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

2

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.

3

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

4

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.

5

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.

6

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). At the same time, these more detailed nuances may be used when searching for common ground across concepts or positions.

7

Finally, the depth and complexity of this topic cannot be fully explored in a short paper so certain assumptions and limitations are required. First, the paper is based on the assumption that the goals of both AD and UD are to create more broadly inclusive built environments for all people, as of right. Second, the paper is limited to several key aspects:

• conceptual conundrums • law as both advocate and enforcer • interdisciplinarity among professions in creating built environments

Conceptual*Conundrums*While researching for this paper, on-line searches for material including the term ‘Universal Design’ identified several fairly comprehensive Canadian publications. These serve as examples of a relatively fuzzy distinction between the concepts of AD and UD:

• International Best Practices in Universal Design: A Global Review (August 2007) by the Canadian Human Right Commission;

• Towards an Accessible Future: Ontario Innovators in Accessibility and Universal Design (2013) by Mars Market Insights;3

• Oakville Universal Design Standards for town facilities (2015) by the Town of Oakville Ontario.

These titles immediately suggest that Mars deems accessibility and UD to be two distinct topics or concepts. The other two documents imply that the UD concept - as defined by The Center for Universal Design NCSU - is being practiced in communities throughout the world, and that in the Town of Oakville UD has been translated into facility design standards. The contents of the documents, however, reveal otherwise. The first document is very technical, and provides anthropometric measurements in specific applications (e.g., access routes, curbs, crossing and islands, libraries, handrails, etc.). It opens with, “Best practices in universal design is defined as building practices and procedures that comply with universal design principles and provide affordable design practices that meet the needs of the widest possible range of people who use of facility” (Canadian Human Right Commission, 2007, p. 1). While it is reasonable to assume that some of the UD design principles are reflected in applications identified as best practices, the UD

3 funded by the Government of Ontario

8

principles themselves are not documented or explicitly related to the practices provided. A review of ‘best practices’ by public bodies also implies that they have been implemented via accessibility legislation. It would appear, therefore, that the term Universal Design has to some extent been conflated with Accessible Design in this publication. The second publication starts with a discussion about Ontario’s Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (AODA) and its goals related to an accessible environment across the Province by 2025. The focus of this publication, however, is showcasing material innovations, using UD as an opportunity to develop new products and services for a growing ‘disabled/impaired’ market. “The real opportunity, however, lies in the emerging Universal Design movement. Well-designed products, services and environments using Universal Design principles not only serve the needs of people with disabilities, but are more broadly useful, and positively impact the wider population” (Mars Discovery District, 2013, p. 3). The document clearly separates accessibility - in terms of legislated requirements - from Universal Design and notes that the latter is an emerging movement. At the same time, it merges the built environment with products and services in the realm of industrial design and communications. In effect, therefore, it is conflating public concerns (universally designed accessible built environments) with commercial goods for individual purchase and consumption. The Town of Oakville’s standards are quite detailed and clearly attempt to incorporate a more universal approach to creating a broadly inclusive built environment, including going beyond wheelchair anthropometric measurements, which seem to have become the common template for disability design. At the same time, there is no way of knowing if and how UD considerations have been integrated in the standards to push them beyond legislated compliances, and (in cases where this may have been done) how UD improves on legal requirements to produce a more inclusive built environment ‘from the ground up.’ This document prefaces its standards with the Centre for Universal Design’s ‘Principles of Universal Design’, as shown in Figure 1.

9

Figure 1: Principles of Universal Design4 Principle Description ONE: Equitable Use The design is useful and marketable to

people with diverse abilities. TWO: Flexibility in Use The design accommodates a wide

range of individual preferences and abilities.

THREE: Simple and Intuitive Use Use of the design is easy to understand, regardless of the user's experience, knowledge, language skills, or current concentration level.

FOUR: Perceptible Information The design communicates necessary information effectively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user's sensory abilities.

FIVE: Tolerance for Error The design minimizes hazards and the adverse consequences of accidental or unintended actions.

SIX: Low Physical Effort The design can be used efficiently and comfortably and with a minimum of fatigue.

SEVEN: Size and Space for Approach and Use

Appropriate size and space is provided for approach, reach, manipulation, and use regardless of user's body size, posture, or mobility

Source: (The Center for Universal Design NCSU) As principles, these statements are high level and non-prescriptive, which supports variety in application for a potentially unlimited range of needs - the essence of the ‘universal’ concept. As the same time, it is easy to see the potential difficulties in translating the principles into legislated standards since they are not amenable to a ‘one-size-fits-all’ specification. As discussed elsewhere in the paper, disability anthropometry attempts to address need for variety or ranges in standards. This approach may prove useful to more specifically prescribing some of UD’s principles in anthropometric design standards.

4 Each principle also has guidelines associated with its application.

10

Hamraie (2013) distinguishes between the social justice and value-added orientations contained in UD principles that explicitly or implicitly highlight the concept’s marketability. There is certainly strategic value from an acceptance perspective in aligning social and market objectives. There is also a certain conceptual attractiveness in the seamlessness with which the two appear to dovetail. Hamraie (2013), however, raises concerns about the compatibility of the two positions: “[t]he notion of added value enters UD through its alliances with industrial design and product design, which are historically linked with efficient mass production for consumers” (Hamraie, 2013, n.p.), and is tied to a free-market economy. The focus of UD on its value-added potential emphasizes the marketability of the concept if it is used to design and develop a material world that can also meet the needs of markets other than disabled people. As such, it ties the merits of UD to its economic utility in also meeting the interests of non-disabled consumers, and so perpetuates: 1) a dichotomous perspective on the able-bodied and the disable-bodied, and 2) valuing the former over the latter. It can also overshadow and detract from the built environment focus when this purpose becomes confused with its product-oriented side (Hamraie, 2013, n.p.). In her article, Hamraie (2013) uses the terms ‘collective access’ to describe the built environment - and so social justice - orientation of UD. Ideally, the concept as a whole would benefit from a definitional distinction between its two aspects: Universal Design could be retained for individual, consumer-oriented products and Collective Access (or something similar) could become the framework for conceptualizing and practicing UD in creating broadly inclusive built environments. The potential for the essence of the UD concept to get lost if it is “goes mainstream” contradicts research that suggests the need to move UD outside its current ties to discourse on accessibility within the disability paradigm if it is to create environments that are truly universal and inclusive (Larkin, et al., 2015, pp. 8159, pp. 8166-8167; Mustaquim, 2015). While “universalising social policy may lead eventually to the disappearance of “disability” as a policy category” (Bickenbach, 2014, p. 1320), we have a long way to go before the status quo evolves to that point. UD is a relatively new concept in the early stages of theoretical development, research and practice (Gossett, Mirzs, Barnds, & Feidt, 2009, p. 440). To summarize, both Accessible Design and Universal Design are directed towards creating more inclusive built environments so that a wider range of people can participate fully in community life. At the same time, the material

11

reviewed in this section points to a number of conceptual and, therefore, definitional issues with the terms:

• There is no clearly articulated meaning of the two concepts across the different documents;

• The concepts are conflated by using the term or principles of UD, and either not articulating them and/or not specifying how they are being applied to move beyond the minimum codes and standards of AD to achieve UD;

• The concept of UD itself is used both in relation to the public realm of built environments, and to marketing goods and services for individual purchase and consumption;

• As high-level statements, UD principles support the potential to address an unlimited range of needs, while presenting difficulties in translation into specific legal standards.

Law*as*Both*Advocate*and*Enforcer*UD has its roots in the Barrier-free design and AD approaches (Persson, et al., 2014, p. 508). Post WWII, it has emerged and developed alongside the introduction of legislation designed to implement AD (ADA 1990; AODA 2005; CSA Group, 2012; Gossett, et al., 2009; Imrie, 2012; Persson, et al., 2014; University of Washington, n.d.).5 The introduction of the latest American legislation (ADA), and all Canadian law, dealing with accessibility has occurred during the time period in which the concept of UD has taken shape. American design professionals who were charged with implementing standards based on the earlier Barrier-free and AD concepts came to understand that “many of the environmental changes needed to accommodate people with disabilities actually benefited everyone. Recognition that many such features could be commonly provided and thus less expensive, unlabeled, attractive, and even marketable, laid the foundation for the universal design movement” (The Center for Universal Design NCSU). UD, however, has not been translated into legislation, and this move would allow it to be similarly implemented in planning, designing and constructing built environments. Its current position outside the scope of accessibility law is an area in which it diverges from compliance-based elements for shaping the built environment. In historical terms, accessibility to the built environment by disabled 5 A detailed table of the evolution of relevant North American law is contained in an appendix.

12

people is a new concern that only began to gain traction in the last half of the 20th century. UD, in particular, is a very recent concept. While it is not unusual for legislation to lag behind social pressure to formulate response to a need, the introduction of accessibility legislation - particularly in Canada - is very recent. The ‘accessibility approach’ that took hold first in the U.S. after WWII, therefore, is still very new (or non-existent) in Canadian provinces. Ontario’s 2005 AODA will not be fully implemented until 2025, and a number of provinces have yet to pass relevant legislation. Federal and provincial law that provides the framework for accessibility legislation is also relatively new. The 1985 Human Rights Act (last amended 2014), the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982)6, and Ontario’s 1990 Human Rights Code provide protection from discrimination and promise equal treatment to all Canadians (Ross, 2013, p. p. 128). There is clearly more progress to date in implementing AD over UD, and likely this is because the former is more amenable to legislation. It aligns well with a technical approach to establishing minimum standards to physical structures and so makes it possible to devise rules and, therefore, enforce non-compliance. Accessibility legislation outlines what must be done to meet minimum requirements, whereas UD focuses on aspiring to the best possible outcome. Aspirations are difficult to translate into the negative incentives of legislation, the purpose of which is to ensure the implementation of something that would not (likely) otherwise occur. Equally important is the burdensome connotation that legislation attaches to accessibility, where by “it is understood from a legal rights and responsibilities framework. It’s about the law and not about design. For those with responsibilities stipulated in accessibility code such as architects, engineers and owners, an unintended but undeniable outcome has been the ‘just tell me what I have to do’ problem” (Fletcher, et al., 2013, p. 268). So, despite the potential for creativity and the logic of UD in anticipating the widest possible range of abilities in the built environment, we appear to be ‘stuck’ at the ‘accessibility’ level. As a largely aspirational concept that encompasses a social vs. technical approach to inclusion of all bodies in the built environment, it is not amenable to application through legislation that relies on quantifiable scientific standards for implementation and enforcement. This is not to say that legal advocates have not tried to have UD encoded in legislation. In its 2009 submission to the Government of Ontario on the initially 6 part of the Constitution Act

13

proposed accessible built environment standard under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (AODA), the ARCH Disability Law Centre advocated a “predominant and central role” for the Principles of Universal Design. The submission stated,

…by not explicitly adopting principles of universal design, the reactionary approach to accessibility and barrier removal will remain the status quo. The AODA's vision of a fully accessible Ontario cannot be realized if the private and public sectors do not become proactive in ensuring accessibility for all as an initial consideration. What we ask is for an approach beyond that of simple barrier-removal legislative drafting, but a new approach to design for the greatest number of users possible. For this to take place, a universalist and inclusive approach must become the status quo (ARCH Disability Law Centre, 2009).

Interestingly, while the ARCH submission indicated that UD was mentioned in the proposed Standard, a review of the adopted legislation did not reveal reference to the term (Government of Ontario). To summarize, UD grew out of American AD legislation, which - in historic terms - is also a very recent development. In Canada, in particular, some provinces are still lacking accessibility legislation. Tension in the role of law as both advocate and enforcer is evident in the relationship between the technical focus of AD, and the more fluid concept of UD that promotes a proactive approach to aspiring to the best possible social outcome. The former facilitates translation into compliance standards and mechanisms for enforcement while, as yet, UD is not sufficiently developed to fit this requirement. This has not prevented legal advocates from trying to have UD principles included in accessibility legislation in Ontario. These attempts, however, have been unsuccessful.

Interdisciplinarity*Among*Professions*in*Creating*Built*Environments* For most of history the built environment has not had to address the needs of those who were not ‘normal’ (i.e., people with disabilities) because they have not been deemed legitimate members of the community that used these spaces. Indeed, from a historical perspective it might appear that - on the face of it -

14

humanity has not always comprised people with disabilities. Snyder & Mitchell (2006) note, this “category is not a given throughout (U.S.) history; in fact, “disability” as a socially composed grouping is less than two hundred years old” (p. 22). The nineteenth and early twentieth century development and application of scientific theories to the human condition (e.g., eugenics) and human productive activity in the industrial era (e.g., Taylorism) contributed to a clear distinction between able-bodied and disable-bodied people and their relative value to society. Eugenics and the sciences that it influenced classified those who were disabled as ‘abnormal’ since, as a group, they deviated from the larger able-bodied, scientifically derived ‘norm.’ (Snyder & Mitchell, 2006, p. 3). An ‘out-of-sight, out-of-mind’ perspective, therefore, has been the dominant frame for the social position and treatment of people with disabilities throughout most of our history, effectively excluding them from mainstream society. Increasing pressure for inclusion of marginalized groups, including the people with disabilities, began to effect change in in the mid-20th century.7 Traditionally, the professions engaged in creating the built environment - e.g., urban planners, architects, engineers - have comprised part of the social sciences school that applies technical expertise to addressing social concerns. The primary function of urban planning in creating built environments is organizing and managing the geo-spatial relationships of land uses as communities are developed. This activity is directed and facilitated by legislation that ensures conformity to a pre-determined order in the location and development of different types of land use (e.g., Ontario Planning Act 1990, municipal Official Plans, zoning by-laws, etc.). Within this larger framework other disciplines - e.g., engineering, architecture, landscape architecture - design and construct the built form of communities. Generally speaking, and referring to the foregoing definition of the built environment, engineers address transport, hard infrastructure in the public realm and natural systems, architects deal with buildings, and landscape architects address green spaces and parks in the public realm. Hamraie (2012) discusses the building professions’ reliance on scientifically developed approaches to designing built environments. She refers to “Rosemarie Garland-Thomson's terms ‘normate’ and ‘misfit’”…as a useful… “conceptual scheme that takes more common binary notions, such as normal and pathological, and gives them context within the built environment” (Hamraie, 2012, n.p.). The normate represents the average or typical body used for design purposes and, 7 See Appendix Figure A1.

15

…Rather than accounting for diverse body types, sizes, and abilities, the normate template privileges a small group of individuals in mainstream design, giving these individuals the appearance of normalcy or universality due to their fit in the environment. The resulting built environment is precisely what the social model criticizes - a world built without considering all ranges of ability (Hamraie, 2012, n.p.).

The normate concept was institutionalized in mainstream architecture by the mid-20th century in technical, quantifiable measures of the ‘privileged’ users of space (Hamraie, 2012). It is rooted, however, in 19th century eugenics-based anthropometry that was originally used to identify and treat bodies that deviated from the norm. Hamraie (2012) points out that, ironically, this same science has been used since the late 20th century to ensure representation of the ‘misfit’ in the design of built environments. “Disability anthropometry as evidence for design is a recent epistemic and methodological challenge to the normate template and to anthropometry as a scientific practice. By showing that the normate, constituted through exclusionary anthropometric data, is a socially and historically specific figure that is not generalizable to the whole population, disability anthropometry undermines its seeming neutrality and objectivity” (Hamraie, 2012, n.p.). In addition to ensuring that previously excluded bodies are included in knowledge production, disability anthropometry attempts to anticipate its functional application by measuring people interacting with their environments, and by shifting from a standard norm for design to “measuring the environment's mis-fit with a range of bodies” (Hamraie, 2012, n.p.), and designing to respond to the extremes of the range. Clearly, therefore, progress has been made in designing built environments to accommodate a wider range of bodies. At the same time, it is still primarily a quantitative scientific endeavor that is performed for a ‘generic’ user by a limited number of building science professions. There is a call, however, to considerably broaden disciplinary/interdisciplinary participation in the development of UD. Lid, for example, suggests greater participation of disciplines engaged in rehabilitation - occupational therapy, physiotherapy, social work, speech and language pathology, and nursing (2014, p. 1344). She posits that the social model of disability is deficient because it focuses on environmental barriers, leaving “little room for recognizing people as individual embodied persons that

16

experience barriers differently” (Lid, 2014, p. 1345). A relational model is presented as a more fulsome concept of disability. Based on the UN Convention on the Rights for Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), it “comprises a person-environment interaction motivated by a person’s right to activity, participation and citizenship” (Lid, 2014, p. 1345). From an interdisciplinary perspective, developing the interactive person-environment model as the basis for knowledge production requires joint participation by the environmentally oriented disciplines (i.e., the building science professions discussed above) and those concerned with the individual or people side of the equation (i.e., rehabilitation professions, public health).8 Lid argues that this approach is well aligned with UD. “Disability and UD is connected, insofar, as the aim of UD is to promote equal opportunities to participate in society for all citizens. Therefore, practicing UD strategies imply some concept of person and disability…A relational model understands disability from the perspective of the interaction between the individual and the social, cultural and physical environment…and…UD is by nature a complex topic that involves a concept of person, the environment, the interaction” (2014, p. 1345). She notes, “…in (this) context, the social and the spatial factors are best conceptualized together. The planning professions approach the social at a structural level…often focusing on the lived spaces…whereas the rehabilitation professions approach the social from individual perspectives and often on a therapeutic basis” (2014, p. 1347). To some extent, these alliances are occurring in community planning activities that are increasingly bringing together disciplines that historically operated independently of each other. One example is a strong and growing collaboration between urban planning and public health, as both professions have come to recognize their common interest in the built environment in promoting healthy, sustainable communities. Part of these types of initiatives is fostering interdisciplinary understanding about what each profession does and how their respective mandates relate to their common interests, and so, each others’ work. Another growing area of professional practice is urban design, which integrates high level planning processes with design of the built environment to further social and public health objectives. 8 A shift to rights-based social inclusion also assumes the involvement of disciplines in the areas of ethics, and in legal and political advocacy.

17

Finally, the corollary of disabling built environments is the exclusion of ‘disabled bodies’ from the design of these spaces in two ways: 1) as members of the relevant professions themselves, and 2) as active participants in developing the theories and practices of the disciplines that create the built environment. It is incumbent upon the disciplines themselves to proactively recruit and train members with lived experience. As for engaging those with lived experience in real UD projects, theorists and practitioners can “continue to develop strategies for participatory design, shifting from value-explicit design for disability to design with and by misfitting bodies more generally. These subtle differences in framing could shift both the role and work of designers, as well as render UD as a more capacious and social justice-oriented material-discursive practice” (Hamraie, 2013, n.p.). In sum, disability anthropometry may prove useful to more specifically prescribing some of UD’s principles in anthropometric design standards. While disability anthropometrics is essential to the work of the design professionals in both AD and UD, progress toward UD will require moving beyond a barrier-focused approach to creating built environments to a relational model that recognizes the complex interaction between individuals and their environment in determining the need for change. This calls for interdisciplinary work among a wider range of professionals, including those in the building sciences and those in the rehabilitative professions, to develop an integrated knowledge base for creating broadly inclusive built environments. While interdisciplinary work on creating built environments is increasing, more needs to be done to deliberately engage all relevant professions, and many people with disabled lived experience, in moving Universal Design forward.

Summary*and*Conclusions* 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 of right. In the last 50+ years, North American legislation has made considerable progress in encoding Accessible Design standards in design/building-related standards. Some Canadian provinces, however, are still lacking accessibility laws. Relatively speaking, Universal Design is very young in both theory and practice. As evidence of the currency of this topic, all of the material identified for this

18

paper was published within the last decade (since 2005).9 Since UD has grown out of, and in tandem with, Accessible Design legislation it is not - as yet - clearly distinguishable from AD. Its meaning is sometimes confused or conflated with AD, and its principles still need to be grounded in practice. Within UD itself, there is a tendency to conflate its social focus on inclusive built environments with its use in the industrial design of consumer products. Ideally, these two streams will become more clearly delineated and separated over time. The concept of UD aligns with a ‘continuum of human ability/diversity’, which presumably negates the need for the ‘disabled’ category that is required to operationalize the concept of AD. At the same time, it is impossible to talk about the former without resorting to the latter as a frame of reference or positional contrast. Indeed, it may be that implementing the concept of UD in creating more inclusive built environments for all cannot occur without being ‘grounded’ - at least in the short term - in disability. For this reason, disability anthropometry may prove useful to more specifically prescribing some of UD’s principles in design standards, and allowing them to be widely implemented through legislation. UD aligns with a more fluid relational model that recognizes the complex interaction between individuals and their environment in determining the need for change. While interdisciplinary work on creating built environments is increasing, more needs to be done to deliberately engage all relevant professions, and people with disabled lived experience across the board, in moving Universal Design forward in theory and practice.

9 Does not include legislation referenced.

19

Bibliography* ARCH Disability Law Centre. (2009, October). Submission on the Initial Proposed Accessbile Built Environment Standard. Retrieved April 1, 2016, from http://www.archdisabilitylaw.ca/sites/all/files/Built%20Enviro%20standard%20Oct%2016%2009%20-%20final-TEXT.txt Bickenbach, J. (2014). Universally design social policy: when disability disappears? Disability and Rehabilitation , 36 (16), 1320-1327. Canadian Human Right Commission. (2007, August). International Best Practices in Universal Design: A Global Review. Retrieved April 1, 2016, from Cornell University IRL School: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1375&context=gladnetcollect CSA Group. (2012). Accessible Design for the Built Environment. Canadian Standards Association. Fletcher, V. (2009). The Role and Power of Design in Social Sustainability. Retrieved from Institute for Human Centered Design: http://www.humancenterdesign.org/resources/role-and-power-design-social-sustainability Fletcher, V., Bonome-Sims, G., Knecht, B., Ostroff, E., Otitigbe, J., Parente, M., et al. (2013). The challenge of inclusive design in the US context. Applied Ergonomics , 2015 (46), 267-273. Gossett, A., Mirzs, M., Barnds, A. K., & Feidt, D. (2009). Beyond Access: A case study on the intersection between accessibility, sustainability, and universal design. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology , 4 (6), 439-450. Government of Ontario. (n.d.). Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 32. Retrieved April 1, 2016, from https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/110191 Hamraie, A. (2013, October). Designing Collective Access: A Feminist Disability Theory of Universal Design. Disability Studies Quarterly. Hamraie, A. (2012). Universal Design Research as a New Material Practice. Disabilities Studies Quarterly , 32 (4). Imrie, R. (2012). Universalism, universal design and equitable access to the built enviroment. Disability & Rehabilitation , 34 (10), 873-882.

20

Larkin, H., Hitch, D., Watchorn, V., & Ang, S. (2015). Working with Policy and Regulatory Factors to Implement Universal Design in the Built Environment: The Australian Experience. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 2015 (12), 8157-8171. Lid, I. (2014). Universal Design and disability: an interdisciplinary perspective. Disability and Rehabilitation , 36 (16), 1344-1349. Lid, I., & Solvang, P. (2015). (Dis)ability and the experience of accessbility in the urban environment. ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research , 2015 (11). Mars Discovery District. (2013). Retrieved April 1, 2016, from Towards an Accessible Future: Ontario Innovators in Accessibility and Universal Design: https://www.marsdd.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Towards-an-Accessible-Future-Ontario-Innovators-in-Accessibility-and-Universal-Design1.pdf Mustaquim, M. (2015, 08 07). A reflection on interdisciplinary research in universal design toward sustainability. Univ Access Inf Soc. Persson, H., Ahman, H., Arvei Yngling, A., & Gulliksen, J. (2014). Universal design, inclusive design, accessible design, design for all: different concepts - one goal? On the concept of accessibility - historical, methodological and philisophical aspects. Univ Access Inf Soc , 2015 (14), 505-526. Ross, T. (2013). Advancing Ontario's Accessibility: A Study of Linguistic, Discursive, and Conceptual Barriers. Canadian Journal of Urban Research , 22 (1), 126-144. Snyder, S. L., & Mitchell, D. T. (2006). Cultural Locations of Disability. Chicago, Illinois, United States of America: University of Chicago. T-Base Communications. (n.d.). Accessibility Legislation - Canada. Retrieved 02 06, 2016, from T-Base Communications: http://www.tbase.com/accessibility-legislation-canada The Center for Universal Design NCSU. (n.d.). Introduction to Universal Design. Retrieved 02 02, 2016, from The Center for Universal Design: https://www.ncsu.edu/project/design-projects/site/cud/content/UD_intro.html Town of Oakville. (2015, September). Retrieved April 1, 2016, from Oakville Universal Design Standards for town facilities: http://www.oakville.ca/assets/general%20-%20residents/aUniversal-Design-Standards.pdf University of Washington. (n.d.). Universal Design: Process, Principles, and Applications. Retrieved 02 02, 2016, from Disabilities, Opportunities,

21

Internetworking, and Technology (DO-IT): http://www.washington.edu/doit/what-difference-between-accessible-usable-and-universal-design

22

APPENDIX Figure A1 illustrates a timeline for evolution of the UD concept from that of Barrier-free Design through AC. The top portion of the figure shows the general time periods associated with each of the three concepts as they progress from Barrier-free to UD (shown with dotted lines in recognition of the fluidity of this evolution), and become increasingly expansive in envisioning built environments that work seamlessly for all. Two shades are used in the table to distinguish between the concepts and their implementation in our built environments. The lightly shaded sections connect the longer-standing concepts that focus on eliminating barriers and increasing accessibility to the built environment via legislation. The darker shaded sections relate to emerging perspectives around UD, which are not incorporated in legislation.

Figure A1: Progression of Concepts Related to Accessible Built Environments in North America

Barrier-free Design

Accessible Design

Universal Design

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Technical Techno-Social

Time period

mid-1940s/1950s (post WWII) 1960/1970s late 1980s/early 1990s >>

Trend - beginning of pressure/advocacy for policy design practices to facility accessibility to the built environment

- heightened pressure to improve access through political activism - part of a broader political momentum in the USA eliminate discrimination of disabled people (Imrie, 2012, p. 875)

- design/research movement for a new approach to access that comprised core principles rejecting segregated solutions or approaches to access that failed to incorporate, and respond to, the fullest range of impairments (Imrie, 2012, p. 875)

Impetus/ driver

- large numbers of disabled World War II veterans and polio survivors started encountering physical barriers to social and community participation (Gossett, et al., 2009, pp. pp. 439-440)

- Civil Rights Movement (Gossett, et al., 2009, pp. pp. 439-440), (Imrie, 2012, p. 874) -a process given momentum by articulate and educated veterans who had survived the war in Vietnam (Imrie, 2012, p. 874)

- deficiencies of ‘accessibility’ approach that still focused on wheelchair access, segregated/separated access routes for disabled people, and were too dependent on stigmatizing supports that were also often aesthetically detractive and particularly costly (Imrie, 2012, p. 875) - public awareness about accessibility increases with the passage of legislation that mandates public facilities and services be fully accessible to people with disabilities. (University of Washington)

Response - first standards for making public buildings accessible were codified in 1961 by the American National Standards Institute in the form of a six-page document, ‘Making Buildings Accessible to and Usable by the Physically Handicapped’ or A117.1 (Gossett, et al., 2009, p. 439; Persson, et al., 2014, p. 507).

- U.S. Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (Imrie, 2012, p. 875) - Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Imrie, 2012, p. 875)

- the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 and its accompanying accessibility guidelines (ADAAG) latest revision September 2010 (Gossett, et al., 2009, pp. 439-440); (Persson, et al., 2014, p. 510.) - Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (AODA) & related Standards; Design of Public Spaces Standard DOPS for built environment: applicable to the

Barrier-free Design

Accessible Design

Universal Design

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Technical Techno-Social

Time period

mid-1940s/1950s (post WWII) 1960/1970s late 1980s/early 1990s >>

construction or redevelopment of any space owned or leased by an obligated organization after December 31, 2012; Accessibility for Manitobans Act 2013 (AMA); legislation in progress: British Columbia - Accessibility 2024; Nova Scotia (T-Base Communications) - CSA B651-12 (4th edition): Accessible Design for the Built Environment is the 2012 revised standard containing the “technical requirements for making buildings and other facilities accessible to persons with a range of physical, sensory or cognitive disabilities, and was developed to fulfill an expressed need for a national technical standard that covers many different types of buildings and environmental facilities” (CSA Group, 2012)

Directed to

- primarily directed to improving accessibility for people with disabilities (Gossett, et al., 2009, pp. 439-440) - facilitating access to education and employment as an alternative to institutionalized care (Persson, et al., 2014, p. 507)

- a broader definition of the population that could benefit from ‘accessible’ environments (Gossett, et. al., 2009, pp. 439-440) - ADA particularly significant in going beyond barrier-free design responses that were limited to wheelchair users (Imrie, 2012, p. 875)