Inclusive design, disability and the built environment

Rob Imrie Royal Holloway University London, UK

The daily reality of the built environment for disabled people is of physical and attitudinal barriers which prevent
their ease of mobility and access. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the majority of homes are not wheelchair
accessible while accessible transport is the exception rather than the rule. Pavements tend to be littered with street
furniture while most public buildings provide few design features to permit disabled people ease of access.
Induction loops are rare in public buildings while colour contrasts and tactile paving are poorly designed or often
non existent. In the British general election in May 1997, for instance, 75% of polling offices were inaccessible to
people in wheelchairs, while few had the technical aids to permit visually impaired people to mark their votes on
the polling papers. The barriers to disabled people's inclusion in the built environment are, therefore,
considerable and include a range of interrelated physical, social, and attitudinal factors.

One factor is that the building and design professions have little recognition of bodily and/or physiological
diversity and there is a tendency for architects and designers to design to specific standards and dimensions
which revolve around a conception of what the normal body is like. For most designers this is based on classical
conceptions of the fit and able body, the body as a machine, mechanical, fixed, taut, up-right, masculine, and pregiven to interaction. Indeed, most architects seem to conceive of architecture as an abstract, often twodimensional, visual art rather than conceiving of it as something which should be sensitised to what Moore and
Bloomer

(1977: ix) refer to as the complexity of 'the human body which is our most fundamental three-

dimensional possession'. Not surprisingly, then, most design is insensitive to the infinite range of bodily
variations by producing 'standard-fit' design.

Most designers also conceive of disabled bodies as mobility or ambulant-impaired, with little perception of the
wider range of physical and/or mental impairments which need to be catered for in producing inclusive design.
Where designers do produce design for disabled people's needs it tends to be for wheelchair users. However,
wheelchair users in the UK make up only 5% of registered disabled people yet the stereotype of disabled people
as wheelchair-dependent remains problematically ingrained in the psyche of society. Inclusive design is also
inhibited by the enduring attitude that disability is, first and foremost, an individual impairment and disease
which can be treated and cured. In this sense, a person's inability to gain access to a building is seen as a function
1

of their impairment or physiological condition, rather than poor design. In turn, the onus is on the individual
either to be cured or to adapt themselves to the circumstances. Such views tend to 'blame the victim' for their
inability to get around the environment, rather than insensitive and poorly conceived design.

The statutory and legal provisions underpinning the construction of barrier-free environments are also weak or
non existent in most countries. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the building regulations are the main
mechanism in requiring developers and designers to provide access to buildings for disabled people. However,
the regulations are weak and ineffectual in requesting developers to make 'reasonable provisions' for disabled
people and only in new public buildings and major renovations. Because no one really knows what a reasonable
provision might be, developers can get away with providing more or less nothing. The regulations are also
unhelpful because they stress that developers should build to a minimum standard of accessibility, rather than
encouraging them to build to the highest possible standards. Planning controls over developers are also weak in
the UK, with planners having limited powers to development or enforce inclusive design measures.

Not surprisingly, the attitudes and practices of the development industry are barriers to inclusive design with
many developers resisting barrier-free design on the basis that it is too expensive, leads to the production of non
marketable buildings, and caters for an insignificant demand. As the House Builders Federation (1995: 1) in the
UK recently remarked, 'if a disabled person visits a home owner, it is to be expected that they can be assisted over
the threshold'. Such demeaning sentiments are re-stated in other parts of the document. For example, in relation
to the steepness of ramps, the HBF argue in favour of gradients of up to 1 in 10 despite evidence to suggest that
such inclines do not facilitate independent movement by wheelchair users. However, for the HBF (1995: 4) the
issue is resolvable because 'a ramp of 1 in 10 is no steeper than commonly found in access to many public
buildings where it is anticipated the wheelchair user will be assisted'.

Such attitudes are important for disabled people to challenge yet the absence of barrier-free environments is
partly because disabled people have yet to organise effectively against the prejudices and practices of the
development and design industry. While part of the problem is the lack of effective civil rights legislation to
enable disabled people to have recourse to legal action, disabled people do not cohere, politically, in a way which
is suggested by the term disability. Indeed, there is often more that divides than unites disabled people, from
2

their different physiological states, to their contrasting, often institutionalised, domestic and/or living spaces. In
particular, disabled people tend to be locked into dependent living situations where their scope for political
action is defined, and constrained, by a variety of institutional settings. Where disabled people's organisations
have attempted to collectively organise to oppose the strictures of state and society, such groups have generally
remained fragmented, poorly funded, and ineffective.

While the barriers to disabled people's inclusion in the built environment are many and varied there are
possibilities for positive action to redress disablist and disabling design. Foremost, the mobility and access right's
of disabled people have to become enshrined in statute to provide the possibilities for legal redress against
individuals and/or institutions that persist in reproducing inaccessible environments. Inclusive design should
also address the possibilities for overturning the barriers of the pre-existing built environment rather than just
seeking to influence access in new developments. This will place some onus on more flexible, imaginative and
responsive methods for refurbishing and readapting the existing built environment. In Sweden, for example, it is
common practice for barrier-free design features to be incorporated into essential road repair and pavement
work, while utility companies, such as gas and electricity providers, routinely provide dropped kerbs and tactile
surfaces on completion of regular repair or service work.

Changing the education and practices of architects, designers, and others involved in the production of the built
environment is also a priority. Very few planning schools teach trainee planners about disabled people's access
and mobility needs, while the architectural schools in the UK are bereft of anything other than minimal and often
dismissive references to disability and inclusive design. Design professionals receive little or no continuing
professional training in designing for disabled people, while very few disabled people are themselves design
professionals with the ability to influence practice from within the professions. Much of this needs to be changed
by encouraging designers to interact much more with disabled user groups, while regulatory bodies, like the
Royal Institute of British Architects, need to promote inclusive design education through the channels of
mainstream degree level training and continuing professional development for practising architects and
designers.

References
3

House Builders Federation, (1995) The application of building regulations to help disabled people in new
dwellings in England and Wales, unpublished paper, available from R. Imrie, Department of Geography, Royal
Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX.
Imrie, Rob, 1996, Disability and the City: International Perspectives, Paul Chapman Publishing, London, and St.
Martin's Press, New York.
Moore, C. and Bloomer, K., 1977, Body, Memory, and Architecture, Yale University Press, New Haven.
Biographic Note
Rob Imrie is Professor in Human Geography, Department of Geography, Royal Holloway University of London,
Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, United Kingdom. The ideas in this talk are developed in detail in two of his books:
Disability and the City, Sage, London, 1996, and Inclusive Design: designing and developing accessible
environments, Spon Press, London. The talk is also based on a recently completed paper entitled Housing
quality and the provision of accessible homes. This is available on request: email: r.imrie@rhul.ac.uk.