Measuring the design of empathetic buildings: a review of universal design evaluation methods

References

• Reeder L. Guide to green building rating systems: understanding LEED, green globes, energy star, the national green building standard, and more. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2010
   Google Scholar
• Björk E. A nordic charter for universal design. Scand J Public Health 2014;42:1–6
   Google Scholar
• Steinfeld E, Maisel J. Universal design: creating inclusive environments. 1st ed. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2012
   Google Scholar
• CEUD. Building for everyone. Dublin: National Disability Authority/Centre for Excellence in Universal Design; 2012
   Google Scholar
• Coleman R. Designing for our future selves. In: Preiser WFE, Ostroff E, eds. Universal design handbook 1E. 1st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional; 2001:4.1–4.25
   Google Scholar
• Story MF, Mueller JL, Mace RL. The universal design file: designing for people of all ages and abilities. Raleigh (NC): School of Design, The Center for Universal Design NC State University; 1998
   Google Scholar
• Bickenbach JE, Chatterji S, Badley E, Üstün T. Models of disablement, universalism and the international classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps. Soc Sci Med 1999;48:1173–87
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Depoy E, Gilson S. Disability design and branding: rethinking disability within the 21st. Disability Stud Quart [Internet]. 16 April 2010; p. 30. Available from: http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/1247 [cited 4 July 2012]
   Google Scholar
• Lawton MP. Designing by degree: assessing and incorporating individual accessibility needs. In: Preiser WFE, Ostroff E, eds. Universal design handbook 1E. 1st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional; 2001:7.1–7.14
   Google Scholar
• Till J. Lost judgement. In: European association for architectural education Biennial prize. Copenhagen: EAAE; 2005:164–81
   Google Scholar
• Heylighen A, Bianchin M. How does inclusive design relate to good design? Designing as a deliberative enterprise. Design Stud 2013;34:93–110
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinfeld E. Advancing universal design. In: Maisel JL, ed. The state of the science in universal design: emerging research and development. Buffalo (NY): State University of New York, Bentham eBooks; 2010:1–19
   Google Scholar
• The Center for Universal Design. The principles of universal design, Version 2.0. Raleigh (NC): North Carolina State University; 1997
   Google Scholar
• Froyen H. Universal design, a methodological approach. Limburg, Belgium: The Institute for Human Centered Design; 2012
   Google Scholar
• Salmen JPS. Universal design for academic facilities. New Dir Stud Serv 2011;2011:13–20
   Google Scholar
• Davies C, Lifchez R. An open letter to architects. In: Lifchez R, ed. Rethinking architecture: design students and physically disabled people. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1986:35–50
   Google Scholar
• Ginnerup S. Achieving full participation through universal design. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe; 2009
   Google Scholar
• Prasad S. Inclusive maps. In: Macmillan S, ed. Designing better buildings: quality and value in the built environment. London: Spon Press; 2004:175–84
   Google Scholar
• Øvsteda L, Meland S. Indkatorer for universell utforming for kollektivtraffik på vei. Oslo: SINTEF; 2011: p. 160
   Google Scholar
• Smith A. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Book 5, Chapter 2. London: Meutheun & Co., Lt; 1776
   Google Scholar
• Nussbaum MC. Who is the happy warrior? Philosophy poses questions to psychology. J Legal Stud 2008;37:S81–113
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sen A. The idea of justice. Cambridge (MA): Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; 2009
   Google Scholar
• Erlandson RF. Universal and accessible design for products, services, and processes. 1st ed. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 2007
   Google Scholar
• Sanford JA. Universal design as a rehabilitation strategy: design for the ages. 1st ed. New York: Springer Publishing; 2012
   Google Scholar
• Preiser WFE. Toward universal design evaluation. In: Preiser WFE, Ostroff E, eds. Universal design handbook 1E. 1st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional; 2001:9.1–9.18
   Google Scholar
• Maslow AH. A theory of human motivation. Psychol Rev 1943;50:370–96
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brand S. How buildings learn: what happens after they're built? New York: Penguin Books; 1994
   Google Scholar
• Berg M. The politics of technology: on bringing social theory into technological design. Sci Technol Hum Values 1998;23:456–90
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinfeld E. Modeling spatial interaction through full-scale modeling. Int J Ind Ergonom 2004;33:265–78
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dainty A. Methodoloical pluralism in construction management research. In: Knight A, Ruddock L, eds. Advanced research methods in the built environment. 1st ed. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008:1–13
   Google Scholar
• Afacan Y, Erbug C. An interdisciplinary heuristic evaluation method for universal building design. Appl Ergonom 2009;40:731–44 [cited 2011 April 20]
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ringaert L. User/expert involvement with universal design. In: Preiser WFE, Ostroff E, eds. Universal design handbook 1E. 1st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional; 2001:6.1–6.14
   Google Scholar
• Pink S, Tutt D, Dainty A, Gibb A. Ethnographic methodologies for construction research: knowing, practice and interventions. Build Res Inf 2010;38:647–59 [cited 2012 August 22]
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanford JA. Assessing universal design in the physical environment. In: Mpofu E, Oakland T, eds. Rehabilitation and health assessment applying ICF guidelines. New York: Springer Pub. Co.; 2009: 255–78
   Google Scholar
• Sangelkar S, Cowen N, McAdams D. User activity – product function association based design rules for universal products. Design Stud 2012;33:85–110
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas C. Theorising disability and chronic illness: where next for perspectives in medical sociology? Soc Theory Health 2012:209–28
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pheasant S, Haslegrave CM. Bodyspace: anthropometry, ergonomics, and the design of work. London: Taylor & Francis e-Library; 2003
   Google Scholar
• Imrie R. Architects' conceptions of the human body. Environ Plan D 2003;21:47–66
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Passini R. Wayfinding design: logic, application and some thoughts on universality. Design Stud 1996;17:319–31
   Google Scholar
• Latour B. Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world. In: Science-Social Aspects. California: Sage Publications, Inc; 1983: 141–70
   Google Scholar
• Guggenheim M. Formless discourse. The impossible knowledge of change of use. Candide, J Architect Knowledge 2011;4:9–36
   Google Scholar
• Waldner LS. Planning to perform: evaluation models for city planners. Berkeley Plan J 2004;17:1–28
   Google Scholar
• Adaptive Environments Center and Barrier Free Environments. ADA checklist for readily achievable barrier removal. Boston (MA): Adaptive Environments Center; 1995
   Google Scholar
• Barrier Free Environments. UFAS accessibility checklist. Washington (DC): US Access Board; 1990
   Google Scholar
• Levine D. Universal design New York 2. New York: IDEA Publications; 2006
   Google Scholar
• Sandler LA. Universal design and green home survey checklist. Iowa City (IA): University of Iowa Clinical Law Programs; 2009
   Google Scholar
• Guimaraes MP. Universal design evaluation in Brazil: development of rating scales. In: Preiser WFE, Ostroff E, eds. Universal design handbook 1E. 1st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional; 2001:57.1–57.21
   Google Scholar
• Iwarsson S, Nygren C, Slaug B. Cross-national and multi-professional inter-rater reliability of the housing enabler. Scand J Occup Ther 2005;12:29–39
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ramot A, Danieli-Lahav Y, Bendel J. Planning accessibility in the Old city of Jerusalem. In: Preiser WFE, Smith KH, eds. Universal design handbook 2E. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional; 2011:16.1–16.11
   Google Scholar
• Steinfeld E, Schroeder S, Duncan J, et al. Access to the built environment: a review of literature. Washington (DC): Syracuse University/U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; 1979. Available from: http://www.archive.org/details/accesstothebuilt003372mbp
   Google Scholar
• ISO/IEC. Guide 71 – guidelines for standards developers to address the needs of older persons and persons with disabilities. 1st ed. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 2001
   Google Scholar
• Hadjri K, Crozier C. Post-occupancy evaluation: purpose, benefits and barriers. Facilities 2009;27:21–33
   Google Scholar
• Bruce C. Post occupancy evaluation: aquarium. In: Maisel JL, ed. The state of the science in universal design: emerging research and development. Buffalo (NY): State University of New York, Bentham eBooks; 2010:108–21
   Google Scholar
• Danford GS. Universal design people with vision, hearing, and mobility impairments evaluate a model building. Generations 2003;27:91–4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heylighen A, Van Doren C. Enriching our understanding of architecture through disability experience. Open House Int 2013;38:7–19
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen R, Standeven M, Bordass B, Leaman A. Assessing building performance in use 1: the probe process. Build Res Inf 2001;29:85–102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westbrook DA. Navigating the contemporary: why ethnography matters? Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press; 2008
   Google Scholar
• Latham A. Research, performance, and doing human geography: some reflections on the diary-photograph, diary-interview method. Environ Plann A 2003;35:1993–2018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimble MD, Danford GS, Schoell DM. The effectiveness of universal design: case study demonstrations. University at Buffalo (NY): Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental Access; 2010
   Google Scholar
• Nasar JL. Are retrofitted wheelchair entries separate and unequal? Landscape Urban Plan 2010;95:169–74
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ONCE Foundation. Accessibility in the university environment and its perception by students with disability: university and disability observatory; 2010
   Google Scholar
• Kitchin R, Law R. The socio-spatial construction of (in) accessible public toilets. Urban Stud 2001;38:287–98
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynch K. The image of the city. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 1960
   Google Scholar
• God Adgang. Accessibility Label Scheme. godadgank.dk [Internet]. [cited 2013 June 11]. Available from: http://www.godadgang.dk/gb/main.asp
   Google Scholar
• Hillier B, Hanson J. The social logic of space. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1984
   Google Scholar
• Lindholm CE. The science of “Muddling Through”. Public Admin Rev 1959;19:79–88
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Global Universal Design Commission, Inc. Draft Standards in Universal Design of Commercial Buildings; 2009
   Google Scholar
• Sanders EB, Stappers PJ. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign 2008;4:5–18
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001
   Google Scholar