CONTEXTO SOCIAL • Cambios en la sociedad actual.

Factors influencing the effectiveness of inclusive design as an analytical tool are the focus of this section. Established challenges point towards the need for further evaluation and questioning of current orthodoxy. Existing arguments highlight the influence of context upon the relevance of inclusive design guidance, including a review of environmental, geographic, and cultural factors. In terms of the built environment, best practice guidance must fit its context of application; therefore, it cannot be simply transferred from one environmental framework to another (Barrett and Barrett, 2003). In a broad sense and within most literature, inclusive design is presented as an

incontestable ideal, but depending upon its context of application its relevance and assertion is subject to varying degrees of external pressure. The challenges discussed here influence the effectiveness of inclusive design, which subsequently affects the lives of older and disabled people.

Elton and Nicolle (2010) propound the argument that current inclusive design tools and resources typically lack an awareness of the influence of context. By context, they do not refer to a specific type of location, but rather variable external influences. They cite changes in lighting levels and weather as key examples, which reduce functional capability for all users; a product may be considered to be inclusive within a design studio or even in a home setting, yet it may be rendered useless by inclement weather. When the item in question is designed primarily for outdoor use, this is a significant concern. Their argument is predicated on the notion that context directly impacts physical capability and does so on a regular basis as social environments are rarely optimised for specific product use. For example, cold weather may result in a loss of dexterity, or a high pollen count may cause an allergic reaction (Vavik and Gheerawo, 2009). The argument that varying external factors can alter the validity of existing access guidance is a relevant challenge regarding the effectiveness of inclusive design as an analytical tool. This specific challenge contributes towards a broader argument

27 that inclusive design is context dependant, thus guidance documents should reflect this fact.

The notion that geographical context and cultural variation influence the applicability of inclusive design guidance is put forward by Herwig (2008). Although there is a

universal desire for needs and aspirations to be met, what these are is subject to global disparity. In terms of design, social acceptability is highly influenced by local culture (Herwig, 2008), while the impact of ageing upon both physical and cognitive capability is subject to geographical variation (Biswas and Langdon, 2014), as are most legal access requirements (Casserley and Ormerod, 2003). Despite the fact that some colours convey universal meaning, such as red and blue for hot and cold, others are highly subject to variations in how they are understood, directly affecting their use within the built environment (Gibson, 2009). In an increasingly globalised society, issues like this are further intensified, especially when access priorities vary depending upon cultural norms (Preiser, 2009). This information challenges the idea of appropriating inclusive design ideals from one context to be applied in another.

When considering both needs and aspirations these two elements can come into conflict, depending upon cultural context. Hearing aids are typically designed to be as small as possible, allowing for discretion and concealment (Pullin, 2009); which is important as inclusive design should not draw undue attention towards individual impairment (Nussbaumer, 2012). However, from a technical standpoint, the primary function of hearing aids is compromised by size constraints (Pullin, 2009). Fashion presents a useful illustration of how the assertion of need can be overshadowed by aspiration, thus highlighting the challenging nature of undertaking an inclusive design analysis.

A further tension, between inclusive design and deterring vandalism, is well encapsulated by the following quotation ‘how the needs of the many have been overshadowed in the design process by the behaviour of a few’ (Knight and Bichard, 2011: 7). The point being made refers to the misuse of toilet facilities. The key issue is that steps taken to ‘design out crime’ can equally act as a barrier to accessibility, albeit an unintentional one (Knight and Bichard, 2011). This is yet another illustration of how contextual factors can disrupt an inclusive design approach.

28 Inclusive design literature acknowledges that conflicting requirements such as the conservation of heritage and environmental sustainability sometimes overshadow access concerns (Noble and Lord, 2004). On occasion a perceived increase in accessibility may raise fresh health and safety concerns, thus the fear of litigation undermines the

realisation of inclusive design (Preiser, 2011). These points question the effectiveness of inclusive design, especially as an uncontested ideal. When contextualised priorities differ, accessibility may be considered secondary or low priority. Sawyer and Bright (2014) play down this challenge, suggesting that access concerns and historic

preservation can be reconciled. While this is no doubt accurate, rather than representing a harmonious reconciliation, it could equally be described as a strained compromise. Their argument is based upon the fact that in some buildings only certain features will be listed and in other situations access can be addressed through non-permanent installations, such as temporary ramps. The concept of temporary inclusive design solutions downgrades the needs of disabled people and only serves to illustrate further an inherent tension and contextualised conflicts of interest. In turn, conflicts of this nature challenge the overall effectiveness of inclusive design as an analytical tool.

Further questions have been raised about the scope of universal design, however these points all relate to inclusive design. Specifically, it has been stated that universal design is principally functionalist (D'souza, 2004). As a consequence, it offers only reductive technical solutions (Imrie, 2012). Whilst doing so can increase accessibility, advocating only technical solutions fails to address contextualised socio-political variation (Imrie, 2012). Therefore, it can be seen to propagate irrelevant generalisations in a prescriptive and onerous manner, making inappropriate assumptions about the lives of disabled people (Herwig, 2008). These arguments further illustrate the tense and complex relationship between inclusive design ideals and their context of application, stressing the need for further related academic inquiry. Context has a significant influence upon the value of inclusive design, encompassing a wide range of factors from social norms to religion, which may not be commensurate with an increase in accessibility.

Consequently, the next section discusses the specific value of increasing accessibility within zoological gardens. Thesis output explains how the zoological context is highly influential in determining the effectiveness of inclusive design, due to the unique nature of its street furniture. The following section begins to describe what makes zoological

29 gardens unique in relation to inclusive design, whilst also exploring a distinctive social value and visitor demographic.