Advertisement

Inclusive Design

Chapter
  • 1.2k Downloads
Part of the Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering book series (SPRTRCIENG)

Abstract

This chapter will explain and discuss the principles, role and importance of Inclusive Design particularly in the context of an ageing society. It will review the changing and complex user needs and requirements through case studies and current work of leading organizations. Current standards used in the UK and elsewhere will be reviewed to establish whether they need to take into account sensory and cognitive impairments into consideration. So far, these have not been fully accepted by industry and practice and more needs to be done by policy makers. Findings of recent research on users’ needs and requirements will be reviewed to highlight the needs for more inclusivity in the design of the built environment. Additionally, barrier-free design and Inclusive Design will be further examined to assess the use of technology in embedding accessibility during the design stage. This chapter will allow students, lecturers and designers to understand the value and purpose of Inclusive Design and its potential to provide an accessible and age-friendly built environment.

Keywords

User Requirement Outdoor Environment Smart Home User Involvement User Participation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Afacan Y (2008) A computer assisted universal design (CAUD) plug-in tool for architectural design process. Dissertation, Bilkent University, Ankara, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  2. Afacan Y, Demirkan H (2010) A priority-based approach for satisfying the diverse users’ needs, capabilities and expectations: a universal kitchen design case. J Eng Des 21(2–3):315–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Afacan Y, Erbug C (2009) Application of heuristic evaluation method by universal design experts. Appl Ergon 40(4):731–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ANUHD (2015) Australian network for universal housing design. www.anuhd.org. Accessed 8 Dec 2015
  5. AWN (2012) The new agenda on ageing: to make ireland the best country to grow old. Ageing Well Network, DublinGoogle Scholar
  6. Barki H, Hartick J (1994) Measuring user participation, user involvement, and user attitude. MIS Q 18:59–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bassi R, Quillin K, Warner P, Maher D, Snook K, Belmonte L (2011) A guide for assisted living: towards lifehome 21, 1st edition, 3D Reid. BRERIBA, MaryleboneGoogle Scholar
  8. BCA (2013) Code on accessibility in the built environment. Building and Construction Authority, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  9. Beck K (1999) Extreme programming explained. Addison-Wesley, Reading MAGoogle Scholar
  10. Berlo AV (2002) Smart home technology: have older people paved the way? GeronTech J 2(1):77–87Google Scholar
  11. Beyer H, Holtzblatt K (1999) Contextual design. Interactions 6:32–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bond R, Georgantzi N, Kucharczyk M, Mollenkopf H, Rayner P (2010) Towards smart, sustainable and inclusive places for all ages. Age Platform Europe, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  13. Börsch-Supan A (1989) Household dissolution and the choice of alternative living arrangements among elderly Americans. The economics of ageing: 119–150Google Scholar
  14. Bühler C (1996) Approach to the analysis of user requirements in assistive technology. Int J Ind Ergon 17:187–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burton E (2002) Measuring urban compactness in UK towns and cities. Environ Plann B 29(2):219–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burton E (2003) Housing for an urban renaissance: implications for social equity. Hous Stud 18(4):537–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Burton E, Mitchell L (2006) Inclusive urban design streets for life. Architectural Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. CABE (2005) Better neighbourhoods: making higher densities work. Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. CHRC (2007) International best practices in universal design: a global review. Canadian Human Rights Commission, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  20. Clarkson PJ, Coleman R, Hosking I, Waller SD (2011) Inclusive design toolkit, 2nd edn. www.inclusivedesigntoolkit.com. Accessed 8 Dec 2015
  21. CPWD (1998) Guidelines and space standards for barrier free built environment for disabled and elderly persons. Central Public Works Department- Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  22. Croucher K, Myers L, Jones R, Ellaway A, Beck S (2007) Health and the physical characteristics of urban neighbourhoods: a critical literature review. Glasgow Centre for Population Health, GlasgowGoogle Scholar
  23. CSA (2004) B651-04 accessible design for the built environment. Canadian Standards Association, MississaugaGoogle Scholar
  24. Cunningham C, Marshall M, McManus M (2008) Design for dementia: audit tool. University of Stirling, StirlingGoogle Scholar
  25. Damodaran L (1996) User involvement in the systems design process: a practical guide for users. Behav Inf Technol 6:363–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Demirbilek N, Demirkan H (2004) Universal product design involving elderly users: a participatory design model. Appl Ergon 35:361–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Department for Communities and Local Government, Department of Health and Department for Work and Pensions (2008) Lifetime homes, lifetime neighbourhoods: a national strategy for housing in an ageing society. Communities and Local Government Publications, YorkshireGoogle Scholar
  28. DSDC (2007) Dementia design checklist, version 1 in collaboration with health facilities Scotland. University of Stirling, Dementia Services Development Centre, StirlingGoogle Scholar
  29. DSDC (2012) Audit and accreditation: the design audit Tool. http://dementia.stir.ac.uk/design/audit-and-accreditation. Accessed 8 Dec 2015
  30. Edge M, Taylor B, Dewsbury G, Groves MA (2000) The potential for ‘Smart Home’ systems in meeting the care needs of older persons and people with disabilities. Senior’s Hous Update 10(1):6–7Google Scholar
  31. Empirica and WRC (2010) ICT and ageing: European study on users, markets and technologies—final report. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  32. Faith V (2014) Designing for Dementia: an assessment of the physical environment on wayfinding success for residents in long term care settings. Dissertation, Queen’s University Belfast, BelfastGoogle Scholar
  33. Gulliksen J, Göransson B, Boivie I, Blomkvist S, Persson J, Cajander A (2003) Key principles for user centered design. Behav Inf Technol 22:397–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hadjri K, Faith V, McManus M (2012) Designing dementia nursing and residential care homes. J Integr Care 20(5):322–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hanson J (2001) From sheltered housing to lifetime homes: an inclusive approach to housing. In: Winters S (ed) Lifetime housing in Europe. Katholieke Unversiteit Leuven, Leuven, pp 35–57Google Scholar
  36. Heiss F, Hurd M, Börsch-Supan A (2003) Healthy, wealthy, and knowing where to live: predicted trajectories of health, wealth, and living arrangements among the oldest old. NBER working paper no. 9897Google Scholar
  37. Helal A, Lee C, Mann WC (2004) Assistive environments for individuals with special needs. In: Cook D, Das S (eds) Smart environments: technology, protocols and applications. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 361–383Google Scholar
  38. Hennessy S, Murphy P (1999) The potential for collaborative problem solving in design and technology. Int J Technol Des Educ 9:1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Housing LIN (2012) Older persons housing design—a European good practice guide. http://www.housinglin.org.uk/Topics/browse/Design_building/AccessibleDesign/CaseStudies/?&msg=0&parent=8577&child=1666. Accessed 9 Oct 2015
  40. Humes N (2012) A CAD based tool to assist design decision making and the assessment of inclusive design. Dissertation, Queen’s University Belfast, BelfastGoogle Scholar
  41. Hussein H, Yaacob NM (2012) Malaysian perspective on the development of accessible design. Asian J Environ-Behav Stud 3(8):101–115Google Scholar
  42. Imrie R (1999) The role of access groups in facilitating accessible environments for disabled people. Disabil Soc 14:463–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Imrie R (2001) Inclusive design: designing and developing accessible environments. E & FN Spon, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Imrie R (2003) The impact of Part M on the design of new housing. Access Des 96:6–8Google Scholar
  45. Imrie R (2006) Independent lives and the relevance of Lifetime homes. Disabil Soc 4:359–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Imrie R, Kumar M (1998) Focusing on disability and access in the built environment. Disabil Soc 13(3):357–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jordan PW (1998) An introduction to usability. Taylor & Francis Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  48. Karlsson J, Ryan K (1996) Supporting the selection of software requirements. In: Proceedings of the 8th international workshop on software specification and design (IWSSD’ 96), pp 146–149Google Scholar
  49. Karlsson L, Thelin T, Regnell B, Berander P, Wohlin C (2007) Pair-wise comparisons versus planning game partitioning: experiments on requirements prioritization techniques. Empirical Softw Eng 12(1):3–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kujala S (2003) User involvement: a review of the benefits and challenges. Behav Inf Technol 22:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lahti H, Hakkarainen PS, Hakkarainen K (2004) Collaboration patterns in supported collaborative designing. Des Stud 25:351–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Langton-Lockton S (2004) What is inclusive design? [Great Britain]. Access Des 101:9–11Google Scholar
  53. Lê Q, Nguyen HB, Barnett T (2012) Smart homes for older people: positive aging in a digital world. Future Internet 4(2):607–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Leffinwell D, Widrig D (2000) Managing software requirements-a unified approach. Addison-Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  55. Lewin D, Adshead S, Glennon B, Williamson B, Moore T, Damodaran L, Hansell P (2010) Assisted living technologies for older and disabled people in 2030. Final report to Ofcom. Plum Consulting, Sagentia, Loughborough University, Aegis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  56. Lifemark (2014) Lifemark standards and 5 star rating system. http://www.lifemark.co.nz/about-lifemark/lifemark-standards.aspx. Accessed 8 Dec 2015
  57. Lin TW, Shao BMB (2000) The relationship between user participation and system success: a simultaneous contingency approach. Inf Manag 37:283–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lin M, Wang C, Chen M, Chang A (2008) Using AHP and TOPSIS approaches in customer-driven product design process. Comput Ind 59(1):17–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lubinski R (1991) Learned helplessness: application to communication of the elderly. In: Lubinski R (ed) Dementia and communication. Singular Publishing Group, San Diego, pp 142–151Google Scholar
  60. Luck R, Haenlein H, Bright K (2001) Project briefing for accessible design. Des Stud 22:297–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lushai G, Cox T (2012) Assisted living technology: a market and technology review. Report for project funded by European regional development fund. Life Sciences-Healthcare and the Institute of Bio-Sensing Technology for the Microelectronics and Biomedical iNets, BristolGoogle Scholar
  62. Madigan R, Milner J (1999) Access for all: housing design and the disability discrimination act 1995. Crit Soc Policy 19(3):396–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Marshall M (2001) Environment: how it helps to see dementia as a disability. Care Homes Dement: J Dement Care 6:15–17Google Scholar
  64. Medical Research Council (2013) A strategy for collaborative ageing research in the UK. Lifelong Health and Wellbeing (LLHW). https://www.mrc.ac.uk/documents/pdf/llhw-a-strategy-for-collaborative-ageing-research-in-the-uk/. Accessed 8 Dec 2015
  65. Mitchell L, Burton E (2010) Designing dementia-friendly neighbourhoods: helping people with dementia to get out and about. J Integr Care 17(6):11–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. NRC (2010) National Building Code of Canada 2010. http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/publications/codes_centre/2010_national_building_code.html. Accessed 8 Dec 2015
  67. Older MT, Waterson PE, Clegg CW (1997) A critical assessment of task allocation methods and their applicability. Ergonomics 40:151–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Olsson E (2004) What active users and designers contribute in the design process? Interact Comput 16:377–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Oltermann P (2014) Germany’s ‘multigeneration houses’ could solve two problems for Britain. Guardian newspaper. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/02/germany-multigeneration-house-solve-problems-britain. Accessed 8 Dec 2015
  70. Ozkaya I, Akin O (2006) Requirement-driven design: assistance for information traceability in design computing. Des Stud 27(3):381–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Paciello M (2005) Enhancing accessibility through usability inspections and usability testing. In: Proceedings of center on disabilities technology and persons with disabilities conference 2005. California State University, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  72. Palloni A (2002) Living arrangements of older persons. Population Bull Unit Nations Spec Issue 42(43):54–110Google Scholar
  73. Presidencia de la República (2001) Recomendaciones de Accesibilidad. Oficina de Representación para la Promoción e Integración Social para Personas con Discapacidad, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  74. Reich Y, Konda SL, Monarch IA, Subrahmanian SNL (1996) Varieties and issues of participation and design. Des Stud 17:165–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rooney C (2014) Blind spot: an investigation into lifetime home standards and visual impairment. Dissertation, Queen’s University Belfast, BelfastGoogle Scholar
  76. Ryd N (2004) The design brief as carrier of client information during the construction process. Des Stud 25:231–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Saaty TL (1980) Multicriteria decision making: the analytic hierarchy process. RWS Publications, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  78. SABS (2011) South African national standard—The application of the national building regulations part S: facilities for persons with disabilities. SABS Standard Division, PretoriaGoogle Scholar
  79. Sanoff H (2000) Community participation methods in design and planning. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  80. Schaik PV (1999) Involving users in the specification of functionality using scenarios and model-based evaluation. Behav Inf Technol 18:455–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Smith-Jackson TL, Nussbaum MA, Mooney MA (2003) Accessible cell phone design: development and application of a needs analysis framework. Disabil Rehabil 25:549–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Standards New Zealand (2000) New Zealand standard—design for Access and mobility, buildings and associated facilities. Standards New Zealand, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  83. Taylor G (1999) Empowerment, identity and participatory research: using social action research to challenge isolation for deaf and hard of hearing people from minority ethnic communities. Disabil Soc 14:369–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Thomas AM, Moore P, Shah H, Evans C, Sharma M, Xhafa F, Mount S, Pham HV, Wilcox AJ, Patel A, Chapman C, Chima P (2013) Smart care spaces: needs for intelligent at-home care. Int J Space-Based Situated Comput 3(1):35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Thomas AM, Moore P, Evans C, Shah H, Sharma M, Mount S, Xhafa F, Pham HV, Barolli L, Patel A, Wilcox AJ, Chapman C, Chima P (2014) Smart care spaces: pervasive sensing technologies for at-home care. Int J Ad Hoc Ubiquitous Comput 16(4):268–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. UN (2004) Accessibility for the disabled: a design manual for a barrier free environment. Manual by the urban management Department of the Lebanese Company for the development and reconstruction of Beirut Central District (SOLIDERE) in collaboration with the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA), the Ministry of Social Affairs and the National Committee for the Disabled. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/designm/. Accessed 8 Dec 2015
  87. UNDESA (2006) World urbanization prospects: the 2005 revision. United Nations Department of economic and social affairs, population division, New York. www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WUP2005/2005wup.htm. Accessed 8 Dec 2015
  88. UNPF (2007) Urbanization: a majority in cities. United Nations Population Fund, New York. www.unfpa.org/pds/urbanization.htm. Accessed 8 Dec 2015
  89. Urban Task Force (1999) Towards an urban renaissance, final report of the urban task force chaired by Lord Rogers. Urban Task Force, LondonGoogle Scholar
  90. US Department of Justice (2010) 2010 ADA standards for accessible design http://www.ada.gov/2010ADAstandards_index.htm. Accessed 8 Dec 2015
  91. Weiss JC, Williams K, Heerwagen J (2004) How to design for humans. Architecture 93:39–41Google Scholar
  92. WEL_hops (2007) Older persons housing design: a european good practice guide. Project part funded under the European Union INTERREG IIIC programme. Welfare Housing Policies for Senior Citizens (WEL_hops)Google Scholar
  93. WHO (2007) Global age-friendly cities: a guide. World Health OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  94. Wiegers K (1999) Software requirements. Microsoft Press, RedmondGoogle Scholar
  95. Wulz F (1986) The concept of participation. Des Stud 7:153–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Central LancashirePrestonUK
  2. 2.Bilkent UniversityBilkent, AnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations