Evaluating universal design of built environments: an empirical study of stakeholder practice and perceptions

Abstract

Universal design aims to reduce environmental barriers and enhance usability of buildings for all people, particularly those with disabilities. There are known challenges relating to the evaluation of universal design and evidence supporting this concept is limited. 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 desire for efficiency and consistency, as offered by a checklist approach, and the adoption of a holistic and multidisciplinary method of evaluation that encompasses the complexity of universal design application.

Exploring the Importance and Performance Priorities of Older Adults With a User‐Centred Approach to Create a Fall‐Free Bathroom

“…A key result from this study is that the suitability of the bathroom checklists for an older‐friendly design could reflect conflicts with users' perceived importance and performance levels (Watchorn et al. 2022).…”

Methodological Frameworks For Street And Road Environment Improvement With Due Regard To Inclusion Requirements

“…[7], Gamache, S. [8,9], Harsritanto, B. [10,11], Watchorn, V. [12], Paleyeva, K. [13], Siri Tilekeraytn, Ron Mace, M.V. Sholukh, L.M.…”

“…The world experience of street and road environment [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] designing includes many planning and architectural decisions on providing barrier-free space. Some of these solutions are structured and match under the general universal design theory.…”

“…Therefore, based on world experience generalization [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13], the principles of street and road environment design and methods of its urban organization are determined, taking into account not only the universal design theory, but also the inclusion requirements. Based on research of an The group of architectural and planning requirements includes: functional integration, functional differentiation, compactness, urban integration, neighborhood, construction of optimal street and road network, functional zoning, non-conflict, modernization, aesthetic appeal, visual perception, compositionality, space corridor simulation [14,15,20].…”

Adaptive outdoor physical activities for adults with mobility disability: a scoping review

“…However, the concept of Universal Design (UD) ( 22 ), which is advocated for in the UNCRPD ( 12 ) as a means of addressing accessibility issues in the design of new programs, can be considered as guidance for addressing challenges when designing inclusive outdoor physical activities. As the UNCRPD is part of a larger paradigm shift from understanding disability as “located” in the body of a person towards an understanding of disability as the result of individuals with impairments and their encounters with attitudinal and environmental barriers, UD was proposed as an approach with the potential to empower individuals, dismantle barriers, and create suitable environmental conditions for the social inclusion of everybody, regardless of their abilities ( 23 – 25 ). UD has seven categories or principles that guide the design process, including (1) equitable, (2) flexible, (3) simple and intuitive, (4) perceptible information, (5) tolerance for error, (6) low physical effort, and (7) size and space for approach and use.…”