See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/345012233

IMPORTANCE OF BARRIER FREE DESIGN IN BUILT-ENVIRONMENT TO

EMPOWER PHYSICALLY DISABLED PERSONS: With special reference to the
quality of accessibility in public buildings in Western...

Article · October 2020

CITATIONS READS
0 2,130

2 authors:

Amila Badungodage Kopalapillai Amirthalingam

University of Canberra University of Colombo
3 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    19 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Economic impact of the Covid19 pandemic on Sri Lankan migrants in Qatar View project

Impact of COVID-19 on the Future Direction of Activity Based Workplace (ABW) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kopalapillai Amirthalingam on 30 October 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

2012, Sri Lanka Economic Journal, 13 (2): 58-73.

IMPORTANCE OF BARRIER FREE DESIGN IN BUILT-ENVIRONMENT TO

EMPOWER PHYSICALLY DISABLED PERSONS:
With special reference to the quality of accessibility in public buildings in Western Province

Amila S. N. Badungodage1
Kopalapillai Amirthalingam2

ABSTRACT
As the physically disabled population in the Western province is increasing at a higher rate, there
is a demanding need to address disability related socio-economic issues. Though disability-
related “Attitudinal” and “Institutional” barriers are analyzed commonly, “Accessibility” and
“Barrier Free Design (BFD)” for disabled persons which is the “Environmental” barrier is not
widely researched in Sri Lanka. This study identifies this research gap. The preferences of two
main samples, “Physically Disabled Persons” and “Facilitators of Barrier Free Design” were
used in this study to identify the importance of quality accessibility in built-environment on
empowering the disabled. The findings show that there is a positive relationship between freeing
built-environmental barriers (Barrier Free Designs) and the empowerment of physically disabled
persons. Results also reveal the unacceptable quality of accessibility in public buildings in the
Western Province that has affected “Individual Empowerment” which is reflected through lack
of “Sense of Control”, “Awareness” and “Participation” of disabled persons. This demands a
transfer of the national policies and professional practices from the “Medical” and “Charity”
approaches towards the “Social” and “Citizenship” form. It creates a context which offers
“Opportunity” for the persons with diverse physical conditions and abilities.

INTRODUCTION

“Disability” is a barrier which weakens the impact of strengths of an individual and a

community. “Dis-ability” becomes the obstacle in front of them in utilizing their “Abilities” and
exploring the “Opportunities”. Hence, addressing diverse implications of disability has become a
major concern in the millennium. A “Disabled Person” is an individual with impairment who
experiences disability. People with impairments are people with specific conditions such as an
injury, illness or congenital condition which can create temporary or permanent physiological or
psychological functional differences. (Wilkoff and Abed, 1994).

The “International Day of Persons with Disabilities” is the specific day dedicated to disabled
people all over the world, which falls on 3rd of December in each calendar year. In 2012 this was
based on the theme “Removing barriers to create an inclusive and accessible society for all”
(United Nations 2012). This presents the importance of an emerging concept in the world which
is “Barrier Free Access for the Disabled”. The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka has

1
Practitioner & Researcher – Interior Architecture
2
Senior Lecturer, Department of Economics, University of Colombo

1
approved the “Disabled Persons (Accessibility) Regulations, No.1 of 2006” passed through an
Extraordinary Gazette to the Parliament to ensure that this particular right of a disabled person is
protected. This shows the value and priority given to this emerging social objective in Sri Lanka
and the need to conduct scientific investigations on “Accessibility” in all types of buildings to
establish “Inclusiveness”.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Disability is a result of the barriers faced by an impaired person. As one of the three types
of barriers, “Environmental Barriers” are massive constraints for impaired persons in being
independent and to empower themselves. It‟s the responsibility of the other social segments to
remove these man-made built-environmental barriers in order to empower disabled persons and
provide them the “Opportunity” according to the “Social” and “Citizenship” models. Due to the
inter link between all the three disability barriers, namely “Environmental”, “Attitudinal” and
“Institutional”, removal of “Environmental Barriers” can be explained as a multidisciplinary
approach led by “Barrier Free Design”, which needs to be carried out systematically. (Figure 1)

2
“Empowerment” is the value creation of the barrier free design process.

The resulting “Individual Empowerment” is reflected from “Participation” and “Sense of

Control” of the disabled person. This approach will transform the image of a disabled person
from a “Problem” to a “Resource” (Figure 2)

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Disability is a widely discussed concept as it is an important minority group in the world. Many
International and local institutions including the United Nations Organization (UNO) has issued
different interpretations, explanations and concepts based on this topic.

Disability: Disability is the result of a negative interaction that takes place between a person
with an impairment and her/his social/physical environment. (Wilkoff and Abed, 1994). This has
been the strong perception of the “Social Model” which marked a new dimension in addressing
“Disability” and related issues (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Relationship between Impairment and Disability

Impairment Negative Interaction (Disability Barriers) Disability

Source: Survey Data

“Disability Barriers” can be categorized in to three main segments such as (1) Attitudinal
Barriers, (2) Institutional Barriers and (3) Environmental Barriers (Wapling, 2009, p 2).
“Attitudinal Barrier” is the negative view of disabled people and their needs by non-disabled
people. “Institutional Barrier” is explained as the systematic exclusion or neglect in social,

3
educational, legal, religious and political institutions. “Environmental Barrier” is explained as the
physical accessibility and functionality issues to buildings and built environment (Wapling,
2009, p 2). These three types of disability barriers are inter-related and linked with each other.
Each type of barrier has a significant impact and influence on other type. Also disabled people
can be classified in to two categories as “Physically” disabled and “Mentally” disabled. Physical
disabilities include disabilities in seeing, hearing/speaking, hands, legs and other disabilities
(Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2012). This research focuses on the physically
disabled category as it is strongly affected by the Built-Environmental (Architectural) barriers.
There are several models on disability which have been conceptualized to analyze its different
causes, implications, development and empowerment.

Charity Model: The charity model was the principal paradigm up to World War II and is the
philanthropic and charitable approach to disability that provided medical treatment, community
aid, and safekeeping for those described as being “less fortunate” and “defective.”
(Edmonds,2005). This thinking isolates the disabled person and considers him/her as less
important and less capable in mainstream social activities.

Medical Model: The Medical Model was the most widespread approach used in disability
development programs until the recent past. Under this model, a disabled person was considered
as an obstacle, preventing them from fully participating in society. The focus was to “cure” or
“improve” individuals with impairments in order to include or “fit” them in to society.
(Wapling,2005). This approach creates a passive and isolationist relationship between the
“patient” and the “professional” within a philosophy of a “helping” system. (Edmonds,2005).

Social Model: Due to the narrow approach of the above medical model, the anticipated
“Equality” was not achieved as it increased the isolation of disabled persons. In recent decades
the understanding of disability has moved away from the medical approach of providing
individual assistance to the social model of recognizing the physical, institutional and attitudinal
barriers that prevent people with impairments accessing and using mainstream services.(Stone,
1999).

4
Also the social model locates disability outside the individual and places it in an oppressive and
disabling environment. This model focuses on the community, society, and the role of
government in discriminating against and excluding people with impairments, rather than on the
individual and his or her “own” impairment, as expressed in the medical model.
(Edmonds,2005). Hence a disabled person is considered as an important part of the society
(Figure 4)

Citizenship (Empowerment) Model: The “Citizenship Model” is one of the latest models
applied around the world in achieving the target “Empowerment” for disabled people. The
citizenship model identifies the need to bridge the dichotomy of the medical and social models
by using an integrated development approach. The key is that all stakeholders have the
opportunity to contribute to and benefit from the reform of disability policies, education and
service at the community and institutional levels (WHO,2001).

Barrier Free Design: “Barrier Free Design” is a universal concept which removes obstacles in a
space or product accommodating people with different disabilities (Peterson,1998). It is a
development in the design aspect which is known as a part of the broader concept “Universal
Design”. The model below (Figure 5) shows the relationship between the Accessible Design,
Barrier Free Designs, Life Span Designs and Adaptable Designs in developing a Universal
Design Concept.

“Universal Design” refers to products and spaces useable by all people, to the greatest extent
possible, specifically without the need for adaptation or specialized design (Center for Universal
Design, 1997). “Adaptable Design” refers to flexible features that can be adjusted for the
personal needs of specific users in a short time by unskilled labor without involving structural or
finish material changes (Loureiro, 1997). “Accessible Design” refers to products and
environments meeting prescribed code requirements/standards for use by different people (Mace,
1990). “Lifespan Design” is the concept which allows people full function, regardless of changes
due to age or current physical abilities (Weltch, 1995). These definitions show the overlap of the

5
scope of each design aspect which shows the correlation between them (Figure 5). “Universal
Design” contains seven principles (Center for Universal Design, 1997). They are Equitable Use,
Flexibility in Use, Simple and Intuitive Use, Perceptible Information, Tolerance of Error, Low
Physical Effort and Size and Space for Approach and Use. Hence, Barrier Free Design also
contains the same characteristics as one in the “Universal Design” paradigm.

Empowerment: “Empowerment” is the process of the development of skills, knowledge and

abilities in the learner to enable them to control and develop their own learning, which refers to
increasing the spiritual, social, political, educational, gender or economic strength of individuals
and communities. (Harvey,2004). This can be explained using the models below.

Empowerment Outcomes Model: “Empowerment” is a multidisciplinary process which is the

anticipation of many social activities and programs. This is explained theoretically in different
perspectives. Empowerment refers to processes and outcomes relating to issues of control,
critical awareness, and participation (Perkins & Zimmerman, 1995). Empowerment integrates
perceptions of control, a proactive approach to life, and a critical understanding of the
sociopolitical environment (Perkins and Zimmerman, 1995). The theory explains different
empowerment outcome levels as “Individual”, “Organizational” and “Community” in which
“Participation” and “Control” are the central components.

Empowered individuals would be expected to feel a sense of control, understand their

sociopolitical environment, and become active in efforts to exert control. Empowered
organizations would be expected to have linkages with other organizations (e.g., coalitions),
effectively influence policy or service provisions, and mobilize resources in ways that would
further advance their missions. An empowered community would be expected to be responsive
to threats to quality of life, effectively mobilize collective action, and include organizational
coalitions to maintain citizen involvement and community living standards. (Perkins &
Zimmerman, 1995). This research is prominently focused on the individual level of analysis
because it is the foundation for empowerment at other levels of analysis. This provides the
context for “Psychological Empowerment” which has strong impact on empowerment across all
levels.

Psychological Empowerment: Psychological empowerment refers to empowerment at the

individual level of analysis (Zimmerman, 1990). Psychological empowerment which is a broader
concept includes a sense and motivation to control, knowledge and skills necessary to influence
one's sociopolitical environment, and participatory behaviors (Zimmerman, 1995). Zimmerman
has conceptualized the psychological empowerment including three components as
“Intrapersonal”, “Interactional”, and “Behavioral”. The “Intrapersonal” component refers
to how people think about themselves, and include domain-specific perceived control and self-
efficacy, motivation in controlling, and perceived competence. The “Interactional” component
refers to how people think about and relate to their social environment. This component involves
the transactions between people and environments that enable them to successfully master social
or political systems. The “Behavioral” component refers to the specific actions the individual
takes to exercise influence on the social and political environment through participation in
community organizations and activities (Zimmerman, 1995). These three components of

6
psychological empowerment are valuable measures in analyzing the empowerment of physically
disabled persons.

Equity in Planning Theory: “Equity in Planning” is one of the important concepts, which
focuses on the empowerment of the individual, organizational and community levels. “Equity”
has its roots in the theory of moral equality, which states that all people should be treated as
equals. At the social level, this translates into three core principles which should govern the
distribution of goods and services and the way in which opportunities are awarded. They are
Equal Life Chances, Equal Concern for People‟s Needs and Meritocracy. (Jones, 2009)

Hence, all the social groups which are being affected have to be included in the planning stage to
ensure equity. It will give equal life chances for the persons such as physically disabled persons
and ultimately leads towards opportunities and individual empowerment. Access and equity is
not only about “disabilities”, but is also concerned with removing barriers and opening up
opportunities for all people, irrespective of ability, ethnicity, gender, culture, language or age, to
participate in community life. (Wolver Hampton City Council, 2009). This shows the clear link
of the “Equity” factor with the effort to create an “Inclusive” society.

METHODOLOGY
The research is majorly a “Qualitative” analysis of the relationship between the “Barrier Free
Design” and “Empowerment” of physically disabled persons. Questionnaires, semi- structured
interviews, key informant interviews (KII) and building case studies on architectural barriers
were being conducted to derive qualitative finding. “Quantitative” findings are mainly derived
through the preferences collected from the two sample groups. Theories and models on
“Disability”, “Universal Design”, “Empowerment” and “Equity in Planning” were used to
analyze the importance of barrier free access in empowering physically disabled persons.

The selected samples for the research are (1) Facilitators of Barrier Free Access and (2)
Physically Disabled Persons who belong to the Western province. These two samples are the
main stake holders, whose involvement is highly important and highly valid in making decisions
on barrier free accessibility in built-environment. Under “Facilitators of Barrier Free Access”,
interviews were carried with architects, interior designers, project managers, facility managers
and engineers. As the availability of professionals who have knowledge, awareness and who
have an interest on barrier free accessibility is limited in the Western province, “Snowball
Sampling” technique is used in selecting the sample. The sample consisted of ten professionals
in each category.
Under “Physically Disabled Persons”, unstructured interviews were carried out with people who
have disabilities in sight, legs, hands and other. But the researcher has not included the persons
with listening/speaking disabilities in the sample because of two main reasons. The main reason
is the financial and time difficulty in using translators to interview them. The second is that
persons with listening/speaking disabilities are less affected by architectural barriers as they do
not have impairments in eyes, legs or hands. “Accidental Sampling” technique is used in
selecting the physically disabled adults who are above 18 years, among the persons who met in
the observed public building types in Western province. The sample consisted of ten in each
category. These case studies were focused on identifying the physical and psychological issues

7
that they are facing in accessing public buildings in the Western Province and its impact on their
empowerment.

To analyze the scale and diversity of different physical disabilities in Sri Lanka, researcher has
used the data of Census of Population and Housing up to 2001. Some of the other published and
unpublished sources provide data on disabled population after year 2001, which are not reliable
and sufficiently categorized in to different disability types. Hence, the data of 2001 census was
used as the latest official set of data because the results of Census of Population and Housing-
2011 are not yet released.

The Western Province was selected for the study as it is the metropolitan area and according to
statistics it represents the major proportion of the disabled population in the country. Also this is
a highly urban geographical area in which large numbers of public buildings are located in
comparison with the other Provinces. Meanwhile numbers of buildings that need a high
interaction of the general public are under construction at the moment. Hence, the attention was
given to “Removing” barriers of existing buildings and the “Prevention” of barriers in proposed
buildings in the Western Province.

Findings
Rise in Physical Disability in the Western Province

According to the Census of Population and Housing in 2001, the number of physically disabled
persons in the Western Province was 53,692. This represents 24.12% of the total number of
physically disabled persons in Sri Lanka which comprised of 18,700 from Colombo, 21,370 from
Gampaha and 13,622 from Kaluthara. In comparison this amount was 18,572 as per the Census
of Population and Housing in 1981. This comprised of 6604 from Colombo, 7715 from Gampaha
and 4253 from Kaluthara.

Analysis based on data from Census of Population and Housing in 2001 and 1981, shows that the
persons who have disabilities in their legs are the disability type which recorded the highest
number in the Western Province in both years (Figure 6).

8
 Figure 6:Increase in Physical Disability in Western Province1981-2001
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
1981 2001

Disabilities in Seeing Disabilities in Legs Disabilities in Arms

Disabilities in Hearing/Speaking Other Physical Disabilities

Source: Survey Data

According to the unofficial, unpublished data of the Western Provincial Council the disabled
population in the Western Province as at year 2012 was 120,000. But it does not provide
sufficient reliable information to categorize the total number in to different disabilities. This
drastic increase in disability in the Western Province shows the pressing need to address the
issues causing such disabilities and to create methods to overcome the specific barriers. Man-
made barriers in the built environment are one of those factors.

Cross sectional Analysis

This analysis is based on the data collected through interviews from physically disabled persons
and barrier free design facilitators. Firstly, the mostly visited public building type was analyzed
based on the data collected from physically disabled persons (Figure 7).

Figure 7: Mostly Visited Public Building Type in Western Province

7
6
No. of Respondents

5
4
3
2
1
0
Educational Banks & Offices Retail Shops Health Care

Disabilities in Seeing Disabilities in Legs Disabilities in Arms Other

9
 Source: Survey Data
According to figure 7, the building type which they mostly want to visit in their lives in the
Western Province is “Educational” buildings (40%). This includes primary, secondary, tertiary
education institutes and vocational training centers. The second highest visits are to “Health
Care” buildings (27.5%) and thirdly “Banks and Offices”. (20%) Therefore, barrier free access is
in high demand in these buildings which need to empower the physically disabled persons.

The Sri Lanka Foundation Institute (SLFI), Colombo is an example for an educational building
with barrier free facilities. This is a premier non-formal adult education center in Asia with a
specific focus on democratization through training and dissemination of knowledge. Since its
inception it has been a place accessible for disabled persons independently. There are many
disabled students who use this building for their education purposes. They fulfill all their
requirements independently similar to a potential student who enters this institute. Entering
pathways for different sections, corridors, barrier free halls, toilets and signage are done in a
manner through which a disabled student of any age can access the building and use it for their
purpose independently. (Figure 8) Due to the quality in accessibility this has been a main
conference location which has hosted many national and international events.

Figure 8: Barrier Free facilities in SLFI

Source: Survey Data

But still most public buildings in the Western Province are not accessible according to disabled
persons. According to figure 9, a majority of them (60%) had been dependent or depending on
someone else in order to access the building and fulfill their requirements. People who have
disabilities in their legs reported the highest number. This shows that the inaccessibility is mostly
experienced by the wheel chair users.

10
 Figure 9: Way of Accessing the Building
10

No . of Respondents 8

0
Independently Depended on Someone Else

Disabilities in Seeing Disabilities in Legs Disabilities in Arms Other

Source: Survey Data

Dr. Ajith C. S. Perera, Disability Rights Activist, Accessibility Advisor and Founder/CEO/
Secretary General of “IDIRIYA” foundation is a wheel chair user. “Barrier Free Accessibility is
the reduction of dependency and secured functionality among impaired people. Some of these
impairments are “Controllable”, while others are “Uncontrollable”. Each member of the
population falls under any of the above categories at least once during their lives” he explains.
The Quality of life of any person in a society is enhanced by the “Opportunities” offered by the
environment. Each person on the earth owns inherent physical features and qualities. Therefore,
all the people in the world are “Differently Abled” and have “Diverse Abilities”. Naturally there
are different levels in abilities for all the people. In a situation such as an accident, born
disability, aging and affected by a decease a person becomes “Impaired” and the gap in between
different abilities enhances. If this deviation is not addressed strongly it leads towards
“Disability”. Then the built environment needs to address this issue diplomatically to ensure
“Social Inclusion” he says.

The quality of accessibility in most used public buildings in the Western Province was assessed
from the point of disabled persons. The finding shows the lack of confidence they have on the
barrier free facilities in public buildings in the Western Province as the majority (62.5%) told the
facilities are poor. The highest numbers of complaints are recorded from the persons who have
disabilities in legs. This situation psychologically demotivates a disabled person. (Figure 10)

11
 Figure 10:Quality of Barrier Free Facilities in Most Useful Public
Buildings in Western Province
10
No. of Respondents
8

0
Excellent Averege Poor

Disabilities in Seeing Disabilities in Legs Disabilities in Arms Other

Source: Survey Data

Mrs. Suvineetha (60), who had worked for a government company, is a wheel chair user. She is a
widow. “I am really disappointed about the barrier free accessibility in most public buildings in
Colombo. I need to go to the post office once a month to collect my pension. I face many hard
situations in these places due to high steps, slippery floors, narrow corridors and high counters. I
cannot ask my daughter all the time to accompany me to help in those places as she is busy with
her family work. Also I cannot afford for a house maid as I am not that financially strong. Then I
have to depend on a person who is in the post office. This really demotivates me and let me
down psychologically” she says. She lacks intrapersonal and interactional empowerment. But
she appreciates the barrier free facilities available in some banks. “I visit my bank once or twice
a month to pay my loan installments. They have provided good facilities to disabled persons
though they are not perfectly done. There are very few places like that. I manage to fulfill my
requirements independently in those places. ” she says. This shows a positive relationship
between barrier free access and the empowerment of Mrs. Suvineetha. As the next step
researcher analyzes the importance given on disability access by these facilitators in their
professional practice.

Architect Shihani De Silva explains its importance. “It is as massively important as all other
design aspects considered in designing. Therefore, Barrier Free Design is a Professional duty of
an Architect. Non-availability of space may restrict such designing in most urban settings.
However, appropriate utilization of space to accommodate Barrier Free Design should be
incorporated at the very early stages of a project with reference to circulation and in the later
stages for detailing of elements in creating Barrier Free Design.”

This research focuses on “Prevention” and “Removing” of barriers in built environment. The
idea of “Prevention” of environmental barriers from the point of facilitators was assessed as
follows.

12
 Figure 11: Need to Prevent Disability Barriers in Proposed Buildings
10
No. of Respondents
8

0
Highly Important Important Less Important Not Important

Architect Interior Designers Engineers Project Managers Facility Managers

Source: Survey Data

The highest number of professionals (68%) recommends that “Prevention” of barriers is highly
important, 26% recommends as important and 6% recommends as less important according to
figure 11.

Mr. Dolapeella, Senior Architect of Colombo Municipal Council is working out the “Prevention”
of barriers in built environment within Colombo Municipal Council. “A proposed building has to
the gain initial approval from the UDA in the “Planning Approval Stage” for basic building
regulations, fire regulations, traffic impact assessment and accessibility standards. Also a
“Certificate of Conformity” is issued after a building is constructed to check whether there is any
deviation from the approved plan. Without these two certificates approval for occupation will not
be given to a building and no trade license will be provided. “Accessibility for Disabled” has
been considered an important part in “Planning Approval Stage” due to its ability to reduce
dependency and to improve inclusiveness” Mr. Dolapeella says.

“Removing” existing barriers in buildings is also considered as highly important from the Sri
Lankan government due to its high importance in improving inclusivity.

Mr. D.M.S.A. Niroshana, the Assistant Director of National Council & National Secretariat for
Persons with Disabilities is highly involved in making “Removal” decisions. “During 2012 we
have conducted many accessibility awareness campaigns and removed disability barriers in
public buildings in various parts of the country. Action has been taken to make all the Divisional
Secretaries, District Secretaries, Local Government offices, Secretaries of Ministries and Heads
of Departments aware of these regulations. In addition the inter-ministerial committee is in
operation for technical advice related to accessibility and for coordination activities.” he says.
“The Government has identified the importance of including disabled persons in main stream
activities. Through this action the expectation is to empower them and to reduce dependency
among disabled persons. Hence until 2014 the government has granted time to rectify the old
buildings, but total change is difficult and unfair to accept” he elaborates.

Hence legislations are an important factor in this target.

13
 Figure 12: Adequacy of Existing Legislations to adopt Barrier Free
Access
12
No of Respondents

10
8
6
4
2
0
Adequate Inadequate

Architect Interior Designers Engineers Project Managers Facility Managers

Source: Survey Data

According to figure 12, 92% of the sample thinks that the existing regulations are adequate to
establish barrier free access.

Mr. Dilusha Gunasena who is a Facility Manager explains this with evidence. “National Policy
on Disability for Sri Lanka is one of the main policy documents on disability rights which mainly
focus on “Accessibility for Disabled”. It elaborates the need to do so and how and who should
apply these. Further the “Protection of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, No. 28 of 1996”
provides the legislative influence in protecting disability rights. A new dimension to this legal
aspect is the “Disabled Persons (Accessibility) Regulations, No.1 of 2006” act. This act provides
a total coverage over the architectural and design aspects in the built environment in achieving
an accessible and barrier free built environment for disabled persons”. According to him the
management of a particular building should be responsible in implementing these standards and
create a disable friendly culture. These comments from different perspectives show the strong
need of institutional and attitudinal factors in implementing barrier free designs.

CEI Plastics Ltd, which is situated in Piliyandala is a premier manufacturer in plastic molded
products for industrial use and is a classic example for a disable friendly culture. It is named as a
“Model Employer in Sri Lanka” by the International Labor Organization (ILO) due to its
pioneering role in employing the disabled in Sri Lanka. The mission of CEI Plastics Ltd is to
support and promote differently abled persons in the community. At present the total number of
employees in the factory are 250 and 50 out of this work force have different impairments. This
shows that proportionately 20% of the total workforce has some kind of impairment.
The management of CEI Plastics Ltd has implemented a few accessibility provisions to enable
the physically impaired employees. These are the construction of ramps to replace steps,
accessible toilets, lines on pathways and accessible corridors/pathways for wheel chair users in
the factory. Other than that all the impaired persons are employed in the ground floor of the
production plant. This has ensured “Individual Empowerment”. This strongly leads towards the
intrapersonal, interactional and behavioral empowerment of disabled persons. (Figure 13)

14
 Figure 13: Empowered youth at CEI

Source: Survey Data

There are two main debates on barrier free design among the professionals. These are the impact
of the disability access provisions on the aesthetics of the building and the cost of removing
disability barriers. These can be reasons for different levels of usage in their professional
practices. Hence firstly, the impact of the barrier free design provisions on the aesthetics of a
building is analyzed based on the ideas of professionals.

Figure 14: Impact of Barrier Free Design on Aesthetics

10

8
No. of Respondents

0
Highly Disturb Marginally Disturb Depends on the Designer
Ability

Architect Interior Designers Engineers Project Managers Facility Managers

Source: Survey Data

According to figure 14, 82% of the sample thinks that the impact depends on the skill of the
designer while 18% complains it has a marginal or high disturbance to the beauty.

Architect Kasun Perera answered this question. “According to my view it is a mode of setting, a
situation of equity in a built environment, in a use of product or in a lifestyle. It is a vital aspect
in the field of design as designers are there to create “user friendly” environments or products.
Hence the fact that people with disabilities are in the category of „User‟, is cannot be forgotten.
Including these in the design process without harming its beauty is the skill of the designer.”

15
Meanwhile there are professionals who think this as a disturbance to the beauty of a spatial
design.

The second debate on accessibility is the cost of removing disability barriers.

Figure 15: Importance of the Cost of Removing Disability Barriers

8
7
No. of Respondents

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Highly Important Less Important Not Important

Architect Interior Designers Engineers Project Managers Facility Managers

Source: Survey Data

According to figure 15, 54% of the sample thinks that the cost of removing accessibility barriers
is a highly important factor and Facility Managers recorded the highest number of complains in
this category.

Mr. Viraj Weerasooriya who is an engineer explains this as a social need. “It is not about being
justifiable in terms of its cost as I consider it is essential to provide barrier free access in public
buildings/ interiors. It is more of a social need rather than a cost benefit. Hence it is a highly
important social need and the cost incurred on this is highly justifiable. On the other hand if the
designer can include barrier free design from the initial stage, the cost incurred specifically on
this will be considerably less. You should not think twice to provide these facilities due to this
cost factor, as the empowered disabled persons can contribute towards higher income
generation”

These data provide different views and the analysis shows critical findings which are valuable in
concluding and recommending in order empowering the physically disabled persons through
barrier free design. Especially the main two perspectives, which are physically disabled persons
and facilitator groups, show vital implications of barrier free design and its importance in
empowering physically disabled persons. These findings reveal a positive relationship between
barrier free designs and empowerment of physically disabled persons.

CONCLUSION
According to the findings, the importance of barrier free access in built-environment on
empowerment is strongly highlighted by these physically disabled persons and that is accepted
by the facilitators and policy makers as well. These stake holder parties agree on the fact that

16
currently barrier free access is not properly practiced in public buildings in Western province,
hence unacceptable and it has affected the empowerment of physically disabled persons
considerably. Also the importance of Barrier Free Design, to empower them is strongly
elaborated. This is reflected by the physical and psychological empowerment of a physically
disabled person done by quality access. Participation and sense of control has improved and
ultimately a disabled person can become a productive resource to the society. In conclusion,
based on these research findings, “Barrier Free Design” in built-environment proves a positive
relationship with empowerment of physically disabled persons.

Especially the persons with disabilities in their legs were the highest number in Western
Province among all the disability types. Also according to the findings they are the largest group
that is dependent on accessing public buildings and who complains that the quality of
accessibility is poor in the Western Province. Hence this factor has to be considered and greater
attention should be paid on creating proper ramps, hand railings, suitable floor finishes and other
barrier free techniques which will empower the persons with disabilities in legs in accessing
public buildings. Also most disability development programs in the country still focus on
rehabilitating, donating, medicating and making the disabled persons passive receivers. Still the
empowerment programs view the disabled person from the “Charity” and “Medical”
perspectives which do not result in “Empowerment”.

The Sri Lankan government should strengthen the data base on disabled persons which is a huge
barrier at the moment in planning for them. “Equity in Planning” is a critical need in achieving
the empowerment goals for disabled persons through Barrier Free Design. “Accessibility Audit”
is a major strategy lacking in the current building regulation system. Also taking the involvement
of physically disabled persons in the Western Province in this designing, educating, investigation
and rectifying process is vital as they are the main “user” group of this cultural transfer. Instead
of the traditional approaches, national programs should strongly transfer towards the “Social”
perspective that focuses on “Inclusiveness” and the “Citizenship” perspective that ensures
empowerment.

Empowerment of physically disabled persons through barrier free accessibility should be

regularly practiced as it improves the quality and quantity of productive individuals in the
country. Hence the value system of Western province has to be changed accordingly and
planning process should be included in the development agendas as the addition of empowered
disabled persons strengthens the main stream development activities.

REFERENCES

Cassim, J. and Lee, Y. (2009) How the Inclusive Design Process Enables Social Inclusion.
[Online]. Available from:
http://www.academia.edu/3409410/How_the_inclusive_design_process_enables_social_i
nclusion. [Accessed: 25/01/2013].
Center for Universal Design. (1997) The principles of Universal design. Center for Universal
Design, North Carolina State Universality

17
Deardorff, C. J. and Birdsong, C. (2003) Universal Design: Clarifying a Common Vocabulary.
New York
Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (2006) Protection of the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, No. 28 of 1996 (2006) Colombo: Published by Authority
Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka (2012) Department of Census and Statistics-Sri
Lanka [Online] Available from: http://www.statistics.gov.lk/[Accessed: 10th November
2012].
Edmonds, J. L. (2005) Disabled People and Development Review. Poverty and Social
Development Papers, 12 (5), pp.1-104
Falta, P. L. (1977) Attitudinal Barriers in Environmental Design for the Disabled. Report
Workshop: Attitudinal barriers and the Physically Disabled. p. 33-37
Falta, P. L. (1977) The Disabled Person as the User: Implications of Barrier Free Design on
Safety. Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference of Canada Safety Council. p. 40-48
Fougeyrollas, P., Gray D.B. (1998) ICIDH, handicap and environmental factors and social
change: The importance of technology. In DB Gray, LA Quatrano, and ML Lieberman
(Eds.), Using, designing and assessing assistive technology. Baltimore: Brookes
Publishing, p 13-28.
Harvey, L. (2004) Analytic Quality Glossary, Quality Research International, [Online] Available
from: http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/ [Accessed 29 June 2012].
Holmes-Siedle, J. (1994) Design for Disability: Creating universal access. The Architect’s
Journal, 199, pp. 35-41
Imrie, R. (1996) Inclusive Design: designing and developing accessible environments, London :
Spon Press
Jones, H. (2009) Equity in Development: Why It Is Important and How to Achieve It. Working
Paper 311, ODI, London.
Loureiro, M.F.F. (1997) Universal Design: Interior design educators’ attitudes and teaching
practices. Unpublished Master‟s thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
Marce, R. (1990) Definitions; Accessible, adaptable and universal design. Raleigh NC: Center
for Universal Design, North Carolina State University, Fact sheet number 6
Metts, L. (2000) Disability Issues, Trends and Recommendations for The World Bank.
Washington, D.C.
Ministry of Social Services and Social Welfare (2009) Healthy Ageing. Colombo
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2003). Planning and Access for Disabled People: A Good
Practice Guide. ODPM. New York
Perkins, D. D., and Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Empowerment theory: Research and
applications. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 569-579.
Peterson, M.J. (1998) Universal Kitchen and Bathroom Planning: Design that Adopts to People.
New York: McGraw-Hill
Rimmer, J.A. and Rowland, J. L. (2008) Physical activity for youth with disabilities: A critical
need in an underserved population. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 11(2), pp.141–
148
Stone, E. (1999) Disability and Development. Leeds: The Disability Press
Stone, E. (ed.) 1999: Disability and Development: Learning from action and research on
disability in the majority world. Leeds: The Disability Press, pp. 1–18.
United Nations (2012) United Nations Enable [Online] Available from:
http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=111[Accessed: 19th November 2012].

18
 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2012). Disability at a
Glance 2012- Strengthening the evidence base in Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok : United
nations Publications
Wapling, L. (2009) Mainstream Disability in to the MDG Targets [Online]. Available from:
http://europafrica.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/disability-discussion-paper-jegs-24-27th-
march-2009.pdf [Accessed: 15/12/2012].
Welch, P. (1995) Strategies for teaching universal design. Boston, MA: Adaptive Environments
Center
Wilkoff, W. L., & Abed, L. W. (1994) Practicing Universal Design: An interpretation of the
ADA. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold
Wolver Hampton City Council (2009) Access and Facilities for Disabled People: Creating an
inclusive built environment. Wolver Hampton City Council
World Health Organization and The World Bank. (2011) World Report on Disability. Malta:
WHO Press
World Health Organization (2001) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and
Health (ICF), WHO, Geneva
Zimmerman, M. A. (1990) Taking aim on empowerment research: On the distinction between
psychological and individual conceptions. American Journal of Community Psychology,
18, pp. 169-177.
Zimmerman, M. A. (1995) Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 23, pp. 581-599.
Zimmerman, M. and Warschausky, S. (1998) Empowerment Theory for Rehabilitation Research:
Conceptual and Methodological Issues. Rehabilitation Psychology, 43 (1), pp. 3-16

19

View publication stats