, equity and sustainability.

The Framework links planet, environment and people. 

The title of the article is, Towards healthy urbanism: inclusive, equitable and sustainable (THRIVES) – an urban design and planning framework from theory to praxis. It’s open access. 

Abstract

This article promotes a new framework – Towards Healthy uRbanism: InclusiVe Equitable Sustainable (THRIVES) – that extends previous conceptualisations and reorients focus towards the existential threat of environmental breakdown and the social injustice created through inequitable and exclusive urban governance and design processes and outcomes.

The Framework was developed through synthesising knowledge from research and practice, and by testing this new conceptualisation in a participatory workshop. Ongoing research is exploring implementation of the Framework in practice.

If widely adopted, this Framework may contribute towards achieving the goals of sustainable development through a focus on increasing human health and wellbeing in urban development.

What’s next in urban design?

All aspects of urban design and development are undergoing technological change.  The pandemic has increased the speed of  some changes. For example, online shopping and parcel delivery, working from home and demand for green open space. The University of Oregon’s Urbanism Next Framework draws together key issues in answer to “What’s next for urban design?”

The three page framework lists the forces of change as new mobility, e-commerce, mobility as a service and urban delivery. These impact land use, urban design, building design, transportation, and real estate. The infographic below shows the kind of questions designers and policy-makers need to ask themselves. Click on the image for a better view of the infographic. 

The framework poses key questions for the future. For example:

• How will e-commerce impact the demand for industrial land?
  • How do we protect open space under pressure to expand cities?
  • What will happen to sprawling city footprints when people don’t need to live in cities?
  • How will the need for fewer parking lots impact urban form?
  • How can the interactions between pedestrians and vehicles be managed?
  • Will new mobility reduce the demand for vehicle ownership?
  • What will draw people to places in the future?

The Framework says all these things matter for equity, health, the environment and the economy. So it is up to designers and policy makers to remember to take a universal design approach and follow co-design processes. 

From the introduction:

“One of the key challenges cities face is understanding the range of areas that are being affected or will be affected by emerging technologies, and how these areas are related. The Urbanism Next Framework organizes impacts based on five key areas— land use, urban design, building design, transportation, and real estate—and relates those to the implications they have on equity, health and safety, the environment, and the economy. It then considers what we should do to ensure that emerging technologies help communities achieve their goals.

Age-friendly communities where people of all ages live, work and play could be the way of the future. That means the desirability of age-segregated living could be on the way out. Many people will live 30 years after the age of 65 years. By 2030 all baby boomers will have turned 65 and Gen X will be joining the older cohort.  It’s time to retire the retirement village concept according to an article in The Conversation. This is based on feedback from older people in a Longevity By Design Challenge. This means we have to re-think the notion of retirement and approaches to urban design.

The Design Challenge asked:

How do we best leverage the extra 30 years of life and unleash the social and economic potential of people 65+ to contribute to Australia’s prosperity?

Sixteen cross-disciplinary creative teams considered longevity in the context of buildings and neighbourhoods. Together the participants concluded that design for older people is inclusive design. No matter how old you are you still want the same things for a good life. That means autonomy and choice, purpose, good health and financial security.

The title of the article is, Retire the retirement village – the wall and what’s behind it is so 2020, and explains how the challenge was run and some of the findings. Key points emerging from the challenge were inclusive infrastructure, people of all ages together, and a mobility “ecosystem” made up of different types of transport options. The underpinning principles turned out to be age-friendly communities, something the World Health Organization has promoted for more than ten years.

Boomers are over them

The ABC also reported on the Design Challenge and how to prepare and adapt Australian cities to capitalise on our longevity bonus. It seems walled and gated age-segregated enclaves might have had their day. Instead, the future might hold more age-inclusive neighbourhoods where older people continue to contribute into late age. So, no more need for doom and gloom about population ageing.

As an urban design challenge the design of homes suited for all ages was not included. The ABC article is titled, Retirement villages have had their day: Baby boomers are rethinking retirement. 

A second Longevity by Design session was held in 2021 with the theme, Feels Like Home. This one was focused on aged care and the key points are in the video below. 

Urban planning for population longevity

Urban designers are potential champions for improvements for population ageing. That is a key theme in an article that proposes ways for helping older people stay put in their home, and if not, in their community. The article discusses current innovations to make neighbourhoods and homes more supportive both physically and socially. These include: enriching neighbourhoods, providing collective services, building all-age neighbourhoods, creating purpose-built supportive housing.

The title of the article is, “Improving housing and neighborhoods for the vulnerable: older people, small households, urban design, and planning”. Open access available  from SpringerLink,  or  via ResearchGate.

From the abstract

Currently preferences and policies aim to help older people to stay in their existing homes. However, the majority of homes in the U.S. and many other countries are not designed to support advanced old age. Also, they are not located to easily provide support and services.

The paper examines the existing range of innovations to make neighbourhoods and homes more supportive, physically, socially, and in terms of services. These include: enriching neighbourhoods, providing collective services, building all-age neighbourhoods, creating purpose-built supportive housing, developing small scale intergenerational models, and engaging mobility, delivery, and communications innovations.

If there was an assessment tool for access and inclusion, would this encourage designers to think about population diversity in their designs?  If the answer is ‘yes’ then this will be a step forward. But would such a tool become yet another checklist for designers? But perhaps a simple framework to understand universal design would be useful for design and evaluation.

Erica Isa Mosca and Stefano Capolongo embarked on a research study to find such a framework. Their first paper was published in 2018. It is titled, Towards a Universal Design Evaluation for Assessing the Performance of the Built Environment. They concluded that the involvement of users as well as methods such as checklists were needed for the next step.

The next step was a literature review. The researchers’ quest was to find ways to provide design information to architects so that they could go beyond access standards. The literature review is titled, Inspiring architects in the application of Design-for-All: Knowledge transfer methods and tools. 

The researchers found four criteria which were critical for translating user needs into design strategies. The diagram below shows the four criteria. Using these criteria, the researchers developed an evaluation framework. 

The final stage of the research project produced a useful framework for designers. This framework is about performance and assessing the built environment beyond access codes. The framework aligns with the current universal design thinking by including the concepts of co-design. The framework is shown in the diagram below. 

There is more on this framework in another CUDA post titled, Universal design evaluation framework.