ACCESSIBILITY IN PUBLIC SPACE: FROM LEGAL MANDATE TO SOCIAL JUSTICE

Öz

The study presents the premise of ‘Radical Inclusivity’ and discusses how this theoretical underpinning can transform accessibility from being a legalist compulsory, or a case of ‘ticking-box’, to an ethical mandate that is upstreamed in social justice. The author's conclusions suggest that in the operation of practices built on code or standards, spaces become characterized as "legal and illegitimate," giving users experiences that are not real. And those gaps are compounded by a number of structural issues such as under investment, lack of trust in community and poor past development decisions. The authors argue for what they call radical inclusivity, a model which incorporates the Social Model of Disability, intersectionality theory and a phenomenology of space. This approach is based on the methodological principle "Nothing About Us Without Us," highlighting the need to include users in the creation of knowledge. Methodologies include Co-design and Participatory Action Research, with a focus on the ‘lived experience expertise’ of service users. Concrete cases illustrate the urgent necessity of sensory-balanced piloted play areas for children with Autism Spectrum Disorder, as well as therapeutic gardens planned with safe routes and multi-sensory scenarios for persons with dementia. The study proposes that inclusion as a design paradigm does not need to be considered a cost, but rather an investment supported by the LC Cost Analysis. It also appeals for Post-Occupancy Evaluation to be an integral part of all design procedure. The study also highlights the role of landscape architects in addressing where climate justice and disability inclusion intersect.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Radical Inclusivity
• Accessibility
• Landscape Architecture

KAMUSAL MEKÂNDA ERİŞİLEBİLİRLİK: YASAL ZORUNLULUKTAN SOSYAL ADALETE

Öz

Bu çalışma, peyzaj mimarlığında erişilebilirlik anlayışını yasal bir zorunluluk olmaktan çıkarıp, etik bir sorumluluk ve sosyal adalet meselesi olarak yeniden inşa etmeyi amaçlayan "Radikal Kapsayıcılık" kavramını ortaya koymaktadır. Mevcut "kontrol listesi" odaklı yaklaşımın, yasal olarak yeterli ancak kullanıcılar için deneyimsel olarak dışlayıcı "yasal ama gayrimeşru" mekânlar ürettiği analiz edilmiştir. Radikal Kapsayıcılık, bu döngüyü kırmak için teorik olarak Engelliliğin Sosyal Modeli'ni kesişimsellik teorisini ve mekânın fenomenolojisini bütünleştiren bütüncül bir duruş sergiler. Metodolojik olarak ise, "Bizsiz bizim hakkımızda hiçbir şey" ilkesine dayanan katılımcı süreçlere odaklanır. Bu, Birlikte Tasarım ve Katılımcı Eylem Araştırması gibi yöntemlerle kullanıcıların "yaşanmış deneyim uzmanlığını" tasarımın merkezine koymayı gerektirir. Uygulama örnekleri arasında, Otizm Spektrum Bozukluğu olan bireyler için duyusal dengeyi ve öngörülebilirliği sağlayan oyun alanları ile demans hastaları için güvenli dolaşım ve anıları tetikleyen terapötik bahçeler yer almaktadır. Sonuç olarak, disiplinin, kapsayıcı tasarımı Yaşam Döngüsü Maliyet Analizi ile desteklenen bir değer önerisi olarak sunması ve Kullanım Sonrası Değerlendirme gibi süreçleri standart hale getirmesi önerilmektedir. Ayrıca, peyzaj mimarlarının iklim adaleti ile engelli kapsayıcılığı arasındaki kesişimi ele alması gerektiği vurgulanmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Radikal Kapsayıcılık
• Erişilebilirlik
• Peyzaj Mimarlığı

Kaynakça

1. Anonymous (2024). Co-design workshop disability. https://www.summerfoundation.org.au/summer-foundation-launches-new-co-design-project/
2. Anonymous (2025). The principles of universal design. https://gartec.com/blog/seven-principles-universal-design-buildings/
3. American Society of Landscape Architects (n.d.). Universal Design. ASLA. Retrieved from https://www.asla.org/universaldesign.aspx
4. Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., & Kaplan, S. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1207–1212.
5. Boston Planning & Development Agency. (2019). Article 80 Accessibility Checklist. http://www.bostonplans.org/documents/planning/policy-planning/article-80-accessibility-checklist-updated-october
6. Cellini, M. (2023). Hostile architecture example. https://nationalhomeless.org/design-against-humanity/
7. Chapman, R. (2021). Neurodiversity and the Social Ecology of Mental Functions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1360-1372. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620959833
8. Charlton, J. I. (1998). Nothing about us without us: Disability oppression and empowerment. Univ of California Press.

9. Gissen, D. (2023). A conversation with David Gissen about The Architecture of Disability. Public Seminar. https://publicseminar.org/2023/10/a-conversation-with-david-gissen-about-the-architecture-of-disability/
10. Hartblay, C. (2020). Disability expertise: Claimind disability anthropology. Current Anthropology, 61(S21), S263-S278. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/705781#d662214e1
11. Kafer, A. (2013). Feminist, Queer, Crip. Indiana University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt16gz79x
12. Mace, R. L. (1990). Accessible environments: Toward universal design. The Center for Universal Design, NC State University.
13. Mehta, V., & Palazzo, D. (Eds.). (2020). Companion to Public Space (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351002189
14. Microsoft. (n.d.). Microsoft Inclusive Design. https://inclusive.microsoft.design/
15. Mohd Idros, M.D., Muhamad Tamyez, P.F., Mohd Yusof, W. Z., Kassim, H. & Fauzi@Fauri, M. A. (2023). Understanding Inclusive Playgrounds . Journal of Cognitive Sciences and Human Development, 9(2), 167–185. https://doi.org/10.33736/jcshd.5738.2023
16. Oehme, K., Bradley, L., Cameron, M., Perko, A. & Clark, J. (2023). Increasing multidisciplinary professionals' capacity to support neurodiverse families. Diversity & Inclusion Research. 1. 10.1002/dvr2.12003.
17. Prellwitz M. & Skär L. (2007). Usability of playgrounds for children with different abilities. Occup Ther Int.;14(3):144-55. doi: 10.1002/oti.230. PMID: 17624873.
18. Sanoff, H. (2011). Multiple Views of Participatory Design. Focus: Vol. 8: Iss. 1, Article 7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15368/focus.2011v8n1.1
19. Shaftoe, H. (2008). Convivial Urban Spaces: Creating Effective Public Places (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849770873
20. Sullivan, S. (2018) Making an Unstable World more Accessible: Using Universal Design to make Collections and Exhibits Memorable for People of all Abilities. Biodiversity Information Science and Standards 2: e25666. https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.2.25666
21. Taylor, S. (2019). Disabled Ecologies: Living in Impaired Landscapes. Berkeley Center for New Media. https://belonging.berkeley.edu/disabled-ecologies-living-impaired-landscapes
22. TMMOB Peyzaj Mimarları Odası. (2013). Erişilebilirlik İzleme ve Denetleme Yönetmeliği. https://www.peyzajmimoda.org.tr/mevzuat/detay/erisilebilirlik-izleme-ve-denetleme-yonetmeligi-143
23. U.S. Access Board. (2007). https://www.access-board.gov/ada/guides/chapter-10-play-areas/#a-summary-of-accessibility-guidelines-for-play-areas. https://www.access-board.gov/files/ada/guides/play-areas.pdf
24. Yılmaz, E. (2020). Turkcell Engelsiz Yaşam Eğitimleri: Görme Engelliler. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juDKMZj8CaE
25. Zallio, M., & Clarkson, P. J. (2024). A study to depict challenges and opportunities building industry professionals face when designing inclusive and accessible buildings. Architectural Science Review, 67(3), 268–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2023.2270983