INTERDISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATION OF THE CONCEPTS OF ACCESSIBLE DESIGN AND UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN CREATING BUILT ENVIRONMENTS By MARY CATHERINE MEHAK Integrated Studies Final Project Essay (MAIS 700) submitted to Dr. Angela Specht! in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts – Integrated Studies Athabasca, Alberta April 2016 ABSTRACT INTERDISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATION OF THE CONCEPTS OF ACCESSIBLE DESIGN AND UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN CREATING BUILT ENVIRONMENTS Both Accessible Design and Universal Design are directed towards creating more inclusive built environments so that a wider range of people with diverse abilities can participate fully in community life as a right. Both concepts, and particularly Universal Design, are relatively new and have recently developed in tandem. As a result, their meanings are sometimes conflated. Accessible Design is being implemented through legislation on eliminating or reducing disabling barriers in the built environment. Universal Design, which aims to provide widely inclusive built environments as a matter of course, is still in the early days of theoretical and practical development. It aligns with a more fluid relational model that recognizes the complex interaction between individuals and their environment. It calls for greater interdisciplinary work, and legitimation of lived experience with disability, than has typically been the case in planning, designing and constructing our built environments. While its ultimate end may be the elimination of the disabled/non-disabled dichotomy, it will likely remained grounded in the disability context in the foreseeable future as the point of reference for change. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ........................................................................................................... 4! Definition of Terms ................................................................................................ 4! Rationale for the Investigation .............................................................................. 5! Scope, Assumptions and Limitations .................................................................... 6! Conceptual Conundrums ...................................................................................... 7! Law as Both Advocate and Enforcer ................................................................... 11! Interdisciplinarity Among Professions in Creating Built Environments ................ 13! Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................. 17! Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 19 Appendix 3 Introduction* This paper addresses the following questions through an interdisciplinary investigation of the concepts of Accessible Design and Universal Design: What, if any, is the relationship between the concepts of Universal Design and Accessible Design as approaches to creating built environments that are more inclusive of all users? Do they mean the same or different things? Is there potential to better link the two concepts in theory and practice and, if yes, what is required to do so? The findings from a review and analysis of scholarly research and grey literature was consolidated to: 1) identify the differences in the evolution and current position of the concepts of Accessible Design and Universal Design, 2) search for current common ground and conflicts between the concepts, and 3) identify theoretical and practical support for creating more inclusive built environments. Definition*of*Terms* Definitions of the following terms are relevant to the discussion: built environment, Universal Design and Accessible Design.1 Built*Environment* The built environment comprises the “buildings, transport networks, green spaces, public realms, natural systems and all the other spaces that make up a community” (OPPI, 2009, p. 3). ! Universal*Design*(UD)* Ronald L. Mace (1941-1998), an American architect, lawyer and founder of the NCSU Center for Universal Design, coined the term ‘universal design’ in the early 1990s (Larkin, Hitch, Watchorn, & Ang, 2015, p. 8158; Persson, Ahman, Arvei Yngling, & Gulliksen, 2014, p. 508). Universal Design: …is a design concept that recognizes, respects, values and attempts to accommodate the broadest possible spectrum of human ability in the design of all products, environments and 1 For the purposes of the discussion the definition of the Center for Universal Design (CUD) in the U.S. will be used for both Universal Design and Accessible Design. The CUD was the locus for developing the concept of Universal Design and so is the preferred source for a definition of this term. Similarly, the CUD’s definition of Accessible Design is used since the Centre juxtaposes it against its definition of UD. 4 information systems. It requires sensitivity to and knowledge about people of all ages and abilities. Sometime referred to as “lifespan design” or “transgenerational design”, universal design encompasses and goes beyond the accessible, adaptable and barrier-free concepts of the past. It helps eliminate the need for special features and spaces, which for some people, are often stigmatizing, embarrassing, different looking and usually more expensive (The Center for Universal Design NCSU). Accessible*Design*(AC)* Accessible Design “is a process in which the needs of people with disabilities are specifically considered” (University of Washington). ”ADA Standards for accessible design are enforceable and prescriptive design standards. Such standards establish minimum requirements that when followed allow many individuals the opportunity to access programs and activities, but may not support their active and full participation. Such standards do not address the subtleties of sensory and cognitive differences, nor do they address the changes experienced by the human body over time. However, designers may use the minimums of codes and standards as a benchmark, and then must go beyond them to achieve universal design” (The Center for Universal Design NCSU).2 Rationale*for*the*Investigation** In his last speech in 1998, Ronald Mace stated, One of the things I am often asked by experienced and new people in this field is my feeling about the terminology, the definitions, and the differences between barrier-free design…and…universal design…I think it’s important that we know the differences between these (concepts) so we can go out and help industry and other people understand some of the subtle but important distinctions between them. When they get muddled, the message becomes vague (The Center for Universal Design NCSU). While the above definitions of the Universal Design and Accessible Design seem to clearly and precisely convey the meanings of, and distinctions between, the concepts, Mace’s comment indicates otherwise. Much of the material reviewed for this paper shows that, almost 20 years after his speech, confusion still exists. For example, some “believe that UD is synonymous to ‘barrier-free or accessible 2 See Appendix for equivalent Canadian legislation. 5 design’ ” (Mustaquim, 2015). In an article about Universal Design, terms like barrier-free and accessible design are presented as meaning the same (Lid & Solvang, 2015, p. 10). “There is also lack of clarity about what advocates of UD understand universalism to be, as illustrated by evidence of some ambivalence towards specialist or particular design solutions” (Imrie, 2012, p. 873). A clear and consistent meaning of any term is important to conveying the desired concept to ensure minimal confusion in discourse, and to reduce the likelihood of confounding perspectives. In applied arts and social sciences, in particular, concepts go beyond theory and are used to implement ‘works’ in their respective fields. They also serve as the basis for collaborative work among the various disciplines responsible for implementing the concepts. It is important, therefore, that theorizers and implementers of the concepts behind these terms are ‘on the same page’. In terms of better serving people through physical design, it is critical that the application of these concepts results in an improved built environment. This is less likely to happen, however, if we cannot translate theory into practice due to confusion and mixed messages regarding what it is we want to achieve in application. It is also likely that people will continue to demand built environments that are more responsive to all users’ needs. Efforts to better understand relevant theory and practice, therefore, are potentially useful to making this happen. Scope,*Assumptions*and*Limitations* The investigation encompasses the built environment only. Except in areas of potential overlap, it does not include other fields such as industrial design, education, communications, etc. that also seek to make their realms more widely accessible (Larkin, et al., 2015, p. 8158). Within the scope of the built environment, the investigation is high-level to match the conceptual nature of the terms to the collective realm of community planning and design. Consequently, the following details that make up the collective experience of the built environment are largely excluded from consideration: structure as they relate to specific functions (e.g., housing, public buildings); particular user groups (e.g., the elderly, children); specific features (e.g., door handles, lighting, wheelchair access); medical applications (e.g., rehabilitation therapy).