Designing environments for autism spectrum disorders: an introduction to the available evidence Brent Hayward1 & Kylie Saunders2 1 Practice 2
Advisor, Credentialed Mental Health Nurse, Office of the Senior Practitioner, Disability Services, Department of Human Services, Victoria, Australia Practice Advisor, Registered Psychologist, Office of the Senior Practitioner, Disability Services, Department of Human Services, Victoria, Australia
Introduction How do you include people who may need the benefits of inclusion, but cannot bear the physical and emotional presence of it? (Singer, 1999 in Davidson, 2010) This perhaps summarises the difficulties encountered by clinicians, teachers, parents and support workers in supporting people with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) who commonly experience sensory impairments (Gerrard &
•
• •
Rugg, 2009).
The person-environmental relationship has long been an integral part of architectural research, however autism has been excluded from various architectural guidelines and codes of practice which may be a result of the non-standard nature of challenges presented by ASD (Khare & Mullick, 2008; Mostafa, 2008; Myler, Fantacone & Merritt, 2003; Plimley, 2004; Vogel, 2008a; Whitehurst, 2006), particularly as they relate to responding to sensory processing and the resultant challenging behaviours exhibited by people with ASD.
There is evidence that the conditions of buildings, such as exposure to lighting, noise and chemicals, the availability of windows and overall housing qualities can influence health (Veitch, 2008), therefore, designing environments may help to minimise sensory and perceptual differences experienced by people with ASD (Plimley, 2004). The focus of building and environmental design is often on easy to clean, robust and unbreakable finishes (Beaver, 2003) which contribute to inappropriately sterile and ‘prison-like’ environments. While there are design principles recommended for people with physical and cognitive disabilities, they differ dramatically from what is recommended for people with ASD (Vogel, 2008a).
A limited peer review evidence base was identified, with few original studies contributing to evidence in useful ways. Many sources of information concern the design of classrooms while others are based only on the opinions of a limited number of participants. The majority of the literature concerns children with ASD. A number of recommendations are made primarily based upon consensus in the published literature.
Acoustics (left): The use of an acoustic ceiling and a cleanable carpet on the floor creates a space with a sense of calm. The children use the circulation space as a play space taking the pressure off the living room which can be used for quieter activities. The space is generous so that the children are not forced too close together for comfort (from: Beaver, 2010)
Distinctive colours for walls and floors to assist navigation (Davidson, 2010) however there is inconsistent opinion regarding a standard approach to colour schemes Inconsistent opinions regarding ceiling heights Incandesant lighting, halogen or natural night is overwhelmingly preferred over fluorescent lighting (Beaver, 2006; 2010; Davidson, 2010; Myler et al., 2003; Plimley, 2004; Vogel, 2008a; Whitehurst, 2006; 2007a)
•
Managing acoustics through unobtrusive sound reducing opportunities (Beaver, 2006; 2010; Mostafa, 2008;
•
Avoiding open-plan environments (Mostafa, 2008; Vogel,
•
Zoning areas on sensory rather than functional needs
Myler et al., 2003; Vogel, 2008a; Whitehurst, 2007a) 2008b)
Vogel (2008a) has adapted Christopher Alexander’s (1977) pattern language principles to the design of environments for ASD to include:
(Mostafa, 2008; Vogel, 2008b)
• •
Rooms with specific functions rather than multipurpose (Jabarin et al., 2001; Vogel, 2008a) Under-floor heating (Beaver, 2006; 2010; Humphreys, 2008;
•
The provision of outdoor space (Beaver, 2006; Whitehurst,
Plimley, 2004; Whitehurst, 2006; 2007b) 2006; 2007a)
• •
Curvilinear design principles to facilitate movement into buildings (Barba, 2010; Whitehurst, 2007a) Single storey construction (Barba, 2010; Whitehurst, 2006)
• • • • • • • • •
Diversity of textures Presence of labels, signs and visual cues Landmark objects to establish events and tasks Clocks Transition space from hallways Diversity of flooring materials Ratio of open to closed storage systems Screens to reduce distractibility Ceiling supports for installation of swings, pulleys etc.
Providing the right environment for people with ASD is not simply desirable, it is their right (Whitehurst, 2006) however it is not always possible to cater for the needs of individuals and therefore buildings should be designed for the ‘average person’ (whatever that is) with ASD. Principles associated with the actual design of buildings are not as clearly articulated as recommended furnishings. Delineated room functions and zoning, along with single storey construction and avoiding open-planning are clearly stated while measures to provide environmental comfort through sensory-based approaches to lighting, acoustics and temperature are the only recommended environmental aspects. While there is work beginning in the field of environmental design for ASD, there is clearly opportunity for more dedicated research in this area. The uptake of such research would surely be significant as disability services continue to strive to improve service delivery to people with ASD.
References Barba, L. (2010). A one-stop shop for autism services, Behavioural Healthcare, 30(6): 28-31. Baum, N. (2008). The affect architecture and building design have on the quality of life of people with autism and intellectual disabilities (conference abstract), Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 52(8): 790. Beaver, C. (2003). Breaking the mould, National Autistic Society, Communication, Autumn: 40.
Other authors suggest design principles including: • •
Outward opening doors (Jabarin et al., 2001) Single bedrooms, timed press-taps in bathrooms
A number of tools have been designed to assist in planning environments however they have limited application and validity at this stage:
(Whitehurst, 2006)
•
Dimming switches on lights (Barba, 2010; Beaver, 2010)
Curvilinear design (left) demonstrates smooth, curved walls
Method and Results Research has found that specific environmental modifications improve the quality of life people with sensory challenges (Baum, 2008; Mostafa, 2008). A literature review was conducted in both health/medical and architectural databases, as well as the grey literature to identify recommendations for the design of environments for ASD.
Conclusions
Recommendations A number of universal recommendations are made in the literature:
(From: Barba, 2010)
Beaver, C. (2006). Designing environments for children and adults with ASD, 2nd World Autism Congress, Cape Town, South Africa. Beaver, C. (2010). Autism-friendly environments, The Autism File, January. Davidson, J. (2010). ‘It cuts both ways’: a relational approach to access and accommodation for autism, Social Science and Medicine, 70: 305-312. Gerrard, S. & Rugg, G. (2009). Sensory impairments and autism: a re-examination of causal modelling, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39: 1449-1463.
1. The Sensory Design Matrix by Mostafa (2008) provides a practical method of mapping the sensory needs of individuals along with architectural attributes when environments are being designed for a specific group of individuals with ASD. 2. Khare and Mullick (2008) devised an Environmental Audit, Performance Measure for Pupils with Autism and a Design Parameter Rating Scale as checklists for environmental inspection.
Humphreys, S. (2008). Architecture and autism, National Autistic Society, Glasgow. Jabarin, Z., Crocombe, J., Gralton, E. & Carter, S. (2001). Service innovations: Maple House – an autistic-friendly NHS facility, Psychiatric Bulletin, 25: 109-111. Khare, R. & Mullick, A. (2008). Educational spaces for children with autism: design development process, “Building Comfortable and Livable Environments for All” International Meeting, 15-16 May, Georgia Tech University, Atlanta, USA. Mostafa, M. (2008). An architecture for autism: concepts of design intervention for the autistic user, International Journal of Architectural Research, 2(1): 189-211. Myler, P.A., Fantacone, T.A. & Merritt, E.T. (2003). Eliminating distractions, American School and University, November, 314317. Plimley, L. (2004). Analysis of a student task to create an autism-friendly living environment, Good Autism Practice, 5(2): 35-41. Veitch, J.A. (2008). Investigating and influencing how buildings affect health: interdisciplinary endeavours, Canadian Psychology, 49(4): 281-288. Vogel, C.L. (2008a). Identifying classroom architecture performance standards for populations with autism, Thesis for partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Human Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Vogel, C. L. (2008b). Classroom design for living and learning with autism, Autism Asperger’s Digest, May/June. Whitehurst, T. (2006). The impact of building design on children with autistic spectrum disorders, Good Autism Practice, 7(1): 31-38.
Vogel (2008b) in her interviews with parents, therapists, teachers and adults with ASD identified eight design standards:
Whitehurst, T. (2007a). Evaluation of the impact of autism specific accommodation on children with autistic spectrum disorders (ASD), GAP, May. Whitehurst, T. (2007b). Evaluation of features specific to an ASD designed living accommodation, Sunfield, available: http://www.autism.org.uk
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Flexible and adaptable Non-threatening Non-distracting Predictable Controllable Sensory-motor attuned Safe Non-institutional
For further information Brent Hayward Office of the Senior Practitioner Disability Services Department of Human Services GPO Box 4057 Melbourne VIC 3001 AUSTRALIA (from: Beaver, 2010)
T. +61 3 9096 0211 E.
[email protected] 
