A study to depict challenges and opportunities building industry professionals face when designing inclusive and accessible buildings

Figures & data

Table 1. Gender and age split across countries.

	Gender			Age
Country	Female	Male	Prefer not to respond	Above 30 years old	Below 30 years old	Prefer not to respond
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland	32.2% (n = 37)	21.6% (n = 25)	1.8% (n = 2)	53.6% (n = 61)	2.6% (n = 3)	–
United States of America	7% (n = 8)	5.4% (n = 6)	0.9% (n = 1)	10.5% (n = 12)	1.8% (n = 2)	–
Ireland	5.4% (n = 6)	1.8% (n = 2)	–	7% (n = 8)	–	–
Italy	5.4% (n = 6)	6.2% (n = 7)	–	10.5% (n = 12)	0.9% (n = 1)	0.9% (n = 1)
Other countries	7.8% (n = 9)	4.5% (n = 5)	–	10.5% (n = 12)	1.8% (n = 2)	–
TOTAL	57.8% (n = 66)	39.5% (n = 45)	2.7% (n = 3)	92.1% (n = 105)	7.1% (n = 8)	0.9% (n = 1)

Figure 1. Infographic with details on type of clients, their enquires and the building industry group participants work for.

Table 2. Relationships between clients and buildings groups according to Fisher's Exact Test data analysis.

		Clients
	p Value	Public	Non-for-profit	Large private	Medium private	Small private	Micro private
Non-Residential
	Commercial (p Value)	1	0.543	<0.00001	0.000011	0.0110	0.536
	Educational (p Value)	0.0487	0.0986	0.00764	0.0013	0.0724	0.679
	Entertainment (p Value)	0.0468	0.00352	0.0000131	<0.00001	0.00223	0.285
	Healthcare (p Value)	0.0618	0.00412	0.227	0.0029	0.0385	0.125
	Retail (p Value)	0.679	0.827	0.0140	0.000030	0.00548	0.370
	Hospitality (p Value)	0.0517	0.107	0.0114	0.00001	0.0272	0.818
	Leisure & sport (p Value)	0.0713	0.0884	0.0130	0.000101	0.00451	0.470
Residential
	Single-family (p Value)	1	0.832	0.167	0.407	0.409	0.00084
	Multi-family (p Value)	0.554	0.838	0.342	0.164	0.0166	1

Noe: A p value less than 0.05 (in grey) suggests a statistically significant relationship.

Figure 2. Factors that limit the uptake of Inclusive Design among architectural design practitioners.

Figure 3. Importance of instruments to facilitate the development of knowledge of Inclusive Design among architectural design practitioners.

Figure 4. Four major components helpful in improving an Inclusive Design process for practitioners.

Figure 5. Components to consider for a POE tool targeting inclusion, diversity, equity and accessibility.

Figure 6. The components of the Inclusive Design Canvas.

Figure 7. The components of the Inclusive Design Post-Occupancy Evaluation tool.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, MZ, upon reasonable request.