A brief survey of studies on costs and benefits of non-handicapping environments
Presentation at the International Congress on Accessibility
in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, June 1994
by Dr. Adolf Ratzka
Associate Coordinator of CIB/84 "Building Non-Handicapping Environments"
Department of Building Function Analysis
School of Architecture and Planning
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Introduction
At the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm Professor Thiberg
and I coordinate the Working Commission "Building Non-Handicapping
Environments" which is part of the CIB network. CIB is the abbreviation
of the French title of the International Council for Building Research,
Studies and Documentation. CIB's purpose is to facilitate and develop international
cooperation in building, housing and planning research, studies and documentation,
covering not only the technical but also the economic and social aspects
of building and the related environment. CIB, with its over 100 Working
Commissions, works through congresses, symposia and colloquia.
Working Commission W84 "Building Non-Handicapping Environments"
was founded in 1984. In the 10 years of our work we have had a number of
international seminars in several world regions. At these events altogether
some 500 persons participated and over 200 papers were given on various
aspects of accessibility in the built environment. The proceedings of the
meetings have been published by the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm.
The documents present a wealth of information, studies and reports representing
the state-of-the-art in access research in 40 countries.
Among the many issues taken up in the proceedings of our working commission
one recurring topic is the cost of barrier free construction compared to
the costs of building inaccessible environments. In the first part of my
paper I will briefly summarize the results of a number of papers presented
or referred to at our W84 events by researchers and practitioners from
different countries. In the second part of my presentation I discuss some
studies which put the additional costs of accessible construction in relation
to the benefits that can be expected from barrier-free environments. I
will conclude my paper with a few observations on the topic of costs, expected
benefits and the politics of accessibility.
Definitions
Accessibility standards
In discussing barrier-free design we first have to agree on the level of
accessibility on which we base our comparisons. Shall we consider a building
to be accessible where a wheelchair user with strong arms and hands can
move around in a manual chair all by himself or herself? Are we looking
at the level of accessibility needed by persons using power chairs like
myself? Shall we assume that the access needs of persons using crutches
or canes are also covered by design which is geared to wheelchair users?
Do we include the access needs of persons with sight and hearing impairments?
Shall we also consider the needs of persons with intellectual disabilities
who might have difficulties in finding their way in a larger building?
And, finally, what about the growing number of people who are allergic
to various substances?
Which activities shall a barrier-free design support? Is it enough to enter
and move about in a structure or do we include in our definition also the
use of a building's facilities such as toilets, water fountains, telephones,
vending machines, etc.? In residential structures, do we consider "visitability"
as the standard or "liveability"?
These are only a few questions that come to mind in discussing accessibility
in the built environment for persons with disabilities. The present paper
is based on a survey of other studies which all are based on different
access standards. For these reasons it is not possible to make exact comparisons
between them nor is it possible to directly apply their results to other
situations.
Macro vs. micro design
The concept of macro and micro planning, to my knowledge was first introduced
by Selwyn Goldsmith (1981). Historically, people with disabilities have
been isolated and shut off from society in the form of micro solutions,
i.e. solutions specifically and exclusively geared to this group. Examples
are special kindergartens, special schools, sheltered workshops, special
and segregated housing, that is institutions. Our present cities are full
of micro solutions: one accessible housing complex or shopping street in
a whole city. one accessible phone booth in a row of inaccessible ones,
one accessible public toilet within several city blocks. Macro planning,
on the other hand, takes into account the needs of all citizens. As a consequence,
the built environment will enable disabled people to participate in every
aspect of society.
In the present paper I am discussing macro solutions, i. e. accessible
structures and other environments that are not special purpose built for
disabled persons.
Costs of barrier-free design
Organizations of disabled persons all over the world are demanding with
growing indignation that their needs have to be taken into consideration
in building our societies. They claim that accessibility is a human and
civil right. They also maintain that an accessible built environment is
a better and safer environment for all. A common answer to these arguments
is that while accessible transportation, accessible public buildings, accessible
housing, streets and parks, etc. would surely be good to have, we simply
cannot afford it. In the struggle for barrier-free construction we have
to meet this wide-spread attitude with solid facts and figures. Is universal
design more expensive than "conventional" design and, if so,
by how much?
Cost comparisons can be done in two way. One, an existing inaccessible
building is to be brought up to a certain accessibility standard through
renovation. What does this renovation cost compared to the original construction
costs? Two, given an inaccessible building, what would have been the costs,
if it had been constructed with universal access right from the beginning?
Below I provide a brief survey over available studies that are referred
to in the proceedings of our CIB W84 expert seminars. Most often, the studies
only take up one type of comparison.
Public buildings
In a US study (Schroeder and Steinfeld, 1979) different types of existing
structures were subjected to the two comparisons. The results are summarized
in Table 1.
| Col 1
Cost increase due to accessible renovation |
Col 2
original barrier-free design |
Col 1/Col 2 | |
| Convention hall | 0.12% | 0.02 % | 6 |
| Town Hall | 0.2% | 0.05% | 4 |
| College Classroom | 0.51% | 0.13% | 4 |
| Shopping center | 0.22% | 0.006% | 35 |
Source: Schroeder and Steinfeld (1979) The estimated cost of accessible buildings.
US Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Regarding the first type of comparison, what is the cost of accessible retrofitting compared with original construction costs, the estimates range
from 0.12 per cent to 0.5 per cent. The other comparisons, how much more
it would have cost, if the structures had been designed without barriers
right from the beginning, range from 0.006% in the case of the shopping
center to 0.13% in the case of the college classroom.
A 1980 study by the Singapore Urban Redevelopment Authority referred to
by Harrison (CIB W84 Report 1993) used a type two cost comparison for a
large center consisting of commercial offices, multi-storey car park, food
center and market). A controlled costing exercise was carried out to compare
the cost of the building with and without facilities of access for disabled
persons, and the conclusion was that these could be provided for an additional
0.11 per cent of the total cost.
Residential construction
Housing involves more functions than office buildings, classrooms or supermarkets.
Also, housing structures tend to be smaller and access features will make
up a larger portion of total construction.
Regarding multi-family housing, a French study referred to by Armani (CIB
W84 Report 1993) estimated the additional costs for bringing up multi-family
housing to accessibility standard, on an average, to between 0.5 and 1.0
per cent of total construction costs in new construction. The same estimates
for multi-family housing have been made by the Swedish Building Research
Council for Sweden. Almost identical results are reported by Wrightson
and Pope (1989) regarding Australia where the Australian Uniform Building
Regulations Coordinating Council had undertaken comparative cost studies.
Wrightson and Pope comment that for new projects the exercise to identify
extra costs of access features might be more expensive than the design
time required to include them.
Phillipen (CIB W84 Report 1993) reports from German studies on multi-family
housing that the difference in cost between traditional (read inaccessible)
construction and the new type of barrier-free building construction is
negligible. The studies resulted in additional investments of between 3.01
to 3.2 per cent of total cost which, according to Philipen, can be neglected
since rearranging of financing and logistics in a building project, can
very well compensate for this minor increase.
Research on single-family units has been carried out in Canada. In Ottawa,
9 specially designed units in a project of 54 townhouses cost 8 - 10 per
cent more than the others but added only 0.5 per cent to the overall project
cost. The effect on rental scales is therefore negligible. (This cost comparison
does not involve universal access, since the other 45 townhouses apparently
were not accessible.) A report by the Canadian Mortgage Housing Company
of 17 case studies indicated that, in most cases, the accessibility features
added 0.39 - 0.53 per cent to the building cost. (Champagne CIB W84 Report
1988) Dunn (CIB W84 Report 1993) reports that in an actual project, Project
Open House, an average of only $1,500 was spent in 1986 to adapt existing
homes of consumers to make them accessible. He also refers to a US study
by Bartelle Memorial Institute which found that if accessibility is incorporated
into a design prior to construction, the cost of making 10 per cent of
the units accessible is less than 1 per cent of the total constructions
costs. (Again, a comparison not based on universal access design.)
Various studies by U.S. HUD have estimated the costs of "adaptable"
housing, that is housing with basic access features that easily can be
complemented by individuals as needed. The findings were about one-half
of one per cent of new construction costs. A recent H.U.D. study for guidelines
for the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 showed an average cost increase
of 0.5 per cent in typical single-family homes in four suburban projects.
(Park CIB W84 Report 1993)
The US study conducted by Schroeder and Steinfeld (1979) already referred
to above also contains housing examples shown in the following table.
Table 2. Cost increases due to accessibility in residential buildings.
Renovation and original barrier-free design compared to conventional (inaccessible)
structures.
| Col 1 Cost increase due to accessible renovation |
Col 2 original barrier-free design |
Col 1/Col 2 | |
| High rise tower multi-family structure. | 1.0% | 0.25% | 4 |
| Single family homes, one floor | 21% | 3.0% | 7 |
| College dormitory | 0.40% | 0.10% | 4 |
Source: Schroeder and Steinfeld (1979) The estimated cost of accessible buildings. US Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The results of this study indicate that accessible renovation amounted
up to 21 per cent of the total construction in single-family units and
to a maximum of 1 per cent in high rise multi-family apartments. Designing
the structures from the very beginning barrier free would have cost only
3 per cent in their single-family example and 0.25 per cent more in the
high-rise complex they studied.
In analyzing the studies presented so far we can derive several conclusions.
For one, whether making an existing building accessible or designing it
from scratch without barriers, the smaller the unit of comparison, the
larger the additional costs due to access features. This explains why it
will cost more to make housing accessible than public buildings, and single-family
housing more expensive than multi-family housing.
The most consistent result is that renovating existing buildings is much
more expensive than building the same structure with barrier free design
from the beginning. The latter is between 4 and 35 times cheaper (see Col
1/Col 2) in the tables.
Single-family home builders often point out that even in the case of new
construction the additional costs due to access features will be far too
high for the market, implying that nobody would buy their accessible houses.
When analyzing their cost estimates Park (CIB W84 Report 1993) has found
that often builders have not changed their thinking and see access as a
matter of adding on extra features rather than incorporating access already
in the basic design. "Stretching old plans to meet particular elements
of new design requirements makes them more expensive than re-designing
anew. A relatively small investment in architectural costs will result
in lower construction costs for access. Inevitably there are some transitional
costs associated with any change in codes and regulations. With public
accommodations we have seen these smooth out once suppliers begin to provide
standard products and materials that meet access requirements." (Park
CIB W84 Report 1993) This requires major rethinking on the part of all
actors. If building laws and regulations at all levels incorporate disabled
people's needs in the every-day design practice and on-site construction
work, the whole industry including planners, architects, suppliers of fittings
and materials will be forced to change. Standards for materials, such as
doors, for example, and new routines will change to meet the new specifications.
Thereafter the difference in costs of products between the old and new
standard will be negligible. A 80 cm wide door blade does not cost that
much more than a 60 cm wide one. A wider door means fewer bricks for the
wall, and the differences in cost disappear.
We can conclude from the studies presented so far that access legislation
would raise new construction costs in public buildings by less than 0.1
per cent, on an average, in multi-family housing by up to 3 per cent and
in single-family homes (single floor) also up to 3 per cent. It is probably
safe to assume that once architects', builders' and suppliers' experience
with universal access design has become deeper and more wide-spread, costs
will come down considerably.
Benefits of barrier-free design
The built environment represents one of the largest investments in any
country. There is no other industry that is more capital intensive than
the real estate industry. As with all investments the amounts to be invested
have to be seen in relation to the expected gains. Thus, the additional
costs of making structures accessible, have to be compared to the expected
benefits.
What then are the expected benefits from barrier free design? There are
basically two groups: tangible ones, that is those that can be expressed
in dollars and cents and so-called intangible benefits which are more difficult,
if not impossible, to quantify.
Among tangible benefits will be reduction in accidents, their related costs
in terms of health services and loss of production. The reasoning is that
accessible environments are also safe environments (see Wrightson and Pope).
Examples are ramps rather than steps, elevators instead of staircases.
According to the World Health Organization "accidents cause more deaths
than any single illness except cancer and cardiovascular disease"
(quoted in Ratzka 1984). The number of accidents due to stairs and the
associated costs to society can be and has been estimated (see for example
Ratzka 1984).
Another tangible benefit is the increase in housing quality which most
access features entail. Elevators are a convenience, the wider doors and
hallways, kitchens and bathrooms are also quality increasing features which
the housing market values in the form of higher rents or property prices.
Among other tangible benefits is the decreased demand for institutional
residential living on the part of many older persons who often are forced
to leave their own inaccessible dwelling and move to nursing homes or old
age homes. Given an accessible environment in their old home, however,
many of them would be able to manage longer by themselves and stay out
of institutions. Dunn (1993), for example, refers to a study which found
that 50 per cent of the applicants to a residential center for the aged
in Boston were capable of functioning in the community with appropriate
supports and accessible housing.
In some countries old and disabled persons are eligible to use public home
help or personal assistance services. Again, an accessible environment
will reduce the need for such services with savings to the public as a
result. In places where such services are provided not by the state but
by the family, a barrier free environment results in less work for the
relatives - often the daughters or wives - who will have better opportunities
on the labor market outside the home which results in higher production
and gains to the national economy.
Other benefits are more difficult to quantify such as the improvement in
disabled persons' freedom of movement and social mobility. Given barrier
free environments more persons with disabilities can educate themselves
and enter the labor market. I am aware that inaccessible transportation
systems, schools and workplaces are not the sole reason for the sky-high
rate of unemployment among persons with disabilities. From my own personal
experience, however, I would not underestimate the daily expenditures of
physical and mental energy and monetary costs that are needed to pursue
gainful employment in handicapping environments.
Cost-benefit analysis
Cost-benefit analysis is a tool to compare the magnitudes of the costs
of a given investment to its expected benefits over time in order to assess
the desirability of projects. Given the scarcity of resources, those projects
would then be given priority where the ratio of expected benefits over
costs is higher than in other projects.
There are only a few studies which have tried to apply cost-benefit analysis
to investments in accessibility. The first of its kind, as far as I know,
is the study commissioned by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development
and carried out by Chollet (1979). It focuses on accessibility of a specified
level, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard A117.1
of 1978. Cost comparisons between institutional and community living for
older persons and people with disabilities are used to estimate the benefits
of renovating existing buildings and removing architectural barriers. The
analysis contains case studies of three types of residential structures:
high rise apartments, garden apartments, and single-family homes. Only
easily measurable economic costs and benefits accruing to disabled individuals
are included. Cost estimates refer to bringing up the structures to the
ANSI standard. The estimated benefits are the market value of personal
assistance services that disabled persons are now able to provide for themselves
due to the absence of architectural barriers. The findings are that in
the instances studied, renovating housing without barriers yields benefits
which amount to 13 to 22 times the level of the renovation costs. These
overwhelmingly positive results, however, are due mainly to a decisive
limitation of the study: the assumption was made that the renovated units
would be rented to disabled tenants only. In that way the study avoids
the difficult methodological issue of assessing the rate of utilization
by disabled tenants but loses much of its value as an argument for universal
access design. It assumes 100 per cent utilization, that is ghettos. Universal
access design on the other hand, implies that a structure is made accessible
regardless of who will move in and when. Universal means just that: all
housing is to be built accessible as a principle.
The only study, that I am aware of, which incorporates a universal design
philosophy is Ratzka 1984. In that study a large actual housing area in
the city of Stockholm consisting of three-story walk-up apartments built
in the 1940's and 1950's was analyzed. In the 1980's the units had to undergo
major modernization and the question was raised whether the opportunity
should be used to equip all these buildings with elevators. By that time
Sweden had developed a technology of retrofitting this type of apartment
structure with elevators. Each elevator would serve only nine apartments
in the study area. The costs of the installation was known. The question
asked was, what does it cost not to install elevators. The costs of not
installing elevators are the lost benefits in the form of reduced number
of accidents, reduced demand for residential institutions by the present
tenants, reduced demand for municipal home help services and the market
valuation of elevators as an amenity. The benefits were estimated using
the calculated probability that a given apartment would be occupied by
a household with an old and disabled member. In other words, it was not
assumed that all apartments would be occupied all the time by disabled
persons, as the H.U.D. study did. Despite these very hard assumptions,
however, the results of the study allow the conclusion that society would
gain from elevator installation. Applied to new construction of apartment
housing, the results of the study suggest tremendous gains to society by
making all new housing construction barrier free.
"Intangible" costs of handicapping environments
Studies of this type seem always unsatisfactory, since they have to
leave out many factors that are impossible to quantify but are decisive
nevertheless. Some of the most important costs of handicapping environments
fall in this category. In the following I would like to briefly summarize
some of the social costs of inaccessible environments.
Inaccessible environments not only discriminate against us in very concrete
ways, they also affect us in more subtle ways. An example: Assume that
you as the employer are interviewing a job applicant for a staff position.
Your office can be reached via a flight of steps only. The job applicant
is a wheelchair user and has to be carried upstairs. In this situation,
is it not likely that the applicant's helplessness in climbing stairs might
also affect your assessment of his or her mental abilities? And is it not
possible that a person who all his life is made dependent on other people
at every step will begin to see himself dependent on other people also
in other respects? For the people around us and even for ourselves it is
not always clear that the problem is not within us, is not because we are
incompetent and passive, but because architects, planners and politicians
deny us our equal rights.
Micro solutions, that is isolated examples of barrier free design that
are limited to one particular building or area, will not do. In a micro
society disabled people will be reminded at literally every step of the
limits that somebody else has imposed on them. Micro solutions represent
accessible islands in an otherwise inaccessible ocean. Outside these islands
people with disabilities appear helpless and are made to feel helpless.
In a micro world people with disabilities are made dependent on the choices
that architects and planners consider sufficient for them.
The physical and mental energy spent on coping with our inaccessible cities,
the imposed restrictions in life style, occupational and social opportunities
are costs borne not only by disabled people, their families and friends
but by all citizens. The economist will call these costs "intangible",
but to the actual people involved they are as tangible as a flight of stairs.
Conclusions
I am afraid that studies of the type I have summarized here will not
convince property owners to make their structures accessible. The costs
of the modifications are borne by the individual owner, most of the gains,
on the other hand, benefit somebody else. What matters to the individual
owner is the cash-flow that he sees in his bank account, not the gains
that accrue to such a diffuse entity as "society".
The policy implications of this brief survey on the relative costs of accessibility
seem to be that in the case of renovating existing structures the state,
that is the entity that includes all those who benefit from investments
in universal access design, must provide economic incentives in some form
of other. When it comes to new construction, the additional costs of universal
access design, if any, are so negligible that they can be borne by the
owner who, in turn, may pass them on to the users. Thus, as economist,
I have no scruples to suggest comprehensive and effective legislation that
guarantees all new construction, both public buildings and residences,
to be barrier free.
I want to close with a personal observation. Although I am an economist
by training, I have difficulties in using economic arguments when it comes
to such basic human rights as freedom of movement and the right to participate
in society on equal terms. Human and civil rights cannot be expressed in
dollars and cents. If our countries can afford to invest billions in the
most sophisticated weapons to kill and disable other human beings, then
our governments surely have enough money to invest in a barrier free society,
a more democratic and human society for all.
More recent cost-benefit studies are available from
Prof. Edward Steinfeld
Adaptive Environment. Lab.
SUNY/Buffalo
112 Hayes Hall, 3435 Main St.
Buffalo, NY 14214
United States
Bibliography
Deborah J. Chollet (1979) A cost-benefit Analysis of accessibility.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington.
Steven Schroeder and Edward Steinfeld (1979) The estimated cost of accessible
buildings. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington.
Selwyn Goldsmith (1981) The built environment - who does it handicap? Proceedings
of the research colloquium: The built environment and the handicapped.
Department of Housing Design Chalmers Technical University, Gothenburg.
Adolf Ratzka (1984) The cost of disabling environments. Swedish Council
for Building Research D9:1984, Stockholm.
William Wrightson and Campbell Pope (1989) From Barrier free to save environments:
The New Zealand experience, World Rehabilitation Fund Monograph #44, World
Rehabilitation Fund, New York.
Report of the International Expert Seminar 'Building Concept for the Handicapped'
in Stockholm, April 10-12, 1984 . Stockholm: The Royal Institute of Technology,
Dept. of Building Function Analysis, 1987.
Renewal of Inner Cities and Accessibility for Old and Disabled Citizens:
Proceedings of the Second CIB W84 Expert Seminar 'Building Non-Handicapping
Environments', Prague, October 15-17, 1987. Stockholm: The Royal Institute
of Technology, Dept. of Building Function Analysis, 1988.
Accessibility in Developing Countries: Proceedings of the Third CIB W84
Expert Seminar 'Building Non-Handicapping Environments', Tokyo, September
8, 1988 . Stockholm: The Royal Institute of Technology, Dept. of Building
Function Analysis, 1989.
Access Design Solutions and Legislation: Proceedings of the Fourth CIB
W84 Expert Seminar 'Building Non-Handicapping Environments', Budapest,
September 3-5, 1991. Stockholm: The Royal Institute of Technology, Dept.
of Building Function Analysis, 1993.
Access Design Solutions and Legislation: Proceedings of the Fifth CIB W84
Expert Seminar 'Building Non-Handicapping Environments', Harare, January
7-9, 1992. Stockholm: The Royal Institute of Technology, Dept. of Building
Function Analysis, 1993.
Legislación sobre accesibilidad - Soluciones de diseño, Documentación
del CIB W84 "Building Non-Handicapping Environments" Seminario-Taller
, Montevideo, Uruguay, Mayo de 1992, Royal Institute of Technology, Department
of Building Function Analysis, Estoccolmo, 1993.
Our sponsors
