Public toilets for accessible and inclusive cities: Disability, design and maintenance from the perspective of wheelchair users

Carnemolla, P; Mackinnon, K; Darcy, S and Almond, B (2025) Public toilets for accessible and inclusive cities: Disability, design and maintenance from the perspective of wheelchair users. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 14(6), pp. 1729-1751. ISSN 2046-6099

Abstract

Purpose – Design policy and regulations within our cities can significantly impact the accessibility and social participation of people with disability. Whilst public, wheelchair-accessible bathrooms are highly regulated spaces for this reason, very little is known about how wheelchair users use them or what wheelchair users think of current design standards. Design/methodology/approach – This exploratory inquiry adopts an embodied approach to investigate the perspectives of powered and manual wheelchair users on public bathroom usage and design. The study encompasses twelve interviews, delving into how participants utilise accessible bathrooms based on mobility, disability, support levels, wheelchair types, urinary/bowel regimes and catheter use. Findings – A thorough analysis of individual public bathroom elements (layout, toilet, handwashing and grab rails) discussed in the interviews reveals themes of safety, hygiene, planning/avoidance and privacy and dignity. Strikingly, many wheelchair users invest significant effort in planning for bathroom use or avoid public bathrooms altogether. The ongoing maintenance and regular cleaning of bathrooms, something not captured in regulatory standards, has been highlighted as something of critical importance to the ongoing accessibility and safety of public bathrooms for wheelchair users. This points to a relationship between the design and the maintenance of public bathrooms as influencers of health, well-being, community inclusion and the social participation of people with disability. Research limitations/implications – This qualitative research is exploratory and contributes to a growing body of evidence that explores how public spaces are experienced by diverse members of our communities, including people with disability. To date, there have been very few investigations into the embodied perspectives of wheelchair users about public bathroom design. Practical implications – The findings can potentially drive innovative and inclusive approaches to bathroom design regulations that include operational and maintenance guidance. Social implications – The research aims to inform design regulations, standards development and practices of designers, architects, facilities managers, developers and planners, ensuring public spaces are designed to support more accessible, inclusive and socially sustainable cities. Originality/value – Whilst wheelchair-accessible bathrooms have been designed and constructed for public use (in many countries) for many years, we know very little about how wheelchair users actually use them or what wheelchair users think of current design standards.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: accessible bathroom; disability; embodied inquiry; inclusive design; social participation; universal design; wheelchair
Index terms: cleaning, architect, investigation, planner, designer, sustainable city, mobility, accessibility, disability, regulation, evidence, privacy, facilities manager, methodology, qualitative research, well-being, public space, design standard, inclusive design, interview
Subjects: technical documentation, data collection methods, profession, mental health and wellbeing, research design and methodology, design methods, health conditions and diseases, infrastructure and transport systems, political science, evaluation and assessment methods, practitioner, professional ethics, maintenance engineering, research methods, inclusive design, urban design and public space, urban design
Topics: Research Practice, Business Strategy, Governance, Roles and Professions, Urban Studies, Design Practice, Health and Safety, Legal Issues
Descriptive scope: 5 PCTEA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here