A 'Universal Design' Mentality and Culture in Development: Processes and dynamics in EuropeHubert Froyen, M.Arch., PHL Department of Architecture, Hasselt, Belgium, and PhD student, Ghent University, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Ghent, Belgium Co-authors: Luigi Biocca, Architect, CNR ITC (National Research Council, Construction Technologies Institute), Rome, Italy Géza Fischl, Architect, PhD student, Lulea University of Technology (SE), and Hungarian Society of Universal Design, Dunakeszi, Hungary Birgitta Mekibes, PhD, Architect SAR/MSA, National Accessibility Centre, Office of the Disability Ombudsman, Stockholm, Sweden Marcus Ormerod, SURFACE Inclusive Design Research Centre, The University of Salford, England 'Bad environmental design disables far more than any medical condition' [1] Elspeth Morrison mentions the medical facet of disablement, but far more important in her experience, is the salient role played by features of the built environment in the creation of the barriers and disadvantages that people with impairments encounter. The gradual shift of the cause of disability from the individual person (the rehabilitation approach) or the social interaction between people (interaction approach), to the confrontation (conflict) of the individual with the organisation of society, including the structure of the social-spatial environment, is described by Samoy and Lammertyn [2] as a Copernican revolution [3]. Universal design, or design-for-all, aiming at the systematic elimination of disability situations in the human-made-environment, is the logical new design paradigm that responds to this fundamental shift of perception. This paradigm presupposes a human or user-centred approach, rather than the designer-centred approach, still dominant among design professionals. Designers in developed Western society predominantly focus on image, style, form and aesthetics. Professionals are market-centred rather than human-centred. They design, construct and produce urban spaces, buildings, objects, ICT, etc., that assume 'sameness' and 'able-bodiedness' amongst users, rather than diversity. Designers in developing countries have quite different priorities. Balaram (2002) [4] lists four typical characteristics of the developing world - which is the majority world, in terms of the number of people - which distinguish it from the so-called developed world: population pressure, illiteracy, unemployment and lack of capital and infrastructures. He concludes that designers in the developing world are required to grapple with so many other pressing issues that universal design finds little attention in their professional practice.
Concepts of universal design can be adopted on a global scale, but policies and strategies for implementation will have a local character. The social and economic conditions in Europe and in the USA are comparable, which makes comparison of the implementation of the universal design approach on both continents interesting. The statement that the rehabilitation, or medical model, is more firmly anchored in the European 'social-welfare culture' (service-led), while especially in the USA the 'self-help culture' predominates (grievance-led), is probably correct from an historic point of view, but it certainly does not reflect the current situation. Europe has undergone a series of fundamental changes during the last decades.
Topics for Further Exploration
Liberty, Equality, FraternityUniversal design, or design-for-all, as a utopian construct, deeply rooted in human rights, echoes this motto of the French Revolution [7] and by virtue of its 'unattainability' entails a constant need for regeneration in mentality and in culture, in dynamics and in processes, in ethics and in values. Annex 1: SwedenThe first regulations concerning accessibility for disabled people were brought into Swedish planning and building legislation as early as 1966. The "Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities," adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (resolution 48/96), on 20 December 1993, and approved by the Swedish Government, was another milestone in the development that inspired the national disability policy. In 2000 the Swedish Parliament passed the Government Bill (1999/2000:79) "From patient to citizen: a national action plan for disability policy." The objective of the disability policy is a society that makes it possible for disabled people to participate to the full in the life of the community. The equal worth of all human beings is a fundamental principle for the design of Swedish society. Most environments and activities in society affect people with impairments in one way or another. For this reason, it is virtually impossible to isolate disability policy from any other area of policy: it must permeate all spheres and all sectors of society. In its Bill, the Government proposes national objectives:
Work on disability policy is to pay particular attention to the following tasks:
In accordance with the National Action Plan, existing public buildings and other public places must be made accessible for people with impairments by 2010. Annex 2: United KingdomIn the UK The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA, 1995) outlaws discrimination against disabled people in a number of fields: employment, the provision of goods facilities services and premises; and, as a result of amendments to the Act made by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (SENDA, 2001), the provision of education, both pre-16 and post-16. It makes specific provision for transport, by means of regulatory powers to govern the design of new build transport vehicles and by making provision for access to licensed taxis for disabled people. The cornerstone of Part III of the Act is the duty contained in s.21 of the Act to take reasonable steps to make adjustments to enable disabled people to make use of a service. The duty is a general duty owed to disabled people at large, and therefore is an anticipatory duty; it is also evolving - what may not be reasonable today, due to cost, lack of technology etc. may well be reasonable next month or next year. Although a general duty in its structure, it can only be enforced by an individual disabled person who has been subjected to a detriment. The duty to make reasonable adjustments falls into three main areas that are being introduced in stages. In October 1999, the duties relating to policies, practices and procedures; auxiliary aids and services; and the provision of a service by a reasonable alternative method, came into force. October 2004 sees the implementation of the third area relating specifically to physical features. Section 21 (2) in Part III of the DDA provides that where a physical feature (for example, one arising from the design or construction of a building or the approach or access to premises) makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled persons to make use of such a service, it is the duty of the provider of that service to take such steps as it is reasonable, in all the circumstances of the case, for him/her to have to take in order to:
It is the service providers who owe the duty to make "reasonable" adjustments. However, both the DDA and SENDA impact on the built environment as the majority of public services, service transactions, employment and education are carried out in buildings or their surroundings. Within the DDA there is no definition of what is "reasonable" or how this is determined and approached. There has been much consideration of this and will be ultimately tested through the court system. Annex 3: ItalyFrom 'performance design', fulfilling the minimal requirements, to a 'design-for-all' approach. The traditional framework of the building code regarding accessibility and usability of public buildings mainly focused on the concepts of accessibility, visitability and adaptability (D.M. 1989 no. 236). These three requirements are different extensions of code enforceability, as summarized below, for example in the case of a museum:
Italy is now endeavouring to merge these milestones towards a 'design-for-all' concept in order to provide in public buildings as many areas as possible which are accessible for the general public, with no relevant discrimination between rooms (D.P.R.. 1996 no. 503). Housing subsidized by governmental agencies or by city councils is substantially modifying its traditional requirements, due to family splitting and increase of singles. Sizes and layouts are then re-designed with in mind the concept of houses which are adaptable in the long term, even by younger groups of population, also with provision of suitable and user-friendly technologies and supporting tools/systems for performing activities of daily living (ADLs). Annex 4: HungaryThe root initiatives toward barrier-free design in Hungary can be traced back to the seventies, when the need for accessibility was stressed by individuals. Partly as a result of the gradual weakening of the former 'iron curtain' doctrine - isolating the Hungarian people from the Western society - they recently gained more freedom and started travelling to Western countries. Specifically the engineering and the architectural practices in the Nordic countries inspired the Hungarian professionals, and this had a major impact on the development of Hungarian processes towards a society for all. Social settings and institutional support however could not follow the rapid process of perceptional shift and of technical changes. Politically propagated housing estates built for disabled people in the early and in the middle of the eighties, for example, failed to fulfill their long term goals and resulted in frequent owner change. Notwithstanding the more attractive layout designs, the problems of low income and the lack of further social support in reality were not solved to match the conditions in the new physical environment. After the communist regime, the needs of disabled people were locally recognized and several charity organizations emerged to provide care for the elderly and for people with special needs. After the system change (1989), it took eight years until the first legal act was passed in 1997 to establish accessible and safe approach (Law no.LXXVIII) to public buildings, while the law on 'Equal opportunities' (Law no. XXVI) was passed in 1998. The former law states that newly built public buildings should be designed without barriers, while existing public buildings should be redesigned by the year 2005 as well as the public transportation system by 2010. In 2004, this law is being modified to include special considerations for children friendly built environments and it finally defines "public" buildings. The latter law also gives the framework of social inclusion and provides the definitions on assistive technology, rehabilitation, and disabled person. Nowadays, Information and Communication Technology, knowledge centers and design competitions provide fertile arenas for information exchange. Notes
|