Inclusive University Built Environments

Attitudes towards people with disabilities have changed greatly over the centuries, exerting a strong influence on the extent to which such people have been able to participate in mainstream society. Traditionally people with disabilities have been placed in special institutions, thus separating them from the rest of the society. This medical model has gradually been replaced by a social model which places the onus on the society to accommodate the needs of those with disabilities. One aspect of this is the adoption of an inclusive approach to architectural design, with the aim of creating environments that are accessible to everyone, irrespective of whether or not they have a disability. Progress has been made but much still remains to be done, and this case study that focuses on the University of Kent illustrates the issues that need to be addressed.

There are different definitions of disability, but two main models emerged in the twentieth century, namely the medical model and the social model. The medical model considers disability to be a problem of the individual that requires treatment; this view has had implications for the services and facilities, including the built environment, that are provided for such individuals. The social model emphasises that the problems that arise as a result of disability need to be addressed by society. This model aims to eliminate the barriers that people with disabilities encounter in their daily lives in terms of gaining access to buildings, products, services and information on an equal basis with non-disabled people. The wide range of disabilities, for example, visual impairments, hearing impairments, physical disability arising from illness or accident, learning difficulties and autism, inevitably, gives rise to a variety of needs. From the middle of the twentieth century the disability rights movement in Britain has brought about a change in attitudes, and a range of legislation in the UK, as well as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Disabled, have reflected this change. There is much greater emphasis now on inclusive education and this has implications for the built environment in educational institutions.

Prompted by the work of Goldsmith, who was responsible for establishing the first building design standards in the UK, from the 1960s increasing attention has been paid to incorporating the principles of inclusive design into building regulations and legislation in order to eliminate barriers and create accessible environments for all, whether or not they have disabilities. Access statements have been a requirement since 2004 and aim to achieve an inclusive environment with respect to new buildings and extensions to existing ones, as well as accessible transport and an inclusive urban environment. The principles of inclusive design involve ‘placing people at the heart of the design process’, recognising ‘diversity and difference’, ‘offering choice’, ensuring ‘flexibility of use’ and making buildings ‘convenient to use and enjoyable for all’. The University of Arizona used geospatial techniques to evaluate the accessibility of its campus, the results of which have revealed a number of aspects of the design and layout of the campus that pose problems for a range of users. There are also examples of good design: the Carrington Building at the University of Reading and the Willows School represent well-designed educational buildings; the Eden Project gardens show an example of applying inclusive design to external environments; and the Roundhouse demonstrates how an extension to an existing Grade II listed building can be constructed according to inclusive design principles.

A case study of the University of Kent, Canterbury campus, was conducted to investigate whether adopting an inclusive approach to design is preferable to merely meeting legal building requirements. A mixed-methods approach was employed, using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. Six of the University of Kent buildings were the subject of the research, and data on them were collected in two phases, which involved administering an online survey, carrying out access audits of the six buildings, conducting interviews with students and staff members with disabilities, as well as with education providers and architects, and examining artefacts and architectural plans. Finally, all data were analysed.

To determine the level of accessibility of the University of Kent, six of the university’s buildings, namely the Templeman Library, the Venue, Elliot College, the Registry, the Marlowe Building and the Jarman Building, were selected and an access audit was conducted on each of them. The exterior and interior features of the buildings were evaluated to identify any physical and/or management barriers. In addition transport issues, such as car parking facilities and public transport that served the university, were considered. Further data were collected by means of semi-structured interviews with ten students and staff members with disabilities and also with four education providers and two architects. An online survey of 24 questions was also completed by 236 students and staff members of both sexes and a range of ages, ethnicities and disabilities.

The importance of inclusive design has become to be recognised and from the 1960s onwards has been embodied in legislation and Approved Document M. There is now a requirement to apply the principles of inclusive design to new buildings and to alterations to existing ones. Access audits at the Universities of Bath, Essex and Kent have revealed that although attempts have been made to comply with legislation, these have not been wholly successful. In addition, case studies of two buildings at the University of Kent, namely the Templeman Library and Eliot College, show that a number of barriers to accessibility exist in both buildings, and recommendations are made that incorporate the principles of inclusive design in order to overcome such barriers. These proposals go beyond the minimum requirements regarding accessibility, with the aim of creating an environment that is accessible to all users, whatever their needs may be.

The findings of this research study have revealed five main barriers to inclusive design at a university built environment: sociocultural differences; failure to define inclusive design and disability; accessible design and regulation barriers; procedural barriers; and organisational barriers. To overcome these, comprehensive design criteria are proposed that relate to the following: site topography; external pedestrian routes and pavements; street crossing points; car parking and bus transport; external ramps and stairs; cash machines and telephones; main entrances and lobby areas; reception areas; internal circulation (corridors, signage, vertical circulation); toilet compartments; and emergency exit routes. Recommendations are also made with respect to management practices and organisational issues.

The research study has shown that although attempts have been made at the University of Kent to eliminate physical barriers and to improve accessibility, it has still failed to provide a completely inclusive environment for all users. In order to do this, there is a need to rethink the concepts of disability and inclusive design so that the full range of human needs, lifestyles and abilities may be addressed in the design process. Regulations should be revised and should take a more user-centred approach and universities should develop a procedural plan in order to eliminate barriers in both new and existing buildings. Achieving an inclusive university requires input from all groups of users and is the responsibility of access auditors, architects, designers, etc. The research shows that inclusive design requires a holistic approach, and for universities this means developing learning environments that accommodate the diverse needs of all users, both those with and those without disabilities. The study’s recommendations show how this can be achieved.