Oo, B-L and Drew, D S (2008) Adapting building design to access by individuals with intellectual disability. Construction Economics and Building, 8(1), pp. 11-22. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
Over the last 15 years, since introductionof the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA)(Commonwealth Government of Australia,1992), there has been much discussionabout the extent and nature of buildingaccess for the disabled, particularly inresponse to proposed revisions to theBuilding Code of Australia (BCA) and theintroduction of a Premises Standardcovering building access. Much of theargument which contributed to the twoyear delay in submitting a final version ofthese documents for government approvalrelated to the extent of access provisionsand the burden of cost. The final versionsubmitted to government by the AustralianBuilding Codes Board (ABCB) (notreleased publicly) appears to still containinconsistencies between the DDA and theBCA in several areas such as wayfindingand egress.In the debate preceding submission of thefinal version there appears to have beenlittle reference to access requirements forindividuals with intellectual disability (ID).This may be due to a general lack ofresearch on the topic. Consequently, thispaper uses a combination of theknowledge gained from a limited numberof previous wayfinding studies, literaturedescribing general problems faced bythose with ID and the author’s personalexperience observing others with ID tocreate a list of probable difficulties andsuggested solutions. The paperconcludes with a discussion about theassociated cost implications and benefitsin providing the required access.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | intellectual disability; access to premises; building regulation; discrimination; wayfinding |
| Index terms: | disability, documents, building design, Australia, wayfinding, discrimination, intellectual disability, access to premise, disabled, building regulation |
| Subjects: | sociology, professional development, architectural design, professional ethics, operations management, building performance, Geography, health conditions and diseases, regulatory law |
| Topics: | Site Management, Geographical Context, Ethics, Legal Issues, Information Management, Design Practice, Health and Safety |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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