Extended abstract final v2 - ULisboa · thesis,! the! "blues"! means!the!worst! situations! ... Pavilion!and! the Canteen,!which! are! the! most! ... definedcriteria!for!assessing!the!LE!expended!by!

1

Accessibility in built space: from space to the user.

Case study: Campus Alameda of IST

Abstract It is intended to develop a morphological analysis tool to assess the conditions of accessibility in University Campuses, having as principle the diversity of demands by users with different types of physical functionalities and motilities (e.g. elderly, pregnant, temporary and/or permanent disability and visually impaired). The proposed tool is applied to the Campus Alameda of IST, allowing to obtain a general diagnosis of the accessibility conditions and to identify situations susceptible of correction/intervention in order to improve its performance.

Keywords accessibility, building performance evaluation, impairment, inclusive design, post-‐occupancy evaluation, space syntax

Introduction The Portuguese Constitution of 1976, guarantees the right to equality for all citizens in rights and duties [1]. Thus, must be ensured to the disabled citizens, proper conditions to enabling them to participate actively in society, in particular physical access to spaces.

It is intended to undertake systematic evaluation procedures related to the condition of accessibility of the built environment with reference to the DL nº 163/2006 of 8 August [2].

The analysis addresses to the open-‐air spaces of Campus Alameda of IST, designed in 1930 [3] without any concern about the accessibility conditions, so it’s necessary to equip these spaces with conditions that allow them to be used in an appropriate, safe and comfortable way, for all people, regardless their physical condition and motor skills.

The dissertation is divided in 3 chapters, containing also an attachment. Chapter 1 presents the case study and makes a brief framework of his design process and occupation. In Chapter 2 is presented the survey of conditions of accessibility and explained each of the methods used: Metric Survey, Interviews, Walkthroughs, Checklist and Level of Effort. In Chapter 3 is made the evaluation of accessibility to the Campus Alameda of IST in three phases: External Links, analysis of exterior spaces of the Campus and analysis of the buildings. After this diagnosis the results obtained in the walkthroughs and in calculation of index of Level of Effort (LE) are compared.

1. Methodology The work was developed in two parts: Contextualisation of the theme – bibliographical collection and analysis as well as the search for

Architecture September 2012

Rita Costa Nascimento E-‐mail: [email protected]

Accessibility in built space: from space to the user. IST | R. C. Nascimento

2

functional requirements for spatial components with the goal of evaluating accessibility: stairs, ramps and pathways. Case study -‐ Spatial description of the Campus Alameda of IST based on syntactic model developed by Hillier and Hanson (1984) [4] in which the enclosure is described using morphological elementary units, on the basis of visibility/isovists techniques, axially and convexity (Depthmap ® software [5]); -‐Lifting and analysing the accessibility conditions data, using the users’ opinion, a checklist and the creation of an index of effort. Then the diagnosis of the accessibility conditions of the case study is presented.

1.1. Syntactic Analysis For this work, it was used the Axial Map and Visibility Graf Analysis (VGA).

In this study, on the axial map of the Campus system, the stairs and ramps (including skates) were interpreted in terms of movement, as single axis because it’s what is consistent with the experience of space.

The most relevant syntactic measures used in this work are the Global Integration (Integration HH), Local Integration (Integration R3) and Connectivity. In addition, it is important to understand the correlation between several variables with emphasis on the Intelligibility and Synergy.

In the analysis of the variables studied in this thesis, the "blues" means the worst situations (system with less accessibility) and "reds" the best situations (system with more accessibility), varying values depending on the type of analysis performed. The connectivity features wide low values of Campus. The fact that the Axial Map is constructed by few lines may contribute to this phenomenon. The very clear limit imposed by the walls gives a break in continuity in many ways, making them less connected.

It was created an axial map that excludes the stairs and the parts of the Campus that are accessible only by them. With this Axial Map, the Integration HH can be seen from the perspective of those travelling in a wheelchair. The map reveals the importance of the access ramp and shows that, if you restrict to the ones that exist on the Campus, there is a vast hard-‐to-‐reach spot. This spot is the part of the Campus shades of blue. The visibility graphs allow to realize how the car parking breaks the links within the Campus, it’s mainly revealed by the contrast of the more connected part, the alameda -‐ which has car parking -‐ and the rest of the Campus, that have very low values of connectivity. By the Connectivity analysis it’s possible to see that the spatial system of the Campus is more cohesive and homogenous when presented without car parking. The spot tends to get yellow/orange tones. On the contrary, when the car parking is included, low values of connectivity (blue) appear on a map.

Mini. Ave. Max.

Connectivity 1 2.79 8

Integration [Hh]

0.28 0.54 0.82

Integration [Hh] R3 0.33 1.31 2.45

Line length 0.35 19.3 102

Table I – Values of the Axial Map

Figure 1 -‐ Integration Hh

0.82

0.28

Figure 2 – Integration HH, for the map with no stairs


3

1.2-‐ Survey of accessibility conditions To the metric lifting of spatial elements such as stairs, ramps, pathways and sidewalks, complemented by photographic records, measurements and observations, was gathered the user opinion and accessibility experts through Interviews and Walkthroughs, a Checklist and an indicator of the Level of Effort (LE). To the group of users-‐ students, teachers or employees -‐ with temporary or permanent disability, the interviews seek the identification and characterization of each individual, and also contain generic questions about accessibility and specifically about their experience in IST.

There were also free-‐form interviews to the group of experts, in search for different meanings, perspectives and experiences about accessibility.

The walkthroughs [6] with users were recorded on video and were useful to identify conflicts through a qualitative assessment, in which the user classified the barriers depending on the effort to overcome them: low, medium or intense. The courses were held between the Pavilion and the Canteen, which are the most used by the participants.

The routes were described and analyzed individually, being object of comparison with the routes performed by three users without disability. This approach was intended to determine the effect of barriers on user behaviour. The Walkthrough with experties had the starting point in West staircase and the target was the Canteen; first performed in the most direct route (with stairs) and in the way back, it was performed in the route with ramps. The walkthrough with experts was important because through their experience it was possible to identify the origin of conflicts. The next paragraphs synthesize the main problems on each route: The course A, held by a visually impaired, begins in “Pavilhão de Civil” down to the canteen and returning to the first. The participant A had to be re-‐aimed seven times because, not only, he didn’t

Figure 3 – Campus without car parking -‐ VGA Connectivity

Figure 4 – Campus with car parking -‐ VGA Connectivity

Figure 5 – Courses performed by participants in walkthroughs


4

know well the path but, also, faced several obstacles such as the car parking. In Route B, performed by a disabled person in wheelchair, the participant had to choose a longer path consisting of ramps to overcome the gaps. The canteen is inaccessible to a person in a wheelchair, because it has 2 steps and after the lift did not work properly. The participant C, motor handicapped, departed from “Pavilhão Central”, going up to the canteen and ending in “Torre Norte”. This participant was the one that needed more time (37min 30s) to go back and forth from the canteen, despite being the third shortest route (628 m). In a one-‐hour lunch-‐time it only remains 20 minutes for him to lunch. The route D started from the “Pavilhão de Informática I”, going to the canteen and back to the “Pavilhão de Informática II”. This route was carried out by a visually impaired person who revealed that it becomes easier to go by outside of the Campus, having the wall as reference. The route E was performed by a user with temporary disability, due to a foot injury he sustained in Campus of IST. He identified as the major barriers to his displacements, in the Campus, the bad floor conditions and the fact that the exterior ladders do not have handrails. In route F, the participant who moved in a wheelchair started from the “Pavilhões de Informática” toward the canteen, having to ride on the outside of the IST. So, it turns out that users have found multiple barriers when they crossed the Campus. There isn’t a continuous accessible route. The checklist was designed to assess the degree of compliance of DL nº 163/2006. The affirmative responses meant that the space fulfilled the regulation, and the negative answers revealed irregularities, denouncing situations to correct [7]. It was divided in three parts: one directed to outer space, the second to interior space, checking in both the requirements for an accessible route, and the third for buildings and installations with specific uses. In the initial phase of filling out a checklist, it was perceived limitations especially when compared to the effectiveness of the other used tools. The extension of a legislative base, applied to the complexity of the spatial diversity, creates an enumeration of features, met or not met, that do not allow to conclude whether or not the space is accessible.

The Level of Effort, indicator developed in this dissertation, is an index based on characteristics of physical elements: stairs, ramps, pathways and sidewalks, which have been chosen for their usefulness in the final results. It’s intended to realize, through physical indicators, the impact that the elements composers of the space had in the user effort. With the basis of the metric information it where defined criteria for assessing the LE expended by a generic user when traversing a given element. The determination of evaluation criteria and their weight in the final value of LE implied the implementation of four simulations and a final proposal, obtained by calculations in Excel and Depthmap representation. In the final proposal the NE considers the parameters with different weights, which have been the classes created on the basis of the legislation and the observation.

2. Results

The scale of NE is between 0 and 15 within an increment of 0.5. After five simulations, adjusting, adding and removing parameters there has been a close approach of NE values with the user perception about space. There is no element involving a NE null but, on the other hand, there is also none in the worst situation (the maximum). Another relevant situation is that, even on stairs or ramps, the mode (5 or 6 respectively) was less than half of the maximum limit of the scale (15). Since the Campus is quite large, covers various types of elements, which will dilute the worst situations. Analyzing the axial map it can be seen that it is in the main pathways that exists elements that involve more effort, with values between 10 and 13 of NE (Blues).

Ponderation on NE [%]

Mín. scale

Máx. scale

Increment

Number Of categories

Intensity 35 1 9 2 5

Floor 8 1 2 1 3

Muzzle 6 1 1.5 0.5 2

Handrail 8 1 2 1 2 Extension 10 1 3 1 3

Tactile flooring 8 1 2 1 2 Pitch 21 1 6 1 6 Dimensional irregularity 6 1 1.5 0.5 2

Obstacles 10 1 2 1 3

Scale of NE -‐ 0 15 -‐ -‐

Table II – Parameters of evaluation of LE


5

The Syntactic analysis showed several "black points" on Campus as the parking lot, the discontinuity of sidewalks and walkways and the limitation of paths for wheelchair users. Through formal interviews and walkthroughs these situations were reinforced and pointed to others. It was decided to make the analysis of the Campus by courses, having elaborated a synthesis by each participant/course presented in a series of fact sheets. There is a synthesis feature for each step with the barriers identified by the user, this time in comparison with the average time of users without disabilities, the distances reported in the survey and the LE.

The main "black points" of Campus are the car parking on sidewalks; the stairs too extensive and without handrail, and issues of management and maintenance of the space as handling platforms, state of the cladding and vegetation. The existing routes feature multiple barriers and, it can’t be forgotten that the mere existence of a barrier in the continuity of a route can restrain the movement of a pedestrian, including disabled people.

The analysis to the Pavilions was focused in entrance areas, with the exception of the canteen, AE and Pool that it was made a critical reflection to other internal spaces. Due to the fact that internal analysis of buildings isn't the heart of this thesis, it was posted to synthesis

attachments that verify the connection with the outside world, reception, access to adjacent spaces and sanitary facilities. The main barriers identified by users with disabilities are the space limitations for which they have access and the complexity of the pathways. In the case of visually impaired users the absence of tactile references is harmful to their orientation, although it is easier in interior spaces than exteriors due to the fact that is a smaller dimension.

It was also analyzed the correlation between the Level of Effort (introduced in this dissertation) and barriers identified by participants in the walkthroughs.

The Total value of Barriers (for each step) was calculated by assigning 1, 2 and 3 points respectively to the barriers that require low, medium or intense effort:

The steps that have lower LE were a road parallel to the “Pav. Central”, a road behind the “Pav. INF. II”, and the access road to “Pav. INF. II”, showing great proximity to the barriers identified by users (0 or 1). The main differences were in the steps of the Torre Norte interior ramp and stairs behind the “Pav. Mecânica IV”, which had, respectively, 8 and 9 values for the NE, which are only covered by one user. The steps that have a higher level of effort were the stairs to the canteen and the stairs near the playground, respectively with 11 and 11.5 NE values and in accordance with the barriers that have obtained the highest score, 16 and 9 points respectively. The linear association between the variables can be quantified through the Linear Correlation Coefficient of Pearson [8], resulting in a value of r …..[ -‐1; 1]. This coefficient was calculated in Excel and obtained r = 0.5, that means the correlation is Moderate positive. The average correlation between the NE and the number of Barriers identified by users, may have been influenced by habituation or not to the course, there are different routes for each user, according to the different types of disability or impairment and the fact that the effort is relative to each user

Figure 6 – Axial map for LE

0

15

Total value of Barriers = low effort x 1 + medium effort x 2 + intense effort x 3


6

(depending on age and whether or not they makes effort regularly). In addition, the sample is small to test a correlation. These variations refer us to another kind of studies, more centered in the user's profile in order to bring into different physical states, groups that carry out the same disability/impairment and physical condition. Conclusion The Inclusive University requires spaces that meet the needs of a wide public, regardless age or ability. Any user within a Campus, must feel that the space allows the immediate understanding of the place, the different routes and places where they want to go, without having the feeling to be limited in their access to any areas. The Syntactic Analysis shows that the spaces on Campus are not connected and this is not effective in terms of orientation and location to the user (Intelligibility). Supported by visibility Graphs Analysis it was proved that the car parking harms pedestrian traffic and eliminates the natural property of spaces to allow movement or conviviality. The analysis of the courses made in walkthroughs allowed to conclude that although there are sites with good accessibility -‐ such as the “Pavilhão de Civil” -‐ accessibility to outdoor spaces is not continuous between the point of origin and the point of arrival of a route, which makes it impossible for the user autonomy. Therefore, we may conclude that the outside spaces of the Campus have a poor accessibility. The checklist lists the various characteristics of the space but it was an inadequate tool for the evaluation of accessibility in this project. Using a bookmark to the Level of Effort was useful because it cannot be conducted walkthroughs with all users at all locations, nor constant visits to the Campus. So the NE completed some situations that were not evaluated by users and still allows using the survey as a preliminary environmental accessibility conditions of a space, without dispensing the later observation in loco and the perspective of the user. The Axial Map that represents the NE revealed strong accessibility problems on Campus, which are featured on the main routes with high values of LE. The results of the evaluation to the outdoor spaces Campus, will provide accessibility requirements for future maintenance, construction or adaptation, in terms of

accessibility conditions. The design must try to answer to the needs of all people, because in addition to law enforcement, this is a moral basis for architectural design. Accessibility must enhance the building or public space and not be a discordant element of overall design and aesthetic quality and functionality. The absence of recognition about the real benefits of inclusive architecture [9], by the agents that affect the built environment, originated the forgetfulness of civil rights of disabilities. The work done in this dissertation will raise awareness in other users, administrators of educational institutions and practitioners in the field of design and construction for accessibility issues. Bibliography [1] – Constituição da República Portuguesa, Lei constitucional n.º 1/2005 de 12 de Agosto (sétima revisão constitucional da Constituição da República Portuguesa de 2 de Abril de 1976). Available at: http://dre.pt/util/dpfs/files/crp.pdf. [2] -‐ Decreto-‐Lei n.o163/2006 de 8 de Agosto -‐ Regime da acessibilidade aos edifícios e estabelecimentos que recebem público, via pública e edifícios habitacionais. Available at: www.dre.pt. [3] -‐ Simões, D.V. de F., 2010. O Instituto Superior Técnico e a Cidade Universitária de Lisboa. Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade Técnica de Lisboa. [4] -‐ Hillier, B. & Hanson, J., 1984. The Social Logic of Space, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [5] -‐ Turner, A., 2004.Depthmap 4 – A Researcher`s Handbook. Bartlett School of Graduate Studies. Available at: http://www.vr.ucl.ac.uk/depthmap/handbook/depthmap4r1.pdf [Acedido em: Janeiro de 2012]. [6] -‐ Sanoff, H., 1991. Visual Research Methods in Design, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. [7] – Dischinguer, M., Kelly, G., Mesquita, M. D., Ely, B., & Moro, H., 2006. A importância do desenvolvimento de métodos de avaliação de acessibilidade espacial – estudo de caso no colégio de aplicação -‐ UFSC. p.10. [8] – Sousa, A., n.d.. Coeficiente de Correlação Linear de Pearson. Slides do Departamento de Matemática da Universidade dos Açores. Available at: http://www.aurea.uac.pt/pdf_MBA/coef_correl_Pearson.pdf . [9] -‐ Inclusive Design. http://inclusivedesign.no/ . Accessed at 5.3.2012.

Documents

Extended abstract final v2 - ULisboa · thesis,! the! "blues"! means!the!worst! situations! ... Pavilion!and! the Canteen,!which! are! the! most! ... definedcriteria!for!assessing!the!LE!expended!by!