The purpose of this article is to examine inclusive access criteria and explore the significance of post-occupancy evaluation (POE) for establishing and sustaining social inclusion in urban centres. Since the post-occupancy evaluation research framework was drawn on for appraising urban open space's accessibility and usability for people with and without physical disabilities, the POE methodology could be adapted for similar urban contexts and was tested on the upgrade projects in Kyrenia Town Centre (KTC) for use by both disabled and non-disabled people. A survey and structured observations with behavioural mapping were used to test urban space user's preferences, needs and satisfaction levels regarding desirable qualities of urban centres: adaptability, safety, comfort, dignity, density, legibility and autonomy. Using representative samples, a survey (sample size = 383) was initially conducted and then systematic observations (sample size = 1620) were performed to obtain data necessary to complete behavioural maps. The survey findings showed that the KTC possesses physical and social barriers, which represent challenges for both disabled and non-disabled users. Therefore, post-occupancy evaluation could be beneficial for the development of inclusive design policy and should be a necessary component of design process in order for determining what is needed to create the most inclusive environment by including disabled segments of the community.
ImamKZ. Improving perceptual performance of urban space: New Cairo city center as a exemplar, www.isocarp.net (1997, accessed 17 January 2017).
2.
GehlJ.Life between buildings: using public space.
London:
Island Press, 1986.
3.
AzematiHRBagheriMHosseiniSBMalekiSN.An assessment of pedestrian networks in accessible neighbourhoods. Int J Architect Eng Plann2011;
21: 52–59.
4.
HansonJ. The inclusive city: delivering a more accessible urban environment through inclusive design. In: Proceedings of the RICS cobra international construction conference, York, UK, September 7–8 2004.
5.
GoodallB.Disability and inclusive access to the built environment. [Geographical paper no: 193.]London:
Department of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Reading, 2011.
6.
ImrieRFWellsPE.Disabilism, planning and the built environment. Government Policy1993;
11: 231–243.
7.
GoldsmithS.Designing for the disabled: the new paradigm.
Bath:
Architectural Press, 1997.
8.
HahnH.Disability and the urban environment: a perspective on Los Angeles. Environ Plann D1986;
4: 273–288.
9.
EvcilN.Designer's attitudes towards disabled people and the compliance of public open places: the case of Istanbul. Eur Plann Stud2010;
18: 1863–1879.
10.
NelsonKMP. The accessible and inclusive city, an academic paper submitted to the world urban forum, www.tdhstrategies (2005, accessed 11 September 2012).
11.
BeuthelLDaltonA.Post-occupancy evaluation: case study of public space. J Austral Plann2010;
38: 178–181.
12.
ZimmermanAMartinM.Post-occupancy evaluation: benefits and barriers. Build Res Inform2001;
29: 168–174.
Van derRSh SilversteinM.Dorms at Berkeley: an environmental analysis.
Irvine:
Center for Planning and Research, University of California, 1967.
18.
SanoffH.Techniques of evaluation for designers school of design.
Raleigh:
North Carolina State University, 1968.
19.
PreiserWFE.The evolution of post-occupancy evaluation: toward building performance and universal design evaluation. [Federal facilities council report, report no:145.]Washington:
National Academy Press, 2001.
20.
Mallory-HillSPreiserWFEWatsonC.Introduction to building performance evaluation: milestones in evolution.
Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2012.
21.
PreiserWFENassarJ.Assessing building performance: its evolution from post-occupancy evaluation. Int J Architect Res2008;
2: 84–99.
22.
AkadSÇubukçuE.Kentsel Açık Alanlarda Kullanım Sonrası Değerlendirme: İzmir Sahil Bantları Örneği Üzerine Ampirik Bir Araştırma. Planlama Dergisi2006; 3: 105–107
23.
BetchelRBChurcmanA.Handbook of environmental physchology.
New York:
John Wiley & Son Inc., 2002.
24.
VizioliSHTBrunaGCPeresPT. A study of pedestrian public ways in Sao Paulo City Centre, Brasil: focusing on wheelchair users. In: Proceedings of the 24th annual Southern African transport conference: transport challenges for 2010, Pretoria, South Africa, July 11–13 2005.
25.
BromleyRDFMatthewsDLThomasCJ.City centre accessibility for wheelchair users: the consumer perspective and planning implications. Cities2006;
24: 229–241.
26.
Natural Learning Initiative (NLI). Post-occupancy evaluation of Kids Together Park, Cary, North Caroline, Summary Report, http://projects.ncsu.edu, (2005, accessed 17 May 2016).
27.
VeitchJSalmonJBallK.Children's active free play in local neighborhoods; a behavioral mapping study. Health Educ Res2007;
23: 870–879.
28.
WhitehouseSVarniJWSeidMCooper-MarcusCEnsbergMJJacobsJRMehlenbeckRS.Evaluating a children's hospital garden environment: utilization and customer satisfaction. J Environ Psychol2001;
21: 301–304.
29.
HusseinHDaudNM.Examining the methods for investigating behavioral clues of special-schoolled children. Field Methods. 2014; 27: 1–16.
30.
ConnellBRSanfordJALewisD.Therapeutic effects of an outdoor activity program on nursing home residents with dementia. In: RodiekSSchwarzB (eds) Outdoor environments for people with dementia.
Philadelphia, USA:
Haworth Press, 2007.
31.
WoodcraftSBaconNCaistor-ArendarLHackettT. Design for social sustainability: a framework for creating and thriving new communities, www.social-life.co (2012, accessed 10 October 2019).
32.
GoodallB. Inclusive Environments and Pottinger G. Inclusive access, sustainability and the built environment, The College of Estate Management Occasional paper series, www.ucem.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/inclusive-access.pdf, (2010, accessed 13 April 2018).
33.
TabbarahMMihelicACrimminsEM.Disability: the demographics of physical functioning and home environments of older Americans. J Architect Plann Res2001;
18: 183–193.
34.
FergusonRV.Environmental design and quality of life. In: BrownRI (ed) Quality of life for people with disabilities: models, research and practice.
Cheltenham:
Stanley Thomes Ltd, 1997, pp. 56–70.
35.
MitchellLBurtonERamanSBlackmanTJenksMWilliamsK.Making the outside world dementia-friendly: design issues and considerations. Environ Plann B Plann Des2003;
30: 605–632.
36.
KitchinR.The researched opinions on research: disabled people and disability research. Disabil Soc2000;
15: 25–47.
37.
WindleyPGMcClureWR. and Designing with people: human behavior, culture and user participation. In: McClureWRBartuskaTJ (eds) The built environment: a collaborative inquiry into design and planning.
New Jersey:
John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2007, pp.45–56.
38.
StoryMFMuellerJLMaceRL.The universal design file: designing for people of all ages and abilities.
Raleigh:
Center for Universal Design, NC State University, 1998.
39.
PreiserWFE.Building performance assessment-from POE to BPE, a personal perspective. Architect Sci Rev2005;
48: 201–204.
40.
DankoMR. Designing affordable housing for adaptability: principles, practices and applications. Pitzer Senior Theses, Paper 35, http://scholarship.claremont.edu/pitzer_theses/35, (2013, accessed 25 March 2019).
41.
GümüşDÇ.The attitudes of responsible local agencies towards disability. PhD Thesis, METU, Ankara, 2008.
42.
LynchK.The image of city.
Oxford:
MIT Press, 1960.
43.
United Nations (UN), Accessibility for the disabled: a design manual of a barrier-free environment, www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/designm (accessed 22 January 2017).
44.
TSE 12576: 2012. Urban roads-structural preventive and sign design criteria on accessibility in sidewalks and pedestrian crossings, http://intweb.tse.org.tr/standard/standard/stand.apx (accessed 22 January 2017).
45.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards for accessible design, www.ada.gov/2010ADAstandards-index (2010, accessed 22 January 2017).
PreiserWFERabinowitzHZWhiteET.Post-occupancy evaluation.
New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1988.
50.
ÖzdamarK.Modern bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri.
Eskişehir:
Kaan Kitabevi, 2003.
51.
GantR.Pedestrianisation and disabled people: a study of personal mobility in Kingston Town Center. Disabil Soc1997;
12: 723–740.
52.
HeiserB.The Nature and causes of transport disability in Britain and how to overcome it. In: ZarbG (ed) Removing disabling barriers.
London:
Policy Studies Institute, 1997.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
