1

DISSERTATION
ON

INCLUSIVE DESIGN
-
SPACE FOR ONE AND ALL

Submitted By: DEVESH ANAND

Scholar Number: 161110031
Eighth Semester B. Arch.

Subject Coordinator: DR. NAVNEET MUNOTH

DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING

MAULANA AZAD NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, BHOPAL

MAY 2020
2
 3

Contents
Title ......................................................................................................................................................... 5
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 5
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 5
Aim .......................................................................................................................................................... 6
Objective ................................................................................................................................................. 6
Scope and Limitations ............................................................................................................................. 6
Methodology and methods .................................................................................................................... 7
Literature study....................................................................................................................................... 9
1. Inclusive design ............................................................................................................................... 9
1.1. Basic Principles .................................................................................................................... 9
1.2. Relation between inclusive and universal design and accessibility ........................................... 13
Universal Design............................................................................................................................ 13
Inclusivity ...................................................................................................................................... 13
Accessibility ................................................................................................................................... 14
2. Need of inclusive design ............................................................................................................... 15
3. Cliental- vulnerable group............................................................................................................. 16
3.1. Barrier faced by people with disability ...................................................................................... 17
3.2. USABLE BY ALL ....................................................................................................................... 18
4. Type of disability ........................................................................................................................... 19
4.1. DISABILITY IS UNIVERSAL & DYNAMIC .............................................................................. 19
4.2. SOMETIMES DISABILITY IS TEMPORARY ........................................................................... 19
4.3. SOMETIMES DISABILITY IS SITUATIONAL .......................................................................... 19
5. History of design for disables. ....................................................................................................... 20
5.1. Year wise approaches ............................................................................................................ 20
6. The Problem with Good Design: Why Good Design Isn’t Good Enough ....................................... 25
7. Guideline for inclusive design ....................................................................................................... 26
7.2. Highlights of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ............................... 27
7.3. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities .......................................................... 27
7.4. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities .......................................................... 28
8. Case study ..................................................................................................................................... 29
8.1. Case study 1- design of house in Europe ............................................................................... 29
8.2. Case study 2 ........................................................................................................................... 36
BLUEWATER - AN ACCESS-SUCCESS .............................................................................................. 36
9. Design solutions ............................................................................................................................ 40
 4

10. Results/ recommendation- ............................................................................................................. 45

10.1. Accessible infrastructure...................................................................................................... 45
10.2. The cost of incorporating universal design .......................................................................... 45
10.3. Cost of not incorporating universal design .......................................................................... 46
10.3. Approach .............................................................................................................................. 47
Universal design in the Aid Management Cycle ........................................................................... 49
11. Conclusion-...................................................................................................................................... 51
References ............................................................................................................................................ 52
 5

Title: Inclusive design- space for one and all.

Abstract
Despite a vast set of rules and regulations concerning architecture for disabled people, the
built environment still lacks functionality and accessibility. Architecture is often not suitable
for handicapped people, whether the impairments are permanent, temporary or situational.
Building regulations focus mainly on wheelchair users as a stereotype disabled person while
disregarding other limiting factors to other venerable groups. The variety of impairments
being immense and architecture needing to be useable or adaptable to the needs of every
person, more suitable guidelines than strict and non-flexible building regulations are
necessary. Today’s state of the art in accessible design is called Inclusive Design. In contrast
to other regulations for disabled people, Inclusive Design doesn’t give a set of rules, but
principles for orientation. The dissertation will explain that Inclusive design is not a new idea,
but is a logical consequence deriving from the history of design for disabled people.

Introduction-

In most places around the world today, society claims to be very open, liberal, giving
everybody equal opportunities. Effort is made in including every member in society to fully
participate. Nevertheless, the non-average like children, the elderly or people with disabilities
still find it very hard to fully take part. This is due to a serious of very different reasons. Firstly,
the needs of the various minorities are very different and sometimes integration simply
cannot be achieved. Nevertheless, it is very often to see, that there is a unwillingness of non-
handicapped members of society to really try their very best to include handicapped fellow
citizen. Additionally, barriers in everyday life, caused by the physical surrounding are
numerous and as multifaceted as are the impairments people carry with themselves.
Determination of participation through the human environment is found on every level:
industrial products might not be easy to handle for everybody; a train might not be accessible
for every customer or a city quarter might not give the opportunity for great self-development
to every inhabitant. Design, technology and materials determine everybody's life on a daily
basis, often without the average person noticing that the exact item he/she is using is not
suitable for others. The same principle applies to the built environment. It includes all the
 6

spaces around us that shall cater for literally everybody without restrictions. Still, many places
fail to be accessible for everybody. Again, the reasons are numerous and of different scales,
but surely every one of us has faced situations, where spaces were non-accessible. Typical
situations would be entrances that can only be reached via stairs, so wheelchair users cannot
enter or signage that is too small, so people with limited vision cannot see important signs.
Intelligent planning and design are necessary to create spaces that can achieve accessibility
for everybody or at least a highest possible number of users.

Fig.1 illustration the differences between people

Source- www. differences in society.com

Aim- to understand the present situation of disabilities.

-to study the needs for implementation of inclusive design.

Objective- 1. To understand the principle of inclusive design.

2. To analyse the importance and need in society.

3. To identify the various vulnerable group.

4. To explore various techniques and design.

5. To find out reason for which ID is not being implemented properly.

Scope and Limitations - the overall objective of the research is to explore the role of
inclusive design in dealing disabilities. The study will be limited to design problem and
 7

solution in built-up area. The discomfort caused in open spaces (other than built-up) will not
be included.

Methodology and methods – various means has been used to get the
understanding and collect relevant data regarding the topic. The measures taken are-

▪ Literature survey- online sources, books, journals etc.

▪ Ground level survey- understanding the ongoing construction, rules regulations.
▪ One to one interaction- interviewing, referring statistical data from government.

fig2. documentational methodology

 8

fig3. design methodology

 9

Literature study
The content of the whole dissertation is categories into chapters. The materials are taken
from different books, pdfs, online sources and others sources, covering all the aspects of
inclusive design, start from its definition, history, comparison to case study and conclusion.

1. Inclusive design
Inclusive Design is the design of an environment so that it can be accessed and used by as
many people as possible, regardless of age, gender and disability. An environment that is
designed inclusively is not just relevant to buildings; it also applies to surrounding open
spaces, wherever people go about everyday activities. This includes shops, offices, hospitals,
leisure facilities, parks and streets. Inclusive design keeps the diversity and uniqueness of
each individual in mind.

1.1. Basic Principles

While this guide primarily focuses on physical accessibility to the built environment it is
important to also consider other dimensions of accessibility such as social communication
and information systems within the built environment. When working in developing
countries, it is important to also take into account cultural, economic, engineering,
environment, gender and social contexts.

Like any concept, they have their own set of principles to follow. Developed five key
principles of ID and they are:

Principle 1: People (Place people at the heart of the design process.)

Principle 2: Diversity (Acknowledge diversity and differences.)

Principle 3: Choice (Single design solution cannot accommodate all users.)

Principle 4: Flexibility (Flexibility in use.)

Principle 5: Convenient (Provides buildings and environments that are convenient and
enjoyable to use for everyone).

All of these principles have been discussed previously when breaking down the definition of
ID. They do not represent standards like AD. As mentioned earlier, the concept of ID
developed from UD. Therefore, many of these principles are similar and different than UD
They are simply revised to enhance the meaning and purpose of ID. It is also clear that many
 10

of these UD principles correspond with the principles of ID. Below is a list that identifies how
the seven UD principles fit within the five ID principles.

In 1997 a group of architects, product designers and environmental design researchers

developed the Seven Pillars of Inclusive Design. The pillars were developed to guide the
design of environments, products and communications, not just interfaces. They can be
applied to help evaluating existing designs and guide the designers or even educate the
designers and consumers alike about the aspects of universal design (National Disability
Authority 2014). The basic seven principles are-

▪ Equivalent use- The design should be useful and marketable to individuals with
abilities of all levels. To avoid segregating or stigmatizing users, the means of use
should be the same for all users. Arrangement of privacy, security and safety should
be objectively available for all users (National Disability Authority 2014).
▪ Flexibility in use- The design should accommodate a wide range of individual
preferences and abilities. This includes facilitating for right- and left-handed users,
user’s accuracy and precision and the user’s pace (National Disability Authority
2014).
▪ Simple and intuitive use- User’s experience, knowledge, language skills or current
distractions have no effect on understanding the use of the design. This can be
achieved by eliminating unnecessary complexity and being consistent with the user’s
expectations. Providing prompting and feedback during and after the task
completion will make the design more intuitive to use (National Disability Authority
2014).
 11

▪ Perceptible information - The necessary information is communicated to the user

effectively, regardless of the surrounding conditions or the user’s auditory and
sensory abilities. The use of different modes of presentation, such as verbal,
pictorial, tactile and audio-visual to communicate essential information maximises
the legibility of the necessary information (National Disability Authority 2014).
▪ Tolerance for error- Elements should be arranged in a way that helps to minimise
errors. The most used elements should be the most accessible ones while hazardous
elements should be either eliminated, isolated or shielded somehow. Unintended or
accidental actions by the user should be less likely to cause hazardous or otherwise
unwanted consequences. This can be done by providing warnings before the user is
about to make something that could potentially be irreversible. (National Disability
Authority 2014.)
▪ Low physical effort - Using the design should not require an effort that would make
the users uncomfortable or cause them fatigue. It should allow the users to maintain
their normal body position, and they should be able to use the design without
unreasonable operational body force (National Disability Authority 2014).
▪ Size and space for approach and use- Convenient size and space should be provided
allowing the user to approach, reach and use the design regardless of their body size,
stature or mobility. Clear line of sight to important elements should be achievable
for any seated or standing user. All the elements should also be comfortably
reachable whether or not the user is seated or standing (National Disability Authority
2014).
 12

Fig4. Principles of universal design

It is obvious that both these concepts overall emphasize similar ideas of responsive,
adaptable, accessible, and secure. These criteria are applied when discussing both ID and
UD principles. They are:

Criteria 1: Responsive Relate to people's needs and wants

a) People are involved in the design process from pre-design to POE

b) Daily user's needs

c) invisible accessibility

Criteria 2: Adaptable Relates to diversity and differences in people

a) Easy to use and understand, flexible, convenient, and enjoyable

b) provide options

Criteria 3: Accessible Relates to the accessibility standards

Criteria 4: Secure Relates to health, safety, and welfare

a) Physical health: ergonomics, indoor air quality, safety, security

b) Psychological health: feelings of security and safety

 13

1.2. Relation between inclusive and universal design and accessibility

Universal Design (UD) is a philosophy widely used in United States involving micro to macro
scale designs from door levers to the entire building. For this thesis, ID is similar to UD but
have different meanings. According to many literatures, some researchers use them
interchangeably, while others believe ID is a more appropriate term than UD when
discussing about equality and equity. In this case, UD relates to the entire world that is used
by everyone everywhere. Ronald Mace from the Centre for Universal Design defines the
widely accepted term as "...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". This concept started as a social movement in the late 1960s to allow any person,
regardless of their age and abilities to use them with no or little extra modification. Though,
it has been criticized by many sources that the word "universal" means one solution
accommodating everybody. In reality, UD can only be designed for the greatest percentile of
people who will most likely use the product and environment, because everyone has
different abilities and needs. This explains why ID, which is further explained in the next
section, is more appropriate than UD. Furthermore, according to Imrie and Hall, they
criticize Mace's definition to be too utopian and does not reflect the nature of inclusion. As
mentioned by Steinfeld and Tauke, they believe the term should be "universal designing" to
reflect the evolutionary process to becoming more inclusive. Therefore, some adaptations
and choices are necessary in order to accommodate a diverse group of people.

Inclusivity is a better approach to design which developed from UD. As mentioned earlier,
they are similar but have different purposes. UD has a more architectural and industrial
origin where the goal is to design one size fits all. ID, conversely, refers to including rather
than excluding. Though, a consultant and researcher on UD, he believes the major
difference is that ID is broader than UD because it embraces diversity in social and economic
situations, protecting PWD for instance. Diversity refers to various ages, abilities, and
limitations. Therefore, ID evolved as an intervention through UD and is more appropriate for
a diverse group of people accessing products and environments with equality and equity.
ID began in the United Kingdom and is an approach that is used widely in Europe, UK,
Canada, and other countries. ID is defined as: A way of designing products and
 14

environments so that they are usable and appealing to everyone regardless of age, ability or
circumstance, by working with users to remove barriers in the social, technical, political, and
economic processes underpinning building and design. This definition will be taken apart for
further analysis in better understanding the term. They include designers for ID, usable by
all, appealing to all, collaborating with users, and designing without barriers.

Accessibility is about creating products that are usable by everyone. Inclusive design, on the
other hand, is a mindset that involves understanding user diversity. It is a methodology that
is human centred and means including and learning from as many people as possible, with a
range of perspectives.

Fig5.inclusive design and their relation

 15

2. Need of inclusive design

Inclusive design keeps the diversity and uniqueness of each individual in mind. As individuals
spread out from the hypothetical average, the needs of individuals that are outliers, or at
the margins, become ever more diverse. Most individuals stray from the average in some
facet of their needs or goals. This means that a mass solution does not work well. Optimal
inclusive design is best achieved through one-size-fit-one configurations. Disability is often a
mismatch in interactions with the features of a person’s body and the environment that
they live in. disability is only as impairing as the culture around it allows it to be. A building is
hard to access by a person on a wheelchair only when it lacks ramp walks. Braille means that
being blind is no longer a limitation to read and write. It reminds us that at some point of
our life, we will encounter a disability. Maybe not a conventional one. Maybe it won’t even
be termed a disability — all it might be is a hinderance. But at that point, we’ll wish someone
was considerate enough to think about the edge case — our edge case. Which is exactly why
we should keep that in mind while designing built space or products. And besides, making it
accessible to the disabled is not only the decent thing to do, it also has positive effects on
everyone.

Fig6. daily routine of common people

 16

3. Cliental- vulnerable group

Fig7. Excluded and included section of people while designing

Inclusive design considers the full range of human diversity with respect to ability, language,
culture, gender, age and other forms of human difference. People with different abilities,
sizes, and ages should be able to fully participate within society independently. An inclusive
environment provides access for people with diverse disabilities, including mobility, mental,
and sensory (hearing and vision loss), and various user groups from children, families, and
the elderly. For instance, children’s cognitive capabilities are still being developed. The way
they see and remember the environment are different compared to adults. Therefore,
specific wayfinding, such as the use of landmarks, are effective navigational techniques for
children, which are also helpful for adults and the elderly. Overall, fully accessible
environments do not necessarily mean everyone experiences and uses the product equally.
It actually means everyone is considered and the design of spaces and products do not draw
attention to a specific target user group. As mentioned before, a barrier preventing them
from fully participating within society is based on interactions between the individual and
the built environment. Thus, the Enabler concept (Figure 1.3a) by Steinfeld is a
representation of the target population with various functional limitations which helps
designers enhance specific details of the built environment in order to create inclusive
designs to all user groups.
 17

Fig8. Enabler concept representing various functional limitations

3.1. Barrier faced by people with disability

More than 1 billion people, or 15% of the world’s population, experience some form of
disability. People with disability face many obstacles in their physical environment that
prevent them from fully exercising their rights and participating in social, cultural and
professional life on an equal basis with others. This includes access to education and health
services, the opportunity to earn a living and the right to participate in family, community
and political life. A barrier-free environment is key to social inclusion of people with
disabilities. Improved accessibilities also benefits society as whole.

The International Disability and Development Consortium, in its statement on CRPD Article 9
Accessibility, noted that people with disability are largely overlooked in development
policies and programme. This include-

• Physical and/or environmental accessibility- removing barriers.

• communication accessibility—providing accessible formats in alternative modes and
means of communication
• intellectual accessibility—providing reading formats and speaking in a way that is
accessible to people with intellectual and/or learning disability
• social and/or attitudinal accessibility—removing stigma and other negative
behaviour against people with disability and their families and carers
• economic accessibility (also referred to as ‘affordability’)—establishing this as a core
requirement of a person’s social and economic rights.
 18

3.2. USABLE BY ALL

Inclusive Design refers to products and spaces that are usable by all. There is a
misconception that ID is often associated with accessibility for PWD or the aging population.
In reality, ID is not a specialized design and does not only cater to their needs. It also
includes children, families, and the aging population as various target groups developed by
Maria Benktzon and Sven-Erich Juhlins, it divides users by their varying degrees of
impairment from fully capable at the bottom to people with disabilities who rely on
assistance at the top of the pyramid. The pyramid is to be read from a top-down approach
and represents ID solutions for meeting individual needs. By catering to those most in need
first or those experiencing worst case scenarios at the top of the pyramid, will naturally
accommodate and be used by mainstream society at the bottom of the pyramid.
Furthermore, there will always be 5% of the people who are unable to access buildings and
environments. A single design solution cannot accommodate everyone because it cannot
meet diverse needs. Therefore, the aim of ID is to design for the average with
accommodations by providing choices and flexibility. In doing so, everyone can benefit from
an inclusive environment in many ways. For example, a standing height counter can
accommodate most adults. Though, by offering varying heights provide options for people
to use, accommodating children and those in wheelchairs as well.

Fig9. The pyramid of needs

 19

4. Type of disability
The first thing to learned is that defining disability as a health condition is a thing of the
past. Today disability is a multi-faceted term. It covers situational impairments, activity
limitations, and participation restrictions. All this means that disability is not a personal
attribute. It reflects the complex way people interact with society.

4.1. DISABILITY IS UNIVERSAL & DYNAMIC - The second thing we learned is that disability is
universal and dynamic. This is a shift from thinking about disability as something that
only affects a small percentage of the population. In fact, most of us experience
disabilities that are temporary and situational on a daily basis. For example, mobile
technologies make disability highly relevant to a huge number of people.
4.2. SOMETIMES DISABILITY IS TEMPORARY - Even short-term injury and illness affect the
way people interact with the world around them. Looking into bright light can cause
brief visual impairment. Being sick with a cough makes it hard to speak. Wearing a cast
can severely limit a person’s ability to lift an everyday object.
4.3. SOMETIMES DISABILITY IS SITUATIONAL- As people move through multiple
environments, their abilities can also change dramatically. In a loud crowd, they can’t
hear well. In a car, they’re visually impaired. A new parent spends much of their day
doing tasks one-handed. What’s possible, safe, and appropriate is constantly changing.

Fig10.type of disabilities
 20

5. History of design for disables.

To understand that the concept of Inclusive Design is not necessarily attended by a huge
financial or organisational effort, but is a change of attitude, it is important to look a little bit
at the history of organisations, critics, philosophers, social workers, etc. dealing with
(aspects of) Universal Design. This chapter does not mainly deal with building regulations or
legal frameworks, nevertheless they also play a part on the way to a fully universally
thinking society. Unfortunately, human history is full of examples demonstrating how
disabled people or simply different people were locked away or even punished for how they
were. The privately organised lock away system was dominant for centuries taking any
chance of the disabled individual to develop himself or experience freedom of choice and
life. Later on, various regulation was formularised regarding them keeping their sentiments
in priority.

A generation of critics and scientists have been agitated by the definitions of “inclusion” and
“exclusion” by Claude Levi-Strauss in Tristes Tropiques in 1955. 'Primitive' societies, he
argues, deal with strangers and deviants by swallowing them up, by making them their own
and by gaining strength from them. They are anthropophagic, whereas modern societies are
anthropoemic; they vomit out the deviant, keeping them outside of society or enclosing
them in special institutions within their perimeters. Not encouraging a philosophical
discussion about the essence of humanity, this example shows, what weight the matter had
in the 1950s. Radical and highly controversial statements were debated and compared to
each other. This happens at the same time as the European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, that initiated a great movement that is still
going on until today. The convention is one event to help to get disability out of its
“pityperiod”, a period where disabled people were regarded as carrying a personal 29
tragedy with them rather than integrating them. Equal opportunity schemes were non-
existent and help was very limited. Physical aid was given in hospital and care centres, but
psychological help or support for personal development was hardly existent. Some were
fortune enough to have a caring family, others depended fully on insufficient state schemes.

5.1. Year wise approaches

1950-60s- Architecturally the modernist approach of the 50s or 60s does not live up to the
needs of fringe group members. The stereotype, the norm is the item of interest. Mass
 21

production and mechanisation require a measure applying to everyone. The extreme is

ignored, the non-normal does not exist in the designer’s thinking.

1970s- It is only in the 1970s that organisations fighting for equal rights for everybody gain a
more powerful voice. “Design for Need” was the new keyword. A major change in thinking,
usually called the hippy movement suddenly brought new light into the discussion around
disability: disabled people shall be equal. But the statements go even further: scientists for
sociology argue, that the existing approach called “medical model” to classify people, is
discriminating and that society determines people by classifying them into healthy/normal
and ill/disabled. In 1976 the social definition of disability in the UK was done through the
Union of Physically Impaired Against Segregation and results in following definition:
"disability is the disadvantage or restriction of activity caused by a contemporary social
organisation which takes no or little account of people who have physical impairments and
thus excludes them from participation in the mainstream of social activities; physical
disability is therefore a form of social oppression.

1980s- In 1980 the World Health Organisation (WHO) classifies disabled people as victims of
disease in or misfortune in Impairment, Disabilities and Handicap. It is a blame-the-victim-
approach in which the disabled person shall adapt to the environment, not vice versa. The
medical issue is the focus of the concern and critical care is seen as key responsibility. At
that time disability is usually regarded as a medical issue, not a social one. Impairments are
created by lacks of body function, not the miss-design of the (built) environment or
attitudinal barriers through society. Globally new organisations formed themselves,
dedicated to bring justice to the matter. The United Nations declared the International Year
of People with Disabilities in 1981, followed by the United Nations Decade of People with
Disabilities from 1982 until 1992. This act by the United Nations was an important symbolic
gesture to increase the awareness of “normal” people towards disabled fellow men. Italy
fixes standards for disabled people in 1889 through its law L13/89.

1990s- The global change had a major high in the USA when the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) was put to live in 1990. Its aim with its set of regulations was to ban
discrimination against people with disabilities throughout all aspects of society. The ADA has
been a worldwide inspiration on equal rights for people with disabilities after.
 22

1992s- In 1992 Council of Europe, one of the oldest international organisations working
towards European integration, asks in its Recommendation No. R (92) 6 for a coherent
policy for people with disabilities, influencing disability policies at national and international
level. This recommendation was followed shortly after by the Standard Rules on the
Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities. “Equalisation of opportunities” is
defined as “the process through which the various systems of society and the environment,
such as services, activities, information and documentation are made available to all,
particularly to persons with disabilities” through the COE. The rules describe preconditions,
target areas and implementation measures for equal participation, with 22 rules setting out
initiatives ranging from awareness raising and accessibility to information and research.

1995s- In 1995 The principles of Universal Design as discussed above were formulated at the
University of North Carolina Center for Universal Design. Only one year after the first
version of the European Concept for Accessibility (ECA) was constituted. It states that “the
fundamental basis of a European philosophy for accessibility is the recognition, acceptance
and fostering - at all levels in society - of the rights of all human beings, including people
with activity limitations .... in an ensured context of high human health, safety, comfort and
environmental protection. Accessibility - for all - is an essential attribute of a 'person-
centred', sustainable built environment” (European Commission - Employment and Social
Affairs DG).

1997s- In 1997 the Treaty of Amsterdam of the European Union sealed several new
regulations concerning the European Union. Aspects of the new treaty were the legal
integration of the Schengen Agreement and various aspects of European integration. Article
6 and 13 of the treaty deal with non-discrimination and human rights / integration.

* Article 6 (ex Article F) of the EU Treaty has been amended so as to reaffirm the principle
of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms;

* a procedure is laid down for dealing with cases where a Member State has committed a
breach of the principles on which the Union is based;

* more effective action is to be taken to combat not only discrimination based on

nationality but also discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief,
disability, age or sexual orientation;
 23

* new provisions on equal treatment for men and women are inserted in the Treaty
establishing the European Community;

* individuals are afforded greater protection with regard to the processing and free
movement of personal data;

* the Final Act was accompanied by declarations on the abolition of the death penalty,
respect for the status of churches and philosophical or non-confessional organisations, and
on the needs of persons with a disability.

1998-2002- Accessibility in the EU FP5 (Applications Relating to Persons with Special Needs
Including the Disabled and Elderly) And: Section 508 of the US Rehabilitation Act is the first
act within information technology that includes accessibility requirements in public
procurement policies

1999- Accessibility Guidelines first established in the International Organization for

Standardization (ISO) And: The WHO's ICIDH was revised and proclaims that the issue of
disability is an attitudinal or ideological issue requiring social change which at a political
level becomes a question of human tights. disability therefore becomes a political issue.

2001- The Council of Europe (Tomar) Resolution ResAP(2001)1 states that the principles of
Universal Design need to be introduced into the curricula of all occupations working on the
built environment. The Tomar Resolution definition of Universal Design forms the basis of
the definitions in this report. And: 1 The Council of Europe Resolution ResAP(2001)3
“Towards full citizenship of persons with disabilities through inclusive new technologies”.

2002- e-Europe 2002 Action Plan by the European Commission aims to achieve an
“Information Society for All”. The Plan includes a separate action line on WAI guidelines,
national centres of excellence, curricula for designers and Design for All standards. The
European Design for All e-Accessibility Network (EDeAN) is established as a result. The
action plan is followed by the European Council resolution on eAccessibility – improving the
access of people with disabilities to the knowledge-based society. And: ISO Guide 71:
“Guidelines for standards developers to address the needs of older persons and persons
with disabilities”, forming the basis of CEN/CENELEC Guide 6.
 24

2003- EU Ministerial Declaration on e-inclusion (Greece) states that the overall approach
should be based on the principles of Design for All, availability, accessibility and affordability
of products and services appropriate to meeting the needs of citizens with disabilities. WAI
guidelines, best practices in Design for All, accessibility requirements in public procurement
policies and mainstream products and services are main issues.

2005- European Commission Communication COM(2005) 425 on eAccessibility

Implementation, contributing to the implementation of “i2010 – A European Information
Society for growth and employment” And: The Third Summit of Heads of State and
Government held by the Council of Europe in Warsaw. In the Warsaw Action Plan, the
Heads of State and Government agree to “consolidate the Council of Europe’s work on
disability issues and support the adoption and implementation of a ten-year action plan
designed to make de cisive progress in ensuring equal rights for people with disabilities”.

2006- The Council of Europe Disability Action Plan And: The Riga Declaration mentions
accessibility and the design of new technologies, supporting EU community action plans.

2007- The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is opened for
signature. Universal Design is mentioned in particular under “general obligations”.

2008- The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities enters into
force.

2010- Congress of the Council of Europe in Norway.

2006-2015- Attempt to translate the aims of the Council of Europe with regard to human
rights, non-discrimination, equal opportunities, full citizenship and participation of people
with disabilities into a European policy framework on disability. The intention is to assist
policy makers in designing, adjusting, refocusing and implementing appropriate plans,
programmes and innovative strategies. Several national or regional initiatives accompanied
the state efforts to increase awareness. The following few examples are only some of a huge
number of exhibitions, meetings, action plans, etc.

2005 – 2007- Design for All – the Nordic Programme for Action The action plan, adopted by
the Nordic Council of Ministers, is based on the principle of mainstreaming, announces
Universal Design/Design for All as a crucial strategy for improving accessibility within the
 25

Nordic Council of Ministers and offers 17 measures, which are divided into three parts: an
overall strategy; information strategy; and accessibility to the institutions of the Nordic
Council of Ministers. Universal Design features: The Nordic Action Plan Design for All – a
Nordic Programme for Action underlines the importance of incorporating a Design for All
perspective into existing and new programmes and action plans for co-operation between
the Nordic countries within all sectors and on different levels as well as co-operation with
the adjacent areas.

2005 – 2009- The Government Action Plan for increased accessibility for persons with
disabilities aims to enhance accessibility for all, and directs a special focus towards persons
with functional impairments. These include disabilities affecting vision, hearing, cognition
and sensitivity to environmental factors (individuals with asthma and allergies). The action
plan is designed to unify and strengthen efforts to increase accessibility to buildings,
outdoor environments, products and other important areas of society. The plan
incorporates initiatives under the auspices of 15 different ministries. The following five
principles form the basis for the action plan:

• It incorporates all important areas of society.

• It is rooted in the principle of sector responsibility. Government initiatives will be co-

ordinated.

• Efforts will be based on user participation at all levels.

• Measures and their impact will be assessed on an ongoing basis.

6. The Problem with Good Design: Why Good Design Isn’t Good Enough
Inclusive design is an approach that considers, from the very beginning, how your product
can be easy, useful and enjoyable for as many people as reasonably possible without the
need for special adaptation. It doesn’t suggest that it’s always possible to design for the
entire population but it’s a design practice that brings everyone together and doesn’t
discriminate or divide us. For example- The ATM is a great example of how people create
limitations. Most ATMs are designed so a person of average height can use it but a small
person or someone in a wheelchair may experience issues when trying to access it.
 26

7. Guideline for inclusive design

The adoption of inclusive design principles will help people use developments safely, with
dignity, comfort, convenience and confidence. People will be able to make effective,
independent choices about how they use a development without experiencing undue effort
or separation. They will be able to participate equally in the activities that the development
offers. Using the basic principles will help a lot to design the space to be used effectively as
per users-

▪ Inclusive so everyone can use them safely, easily and with dignity.
▪ Responsive taking account of what people say they need and want.
▪ Flexible so different people can use them in different ways.
▪ Convenient so everyone can use them without too much effort or separation.
▪ Accommodating for all people, regardless of their age, gender, mobility, ethnicity or
circumstances.
▪ Welcoming with no disabling barriers that might exclude some people.
▪ Realistic offering more than one solution to help balance everyone’s needs and
recognising that one solution may not work for all.

7.1. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

The CRPD recognises that disability is an evolving concept, and that it: . . . results from the
interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers
that hinders their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.

The CRPD also recognises: . . . the importance of accessibility to the physical, social,
economic and cultural environment, to health and education and to information and
communication in enabling person with disabilities to fully enjoy all human rights and
fundamental freedom.

As a human rights instrument with an explicit social development dimension, the CRPD is
both a treaty and a development tool. It specifies that disability be considered in all
programming, rather than as a stand-alone thematic issue. It requires all States parties to
implement measures ensuring full and equal participation of people with disability in
society.
 27

7.2. Highlights of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Article 1: enshrines equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms

Article 2: defines discrimination, which includes the denial of reasonable accommodation

Article 3: outlines the eight core principles that apply to the spirit of the rights of people
with disability includes-

• non-discrimination and
• accessibility, which requires all signatories to provide equitable access to the
physical environment, transportation and information and communications
technologies, as well as to public areas, urban and rural

Article 4: realises and promotes all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all people
with disability without discrimination of any kind. Requires people with disability and
Disabled People’s Organisations to be included in decision-making processes.

Article 5: calls for equal recognition of people with disability before the law

Article 9: requires all signatories to provide equitable access to the physical environment,
transportation and information, communication and other services, as well as to public
areas, urban and rural.

Article 32: covers international cooperation, which includes committing countries to a

number of measures and committing signatories to ensuring development activities are
inclusive and accessible to people with disability.

7.3. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities—Article 9 Accessibility

1. To enable persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in all
aspects of life, States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure persons with
disabilities have access, on an equal basis with others, to the physical environment, to
transportation, to information and communications, including information and
communications technologies and systems, and to other facilities and services open or
provided to the public, both in urban and in rural areas. These measures, which shall include
the identification and elimination of obstacles and barriers to accessibility, shall apply to,
inter alia:
 28

• buildings, roads, transportation and other indoor and outdoor facilities, including
schools, housing, medical facilities and workplaces
• information, communications and other services, including electronic services and
emergency services.

2. States parties shall also take appropriate measures to:

• develop, promulgate and monitor the implementation of minimum standards and

guidelines for the accessibility of facilities and services open or provided to the
public ensure that private entities that offer facilities and services which are open or
provided to the public take into account all aspects of accessibility for persons with
disabilities
• provide training for stakeholders on accessibility issues facing persons with
disabilities
• provide in buildings and other facilities open to the public signage in Braille and in
easy to read and understand forms
• provide forms of live assistance and intermediaries, including guides, readers and
professional sign language interpreters, to facilitate accessibility to buildings and
other facilities open to the public
• promote other appropriate forms of assistance and support to persons with
disabilities to ensure their access to information
• promote access for persons with disabilities to new information and
communications technologies and systems, including the Internet
• promote the design, development, production and distribution of accessible
information and communications technologies and systems at an early stage, so that
these technologies and systems become accessible at minimum cost.

7.4. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities—Article 32 International

Cooperation

1. States Parties recognize the importance of international cooperation and its promotion, in
support of national efforts for the realization of the purpose and objectives of the present
Convention, and will undertake appropriate and effective measures in this regard, between
and among States and, as appropriate, in partnership with relevant international and
 29

regional organizations and civil society, in particular organizations of persons with

disabilities. Such measures could include, inter alia:

• ensuring that international cooperation, including international development

programmes, is inclusive of and accessible to persons with disabilities
• facilitating and supporting capacity-building, including through the exchange and
sharing of information, experiences, training programmes and best practices
• facilitating cooperation in research and access to scientific and technical knowledge
• providing, as appropriate, technical and economic assistance, including by facilitating
access to and sharing of accessible and assistive technologies, and through the
transfer of technologies.
• The provisions of this article are without prejudice to the obligations of each State
Party to fulfil its obligations under the present Convention.

8. Case study
In order to understand the present situation of dealing with problem of disabilities in
different part of the world a study was conducted to know the measures taken by the
different authority. Different case studies were studies.

8.1. Case study 1- design of house in Europe

At this stage we already established the necessity of Inclusive design. Now it would be
interesting to understand how easy or difficult it will be to design the new built environment
according to the ID principles. Each country has a different law, slightly different attitude
and also different existing building matter; features that strongly influence the detailing of
ID projects. Nevertheless, it is necessary to look and learn from our neighbours.

The principle of all central authorities is “normalisation, integration, equality and high
quality of life, regardless of age or capability”. Ideally a comparison between Italy, Germany,
Norway and England should demonstrate the accuracy of the statement above. For a
meaningful result it is best based on the existing building regulations for disabled people.
The rules, whether they are called standards, statutory requirements, or guidelines are in
essence the same. They mainly deal with the detailing of the necessary floor spaces,
maximum gradients or change of levels. Most of those regulations unfortunately are set up
considering a person in a wheelchair and a blind man only as the standard stereotype
 30

disabled person. Throughout all the different regulations, the aim is to provide a wheelchair
user access to houses and the Access for All – Inclusive Design throughout all stages of the
building process possibility to move around and inside it without assistance. People with
other impairments are not considered or only taken into account whenever demand for
special regulation complies with the needs of a wheelchair user. Consequently, most of the
laws deal with the necessary space for a wheelchair rather than the overall need of a
handicapped person. They therefore deal mostly with required minimum/maximum
dimensions for turning and the equipment with a disabled toilet mainly, varying a little
between the countries. Looking for example at the requirements for free floor space for
turning a wheelchair, we find that, although the space might be defined differently: as a
circle, a square or a combination out of both, the overall dimensions are similar.

Fig11. Wheelchair turning space in different European countries

The regulations reflect also the situation in the various countries. Italy has larger problems
integrating principles of inclusive design in it’s antique building structures. Therefore, a
larger series of possibilities are defined in the regulations to enable to implement
wheelchair turning points into the existing structures.

Looking at other parts of the specifications, greater differences in required dimensions

appear. The allowed height of a threshold for example is only 15mm in England, 20mm in
Scotland and even 25mm in Germany, Italy and Norway. One of the specifications that vary
the most is one concerning the dimensions of the accessible path. Regulations are split up in
two categories: continuous path and at a point. Minimum dimensions for the first are
between 0.75 and 0.9 m, and between 0.9 and 1.2 m for the later one. Also the set-up for
the regulations varies.
 31

Germany as the only country distinguishes between external and internal doors (pathway at
a point). Whereas internal door must have a clearance of at least 0.8 m, external doors need
a clearance of 0.9 m to enable lager wheelchairs as they are often used on the street, but
hardly ever in the house to enter and exit comfortably. As stated before, mobility
impairments (consequently the wheelchair user) make up for the maximum of requirements
for accessibility in housing. This shows that this type of disability is easiest to understand
and control. Clear rules and guidance can be defined and effects seem to be most relevant
to housing construction. Unfortunately, these observations allow the inference to be drawn
that other types of impairments are not sufficiently included in the regulations. Guidelines
concerning tactile or colour contrast needs to be developed just as the requirements for
noise in buildings, the use of certain materials and finishes and outdoor and indoor signage.
Currently such topics are only briefly touched and need further development on a European
basis.

The principles of the legal framework are the same in all European countries. The
government is aware that the ageing of society brings the need of accessible architecture.
Normalisation, integration and high quality of life are the aims of all country leaders. Most
of the time, those statutory requirements are given in performance criteria sheets in
combination with national standards or technical specifications. Despite all this agreement
of goals, the legal system and the governmental approach to achieve those goals vary
hugely. The Italian regulations, the most rigourous ones in Europe, are set through the
central government and apply to the whole country. However, Italy is lacking
comprehensive building regulations, but the requirements are fixed in a succession of
different laws and ministerial decrees, which do have the status of a building code. The
grade of accessibility is divided in three levels: Accessible, visitable and adaptable.

1. Accessible: A wheelchair user should be able to enter, move about and use all functions of
a building unaided 2. Visit-able: A wheelchair user should be able to enter the building and
the individual apartments and be able to access the bathroom and the living room 3.
Adaptable: No part of the building has to be accessible, but the planner must show that the
building can be made accessible at a later date.

In Germany responsibility for building standards are completely decentralized and belong to
the individual Länder (German states). However technical standards are defined in two main
 32

documents: The Deutsche Industrienorm (DIN) 18024 and 18025, which are used by those
German states that elected to do so. The German state of Hesse has the most rigorous
building regulations regarding barrier-free building. It requires barrier-free access all houses
over four stories. Germany is one of the nations that carried out a large number of research
and evaluation studies. The results and implementation are to be seen in the near future.

Economic incentives for barrier-free housing are provided through the Norwegian State
Housing Bank. The bank’s incentive is strongly based on recommendations of the Norwegian
Society for the handicapped and the Norwegian Building Research Institute. Buildings that
comply to the requirements set by those organizations are eligible for funding. This model
has been successful over the last 15 years, financing some 80% of all new dwellings over the
last 50 years. Building code and regulations are centralized documents, but have no direct
influence on the incentives.

Similar to Norway, regulations are as well centralized in England, although with variations
throughout the UK. The existing standards are newly integrated in the building regulations
(part M of the regulations). Before multi-storey buildings didn’t even need an elevator and
economic incentives didn’t exist. This changed over the last 10 years and a similar model
than the one in Norway was adapted.

Cultural differences and traditions – a typical ground floor layout

As mentioned in the introduction of this chapter, one of the mail problems comparing
dwellings throughout Europe is the diversity in culture and building tradition. As
demonstrated before, most regulation deal with the floor requirements in accessible
housing. Therefore, it is clearest to explain national differences looking at the floor plan of a
typical flat / house and develop a discussion concerning barrier-free buildings from the
differences between the traditional plans and their adaptability to barrier-free design. In
general, it can be said barrier-free housing does not differ a lot from traditional housing in
any of the five countries. An exception might be Germany where planners have difficulties
to integrate the space requirements given in the DIN, mainly due to an increasing floor
space in the living room. Most of the times, throughout all the countries nevertheless, a
larger bathroom and slightly wider halls is the only greater change that must be included in
the floor layout. Especially in Italy, where bathrooms in flats are usually rather big, those
 33

conventions hardly ever create spatial problems to the planners. And the rest of the rooms
itself are usually by custom already allying to barrier-free building regulations.

Fig12. Typical floor plans in different European countries

 34

In the UK, where narrow terraced houses are typical, vertical circulation might cause
problems. Barrier-free housing shall either have all the main services on one floor or have
an elevator making it easy for the disabled and the elderly to reach all floors in the property.
To fully understand the impact of barrier-free design or even ID, it is necessary to have a
closer look at the traditional floor plans in each country. Firstly, this is not for a matter or
accessibility but rather to understand the typical circulation and habits within the different
cultures.

Looking at the various rooms individually

The discussion here focuses mainly und the housing standard. The principles of Inclusive
Design nevertheless are the same as well in public buildings as dwellings. The choice of
focus und the private house is simply because it is best to distinguish between the countries.
Public buildings, offices, etc. these days follow a rather global design. The floor plans to be
compared here are the following: Firstly, we look at a ground-floor plan of a Norwegian 2-
story detached house with three bedrooms, bathroom and some storage space on the top
floor. Then we look at apartments form a typical block of flats from Germany and Italy. The
English example is a typical terraced house.

The corridor vs. open plan

The modern apartment has, similar to office buildings and other dwellings today, a rather
generic open floor plan. Looking back into more traditional housing, significant differences
in the floor layouts can be seen comparing the four countries. They represent different
values, habits and climates. Despite being an interesting field of discussion, this chapter will
exclusively focus on the accessibility of the spaces, not on the cultural, social function of
individual rooms. Looking at the typical floor layout of flats in the five chosen countries,
following observations can be made regarding the entrance and corridor of the dwelling:
Norway and the UK have one of the most compact housing layouts with a small central
corridor with the corridors taking up between 4.5 and 6 sqm compared to 10 sqm in
Germany and Italy. Today Norway’s building layouts have a tendency to be open plan and
therefore show no restrictions per se regarding accessibility. Nevertheless, the older,
traditional housing is extremely small and therefore often inaccessible for wheelchair users.
The least modifications need to be made to Italian traditional housing. Wide corridors and
 35

generous bathrooms have always been part of the family home and support the need of
space for ID. The UK sees the most drastic changes in it’s dwellings. Due to the habit of living
in 2-3 storey detached housing with very narrow stairs and corridors, moving around is a
problem for some. Nevertheless, this absolute need in change generated a great community
of supporters for ID, fighting, publishing and introducing architecture and architecture
refurbishment to be accessible for all.

Bathrooms

Similar to the corridor, the Norwegian and UK dwelling shows the smallest bathrooms. In
Germany standard DIN regulations ask for a rather large bathroom and in Italy the use of
the Bidet implicated the design of larger bathrooms in general. Nevertheless, the standard
bathroom is too small to be considered an accessible bathroom and would have to be
modified throughout all building types. Germany having some of the more generous
buildings regulations will have to enlarge the typical bathroom the most, as can be seen in
the floor plans shown.

Kitchen and living room

Living rooms in Germany and Italy are usually big enough to be able to integrate an
accessible living room. Norway and the UK, usually building more compact dwellings will
have problems to convert a standard living room into one that follows the principles of
accessible design. In most cases, independently of the location, kitchens are too narrow for
wheelchair users. The more typical problems within a kitchen nevertheless cannot be
discussed within the floor plan, but a look at the elevation of the kitchen is necessary.
Principles here are rather based on the palpability of kitchen appliances and storage spaces.

As a conclusion it can be said that regulations for barrier-free housing in all five nations
provide access according to the broad principles of ID. It can be seen that requirements
comply to the existing and traditional housing standard, even though these structures vary
immensely. Most of the times, ID seems to be the outcome of a pragmatic design in
combination with building tradition. IN former times the whole family lived under one roof
and everybody, from the child to the grand parents had a productive role to fulfil within the
family. The house therefore needed to be useable quickly and efficiently to everybody
 36

leading to practical floor layouts and space design. For this reason, vernacular and
traditional architecture are still inspiring today and a very good base for the research on ID.

8.2. Case study 2

BLUEWATER - AN ACCESS-SUCCESS
With society getting older and disabled people having more possibilities of moving around,
disabled or handicapped people become more and more important as shop clients retailers
and commercial quarters are getting gradually more interested to cater for literally
everybody, as every person, that wouldn't be able to access the shop floors, means missing
out on potential money spent. Consequently the attitude of investors and developers are
changing now. A modern example of accessible shopping space is the Bluewater retail
development in Dartford, UK.

Fig13. Plan of bluewater retail shopping center

 37

The development is a 100 hectare out-of-town development containing 154,000 sqm retail
space with about 30,000 consumers on a normal Saturday. Planned in 1994 and opened in
1999 it is the largest shopping area in Europe composed out of three tied-in shopping malls
with overall 320 stores. The 350 Mio. pound sterling project was supposed to be "one of the
finest retail experiences in Europe, a place where everyone can come to and feel at home."
(Eric Kuhne, architect at Bluewater). The project was initiated and implemented by the
Australian company Land Lease. The objective of the developer was social inclusivity by
designing for the diverse needs of everyone visiting the malls. The project manager states in
an interview: "we're not claiming that we're going to get everything right. We started off
with a set of aspirations ... we regarded disabled people as an important part of our
customer base, and it was always the intention to provide the best for them."

Consequently, wider car par spaces, increasing sight lines and lopes never greater than 1:15
have been integrated. The architects state that they have done the best they can to ensure
easy access for everybody.

Fig14. The bluewater accessibility scheme. No necessary steps wide paths and easy to read
 38

To get plans and features right a lot of meetings and discussions were held at the beginning
of the planning stage. Focus groups were invited to make sure, no customer group was left
out or simply forgotten, but the outcome was actually "what people want" according to the
Bluewater project manager. A building control officer from the local authorities states that
"you've got to take your hat off to Lend Lease, they have a different approach and they're
very keen to be good corporate neighbours and they see it as a partnership with the local
authority and the local community. This generous approach is very unusual as most
developers try to decrease non-let-able floor space and therefore integrate only the
minimum legal requirements. Disabled people are usually meant to be too little of a
potential consumer to be included as target group in a retail scheme. It would usually be
called a waste of floor space. In contrast, Bluewater architects had the task to "make the
place right for everybody" not just 90% of the people. Lend Lease even got so far to tell the
prospective tenants that they have to conform with the Bluewater philosophy and access
standards. It wasn't allowed to simply put the usual high street store into Bluewater, but
adaptions according to the "Access for All" - principles had to be made. A special tenant's
manual was sent out telling everybody how to design their shops and other things. The
manual is not a legal document, but advises the tenant to reflect on the corporate ethos.
The Bluewater development was one of the first ones to be built under close observation
and influence of an access group. The group accompanied planning and building of the
immense property and their ideas were actually taken on board, especially when it came to
the design of car park, layout and drop off points. The retail development contains a shop
mobility centre that gives out basic wheelchairs for free and a lot of other technical help
against fee to disabled people. Those gadgets can be pre-booked or, if available, simply
taken after arrival. Further care was taken in the choice of colour tone contrast, floor
materials, reduced glare, Tenants were asked to have shops without any changes in floor
level and a larger entrance door than usual.
 39

Fig15. Shop with wide entrance and no threshold at bluewater

Fig16. Well illuminated gallery at bluewater

 40

Many developers accept part M of the UK building regulations as necessary, but sufficient.
The developer's at Bluewater nevertheless state, that the manual is 20-30 years old and
therefore simply out of date. A document like this can only be a basis of discussion, but the
building needs to make sure, that a higher standard and a state-of-the-art access is installed.

9. Design solutions
There are various ways or models used to define disability, but in functional terms this guide
is mainly concerned with the following:

Locomotion, which includes people who use wheelchairs and those who can walk but only
with difficulty often using some form of aid such as a stick or walking frame. Approaching
70% of disabled people have locomotion difficulties: those with walking difficulties
outnumber wheelchair users by about 10:1.

Seeing, which can be sub-divided into blind and partially sighted people. It is estimated by
the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) that there are almost two million people in
Great Britain with a significant sight loss.

Hearing, which can also be sub-divided into those who are profoundly deaf and those with
impaired hearing, ranging from severe to mild deafness. The Royal National Institute for
Deaf People (RNID) estimates that there are over eight million deaf or hard of hearing
people in the UK of whom approaching 700,000 are severely or profoundly deaf.

Reaching, stretching and dexterity, frequently the result of arthritis, which can make these
movements painful and difficult, or of muscular dystrophy causing a loss of muscular
strength, or of complaints of the nervous system.

Learning disability, making it hard to understand complicated information or to use

complex machines (like some ticket machines).

9.1. Mobility impaired and visually impaired people

Someone who does not use a walking aid can manage to walk along a passage way less than
700mm wide, but just using a walking stick requires greater width than this; a minimum of
750mm. A person who uses two sticks or crutches, or a walking frame needs a minimum of
900mm, a blind person using a long cane or with an assistance dog needs 1100mm. A
 41

visually impaired person who is being guided needs a width of 1200mm. A wheelchair user
and an ambulant person side-by-side need 1500mm width.

Unobstructed height above a pedestrian way is also important, especially for visually
impaired people. Generally, this should be a minimum of 2300mm except on sub-surface
station platforms where it should be 3000mm. Where a sign is suspended over a footway or
pedestrian area, for example in a railway station a minimum clearance of 2100mm is
acceptable (2300mm on cycleways). Where trees overhang a footway, it is advisable to cut
them back to at least 3000mm clear height to allow room for regrowth.

Fig 17.standards for wheelchair users

 42

9.2. Wheelchair users

The Mobility Roadshow survey also measured the heights of wheelchair / users. The overall
mean height for all types of wheelchair users was 1243mm, with a 5th percentile of
1076mm, 95th percentile of 1374mm and a maximum of just over 1450mm. As with overall
length, scooter users gave slightly greater figures, with a mean height of 1340mm, 5th and
95th percentiles of 1202mm and 1438mm respectively and a maximum of 1502mm.

Other basic measurements which are of importance when considering design standards to
accommodate wheelchair users are:

• Eye height, which is around 120-130mm below seated height giving a 5th-95th
percentile range for wheelchair users from 960mm to 1250mm (1080mm to
1315mm for scooter users)
• Knee height, 500mm to 690mm
• Seat height, 460mm to 490mm
• Ankle height, manual wheelchair users 175mm to 300mm; electric wheelchair users
380mm to 520mm
• Height to bottom of foot support, 60mm to 150mm.

The ability of a person in a wheelchair to reach, sideways or forward, is also important and a
number of guidelines give figures for this.
 43

Fig 18. Standard for wheel chair user

 44

9.3. Changes in level

Even a single step will prevent access for the great majority of wheelchair users (and be a
trip hazard for others), so alternatives must be provided; either ramps or lifts. However, the
design of steps and stairs themselves is important. Good design can greatly assist ambulant
disabled people and those with visual impairment.

Steps and stairs

A considerable amount of research on dimensions and design of steps and stairs was carried
out in the 1970s and 1980s and there is reasonable consistency between the dimensions
given in various national guidelines. A riser height of 150mm can be managed by most
people; a little more than this is possible if there are well designed handrails but 170mm
should be regarded as the maximum in normal circumstances. Steps with very shallow risers
can cause problems and should be avoided; 100mm is the absolute minimum.

Fig 19. Standards for design of stairs

 45

10. Results/ recommendation-

Different results were obtained after having literature and case studies.

10.1. Accessible infrastructure

Making infrastructure accessible requires implementing and respecting standards and
guidelines for accessible buildings and facilities, incorporating inclusive design at planning
stages, constructing in compliance with standards, and training and raising awareness of
stakeholders.16 Where the aid program is involved in planning and/or constructing new
buildings, facilities, roads and transport, Australia will work with partners to ensure designs
are accessible to all and, where necessary, will apply the principles of reasonable
adjustment or reasonable accommodation as applied in the Disability Discrimination Act.17
Reasonable adjustment under Australian law is similar to the meaning of reasonable
accommodation as applied in the CRPD.18 These guidelines support partner countries to
incorporate accessibility.

10.2. The cost of incorporating universal design

Universal design is not as costly as many might think, especially when accessibility is
addressed during planning and construction. Some developers and owners assume costs are
larger than they are. This can be due to lack of knowledge and experience. Others rely on
inaccurate construction cost estimates. Some studies conclude that costs for
accommodating accessibility regulations are small in relation to gross domestic product (as
low as 0.01%).19 A study commissioned by the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische
Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), now known as Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Internationale
Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), outlines some cost estimates for incorporating universal design.20
Providing fully accessible facilities increases building costs by as little as 0.5% to 1% if
planned, designed and implemented from the outset. Handicap International estimates that
this is the case for new buildings or facilities and that additional costs are as little as 1% to
2% for public buildings. Even refurbishment costs can be significantly reduced when
adaptations are properly planned and managed. The cost of retrofitting for accessibility
after building completion is far greater. Another misconception relating to the cost of
incorporating universal design is how much extra physical space is required. In many cases,
it may only require rearranging and plan within existing space. This was demonstrated in an
AusAID-funded project in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. At the Elementary Teachers
 46

Training College, the wheelchair accessible toilet and shower room doubled as a night
bathroom.

10.3. Cost of not incorporating universal design

Cost of not incorporating universal design can be significant. Inaccessible environments limit
economic, education, health, social and other opportunities for people with disability, and
make them more dependent on others. It is important to consider the following three
components when working with universal design. Each component can affect the economic
viability of family units and contribute to a cycle of poverty: › direct costs for people with
disability, including access to services such as travel › indirect costs to support persons
and/or family members of people with disability › opportunity costs of foregone income for
people with disability. People with disability living in remote rural areas often have difficulty
in accessing social services and therefore remain marginalised. Access to public and private
transport is a key factor in breaking down barriers. Providing access from home to roads,
transport stops and between buildings is critical in ensuring increased access to a wide
range of services. Primary carers for people with disability are often women, whose wider
participation in family and community activities can be restricted due to caring
responsibilities. In addition, children who are carer often denied long term education which
restrict their employment and social opportunity.

The cost of not incorporating universal design can be significant to individuals and their
communities. For example, people who use a wheelchair can face physical barriers, stigma
and discrimination in their local communities. These barriers can lead to lost opportunities
to contribute economically to family and community. Barriers can also mean people with
disability need increased assistance to participate. Designing community facilities to be
accessible provides opportunity for people to access education, employment and public life.
It also means reliance on others to be able to be participate and help it to reduce stigma.

Participation of local stakeholders to reduce universal design costs

Participation of local stakeholders to reduce universal design costs, because of differences in

local conditions, local stakeholder participation is key to cost-effective universal design.
Good practice in one region is not necessarily even viable in another. Infrastructure in
developing countries is normally restricted by resources and so some project designers use
 47

local materials or techniques as much as possible to keep costs down. Involving local
stakeholders can also help designers identify sources of locally available products and
construction techniques that can be incorporated into design. It also helps identify ways in
which people with disability and their families are modifying their environment. This
participation is also important because it encourages long-term buy in and ownership of
community infrastructure. Wider participation can motivate local communities, including
people with disability and Disabled People’s Organisations, to be involved in ongoing
monitoring of facilities and in identifying when maintenance is required. These steps can
reduce universal design cost.

10.3. Approach
To succeed, universal design needs to start with planning and proceed through
implementation, monitoring and evaluation. As this section outlines, it is important for
universal design to avoid costly mistakes by:

• being participative, sensitive and inclusive

• being realistic
• considering regulatory, structural, human behaviour and operational practices.

Participative, sensitive and inclusive

Participation is a fundamental principle of universal design. Governments, people with

disability, non-government organisations, including Disabled People’s Organisations, and
other stakeholders need to be consulted early, starting with planning. Consultation needs to
continue throughout design, implementation and monitoring and evaluation. This is
consistent with the CRPD which states that: “persons with disabilities should have the
opportunity to be actively involved in decision-making processes about policies and
programmes, including those directly concerned to them.

1. Realistic

The World Report on Disability 2011 notes that constructing an accessible environment is
often best achieved when approached incrementally and in a realistic fashion. The aim is to
build a ‘culture of accessibility’. Since it is not possible to bring all infrastructure in any
 48

country, developing or otherwise, to a universal access standard immediately or at one

time, it is necessary to be realistic and to prioritise interventions and investments.

2. Regulatory, structural, human behaviour and operational practices

To work, universal design needs to consider regulatory, structural, human behaviour and
operational practices. They all play an important role in planning and implementation.

3. Regulatory

Implementation of local policy, legislation and enforcement rules are needed for universal
design principles to work. For rural markets to be effective, for example, those who sell and
buy have to follow local rules and regulations such as hygiene, opening times and safety
procedures. Lack of appropriate regulation, enforcement and maintenance can change
pedestrian area from being accessible and safe to being area of danger and concern.

4. Structural

Universal design plays an important role in making markets work by providing physical
structures, such as easily accessible entry points, wide entry doors, wide aisles, and ramps
with railings and handles. It can also ensure selling surfaces are at the right height, water
points have easy access levers and public toilets are designed for easy access.

5. Human behaviour

Without education and awareness, human behaviour can work against universal design and
equal access. Taxi drivers and other transport operators can block road access, sellers can
encroach on aisles with their produce, crowds can litter ramp and walkways and block or
break water sources.

6. Operational

Poor operational practices, in new and existing infrastructure, can mitigate impact on
universally designed infrastructure. For example, footpaths, ramps and other pedestrian
facilities built in urban areas of developing countries, including in villages and rural towns,
can become inaccessible if blocked by building materials, parked vehicle or trading stalls.
 49

Universal design in the Aid Management Cycle

Fig20. Relation between various design stages

Phase 1—policy and direction setting

• This phase involves researching, analysing and consulting. The aim is to articulate the
direction of an aid program in a given context. With universal design, it is important
to:
• Identify and understand a partner country’s legislative frameworks as a starting
point. Some developing countries have legislative frameworks and policies on
disability inclusion. Most do not have guidelines, codes or regulations on minimum
universal design and infrastructure standards.
 50

• Identify the in-country Disabled People’s Organisations and other points of support.
If there are no such organisations, identify, consult and work with disability activists
or self-advocates.
• Document lessons learned from all projects that include disability and make this
information available to infrastructure design and other stake holders.

Phase 2- planning and design

This phase involves planning and designing the ways in which AusAID will finance and
resource individual investments. This includes how risks will be managed and how
performance will be tracked. With universal design it is important to approach planning and
design by:

• establishing collaboration between government representatives, infrastructure

designers and Disabled People’s Organisations to set the parameters for the
proposed design, including on available time and funding
• considering the priorities of those with different types of disability, and design
accordingly
• incorporating universal design into the planning phase. So that cost can be identified
as a part of total construction cost.

Phase 3—implementation and performance management

This phase involves AusAID managing investments to achieve agreed results. Universal
design must be appropriate for the developing country context and recognise local issues
and practices. It is important to involve disable people organisation and promote
employment opportunity for people with disabilities.

Phase 4—review and evaluation

This phase involves reviewing and evaluating the effectiveness of AusAID’s contribution and
feeding results into future work. Development stakeholders need to document disability-
inclusive lessons learned. These need to be widely circulated so they can be incorporated
into the planning of Australian aid infrastructure projects.
 51

11. Conclusion-
During the past 20 years, considerable advances have been made in the fields of designing
for the disabled or older user, with different approaches reflecting local cultural, political
and historical situations. In the USA, the concept of 'Barrier-Free' design was developed in
response to the demands of the disability movement. It is known that many products are
not accessible to large sections of the population. Designers instinctively design for able-
bodied users and are either unaware of the needs of users with different capabilities, or do
not know how to accommodate their needs into the design cycle.
This aim of this dissertation is to present a methodological design approach for
implementing inclusive design. A summary of the principal methods for designing for users
with different capabilities is given along with a description of a model, the Inclusive Design
Cube, that displays how the different approaches are complementary and can provide
complete population coverage. A case study of the design of an information point for use in
a post office, shall be used to highlight the use of the model.

TOO HIGH TO TOUCH

Fig 21. Illustration showing relation between disability of child and her dream
 52

References
Anon., n.d. [Online]
Available at: http://universaldesign.ie/What-is-Universal-Design/Conference-Proceedings/Universal-
Design-for-the-21st-Century-Irish-International-Perspectives/Designing-a-more-Inclusive-World/

Anon., n.d. Developing an Inclusive Learning Environment. [Online]

Available at: https://www.slideshare.net/kturvey/ev682-developing-an-inclusive-learning-
environment

Anon., n.d. Activities on universal design. [Online]

Available at: https://www.fujixerox.com/eng/company/social/ud

Anon., n.d. inclusive design. [Online]

Available at: http://www.inclusivedesigntoolkit.com/whatis/whatis.html

Anon., n.d. Inclusive Design Group. [Online]

Available at: https://www-edc.eng.cam.ac.uk/research/inclusivedesign/

Anon., n.d. Lunch and Learn: Inclusive design in the rail industry, Online. [Online]
Available at: https://www.ice.org.uk/eventarchive/lunch-and-learn-inclusive-design-in-rail-industry

Anon., n.d. Universal Design from NC State. [Online]

Available at: https://www.slideshare.net/srains/universal-design-from-nc-state

Anon., n.d. What is Inclusive Design. [Online]

Available at: https://idrc.ocadu.ca/about-the-idrc/49-resources/online-resources/articles-and-
papers/443-whatisinclusivedesign

Caitlin, n.d. Designer Post – Inclusive Design. [Online]

Available at: http://www.homestarproject.co.nz/2016/03/13/designer-post-inclusive-design/

design, m., 2015. inclusive A Microsoft Design Toolkit, s.l.: s.n.

design, m., n.d. inclusive microsoft design , s.l.: s.n.

Eone, 2017. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INCLUSIVE DESIGN AND ACCESSIBILITY. [Online]
Available at: https://www.eone-time.com/magazine/the-difference-between-inclusive-design-and-
accessibility/

Fletcher, H., 2006 . The principles of inclusive design, london: the Commission for Architecture and
the Built Environment.

Fulton, G., n.d. Making the Web Accessible for Everyone With Inclusive Design and Diverse Personas.
[Online]
Available at: https://webdesign.tutsplus.com/articles/making-the-web-accessible-for-everyone-
with-inclusive-design-and-diverse-personas--cms-27505

Gawronski, M. E., 2014. UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING: PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY AND
STUDENTS , Colorado: s.n.

Hanna, E. I., August 2005. Inclusive Design for Maximum Accessibility: A Practical Approach to
Universal Design , s.l.: s.n.
 53

KECI, M., JUNE 2016 . UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN PUBLIC SPACES. A CASE OF INCLUSIVE PARKS IN TIRANA,
s.l.: s.n.

Miller, J., 2018. Inclusive Design and Accessibility. [Online]

Available at: https://blog.prototypr.io/inclusive-design-and-accessibility-50718a3ac768

Neves-Charge, H., n.d. Inclusive design. [Online]

Available at: https://medium.com/valtech-design/inclusive-design-dd4e03f82094

STEINFELD, B. T. M. B. E., June 16, 2014 . Challenges and Opportunities for Inclusive Design in
Graduate Architecture , Lund, Sweden : Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental Access | The
State University of New York at Buffalo .

Truppi, P. M. M. P. T., 2011. Inclusive Design - Architecture for Everyone, s.l.: s.n.

Xiao, L., 2018. 6 Principles for Inclusive Design. [Online]

Available at: https://uxplanet.org/6-principles-for-inclusive-design-3e9867f7f63e