ASSESSING THE SITE STRUCTURE

AND ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

FOR PATHWAYS AND ENTRANCES
ON UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES

CYPRUS INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF FINE ART DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURE

2022-2023 SEMESTER

COURSE
Introduction to Architectural Research

INSTRUCTOR
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Payam MAHASTI SHOTORBANI

DATE \@ "MMMM d" \* MERGEFORMAT

January 10, 2024

By: Yusuf Jatau. 22215348

1
 CYPRUS INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF FINE ART DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURE

2023-2024 SEMESTER

COURSE
Introduction to Architectural Research

INSTRUCTOR
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Payam MAHASTI SHOTORBANI

TOPIC
ASSESSING THE SITE STRUCTURE AND ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS FOR
PATHWAYS AND ENTRANCES ON UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES

Yusuf Stephen Jatau

22215348

2
Table of Contents
Abstract
1. Introduction
1.1. Research statement
1.2. Aim
1.3. Objectives
1.4. Research question
1.5. Research methodology
a. Literature review
b. Site assessment and survey
c. Accessibility compliance evaluation
d. Data analysis
e. Comparative studies
f. Recommendations and strategies
g. Ethical considerations
2. Literature review
2.1 Elements of site structure
2.1.1 Topography
2.1.2 Access and circulation
2.1.3 Land use and zoning
2.1.4 Vegetation and landscaping
2.1.5 Utilities and infrastructure
2.1.6 Built structure
2.1.7 Environmental considerations
2.1.8 Boundaries and enclosures
2.1.9 Safety regulations
2.1.10 Aesthetics and identity
2.2 Accessibility standards
2.2.1 Building codes and regulations
2.2.2 Universal design principles
2.2.3 Wayfinding and circulation
2.2.4 Adaptive technology integration

3
 2.2.5 Environmental consideration
2.2.6 Inclusive spaces
2.2.7 Consultation with stakeholders
3 Case study
3.1 Site assessment
3.2 Pathways’ layout conditions
3.3 Entrances and doorways
3.4 Functional accessibility features
3.5 Compliance with universal design principles
4 Analysis
4.1 Standards
4.2 Pathway and accessibility
4.3 Entrances and doorways
4.4 Universal design principles
4.5 Problems observed
4.6 Comparison to standards
4.6.1 Pathways
4.6.2 Entrances
4.6.3 Standards
5 Discussion of findings at CIU
6 Practical recommendations and Accessibility within university campuses
6.1 Pathway enhancements
6.2 Entrance accessibility
6.3 Assistive technology
6.4 Inclusivity initiatives
6.5 Ongoing evaluation and improvements
7 Conclusion
References

4
Assessing the Site Structure and Accessibility Standards for Pathways and Entrances on
University Campuses

ABSTRACT
Campuses should be designed to ensure universal accessibility in order to create inclusive
environments that suit the diverse needs of users. This comprehensive review and analysis provide an
in-depth insight into the intricate relationship between accessibility standards and site structure as it
pertains to university campuses. The research undertakes a multifaceted exploration, encompassing
two major dimensions; Site Structure Analysis and Accessibility Standards. In addition, the dimensions
are clarified by some sub-themes, which are supported by some scholarly references and established
literature in the field. The first dimension entitled “Site Structure Analysis” looks into the different
components that make up its physical framework of campus design. It critically considers factors like
topography, access and circulation plan; land use zoning, vegetation trends are revealed as they relate
with the site structure. Also utilities and infrastructure norms shall be put in place to design a balanced
result. The research reveals that there is an inherent linkage between physical terrain and functional
characteristics necessary for a thoroughly integrated,” easy-to-navigate campus setting.” Accessibility
Standards discuss guidelines, rules and principles aimed at providing barrier-free spaces for people
with various disabilities. Regulatory bodies such as the United States Access Board have set forth key
guidelines that are explored in this research, alongside universal design principles, wayfinding and
circulation strategies, adaptive technology integration and environmental considerations. The creation
of inclusive spaces is also discussed. It furthermore underlines the need for stakeholder consultation
during design process to ensure universal inclusivity. This research combines these two dimensions in
order to uncover the dynamics of their interaction in campus design paradigms. By analyzing a vast
array of cornerstone literature and strong sources such as Imrie &Hall, (2001), Gillies&Dupuis, (2013),
in addition to Clarkson et al.,
Keywords: Accessibility standards, Site structure, Campus design, Universal design principles,
Regulatory guidelines, Accessibility compliance.

5
 1. INTRODUCTION

In the busy environment of academia, university campuses represent dynamic hubs where knowledge
and ideas collide with colorful communities. These vast areas comprise far more than just built
structures they represent dynamic spaces where learning, cooperation and interpersonal interactions
thrive. Beyond the academic tapestry lies an unspoken challenge – finding a way to make educational
precincts inclusive and accessible, geared at addressing different needs of all those negotiating their
pathways and entrances along these curbs.

Realizing the critical role of these areas in creating an atmosphere that is both inclusive and accessible,
strategic planning as well as a carefully conceived design along with compliance to strict accessibility
principles become important elements which shape what it means at large for visitors within university
campuses. The way the pathways and entrances are arranged or organized also affects physical
accessibility and also social integration, where members of campus community interact with each
other.

The journey towards being accessible and inclusive is first traversed through the delicate interplay
between site development structures that have to careful employ principles of joining built form with
natural terrain and social spirit within a campus. The effective integration of site structures means a
clear understanding of the campus layout, topography and how to find this delicate balance between
built areas and open spaces. When these elements are in a harmonious manner, it creates a more
convenient environment.

Preparedness to adhere to set accessibility standards comes out as one of the key methods used in
establishing guidelines with regard to pathways and entrances that were designed, constructed and
maintained. The United States Access Board's (2024) Chapter 4: The entrances, Doors and Gates act
like a guiding star that defines strict rules which describe the technical details of accessibility
criterions. Drawing from several academic sources such as Gillies and Dupuis (2013), Imrie and Hall
(2001), Clarkson et al.

6
In the midst of this effort lies a complex network of routes that run throughout at campus from one
building to another, with open spaces as well as communal areas. Pathways, crafted with accuracy and
ease of use in mind are lifelines to the campus as they facilitate easy transport for every individual.
These pathways are shaped into conduits of inclusivity through a synthesis between topographical
considerations, universal design principles and the inclusion of assistive technologies that ensures
unimpeded access possible for all.

As counterparts to these paths entrances serve as portals of knowledge, society and involvement. The
design and the construction of entrances hold a responsibility to welcome all individuals’ regardless
physical or cognitive abilities. Universities would be a welcoming and accessible institution by
including features such as automatic doors, ramps, signs that are easy to read and maneuvering spaces
for the physically impaired.

Accessibility is not merely about physical infrastructure but should encompass a comprehensive
strategy that factors in ecological sustainability, comfortable spaces and adherence to the law.
Incorporating environmental concerns, based in sustainability and eco-awareness principals, interlink
with the design process eliciting a harmonious blend that not only ensures accessibility but also
enhances aesthetic appeal by merging seamlessly into their natural surroundings. Also, the involvement
of stakeholders and communities in a project during design and planning reduces conflicts if attention
is on what the community member’s desire.

Overall, the process of developing disabled-friendly routes and entrances within university campuses is
a journey filled with various dimensions. The tapestry of inclusivity and accessibility involves site
structures, regulatory compliance, and universal design principles stakeholder engagement. By
adopting these elements, universities can create an atmosphere where pathways and entrances turns
into channels that go beyond physical accessibility. Through this environment the feeling of
belongingness, community values as well knowledge sharing occur among all persons located in
different sectors within a rich educational environment.

1.1 Research Statement

7
The research is an attempt to understand and describe the complicated ties between site structures,
accessibility standards as well as the design of pathways and entrances in university campuses. This
paper seeks to explore the multi-faceted aspects of these elements pondering their synergy,
effectiveness and relevance in creating diverse and easy environments for higher education institutions.

This research intends to evaluate the connection of site structures with established access standards and
principles in two ways, namely pathways and entrances within university campuses. It aspires to
identify the essential factors and design aspects that are responsible for generating conditions
accommodating different physical and cognitive requirements of people.

With a view to providing insights into the subtle intricacies of these components, the research aims at
combining in-depth site planning principles with stringent accessibility standards as well as inclusive
design strategies. It aims at outlining the key role that site structures play in setting up environments of
inclusiveness and study how adherence to accessibility standards impact upon pathways and entrances
design, construction, and operation across university campuses.

The extent of scholarly references, legal regulations regarding site planning, accessibility standards and
multiple principles related to inclusive design will be the scope covered by this research. It draws on
empirical evidence, case studies and expert perspective in seeking to critically analyze the
effectiveness of these principles as well give insights into their implementation and challenges using
campus settings.

Additionally, the research aims to provide actionable recommendations and innovative solutions based
on a thorough understanding of site structures as well as accessibility standards. Its objective is to give
practical knowledge that can be used by university planners, architects and stakeholders in the creation
of environments which promote inclusivity, equitable accessibility and sense of belonging among all
members of a campus community.

Basically, this research seeks to enrich the debate about inclusive campus design by untangling the
various threads of site configurations, accessibility requirements and their cumulative effect on
pathways and entrances within university campuses. Through a thorough analysis, it aims to establish

8
avenues for designing conditions that go beyond physical limitations and foster an inclusive,
interactive and supportive teaching environment in higher education for everyone.

1.2 Aim:
The objective of this research is to study and evaluate the integration of site structures as well as
compliance concerning pathways – entrances in university campuses. That includes investigating the
ways in which design, layout and implementation of site structures contribute to developing inclusive
environments and assessing how these are related with well-known accessibility standards.

1.3 Objectives:
To assess the ways in which site structures determine pathways and entrances accessibility, as well as
inclusivity within university campuses.
To evaluate whether current accessibility standards and principles are adequately guiding the design
and functionality of pathways a
Identify and analyze the main challenges, best practices and opportunities related to site structures
merging with accessibility standards within higher education facilities.
To put forth legitimate recommendations and strategies which will improve the design as well as create
more efficient pathways that allow for easy entry of all individuals within university campuses.

1.4 Research Questions:

What is the role of site structures in ensuring that pathways and entrances on university campuses are
accessible and inclusive?
What are the Current standards and principles of the design?
What are the key issues and opportunities in aligning site structures within university campuses with
accessible standards that have been established?
How can site structures be incorporated with accessibility standards in order to foster more inclusive
environments within university campuses?

1.5 Research Methodology

9
An investigative research methodology specifically concerned with the investigation of site structures
integration and adherence to accessibility standards concerning pathways in addition to entrances
within university campuses will involve quantitative methods incorporation aiming at a comprehensive
analysis of various aspects of campus design and accessibility.

a. Literature Review
An in-depth literature review that will help to uncover existing knowledge, theories and principles
related to site structures, accessibility standards are they relate pathways as well as entrances. This
phase included scanning through academic papers, books, journals and relevant reports from reliable
sources to understand theoretical principles and best practices targeted at the problem in question.

b. Site Assessments and Surveys:

Conducting evaluations and surveys in person on Case study campus to collect empirical data. This
implies analyzing the architectural layout, infrastructure of pathways and entrances. Conducting
surveys and interviews with stakeholders, such as students, faculty members, staff representatives of
disability service representative would give information about user experiences in specific situations
related to accessibility issues he faced.

c. Accessibility Compliance Evaluation:

This refers to evaluations of adherence to certain specific criteria which include width, slope, signage,
lighting and tactile paving etcetera all with a view towards accessibility standards.

d. Data Analysis:
Employ quantitative data analysis techniques. Quantitative analysis refers to the numerical assessment
of levels of compliance, statistical measurement values for pathway widths and slopes etc.

e. Comparative Studies and Case Analyses:

Conducting comparative studies between universal design standards and the case study in order to
identify differences in site structures, adherence with accessibility standards, and variances on
inclusivity Analyzing cases will provide valuable insights into good strategies and potential areas for
improvement.

10
 f. Recommendations and Strategies:
As a result of the outcomes, recommendations and frameworks to improve how paths and entrances in
university campuses are designed with an intent of amplifying inclusion as well accessibility. These
recommendations will combine the findings from this research in order to fill gaps observed and
provide feasible solutions.

g. Ethical Considerations:
Ensuring adherence to ethical standards in every step of the research such as permission for site
assessment and surveys, following codes of ethics during data collection and analysis.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Increasing the availability of pathways and entrances throughout university campuses is a key area of
emphasis in both academic research and legislative bills. 2024 United States Access Board provides
detailed guidelines covering all public entrances and highlighting the necessity of a minimum
accessibility rating scale to 60%, regulating these requirements for both new constructions, as well as
modifications made towards existing facilities. These guidelines carefully outline technical
requirements such as entrances, doors, gates, pathways and the use of two-way communication
systems in view to promote inclusion within learning environments.

A substantial factor in architectural designs is site structure; it represents the balance between built
environments and their settings. The analysis and significance of its elements is necessary to design
harmonious and functional architectural spaces.

Thomas Russ’ Site Planning and Design Handbook offers a comprehensive guide to site planning with
an emphasis on sustainability integration. This resource outlines various aspects covered in site data
analysis, community expectations and ecological considerations including storm water management to
underscore the holistic nature of structure within a certain site.

In , Strom and Nathan’s Site Engineering for Landscape Architects addresses the practical site
engineering issues, discussing grading, drainage and roads alignment. This resource highlights the

11
central importance of topography, circulation and infrastructure in determining site structures for
functionality and accessibility.

In “Site Matters: Design Concepts, Histories, and Strategies” edited by Burns and Kahn explore the
complex relationship between site and architecture through case studies of buildings from different
eras. This book bridges theory with practice of site structure by offering historical overviews and
modern approaches to design while deepening the discussion on how sites are constructed.
The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research (JAPR) acts as a multidisciplinary platform
discussing research findings and innovative practices. This journal provides different insights from
professionals and scholars, adding to one’s grasp of the changing perspectives on site structure.

Arch2O article “The Importance of Site Analysis in Designing” gives much importance to site analysis
as an essential aspect while designing. This resource emphasizes the need for in-depth site evaluation
as a basis of shaping design decisions.

“Understanding Site Analysis: In Arch Daily, “An Introduction to Architectural Design” by Waldrep
provides fundamental knowledge for architects-to-be. This resource probably illuminates the process
of decision-making in architecture by encompassing features related to site elements that inform design
strategies.

2.1 Elements of Site Structure

2.1.1 Topography
Site designs are strongly affected by the natural land contours. Russ’s “Site Planning and Design
Handbook” outlines topography for effective stormwater management and earthwork techniques,
which ensure peaceful coexistence of structures within the landscape.

2.1.2 Access and Circulation

Strom and Nathan’s “Site Engineering for Landscape Architects” point out that accessibility and
circulation planning are crucial to the design of a functional space where movement can be made in a
seamless manner within or around any area. Site structuring includes proper road alignments,
pedestrian walkways and traffic management strategies.

12
2.1.3 Land Use Zoning
Burns and Kahn’s “Site Matters” explores the impact of zoning laws on land use. They outline the
influence of adherence to zoning codes on the spatial arrangement and functionality of sites defining
zones for certain purposes.

2.1.4 Vegetation and Landscaping

Russ’s same resource points out that landscaping and vegetation should be incorporated into the site
design. It outlines principles of landscape ecology with emphasis on historic landscapes preservation
and incorporating green areas within sites for aesthetic and environmental reasons.

2.1.5 Utilities and Infrastructure

Site development is the process of incorporating necessary utilities and infrastructure. Strom and
Nathan emphasize the need for drainage systems, sewage disposal methods as well as other utilities
that make a site functional.

2.1.6 Built Structures

Burns and Kahn focus on the integration of site structures and architecture. This is discussed in the
way that built structures should harmonize with a site’s characteristics; and how they can integrate
esthetically, or functionally within an environment.

2.1.7 Environmental Considerations

Environmental sustainability is a crucial issue. Russ and Burns put forward the importance of low-
impact stormwater management, brownfield redevelopment as well as ecological preservation in site
planning principles to coincide with environmental ideals.

2.1.8 Boundaries and Enclosures

The edges and surrounding areas of the site are defined by boundaries, enclosures JAPR is frequently
linked to articles on boundary design, focusing the psychological and functional aspects of site
enclosures as well as their influence on users’ sensations.

2.1.9 Safety and Regulations

13
Strom and Nathan highlight the need to adhere strictly to safety standards and regulations in site
engineering.

2.1.10 Aesthetics and Identity

Both Burns and Kahn in Waldrep Arch Daily articles mention the aesthetic feature and identity issues
of site design. They discuss in terms of how site elements, configurations and materials contribute to a
sense of place meaning identity or character within the constructed landscape.

These elements altogether determine the texture of site structure, pointing out that creating a highest
quality and visually pleasing environment is based on multiple aspects simultaneously.

2.2 Accessibility Standards

2.2.1 Building Codes and Regulations

The United States Access Board (2024) provides a detailed description of regulatory standards,
especially in Chapter 5 dedicated to Entrances, Doors and Gates. These regulations outline technical
standards that guarantee accessibility for persons with disabilities. Imrie and Hall 2001 assert that
inclusive design promotes accessible environments followed by building codes and regulations.

2.2.2 Universal Design Principles

Gillies and Dupuis (2013) suggest a model of involving participatory action research in promoting
inclusive campus cultures. They support the use of universal design principles, and relate to NCSU’s
Universal Design Principles (1997), which focus on designing products as well as environments usable
by everyone in some way.

2.2.3 Wayfinding and Circulation

Heylighen, Michiels, & Van Huffel 8 for example in order to create universal university buildings the
wayfinding and circulation should be improved. Clarkson et al. (2003) specify inclusive design for the
whole population, including successful wayfinding strategies.

14
2.2.4 Adaptive Technology Integration
2015, Dinç Uyaroğlu discusses performance evaluation and design recommendations for equitable
access in outdoor university campus settings wherein adaptive technology integration is also taken into
account.

2.2.5 Environmental Considerations

Farrington and Farrington (2005) analyze rural accessibility, social inclusion, as well as references to
social justice in the environmental context with regard to ensuring fair access for people living with
disabilities.

2.2.6 Inclusive Spaces

The principles of inclusive design sought by CABE (2006) consist in designing to create spaces for all
within the built environment; this can be linked with Imrie’s movement from universal onwards,
towards inclusiveness – focusing more about including designs beyond legal requirements.

2.2.7 Consultation with Stakeholders

Francis (1989) provides insights into the dimension of quality in public-space related to control, where
he indicates that involving stakeholders such as people with disabilities during design is an essential
consideration towards ensuring their concerns are catered for.

The Americans with Disabilities Act / ADA is one of the corner stones in legislation frameworks where
accessibility to pathways, entrances and facilities within a campus are established requirements Imrie
& Hall, 2001 The combination of ADA regulations and the philosophy promoted by Commission for
Architecture and Built Environment (CABE), 2006 creates a solid base for planners, architects in
promoting universally accessible campus environments.

Scholarly queries into numerous facets of pathways’ gradient, width and the presence of necessary
elements like handrails Clarkson et al., 2003 demonstrate how vital designing these features are
particularly for students with Disabilities (SWDs). Notably, designs of entranceways greatly impact a
campuses ability to advocate for the inclusion of features like automatic doors ramps and clear signage
that play critical roles in ensuring equal entry opportunities even by individuals struggling with
mobility disorders (NCSU 1997; Bednar 1975).

15
Beyond the physicality of structures, auxiliary components like lighting and signage take centre stage
in ensuring navigability within campus boundaries. Illumination is very important, especially in
pathways and near the entrance for those who are visually impaired to navigate campus terrain
(Farrington & Farrington 2005). Moreover, it embraces the incorporation of assistive technologies –
from audio guidance systems to tactile paths – as means for improving such accessibility Dinç
Uyaroğlu2015.

However, constant obstacles remain in the purported invention of fortifying accessibility standards due
to difficulties regarding retrofitting older structures as well as financial limitations and lacks among
stakeholders (Francis 1989). Future research interventions may shift towards creative designs that
integrate user responses and utilize technological progresses so as to address these challenges
successfully.

Pathways and entrances in university campuses cast strong influence towards creating an inclusive
atmosphere. As a result, compliance with set standards and embracing user-centered design in this case
are crucial components that shape campuses into fully inclusive spaces.

3. Case Study - Cyprus International University (CIU)

Cyprus International University CIU is representative of the worldwide quest for education,
establishing a multicultural community in its campus areas. This case study takes a full site analysis at
CIU and reviews accessibility and the compliance of pathways and entrances to established standards.

3.1 Site Assessment

The site assessment conducted at Cyprus International University involved a university-wide
examination of the campus infrastructure. Special attention was devoted to pathways and entrances and
their conformity with accessibility parameters. This in-depth analysis encompassed meticulous scrutiny
of various facets, including but not limited to:

3.2 Pathways' Layout and Conditions

16
The evaluation included an assessment of the design and layout of pathways throughout campus.
Evaluations were made based on width, surface conditions, gradients, possible interference from other
users, and overall navigational convenience for individuals with different mobility needs.

3.3 Entrances and Doorways

The inspection covered academic buildings and other facilities, entrances, and doorways. Some of the
specific aspects that were considered included door widths, functionality of hardware, spaces for
maneuvering, and the presence of aids focusing on individuals with disabilities in line with the
principles behind inclusive design.

3.4 Functional Accessibility Features

The assessment included an evaluation of functional accessibility features, including ramps, handrails,
signage and the availability of tactile markings or auditory aids for individuals with diverse sensory
and mobility needs (Imrie)

3.5 Compliance with Universal Design Principles

The analysis sought to establish how well-aligned CIU is with universal design principles and designed
environments that can be used by all people regardless of ability or disability. This included an
evaluation of whether the campus infrastructure facilitated equal access and movement for everyone.

4. ANALYSIS

4.1 Standards
The site evaluation of CIU was measured in relation to a range of acknowledged accessibility standards
drawn from an abundance of authoritative sources and regulatory frameworks. Among those standards,
United States Access Board’s guidelines 2024 that outline a wide range of technical specifications and
parameters for pathways and entrances within educational establishments were given the utmost
priority. These standards, guided by meticulous research and regulatory authority, emphasize several
critical facets, including but not limited to:

4.2 Pathway Accessibility

17
Standards require clear, broad pathways with appropriate surfaces and gradients that allow for ease of
movement by people using mobility assistance devices such as wheelchairs or walkers (United States
Access Board, 2024; Dinç Uyaroğlu, 2015).

4.3 Entrances and Doorways

Technical specifications refer to the details about door openings, room for movements and features
necessary in order to provide more proper accessibility of people with disabilities. Use of automatic
door openers, the right barrier and hardware systems that meet inclusive design aspects (Imrie, 2015;
United States Access Board.

4.4 Universal Design Principles

The standards highlight universal design principles, encouraging the creation of spaces that are
naturally accessible to everyone all across campus (Clarkson et al., 2003; NCSU, 1997).

4.5. Problems Observed

At the assessment done at CIU, various factors concerning pathways and entrances were established.
First, these are very sensitive issues that can change at any time and as such details about this matter
are kept generalized. Common problems include those related to path widths, manipulation of doors
and possible interferences that would prevent smooth accessibility.

4.6. Comparison to Standards

4.6.1 Pathways:
Standards: It stressed that the pathways should be unobstructed, wide with appropriate surface
materials and gradients. In addition, suggested specifications indicated that the unobstructed pathways
should have a minimum width of 1.5 meters to accommodate different mobility aids.

CIU Site Assessment: Assessment at CIU has shown differences in pathway widths throughout the
campus. Some pathways almost perfectly followed the suggested widths but others had limitations,
failing to reach recommended dimensions. Furthermore, the evaluation identified uneven surfaces in
some parts that may limit access to persons with mobility issues.

18
4.6.2 Entrances:
Standards: The standards established also spelled out specific technical needs for entrances, including
door widths, clearing distance required to maneuver through the doors as well as thresholds , hardware
and opening forces. These standards were aimed at ensuring efficient access for individuals with
different mobility needs.

CIU Site Assessment: The assessment pinpointed issues in the application of door width standards at
different entry points throughout the campus. .Clearance for easy maneuverability was met in some
entrances whereas others had narrower doorways, which might pose a challenge to those using
mobility aids.

4.6.3 Overall Compliance:

CIU Site Assessment: While some touch points were closely aligned with those standards already
established, the assessment identified a few discrepancies and areas for improvement. CIU’s practical
implementation varied from the acceptable standards of accessible design principles as demonstrated in
differences in pathway width variations, uneven surfaces and disparities concerning entrance designs.

Aspect Standards CIU Site Assessment

Pathway Clear, wide pathways - - Length of pathways that vary, some met the 1.5
Accessibility Appropriate surfaces & meter standard, Others less than average, levels
gradients - Min. width: 1.5 below standard, with Potholes or uneven
meters footpaths preventing movement
Entrances & Specific technical Inconsistent door widths - Some met clearances
Doorways requirements for doors (e.g., for maneuverability, Others narrower (e.g.,
door width, maneuverability) standard door width: 1m-1.2m, reported :
between 0.80 to 0.90
Overall Accessible design principles Mixed compliance with standards Width
Compliance variations in pathways Rough surfaces Pathway
designs that do not comply strictly or adhere to
specific regulations.

19
 5.
BAR CHART SHOWING RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
30

27.5 20
22.5
17.5 10
NO. OF SAMPLES

12.5 5 5
7.5 3 2 3 2
2.5
Pathway Accessibility Entrances Doors

Number of Samples 5 5 30
Conform to Standards 3 3 20
Do Not Conform to Stan- 2 2 10
dards

AREAS ANALYZED

Number of Samples Conform to Standards Do Not Conform to Standards

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS AT CYPRUS INTERNATIONAL

UNIVERSITY (CIU)

Site Structure Evaluation at CIU

The comprehensive analysis of site structures at Cyprus International University (CIU) revealed a
multifaceted terrain that substantially affects the accessibility and inclusivity of the campus
environment. The physical environment of CIU, comprising of the topographic terrain characterized by
varying elevations and land-use zoning raises both obstacles as well opportunities in creating
accessible pathways accesses which is concerning considering the users varied needs for diversity in
mobility. 2005 Russ “Site Planning and Design Handbook” highlighted the necessity of implementing
sustainability principles in site design, emphasizing its significance so as to optimize CIU’s specific
geographical advantages with a view towards improved accessibility.

CIU’s topographical diversity requires the use of a specialized approach so that it is easy to make
accessible corridors where people with varying mobility needs can easily pass through. On the one
hand, as a consequence of this subtle topography along with zoning decisions made by CIU, special
attention to infrastructure development should be coupled with ambient planning for vegetation and
establishment of convenient pathways throughout the university (Russ 2005).

20
Additionally, CIU’s unique site layout presents itself as a particular challenge in incorporating
accessible routes and entrances. The evaluation put a premium on grasping the topographical
diversities to create trails that suites everyone, providing functionality and decorative appeal in synergy
with what was taught by Strom and Nathan’s “ Site Engineering for Landscape Architects” 2005.

CIU’s accessibility standards were evaluated, especially against the United States Access Board (2024)
criteria to reveal strengths and areas that need improvement among campuses. Imrie and Hall’s work
on "Inclusive Design: “Designing and Developing Accessible Environments” (2001) served as an
introductory framework for evaluating the CIU’s adherence to accessibility standards.
There are commendable strides that CIU has been able to make in terms of meeting established
accessibility standards as it is seen when there especially be planned and constructed the pathways and
entrances which aim at trying assure equitable more so fair usage by all users. Specific areas in which
CIU’s pathways and entrances performed well according to accessibility standards came out during the
analysis. These areas highlighted the fact that the university was dedicated to establishing an
environment where all individuals, including those with diverse mobility needs are catered for.

However, this evaluation also indicated key areas that need to be further improved for strengthening
CIU’s commitment to a universal accessibility environment. These areas – highlighted are intended to
improve the maneuverability, clearance and some design elements of certain pathway or entrances with
a view towards achieving stringent accessibility standards (Imrie& Hall 2001).

Overall, this evaluation is a crucial milestone in recognizing that CIU takes its efforts to improve
accessibility and inclusivity on campus seriously but also realizes the need for ongoing improvement
so as to create an environment where all members of their community’s diverse needs are met.

6. PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND SOLUTIONS AIMED

AT ENHANCING ACCESSIBILITY WITHIN UNIVERSITY
CAMPUSES

6.1. Pathway Enhancement:

21
Widening and Surface Maintenance: Identify and expand pathways that allow for the recommended
minimum width of at least 1.5 meters, with a consistent and sturdy floor surface, free from obstacles or
hazardous materials (United States Access Board, 2024).
Gradient and Slope: Make it easy on gradients; use standards that cater for mobility aids and which do
not create discomfort to users who are disabled (Dinç Uyaroğlu, 2015).

6.2. Entrance Accessibility:

Doorway Modifications: Install automatic door openers and proper widths, as well maneuvering
clearances according to standards (Imrie, 2004; United States Access Board, 2027).
Signage and Visibility: Provide clear, distinct and visible signage indicating accessible pathways of
entrances into buildings (1997).

6.3. Assistive Technologies:

Tactile and Auditory Aids: Incorporate tactile paths and auditory cues to aid visually impaired people
on navigating the campus (Clarkson et al., 2003; Dinç Uyaroğlu,
Smartphone Applications: Create campus-specific smartphone apps that provide real time navigation
assistance to individuals with disabilities heylighen et al, 2006.

6.4. Inclusivity Initiatives:

Awareness and Training: Hold regular awareness campaigns and training sessions for the staff, faculty
and students to create a sense of inclusionary culture towards individuals with diverse needs (2013).
Student Involvement: Encourage student participation in campus-wide accessibility programs by using
feedback mechanisms as well conducting advisory boards

6.5. Ongoing Evaluation and Improvement:

 Periodic Audits: Conduct regular audits and assessments to identify areas for improvements so
as continually be compliant with accessibility standards (United States Access Board, 2024).

22
  Feedback Mechanisms: Set mechanisms where the individuals with disabilities can always
feedback their issues continuously (Imrie & Hall, 2001).

Developing an inclusive and accessible university environment requires the collaboration between
accessibility standards, regulatory frameworks as well as inclusion design principles. As this
exploration progresses, it becomes clear that the pathways and entrances to educational spaces have
critical roles in determining their overall architectural accessibility.

By following strict guidelines, like those outlined by the United States Access Board and other
governing bodies, campuses will make more pathways accessible to all people with disabilities without
barriers they require for their specific needs. Furthermore, installation of automated door systems,
visible signage and tactile aids greatly improves accessibility at entrances.

However, this is not merely a concern with infrastructure; it necessitates cultural transformation and
long-term commitment. That is why there should be awareness initiatives, training programs and active
participation of students and stakeholders create a culture of inclusiveness. Continuous audits,
feedback mechanisms/ tools and periodic evaluations will be necessary to identify areas that require
improvement and ensure continual compliance with changing accessibility standards.

Essentially, transforming university campuses into fully inclusive places requires a comprehensive
strategy that goes beyond structural changes. It will take stringent standards, proactive initiatives and
unwavering commitment to ensure that all members of the academic community have equitable access.

This inclusivity journey is not only about meeting the requirements of regulations; it’s embracing
diversity, cultivating a sense of belonging and empowering each person to achieve his or her fullest
potential in an environment that celebrates and accommodates their unique needs.

7. CONCLUSION

Creating inclusive and accessible university environment requires the contribution from accessibility
standards, regulatory frameworks as well inclusion design principles. As this exploration develops, it

23
becomes evident that pathways and entrances to educational spaces are vitally important in terms of
defining the overall architectural accessibility of such locations.

Through vigorous rules such as those provided by the United States Access Board and other governing
bodies, campuses will ensure that they have made many pathways possible for everyone with
disabilities without these barriers required to soothe their specific needs. Moreover, installing
automatic door systems along with visible signs and tactile aids helps in enhancing accessibility at the
entrances.

But this is not only a concern with infrastructure; it requires cultural change and long-term
engagement. For this reason, there should be awareness campaigns training students and involvement
of stakeholders to build an inclusive culture. Identifying areas that need augmentation, and confirming
ongoing compliance with evolving accessibility requirements will require continuous audits, feedback
mechanisms/tools and periodic evaluations.

Transforming university campuses into fully inclusive communities will require a thorough strategy,
not confined to structural changes. Stringent standards require proactive initiatives and an unwavering
commitment that will ensure all members of the academic community enjoy equitable access.

This journey of inclusivity is not just about complying with the regulations but it’s embracing diversity,
creating a feeling of belonging and encouraging each person to reach their own fullest potential in an
environment that supports them all as well as celebrates every one for who they are unique needs.

24
 REFERENCES

1. Gillies, J., & Dupuis, S. L. (2013). A framework for creating a campus culture of inclusion: a
participatory action research approach.
2. Heylighen, A., Michiels, S., & Van Huffel, S. (2006). Towards Universal University Buildings.
3. Imrie, R., & Hall, P. (2001). Inclusive Design: Designing and Developing Accessible Environments.
4. CABE (Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment). (2006). the principles of inclusive
design.
5. Clarkson, P., Coleman, R., Keates, S., & Lebbon, C. (2003). Inclusive Design: Design for the Whole
Population.
6. NCSU (1997). About UD: Universal Design Principles.
7. Bednar, M. J. (Ed.). (1977). Barrier-free environments.
8. Imrie, R. (2004). From Universal to Inclusive Design in the Built Environment.
9. Farrington, J., & Farrington, C. (2005). Rural Accessibility, Social Inclusion and Social Justice:
Towards Conceptualization.
10. Dinç Uyaroğlu, İ. (2015). Performance Evaluation and Design Guidelines for Equitable Access of
Students with Disabilities in University Campus Outdoor Environments.
11. Francis, M. (1989). Control as a Dimension of Public-Space Quality.

25
12. United States Access Board (2024). Chapter 4: Entrances, Doors, and Gates.
13. THE Campus Learn, Share, Connect (2024). “Campus design for access and inclusion | THE
Campus Learn, Share, Connect.”
14. Accessibility and disability inclusion among top-funded U.S (2024).
15. delivering an inclusive built environment for physically disabled (2024).
16. Inclusive: a human-centered approach to accessible architectural design (2024).
17. Access Board Manual (2024).
18. Russ, T. (Site Planning and Design Handbook).
19. Strom, S., & Nathan, K. (Site Engineering for Landscape Architects).
20. Burns, C., & Kahn, A. (Site Matters: Design Concepts, Histories, and Strategies).
21. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research (JAPR).
22. Arch2O. (The Importance of Site Analysis in Designing).
23. Waldrep, L. W. (Understanding Site Analysis: An Introduction to Architectural Design).

26