universal design building case study

• Hispanoamérica
• Work at ArchDaily
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Universal Design

Universal Design: The Latest Architecture and News

Handrails and accessibility 101: ensuring safe usage in architectural projects.

Architectural design is a discipline that spans a wide range of scales, from macro scales involving the design of master plans or large urban complexes to micro scales, where it focuses on specific elements such as fixtures and fittings. Regardless of scale, careful attention to the design of each component of the built environment plays a critical role in how people experience architecture.

At the architectural micro-scale, railings and handrails play specific roles but are often confusing. While railings are designed to enclose spaces and prevent falls, handrails function as support elements, offering orientation and stability to avoid accidents and injuries. It is in the latter aspect that a stronger connection to accessibility becomes evident. For this reason, it is essential to have handrails, wall railings, and assist railings that meet ADA standards , such as those developed by Hollaender Manufacturing Co. These elements adapt to various design conditions, facilitating the movement of individuals who may encounter barriers in the physical environment.

• Read more »

Healing Architecture for Care and Recovery: Iconic Design with Colorful Concepts

The influence of design on our physical and mental health has been largely explored in various contexts, ranging from spatial configuration to furniture. The topic has gained notoriety due to the growing awareness of human well-being, especially in recent times. An example of this bond between design and health is the emergence of concepts such as Neuroarchitecture , which seeks to understand the built environment’s potential in our brain. Another case that illustrates this approach, this time in furniture design, is the Paimio Sanatorium , where Alvar Aalto designed the tuberculosis sanatorium and all its furnishings. The chair created for the patient’s lounge — the Paimio Chair — facilitated their breathing due to its shape and the inclination of the backrest.

These approaches are examples of how design can be applied in a specific way to enhance people's well-being through gestures like spatial organization, color and shapes , thereby promoting architecture that contributes to health, care, and recovery, In this context, and as a result of explorations in this field, HEWI has developed ICONIC , infusing emotionally appealing color concepts for its design icon, the 477/801 barrier-free sanitary range. An essential element of this range's design was the concept of "healing architecture" within healthcare and daycare buildings and its influence on not just the physical and mental well-being of patients but also the welfare of other users, such as relatives and staff.

How Can Buildings Work for Everyone? The Future of Inclusivity and Accessibility in Architecture

One of the most important challenges in architecture, when it comes to creating spaces that work for everyone, is the diversity that exists in people, their needs, and how to integrate them into a design. Disabilities are more than a condition; they are a way of living according to human diversity that requires architectural solutions of equivalent multiplicity.

According to data from the World Bank, it is estimated that 1 billion people –equivalent to 15% of the world's population– live with some type of disability. In the future, this percentage could increase considerably, given the global trend of aging populations. To face this growing challenge, architecture will have to adapt quickly, due to the role that built environments have in constituting a barrier or a path for the inclusion of people with different types of disabilities, seniors, as well as diverse groups who make up the human plurality.

Inclusive Design that Meets the Needs of an Aging Society

The world's population is undergoing a significant demographic transformation , with an increasingly larger portion of people reaching older ages. This has prompted governments to implement public policies aimed at promoting the well-being of the growing number of elderly individuals worldwide. Alongside this trend, there is a need to address special needs that extend beyond just the elderly population and encompass various age groups. Advancements in medical science have enabled many people with disabilities or special needs to lead fuller and more independent lives, contributing to a more inclusive society. This progress also places a crucial responsibility on architects and designers, who must create built environments that are genuinely inclusive, and capable of accommodating a wide diversity of individuals with specific medical needs and varying levels of mobility. This underscores the fundamental importance of universal design and accessibility principles.

The Curb Cut Effect: How Accessible Architecture is Benefiting Everybody

The fabric of our cities is shaped by millions of small decisions and adaptations, many of which have become integral to our experience. Nowadays taken for granted, some of these elements were revolutionary at the time of their implementation. One such element is the curb cut, the small ramp grading down the sidewalk to connect it to the adjoining street, allowing wheelchair users and people with motor disabilities to easily move onto and off the sidewalk. This seemingly small adaptation has proven to be unexpectedly useful for a wider range of people, including parents with strollers, cyclists, delivery workers, etc. Consequently, it lends its name to a wider phenomenon, the “curb cut effect”, where accommodations and improvements made for a minority end up benefiting a much larger population in expected and unexpected ways.

Re-Purposing Materials: From Post-Industrial Recyclate to Accessible Furniture

The role and relationship of furniture in architecture and space design are of great relevance. Designers such as Eileen Gray, Alvar Aalto, Mies Van der Rohe, and Verner Panton conceived furniture —primarily stools and chairs— that endure over time as powerful and timeless elements, with a determining impact on the interior atmosphere. Thus, the relationship between furniture and space becomes a constant dialogue in which design, aesthetics, and materials contribute their dimension.

Today, furniture should not be limited solely to fulfilling an aesthetic and functional role, but should also have a purpose in the context of contemporary design and sustainable development. It is essential to reflect on and question the processes and choice of materials in the manufacturing of these elements, in addition to the value they bring to interior spaces. In this context, HEWI has taken a step forward by creating the Re-seat family , consisting of stools and chairs made from post-industrial recycled materials (PIR), sourced in part from the processes of the company itself and a regional supplier, both based in Bad Arolsen, Germany. It also features integrated solutions with universal design in mind , making a statement in favor of innovation and eco-design.

How to Guide People in Architectural Spaces with Tactile Paving Surfaces?

Theoretically, architecture is a multisensory discipline involving textures, colors, shadows, sounds, and aromas. However, in practice, using visual language is often prioritized to explore it, limiting mainly to sight for identifying architectural elements and navigating autonomously in built environments and urban contexts. Therefore, it is crucial to integrate tactile paving surfaces into architecture.

Blindness and vision impairment transcend being a condition or disability; they represent an alternative way of perceiving the environment around us. In this sense, touch becomes a language and a fundamental guide for interacting with architecture. According to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Article 9) , all individuals have an inherent right to access the physical environment on an equal basis with others.

Accessibility: 10 Ramps in Public and Domestic Spaces

The ramp is one of the architectural elements that, besides facilitating movement between different heights and floors, provide greater accessibility to spaces. In Brazil , a series of decrees and regulations seek to ensure citizenship rights and promote equality and social inclusion of people with disabilities, which permeates issues related to their mobility and freedom to come and go. Architecture plays a key role in this inclusion, by devising strategies to ensure that these people can transit, participate and interact in any environment, whether public or private.

Architecture for People with Hearing Loss: 6 Design Tips

Contrary to what we might believe, hearing loss is not always congenital, but could sooner or later happen to any of us. According to the WHO, almost a third of people over 65 suffer from debilitating hearing loss. Yet from a certain perspective, hearing loss could be considered more of a 'difference' than a 'disability'. Although the spatial demands of people with hearing disabilities are not as noticeable as spaces for the blind or for those who experience reduced mobility , the reduction of hearing capacity does entail a particular way of experiencing the environment. Is it possible to enhance this experience through interior design?

What is Universal Design?

Created by the American architect Ron Mace in the 1980s, the concept of Universal Design deals with the perception of the projects and environments that we design and inhabit, considering the possibility of its use by different user profiles: from children to the elderly, including language limitations and people with disability or temporary limitations.

Manhattan’s Center for Architecture Imagines the Future of Universal Design

How can Universal Design bridge the divides that have left many Americans stranded in their own communities? In its latest exhibition, Manhattan ’s Center for Architecture calls for a “reset.” On view until September 3, Reset: Towards a New Commons , displays projects that “encourage new modes of living collaboratively” and “more holistic approaches to inclusion.”

Local Can Be Universal

In the 14th century, Geoffrey Chaucer wrote “Familiarity breeds contempt”. By definition “local” is “familiar”. Why are humans so thrilled to go beyond the familiar, the local, and reach for what is new, universal, and salvational? The word “local” has the weight of true value, like “density” or “sustainable” But the lure of connection between all humans is powerfully seductive, and that desire to connect almost always falls short of our hopes.  

Karen Braitmayer, Founder of Studio Pacifica, Weighs in on Accessible Design

Karen Braitmayer, a disabled architect, consultant, and volunteer, brings her unique life experiences to Studio Pacifica , the Seattle‐based practice she founded in 1993. With deep expertise in code compliance and regulations, Braitmayer and her team work with architectural firms like Olson Kundig and Perkins and Will to help create barrier‐free civic, residential, and commercial buildings. Studio Pacifica has served as consultants on notable projects ranging from the Space Needle renovation to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Discovery Center and student housing at Smith College. Braitmayer was appointed by President Barack Obama to the United States Access Board, a position she still holds today.

As we mark the 30th anniversary of the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) this month, we spoke to her about how far we’ve come, and how we can continue to advance accessible design in the built environment.

What Types of Residential Floors Favor Wheelchair Circulation?

One of the most important design considerations that residential architects have the responsibility to address is accessibility, ensuring that people with disabilities can comfortably live at home without impediments blocking basic home functionality. Accessibility for wheelchair users is a particularly important architectural concern due to unalterable spatial, material, and other requirements necessitated by wheelchair design and use. Because guaranteeing the comfort of all users, including disabled users, is one of the most essential obligations of all architects, designing for wheelchair users must be done with utmost the attention and care, especially in residential environments. Below, we delineate several strategies for designing floors for wheelchair circulation, helping architects achieve this goal of maximum comfort and accessibility.

How to Design Safe Bathrooms for the Elderly

There exist frequent reports of toilet accidents, as they are often located in tight and slippery places. Although no one is immune to a slip after bathing, it is the elderly who suffer most from falls, and can often suffer serious injuries, sequelae, and functional limitations. Due to the natural reduction of reflexes and muscle mass, the higher the age group, the more prone to falls we become.

To provide more comfortable living conditions as users grow older, the environment must adapt to the new physical capabilities of its occupants. Making toilets safer is critical to reducing the risk of accidents and decreasing response time in the event of a fall. Here are some things to keep in mind when designing toilets for older people:

Basic (And Necessary) Recommendations for Designing Accessible Homes

A good architecture project must be accessible to all, regardless of their physical or cognitive abilities. To raise awareness about these issues, and help you in the design process, we have compiled some basic actions that must be carried out for people to inhabit residential spaces comfortably and without obstacles.

It's important to remember that each country has its own regulations in relation to accessibility, so the specific dimensions presented below – based on the ' Universal Accessibility Guide ' by Ciudad Accesible – are conceptual and may vary for each project. Before designing an accessible home, review local guidelines and adhere to, if not exceed, listed needs and requirements, thus ensuring a good quality of life for users in the long term.

We Need More Wheelchair Users to Become Architects

When famed architect Michael Graves contracted a mysterious virus in 2003, a new chapter in his life began. Paralyzed from the chest down, the pioneer of Postmodernism would be permanently required to use a wheelchair. Graves could have been forgiven for believing that having fought for his life, having been treated in eight hospitals and four rehab clinics, and needing permanent use of a wheelchair, that his most influential days as an architect were behind him. This was not the case. To the contrary, he would use this new circumstance to design trend-setting hospitals, rehab centers, and other typologies right up to his death in 2015, all with a new-found awareness of the everyday realities of those in wheelchairs, and what architects were, and were not doing, to aid their quality of life.

Avanti-Avanti Studio: "Design for All, the Start of the Creative Process is Through Individual Diversity"

Avanti-Avanti Studio is a design studio dedicated to the development of creative communication strategies, particularly specialized in “Design for All.” Founded by Alex Dobaño (graphic designer and member of the Design For All Foundation) and Elvira Muñoz (architect), the duo leads a multidisciplinary team of professional people in communication, design, and technology, and work with companies and institutions specialized in leisure, tourism, culture, museums, and cities. They describe their practice as a meeting point, where professionals from different fields come together for every new venture, to ensure that the built environments are suitable and inclusive for anyone experiencing them.

We talked to Alex, founder and creative director of the studio, to learn more about their work and the importance of introducing the Design for All concept in the integrated space design projects.

Universal Design Architecture

When it comes to the design and planning of space, user accessibility and user experience play a significant role in the ideology of the design. Conventional design is perceived as “normal” that welcomes a certain type of user group that is offhandedly deemed as a typical layout. A casual observer may interpret the space as one that requires no modification for any type of user experience. This is where Universal Design architecture comes into focus to make the space easily accessible for all user groups. To adapt to the environment and to feel comfortable is an essential part of the consciousness of architecture.

The Disability Act of 2005 defines Universal Design as “the design and composition of any space that is accessible; comprehended and used to the greatest possible extent, most independently and naturally, within the widest possible range of situations, without the necessity to adapt, modify or use any assistive devices or specialized solutions , by a person of any age, size or having any particular physical, sensory, mental health, intellectual ability or disability.”  Universal design takes into consideration during the pre-design, design, and construction stages that there is no one-size that fits all humans. 

The Principles

Architects, Engineers, and Environmental Design Researchers developed seven principles of Universal Design to help guide professionals to create a space to be more inclusive. 

Equitable Use: The design transpires to be useful and marketable to people with diverse disabilities. Flexibility in use: The design tends to accommodate a wide range of individual preferences and abilities. Simple and intuitive: Regardless of the user’s experience, language skills, knowledge , or concentration level, the use of design is easy to understand. Perceptible information: Communication through design conveys necessary information effectively to the user, heedless of ambient conditions or the user’s sensory abilities. Tolerance for error: The design intends to attenuate hazards and therefore the adverse consequences of accidental or unintentional actions. Low physical effort: The design is used efficiently and comfortably with ease and effortlessly. Size and space for approach and use: Size and space are aptly provided for approach, reach manipulation, and use nevertheless of user’s posture, body size, or mobility.

Eight Goals of Universal Design Architecture

The Eight goals of Universal Design were recently developed to clarify the concept of universal design, health, and wellness, to incorporate human performance, outcomes from social participation, and to address contextual and cultural issues. Addressing the barrier to adopt universal design in middle and low-income countries is acknowledged by having a perception that is often discerned as idealistic, expensive, or an imposition of western values. Hence, these goals link universal design with a knowledge base to identify measurable outcomes.

Body fit: The design accommodates a wide range of body sizes and abilities. Comfort: Demands that can be within desirable limits of body function. Awareness: Assuring the critical information to be easily perceived. Understanding: The methods of operation and use are made intuitive, explicit, and unambiguous. Wellness: Advancing in promoting health, avoiding diseases, and preventing injuries. Social integration: Regarding all individuals with dignity and respect. Personalization: Inculcating opportunities for choice and expressing individual preferences. Cultural appropriateness: The design project predominantly includes social, economic, and environmental context along with respecting and reinforcing cultural values.

Even though universal design has yet to gain acceptance in the design community, the focus of implementing universal design principles in outdoor as well as indoor environments is slowly expanding.

A manifestation of inner rejuvenation and community building, through master planning and adaptive reuse, the Enabling Village is an inclusive space that is an integration of work, education, retail, training, and connecting people with disabilities to society. The holistically integrated environment of the Nest navigates you through new linkages tracing the pedestrian flow throughout the space. The timber terrace laid over the courtyard stepping down as an amphitheater is integrated with ramps for people having disabilities that blend in with the seating area. Wayfinding is developed with a series of points of contact at strategic junctions that helps the user with orientation and navigation. With a barrier-free design and sustainable design solutions, the Enabling Village is a beacon of encouragement towards social interaction within a biophilic environment.

The Musholm extension envisions new experiences by including a traditional approach to accessible design and enhancing the quality of life for people with disabilities. To replenish the differences, a range of physical activities guides the handicapped to extend their boundaries. The multi-purpose hall has been integrated with accessibility and creative elements that inspire and challenge them. The 110-meter ramp running through the circular building distinguishes the path around the central spaces.

The Tongva Park and Ken Genser Square in Santa Monica were designed as a public space to be inclusive of all people. To navigate through the built environment and apply the principles of universal design that includes people with a wide array of disabilities such as physical, auditory, or visual disabilities, even neuro-cognitive disabilities is a challenge that we should face with creative certainty. The design of this urban landscape project embodies an experience that is active, resource-conscious, innovative, and natural. The urban space is precisely defined by wide fluid pathways, native landscape, seating areas with arms, play areas, lush green lawns that promote health and well-being.

Universal design plays a significant role in solving social situations and design responses based on usability and social participation. The integration of universal design has been growing and advancing every day and professionals are building a strong relationship with universal design to contribute to improving accessibility . In this stage of evolution of universal design, it is essential not to limit our designs to a certain group of users and make the space inclusive to all be it sustainability, workplaces, public places, or indoor spaces.

Universal design architecture will potentially reduce the effort and accommodate people with short-term and chronic disabilities.

References: | Universal Design Architecture

• Archdaily [Online]

Available at: www.archdaily.com

• Whole Building Design Guide: WBDG [Online]

Available at: https://www.wbdg.org/design-objectives/accessible/beyond-accessibility-universal-design

• American Society of Landscape Architects: ASLA [Online]

Available at: https://www.asla.org/universaldesign.aspx

Abha Haval is an Architect who has a vivid imagination of this world. She believes that every place has a story to tell and is on a mission to photograph the undiscovered whereabouts of various cities and narrate the story of its existence.

Preparing for the future cities in India

The Future is “Responsive” Architecture

Related posts.

The Role of Architectural Archives in Restoration Projects

Using meme culture to express social issues in architecture

The Theoretical Role of Soft Furnishings in Shaping Spatial Narratives

The New Architects: Designing the Future in Virtual Realms

Buildings redefining the Architectural trends

Revitalizing Vernacular Architecture

• Architectural Community
• Architectural Facts
• RTF Architectural Reviews
• Architectural styles
• City and Architecture
• Fun & Architecture
• History of Architecture
• Design Studio Portfolios
• Designing for typologies
• RTF Design Inspiration
• Architecture News
• Career Advice
• Case Studies
• Construction & Materials
• Covid and Architecture
• Interior Design
• Know Your Architects
• Landscape Architecture
• Materials & Construction
• Product Design
• RTF Fresh Perspectives
• Sustainable Architecture
• Top Architects
• Travel and Architecture
• Rethinking The Future Awards 2022
• RTF Awards 2021 | Results
• GADA 2021 | Results
• RTF Awards 2020 | Results
• ACD Awards 2020 | Results
• GADA 2019 | Results
• ACD Awards 2018 | Results
• GADA 2018 | Results
• RTF Awards 2017 | Results
• RTF Sustainability Awards 2017 | Results
• RTF Sustainability Awards 2016 | Results
• RTF Sustainability Awards 2015 | Results
• RTF Awards 2014 | Results
• RTF Architectural Visualization Competition 2020 – Results
• Architectural Photography Competition 2020 – Results
• Designer’s Days of Quarantine Contest – Results
• Urban Sketching Competition May 2020 – Results
• RTF Essay Writing Competition April 2020 – Results
• Architectural Photography Competition 2019 – Finalists
• The Ultimate Thesis Guide
• Introduction to Landscape Architecture
• Perfect Guide to Architecting Your Career
• How to Design Architecture Portfolio
• How to Design Streets
• Introduction to Urban Design
• Introduction to Product Design
• Complete Guide to Dissertation Writing
• Introduction to Skyscraper Design
• Educational
• Hospitality
• Institutional
• Office Buildings
• Public Building
• Residential
• Sports & Recreation
• Temporary Structure
• Commercial Interior Design
• Corporate Interior Design
• Healthcare Interior Design
• Hospitality Interior Design
• Residential Interior Design
• Sustainability
• Transportation
• Urban Design
• Host your Course with RTF
• Architectural Writing Training Programme | WFH
• Editorial Internship | In-office
• Graphic Design Internship
• Research Internship | WFH
• Research Internship | New Delhi
• RTF | About RTF
• Submit Your Story

Looking for Job/ Internship?

Rtf will connect you with right design studios.

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Why did this happen?

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .

For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.

• Open access
• Published: 18 October 2021

Towards inclusion and diversity in the light of Universal Design: three administrative buildings in Aswan city as case studies

• M. E. Khalil 1 ,
• N. A. Mohamed 1 &
• E. A. Morghany 2  

Journal of Engineering and Applied Science volume  68 , Article number:  15 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

2671 Accesses

1 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

A Publisher Correction to this article was published on 28 November 2021

This article has been updated

Social inclusion aims to achieve an inclusive society that entails respect for human diversity and upholds principles of equality and equity, allowing all groups to take part in the society. Universal Design (UD) promotes inclusiveness by supporting access for all and easy use of the built environment, thus eliminating any form of exclusion and discrimination.

This study examines the UD application in Aswan’s administrative buildings. The study relied on the descriptive, analytical, and inductive approach, through the identification of deficiencies in the selected administrative buildings’ design, and the clarification of development strategies to make these buildings for all. The case study method has two processes (approaches) in evaluating the case study buildings; the first was by the researchers according to UD requirements using the study’s checklist; the second was by users according to UD principles using interviews and task sheets.

This research aims at emphasizing the positive effects of UD application on the selected buildings. In addition, it also aims at determining the compatibility of those buildings with the UD concept.

The study result showed that the case study buildings are not compatible considerably with the requirements of the UD and its principles. The research concluded that architects should consider UD requirements and principles when designing administrative buildings and when rehabilitating and developing the existing ones.

Thus, the study’s outputs could be used as a guidance tool by architects and construction managers in introducing universally designed buildings to all users.

Introduction

Human diversity is a concept that sums up how different everyone is not just based on looks or their ethnicities, but on body shape or size, age, or abilities, while social inclusion is defined as the way to improve social participation conditions, especially for disadvantaged people, by improving opportunities, accessing services, and respecting rights to avoid insularity [ 1 ]. Exclusion is the main issue that faces permanent or temporary disabled people, and elders . Discrimination happens because all buildings are designed for only one category of people: those who do not have any kind of disability [ 2 ].

A fundamental goal of Universal Design (UD) is to consider the abilities and limitations of people to ensure that products and environments can be accessed and used easily with regard to all. To apply and activate this framework of UD in Egypt, it is necessary to be aware of the UD concept and its principles. In case that the authorities, the designers, and the owners are aware of UD, they will respect the UD concept and principles in any public and private building [ 3 ]. Clearly, there is a need for implementing UD well in Egypt. Also, it is essential to provide expert engineers, and researchers in this field, to raise awareness about UD in Egypt and to contribute to providing universally designed buildings to all users. Thus, this study is targeted to enhance social inclusion , accessibility, and UD implementation in administrative buildings in Egypt.

Public buildings mostly serve the aim of providing a service to citizens. Many of those services are provided gratis to residents. There are many varieties of public buildings including public schools, hospitals, libraries, courthouses, governmental offices, post offices, and administrative buildings [ 4 ]. Thus, this study focuses on administrative buildings to be evaluated in the light of UD. The research problem is to determine the extent of the compatibility of administrative buildings with the UD considerations, also to help in highlighting the concept of UD and its importance, and define how to apply it in administrative buildings.

The research’s aims are to contribute to highlighting the UD conception and how important it is to apply it to administrative buildings and to clarify that universally designed buildings are a crucial key factor in ensuring social inclusion and creating social sustainability , by assessing the extent of applying the UD approach in three significant administrative buildings in Aswan, which leads to determine if the elements of the buildings match the UD standards and principles and are accessible to all users. The scope of the study is focused on the aforementioned three administrative buildings as case studies at Aswan city, Egypt.

Literature review

History of universal design.

Within the 1970s, expanding people’s vision of people with disabilities galvanized the handicap movement to increase the demand for the removal of architectural barriers. In 1985, Universal Design expression was for the 1st time adopted across the USA thanks to Ronald Mace, in spite of the fact that relevant approaches of UD prevailed earlier in Europe [ 5 ].

Ron Mace, the constructor of the Center for Universal Design in 1985, anticipated Universal Design as a keystone for a more friendly and helpful world for everyone. First defined by Mace as an approach to design that allows for individual participation regardless of age and physical capabilities when UD is executed properly it introduces the advantages reachable world to any person, for instance, handicapped and normal people [ 6 ].

Universal Design concept

Human diversity is defined broadly; it encompasses groups defined by race, culture, gender, class, religion, sexual orientation, age, physical or mental ability, and national origin. Human diversity, in essence, is an all-encompassing notion that encompasses a wide range of people [ 7 ]. One major problem that faces contemporary society is the accessibility and usability for the physically disabled, elderly person. Usability and accessibility are two linked but distinct related aspects of a building. Usability implies accessibility in the sense that if the user cannot physically access the building, it is not usable by default. However, accessibility does not denote usability. For instance, an individual may be able to physically enter a building, but it may be too hard to obtain services inside, rendering the building inoperable [ 8 ]. There is a crucial need to increase awareness of accessibility and usability issues that face people with physical disabilities and to address their needs [ 9 ]. Design standards and practices based on a normal person fail to accommodate many users of varying capabilities; this led to the exclusion of many categories of people from the social and economic mainstream because of the inaccessible environment. UD places human differences in the core of the designing process so the designed building fits all types of people [ 10 ]. UD consequently, caters to all people, including any persons of different ages and sizes as well as people with different abilities or disabilities [ 11 ]. It is around to obtain a perfect design so that individuals can utilize, access, and recognize the environment as far as possible, and within the utmost autonomy, without the demand for adjustments or specialized designs. UD is not an accessibility synonym. In general, accessibility indicates minimum compliance with codes and requirements for people with disabilities [ 12 ]. UD is generally defined as “the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the utmost best extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design” [ 13 ].

• Universal Design principles

The reason for creating the principles of UD and their related rules was to articulate the conception of UD in an entire way. The principles explain the authors’ conviction that essential UD principles could be applicable in all design specialties. The principles were set for the aim of leading the design process, enabling organized assessment of designs in addition to helping in clarifying the features of more user-friendly design solutions to the architects and consumers [ 14 ].

The Universal Design principles with examples are shown in Fig. 1 .

The principles of Universal Design [ 15 ]

Methodology

This study focuses on three administrative buildings as case studies to be assessed in light of the UD concept. The chosen case studies were selected based on their significance for the users, and the frequency of users’ visits to them. The three case studies are “the administrative building of the local unit of Aswan city (A)”, “Administrative building of Aswan University (B)”, and “Office of the National organization for Social Insurance—Government Sector (C)”.

The analytical approach was used to describe the current situation of the three buildings. Moreover, a case study research method was adopted in collecting data from three different administrative buildings in Aswan. The study was conducted with a qualitative description and direct observation in the three buildings. Site observations were made in light of the UD concept. The checklist and photographic documentation were analyzed qualitatively.

In 2001, Danford and Tauke defined the six elements of the design of a universally designed city which should be taken into consideration when implementing the 7 principles of the UD in built environments [ 16 ]. The six elements were Using Circulation Systems, Entering and Exiting, Wayfinding, Parking and Passenger Loading Zones, Obtaining product/services, and Using Public Amenities, also office rooms for administrative building. This study concentrated on the three basic elements from those six ones depending on their importance and great effectiveness on the building users. The assessment was confined to the accessible areas by the public only on all floors of the buildings. The three elements that were addressed in this research are as follows:

Using Circulation Systems : Mechanical Circulation Systems (Elevators), Ramps and Stairs, Hallways and Corridors

Entering and Exiting : identifying the Entrance and the Exit and maneuvering through them, departing the Entrance and Exit Areas

Wayfinding: paths/circulation, information system design, sign content, orientation aids

Two processes of evaluating were conducted in this study as shown in Fig. 2 .

The framework of the evaluation process of the case study buildings

The researchers’ evaluation

Site observations were made by the researcher in light of the UD concept for each building. The three buildings were evaluated individually by the researcher, using a checklist that evaluates the requirements of UD to each element of the building. The checklist of 72 items was designed to collect data. Each item gets “3 points if it fully achieved UD requirement”, “2 points if it partially achieved UD requirement”, and “1 point if it fully not achieved UD requirement”, so the total points for each building are 216. The points collected by the building are calculated and then divided by 216 to obtain the percentage of the building’s compliance with UD requirements

The users’ evaluation

The evaluation process in the light of universal design principles was done by ten users “evaluators” for each building, those users diverse in education level, gender, age, and abilities, including those who had the experience of a temporary movement disability, and who had a visual impairment. Each participant has a task sheet containing the required assignments to be performed. The evaluation process requires visiting the case study building and using the mentioned building elements. Then, interviews with users “evaluators” were conducted as focus users groups. For data collection about each case study building, a prepared list was used which consisted of 61 questions to be answered by the users through their interviews’ time.

The respondents assessed the five selected elements (Using circulation system, Entering and Exiting, Wayfinding ) for each building of the three case studies. The assessment was through the seven principles of UD (equitable use, flexibility in use, simple and intuitive use, perceptible information, tolerance for error, low physical effort, size, and space for approach and use).

The completed surveys were coded and entered into an SPSS 25.0 database for analysis. The results of the study tasks and list of 61 questions are statistically analyzed by using SPSS Ver. 25 program. Prevalent statistical techniques such as “descriptive statistics” and “cross-tabulation” were used. The completed surveys were coded and entered into an SPSS 23.0 database for analysis. Then, the validity of the data entered was ensured, that there are no missing data, which may affect the validity of the data. Each variable was calculated through its mean (average), according to each element, and each principle. The Reliability of Scales was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha test. Thereafter, descriptive statistics was made for the sample according to each building, calculating the average of each element with each one of the 7 UD principles. Afterward, the result of each building was compared with the relative weight of each principle of the seven ones (Table 1 ). The relative weights of the 7 UD principles were clarified according to their significance.

The checklist and the study tasks

The checklist was prepared depending on the UD approach, standards, and requirements. The facilities within the three selected case studies were assessed by the researcher’s observation as shown in Tables 2 & 3 .

Thereafter, the study tasks for the selected evaluators “users” were prepared depending on the UD seven principles. The task list contained 61 questions for each building of the three ones.

The case study

The local unit of aswan city.

The local unit of Aswan city’s building is located in its downtown area; it has two entrances. The first entrance leads to “the technological center for the citizens’ service”, whereas the second one leads to “the presidency of Aswan city’s local unit”. The local unit building consists of 4 floors but does not have elevators or any other means of vertical contact except stairs, which led to the emergence of a problem concerning the difficulty of the vertical communication between the building’s floors (Fig. 3 ).

Sketch floor plan for entrances and the stairs in building A. Drawn by the researcher

Despite the vertical communication problem in the building, it is limited to its second section only, “the presidency of Aswan city’s local unit”; the first section is supposed to be easily accessible due to its composition of one ground floor only, but the entrance is difficult to be reached too by wheelchair users because of the existence of two stairsteps with no curb ramp. Likewise, the entrances’ doors for the building are less than 1.5-m wide as illustrated in Fig. 4 A. The signage system in the second section of the building “the presidency of Aswan city’s local unit” does not suit all users, as it does not adopt the Braille system and its high-level theme does not allow wheelchair users to read it as displayed in Fig. 4 B.

The entrance and the signage in the first section of the building, 2020

The building’s second partition is not accessible enough due to the two grades at the entrance pavement, beside the seven grades at the entrance, as seen in Fig. 5 A moreover, the absence of elevators, no or rudimentary service desk as presented in Fig. 5 B, and no waiting areas. Corridors and stairs have suitable widths but still do not suit the blind or the deaf users as shown in Fig. 6 . The internal doors of the building vary in width, but they all need a considerable effort to be opened, and their handles’ height does not suit all users, and they do not accommodate different users and movement types as displayed in Fig. 7 ; there is no guidance system or uniform pattern of signs, and if they are found, some of them are unclear; they do not have the Braille system and no proper level of placement that is easy to be touched or read, and there are no tactile, sound, and visual indicators in entrances, exits, and the path of travel. Floor levels and their uses are not well-defined as shown in Fig. 8 .

The entrance in the second section, the service desk is rudimentary, 2020

The corridors and the stairs, 2020

Different types of interior doors, 2020

There are no maps, directories, and displays, 2020

Aswan University administrative building

The building is located in Aswan University campus at Sahari city, Aswan. The administrative building includes 4 floors and a basement; the building has two entrances; the first entrance is located on the ground floor, while the second one is located in the basement, as shown in the plans of the building as illustrated in Fig. 9 . However, there is a problem in entering the building, because the entries do not have any ramps or blocks to guide the visually impaired people, or a tactile form of alert in the beginning and the end of the stairs as presented in Fig. 10 . Next to each entrance, there is a stair on its edge; the main staircase is next to the main entrance, while the emergency stair is alongside the second entrance. Both of them do not have more than 10 risers between landings, but there are no tactile indicators on railings like grooves or bumps to mark the beginning and the end of a stairway as seen in Fig. 11 . The building has one elevator close to the main entrance, with a front space that allows people to gather before entry, but obstructing the circulation flow in the building; the elevator’s space is not enough to allow wheelchair users to rotate 180°; there are no contrasts between objects like doorway frames, calling buttons, faceplate, key numbering, and their backgrounds. Operable parts of all calling buttons and control panels are more than 120 cm so it cannot serve all users; the elevator car has a bar in the front wall which can help users with different abilities as displayed in Fig. 12 . There is no voice alert for the elevator’s floor number. Corridors’ width is suitable for anyone but when using them as waiting areas or when placing cabinets, their widths do not suit all users, in addition to the lack of audio, visual, or tactile means as shown in Fig. 13 . The interior doors’ widths are suitable, but the handle’s height is unsuitable for people in a sitting position and need more force to be opened, and have bottom bumpers with a height of 20 cm used as wheel bumpers and a resistance to friction and shock material, but their height should be 40 cm. The double doors in the corridors are wide enough and always open to avoid obstructing the circulation flow as seen in Fig. 14 . The building lacks in the Information System Design—no directional signs and no maps. Sectional names are clearly identified in the elevator lobby, but there is a lack of tactile, sound, and visual indicators as presented in Fig. 15 .

Plans of Aswan University’s administrative building. Photo source: Architectural Engineering Department at Aswan University

The entrance is difficult to be used due to lack of ramps and guiding blocks (2020)

The main stair is 1.7 m in width, while the emergency stair is 1 m in width (2020)

The building has one elevator (2020)

The corridors’ widths are suitable for wheelchair users (2020)

The interior doors’ widths are 80–90 cm (2020)

The building lacks the Information System Design (2020)

The National Organization for Social Insurance—Government Sector

The building is located in the downtown area in “Nafak” neighborhood. The building consists of a ground floor and five stories. The social insurance building is newly constructed in the latest 10 years; it presents services to pensioners, that is, more than 60% of its users are elderly users; despite that, it is not designed to accommodate their different abilities.

The building has two entrances —main and side entrances. However, there is a problem in entering the building, because the entries do not have any ramps or blocks to guide the visually impaired people, or a tactile form of alert in the beginning and the end of the stairs as presented in Fig. 16 . The automated teller machine (ATM) is next to the side entrance stairs, which disturbs movement. As for the main entrance, it is next to the Service Desk; this creates confusion and crowding from the users of the Service Desk and users of the main entrance stair. The entrance has two raised thresholds that prevent the use of people with different mobility abilities (Fig. 16 ). The width of corridors is small to allow two people to pass in two different directions, as illustrated in Fig. 17 .

The entrance does not meet the universal design principles’ standard. Researcher, 2021

The corridors and the stairs. 2021

The building contains the main stair with a width of 110 cm and the emergency stair with a width of 90 cm. The two stairs do not have any tactile indicators to indicate their beginning or end; also, their widths are not suitable to accommodate the expected traffic flow (Fig. 17 ). There are no signs to direct the users inside the building or show the services provided on each floor, and the existing signs do not serve those with different visual capabilities; signs are explaining the required administrative papers and signs of the room’s labels, but they are not designed universally (Fig. 18 ). There is one elevator in the building, it has an unclear location from the entrance, and there is no adequate waiting area for the public to gather in front of it, its area does not allow full rotation for wheelchair users. Figure 19 shows the ground floor sketch plan for the evaluated elements “entrance and stairs” in building C, by the researchers.

Signs of required administrative papers and room’s labels. 2021

The floor sketch plan for entrance and stairs in building C. Drawn by the researcher

Result of the researchers’ evaluation according to UD requirements

The researcher evaluation results showed that building A “ The Local Unit of Aswan City ” obtained 46.76% of compliance to UD requirements, while the total percentage of their compliance to UD requirements was 50.93% for building B “ Aswan University administrative building ”. Building C “ The National Organization for Social Insurance—Government Sector ” obtained 44.44% of compliance with UD requirements. In a more detailed analysis, the percentage of the UD requirements for each design element is shown by the ratios in Figs. 20 , 21 , and 22 .

Percentage of compliance to UD for the elements in building A

Percentage of compliance to UD for the elements in building B

Percentage of compliance to UD for the elements in building C

Based on the abovementioned detailed percentage, the study observed that “ Using Circulation systems ” in building B achieved the highest percentage ( 61.67% ) than building C ( 50.00% ) and building A ( 48.33% ) as illustrated in Fig. 23 . The absence of elevators in building A has an effective role in the building score. More detailed analysis showed that the item “ Hallways and Corridors ” in buildings A and B were equal with 55.56%, while “ Mechanical Circulation Systems ” ( Elevators ) was the lowest item with 33.33% in building A. Regarding the “ Ramps and Stairs ” item, the ratios were close to each other in the three buildings as illustrated in Fig. 24 .

The summation score of compliance to UD for each element in the three buildings

Percentage of compliance to UD for the detailed items in the three buildings

The design element “ Entering and Exiting ” and its items were equal in buildings A and B by 52.94% as shown in Fig. 23 ; “Departing the Entrance and Exit Area” item achieved the percentage of 46.67% in the three buildings due to the absence of multiple physical signs which participate in recognizing the building outlets. Regarding the “Identifying the entrance and exit” and “Maneuvering through the Entrance or Exit” items, the ratios were equal in buildings A and B with 55.56% for both, and 33.33%, 44.44% in building C, as illustrated in Fig. 24 ).

The study result showed that the “ Wayfinding ” element was equal in buildings A and C and obtained 42.86% even though, building B ratio was 43.81% as illustrated in Fig. 23 . The Convergence of “ Wayfinding ” ratios, in the three buildings is due to the absence of a clear information system design in all of them. In detail, the research showed that the item “ Paths / Circulation ” in building B achieved the highest percentage of 72.22% than buildings B and C, while the items “ Information System Design ”, “ Sign Content ” and Orientation Aids were equal in the three buildings as illustrated in Fig. 24 .

It is clear from the previous ratios that building “C” has the least compliance with UD requirements, despite the fact that it is the most recent of them in terms of construction and provides its services to elderly users. And after analyzing the previous results, it became clear that there were no tactile, sound, and visual indicators in any element of the study buildings. The absence of ramps limits accessibility to the entrances in all case study buildings, even the newly constructed ones. Corridors have a very appropriate width in old study buildings, but the misuse reduces the efficiency of their performance. In the newly constructed building, the small widths of the corridors impede access to rooms for those in the sitting position. The omission of the Information System Design in all study buildings limits the accessibility within the buildings.

Result of the users’ evaluation according to UD principals

Regarding building A, the users’ evaluation results revealed that the UD principles (simple and intuitive use, and low physical effort) achieved the highest percentage 42% and 43%, respectively, though their “relative weights” were 11.12%, which referred to their middle importance. Also, the principle “perceptible information” achieved the lowest ratio of 17% that is compatible with its relative weight of 7.9% as shown in Fig. 25 .

The users’ evaluation results about compliance of all elements with each UD principle in building A “the administrative building of the local unit of Aswan city”

It is clear that Building A has no “Elevator”, and the results showed that “Stairs” achieved the highest percentage in compliance with each UD principle, although, “Wayfinding” obtained the lowest percentage with each UD principle as, there is no “Wayfinding” system, as in Fig. 26 .

Compliance of each element with each one of UD principles in building A “the administrative building of the local unit of Aswan city”

With respect to building B, the highest percentage was achieved by principles (simple and intuitive use, and low physical effort) 33% and 30%, respectively. For Size and space for approach and use principles, the results affirmed that its ratio was 24%, despite its relative weight was 25.26%, which referred to its highest significance, as presented in Fig. 27 .

The users’ evaluation results about compliance of all elements with each UD principle in building B “Administrative building of Aswan University”

The “elevators” attained a low percentage in compliance with UD principles. “Stairs” and “Corridors” accomplished convergent percentages with each UD principle. Also, “Entering and exit” obtained a decreased percentage with UD principles excluding “Simple and intuitive use” and “Size and space for approach and use” as displayed in Fig. 28 .

Compliance of each element with each one of UD principles in building B “Administrative building of Aswan University”

Concerning building C, the users’ results displayed that the principles “Size and Space for Approach and Use” and “Perceptible Information” achieved the decreased percentage of 18% and 17%, respectively. Though “Perceptible Information principle” has the lowest relative weight of 7.91%; nevertheless, “Size and Space for Approach and Use principle” attained the highest relative weight of 25.26%. It is obvious that “Equitable Use principle” had the middle significance with a relative weight of 14.34% and obtained 28% of compliance of UD principles, as shown in Fig. 29 .

The users’ evaluation results about compliance of all elements with each UD principle in building C “The National Organization for Social Insurance—Government Sector”

“Elevators” accomplished 56% in compliance with the UD principles. Even though, “Stairs”, “Corridors”, and “Entrances and exits” achieved convergent percentage with all principles of UD except the stairs with “Simple and Intuitive Use” obtain the highest percentage of 65%. Thus, “Wayfinding” obtained the lowest percentage with all UD principles excluding “Tolerance for Error principle”, as shown in Fig. 30 .

Compliance of each element with each one of UD principles in building C “The National Organization for Social Insurance—Government Sector”

Ultimately, it is apparent in the three case study buildings, that Perceptible Information principle is the most absent and not applied one, while, Simple and Intuitive Use principle is the most existing and applied one

It was clear from the result that the case studies do not apply considerably the UD requirements and principle. So, it is required to amend many design elements of the building to improve its usability to all users to ensure social inclusion and create social sustainability.

A comparison between the “UD requirements” and “The Egyptian code for designing outdoor spaces and buildings for the disabled” (CODE 601) was done by the researcher in a previous study. The comparison outcomes revealed that the UD approach and its principles are broad and inclusive.

After reviewing the results of the researchers and users of the case study buildings, the outcomes’ convergence was proven. Without a doubt, the users’ evaluation besides the researchers is recommended in future researches. But, the users’ opinion should be an assistive tool not basic for assessing and obtaining more accurate results, since most normal users do not feel the problems facing others.

From the study and analysis of the previous results, a set of problems of usability, accessibility and inclusiveness were identified in the three case studies. These problems led to discrimination and social exclusion for a specific group of people who have weak physical abilities. Hence, it is necessary to study and focus on these problems and classify them to be solved, consequently, preventing this social discrimination.

Many of these problems can be solved by either adding some elements or integrating a particular system or creating some architectural elements. However, some problems are difficult to be resolved as shown in Table 4 .

Recommendation

The following are recommendations from this study’s results:

▪ Working on implementing the proposed amendments to improve access in the case studies buildings

▪ The importance of conducting analytical surveys involving Administrative Buildings to rehabilitate them to be in line with the Universal Design requirements

▪ Educating designers, architects, and engineers on the necessity of paying attention to the needs of all people by using the UD requirements, considering future changes when designing and constructing Administrative Buildings

▪ The need to create and design a new Egyptian code for the requirements of the UD in Administrative Buildings in Egypt which differed from The Egyptian code for designing outdoor spaces and buildings for the disabled

▪ Making a possible adjustment that follows the UD approach in the existing Administrative Buildings to accommodate the needs of all users

▪ Ensure the inclusion of all types of people in the design process, construction, and administration

Universal design (UD) is not a privilege or a luxury for places, communities, or cities. UD is the creation of goods and environments that can be used as much as possible by all individuals, with no need for modification or specialized design. The goal of the research is to help emphasize the concept of UD and how important it is to apply it to administrative buildings and to acknowledge that universally designed constructions are a key factor in ensuring social integration and social sustainability. This study explores the compatibility of the administrative buildings in Aswan city with the UD requirements and principles. The assessment of administrative buildings in the light of the UD concept was through many elements; this study focused on some of them. The findings of this research revealed that the three case studies did not adequately meet the UD concept and principles. The study outcomes which were concluded together by the researchers and buildings’ users were more accurate. Therefore, it is recommended to utilize the building users’ evaluation in future researches. Also, the study recommends some modifications and improvements for the building elements to ensure usability and inclusion to all users.

Availability of data and materials

All data analyzed during this study are included in this submitted article.

Change history

28 november 2021.

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1186/s44147-021-00048-2

Abbreviations

Universal design

The automated teller machine

United Nations Deparment of Economic and Social Affairs. (2016). Report on the World Social Situation. In Report on the World Social Situation (pp. 17–32). https://www.un-ilibrary.org/economic-and-social-development/report-on-the-world-social-situation-2016_5890648c-en

Afacan, Y., & Erbug, C. (2009). An interdisciplinary heuristic evaluation method for universal building design. Appl Ergon, 40(4), 731–744. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2008.07.002

Policy, E., Application, B. L., Services, V. H., Planning, V., Services, H., Approval, P. B., & Building, P. (2011). Guidelines for public buildings. July.

Copeland, E. (2014). Promoting Universal Design in public buildings: an action research study of community participation. http://aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/handle/10292/7713

Yuen, F. K. O., & Pardeck, J. T. (1998). Impact of human diversity education on social work students. Int J Adolesc Youth, 7(3), 249–261. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.1998.9747827

Blanck, D. (n.d.). The coming importance of Universal Design - progressive AE. https://www.progressiveae.com/importance-universal-design/

Erlandson, R. F., & Group, F. (2008). Universal and accessible design for products, services, and processes. In Universal and Accessible Design for Products, Services, and Processes. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420007664

Al-Tal, S. M. (2002). Integrated Universal Design: a solution for everyone. The Unioa Institute.

Souza, S. C. de, & Post, A. P. D. de O. (2016). Universal Design: an urgent need. Procedia Soc Behav Sci, 216(October 2015), 338–344. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.12.046

Ahmed MEK (2016) An assessment of street design with Universal Design principles: case in Aswan / As-Souq. MEGARON Yıldız Tech Univ Fac Arch E-J 11(4):616–628 https://doi.org/10.5505/megaron.2016.98704

MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Ahmed, M. E. K. (2020). Exploring inclusiveness in green hotels for sustainable development in Egypt. 1(1), 15–23.

Wolfgang F., E. P., & Korydon H., S. (2011). Universal desigh handbook. In Universal Design Hand Book.

Kadir, S. A., & Jamaludin, M. (2012). Applicability of Malaysian standards and Universal Design in public buildings in Putrajaya. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.072

Danford, G. S., & Tauke, B. (2001). Universal Design NewYork 2. Center for inclusive design & environmental access, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York.

North Carolina State University, T. C. for U. D. (1997). The center for Universal Design - Universal Design principles. In the Principles of Universal Design (pp. 1–4). https://projects.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/about_ud/udprinciplestext.htm

ÖZDEMİR Y, ÖZDEMİR Ş (2020) Weighthing the Universal Design principles using multi-criteria decision making techniques. Mühendislik Bilimleri ve Tasarım Dergisi 8(1):105–118 https://doi.org/10.21923/jesd.427505

Article   Google Scholar  

Kapedani E, Herssens J, Verbeeck G (2019) Designing for the future? Integrating energy efficiency and universal design in Belgian passive houses. Energy Res Soc Sci 50(July 2018):215–223 https://doi.org/gercdd

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the helpful plans of Aswan University’s administrative building under this study provided by the Architectural Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering at Aswan University.

Not applicable

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Aswan University, Aswan, Egypt

M. E. Khalil & N. A. Mohamed

Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Assuit University, Assuit, Egypt

E. A. Morghany

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

ME analyzed and interpreted the data regarding the study buildings. NA collected the data and photographic documentation. EA was a major contributor in writing the manuscript. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to M. E. Khalil or N. A. Mohamed .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Khalil, M.E., Mohamed, N.A. & Morghany, E.A. Towards inclusion and diversity in the light of Universal Design: three administrative buildings in Aswan city as case studies. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 68 , 15 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s44147-021-00020-0

Download citation

Received : 07 May 2021

Accepted : 30 August 2021

Published : 18 October 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s44147-021-00020-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Universal Design (UD)
• Administrative buildings
• Human diversity
• Social inclusion

• Universal Design
• Case Studies & Evidence-Based Design
• Design for All Ages
• Products & Materials
• Boards & Presentations
• Feedback for us on this page? Please share it here.

Log in to Read Ebooks (DI Students, Faculty and Staff)

To read these ebooks, click the links below and use your Microsoft 365 login credentials (your DI email address and password).

You can also click the LIRN Library tab in Canvas , which will take you to the LIRN Library Portal and log you into all of the library resources. Need help? Contact the DI Library .

Ebooks - login required

• AIA COTE Top Ten by Varun Kohli - Find Award-Winning Projects
• Buildings by Type | Architectural Record
• Universal Design Case Study Collection | Institute for Human Centered Design
• Research 101, Part I: Research-Based Practice The first of a 3-part series that provides an introduction to research methods and how you might use research in design practice.
• Research 101, Part II: Research Vocabulary The second of a 3-part series that provides an introduction to research methods and how you might use research in design practice.
• Research 101, Part III: Research Methods The second of a 3-part series that provides an introduction to research methods and how you might use research in design practice.

Books and Magazines in the DI Library

Cite Your Sources

When your instructor doesn’t care  how  you cite as long as you  do  cite, make sure to include the information someone would need to find your source on their own. A citation for a case study might look like this:

“The Edith Green-Wendell Wyatt Federal Building” case study. AIA Top Ten.  http://www.aiatopten.org/node/494 .

Cite It Where You Use It 

Every time you use a quotation, a piece of information, or an image from another source,  cite the source right where you use it , whether it’s on your project board or in your paper, job book or presentation.

Include enough information to allow your audience to figure out which source (from your complete list at the end) you’re citing. For example, if you use the case study in the example above, the citation on your board or presentation slide might be  “Edith Green."

• Library materials about evidence-based design, including case studies
• Websites about evidence-based design, including case studies
• << Previous: Welcome
• Next: Universal Design >>
• Last Updated: Mar 5, 2024 1:28 PM
• URL: https://disd.libguides.com/universal-design

The Design Institute of San Diego Library

The Design Institute of San Diego | 855 Commerce Avenue | San Diego, CA 92121 | (858) 566-1200 x 1019

Sign up for our free newsletter and get more of Development Asia delivered to your inbox.

Using Universal Design to Make the Built Environment More Accessible

Singapore is making buildings and living and work spaces accessible to all. 

Retrofitting and revamping access to all buildings in a whole country is a massive task. The Building and Construction Authority has been driving the Singapore government’s efforts in creating a barrier-free country that is accessible to people of all ages and abilities. Since the Code on Barrier-Free Accessibility in Buildings was implemented in 1990, the accessibility of buildings in Singapore has improved significantly. As the Code was applied only to new building projects, the Building Construction Authority had to come up with various ways to upgrade the existing building stock. This was a enormous task, given the sheer number of properties built before the Code came into effect.

This case study was adapted from Urban Solutions of the Centre for Liveable Cities in Singapore .

Along with Singapore’s rapid urbanization from the 1950s to 1980s, a dense, high-rise built environment was created. As the majority of the population then was young and able, the need to provide barrier-free accessibility was not a critical concern. The focus was on maximizing land resources for the economic and social needs of a growing population.

The year 1990 saw a milestone in Singapore’s accessibility efforts. Although the population was still fairly young, the Code on Barrier-Free Accessibility in Buildings was introduced to help improve accessibility standards, especially for wheelchair users. The design and construction requirements set out in the Code were mandatory for all new building projects. The Code benefits anyone with physical limitations, including elderly individuals who are not wheelchair bound.

It had been estimated that between 2006 and 2030, the number of senior citizens, many of whom would face deteriorating physical abilities, would increase threefold. Thus, the goal of cultivating an inclusive built environment that supported “ageing-in-place” was conceived, to help individuals adapt to ageing in their homes—surroundings familiar to them. This would also allow families to care for older members more easily.

The Building Construction Authority has incorporated the concept of universal design, or “design for all,” into its mission to address the needs of people of all ages and abilities. With this goal, a key challenge was upgrading the large existing stock of buildings built before the 1990 Accessibility Code came into force. There was also a need to go beyond providing barrier-free accessibility within buildings and ensure that the surroundings of buildings are similarly barrier-free.

In 2006, the Building Construction Authority started a big push for universal design with the launch of the Accessibility Master Plan. Holistic and collaborative in nature, the plan allows the Building Construction Authority to work with other government agencies to tackle the challenges of creating a user-friendly built environment in Singapore.

To address older buildings that were not barrier-free, the Building Construction Authority implemented an accessibility upgrading program from 2006 to 2011, targeting buildings and areas regularly visited by the public.

Since 2007, the Building Construction Authority has been advising government agencies on the upgrading of public-sector buildings with a set of basic features for accessibility, which covers the approach to buildings and the first story of the buildings, including a toilet on that level. The Building Construction Authority has also played a role in facilitating and monitoring the upgrading process.

To incentivize owners of private-sector buildings to upgrade their premises to be barrier-free, the Building Construction Authority introduced the Accessibility Fund in 2007, which co-pays up to 80% of the total cost of refurbishing buildings to include basic accessibility features. In particular, the Building Construction Authority worked with building owners to improve accessibility along Orchard Road, a popular shopping district where most of the buildings were built before the introduction of mandatory requirements in 1990.

The Accessibility Code has undergone several revisions and updates to meet the needs of the time. The last review of the Code was conducted between 2011 and 2013. It was a collaborative effort involving the people, private and public sectors. Numerous public consultations, focus group discussions and user trials with stakeholders were held to ensure that the Code was comprehensive and could benefit more Singaporeans.

For example, the 2013 Code review highlighted the need for more facilities that could cater to people with diverse needs. Child-friendly sanitary facilities and family car park lots have thus become required in buildings such as sports complexes and large shopping malls. Other features that have become mandatory include Braille and tactile information for public toilet signs, and hearing enhancement systems in venues such as function rooms and auditoriums. The Code was also refined to include wider corridors to allow easy access for wheelchairs and prams.

At the same time, the Building Construction Authority continues to encourage developers, building owners, designers and other industry stakeholders to apply universal design in new developments and those undergoing upgrading. To encourage stakeholders to do more than just comply with the Code, the Building Construction Authority promotes universal design through courses, roving exhibitions and seminars. It also began giving out Universal Design Awards in 2007 to recognize development projects that show extensive efforts in applying universal design concepts with user-friendly features. A “sensory garden” open for public viewing at the Building Construction Authority Academy serves as a model to demonstrate the universal design concept.

To widen outreach efforts, the Building Construction Authority has begun to rate the user-friendliness of buildings. This information is available in the Friendly Buildings Portal, where users can check the level of accessibility of a building. A mobile application has also been developed for this purpose.

Today, people using wheelchairs and other mobility aids are no longer confined to their homes. They can often be seen moving around neighborhood markets, food centers, shopping malls and activity centers with ease. As of March 2012, close to 100% of public-sector buildings regularly frequented by the public had achieved basic accessibility, while the proportion of buildings along the Orchard Road shopping belt providing basic accessibility had increased significantly to 88%, from 41% in 2006.

In 2012, the Universal Design Awards was replaced by the Building Construction Authority Universal Design Mark, a voluntary certification scheme that recognizes building owners for their efforts in incorporating universal design into their developments. As of May 2017, 149 building projects had received the Building Construction Authority Universal Design Mark. As part of their design briefs, many developers now indicate their desire to achieve Platinum rating, the highest standard, for the Building Construction Authority Universal Design Mark. In 2013, the Building Construction Authority Universal Design Mark was recognized as an innovative practice at the international Zero Project Conference at the United Nations Office in Vienna, Austria.

John Keung. 2015. No More Barriers: Promoting Universal Design in Singapore. Urban Solutions, Issue 6: Active Mobility . February 2015. The Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore.

Case study: Enhancing Urban Spaces with Pedestrian-Friendly, Mixed-Use Development

Case study: Rejuvenating an Old Residential Area by Crafting and Activating New Civic Spaces

Case Study: How to Build a Competitive and Livable City

Ask the Experts

The mission of the Centre for Liveable Cities in Singapore is to distil, create and share knowledge on liveable and sustainable cities. CLC’s work spans four main areas—Research, Capability Development, Knowledge Platforms, and Advisory. Through these activities, CLC hopes to provide urban leaders and practitioners with the knowledge and support needed to make our cities better.

View the discussion thread.

You Might Also Like

How Can Asian Banks Navigate the Uncertain Macro Environment?

Five Emerging Key Technologies Driving a Clean Energy Transition in the US

The Economics of Climate Change in the Pacific

The views expressed on this website are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) or its Board of Governors or the governments they represent. ADB does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use. By making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area, or by using the term “country” in this document, ADB does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.

• Agriculture and natural resources
• Capacity development
• Civil society
• Climate change
• Environment
• Finance sector development
• Governance and public sector management
• Industry and trade
• Information and communications technology
• Private sector development
• Regional cooperation and integration
• Social development and protection
• Urban development
• Afghanistan
• China, People's Republic of
• Cook Islands
• Korea, Republic of
• Kyrgyz Republic
• Lao People's Democratic Republic
• Marshall Islands
• New Zealand
• Papua New Guinea
• Philippines
• Solomon Islands
• Timor-Leste
• Turkmenistan
• Goal 1: No Poverty
• Goal 2: Zero Hunger
• Goal 3: Good Health and Well-being
• Goal 4: Quality Education
• Goal 5: Gender Equality
• Goal 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
• Goal 7: Affordable and Clean Energy
• Goal 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
• Goal 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
• Goal 10: Reduced Inequalities
• Goal 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
• Goal 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
• Goal 13: Climate Action
• Goal 14: Life Below Water
• Goal 15: Life on Land
• Goal 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
• Goal 17: Partnerships for the Goals
• All Content
• Communities

Disability and Inclusion

Universal design case study: canadian museum for human rights, cmhr to feature the most inclusive design in canadian history; accessibility sets global example, surpasses smithsonian guidelines.

Examples of the CMHR approach to inclusive design include:

• A unique tactile keyboard, conceived by the Museum and vetted by the Inclusive Design Research Centre at OCAD. Incorporated into touchscreen installations, it will enable visually impaired and mobility restricted visitors to navigate digital exhibit information and access inclusive functions without needing to seek assistance.

• Software interfaces designed and developed to go beyond best practices in areas like colour contrast, reach, visual and functional hierarchy (for ease of digital navigation and comprehension) and other usability aspects.

• Tactile wall and floor elements to indicate the location and orientation of various exhibits and assist in wayfinding.

• Film and video that includes open captioning, descriptive video (audio track), American Sign Language (ASL) and Langue des signes québécoise (LSQ).

• Positioning of text panels and other visual elements that consider distance and angles for people with low vision lines, such as those in wheelchairs.

• Exhibit tactile markers that provide information about accessibility options for exhibits and gallery zones using clear, raised type and graphic icons, and Braille.

• High contrast visual elements and text to accommodate low-vision visitors, with consideration to other visual disabilities such as colour blindness or dyslexia.

• Mobile and digital media that incorporate elements like closed and open captioning, described video, ASL, and LSQ. The Museum is also investigating Near Field Communication technology which would prompt visitors when (via proximity) to access descriptions and supplemental interpretation on mobile devices.

• Staff training that ensures interpretive programming and visitor interactions are inclusive and mindful of a full range of accessibility needs.

• Graphic standards that meet or surpass Smithsonian guidelines for text organization and visual presentations that consider features such as easily legible typeface, font size, weight, contrast and proportion.

• Physical design and wayfinding techniques such as accessible ramp elevation, doorway clearances, and mobility issues – especially important given the Museum’s complex architecture.

• Consideration of the needs of people with intellectual disabilities, children, the elderly, those with language barriers, and the mentally ill.

Canadian Museum of Human Rights to open in 2014

Planning A Universally Hospitable Museum. A blog post

CMHR’s Inclusive Design Advisory Council aims to make Museum experience universally enriching .

3D Model of Canadian Museum of Human Rights

Advertisement

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

• Open access
• Published: 20 December 2022
• Volume 38 , pages 1491–1510, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Valerie Watchorn   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4726-2414 1 , 2 ,
• Danielle Hitch   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2798-2246 1 , 2 ,
• Richard Tucker   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9989-251X 2 , 3 ,
• Patsie Frawley   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7643-4935 2 , 4 ,
• Kathryn Aedy 1 , 2 &
• Cathryn Grant 5  

3175 Accesses

Explore all metrics

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

Universal Design-Based Framework to Assess Usability and Inclusion of Buildings

Enabling Abilities by Universal Design: Mapping Academic Initiatives

Towards inclusion and diversity in the light of Universal Design: three administrative buildings in Aswan city as case studies

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Universal design (UD) is an approach where designers go beyond minimum standards and legislation to design a building that is usable by all people (Hamraie, 2017 ). As a means of reducing discrimination and enhancing social participation, it is called for internationally by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (United Nations, 2007 ) and, in Australia, by a range of national, state and local policy directives. Despite growing demand, there are no agreed upon models or methods to evaluate how UD is applied or what outcomes are achieved. This study aimed to gather information from a range of stakeholders on current UD evaluation practice, and thus inform suggestions for improving this practice.

1.1 Background

The Principles of Universal Design (Connell et al., 1997 ) were developed to guide practitioners on what should be considered during UD application. However, in emphasising outcomes relating to usability for all people, these guidelines have been critiqued as being too subjective (Lid, 2013 ), broad, and dynamic, to easily measure (O’Shea et al., 2016 ). In contrast to accessibility, which refers to environmental parameters that influence human function, are quantifiable, and mandated via legislation (Erkiliç, 2011 ; Ostroff, 2011 ), the concept of usability denotes a ‘fit’ between the abilities of a person and their environment that supports activity performance (Iwarsson & Stahl, 2003 ). In more recent work, Steinfield and Maisel ( 2012 ) argue that a broader focus on outcomes relating to social inclusion and equity would better meet current political, social, and economic environments and, in response, these authors propose a new definition of UD that highlights a broader range of outcomes - “a process that enables and empowers a diverse population by improving human performance, health and wellness, and social participation” (p.29).

1.2 Literature Review

1.2.1 evaluation methodology.

Evaluation of building processes and outcomes provides valuable information to not only optimise the design and function of a new building but also to inform future designs. However, evaluating public buildings is inherently complex and can involve assessing diverse performance outcomes, including environmental (e.g. energy/water consumption), physical and space (e.g. structural stability/ergonomics), psychosocial (e.g. thermal/acoustic comfort), and socioeconomic (e.g. security/maintenance cost) (Vásquez-Hernández & Restrepo Álvarez, 2017 ). Architectural projects typically proceed through eight temporal stages: Strategic Definition, Preparation and Brief; Concept Design; Developed Design; Technical Design; Construction; Handover and Close-out; and In Use (Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), 2013 ). Performance evaluation may occur during design or construction phases using methodologies such as simulation, and post-occupancy using processes that seek to gather feedback on actual performance (Preiser, 2001a ; Vásquez-Hernández & Restrepo Álvarez, 2017 ). Although there is an array of tools and systems by which specific building or construction processes and outcomes can be evaluated, there is no consistently used method or tool to evaluate how usable a building is from the perspective of its end-users (Mosca & Capolongo, 2018 ; Preiser, 2001b ).

1.2.2 Evaluation of universal design

There are known barriers to evaluating the application of UD to public built environments. Firstly, earlier research suggests that stakeholder understanding can be limited and that the concept of UD is commonly considered synonymous with accessible design (Bamzar, 2019 ; De Cauwer et al., 2009 ; Larkin et al., 2015 ; Sørensen & Ryhl, 2017 ; Van der Linden et al., 2016 ; Welch & Jones, 2001 ). Inconsistent use and interpretation of terminology poses a challenge for stakeholders in understanding what outcomes can be anticipated and evaluated when compared to accessible design which can be assessed and measured through code-compliance. Secondly, despite the fact that Mace ( 1985 ) originally called for UD to be applied from the beginning of the design process, and that research indicate supports for this from practitioners (Hitch et al., 2012 ) and academics (Afacan & Erbug, 2009 ; Maisel, 2006 ), it is not known when evaluation can effectively occur. Finally, where the intention is to design a public building that is usable by all people, there is no clear guidance on whose perspectives should be included in evaluation. Involvement of user-experts, such as people with disabilities, has long been called for (Ostroff, 1997 ; Ringaert, 2001 ) as people who do not have such experience may be unable to effectively predict the experience of people who do (Barnes, 2016 ; Bickenbach et al., 1999 ; Oliver, 1990 ). Unintentionally, designers may overlook aspects of design that significantly impact usability (Heylighen et al., 2016 , 2017 ; Pritchard, 2014 ). Although valuable knowledge and insight can be gained from people whose participation is regularly restricted by environmental barriers (Australian Government Department of Social Services, 2019 ; Heylighen et al., 2017 ; Lid, 2014 ), there are limited published examples of people with disabilities being involved in the evaluation of UD as applied to public buildings. Additionally, sample and project sizes in these studies are relatively small and it is not known how effective these methods are in providing perspectives on usability for public buildings (Siddall et al., 2011 ).

Despite challenges noted, efforts have been made to develop methodology and tools to evaluate UD in public built environments. In their review, O’Shea et al. (2016) classify these in four ways: ‘checklist-driven’; ‘holistic’; ‘value-driven’; and ‘invisible’.

Checklist-driven evaluations are commonly based on the Principles of Universal Design (Connell et al., 1997 ) and, in the form of access audits, frequently reference local regulatory systems where building features are checked against code-compliance (Access Institute, 2017 ). Examples of checklist-based UD evaluations have been published as case studies (Afacan & Erbug, 2009 ; Guimarães, 2001 , 2016 ; Kim & Chang, 2018 ) but criticisms include the arduous length of tools, reliance on code-compliance, and a focus on potential environmental demands rather than actual demands (Mosca & Capolongo, 2018 ; O’Shea et al., 2016 ; Sanford, 2009 ).

Holistic evaluations aim to measure both potential and actual demands of a building (O’Shea et al., 2016 ). Sanford’s ( 2012 ) Universal Design Assessment Protocol (UDAP) provides an example of this approach. By systematically analysing abilities required to complete a single task, such as operating a door handle, the UDAP aimed to provide a means to evaluate the usability of environments. However, the inherent complexity of this tool was noted to limit its practicability (Sanford, 2012 ). Froyen’s ( 2012 ) methodological pattern-based approach to UD offers a second example where the author attempts to evaluate and collate patterns of interactions between people and their environments. Work by Preiser ( 2001b ), and more recently by Cassi et al., ( 2021 ) and Mosca & Capolongo ( 2018 ), has emphasised the value of post-occupancy evaluation (POE) as a means of evaluating environmental usability, in particular interactions between people and environments. However, as noted by O’Shea et al. ( 2016 ), a significant challenge presented by holistic, post-occupancy evaluations is the demand on time and resources.

Value-driven evaluations focus on broader outcomes, such as equity and social participation (O’Shea et al., 2016 ). Notably, this form of evaluation emphasises a single aspect of UD and offers a focused perspective on outcomes. The final type of evaluation method outlined by O’Shea et al. (2016) is the invisible evaluation conducted by designers who, throughout the design process make constant, informal evaluations based on their training, skills, and values.

O’Shea et al. ( 2016 ) conclude that simple checklist-driven evaluations are likely to be insufficient to evaluate the complexity of UD and that holistic, post-occupancy methods that measure actual demands of environments on people’s performance are required. These authors and others (Afacan & Erbug, 2009 ) support using a combination of methods. Contextualisation of evaluation criteria to local, state, or national regulations, and ongoing data collection over time from a range of users, including people with disabilities, is also recommended (Afacan & Erbug, 2009 ; O’Shea et al., 2016 ).

Acknowledging these challenges to evaluating UD and the lack of support for one approach or methodology, insight into current practice is called for. It is not known if there is demand for UD evaluation in practice and, if so, what methods and tools are employed. It is also not known how stakeholders perceive UD should be evaluated. This study aimed to address these gaps in knowledge by asking: what is current practice in the evaluation of UD and what do stakeholders perceive as important in UD evaluation? A mixed methods approach was taken to explore perspectives and experiences of stakeholders via online survey and in-depth interview. Findings highlight a tension between the desire for efficiency and consistency offered by a checklist approach, and the adoption of a holistic, multidisciplinary method of evaluation.

This study employed a mixed methods study design. This provided opportunity to triangulate data and to expand upon early research findings with more in-depth data collection techniques (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011 ; Greene et al., 1989 ). As an exploratory study that aimed to understand participants’ experiences and situated knowledge, a descriptive approach was selected for quantitative data analysis (Punch, 2014 ), and a content analysis approach was selected for qualitative data (Berg, 2001 ).

2.1 Study context

This study received ethics approval from Deakin University Faculty of Health Ethics Committee, Australia (HEAG-H 99_2017).

2.2 Data collection

Data were collected via online survey and in-depth interviews. These methods aimed to gather a comprehensive range of data, validate findings and triangulate data (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011 ). In this study, a survey provided opportunity to collect structured, largely quantitative data while the interviews enabled greater exploration and triangulation of topics with key stakeholders.

2.2.1 Survey

A survey was selected as an effective, efficient and ethical way to collect data from a large number of participants (Sue & Ritter, 2012 ). Survey development was based upon expert knowledge within the research team and existing literature. The survey was hosted on the Qualtrics © platform (Qualtrics, 2017 ). A total of 24 questions were structured into three sections on UD: knowledge; application; and evaluation. This paper focuses on methodology and findings pertaining to UD evaluation. A project overview has been published elsewhere (Watchorn et al., 2018 ).

Survey participants were asked about experiences and recommendations relating to UD evaluation in the built environment. Questions asked if participants had experience in evaluating UD and, if so, to describe what was done. Participants were also asked, ‘Who was involved in evaluating UD?’ and, ‘During what stage of the design process was UD evaluated?’. Participants were invited to respond to 18 closed questions, e.g., multiple choice, and to provide textual data to six open questions. Participants were asked if they had used specific evaluation tools and to rank these in order of preference. To explore perceptions on UD evaluation, participants were asked to rate its importance on a 10-point Likert scale (1 = not important at all, 10 = extremely important) and to share perceptions on when UD should be evaluated and who should evaluate it. Demographic data (age, gender, occupation, country of residence, and experience of disability) were collected to provide contextual information regarding respondents and an invitation to participate in a follow-up interview was included. The full survey is available as Appendix A .

2.2.2 Interviews

Semi-structured interviews were used to gather detailed information and provided researchers opportunity to ask set questions and participants the freedom to elaborate on points or issues of their choice (Liamputtong, 2020 ). All interviews were conducted over a six-week period in 2017 after the survey closed. A short questionnaire was used to collect demographic details (age, gender, occupation, country of residence, and experience of disability). The interview structure was developed simultaneously with survey data collection and was informed by emerging findings. Questions were open and explored participants’ experiences and attitudes toward UD application and evaluation. Examples of questions include: ‘What do you perceive as the actual outcomes of applying UD?’; ‘Are you aware of any tools or standards to evaluate the application of UD in the built environment?; and, ‘In your opinion, what would a good tool look like to evaluate the application of UD?’. The full interview schedule is included as Appendix B .

2.3 Recruitment

Participants were recruited via purposive, convenience, and snowball sampling. Key informants and professional groups with experience in or knowledge of UD in built environments were nominated by the project team. As the researchers were in Australia, emphasis was placed on recruiting participants through Australian networks, but international participants were not excluded. An invitation to participate was disseminated online via professional websites, email, Twitter and Facebook, peak industry bodies, policy makers, user-expert groups, such as Disabled People’s Organisations (DPOs), and to expert academics. The survey began with a plain language statement and sought informed consent prior to commencement and response submission. The survey was available for four weeks in 2017 and contact details were removed prior to analysis.

Survey participants who volunteered for a follow-up interview were contacted and emailed a plain language statement and consent form. Interviews were conducted face-to-face, over the phone or via VoIP, by a researcher with whom the participant had no pre-existing relationship. Informed consent was sought when arranging an interview time and formalised in writing. All survey participants who indicated interest in being interviewed were contacted and, upon nearing the limit of project resources, the sample was stratified to ensure inclusion of a diverse range of stakeholders. Others were invited to respond to interview questions in written format. The inclusion of people with disabilities was prioritised in recognition of the valuable insight that can be gained from those who commonly face barriers in the built environment (Heylighen et al., 2017 ; Ostroff, 1997 ).

To be eligible for inclusion, participants required a recent (< last 5 years) role in: environmental design, planning and/or policy; and/or advocacy, implementation and/or evaluation of UD of built environments. Participants also needed to be aged over 18 years, able to provide informed consent, and communicate easily in English.

2.4 Participants

2.4.1 survey.

The survey was completed by 157 respondents. Most were working in Australia (n = 130; 82.8%), with the remainder largely in North America and Europe. Older age groups were represented at higher rates and gender distribution was relatively even. More than half (n = 89; 56.7%) reported experience of disability, either from personal experience or experience of a family member or close friend. Thirteen participants (8.3%) had secondary experience, such as via employment. Twenty respondents (12.7%) identified as a disability advocate or representative. Academics and access consultants were represented in largest numbers. See Table  1 for details.

2.4.2 Interview

Interviews were completed with 32 participants (n = 3 face-to-face; n = 24 telephone; n = 5 VoIP). Additionally, five participants provided written responses. Of the 37 participants, the majority were working in Australia (n = 31; 83.8%), aged over 55 years (n = 15; 40.5%), and had experience of disability via personal experience or that of a family member or close friend (n = 23; 62.2%). Five participants (13.5%) identified as a disability advocate or representative and the greatest number identified as academics (n = 8; 21.6%). See Table  1 for details.

2.5 Data analysis

As a mixed methods study, quantitative and qualitative data were merged during data analysis (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011 ). Descriptive quantitative methods were used to analyse numerical survey data. Brief complementary data provided as additional comments, and as responses to the question ‘What was done to evaluate UD?’ were analysed using quantitative content analysis. Raw textual data were analysed for meaning and organised into similar categories by two to three researchers and then translated into frequencies and percentages (Maier, 2018 ). For example, text provided as “compliance with building rules” and “compared it against current requirements” were both coded as “Review against minimum standards”. To enhance reliability, any ambiguity in the interpreted meaning was discussed between researchers and consensus made on categorisation (Krippendorff, 2006 ).

Qualitative content analysis was employed to analyse data collected via interview and longer forms of textual data provided by survey participants as ‘further comments’. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim within six weeks of completion. Member checking was employed where participants were invited to review their transcript, check that it reflected their intended meaning and amend as needed.

Each transcript was read in its entirety to enable the researchers to become immersed in the data and conduct a detailed analysis of that case (Cresswell, 2017). Two forms of qualitative content analysis were employed in this study, in response to the respective characteristics of the survey and interview data. Survey data were subjected to manifest analysis, which closely reflected the comments from participants by using the exact wording and concentrating on obvious themes (Berg, 2001 ). In contrast, interview transcripts were evaluated using a latent approach, which included analysis of both the explicit content and the interpreted meaning of text (Berg, 2001 ).

Regardless of its source, qualitative data were analysed using the methodology described by Bengtsson ( 2016 ). Two members of the research team independently decontextualized the data by breaking it into inductively identified meaning units (or codes). Once identified, codes were allowed to evolve as the analysis revealed new relationships and understandings of the key themes in the data. Once the codes were finalised, an iterative process of re-contextualisation began with a review of the source texts to ensure all codes relevant to the study question had been captured. The independently identified codes were then condensed to reduce repetition and themes were identified via discussion between the two researchers, before being peer reviewed by the broader research team. All codes were aligned to a single categorical theme (Krippendorff, 2004 ), and some of the less frequently occurring (or prevalent) codes were omitted as they were not representative of the data as a whole. Please see Appendix C for an excerpt of the process of theme identification with examples from both survey and interview data.

The final step of Bengtsson’s ( 2016 ) method is the formulation of the final analysis, which occurred in this study as part of the integrated analysis of all data. Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed sequentially, and then merged into a combined set of findings to address the research questions (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011 ). This process took the form of comparing the datasets for instances where there was agreement and disagreement. Findings therefore report data in its integrated form, drawing upon results from both sources.

2.5.1 Trustworthiness of study design

Examining the trustworthiness of mixed methods studies is crucial to ensuring quality of this form of research. The Rosalind Franklin Qualitative Research Appraisal Instrument (RF-QRA) (Henderson & Rheault, 2004 ) provided the basis for selecting three key strategies to enhance trustworthiness in this study design. Firstly, the research team’s professional and academic expertise in UD enhanced the credibility of this study, as did triangulation of data. Secondly, while the study did not intend to produce broadly generalisable results, a detailed description of the sample and context supports readers’ analysis of relevance to practice settings. The detailed description of methodology, member checking, and independent coding of qualitative data support study dependability. Finally, the research team communicated regularly, and kept a comprehensive audit trial, which enabled frequent reflection and critical appraisal which supports confirmability of findings.

Findings are presented separately here as they respond to the questions: ‘How is UD of built environments currently evaluated? ’ (i.e., Who is involved in UD evaluation? When is UD evaluated? How is UD evaluated?); and ‘What are stakeholders’ perceptions on how UD should be evaluated?’ (i.e., Who should evaluate UD? When should UD be evaluated? How should UD be evaluated?).

3.1 Stakeholder practice in universal design evaluation

Just over one-third of survey respondents (n = 57; 36.3%) stated that they had been asked to provide evidence of having applied UD or had participated in UD evaluation. Over half of interview participants (n = 21; 56.8%) responded affirmatively to this question.

3.1.1 Who is involved in universal design evaluation?

When asked who participated in UD evaluation, the most common survey responses were access consultants (n = 26; 45.6%), architects (n = 21; 36.8%), academics (n = 18; 31.6%), and disability advocates (n = 17; 29.8%). See Table  2 for details.

Analysis of interview data revealed four broad themes of people involved in UD evaluation. These were: ‘building users’; ‘building construction stakeholders’; ‘multiple stakeholders’; and ‘government’. Building users were most frequently identified and highlighted involvement of community members broadly, but also multiple instances where people with disabilities had participated in evaluation. Building construction stakeholders included architects, builders and project managers, urban planners, and access consultants. Findings highlighted frequent involvement of multiple stakeholders and that UD evaluation is a multidisciplinary process. Government representatives, particularly at the level of local government, were identified as a key stakeholder.

3.1.2 When is universal design evaluated?

Survey participants indicated that UD is being most frequently evaluated when the building is In Use (n = 32; 56.1%) and during Concept Design (n = 29; 50.9%). See Table  3 for details. Analysis of qualitative data revealed two strong themes of UD evaluation taking place during design stages and post-building completion.

3.1.3 How is universal design evaluated?

Survey participants were asked to describe what was done to evaluate UD. Brief textual responses were provided by 57 participants. Content analysis of this data revealed a diverse range of descriptors that identified specific tools or methods each reported by just 1–2 participants. Beyond this, the three most used descriptors were: ‘documentation audit’; ‘user participation’; and ‘review of legislation compliance’. Further details are presented in Table  4 .

Almost three-quarters (n = 42, 73.7%) of those who had participated in UD evaluation had used specific tools or methods. Checklists were most frequently identified (n = 33; 78.6%), followed by access audits (n = 31; 73.8%). ‘Other’ was selected by 29 participants (69.0%) and a range of specific tools noted, e.g., the Environmental Audit Tool (Fleming, 2011 ) and the innovative solutions for Universal Design (isUD) (Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental Access, 2017 ). When asked to rank preference of tools used, checklists and access audits were most preferred. For details see Table  5 .

Five major themes emerged from interview data outlining how UD is evaluated: ‘use of existing resources’; ‘user participation; ‘checklists’; ‘use of technology’; and ‘documentation’.

Use of existing resources included the following subthemes: ‘policies and guidelines’; ‘formal tools’, e.g. the isUD (Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental Access, 2017 ), Environmental Audit Tool (Fleming, 2011 ), and Residential Environment Impact Survey (Fisher et al., 2014 ); ‘compliance with legislation’, such as building codes and accessibility standards; ‘use of examples’, both ideal and ineffectual practice; and ‘use of universal design theory’. For instance: “It’s based on the Principles, and we’re creating our own set of standards … we’re looking at the Principles and thinking about how to translate those into standards all the new construction on our campus has to consider”. [Interviewee 15, Occupational Therapist].

User participation included surveys, questionnaires, and interviews with community members. Examples were provided of engaging with people who have disabilities using methods such as building walkthroughs. As described by Interviewee 28 [Safety Professional]:

Generally, it’s more about the process that you get there, the buildings that have been the most successful are the ones that have learned from past mistakes and the ones that engage the people that are actually using that building or will be using that building. And meaningfully engaged, not just sort of go through a token process.

Checklists included a range of tools, e.g. audit checklists, access appraisals and, as described by several participants, a ‘tick-box’ approach is common. Use of technology highlighted tools used to simulate environments, such as 3D modelling / isometric drawings and virtual reality “… headsets to give people spatial awareness of something on a screen and they can walk around inside… ” [Interviewee 7, Safety Engineer], while documentation included review of drawings and reports, development of certification documents, e.g., access statements, and reporting complaints to address issues of concern.

3.2 Stakeholder perceptions on universal design evaluation

Overall, 95.5% (n = 150) of participants rated evaluation of UD in the built environment as being ‘very important’ [7 out of 10 where 10/10 is extremely important]. Almost half (n = 77; 49.0%) rated evaluation as 10 out of 10 ‘Extremely Important’.

Qualitative analysis revealed three major themes describing why stakeholders perceived UD evaluation as important: ‘to advocate for UD’; ‘to strengthen the evidence base of UD’; and ‘professional development’. In their discussion on advocacy, participants highlighted that evaluation provides opportunity to increase public awareness and to promote UD. Participants also highlighted a need for greater evidence. For instance, “the biggest need in universal design is this evaluation and providing the evidence to document its impact ” [Interviewee 12, Academic] and “a lot of the time there’s not a lot of those sort of statistics out there. So, it is quite hard to justify besides just saying that you know like it will be of benefit financially and for your customer base or your employees, yeah without those sort of numbers.” [Interviewee 31, Urban Planner]. Finally, evaluation was considered a means of professional development where stakeholders could use evaluative data to aid decision making, reflect on and share experiences, both positive and negative:

“ …when you meet someone … where the space hasn’t worked for them and has had a negative experience, then that’s a useful learning experience, in a way it’s almost like we need a database of times when the environments stuffed up … like case studies of where it failed as well as where it worked, and a sort of tool for us to be, to reflect on things we do, our practice. [Interviewee 14, Academic].

3.2.1 Who should evaluate universal design?

When asked who should evaluate UD, survey participants most frequently identified access consultants (n = 112; 71.3%), architects (n = 92; 58.6%), disability advocates (n = 83; 52.9%), and occupational therapists (n = 64; 40.8%). Over 85% (n = 134) indicated that two or more stakeholders should be involved in evaluation with up to 12 stakeholders being identified. Details are presented in Table  2 .

Analysis of qualitative data regarding who should be involved in UD evaluation revealed three themes: ‘building users’; ‘building construction stakeholders’; and ‘multiple stakeholders’. The importance of including building users in evaluation was emphasised. For example: “ I think of critical importance is involvement of the users of the area of the building” [Interviewee 18, Disability Advocate]; and “If you could involve users, we can just seek and search the actual needs” [Interviewee 21, Academic]. The need for a multidisciplinary approach was emphasised by many, including Survey Participant 107 [Disability Advocate]:

There needs to be a [sic] evaluation from a number of stakeholders throughout the process. This includes the building surveyor, builder, access consultant, and members of the community that represent the needs of subgroups of the community.

and Interviewee 15 [Academic]:

Evaluating universal design requires knowledge in many areas (anthropometrics, cognition, health, etc.). 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.

3.2.2 When should universal design be evaluated?

Almost all survey participants (n = 149; 94.9%) stated that UD should be evaluated during the Concept Design stage. Evaluating during the In Use stage (n = 86; 54.8%), during the Developed Design stage (n = 78; 49.7%), Construction stage (n = 76; 48.4%), and at Handover and Close-Out (n = 74; 47.1%) were also recommended. Further details are presented in Table  3 . Qualitative data strongly emphasised ‘planning stages’, ‘design stages’ and ‘throughout all project stages’. As stated by Interviewee 4 [Policy Officer], “it’s not something separate – it needs to be woven through all of the processes” .

3.2.3 How should universal design be evaluated?

Analysis of qualitative data revealed four major themes describing how participants perceived UD should be evaluated. These were: ‘data collection methods’; ‘systemic requirements’; ‘tool development’; and ‘tool features’.

Recommended data collection methods included subthemes of ‘user participation’, ‘use of technology’, and ‘multiple methods are needed’. As participatory forms of evaluation, participants emphasised including building users, particularly those with disabilities, in conversations, focus groups, interviews and/or simulation. As stated by Interviewee 15 [Occupational Therapist], “…always include a variety of users, and getting user feedback, I think professionals spend a lot of time with good intentions on designing things without the users in the mix, and then miss the mark.” Use of technology was recommended, e.g., 3D drawing, virtual reality, and online simulation. The subtheme of ‘multiple methods are needed’ explicitly acknowledged the need for both quantitative and qualitative data. As stated by Interviewee 21 [Academic]:

We couldn’t just say one tool, but the tool could be composed in different phases. And each phase could integrate different matters, one could be checklist, and the other could be a face-to-face interview, the other focus group. I think that the ideal solution would be, or could be achieved if users participated, I totally encourage using all the techniques.

Acknowledging that design and construction of public buildings is influenced greatly by systemic requirements, such as building legislation, codes, and guidelines, participants called for a legislative approach to UD evaluation: There should be a single legislated source of compliance” [Survey Participant 130, Architect]; “There should be penalties for non-compliance” [Survey Participant 115, Landscape Architect]; and “until it’s embedded in legislative requirements any application beyond minimum standards will provide challenges [Survey Participant 17, Access Consultant]. This was not agreed upon by all participants. As stated strongly by Survey Participant 19 [Infrastructure Officer]: “It needs to made clear that universal design is a philosophy based on a set of principles rather than a set of measurables that can be found in a set of building standards.”; and “ I don’t think it should be regulated. I think the benefit in it is that it’s a voluntary thing but should definitely be strongly encouraged”.

Method of tool development highlighted that existing resources, such as Liveable Housing Guidelines (Liveable Housing Australia, 2017 ), were considered by some to be a starting point for developing a tool to evaluate UD. Co-design and ensuring processes were in place to receive ongoing feedback from users were perceived as valuable.

Tool features of ‘user-friendliness’, ‘inclusion of examples’, and ‘checklists’ were perceived as important. Features such as being easy to apply to different projects, using clear and consistent language, being suitable for people with diverse abilities and being time-efficient were emphasised. Establishing a database of ‘best practice’ and ‘fails’ was deemed as a useful way to reflect on practice and share evidence. Participants discussed the use of checklists, but emphasised risks with a ‘tick-box approach’. For instance: “ Have seen some checklists used in the past, but my reservation with this is that it becomes too rigid and concerned with ticking the boxes” [Interviewee 1, Access Consultant]. Overall, participants expressed concern for simplifying UD to a rigid checklist and expressed a need for a flexible tool. As stated by Interviewee 23 [Architect]:

I think it’s got to be iterative – it’s got to be something that you don’t just do once and go, right, done that. It’s something that has to be flexible so that at the starting stages you’re basically just flagging that these sorts of things are important and then working down through to the very end where you’re thinking very specific things about whether somebody can actually get through a door.

3.3 Barriers to universal design evaluation

Qualitative data highlighted perceived barriers to UD evaluation. Three major themes emerged: ‘no appropriate evaluation tools available’; ‘evaluation is not prioritised’, and ‘UD is difficult to evaluate’.

Participants acknowledged that existing tools were limited in their suitability, stakeholders frequently did not prioritise evaluation, and that they received limited requests for evaluation. For instance, “we very rarely get requests to do the sort of evaluation on access type projects. … outside of the academic sector, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of funding for this type of research or specific funding” [Interviewee 5, Traffic Engineer]. Participants also highlighted a lack of stakeholder knowledge in this field.

Several participants discussed challenges inherent in evaluating UD. Participants acknowledged that stakeholders hold varied interpretations of UD and how it should be applied and that UD may not meet the needs of some people. Participants also noted that the concept is associated with diverse outcomes that are difficult to quantify and may in fact be ‘invisible’. For instance, Survey Participant 1 [Other] stated that, “there is no such thing as a universally-designed building, or at least not something that is static or fixed in the way that is implied by universal design principles.” Similarly, Survey Participant 24 [Access Consultant] stated that “universal design should be so entrenched into the built environment that nobody really notices” .

4 Discussion

Descriptions of current practice suggest that UD application is being evaluated and that methodology varies. A key finding from this study is that checklist-based tools or access audits are most used and preferred over other methods. Although checklists provide an efficient form of evaluation, and a means by which quantifiable outcomes can reliably be measured (Vásquez-Hernández & Restrepo Álvarez, 2017 ), strong concerns were raised by participants in this study about the suitability of checklists to evaluate UD. These concerns reflect limitations noted by others (Afacan & Erbug, 2009 ; O’Shea et al., 2016 ) of only assessing potential demands of an environment and reflect broader risks of simplifying UD evaluation to a simple ‘tick-box approach’. The way checklists are reported to be designed and interpreted also suggests that some practitioners are misinterpreting the concept of UD as synonymous with accessibility, and supports earlier findings on this topic (De Cauwer et al., 2009 ; Larkin et al., 2015 ; Sørensen & Ryhl, 2017 ; Van der Linden et al., 2016 ; Welch & Jones, 2001 ). UD can be viewed as a “paradigm that aims at a holistic approach” (D’souza, 2004 , p. 3), that is applied wherever possible and practical during design processes. It is flexible and adaptable to overcoming challenges – in a sense iterative and able to evolve. In these terms, check-listing could be seen to be anathema to, and a perversion of UD.

UD was not developed as a prescriptive method of design, but rather to offer designers broad guidelines to apply during design processes (Connell et al., 1997 ). Reflecting this intent and the fundamentally holistic nature of the Principles of Universal Design (Connell et al., 1997 ), findings from this study suggest that evaluation should not occur at one point in time but rather should occur throughout design stages. This supports Preiser’s ( 2001a ) cyclical approach to evaluation and Afacan and Erbug’s ( 2009 ) call for an iterative process of evaluation. Additionally, in this study, notable differences were apparent between the timing of current and recommended practices. Although the reasons for these discrepancies were not explicated, further exploration of methodologies or tools suitable for evaluation during design and construction stages is called for as these may be different to those suitable for evaluating actual performance and usability post-occupancy.

Findings from this study support the use of multiple methods of evaluation and call for tools to aid this process. Participants expressed a desire for a tool that is efficient, user-friendly, usable by people with diverse abilities, and that includes practice examples. Practitioners are commonly developing bespoke tools or using tools not specifically designed to evaluate UD. It can be expected that this diversity in methodology creates inconsistencies in the type and quality of data being collected. These findings suggest a need to strengthen the rigour by which this data is being collected in order to gain broader insights into how UD is applied and what outcomes are gained. Such data would contribute toward an identified need to increase the empiricism of UD (Iwarsson & Stahl, 2003 ; Keates & Clarkson, 2001 ).

Dependent upon project type and scale, several stakeholders are involved in architectural design processes. These include clients, designers, construction personnel, regulatory bodies, users, and the broader public (Jenkins, 2009 ; Preiser, 2001a ). With its origins in both design and rehabilitation, expertise in UD spans both disciplinary fields (Hamraie, 2017 ; Watchorn et al., 2019 ). Reflecting this, participants in this study called for multiple stakeholders to be involved in evaluation, a finding supported by others (Afacan & Erbug, 2009 ; Young et al., 2019 ). Access consultants were reported to most commonly be involved in the evaluation of UD and were recommended as integral to future work in this field. In Australia, access consultants, frequently occupational therapists, commonly provide expert advice on accessibility and usability (Association of Consultants in Access Australia (ACAA), 2019 ). This study finding may reflect participant demographics but may also suggest a call for expertise in this field of practice. More broadly, findings suggest that academics and policy officers are frequently involved in UD evaluation but are less preferred than other, perhaps more practice-based stakeholders. To inform future practice, exploration is warranted to better understand the roles and expertise that various stakeholders bring to UD application and evaluation.

In a commentary on the development of UD theory, Lid ( 2013 ) highlights usability as the stated outcome of UD in its original definition and in the CRPD (United Nations, 2007 ). In this study, participants commonly referenced the Principles of Universal Design (Connell et al., 1997 ) in their development of bespoke tools and emphasised usability as a key anticipated outcome. However, the concept and experience of usability is subjective and, as acknowledged by Afacan & Erbug ( 2009 ), challenging to evaluate. Lid ( 2013 ) emphasises that usability must be measured from the individual perspective and that greater understanding of how people interact with their environments is needed in order to understand and evaluate outcomes relating to UD and usability. In this study, participation of building users, particularly people with disabilities, was perceived as valuable and strongly recommended. Further research is needed to understand processes and outcomes that support participation of people with disabilities in design processes.

4.1 Limitations and future research

Limitations of this study include the use of self-report. The subjective nature of findings, such as participants’ knowledge of evaluation tools, and the potential for recall bias is acknowledged. It is also noted that descriptive analysis of quantitative data limits application beyond this study. Further, although some participants were working overseas, most were based in Australia. Due to diversity in socio-political and cultural contexts, international applicability of findings may be limited. It is acknowledged that, when asked about the timing of evaluation and tools used, participants were not provided with definitions. This may have resulted in variations in how participants interpreted terminology. Similarly, it is acknowledged that a high number of survey participants selected ‘other’ in response to survey questions. This suggests that terminology used in this multidisciplinary field of practice is varied and warrants further exploration with an intent to enhance inter-disciplinary communication and collaboration. Finally, statistical analysis was limited by the sample not being balanced by occupational groups and, although building owners are a key stakeholder in design, they were not actively recruited in this study. Findings gained from this exploratory study provide initial insight into a complex area of design practice and highlight a need for further research to better understand stakeholder needs and preferences and inform development of evaluation methodologies and tools.

5 Conclusion

Findings from this study indicate that evaluation of UD in public built environments is being called for and carried out in practice. Evaluation is perceived as a means to advocate for greater application of UD, inform future design processes, and strengthen the empirical base of UD. This call for evidence reflects a belief that UD improves performance and participation at individual and population levels. There is, however, tension between stakeholder desire for a checklist-based approach to evaluating UD, and more holistic and iterative methodologies that can be applied across all design stages. Although perceived as efficient and user-friendly, checklists are limited in their capacity to effectively evaluate the complexity of outcomes that can be gained through UD application. Further research is needed to better understand what these outcomes are and how they can be effectively evaluated. Findings from this study offer early insight into perceptions of current practitioners and can serve to inform evaluation methodology and tool development that better addresses the complexity and creativity of UD application and outcomes gained.

Given the multidisciplinary nature of design practice and the inherent diversity in the needs of end-users, it is imperative that multiple perspectives are sought during UD evaluation. Yet it is not known what methods, tools, and approaches best meet the needs of different stakeholders, in particular those who are not design professionals. Research is currently underway to better understand how people with disabilities can effectively participate in design processes and what factors serve as barriers and facilitators to participation.

Access Institute (2017). What is an Access Audit? Retrieved October 16, 2020, from https://accessinstitute.com.au/what-is-an-access-audit/#:~:text=The%20 common%20understanding%20is%20that,access%20legislation%2 C%20codes%20and%20standards

Afacan, Y., & Erbug, C. (2009). An interdisciplinary heuristic evaluation method for universal building design. Applied Ergonomics , 40 (4), 731–744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2008.07.002

Article   Google Scholar  

Association of Consultants in Access Australia (ACAA) (2019). What an Access Consultant can do for you . Association of Consultants in Access Australia (ACAA). Retrieved February 6, 2021, from https://www.access.asn.au/accessibility-resources/what-an-access-consultant-can-do-for-you

Australian Government Department of Social Services (2019). Right to opportunity. Consultation report to help shape the next national disability strategy . Canberra: Australian Government Department of Social Services. Retrieved November 1, 2021 from https://www.dss.gov.au/disability-and-carers-a-new-national-disability-strategy-reports/right-to-opportunity-consultation-report-to-help-shape-the-next-national-disability-strategy-full-report

Bamzar, R. (2019). Assessing the quality of the indoor environment of senior housing for a better mobility: a Swedish case study. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment , 34 (1), 23–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-018-9623-4

Barnes, E. (2016). The minority body: A theory of disability . Oxford University Press

Berg, B. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences . Boston: Allyn and Bacon

Google Scholar  

Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. NursingPlus Open , 2 , 8–14

Bickenbach, J. E., Chatterji, S., Badley, E. M., & Ustun, T. B. (1999). Models of disablement, universalism and the International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps. Social Science & Medicine , 48 (9), 1173–1187. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00441-9

Cassi, R., Kajita, M., & Popovic Larsen, O. (2021). User-Environment Interaction: The Usability Model for Universal Design Assessment. Studies in Health Technology & Informatics , (282), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI210385

Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental Access (2017). innovative solutions for Universal Design (isUD) . University of Buffalo. Retrieved December 5, 2017, from https://thisisud.com/

Connell, B. R., Jones, M., Mace, R., Mueller, J., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E., Sanford, J., Steinfeld, E., & Story, M. (1997). & G, V. The Principles of Universal Design – Version 2.0 . North Carolina State University. Retrieved January 27, 2021, from https://projects.ncsu.edu/design/cud/about_ud/udprinciplestext.htm

Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2011). Choosing a mixed methods design. In J. W. Creswell, V. L. Plano, & Clark (Eds.), Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed., pp. 53–106). SAGE Publications

D’souza, N. (2004). Is universal design a critical theory?. Designing a more inclusive world (pp. 3–9). Springer

De Cauwer, P., Clement, M., Buelens, H., & Heylighen, A. (2009). Four reasons not to teach inclusive design. Include 2009 Conference. Inclusive design into innovation: Transforming practice in design, research and business , London

Erkiliç, M. (2011). Conceptual challenges between universal design and disability in relation to the body, impairment, and the environment. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture , 28 (2), 181–203. https://doi.org/10.4305/METU.JFA.2011.2.9

Fisher, G., Forsyth, K., Harrison, M., Angarola, R., Kayhan, E., Noga, P., C, J., & Irvine, L. (2014). Residential Environmental Impact Scale (REIS). Version 4.0 . University of Illanois

Fleming, R. (2011). An environmental audit tool suitable for use in homelike facilities for people with dementia. Australasian Journal on Ageing , 30 (3), 108–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6612.2010.00444.x

Froyen, H. (2012). Universal Design. A methodological approach . Institute for Human Centered Design

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 11 (3), 255–274

Guimarães, M. P. (2001). Universal design evaluation in Brazil: Development of rating scales. In W. F. E. Preiser, & E. Ostroff (Eds.), Universal design handbook (pp. 57.51–57.21) . McGraw-Hill Professional

Guimarães, M. P. (2016). Universal Design criteria in standards and codes about accessibility of built environments in Brazil. Studies In Health Technology And Informatics , 229 , 121–130

Hamraie, A. (2017). Building access: Universal Design and the politics of disability University of Minnesota Press

Henderson, R., & Rheault, W. (2004). Appraising and Incorporating Qualitative Research in Evidence-Based Practice. Journal of Physical Therapy Education , 18 (3), 35–40

Heylighen, A., Schijlen, J., Van der Linden, V., Meulenijzer, D., & Vermeersch, P. W. (2016). Socially innovating architectural design practice by mobilising disability experience. An exploratory study. Architectural Engineering and Design Management , 12 (4), 253–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2016.1172197

Heylighen, A., Van der Linden, V., & Van Steenwinkel, I. (2017). Ten questions concerning inclusive design of the built environment. Building & Environment , 114 , 507–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.12.008

Hitch, D., Larkin, H., Watchorn, V., & Ang, S. (2012). Community mobility in the context of universal design: inter-professional collaboration and education. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal , 59 (5), 375–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1630.2011.00965.x

Iwarsson, S., & Stahl, A. (2003). Accessibility, usability and universal design - positioning and definition of concepts describing person-environment relationships. Disability & Rehabilitation , 25 (2), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/0963828021000007969

Jenkins, P. (2009). Concepts of social participation in architecture. In P. Jenkins, & L. Forsyth (Eds.), Architecture, participation and society (pp. 9–22). Routledge

Keates, S., & Clarkson, P. (2001). Combining utility, usability and accessibility methods for universal access. In: CHI 2001: Anyone. Anywhere: CHI 2001 Conference Proceedings: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; Seattle (WA): ACM Press

Kim, T., & Chang, C. (2018). Developing a measure of user-perceived universal design for sport facilities. South African Journal for Research in Sport Physical Education & Recreation , 40 (1), 25–38

Krippendorff, D. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology . Thousand Oaks: SAGE

Krippendorff, K. (2006). Reliability in content analysis. Human Communication Research , 30 (3), 411–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00738.x

Larkin, H., Hitch, D., Watchorn, V., & Ang, S. (2015). Working with policy and regulatory factors to implement Universal Design in the built environment: The Australian experience. International Journal Of Environmental Research And Public Health , 12 (7), 8157–8171. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120708157

Liamputtong, P. (2020). Qualitative research methods . Oxford

Lid, I. M. (2013). Developing the theoretical content in Universal Design. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research , 15 (3), 203–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/15017419.2012.724445

Lid, I. M. (2014). Universal Design and disability: An interdisciplinary perspective. Disability And Rehabilitation , 36 (16), 1344–1349. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2014.931472

Liveable Housing Australia (2017). Liveable housing design guidelines . Retrieved December 5, 2020, from http://www.livablehousingaustralia.org.au/

Mace, R. (1985). Universal Design. Barrier-free environments for everyone. Designers West , 33 (1), 147–152

Maier, M. A. (2018). Content analysis, definition of. In M. Allen (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of communication research methods (pp. 243–245). SAGE Publications, Inc

Maisel, J. L. (2006). Toward inclusive housing and neighborhood design: A look at visitability. Community Development , 37 (3), 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2006.10383105

Mosca, E. I., & Capolongo, S. (2018). Towards a Universal Design evaluation for assessing the performance of the built environment. Studies In Health Technology And Informatics , 256 , 771–779

O’Shea, E. C., Pavia, S., Dyer, M., Craddock, G., & Murphy, N. (2016). Measuring the design of empathetic buildings: A review of universal design evaluation methods. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology , 11 (1), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2014.921842

Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement: A sociological approach . St. Martin’s Press

Ostroff, E. (1997). The user as expert: Mining our natural resources. Innovation the Quarterly Journal of the Industrial Designers Society of America , 16 (1), 33

Ostroff, E. (2011). Universal Design: The new paradigm. In W. Preiser, & E. Ostroff (Eds.), Universal design handbook (pp. 1.3–1.12) . McGraw-Hill

Preiser, W. F. E. (2001a). The evolution of post-occupancy evaluation: Toward building performance and universal design evaluation. In Federal Facilities Council (Ed.), Learning from our buildings: a state-of-the-practice summary of post-occupancy evaluation. Federal Facilities Council technical report: no. 145 (pp. 9–22). National Academy Press

Preiser, W. F. E. (2001b). Toward universal design evaluation. In W. F. E. Preiser & E. Ostroff (Eds.), Universal design handbook (pp. 9.1–9.18). McGraw Hill

Pritchard, E. (2014). Body size and the built environment: Creating an inclusive built environment using Universal Design [Article]. Geography Compass , 8 (1), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12108

Punch, K. F. (2014). Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications

Qualtrics (2017). Qualtrics . (Version 2017) Qualtrics

Ringaert, L. (2001). User/expert involvement in universal design. In W. F. E. Preiser, & E. Ostroff (Eds.), Universal design handbook (pp. 6.1–6.14) . McGraw-Hill

Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) (2013). RIBA Plan of work. Royal Institute of British Architects. Retrieved February 12, 2021, from https://www.ribaplanofwork.com/PlanOfWork.aspx

Sanford, J. A. (2009). Assessing Universal Design in the physical environment. In E. Mpofu, & T. Oakland (Eds.), Rehabilitation and health assessment: Applying ICF guidelines (pp. 255–277). Springer

Sanford, J. A. (2012). Universal design as a rehabilitation strategy: Design for the ages . Springer

Siddall, E., Baibarac, C., Byrne, A., Byrne, N., Deasy, A., Flood, N., Goulding, C., O’Driscoll, S., Rabbitt, N., Sweeney, A., Wang, Y., & Dyer, M. (2011). Personas as a user-centred design tool for the built environment. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering Sustainability, 164 (1), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1680/ensu.1000015

Sørensen, R., & Ryhl, C. (2017). User or expert? ARCH17 - The 3rd International Conference on Architecture, Research, Care and Health , Aalborg Universitet, København, Denmark

Steinfeld, E., & Maisel, J. (2012). Universal design: Creating inclusive environments . John Wiley & Sons Incorporated

Sue, V. M., & Ritter, L. A. (2012). Conducting online surveys (2nd ed.). Sage Publications

United Nations (2007). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) . New York: United Nations. Retrieved August 21, 2021, from https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html

Van der Linden, V., Dong, H., & Heylighen, A. (2016). From accessibility to experience: Opportunities for inclusive design in architectural practice. Nordic Journal of Architectural Research , 28 (2), 33–58

Vásquez-Hernández, A., & Restrepo Álvarez, M. F. (2017). Evaluation of buildings in real conditions of use: Current situation. Journal of Building Engineering , 12 , 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2017.04.019

Watchorn, V., Grant, C., Tucker, R., Hitch, D., Frawley, P., Ang, S., Aedy, S., & Gohil, A. (2018). Evaluating Universal Design in built environments - A scoping project. In: Craddock G, Doran C, McNutt L, Rice D, editors. Proceedings of the Universal Design and Higher Education in Transformation Congress; 2017 Oct 30 - Nov 2; Dublin, Ireland. Amsterdam (Netherlands): IOS Press; 2018. p. 689-695.

Watchorn, V., Hitch, D., Grant, C., Tucker, R., Aedy, K., Ang, S., & Frawley, P. (2019). An integrated literature review of the current discourse around universal design in the built environment – is occupation the missing link? Disability And Rehabilitation , 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2019.1612471

Welch, P., & Jones, S. (2001). Advances in Universal Design education in the United States. In W. F. E. Preiser & E. Ostroff (Eds.), Universal design handbook (pp. 51.53–51.24). McGraw-Hill

Young, D., Wagenfeld, A., Vander, V., & Rocker, H. (2019). Universal design and the built environment: Occupational therapy and interprofessional design teams—A scoping review. Annals of International Occupational Therapy , 2 (4), 186–194. https://doi.org/10.3928/24761222-20190625-04

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge that this project was supported by a 2017 grant (Grant Number: WSG17-05) received from Deakin University School of Health and Social Development. Architecture & Access were a partner to this project and support was gained from the Department of Sport and Recreation Victoria. The authors also acknowledge contributions made to data analysis by Deakin University Master of Public Health students: Harshinderdeep Singh and Kamaljeet Kaur.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Occupational Therapy, School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, 1 Gheringhap St, 3220, Geelong, Australia

Valerie Watchorn, Danielle Hitch & Kathryn Aedy

HOME Research Hub, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia

Valerie Watchorn, Danielle Hitch, Richard Tucker, Patsie Frawley & Kathryn Aedy

School of Architecture and Built Environment, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia

Richard Tucker

School of Education, Te Kura Toi Tangata, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

Patsie Frawley

Architecture & Access, Parkville, Australia

Cathryn Grant

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valerie Watchorn .

Ethics declarations

Declarations.

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article

Compliance with ethical standards

This study received ethics approval from Deakin University Faculty of Health Ethics Committee, Australia (Project ID: HEAG-H 99_2017). All data were collected, analysed and stored in accordance with ethical guidelines for research involving human participants and all people who contributed to this study provided informed consent to participate.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Watchorn, V., Hitch, D., Tucker, R. et al. Evaluating universal design of built environments: an empirical study of stakeholder practice and perceptions. J Hous and the Built Environ 38 , 1491–1510 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-022-09981-x

Download citation

Received : 14 December 2021

Accepted : 13 September 2022

Published : 20 December 2022

Issue Date : September 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-022-09981-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Evidence-based practice
• Design process
• Outcome measurement
• Public buildings
• Universal design
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Design Objectives
• Building Types
• Space Types
• Design Disciplines
• Guides & Specifications
• Resource Pages
• Project Management
• Building Commissioning
• Operations & Maintenance
• Building Information Modeling (BIM)
• Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS)
• Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC)
• VA Master Specifications (PG-18-1)
• Design Manuals (PG-18-10)
• Department of Energy
• General Services Administration
• Department of Homeland Security
• Department of State
• Course Catalog
• Workforce Development
• Case Studies
• Codes & Standards
• Industry Organizations

Beyond Accessibility to Universal Design  

by the WBDG Accessible Committee; Jordana L. Maisel, PhD and Molly Ranahan, PhD Center for Inclusive Design & Environmental Access (IDEA)

Within This Page

Description, application, emerging issues, additional resources.

Accessibility laws like the Architectural Barriers Act (1968), Section 504 of The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Fair Housing Act Amendments (1988), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) establish minimum requirements that protect people with disabilities from discrimination in the built environment. Ron Mace, FAIA and Ruth Hall Lusher, saw the need to reevaluate using legal mandates to ensure usability by people with disabilities based on their experience with accessibility laws. Universal Design, the term for this revised approach, was based on the premise that the environment could be much more accessible than the minimum requirements of law required if designers focused attention on improving function for a large range of people.

At the broadest level, Universal Design is concerned with designing for diversity and equity.

Definitions of Universal Design

Universal Design (UD) is also called inclusive design, design for all, or life span design. As initially conceived, UD was focused on usability issues. "The design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design" (Mace, 1985).

In the last ten years, the emphasis was broadened to wider issues of social inclusion. A newer definition is more relevant to all citizens without ignoring people with disabilities. It states that Universal Design is, "a process that enables and empowers a diverse population by improving human performance, health and wellness, and social participation" (Steinfeld and Maisel, 2012). In short, Universal Design makes life easier, healthier, and friendlier for all.

Universal Design increases the potential for developing a better quality of life for a wide range of individuals. It also reduces stigma by putting people with disabilities on an equal playing field. While it does not substitute for assistive technology, Universal Design benefits people with functional limitations and society as a whole. It supports people in being more self-reliant and socially engaged. For businesses and government, it reduces the economic burden of special programs and services designed to assist individual citizens, clients, or customers.

Proponents of Universal Design must recognize that products and environments can never be fully usable by every person in the world, but that services, management practices, and policies can benefit from Universal Design thinking. Universal Design should therefore be considered a process rather than an end state. There is never any end to the quest for improved usability, health, or social participation, so attention to more than just the built environment is needed to achieve these three broad outcomes.

Examples of UD features in buildings include automated doors, which provide an entrance for people of all abilities; integrated furniture components and power and communication systems that make outlets more convenient; and multi-sensory interactive wayfinding models that enable almost any person to comfortably operate and learn from a public map and directory system.

The following table provides some examples of the differences between Universal Design and accessible design.

(Steinfeld and Maisel, 2012, p. 69)

Principles of Universal Design

The "Principles of Universal Design" were developed by a team of U.S. experts organized by the Center on Universal Design at NC State University in the 1990's. Accompanied by a set of guidelines for each Principle, they were a valuable tool for clarifying Universal Design for early adopters.

The Principles of Universal Design:

• Equitable Use
• Flexibility in Use
• Simple and Intuitive
• Perceptible Information
• Tolerance for Error
• Low Physical Effort
• Size and Space for Approach and Use

Eight Goals of Universal Design

The eight Goals of Universal Design were developed in an effort to update the Principles, clarify the concept of Universal Design, incorporate human performance, health and wellness, and social participation as outcomes, and address contextual and cultural issues. For example, there are many sources of contextual differences, such as topography, economic development levels, cultural norms, and local values, which influence the way designers implement Universal Design. Increasingly, high value is placed on preserving cultural resources like historic buildings and natural resources. Attempts to enhance accessibility, however, often conflict with these two goals. Universal Design must address this conflict to overcome perceptions that it gets in the way of reaching other important design goals.

One barrier to adoption of Universal Design in middle- and low-income countries is the perception that it is often perceived as idealistic, expensive, or an imposition of Western values. It is realistic and appropriate to acknowledge that design strategies will differ or be adapted in different places and by different cultures. In some places, achieving the level of accessibility required by Western norms could be counterproductive. Thus, it is important that Universal Design strategies also address cultural values associated with social, economic, and physical context. In addition to addressing these concerns, the eight Goals of Universal Design were also conceived to link Universal Design to bodies of knowledge and identify measurable outcomes.

• Body fit. Accommodating a wide a range of body sizes and abilities
• Comfort. Keeping demands within desirable limits of body function
• Awareness. Insuring that critical information for use is easily perceived
• Understanding. Making methods of operation and use intuitive, clear, and unambiguous
• Wellness. Contributing to health promotion, avoidance of disease, and prevention of injury
• Social integration. Treating all groups with dignity and respect
• Personalization. Incorporating opportunities for choice and the expression of individual preferences
• Cultural appropriateness. Respecting and reinforcing cultural values and the social, economic and environmental context of any design project.

(Steinfeld and Maisel, 2012)

Expanding Adoption

Universal Design has not been adopted as extensively within the design community as some other recent design movements (e.g., sustainability , historic preservation ). One challenge facing adoption is a continued perception of Universal Design as design for disability. To reach professionals, continuing education and the development of communities of practice, especially among educators, is a priority.

In addition, just as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) guidelines and a certification program were created in response to a population with greater demands for conservation of energy and material resources, a set of UD guidelines was needed for designers to adequately respond to an increasingly diverse population. The innovative solutions for Universal Design (isUD) program launched in 2018. Developed by a multidisciplinary group of UD experts, isUD contains more than 500 UD solutions related to commercial buildings, to help development teams achieve the Goals of Universal Design. isUD facilitates integrating UD at all stages of a project-from the design process to policies and practices (see thisisUD.com ). The tool provides a step-by-step checklist for project teams to use in their quest for ongoing inclusivity. Design projects that utilize a sufficient number of solutions and submit appropriate documentation are eligible for isUD certification. While voluntary, isUD provides a comprehensive evidence-based approach to design that exceeds the minimum requirements of accessibility regulations, and is the only available tool to systematically evaluate UD in buildings.

As a result of UD's growing popularity, many new issues have captured the attention of design professionals and their colleagues in related professions. Those issues with a close relationship to Universal Design include aging in place, sustainability , workplace design , public spaces, and social justice. Universal Design has much to contribute to solving any social problem in which usability and social participation play a major role in design response.

Aging in Place: A large majority of individuals want to age where they currently live. Aging in place offers numerous social and financial benefits, and promotes keys to successful aging such as life satisfaction, health, and self-esteem. A 2021 AARP survey indicates about three-quarters of those 50+ would like to stay in their current homes or communities for as long as possible, compared to about half of those ages 18–49 who feel the same. In order to remain in their homes, 34% of older respondents recognize they may need to make physical changes to their house.

To remain in their own homes while aging, people need housing designs that can be adapted to wider range of health conditions than traditional designs allow. Encouraging housing producers to adopt Universal Design features is a key aspect of design for aging in place. This includes a no-step entry, bathrooms on an accessible floor level, potential for a sleeping space on an accessible level, good lighting, efficient space planning, and other features that reduce effort and accommodate short-term and chronic disabilities.

Common Aging-in-Place Features:

• One no-step path to a no-step entry that can be at the front, side, rear, or through a garage (1/4–1/2 in. thresholds)
• No step access to patios, balconies, and terraces (1/4–1/2 in. thresholds)
• Doorways have at least a 34 in. wide clear opening with appropriate approach clearances
• Door handles are 34–38 inches from the floor
• Hallways and passageways are 42 in. clear minimum
• Access to at least one full bath on the main floor with reinforced walls at toilets and tubs for the future installation of grab bars
• Cabinetry in kitchen that allows a person to work in a seated position
• Light switches and electrical outlets 24–48 in. from finished floor
• Stairways have tread widths at least 11 in. deep and risers no greater than 7 in. high
• Good lighting throughout the house including task lighting in critical locations (e.g. under kitchen cabinets)
• Non-glare surfaces
• Contrasting colors to promote good perception of edges and boundaries
• Clear floor space of at least 30 x 48 in. in front of all appliances, fixtures, and cabinetry
• Front-loading laundry equipment
• Ample kitchen and closet storage or adjustable shelving within 28–48 in.
• Comfortable reach zones

(Steinfeld and White, 2010).

This image from the LIFEhouse™ shows many levels of lighting, multiple work center levels, and fixtures and appliances with Universal Design features. The home was the recipient of a National Association of Home Builders Gold Award for Best Universally Designed Home.

Sustainability: Sustainable products used in buildings need to be designed to be operable by people with limited function in order to comply with accessibility laws, but they also have to be usable for the broader population or they will not be effective in practice. Due to their novelty, they often present usability issues to end users. This can result in replacing the product and even abandoning the goal of sustainability. Acceptance of innovative sustainable products can be enhanced through Universal Design. Consider the example of a waterless urinal. Every men's restroom requires at least one lower urinal. Most waterless urinals are only designed for the higher, traditional position, which means that they may cause maintenance problems or even require an accessible, traditional water operated urinal to supplement the waterless unit. Some require special cleansers to protect the finish and special tools and procedures to change the trap. If not properly maintained, the urinal will cease to function, start emitting an odor, and anger building occupants and owners. Bad experiences like this can result in replacing the product and even abandoning the goal of sustainability.

Workplace: Universal Design is a critical consideration when designing workplace environments. Typically, adults spend a significant time working, thus making work environments important spaces in daily life (Sanford, 2012). People with disabilities, however, report being employed less than half as much as their non-disabled counterparts (Houtenville and Boege, 2020). The need for more accommodating work environments is gaining attention as the prevalence of disability and older adults in the workforce increases (Shore, Cleveland, and Sanchez, 2018; Taylor, 2018; Vespa, Armstrong, and Medina, 2018), and as work organizations increasingly strive to remove barriers to full participation of traditionally excluded groups such as racial, ethnic, and religious minorities, women, and, members of gender and sexual orientation minorities (Barak, 2016). With this growing diversity, organizational leaders have increasingly become aware of the importance of creating inclusive work environments (Nishii and Rich, 2014). Good design of the workplace can help increase participation of people with disabilities in the workforce, and can help to ensure that fewer accommodations will be needed if an employee has a disability. Additionally, achieving the highest level of usability in the workplace environment increases overall task efficiency, productivity, employee morale, and general safety, and also helps employers attract and keep a broad and diverse work force.

Common Workplace Features:

• All controls within the comfortable reach zone of between 24 inches (610 mm) and 48 inches (1220 mm) above the floor
• Ample and secure storage for employee's personal possessions within the comfort range of 24 inches (610 mm) and 48 inches (1220 mm) above the floor
• At least one automated door to the building, preferably one closest to employee parking or public transportation
• Counter heights for workstations should be adjustable to fit a work force with a wide range of statures and visual abilities
• Cubicles and other devices to give individual workers some control over noise
• Designated break areas that are quiet and comfortable, to allow workers a place to recover from work demands and socialize with others
• Height adjustable work surface between 28 inches (715 mm) and 32 inches (815 mm), with frequently used items stored within 24 inches (610) and 48 inches (1220 mm) and within a 24 inch (710 mm) maximum of reach arch from the elbow
• Sound absorbent materials on walls and floors to keep ambient noise levels as low as possible where background noise cannot be eliminated
• Storage containers that provide the option of carrying, pushing, pulling, or rolling
• Systems for employees to adjust light levels at their workspaces to best fit the requirements for their specific tasks, individual abilities, and preferences
• Wheeled chair with adjustable height seat, reclining tilt function, lumbar support, adjustable arm rests, and a high back to support neck and head
• Workstations situated so employees can communicate effectively with visual and/or verbal modes of communication
• Workstations that accommodate both standing and seated positions, also referred to as "sit-stand" workstations used wherever possible

Provide workplace options (e.g., standing workstations) that enable employees to periodically get relief from the stress of standing or sitting for long periods of time, and work in an environment that is most productive for them.

Provide employees with access to environmental controls and light switches to allow them to adjust the temperature and light levels to best fit the requirements for their specific tasks, individual abilities, and preferences.

Public Spaces: Public spaces include facilities open to the public such as stores, restaurants, amusement parks, parks, and other recreation facilities, street rights-of-way, and transportation systems. Public accommodations are a critical domain for Universal Design because they are the site of key participation activities, including engagement in civic affairs, employment, recreation, education, and community mobility.

Common Universal Design Features in Public Spaces:

A tactile guide path in a museum helps all visitors find the information desk.

• Drinking fountains grouped with other amenities to make them easier to locate
• Directional signage/wayfinding cues throughout
• Lighting provided along outdoor pathways
• Nodes connected directly by pathways
• Resting places throughout the site
• Restrooms appropriately sized to support large numbers of users at the same time
• Signage placed within sight lines
• Signage in alternate languages, as well as in English
• Visual and tactile warning surfaces
• Walls, fences, and landscape features used for guidance to key destinations

A store entrance with automated doors allows all customers to enter the same way.

Clear walkways, expanded corners, safety islands, and bike lanes enhance pedestrian, bicyclist, and driver safety.

Social Justice: Throughout the world, designers with a sense of social responsibility are concerned that good design, like many other resources of society, is a commodity that many cannot afford. Although initially focused on disability rights, Universal Design can focus on any civil rights issue because ultimately design for diversity is concerned with social justice for all. Thus, Universal Design should give attention to supporting access to housing, education, healthcare, transportation, and other resources in society for all those groups that have been excluded from full participation. Universal Design is particularly appropriate in the context of design for low-income minority groups, which often have higher rates of disability than the general population.

Hippo Water Roller. This design, inspired by a lawn roller, reduces the need for lifting and carrying and allows an individual to carry more water at one time ( hipporoller.org )

Organizations and Associations

American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) —A nonprofit membership organization dedicated to addressing the needs and interests of persons 50 and older. Through information and education, advocacy and service, AARP enhances the quality of life for all by promoting independence, dignity, and purpose. Among other things, AARP seeks to promote independent living and aging-in-place.

Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental Access (IDEA) —School of Architecture and Planning, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY—The Center engages in research and design focused on advancing equity and inclusion. It strives to improve the design of environments and products by creating person-centered tools, programs, and environments, and sharing these practices with change makers in universities, organizations, and communities.

Center for Inclusive Design and Innovation (CIDI) —The CIDI is dedicated to an inclusive society through innovations in assistive and universally designed technologies, with a goal of addressing the full range of needs for accessibility. CIDI is committed to the promotion of technological innovation and development of user-centered research, products, and services for individuals with disabilities.

Design for All Foundation —The Design for All Foundation is an international foundation that strives to develop, promote, research and disseminate Design for All among companies and organizations both at the public and private level, administrations, educational agents and also designers and professionals who intervene with the environment, products and services.

• Institute for Human Centered Design —The Institute for Human Centered Design (IHCD), founded in Boston in 1978 as Adaptive Environments, is an international non-governmental educational organization (NGO) committed to advancing the role of design in expanding opportunity and enhancing experience for people of all ages and abilities through excellence in design. IHCD's work balances expertise in legally required accessibility with promotion of best practices in human-centered or Universal Design.

Federal Agencies

• National Endowment for the Arts is an independent federal agency that funds and promotes artistic excellence, creativity, and innovation for the benefit of individuals and communities. The NEA funds and supports efforts that employ Universal Design concepts.
• National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) is a Center within the Administration for Community Living (ACL), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). NIDILRR is a federal government grants-making agency that sponsors grantees to generate new disability and rehabilitation knowledge and promote its use and adoption. NIDILRR funds the only national research center on Universal Design. ( Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Universal Design and the Built Environment )

Publications

• Inclusive Design: Implementation and Evaluation by Maisel, J., Steinfeld, E., Basnak, M., Smith, K., and Tauke, M.B. Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge, 2018.
• Inclusive Housing: A Pattern Book by Steinfeld, E., and White. J. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2010.
• The Principles of Universal Design, Version 2.0 by The Center for Universal Design. North Carolina State University, April 01, 1997.
• Trends in Universal Design by The Delta Centre. Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs. 2013.
• UDNY2   by Levine, D. (ed.). Center for Inclusive Design & Environmental Access, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, 2003.
• Universal Design by Herwig, O. Germany: Birkhauser, 2008.
• Universal Design as a Rehabilitation Strategy by Sanford, J. New York: Springer Publishing Company, 2012.
• Universal Design: Creating Inclusive Environments by Steinfeld, E. and Maisel, J. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2012
• Universal Design Handbook, 2nd Edition by Preiser, W. F.E. and Smith, K.H. (editors). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, 2010.
• Universal Design: The HUMBLES Method for User-Centered Business by Aragall, F. and Montana, J. England: Gower Publishing Ltd., 2012.
• The Living in Place Movement by Kelly Faloon. July 2014.
• "Supporting aging-in-place well: Findings from a cluster analysis of the reasons for aging-in-place and perceptions of well-being" by Ahn, Mira, Hyun Joo Kwon, and Jiyun Kang. Journal of Applied Gerontology 39.1, 3–15, 2020.
• "Understanding aging in place: Home and community features, perceived age-friendliness of community, and intention toward aging in place." By Choi, Yeon Jin. The Gerontologist 62.1, 46–55, 2022.
• "What is aging in place? Confusions and contradictions" by Forsyth, Ann and Molinsky, Jennifer. Housing Policy Debate 31.2 181–196, 2021.

WBDG Participating Agencies

National Institute of Building Sciences Innovative Solutions for the Built Environment 1090 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 700 | Washington, DC 20005-4950 | (202) 289-7800 © 2024 National Institute of Building Sciences. All rights reserved. Disclaimer

Beyond ADA: An airport case study toward universal design

• July 20, 2022

Based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) statistics , one in four adults in the United States live with a disability. As airport terminals serve millions of diverse passengers a day, there’s no doubt this includes passengers with disabilities. When designing the built environment, we are all familiar with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) , the requirements it places on our facilities, and the importance of ADA compliance. However, as today’s airports become increasingly experience-based, we as designers should strive to exceed the bare minimum and push toward Universal Design to create a more inclusive experience for all passengers.

Luckily, there are many relatively simple ways this can be accomplished at varying levels of cost and complexity. In a recent experience with a client, I was able to gain valuable knowledge on how to accommodate passengers of various types of disability.

Fort Wayne International Airport: Universal Design case study

Fort Wayne International Airport sits in proximity to a number of large groups that provide services to disabled populations. including some key project partners like Northeast Indiana Disability Advocacy Coalition (NEIDAC), AWS Foundation and Turnstone . NEIDAC served as a resource to our design team throughout the design phase of the project, bringing their unique perspectives on Universal Accessibility and giving us feedback on our design concepts. AWS Foundation, headquartered in Fort Wayne, helps children and adults with enduring intellectual, developmental, and physical disabilities live as independently as possible by providing grants to community partners in support of their vision. Turnstone is an organization that, among many things, hosts various sporting events throughout the year—events that bring disabled athletes to the area from all over the country. Due to the strong connections of these organizations to the community, the airport experiences a higher-than-average traffic level from passengers with disabilities.

When the airport started preparing for its current two-phase airport expansion and renovation project, it saw a unique opportunity to assess their airport from the perspective of the disabled public. Airport leadership staff conducted separate tours of their terminal facilities with people with different disabilities to gain an assessment of where they could improve. With this information, the airport asked Mead & Hunt and the rest of our design team to implement design features throughout the facility to make their airport experience as universally accessible as possible.

Below are the features being implemented, many of which are easily adaptable to airports of different sizes.

Accessible Design Features

• Beginning at the curbfront, the entire length of the passenger unloading area utilizes a rolled curb style design. This allows for easy loading and unloading of passengers with wheelchairs, eliminates the need for passengers with upper body mobility issues to lift their roller bags, and provides a detection surface for visually disabled passengers with canes. A number of ADA van unloading spaces are also included along pick-up and drop-off areas.
• Inside the ticket lobby, low-profile baggage scales that sit only one inch above the floor are utilized at ticketing counters to accommodate passengers with limited upper body mobility and strength who may not be able to lift their luggage.

Throughout the facility:

• All casework including ticket counters, gate counters, rental car counters, and information desks will include accessible-height countertops.
• For passengers with varying visual disabilities, all signage will be of high-contrast colors for ease of reading, and the terrazzo flooring will include a high-contrast pattern that flows in the direction of travel for intuitive wayfinding. Additionally, a tactile “cane trail,” similar to truncated domes used at exterior crosswalks, will follow the path of circulation, allowing passengers with canes to easily navigate the terminal.

In the concourse area:

• Lounge-style sofa seating with no intermediate armrests is provided at all gates. This offers passengers with limited to no mobility a place to lay and rest while their mobility aid is loaded onto the aircraft.
• For passengers with Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or other cognitive disabilities, a Sensory Room is provided. Sensory Rooms are quiet escapes which include various tactile, audio, and visual distractions in an acoustically-treated space for cognitively disabled passengers to decompress and recenter prior to their travel. Funding for the furnishings in this space was provided by AWS Foundation.
• A Service Animal Relief Area (SARA) is provided to offer an area of relief for the service animals that assist passengers with various types of disabilities such as visual, audio and mobility.
• A Kid’s Play Area is provided with accessible play activities.
• An adult-sized changing table, also funded by the AWS, is being provided at all Family/Unisex toilet facilities. These are height-adjustable tables that provide for safer transfers, comfortable positioning, and a secure space for caregivers to aid weakened or disabled adults who may need assistance with changing or getting dressed.
• An assistive listening system, also known as a “hearing loop,” is provided throughout the concourse. This allows passengers with telecoil-equipped hearing aids to hear public announcements being made at gates and throughout the airport.

Aside from these current projects, Fort Wayne International Airport is also the first airport in Indiana to roll out the Hidden Disability Sunflower Program . This program provides a visual cue, such as a lanyard or bracelet, to identify those with hidden or invisible disabilities who may need extra patience, care, and explanation during their travel experience. This reminds airport staff and other passengers to exercise extra compassion and empathy when working and interacting with these passengers and their families.

Once their expansion and renovation project is completed, Fort Wayne International Airport hopes to continue to work with their local partners to be as accessible as possible as both trends and the needs of their community continue to change.

Why does Universal Design matter?

While this is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of what can be done to implement Universal Design at an airport, it certainly provides a good starting point. Every airport is at a different place with respect to planning, development, and financial resources. Airports need not, and should not, rely on having groups like NEIDAC, AWS Foundation, and Turnstone nearby to consider implementing Universal Design. The number of disabled travelers is likely to increase as airports continue to expand and evolve. The best thing airports can do is utilize the resources available to them to become educated about how to accommodate as many people as possible to achieve a wholly inclusive terminal facility. As was the case with FWA, you may even be able to partner with local groups to obtain funding for accessible features.

As the lead architect on this project at Fort Wayne International Airport, I am proud of the work we are doing toward an equitable space for all passengers, and I appreciate the leadership of the FWA airport director and operations team in emphasizing inclusion and Universal Accessibility.

Marc Godzina, AIA, NCARB, CDT

Marc has over 15 years of architectural experience specializing in complex aviation projects. As a Project Architect, Marc is responsible for all phases of design and coordination across multiple disciplines. When not at work, Marc is spending time with his wife and three children.

Most Popular

PFAS Forensic Files: New ACRP Guidebook Investigates Sources of PFAS at Airports May 15, 2024

Tips for Planning Your Next Successful EAP Exercise May 1, 2024

The RNG Funding Rush Is On May 1, 2024

Sustainability and Preservation Projects Receive ACEC WI Excellence in Engineering Recognition April 29, 2024

Privacy Overview