INAS Games Legacy Project

This project is grounded in an awareness of inclusive design and a “design for all” mindset, which aims to “create spaces, buildings, services, products and environments that can be accessed, understood and used to the greatest extent possible by all people, regardless of their age, size, culture, ability or disability” (Cushing & Miller, 2019, p. 138). As Jackson explains, the social model of disability purposefully shifts the onus of responsibility, ‘away from the individual (to be cured) to society (to dismantle barriers that construct disability) (Jackson, 2018). It is not the inability to walk that keeps a person from entering a building independently, but inaccessible stairs. It is not having dementia or autism spectrum disorder or intellectual disability that stops people from doing their grocery shopping; it is the poor signage, confusing store layouts, and the lack of quiet, calm sensory-free spaces for respite. It is not being vision impaired that makes navigating busy urban streets challenging; it is the lack of a Braille trail. The social model of disability seeks to change the surroundings, not the person. The findings of this project can provide guidance to the venue managers and event organisers to assist with inclusive design and with adopting a design for all mindset. Why is this approach needed? A people people-centred design approach can help in delivering a more inclusive and better user’s experience, which also makes the venues accessible to everybody so to build stronger, more democratic, and more inclusive community. Meaningful and inclusive urban design can reduce social isolation and its associated health risks (Negami, Mazumder, Reardon, & Ellard, 2018). To date, however, while there is a significant body of literature documenting the impact that the built environment can have on people with physical impairments – and potential interventions and frameworks (Apelt, Apelt, & Cooperative Research Centre for Construction, 2007), (see, for example, Systems audit for wayfinding and the Universal Design guidelines in Appendix A) – there are fewer evidenced-based tools and processes focused on how we might redesign urban spaces and places for people with neurodiversity, focussing on intellectual disability. While this project is mainly concerned with cognitive disability, many of the principles may be applicable in thinking about designing for other disabilities, including dementia, acquired and traumatic brain injury, autism, developmental disability, and Down syndrome. Moreover, as the Design for Dignity guidelines (‘Design for Dignity’, 2016) and the Auckland Design Manual (‘Free Design Advice for Homes, Buildings & Neighbourhoods—Auckland Design Manual’, 2019) so eloquently reminds us, engaging with principles of universal and inclusive design benefits everybody – from people with low vision to older people, tourists, families, individuals using mobility aids, and ambulance officers. As Earle et al. (2018) note when designing urban landscapes, elements that may create a physical barrier are taken into account – yet, considerations regarding accessibility for those who are neurodiverse are instead rarely occurring (Earl, Falkmer, Girdler, Morris, & Falkmer, 2018). In that sense, accommodating people with neurodiversity has not been a priority in retrofitting cities and in designing public spaces. Neurodiversity is diversity of the neurology, which changes a person’s interactions with the world through their senses (‘Neurodiversity—Micki Mcgee, 2012’, 2012). A classically recognisable form of neurodiversity is autism spectrum disorder wherein people experience the world through all of their senses to varying degrees, and depending on the context (Kern et al., 2007). Sensory experiences for someone with neurodiversity are as individual as they are for the rest of the population. The significant difference for those with neurodiversity is they often do not have effective strategies to deal with sensory overload and will react to aversive sensory experiences in a way that the majority of society would deem as ‘socially inappropriate’ (Owren & Stenhammer, 2013). A small body of recent research has focussed on the relationships between public transport and people with autism (‘Improving public transport for people with autism’, 2018), and on engagement with digital technologies (De Los Rios Perez, McMeekin, Falkmer, & Tan, 2018), but these studies do not specifically address or consider the sensory experiences of neurodiverse people from the point of view of placemaking and urban design. Based on the existing state of research, there is a clear need for investigating how neurodiverse individuals navigate, perceive, negotiate, and experience urban environments. Understanding barriers, obstacles, and challenges neurodiverse individuals experience navigating our cities are fundamental in order to design better and more inclusive public spaces, which can support an active lifestyle through active mobility.