Understanding Universal Design
It’s still a confusing concept for many.
Throughout the semester, there have been a couple of things I have learned about universal design and housing: First, despite the claims to understand it, it is still very clear that some people confuse the concept of universal design (UD) with terms like “visitability” and “aging in place.” As a result, the lack of understanding about UD is what continues to serve as one of the main barriers to mainstream adoption of the concept. Second, there are very few examples available to support that UD works when compared to traditional home designs.
Prior to adventuring the quest to discover more about UD and the implications it has for occupational therapy practice, I was keenly aware of the aforementioned barriers. As I have immersed myself into my doctoral experience, the complexity of why these issues exist have become more clear.
What Universal Design is Not
The concept of UD does not fall under the same model as “visitability.” In addition, UD is not synonymous with “aging in place,” “easy living,” or “accessible design.” UD is often used interchangeably with “ADA accessibility,” but they are in fact different. Universal design has no “checklist,” and it also does not [currently] have regulations for implementation. Scott Pruett has written a blog post from May, 2017, explaining these differences in terms. While there is some overlap in elements, each terms is uniquely different.
While conducting my research, I had conversations with individuals who had made home modifications, design professionals (i.e. builders, contractors, realtors, developers, designers, etc.), and a home health occupational therapist, and was able to dig into their perceptions of universal design. Like much of the existing literature suggests, there are many interpretations of what UD entails. Many participants perceived UD to be design that accommodates everyone, regardless of abilities, which is true to an extent. Further into the conversations, individuals tended to cross reference UD with terms like “visitability,” “aging in place,” “easy living,” “accessible design,” “ADA accessibility,” etc. It became very apparent that these concepts are being used interchangeably across the board, and that there needs to be a better way to differentiate UD from the rest.
Interestingly, some of my research participants mentioned that UD needs to be marketed in a way that distinguishes it from other concepts. If UD is not well-understood from the beginning, it naturally makes sense that a disconnect in marketing exists. In order to help clarify the understanding of UD, individuals who promote UD and understand the seven principles have to meet others where they’re at in terms understanding.
This is why awareness campaigns exist: to spread knowledge of a particular topic or need. Part of the goal of The Universal Design Project’s upcoming awareness campaign is to heighten the awareness of the public in how building design can impact the way a person is able to function in their home or the community. Spreading the awareness in how people are impacted by design holds tremendous value in creating a reason to care about why thoughtful design is so important.
Working Together
During a recent conversation, an individual (mentioned in a previous post) who has experience in the private building sector came to me with intentions of incorporating UD into some upcoming projects. My first reaction was, “Oh, that’s great!” followed by, “Wait. What do you know about universal design?” After a few discussions, it was apparent that this individual, too, was using terms like “aging in place” and “accessibility” interchangeably with UD. I listened as they discussed the need to develop a residential design to allow individuals with varying abilities to use, but the question as to what design would work best was a hurdle this builder was facing. Speaking from an occupational therapist’s functional perspective, I gave some very thoughtful advice, as well as many examples in how universally designed spaces could be used by everyone, and not just the disability community (a common misconception).
To my surprise, this individual was inclined to learn more, and continued to ask questions to clarify his understanding. The change in attitude, receptiveness, and openness to this idea almost felt like a small UD victory, or, at the very least, a step in the right direction. We must be able to better understand universal design and roles across professions to create better outcomes for the greater population.
Outcomes
Another interesting topic of conversation during one of my interviews was that there is a growing need for some sort of outcome to support the fact that UD works. In occupational therapy practice, we use an integration of research, clinical expertise, and a client’s preferences and values when making decisions about their care. This is called evidence based practice, and it is based off of what has been known to work. Currently, there are few examples of tangible outcomes in the realm of UD that allow people to immerse themselves in a true UD environment, but there are ample representations of ideal features or home displays that can be accessed through the internet.
While doing my initial literature review, I came across the Universal Design Living Laboratory (UDLL), which showcases UD concepts as well as offers a virtual tour of the home. The home serves a dual purpose of being a private family dwelling as well as an educational tool for learning about the facets of design that could work for as many people as possible. If we are able to create more examples like the UDLL, it will help support the growing body of evidence that smarter design works. When we can show tangible outcomes, it will hopefully be enough to help create regulations for universal design in all new residential design projects.
