Search results

During the past decade, Danish policies and legislation have increasingly focused on accessibility, which, by virtue of adopting the UN Sustainable Development Goals, has spurred new demands for the expertise of Danish landscape architects. Surveys indicate as much as 27% of the Danish population have a physical disability. Therefore, landscape architectural firms play an important role in designing accessible, public and green spaces, which could reduce the number of people who experience disability in their everyday life arising from inaccessible designs. Despite this, peer-reviewed research has not attempted to qualitatively understand how landscape architects approach accessibility in their daily practice.

Based on a grounded theory analysis of 15 semi-structured qualitative interviews with randomly selected landscape architectural firms, this study aims to describe how landscape architectural firms approach and perceive accessibility.

The results of the study show a complex understanding of accessibility among practising landscape architects, with firms focusing on the role of Danish building regulations, the programming of accessibility and professional aesthetic dilemmas. Moreover, accessibility is perceived with some frustration as an element that takes valuable space from green areas due to clients' lack of willingness to provide resources for integrated solutions, landscape architects' own limited expertise and knowledge of integrated accessibility solutions and insufficient regulatory leeway.

As accessibility is a major element of the tasks within contemporary landscape architecture, graduates need additional training in accessibility, which, in turn, necessitates additional research into accessible design solutions.

The point of departure for this viewpoint paper is the current development in which landscape architects are working towards achieving the United Nations sustainable development goals and the associated cross-cutting pledge “Leave No One Behind”. The sustainable development goals 3 and 11 can be achieved through landscape projects that are inclusive and health promoting, and the authors argue that an evidence-based design process is needed to ensure that project designs deliver what they promise. However, most landscape architects are not trained in evidence-based design and are therefore unsure of what can be used as evidence. A further challenge is the lack of relevant and applicable research evidence for design processes.

The authors present a process model for evidence-based health design in landscape architecture as an overall framework on which the authors base their arguments. The model includes four topics of evidence: target group, human health, environment and use of nature. For each topic, the authors present their view on what may be considered as evidence and where it can be found or generated. The study view is supported by a detailed presentation of where and how evidence was found and generated in a design project for an accessible and health-promoting forest trail for people with mobility disabilities.

The authors suggest a broad definition of evidence, and that the design process should draw on evidence from relevant research and practice disciplines. Evidence can be found in multiple sources, for example, scientific articles, theoretical works and design guidelines. It can also be generated by landscape architects themselves, for example, through landscape analyses and stakeholder workshops. The evidence should guide and support the landscape architect and not dictate the design process.

The authors hope that the knowledge provided on the evidence-based health design process and on where to collect or how to generate evidence may inspire landscape architects in their future health design projects.

People with mobility disabilities face many health challenges and should potentially be able to benefit from visiting green spaces. The authors hope that the knowledge provided on the evidence-based health design process and on where to collect or how to generate evidence may inspire landscape architects in their future health design projects.