Universal Design in University Environments. Are the New Buildings More Inclusive? A Tool for Equal Design Assessment.

Erica Isa Mosca, Giulia Bianca Crotti, Stefano Capolongo, Maddalena Buffoli
{"title":"Universal Design in University Environments. Are the New Buildings More Inclusive? A Tool for Equal Design Assessment.","authors":"Erica Isa Mosca, Giulia Bianca Crotti, Stefano Capolongo, Maddalena Buffoli","doi":"10.3233/SHTI241006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study explores the application of Universal Design (UD) principles to university environments, aiming to improve the experiences of students and staff by fostering inclusivity in educational and social spaces. The research began with a literature review and employed the 'Design for All A.U.D.I.T.' tool, developed by Politecnico di Milano. This tool was adapted to evaluate six buildings across two universities in Milan:Politecnico di Milano and Statale University. The buildings ranged from the most recent to medium-aged and the oldest on each campus. The assessment focused on three main categories-physical, social, and sensory-cognitive quality-across eight key areas, including outdoor environments, entrances, halls, horizontal and vertical circulation, restrooms, classrooms, and study/leisure spaces. A binary scoring system was used to calculate the satisfaction of requirements, previously weighted by experts. The evaluation revealed that newer buildings generally scored higher on average (77%) compared to those from the 1960s (62%) and historical ones (67%). Despite higher scores, newer constructions often prioritized educational spaces over social and leisure areas, resulting in a lack of student gathering spaces. Significant issues included poor entrance design, inadequate wayfinding strategies, and a lack of inclusive classroom features, although restroom facilities consistently demonstrated good accessibility. The most recent building atPolitecnico di Milano scored highest overall but struggled in leisure and study rooms, as did the new building at Statale University. This research highlights both the current state and potential for improvement in university architecture through the lens of UD. The study underscores that innovative design does not always equate to user satisfaction and provides an objective tool to aid decision-makers in enhancing the accessibility and inclusivity of university spaces, ultimately improving the well-being of all users.</p>","PeriodicalId":94357,"journal":{"name":"Studies in health technology and informatics","volume":"320 ","pages":"215-222"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in health technology and informatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI241006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study explores the application of Universal Design (UD) principles to university environments, aiming to improve the experiences of students and staff by fostering inclusivity in educational and social spaces. The research began with a literature review and employed the 'Design for All A.U.D.I.T.' tool, developed by Politecnico di Milano. This tool was adapted to evaluate six buildings across two universities in Milan:Politecnico di Milano and Statale University. The buildings ranged from the most recent to medium-aged and the oldest on each campus. The assessment focused on three main categories-physical, social, and sensory-cognitive quality-across eight key areas, including outdoor environments, entrances, halls, horizontal and vertical circulation, restrooms, classrooms, and study/leisure spaces. A binary scoring system was used to calculate the satisfaction of requirements, previously weighted by experts. The evaluation revealed that newer buildings generally scored higher on average (77%) compared to those from the 1960s (62%) and historical ones (67%). Despite higher scores, newer constructions often prioritized educational spaces over social and leisure areas, resulting in a lack of student gathering spaces. Significant issues included poor entrance design, inadequate wayfinding strategies, and a lack of inclusive classroom features, although restroom facilities consistently demonstrated good accessibility. The most recent building atPolitecnico di Milano scored highest overall but struggled in leisure and study rooms, as did the new building at Statale University. This research highlights both the current state and potential for improvement in university architecture through the lens of UD. The study underscores that innovative design does not always equate to user satisfaction and provides an objective tool to aid decision-makers in enhancing the accessibility and inclusivity of university spaces, ultimately improving the well-being of all users.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
大学环境中的通用设计。新建筑更具包容性吗?平等设计评估工具
本研究探讨了通用设计(UD)原则在大学环境中的应用,旨在通过促进教育和社交空间的包容性,改善学生和教职员工的体验。研究从文献综述开始,采用了米兰理工大学开发的 "通用设计 A.U.D.I.T. "工具。对这一工具进行了调整,以评估米兰两所大学(米兰理工大学和国家大学)的六座建筑。这些建筑既有最新的,也有中等年限的,还有各校区最古老的。评估的重点是三个主要类别--物理、社会和感官认知质量,涉及八个关键领域,包括室外环境、入口、大厅、水平和垂直流通、洗手间、教室和学习/休闲空间。采用二进制评分法计算各项要求的满意度,并由专家进行加权。评估结果显示,与 20 世纪 60 年代的建筑(62%)和历史建筑(67%)相比,新建筑的平均得分普遍较高(77%)。尽管得分较高,但较新的建筑往往优先考虑教育空间,而不是社交和休闲区域,导致缺乏学生聚集空间。重要的问题包括入口设计不佳、寻路策略不足以及缺乏包容性教室功能,尽管厕所设施一直表现出良好的无障碍环境。米兰理工大学的最新教学楼总体得分最高,但在休闲和自习室方面表现不佳,国家大学的新教学楼也是如此。这项研究通过人性化设计的视角,强调了大学建筑的现状和改进潜力。研究强调了创新设计并不总是等同于用户满意度,并提供了一个客观的工具,帮助决策者提高大学空间的无障碍性和包容性,最终改善所有用户的福祉。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
PROSurvival: A Technical Case Report on Creating and Publishing a Dataset for Federated Learning on Survival Prediction of Prostate Cancer Patients. Survival Stacking Ensemble Model for Lung Cancer Risk Prediction. The Creation of Intensional Medication Lists Using the NHS Dictionary of Medicines and Devices. Scaling up Environmental Governance in Precision Forestry. Securing a Generative AI-Powered Healthcare Chatbot.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1