A universal city is marked by its inclusivity, i.e. a city that manages to include the participation of all individuals that contribute towards the city. This inclusion involves incorporating features that ensure inclusivity for all through establishing the frameworks of universal design (NYU, 2017) that can include architectural features, facilitation services, etc that aim to streamline the usufructuary experience in a universal city by offering design principles for formulating the layouts for a city.
Universal Design
Universal design in city planning can be utilized to provide accessibility and inclusion in cities for example to differently-abled people. Universal design involves the design of an environment such that its composition can be accessed and used to the greatest extent possible by beneficiaries. In this, spaces are designed such that minimum adaptive responses are required for their navigation. This involves creating systems having facilities and services that can be used by all beneficiaries targeted.
Ronald Mace of North Carolina State University introduced the seven principles that should govern universal design in 1997. He developed these principles in consort with a working group of professionals including researchers involved in environmental design, engineers, architects and product design specialists. These principles are act as a guide to generating models of universal design. The seven universal design principles are as under –
The first principle is Equitable Use, whereby the design functions fairly towards a diverse array of needs. Mace provides certain guidelines (i) provision of the same means of use to users, either identical or if not, equivalent, (ii) no stigmatization of segregation of users, (iii) provision of secure use, (iv) a design architecture that appeals to all users.
The second principle is Flexible Use, whereby a range of individual preferences and needs are addressed by the universal design. The guidelines include (i) usage methods should offer choice, (ii) left-handed usage should be accommodated in addition to right-handed use, (iii) facilitate the diverse range of skills of the users, (iv) a design system attuned to the user’s method of usage.
The third principle is the Simplicity of Use, whereby the design system is easily understandable and user-friendly. This involves (i) less complexity, (ii) consistency with the skill levels and expectations of users, (iii) provision of information appropriately, (iv) a streamlined interface for tasks.
The fourth principle is Perceptible Information, which implies the communicative capabilities of universal design. The guidelines for such are (i) effective methods of presentation, (ii) mark essential information as such and make it understandable, (iii) provisions for people with receptive limitations.
The fifth principle is Minimization of Errors, wherein errors are limited in the formulation of universal design. The involves (i) proper arrangement of elements such that risk is minimized, (ii) provision of warnings for hazards, (iii) features that are tested for fail-safe measures, (iv) discourage degenerative usage.
The sixth principle is Low Physical Effort, implying comfortable and efficient usage of universal design products and services with minimal physical effort.
The seventh principle is adequate Size and Space for Approach and Use, which as its title suggests, implies optimization the size of and space occupied by the universal design product in relation to how it can be approached and its usage (NDA Ireland, 2014). The guidelines for this principle are dependent on the nature of the product or service in question.
Universal Design in India
According to the National Centre for Accessible Environments (Samarthyam), India, thought on universal design for the universal city in India is based on the model based on Mace’s formula in 1997 (Samarthyam, 2016). The National Institute of Design (NID), India identifies universal design with sustainability, adding that these designs should serve as value propositions (NID, 2015).
The goal in India is achieving sustainable solutions that at the same time generate value at the installed locations. The practice for this is not as expansive and the focus is largely on design solutions in urban spaces for senior citizens, differently-abled people and people who suffer from reduced mobility. Installations such as ramps in public buildings are a prime example of how universal design solutions are being implemented in India, although Indian cities are yet distant from coming under the category of a universal city.
An example of where universal design can be applied in Indian cities is the layout on Indian roads, whose footpaths are littered with vendors, parked vehicles, electric poles, etc such that many a time pedestrians might prefer to walk on the road instead.
In a universal city, such experiences such as walking on footpaths should be more streamlined. Niels Schoenfelder, MD of Mancini Design told M.S. Preetha of the Hindu that education on universal design is required to have a universal city.
He added that such education can motivate people to train themselves in providing better design solutions to build a universal city (The Hindu, 2015). There is a lack of awareness in India on the notion of accessibility and inclusivity in building a universal city.
The focus in the promotion of universal design principles in India is on strongly connecting with the psyche of Indian people along with their customization to Indian conditions. Although Mace’s principles are maintained, Indian principles are also added for the purpose of customization to Indian conditions.
Equitability for example comes under new directions in the Indian context, implying non-discriminatory usage for diverse users. The principle for Usability or ‘Sahaj’ is added which is a critical principle for customization to the Indian context. Another unique principle is the Cultural principle that aims to build design systems conjoined to the notion of India’s heritage and civilization.
Also introduced is the Economic principle that aims at providing mainly affordable solutions to urban navigation in India. An emphasis is also placed on the Aesthetic principle that looks to achieve social integration and could determine the acceptability of universal design solutions in the Indian context.
In sociological literature, human communities are said to be based on the interaction of four factors, namely the natural resources in the habitat, material and non-material culture, and population. These interactions are arranged by competition and consensus, where consensus implies interdependence.
While competition in cities is driven by a race for scarce resources, the cultural superstructure is driven by consensus and communication. This cultural superstructure is composed of adaptive responses to the organization of the city and involves certain learned techniques for individuals to navigate their way around cities.
Optimizing on inclusivity as a principle for co-operation with the implementation of universal design principles would greatly improve the experience of liveability in a universal city. They also assist in dissolving some of the alienation felt by many individuals in cities and instead offer an institutional solution to co-operation in cities.
Recent Posts
- In the Large States category (overall), Chhattisgarh ranks 1st, followed by Odisha and Telangana, whereas, towards the bottom are Maharashtra at 16th, Assam at 17th and Gujarat at 18th. Gujarat is one State that has seen startling performance ranking 5th in the PAI 2021 Index outperforming traditionally good performing States like Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, but ranks last in terms of Delta
- In the Small States category (overall), Nagaland tops, followed by Mizoram and Tripura. Towards the tail end of the overall Delta ranking is Uttarakhand (9th), Arunachal Pradesh (10th) and Meghalaya (11th). Nagaland despite being a poor performer in the PAI 2021 Index has come out to be the top performer in Delta, similarly, Mizoram’s performance in Delta is also reflected in it’s ranking in the PAI 2021 Index
- In terms of Equity, in the Large States category, Chhattisgarh has the best Delta rate on Equity indicators, this is also reflected in the performance of Chhattisgarh in the Equity Pillar where it ranks 4th. Following Chhattisgarh is Odisha ranking 2nd in Delta-Equity ranking, but ranks 17th in the Equity Pillar of PAI 2021. Telangana ranks 3rd in Delta-Equity ranking even though it is not a top performer in this Pillar in the overall PAI 2021 Index. Jharkhand (16th), Uttar Pradesh (17th) and Assam (18th) rank at the bottom with Uttar Pradesh’s performance in line with the PAI 2021 Index
- Odisha and Nagaland have shown the best year-on-year improvement under 12 Key Development indicators.
- In the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Goa and Tamil Nadu and, the bottom three performers are Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Bihar.
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers were Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim and Mizoram; and, the bottom three performers are Manipur, Assam and Meghalaya.
- Among the 60:40 division States, Orissa, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh are the top three performers and Tamil Nadu, Telangana and Delhi appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland; and, the bottom three performers are Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh
- Among the 60:40 division States, Goa, West Bengal and Delhi appear as the top three performers and Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Bihar appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Himachal Pradesh and Tripura were the top three performers and Jammu & Kashmir, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh were the bottom three performers
- West Bengal, Bihar and Tamil Nadu were the top three States amongst the 60:40 division States; while Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan appeared as the bottom three performers
- In the case of 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Assam and Tripura were the top three performers and Nagaland, Jammu & Kashmir and Uttarakhand featured as the bottom three
- Among the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa and the bottom three performers are Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and Goa
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Mizoram, Sikkim and Nagaland and the bottom three performers are Manipur and Assam
In a diverse country like India, where each State is socially, culturally, economically, and politically distinct, measuring Governance becomes increasingly tricky. The Public Affairs Index (PAI 2021) is a scientifically rigorous, data-based framework that measures the quality of governance at the Sub-national level and ranks the States and Union Territories (UTs) of India on a Composite Index (CI).
States are classified into two categories – Large and Small – using population as the criteria.
In PAI 2021, PAC defined three significant pillars that embody Governance – Growth, Equity, and Sustainability. Each of the three Pillars is circumscribed by five governance praxis Themes.
The themes include – Voice and Accountability, Government Effectiveness, Rule of Law, Regulatory Quality and Control of Corruption.
At the bottom of the pyramid, 43 component indicators are mapped to 14 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that are relevant to the States and UTs.
This forms the foundation of the conceptual framework of PAI 2021. The choice of the 43 indicators that go into the calculation of the CI were dictated by the objective of uncovering the complexity and multidimensional character of development governance
The Equity Principle
The Equity Pillar of the PAI 2021 Index analyses the inclusiveness impact at the Sub-national level in the country; inclusiveness in terms of the welfare of a society that depends primarily on establishing that all people feel that they have a say in the governance and are not excluded from the mainstream policy framework.
This requires all individuals and communities, but particularly the most vulnerable, to have an opportunity to improve or maintain their wellbeing. This chapter of PAI 2021 reflects the performance of States and UTs during the pandemic and questions the governance infrastructure in the country, analysing the effectiveness of schemes and the general livelihood of the people in terms of Equity.
Growth and its Discontents
Growth in its multidimensional form encompasses the essence of access to and the availability and optimal utilisation of resources. By resources, PAI 2021 refer to human resources, infrastructure and the budgetary allocations. Capacity building of an economy cannot take place if all the key players of growth do not drive development. The multiplier effects of better health care, improved educational outcomes, increased capital accumulation and lower unemployment levels contribute magnificently in the growth and development of the States.
The Pursuit Of Sustainability
The Sustainability Pillar analyses the access to and usage of resources that has an impact on environment, economy and humankind. The Pillar subsumes two themes and uses seven indicators to measure the effectiveness of government efforts with regards to Sustainability.
The Curious Case Of The Delta
The Delta Analysis presents the results on the State performance on year-on-year improvement. The rankings are measured as the Delta value over the last five to 10 years of data available for 12 Key Development Indicators (KDI). In PAI 2021, 12 indicators across the three Pillars of Equity (five indicators), Growth (five indicators) and Sustainability (two indicators). These KDIs are the outcome indicators crucial to assess Human Development. The Performance in the Delta Analysis is then compared to the Overall PAI 2021 Index.
Key Findings:-
In the Scheme of Things
The Scheme Analysis adds an additional dimension to ranking of the States on their governance. It attempts to complement the Governance Model by trying to understand the developmental activities undertaken by State Governments in the form of schemes. It also tries to understand whether better performance of States in schemes reflect in better governance.
The Centrally Sponsored schemes that were analysed are National Health Mission (NHM), Umbrella Integrated Child Development Services scheme (ICDS), Mahatma Gandh National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SmSA) and MidDay Meal Scheme (MDMS).
National Health Mission (NHM)
INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (ICDS)
MID- DAY MEAL SCHEME (MDMS)
SAMAGRA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN (SMSA)
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME (MGNREGS)