Awareness of universal design among facility managers in Japan and the United States

www.elsevier.com/locate/autcon

Automation in Construction

Awareness of universal design among facility managers in Japan and

the United States

Yoko Saito *

A. Alfred Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Michigan, Art and Architecture Building, Room 2223C,

2000 Bonisteel Boulevard, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2069, USA

Abstract

This comparative study is based on two surveys conducted in Japan and the United States to understand how facility managers recognize

and practice universal design in their workplaces, and to identify what factors are likely to facilitate or obstruct their practice. The results

showed that, although many facility managers recognized the advantages of applying universal design, most organizations currently provided

accessible workplaces merely within the scope of legal requirements, while few organizations achieved consistency between corporate

mission and strategies, knowledge of facility managers, and the degree of workplace accessibility practices. US organizations and Japanese

organizations showed different perceptions of the issue in terms of advantages of universal design based on differences in management style.

The findings also suggest that an understanding of the issues by top management is key to promoting universal design practice.

D 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Facility management; Older workers; Universal design; Workers with disabilities; Workplace accessibility

1. Introduction

The concept of universal design is currently being

applied to a variety of fields, including architecture and

product design. The underlying reasons for this growing

tendency are the rapid evolution of an aging society in the

developed countries and an increase in the demand of

people with disabilities for full recognition of their civil

rights. In the United States, it is estimated that the

percentage of people age 65 and over will increase from

12.4% in 2000 to 20.7% by 2050, whereas the percentage

of the workforce between the ages of 20 and 64 will

decline from 59.0% in 2000 to 53.4% by 2050 [1]. The

population projection in Japan appears to be even more

radically different. In 2000, the percentage of people age

65 and over was 17.4%; however, it is estimated that the

percentage will increase to 35.7% by 2050. It is further

estimated that the population of the workforce between the

0926-5805/$ - see front matter D 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2005.06.013

* Tel./fax: +1 734 764 2073.

E-mail address: [email protected].

ages of 15 and 64 in Japan will decline from 68.1% in

2000 to 53.6% by 2050 [2]. These statistics imply that

people over 65 will gradually take up a higher proportion

of the workforce. Moreover, as people live longer, they

will be more likely to want to remain in the workforce for

longer. Dynamic demographic changes and increasing

variations in people’s lifestyles will increase the need to

broaden the diversity of the workforce, to include senior

people and people with disabilities.

The employment of people with disabilities remains a

critical issue both in the United States and Japan. In the

United States, the number of workforce-age adults (21–64)

with disabilities was estimated at 30.6 million people or

19.2% in 2000 [3], nearly three times as large as the

percentage of that same group in 1990 [4]. Of this group,

only 56.6% were employed in 2000, which is a significantly

lower employment rate when compared to 77.2% of those

without disabilities who were employed in the same period

[3]. In Japan, the number of non-institutionalized people

aged 18 and over with physical and/or intellectual impair-

ments was estimated to be about 3.5 million or 5.2% of all

workforce-age adults in 2001, which represented an increase

15 (2006) 462 – 478

Y. Saito / Automation in Construction 15 (2006) 462–478 463

of 8.7% since 1996 [5,6]. Of this figure, only 190,000

(5.8%) were actually employed by either the public or

private sectors. Although political and legislative interven-

tions have been broadly implemented in both countries, it is

still necessary to take further action to promote the

employment of people with disabilities.

Meanwhile, many successful organizations have

employed workplace diversity in a broad sense, including

older workers and those with disabilities, as a corporate

strategy to survive intensive business competition [7,8]. For

example, since the early 1990s, IBM worldwide has

developed the ‘‘Workforce Diversity’’ program, one of the

most comprehensive programs for diversity in the current

business world [8,9]. This program is one of the most

important corporate strategies, aimed at reinforcing the

competitiveness of IBM by making the composition of its

employees reflect that of the communities that the company

serves, and by highlighting a variety of individuals’

characteristics, including their physical and intellectual

abilities. Many of the organizations that have implemented

similar workplace diversity strategies have enjoyed both

tangible and intangible benefits from such policies [8,10].

This approach of developing workplace diversity will

definitely transform work environments to a new paradigm

and alter the responsibilities of facility managers for

physical workplaces. Facility managers will be increasingly

required to prepare their workplaces to accommodate the

wider range of workers. Advocates for universal design

argue that it has the potential to facilitate more inclusive

workplaces that will consequently improve organizational

quality; however, very few of those likely benefits have

been actually confirmed by research.

As part of the ongoing research on the effectiveness of

universal design in the workplace, the Universal Design

Research Committee of the Japan Facility Management

Promotion Association (JFMA-UD) conducted two surveys,

one in Japan and the other in the United States. The

purposes of this comparative study are to understand how

facility managers currently recognize and practice universal

design in their workplaces, and to identify what specific

factors are likely to facilitate or obstruct their practice. By

understanding the current state of universal design aware-

ness and practice, this study is intended to be a first step to

inductively identify the outcomes of universal design and, if

its benefits are confirmed, to propose solutions to facilitate

universal design practice among facility managers. Japan

and the United States were chosen as the subject countries

of the surveys because of the different dominant approaches

these two countries employed toward the provision of

building accessibility and the social awareness of disability

and aging (i.e. market-driven in Japan vs. legislation-driven

in the United States). Therefore, we assumed that a

comparative study would help us infer how these two

different approaches could lead to different outcomes. This

paper presents a summary of the results of these two

surveys.

2. Literature review

2.1. What is universal design?

Universal design is defined as the ‘‘design of products

and environments usable by all people to the greatest extent

possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized

design’’ [11]. Applicable to all ages, personal abilities and

sizes, with an inclusive capability that transcends barrier-

free and accessible design, the concept of universal design

was coined in 1985 by Ronald Mace, an architect who had a

disability himself [12,13]. This concept has been accepted in

a variety of design fields, such as architecture, engineering,

product design, and landscape design.

Meanwhile, accessible design and barrier-free design,

which are often considered inappropriately as similar

concepts to universal design, have been broadly recognized

in the field of architecture, mainly through architectural

regulations. Accessibility is defined as a quality of a built

environment to be accessed by people with physical

disabilities and/or older people. Barrier-free design is

defined as a design concept to make a built environment

accessible to people with physical disabilities and/or older

people by removing the architectural barriers present in

existing buildings [13]. These two concepts can be used as

virtually synonymous terms.

From the perspective of disability studies, both universal

design and accessible/barrier-free design can be concep-

tually based on what many scholars call ‘‘the social

construction model of disability’’ [14–17]. Unlike the

medical model or other models that regard disability as a

problem within an individual’s body, this model defines

disability as a product of social interaction, thought, belief,

and language used in a certain culture, and sees social

interventions to increase the mutual understanding of people

as the key to inclusion and participation of people with

disabilities in community activities. According to this

model, universal design and accessible/barrier-free design

are an approach to lower environmental barriers to

participation.

However, there are several theoretical differences

between universal design and barrier-free design/accessibil-

ity. First, while barrier-free design and accessibility are

predominantly associated with the issues of access focusing

on disability, universal design does not necessarily focus

only on disability. Rather, universal design broadly defines

the targeted users and the nature of diversity. Its focus is not

specifically on people with disabilities, but instead on the

inclusion of all types of people in ‘‘one’’ society [9,13,18],

and has argued against the virtual segregation of people with

disability from other social groups by ‘‘special’’ design

interventions [19,20]. Secondly, barrier-free design and

accessibility have been primarily driven by political and

legal interventions [13,21,22]; universal design entails the

power of markets that makes it possible to promote cheaper,

common, and attractive products and environments [23].

Y. Saito / Automation in Construction 15 (2006) 462–478464

Thirdly, standardization is a major means of barrier-free

design and accessibility [24], whereas universal design can

be achieved by maximizing flexibility and adaptability.

Unlike accessibility codes that define prescriptive, stand-

ardized forms of physical environments for ‘‘average’’

people with physical disabilities at the minimum level

[18,21], universal design does not address any specific

form, but presents seven ‘‘performance-focused’’ principles

that require designers to use their creativity to maximize its

applicability to a variety of situations and needs [11,25] (see

Table 1). Lastly, while barrier-free and accessible designs

conceptually regard accessibility as an addition to design

and innately provoke ‘‘Band-Aid’’ approaches to removing

existing barriers, universal design emphasizes the proactive

integration of accessibility and usability to products and

environments as fundamental constructs of design itself

[9,18,20,26]. Thus, universal design always incorporates

accessible design, but not every accessible design can be

regarded as universal design.

2.2. Universal design in the workplace

To date, universal design in architecture has been studied

mainly as an extension of physical accessibility and

usability in public spaces and private houses. In terms of

the workplace, however, the majority of studies have

focused on workplace accessibility and accommodations

as they relate to regulations; only a few studies have

discussed the issues from the perspective of universal

design. Mueller has developed several guidelines to apply

universal design in the workplace from an ergonomic

perspective [27] (e.g., [28,29]). Additionally, Preiser has

discussed the application of universal design to post-

occupancy evaluation of office buildings [30,31].

Table 1

The principles of universal design (source: Ref. [11])

Principles Description

1. Equitable use The design is useful and marketable to people

with diverse abilities.

2. Flexibility in use The design accommodates a wide range of

individual preferences and abilities.

3. Simple and

intuitive use

Use of the design is easy to understand,

regardless of the user’s experience, knowledge,

language skills, or current concentration level.

4. Perceptible

information

The design communicates necessary

information effectively to the user, regardless

of ambient conditions or the user’s sensory

abilities.

5. Tolerance for error The design minimizes hazards and the adverse

consequences of accidental or unintended

actions.

6. Low physical effort The design can be used efficiently and

comfortably, and with a minimum of fatigue.

7. Size and space for

approach and use

Appropriate size and space is provided

for approach, reach, manipulation, and use,

regardless of the user’s body size, posture,

or mobility.

JFMA-UD has also established guidelines to develop the

strategies of ‘‘workplace universal design’’ in conjunction

with corporate management [9]. The study attempts to define

the conceptual framework of workplace universal design

[9,32].While public spaces tend to apply the highest common

solutions to benefit a broad range of unknown users as a

whole, workplaces generally target specific users (employ-

ees). The quality of workplace universal design can be further

enhanced by personal, on-site, case-by-case measures, to-

gether with flexible and adaptable ways of meeting the needs

or preferences of individual workers. Therefore, in addition to

the general sense of universal design, the framework attempts

to broadly encompass a barrier-free approach for adapting the

existing environments to the needs of people with disabilities,

personal assistance as a supplement to physical accommo-

dations, and environmental customization (e.g. assistive

technology) that will be needed by each worker to accomplish

their jobs. In other words, workplace universal design not

only considers the collective needs of a group, but also

remains sensitive to individual needs.

Existing studies do not provide much information about

the confirmed evidence of benefits from universal design in

the workplace, although some peripheral work shows its

potential advantages. For example, a study by the U.S.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

shows that the injury incidence rates of the companies that

adopted OSHA’s ergonomics guidelines were less than half

the average industrial rate [33]. These companies proved

that workers’ compensation costs could be reduced by more

than 80%. The Job Accommodation Network also revealed

that ‘‘for every $1 spent on job accommodation, the

employer gets back $26 in savings’’ in terms of workers’

compensation and other disability benefits costs ([27]; cf.

[10]). Many other studies in ergonomics show that proactive

interventions can improve the organizational bottom line by

preventing workplace injury and illness, decreasing work-

ers’ absenteeism and sick leave, and improving workers’

retention in organizations (e.g. [34–36]).

Meanwhile, the study by Loprest and Maag shows that in

1995, the employment rate of those with disabilities who

needed some accommodations to work (66%) was lower

than those who did not require any special accommodations

(75%), which was also very close to the employment rate of

those without disabilities at that time (79%) [37]. This result

implies that it would be possible to improve employment

opportunities for people with disabilities if organizations

already prepared workplaces that could accommodate those

people as far as possible, without ‘‘special’’ arrangements

that would require additional expenses for the organizations.

Other studies indicated that some large companies that had

been actively making their workplaces accessible agreed

that workplace accessibility increased productivity and

profitability by allowing them to diversify their employees.

Some examples of the reported benefits included flexibility

in employment, high motivation of people with disabilities,

and better understanding of customer needs (e.g. [8,10,38]).

Table 2

Profiles of survey participants’ workplaces

US Japan

N % N %

Total participants 128 100.0 62 100.0

Origin of major North America 82 64.1 5 8.1


However, most studies within the context of workplace

accommodations have focused solely on people with

disabilities and are less likely to explore the potential

benefits for a variety of workers in inclusive ways. JFMA-

UD pointed out the probable impact of workplace universal

design on organizational outcomes, including the improve-

ment of corporate images and an increase in the asset value

of facilities [9], but these impacts have not been empirically

proven yet.

2.3. Awareness of universal design among practitioners

The concept of universal design first appeared about two

decades ago, and it is interesting to see how practitioners

now recognize it and to what extent they have applied it to

their practices. In the field of product design, Vanderheiden

and Tobias studied the motivators and barriers to the

implementation of universal design, as well as possible

strategies to improve the awareness of universal design [39].

Another relevant study is Bruyere’s study regarding the

practices of both private companies and U.S. Federal

agencies in providing reasonable accommodations for

employees with disabilities in the workplace [40]. Although

this study does not focus primarily on universal design, but

rather on the implementation of Title I of the Americans

with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), these surveys asked

human resource professionals about accommodations that

they provided in their workplaces and the obstacles they

faced in providing those accommodations. These two

studies revealed the present state of awareness and practices

of universal design among practitioners in specific fields;

however, there has been no study from the perspective of

facility management. The question still remains—what are

the similarities beyond the fields, and what issues are

peculiar to facility managers?
capital South America 1 0.8 – –
Europe 0 0.0 2 3.2

Asia 0 0.0 0 0.0

Japan – – 55 88.7

Other 0 0.0 0 0.0

Unanswered 45 35.2 0 0.0

Industry Services 45 35.2 46 74.2

Manufacturing 19 14.8 11 17.7

Other 18 14.1 4 6.5


No. of occupants �99 3 2.3 19 30.6

100–999 50 39.1 26 41.9

1000+ 28 21.9 14 22.6


Type of building

occupancy

Owner-occupied 43 33.6 25 40.3

Leased, entirely occupied 12 9.4 12 19.4

Leased, partially occupied 21 16.4 22 35.5

Other 7 5.5 0 0.0


Average age of

workers

�20s 0 0.0 0 0.0

30s 27 21.1 27 43.5

40s 42 32.8 25 40.3

50s 7 5.5 0 0.0

60s+ 0 0.0 0 0.0

Unanswered 52 40.6 10 16.1

3. Research methodology and overview

The two surveys in Japan and the United States targeted

in-house facility managers and used a self-administered

questionnaire with multiple-choice questions. The question-

naires basically featured the same question and answer

options, so that the surveys’ results could be compared.

However, the options for answers in several questions were

adjusted to reflect the circumstances of each country (for

example, the difference in legal requirements) and some

additional questions were included in the questionnaire for

the US survey.

The main focus of both surveys was on the following five

perspectives:

(1) Attitudes about the employment of diverse workers,

including older workers and those with disabilities;

(2) the degree of the recognition of universal design;

(3) the degree of the practice of universal design;

(4) advantages and disadvantages of applying universal

design; and

(5) current obstacles to the introduction of universal

design.

Since we had assumed that barrier-free design and

accessible design were more popular terms than universal

design, some questions were designed to identify the

differences in the recognition of these terms comparatively.

The definitions of both barrier-free/accessible design and

universal design were given survey participants in the

beginning of the questionnaires to establish a common

ground among the participants to answer questions.

3.1. Overview of the survey in Japan

The first survey was conducted in Japan from January 29

to February 14, 2003. The digital format of the question-

naire consisting of 14 questions was distributed via e-mail to

3033 facility managers who subscribed to the Japan Facility

Management Promotion Association’s (JFMA) e-mailing

list. Completed questionnaires were returned to JFMA via

fax or e-mail.

Of those who received the questionnaire, 62 persons

(2.1%) provided valid responses. Regarding the profiles of

the respondents (see Table 2), 89% of the respondents

worked for ‘‘Japanese organizations,’’ which were defined as


organizations with more than half of their capital originating

in Japan. The other 11% represented ‘‘international organ-

izations’’ that were based in Japan but whose major capital

came from other countries. In terms of industry representa-

tion, 74% of the respondents belonged to service industries,

18% worked in manufacturing, and 7% worked in govern-

ment agencies, education, or other organizations. Thirty-one

percent of the respondents worked for organizations with

fewer than 100 occupants on site, 42% came from

organizations with between 100 and 999, and 23% of them

worked for organizations with 1000 occupants or more.

Regarding the type of building occupancy, 40% of the

workplaces surveyed were owner-occupied, 19% were

leased buildings occupied entirely by the respondents’

organizations, and 36% were leased buildings partially

occupied by the respondents’ organizations.

3.2. Overview of the survey in the United States

The second survey was conducted in the United States

from May 25 to June 7, 2004, in collaboration with the

International Facility Management Association (IFMA). An

on-line questionnaire with 17 questions was developed, and

e-mail invitations were sent out to about 1400 IFMA

members who worked as in-house facility managers in the

United States. Respondents were invited to fill out the

questionnaire online.

The number of valid responses was 128, which means

9.1% of those who received the e-mail invitation responded.

Regarding their profiles (see Table 2), 64%of the respondents’

organizations had their headquarters in North America, and

35% failed to answer this question. In terms of industry

representation, 35% of the respondents belonged to service

industries, 15%worked inmanufacturing, and 14%worked in

government agencies, education, or other organizations; 36%

failed to answer this question. Two percent of the respondents

worked for organizations with fewer than 100 occupants at

their workplaces; 39% worked for organizations whose

workplaces housed between 100 and 999 occupants, and

22% were from workplaces with 1000 or more occupants;

37% were unknown. Regarding the type of building occu-

pancy, 34%of theworkplaces surveyedwere owner-occupied,

9% were leased buildings occupied entirely by the re-

spondents’ organizations, 16%were leased buildings partially

occupied by the respondents’ organizations, and 6% indicated

other types of building occupancy; 35% were unknown.

4. Findings and discussion

4.1. Attitudes about the employment of diverse workers

4.1.1. The current state and expected change of the

employment of diverse workers

In Japan, 0.3% was the current average rate of the

number of workers with physical disabilities among overall

employees in an organization; 1.5% was that of the

number of older workers (over 65), and 2.5% was that

of the number of so-called ‘‘non-traditional’’ workers,

which included workers with psychiatric, intellectual, and

cognitive disabilities, foreign workers who have difficulty

in communicating in a common language in a given

country, female workers who are pregnant, and those who

have extremely large or small physiques compared to the

average, in addition to older workers and those with

physical disabilities. In the United States, the current

average rate of the number of workers with physical

disabilities among overall employees was 2.4%; 4.3% was

that of the number of older workers, and 19.0% was that

of the number of non-traditional workers in total (see Table

3). These results indicate that US organizations are more

likely than Japanese organizations to have positive

attitudes regarding the employment of a diverse workforce.

Specifically, when compared to the fact that the Japanese

national average rate of the number of workers with

physical and intellectual disabilities among overall employ-

ees in an private organization was 1.49% in 2001 [41],

there is a possibility that workers with disabilities are

segregated in particular workplaces and have few oppor-

tunities to be integrated into and work with ‘‘traditional

workers’’.

Regarding the expected change in the number of non-

traditional workers in surveyed workplaces in the future (see

Table 3), most of the US respondents answered with ‘‘no

change’’ or ‘‘minor increase’’ in each of the given groups. In

Japan, while 60% of the respondents were positive about

hiring people with disabilities in the future, more than 50%

of them thought that it would be unlikely that their

organizations would increase their quota of older employ-

ees. This attitude reflects, in part, the tendency of Japanese

companies to lower the retirement age.

Incidentally, there is no statistically significant correla-

tion between the current employment rate and the expected

degree of employment change in future. This means that

organizations would not necessarily increase the total

employment opportunities for non-traditional workers even

if they currently employ these workers positively. The

reasons for this tendency need to be investigated further

with additional research.

4.1.2. Relationship between corporate missions and the

employment of diverse workers

Eighteen percent of the Japanese respondents answered

that the concept of diversity was a part of their corporate

mission, whereas 79% of their US peers said their corporate

mission included diversity (see Fig. 1). This result reveals

that US organizations are more likely than Japanese

organizations to have positive attitudes about hiring diverse

workers and leverage such resources to organizational

effectiveness. This tendency apparently reflects a difference

in socio-environmental structure between Japan and the

United States.

Table 3

The current state and expected change of the employment of diverse workers

Current employment rate among overall employees

Mean (%) Median (%) S.D. Min. (%) Max. (%)

US Workers with physical disabilities 2.4 1.5 0.029 0.0 15.0

Older workers 4.3 1.2 0.075 0.0 33.0

Total non-traditional workers 19.0 14.0 0.215 1.4 100.0

Japan Workers with physical disabilities 0.3 0.0 0.006 0.0 3.0

Older workers 1.5 0.4 0.022 0.0 10.0


Expected change in the number of diverse workers in the future

Major

decrease (%)

Minor

decrease (%)

No

change (%)

Minor

increase (%)

Major

increase (%)

US Workers with physical disabilities 0.0 2.5 45.6 51.9 0.0

Older workers 3.8 11.4 41.8 41.8 1.3


Likelihood of hiring diverse workers in the future

Not

likely (%)

Less

likely (%)

Likely

(%)

Highly

likely (%)

Don’t

know (%)

Japan Workers with physical disabilities 8.1 19.4 35.5 27.4 9.7

Older workers 19.4 33.9 22.6 16.1 8.1

Total non-traditional workers – – – – –


However, neither the Japanese nor the US survey results

show a statistical significance of relationships between the

likelihood of including diversity in corporate missions and

the employment ratio of overall non-traditional workers,

nor the expected degree of future change in the employ-

ment of these workers. Therefore, this finding suggests that

inclusion of diversity in corporate missions does not

necessarily expand employment opportunities for these

workers. A possible reason for this result is that,

particularly in the United States, many organizations may

define diversity in a narrow sense—simply racial and

gender diversity. The other possible reason is that

organizations may prioritize the hiring of applicants

competent to meet organizational needs regardless of age

or physical ability; thus the number of non-traditional

workers is just a coincidental result. In either case, it

would be a valuable challenge in both Japan and the

United States to reveal the value of reconstructing the

positive utilization of such diverse human resources from

23%10%

18%

0% 10% 20% 30% 4

Diversity corporatemission

Workplace policy

Workplace design manual

Fig. 1. Percentage of organizations that have integrated diversity into corporate m

design/accessibility into workplace design manual.

the perspective of a corporate strategy in order to achieve

organizational effectiveness.

4.2. The degree of the recognition of universal design

The survey results show that the terms barrier-free

design and universal design were well known among

Japanese facility managers, although universal design was

less familiar than barrier-free design. Ninety-two percent of

the respondents said that they were well acquainted with

barrier-free design; 77% said they were very familiar with

universal design. Meanwhile, US facility managers were

familiar with the term barrier-free design or accessibility,

but universal design was not well-known. Sixty-eight

percent of the respondents answered that they were very

familiar with barrier-free design or accessibility, but only

28% said they knew universal design well (see Fig. 2).

It is easily assumed that the recognition of barrier-free

design or accessibility is an effect of the accessibility

79%

71%47%

0% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

US Japan

ission, universal design/accessibility into workplace policy, and universal

92%

68%

77%

28%

8%

27%

11%

49%

0%

6%

23%

0%

0%

0%

4%

5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Barrier-Free/Accessibility(JPN)

Barrier-Free/Accessibility(US)

Universal Design (JPN)

Universal Design (US)

1. Know well 2. Have heard of it 3. Don't know Unanswered

Fig. 2. Familiarity with the terms accessible/barrier-free design and universal design in Japan and the US.


regulations in both countries (e.g., in Japan, The Law for

Buildings Accessible to and Usable by the Older and

Physically Disabled Persons [known as the Heartful Build-

ing Law]; in the U.S, The Americans with Disabilities Act

of 1990 [known as the ADA]). However, despite the longer

history of accessibility regulations in the United States when

compared with Japan, and the fact that the concept of

universal design was originally coined in the United States,

the familiarity with the terms barrier-free design/accessi-

bility and universal design in the United States was much

lower than in Japan. Specifically, compared to the result in

Japan, the unfamiliarity of universal design among US

facility managers was significant. The popularity of these

terms in Japan can be explained, in part, by a recent boom in

the field of product design, in which many manufacturers

and advertising agencies have focused on the concept of

universal design as a new marketing strategy to recover

from the long business recession. The recent amendment to

the Heartful Building Law could be another explanation for

the increase in the popularity of these terms in Japan. It is

still uncertain, however, why these terms are less familiar to

US facility managers, and the subject should be investigated

in more depth.

Regarding the relationship between the ratio of non-

traditional workers and familiarity with these terms, the US

survey results show that the higher the ratio of non-

traditional workers to overall employees in a workplace,

the more likely it was that the facility manager who worked

in that workplace was familiar with barrier-free design/

accessibility and universal design (Spearman’s q (54)=

+.30, p =<.05 [barrier-free/accessibility]; q (54)=+.39,

p =<.01 [universal design]).

Meanwhile, in Japan, the respondents whose workplaces

partially occupied leased buildings were less likely than

those who worked in owner-occupied buildings to be

familiar with barrier-free design (Mann–Whitney U test:

z =�2.50, p =<.05). The most likely explanation for this

finding is that in many cases of partially leased buildings,

facility managers are less likely to tackle building accessi-

bility regulations because these regulations are applied to

spaces for which those facility managers are often not

responsible.

4.3. The degree of practice of universal design

4.3.1. The degree of applying universal design to workplace

policies

Forty-seven percent of the Japanese respondents

answered that their organizations had incorporated universal

design and/or barrier-free design into their workplace

policies, although universal design was less likely than

barrier-free design to be integrated into those policies (18%

vs. 35%, respectively). Ten percent of the Japanese

respondents said that their organizations had prepared

workplace planning manuals that contained the criteria of

universal design and/or barrier-free design. In the United

States, 71% of the respondents’ organizations applied

universal design and/or barrier-free design/accessibility to

their workplace policies (17% for universal design; 60% for

barrier-free design/accessibility); 23% of the respondents

answered that they had workplace planning manuals with

universal design and/or barrier-free design/accessibility

guidelines (see Fig. 1). Obviously, US organizations are

more likely than their Japanese counterparts to have already

applied universal design and/or barrier-free design/accessi-

bility to their workplace policies and planning manuals.

However, survey results in both Japan and the United

States show no statistically significant correlations between

the existence of diversity in corporate missions and the

integration of universal design or barrier-free design/

accessibility into workplace policies and workplace plan-

ning manuals. This implies that a corporate mission

regarding diversity is not necessarily reflected in workplace

policies and planning manuals.

US organizations that have applied universal design and/

or barrier-free design/accessibility to their workplace poli-

cies are more likely to show a higher ratio of workers with

physical disabilities to overall employees (Mann–Whitney

U test: z =�1.98, p =<.05). Meanwhile, in Japan, facility

managers whose workplaces are owner-occupied buildings

are more likely than those in partially leased buildings to

answer that their organizations have workplace policies

associated with universal design and/or barrier-free design

(Pearson v2 (2, N =59)=7.35, p =<.05). Japanese work-

places that house more occupants are also more likely to


include universal design and/or barrier-free design in their

policies (Mann–Whitney U test: z =�3.06, p =<.01).

4.3.2. The degree of current practice of universal design

Only 20% of the Japanese respondents said that their

workplaces currently provided universal design and/or

barrier-free design beyond the legally required level;

whereas 34% said that their workplaces provided only the

minimum of legally required barrier-free design. In the

United States, a majority of the respondents (59%) answered

that their workplaces currently complied with the minimum

requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act

Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG). Twenty-eight percent

of the respondents said that their workplaces provided more

than the legally required level of barrier-free design/

accessibility, but only 2% of the respondents answered that

universal design was provided in their workplaces (see Fig.

3). This tendency is probably related to the unfamiliarity

with the term universal design in the United States.

Although there is a large difference in the percentage of

the respondents who answered that they provided any

physical workplace accessibility (54% in Japan vs. 89% in

the US), there is no statistically significant difference among

those who explicitly described their current level of practice

(Japan N =34; US N =113) in the distribution of levels of

practice between these two countries.

There are no statistically significant correlations between

the degree of current practice of universal design or barrier-

free design/accessibility and the familiarity of facility

managers with universal design. However, the results of

the US survey show a correlation between the degree of

current practice of universal design or barrier-free design/

accessibility and the familiarity of facility managers with

barrier-free design/accessibility (Spearman’s q (111)=

+.23, p =<.05). Meanwhile, the Japanese survey results

10%

19%

6%

10%

26%

15%

22%

34%

2

31%

2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Present (JPN)

Present (US)

Future (JPN)

Future (US)

1. Universal Design2. Barrier-free/Accessibi3. Barrier-free/Accessibi4. No accessibility provid0. Don't knowUnanswered

Fig. 3. The degree of practice of universal design or accessible/barrie

reveal that the more occupants in a workplace, the more

likely it was that the organization of that workplace

provided a higher level of universal design or barrier-free

design/accessibility (Spearman’s q (30)=+.39, p =<.05). In

addition, in both Japan and the United States, although the

results did not prove a significant difference in the degree of

current practice of universal design or barrier-free design/

accessibility based on the employment rate of non-tradi-

tional workers and the inclusion of diversity in corporate

missions, organizations that applied universal design and/or

barrier-free design/accessibility to their workplace policies

were more likely to practice a higher degree of universal

design or barrier-free design/accessibility in their work-

places (Mann–Whitney U test: z=�2.57, p =<.05 [US];

z =�2.37, p =<.05 [Japan]). Combined with the positive

correlation between the application of universal design and/

or barrier-free design/accessibility to workplace policies and

the employment rate of people with disabilities, this result

suggests that having workplace policies that include

universal design and/or barrier-free design/accessibility

could be key to enhancing both the employment of people

with disabilities and the practice of workplace universal

design/accessibility.

The results of this question generate two important

discussions when combined with the previous findings.

First, the familiarity of Japanese facility managers with

universal design or barrier-free design/accessibility does

not mean that they have subscribed to its practices. They are

less likely than their US counterparts to practice universal

design and/or barrier-free design/accessibility in their work-

places, even though they are more familiar with these

concepts. Moreover, many of the Japanese respondents

(34%) did not grasp the present state of their practice on this

issue, which implies that they know these concepts better,

but pay less attention to these practices than US facility

59%

9%

34%

31%

9%

6%

10%

32%

3%

2%

0%

1%

3%

2%

50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

lity (beyond legal requirements)lity (w/minimum legal reqs)ed

r-free design at present and in the future in Japan and the US.


managers (this implication is also supported by the low

response rate of the Japanese survey, which suggests, in

part, a relatively indifferent attitude of Japanese facility

managers toward this issue). One reason for this difference

can be associated with the low employment rate of older

workers and those with disabilities in Japan; most Japanese

facility managers seem not to have much opportunity to

interact with those workers in their workplaces. The

difference in legal environments can also explain this

attitude of Japanese facility managers. Unlike US accessi-

bility laws, the Heartful Building Law has just been

amended to mandate the provision of accessibility to

specified types of buildings, in which, importantly, office

buildings are not included and they are still ‘‘voluntarily

obligated to make an effort’’ to provide accessibility. From

this argument, we can assume that legal intervention is

likely to be an effective way to promote accessibility and

usability for diverse workers.

However, the second discussion is evoked when we look

at the relationships between the degree of applying universal

design and/or barrier-free design/accessibility to workplace

policies, the nature of the actual practice, and its familiarity

in the US survey (higher practice but low familiarity). It is

possible that some US organizations adopt barrier-free

design/accessibility to their workplace policies and practice

it just because it is obligated by laws, such as the ADA,

rather than as a positive application that supports corporate

missions and strategies based on the real understanding of

user needs or effectiveness for their own organizations. This

is also supported by the facts that the majority of the survey

respondents indicated that they provided only the minimum

requirements stipulated by accessibility regulations, and that

fewer respondents’ organizations seemed willing to provide

accessibility beyond what the regulations required. This is

consistent with Stein’s argument that prescriptive legal

specifications often lead to misunderstandings by designers

and building owners that the regulations are sufficient and

definite. Those misunderstandings keep them from fully

investigating the real needs of people with disabilities, and

from finding the actual insufficiencies and inconsistencies

of the current provision of accessibility [42].

Therefore, it is necessary to establish effective

approaches to the strategic application of universal design

for the organizational effectiveness of both Japanese and US

facility managers. It is important to develop solutions to

31%

23%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Japan

U.S.

1. Upgrade UD/Accessibility 2. No cha

Fig. 4. Expected future change in the degree o

leverage the knowledge of Japanese facility managers

toward their practices, as well as to evolve ways and factors

to drive US facility managers toward further meaningful

practices beyond the mere implementation of regulations.

4.3.3. The expected degree of future practice of universal

design

Regarding the expectation of future practices, 34% of the

Japanese respondents expressed their desire to provide

universal design and/or barrier-free design beyond the

legally required level in the future, whereas 29% of the

respondents answered that they would prepare their work-

places at the minimum legal level of accessibility require-

ments. In the United States, 31% of the respondents said that

their future workplaces would fulfill the minimum of the

legally required accessibility; 28% expected that they would

practice universal design and/or a higher level than the legal

requirements of accessibility in their workplaces (see Fig.

3). Of those who explicitly answered the questions about

both current and future practices (Japan N =32; US N =73),

31% of the Japanese respondents said they would increase

the level of practice, 69% expected to keep the current level

of practice, and no one said the level of practice would

decrease. In the United States, 23% of the respondents said

that they would pursue the higher level of practice, 74%

expected no change, and 3% indicated their workplaces

would provide a lower level of accessibility (see Fig. 4).

According to these results, although the majority in both

countries expected ‘‘no change’’ in terms of their practices,

Japanese organizations seemed somewhat more willing than

US organizations to improve their level of practice in the

future. This tendency can be partially related to the recent

amendment of the Heartful Building Law and the current

boom of universal design in Japan.

The relationship between the expected degree of future

practice and whether a corporate mission currently stated

diversity is not statistically significant. In the United States,

the results show that the more organizations expected an

increase in the number of employees with physical

disabilities, older workers, and other non-traditional workers

in their workplaces, the more they were willing to provide

the advanced levels of workplace accessibility in the future

(Spearman’s q (50)=+.28, p =<.05). The Japanese survey

also indicates that the expected degree of future practice was

positively correlated to the expectation of an increase in the

69%

74%

0%

3%

60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

nge 3. Downgrade UD/Accessibility

f practice compared to the current level.


number of older employees and those with physical

disabilities (Spearman’s q (31)=+.39, p=<.05). Statistical

analyses show, however, that in both countries, the expected

increase in the number of non-traditional workers does not

seem to necessarily lead to organizations’ willingness to

upgrade workplace accessibility.

4.4. Advantages and disadvantages of applying universal

design

4.4.1. Anticipated advantages of applying universal design

In Japan, the anticipated advantages that the respondents

most frequently cited were: ‘‘enhancement of a corporate

image and/or reputation (60%),’’ ‘‘more flexibility in

employment of diverse workers (55%),’’ and ‘‘improvement

of employee satisfaction and/or productivity (50%).’’ Only

13% of the respondents expected ‘‘an increase of facilities’

asset values,’’ indicating that not many Japanese facility

managers recognized the relevance of universal design to

asset management. Meanwhile, the US respondents most

frequently said that the application of universal design

would ‘‘allow us more flexibility to employ diverse workers

(56%),’’ ‘‘improve employee productivity and/or satisfaction

(50%),’’ and ‘‘enable us to reduce legal risks and/or workers

compensation claims (50%).’’ Forty-three percent of the

respondents also cited that it would ‘‘reduce alteration and

maintenance costs’’ (see Fig. 5).

Although the respondents of both surveys showed that

they largely expected that universal design would allow

them more flexibility in employment and improve worker

satisfaction and productivity, it seems that US facility

managers are more likely than those in Japan to expect

3%

1%

2%

2%

2%

0% 10%

Flexibility in employment

Improvement of workers productivity/satisfaction

Reduction in legal risks/workers compensation claims

Reduction in alteration/maintenance costs

Enhancement of corp image/reputation

Improvement of customer satisfaction

Increase in facility asset values

Increase in workers morale

Other advantages

None

Unanswered

N/A

Fig. 5. Expected advantages of applying un

practical and direct- and sometimes ‘‘self-defense-oriented’’-

benefits from the application of universal design, such as a

reduction in legal risks. On the other hand, Japanese facility

managers are more likely than their US peers to expect

benefits from indirect, intangible, and longitudinal perspec-

tives, such as the improvement of a corporate image. This

tendency is a reflection, in part, of the differences in

management style between Japan and the United States.

The advantages frequently cited by the US facility

managers pertaining to organizations that currently provided

more than the legally required level of accessibility in their

workplaces (N =31) include ‘‘enhancement of a corporate

image/reputation,’’ ‘‘improvement of customer satisfaction,’’

and ‘‘a reduction in alteration and maintenance costs,’’

following three advantages shown above (flexibility in

employment, improvement of employee productivity and/or

satisfaction, and a reduction in legal risks and/or workers

compensation claims; see Fig. 6). Because these frequently

cited advantages are based on the experiences of facility

managers practicing universal design/accessibility, it is

highly possible that these are actual benefits derived from

the application of universal design, although further study

regarding this point is still needed.

Meanwhile, overall, US facility managers were more

likely than their Japanese counterparts to cite the wider

range of advantages of universal design application, which

suggests that they are more likely to expect multifaceted

benefits from universal design. In addition, the US

respondents who recognized more advantages were more

likely to answer that they would upgrade the levels of

workplace accessibility in the future (Spearman’s q (67)=

+.34, p=<.01). There is no doubt that the recognition of a

56%

50%

50%

43%

36%

29%

27%

14%

60%41%

16%

13%

24%

18%

47%

55%

20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

US JPN

iversal design in Japan and the US.

74%

61%

61%

58%

48%

42%

36%

26%

3%

0%

70%

68%

64%

42%

5%

2%

35%

39%

49%

73%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Flexibility in employment

Improvement of workers productivity/ satisfaction

Reduction in legal risks/ workers compensation claims

Enhancement of corp image/ reputation

Improvement of customer satisfaction

Reduction in alteration/ maintenance costs

Increase in facility asset values

Increase in workers morale

Other advantages

NoneBeyond legal requirements (N=31)At/below legal requirements (N=66)

Fig. 6. Perceived advantages of applying universal design-comparison by the current levels of practice (US only).


single significant benefit would motivate organizations to

improve their level of applying universal design, but based

on the above findings, it is possible that proving that the

application of universal design would bring a variety of

benefits could be a trigger to improve organizations’ level

of practice. Moreover, those who showed their willingness

to raise the degree of universal design/accessibility practice

in the future were more likely to cite ‘‘improvement of

worker satisfaction/productivity’’ and ‘‘a reduction in legal

risks/workers compensation claims’’ as the expected

advantages of universal design (Pearson v2 (2, N =73)=

8.78, p=<.05 [satisfaction/productivity]; v2 (2, N =73)=

8.78, p=<.05 [legal risks/compensation]. This implies that

these two aspects could become strong facilitators to

enhance universal design practice or reasons for applying

universal design.

12

1%

5%

3%

2%

0%

0% 10%

Increase in construction costs

Inefficiency of usable area

Increase in management/maintenance costs

Diminishing corp image/reputation

Other disadvantages

None

Unanswered

N/A

Fig. 7. Expected disadvantages of applying

4.4.2. Anticipated disadvantages of applying universal

design

In both countries, many facility managers regarded cost

issues as major disadvantages in applying universal design.

In Japan, the most frequently cited disadvantages expected

include ‘‘an increase in construction costs (55%)’’ and

‘‘inefficiency of space usage (37%).’’ The US respondents

also most frequently cited that it would ‘‘increase con-

struction costs (39%)’’ and ‘‘reduce the efficiency of usable

area (18%)’’ (see Fig. 7). However, US facility managers

were less likely than their Japanese peers to be concerned

about cost issues. This could be because land prices in the

United States are less expensive, and the percentage of rent

or allowance for depreciation of facilities in overall facility

operation costs is lower than that in Japan. In addition,

compared to the results regarding advantages, US facility

39%

18%

%

20%

14%

55%

37%

24%

20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

US JPN

universal design in Japan and the US.


managers are likely to perceive that applying universal

design would make initial construction costs higher, but that

it would lower facilities’ running costs. Incidentally, the US

facility managers who were less willing to increase the

degree of their practice of universal design/accessibility

were more likely than those who showed positive attitudes

regarding improvement of workplace accessibility to be

concerned about weakening the efficiency of space usage as

a result of applying universal design (Pearson v2 (1,

N =74)=6.38, p=<.05); in effect, the anticipated space

inefficiency, which would increase facilities’ occupancy

costs, seems to be the greatest demotivator.

However, there is a possibility that the concern about an

increase in construction costs is a myth that results from

confusion between barrier-free design/accessibility and

universal design. Although little explicit research has been

done on this issue, many universal design advocates have

argued that there would be no significant increase in initial

construction costs if universal design were integrated from

the first stage of planning. A study done by Cluff showed

that even adding accessibility features would increase an

initial construction budget by only 5%, and this figure

would be much less if universal design features were

included from the beginning of a project [10]. The question

regarding cost issues needs to be further investigated, but it

is possible that this negative perception is associated with a

lack of accurate knowledge based on actual evidence

regarding universal design. In fact, US facility managers

who answered that they were familiar with the term

universal design are less likely than those unfamiliar with

the term to regard an increase in construction costs as a

disadvantage (Pearson v2 (1, N =112)=8.62, p =<.01).

On the other hand, 34% of the Japanese respondents and

20% of the US respondents said that no disadvantages were

expected; more facility managers than had been assumed

anticipated that universal design would not bring any

negative effects to organizations. However, a statistical

analysis also shows that there is no correlation between

whether respondents mentioned that no disadvantages were

expected and the degree of their practice in the present or in

the future. This result implies that they are prevented from

8%

6%

14%

13%

8%

19%

21%

0% 10% 20%

Cost issues

Lack of experience/knowledge

Understanding by top management

Other obstacles

None

Unanswered

N/A

Fig. 8. Obstacles to introducing univer

practicing universal design/accessibility not because they

may perceive some negative impacts, but because there may

be other adverse factors related to internal and/or external

organizational environments, or they may not be motivated

enough to practice it even though they do not see any

disadvantages.

4.5. Obstacles to the introduction of universal design

As we had assumed, the major obstacle in introducing

universal design to the workplace was ‘‘cost issues;’’ 78% of

the Japanese respondents cited it. On the other hand, in the

United States, only 54% of the respondents regarded ‘‘cost

issues’’ as an obstacle, followed by ‘‘a lack of experience/

knowledge (37%),’’ and ‘‘understanding by executives

(32%)’’ (see Fig. 8). This is consistent with the result of

expected disadvantages, specifically in terms of the problem

with higher rent and land prices in Japan.

This result is very interesting when we compare it to the

result of Bruyere’s survey in which she asked human

resource professionals about barriers to employment for

people with disabilities [12]. This survey showed that the

biggest concern for human resource professionals was a lack

of experience and that they did not care about cost issues as

much as the facility managers did in our surveys. Therefore,

from a facility management perspective, even though

facility managers are often biased toward cost issues

associated with applying universal design as pointed out

in the above discussion, it will be particularly important to

seek solutions to cost issues through a variety of efforts,

such as financial incentives. As some of the respondents in

the US survey mentioned, the marketing efforts of suppliers

to provide better services and materials at a low price will

also be effective; marketability is, in fact, one of the

fundamental principles of universal design.

Another interesting finding from the US survey is that

those who currently provided more than the legal require-

ments of accessibility were less likely to regard ‘‘under-

standing by executives’’ as an obstacle (Pearson v2 (1,

N =105)=4.13, p =<.05). It can be inferred, therefore, that

these facility managers succeeded in introducing the higher

54%

37%

32%

73%

30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

US JPN

sal design in Japan and the US.


level of accessibility to their workplaces because they did

not have to make a robust effort to convince their superiors.

If this is the case, it can be concluded that top managers

holding certain values and beliefs would have a substantial

impact on lowering the threshold to adopt innovative

concepts, such as universal design. This is consistent with

two other studies: Bruyere found that a visible top

management commitment was regarded as the most

effective strategy to reduce barriers to provide workplace

accommodation [40]; Vanderheiden and Tobias’s study also

showed that support from upper management is key to

implementing universal design [39]. This conclusion evokes

another prospective research question—how can the values

and beliefs of top managers facilitate the introduction of

universal design?

5. Conclusion

Through these two surveys in Japan and the United

States, we found that overall many facility managers in both

countries recognized the advantages of applying universal

design in their workplaces and practice it at any levels. It

should be noted that this study has a limitation in terms of

its generalizability due to the small response rate and a

possible sampling bias. However, as far as we know, this is

a pioneering study that looks at the current state of universal

design awareness and practice in the workplace, and

provides many important implications for future research

in terms of the impact of universal design on organizations

and strategies to promote more inclusive workplaces.

First, the surveys showed that most organizations

currently provided accessible workplaces only within the

scope of the legal requirements, and that there is a

significant possibility of being able to improve their

universal design practices. There were few organizations

that have achieved consistency between corporate missions,

human resource strategies, workplace strategies, knowledge

of facility managers, and the degree of workplace accessi-

bility practices. It will be necessary for organizations to seek

further development of internal alignment between these

aspects. Specifically, for Japanese organizations, it will be

important that they increase their interest in promoting

workplace diversity and actively practicing universal design

based on organizational strategies and culture. US organ-

izations will need to rethink the meaning and impact of

universal design/accessibility on their workplaces from a

strategic perspective, beyond the traditional perception of

mere legal obligation.

Secondly, in response to the findings about the advan-

tages and disadvantages, it will be necessary to develop

solutions to the cost-related issues involved in applying

universal design, such as political and/or marketing inter-

ventions and efforts to promote proper knowledge that can

disprove biased perceptions among practitioners. Because

this study has the limitation of explicitly addressing causal

relationships between perceived advantages and practices, it

is also necessary to verify whether the positive perception

regarding the advantages of universal design truly leads to

action. In addition, it would be interesting to study to what

extent organizational environmental factors, other than the

scope of this study, affect universal design practice, such as

leadership, beliefs of top management, and corporate values

and culture. Specifically, the findings of this study show that

the understanding and commitment of top management is a

key to driving universal design practice, so it will be

important to seek ways to increase understanding of the

issues by executives.

Lastly, according to the findings from the US survey,

accessibility regulations have played a significant role in

facilitating workplace accessibility. However, it could be

disputed whether people with disabilities are satisfied with

the current accommodations developed based on existing

accessibility codes. As Connell and Sanford pointed out

[20], it will be necessary to assess to what extent these legal

frameworks have been effective and had positive impacts on

the work life of not only people with disabilities, but also

their colleagues without disabilities. In addition, it will be

important to look at what are the facilitators that lead

organizations to action beyond the scope of the regulations,

and what differences in outcomes can be observed between

organizations that merely comply with accessibility regu-

lations and ones that proactively practice universal design.

In order to further promote universal design practices in

the workplace, it will be important to verify the advantages

and disadvantages of universal design practice addressed in

this study from real case studies, and to collect data that can

be used for decision-making by facility managers and

corporate executives. This will be our next goal, and we

hope to present several case studies on the topic in the near

future.

Acknowledgements

This paper is the realization of enthusiastic collaboration

with the following JFMA-UD members: Ken Adachi,

Takanori Ochiai, Hitomi Hagino, Kaori Horiguchi, Toshio

Komachi, Masayoshi Moriyama, Yukiko Nakada, Ichiro

Narita, Shiro Nitanai, Kanya Shiokawa, and Dai Sogawa.

The survey in the United States was conducted in

collaboration with the International Facility Management

Association (IFMA). I especially appreciate the services of

Ms. Shari Epstein, Associate Director of Research, IFMA,

for giving me considerable help and suggestions, which

facilitated the conducting of the US survey. In addition, this

paper could not have been completed without the advice of

Prof. Leon A. Pastalan, Professor Emeritus of Architecture

at the University of Michigan, who provided invaluable

reviews of this paper. Most importantly, I would like to

thank all the Japanese and US facility managers who gave

their time and effort to participate in the surveys.


Appendix A. Statistical analysis data

Table A

Correlation coefficients between familiarity with barrier-free/accessible design and universal design, the degree of practice at present and in the future, and the

number of advantages/disadvantages/obstacles cited

Spearman’s rho Current

degree of practice

Degree of

future practice

Degree of

upgrading

accessibility

No. of

advantages

No. of

disadvantages

No. of

obstacles

US

Familiality with accessibility/BF 0.233* 0.241* 0.057 0.117 �0.079 �0.105Familiality with UD 0.161 0.223 0.161 0.234* �0.222* �0.190Current degree of practice – 0.617** �0.058 �0.053 �0.081 �0.176Degree of future practice – – 0.692** 0.237* �0.210 �0.132Degree of upgrading accessibility – – – 0.342** �0.155 0.114

No. of advantages – – – – �0.002 0.223*

No. of disadvantages – – – – – 0.371**

Japan

Familiality with accessibility/BF – – – 0.353** �0.105 0.083

Familiality with UD 0.045 0.198 0.265 0.030 �0.177 0.103

Current degree of practice – 0.731** �0.211 0.012 �0.187 0.174

Degree of future practice – – 0.448* 0.091 0.124 0.209

Degree of upgrading accessibility – – – 0.028 0.581** 0.268

No. of advantages – – – – 0.086 0.273*

No. of disadvantages – – – – – 0.070

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

Table B

Correlation coefficients of selected variables with present/future employment rate of workers with physical disabilities, older workers, and other non-traditional

workers

Spearman’s rho Current employment rate among overall employees Expected change in the number in future

Employees with

physical disabilities

Older

employees

Non-traditional

employees in total

Employees with


Older

employees

Non-traditional

employees in total

US

Familiality with accessibility/BF 0.226 0.286* 0.302* 0.228* 0.124 �0.033Familiality with UD 0.372** 0.242 0.394** �0.072 �0.147 �0.140Current degree of practice 0.110 �0.083 0.118 0.163 0.185 0.119

Degree of future practice 0.325* 0.104 0.339* 0.254 0.179 0.276*

Upgrade of practice 0.243 0.181 0.318* 0.099 0.020 0.147

No. of advantages 0.147 0.203 0.305* 0.072 0.082 0.136

No. of disadvantages �0.002 0.095 0.134 �0.063 �0.126 0.020

No. of obstacles 0.003 �0.031 0.161 0.008 0.149 0.242*

Current rate of employees with


– 0.433** 0.493** 0.039 �0.230 �0.058

Current rate of older employees – – 0.611** 0.134 �0.188 �0.036Current rate of non-traditional

employees in total

– – – 0.261 �0.070 0.118

Expected change in number of

employees with physical

disabilities

– – – – 0.528** 0.680**

Expected change in number

of older employees

– – – – – 0.656**

Japan

Familiality with accessibility/BF 0.088 0.006 0.042 0.139 0.118 –

Familiality with UD 0.266 �0.088 0.029 0.136 �0.040 –

Current degree of practice 0.407 �0.155 0.062 0.271 0.352 –

Degree of future practice 0.281 �0.150 0.006 0.390* 0.237 –

Upgrade of practice 0.277 �0.229 �0.129 0.098 �0.161 –

No. of advantages �0.037 0.214 0.098 0.149 0.271* –

No. of disadvantages �0.086 0.029 �0.080 0.011 0.073 –

No. of obstacles 0.152 0.129 0.153 0.191 0.156 –

(continued on next page)

Table C

Differences in selected variables based on the existence of diversity corporate mission, universal design/accessibility workplace policy, and universal design/

accessibility workplace design manual

Mann–Whitney U (z) Diversity in

corporate mission

UD/BF in

workplace policy

UD/BF in workplace

design manual

US

Familiality with accessibility/BF �1.469 �2.909** �2.041*Familiality with UD �0.860 �1.640 �0.433Current degree of practice �0.856 �2.571* �0.907Degree of future practice �1.420 �0.803 �1.120Upgrade of practice �1.342 �0.865 �2.018*No. of advantages �0.400 �0.392 �0.983No. of disadvantages �0.605 �0.530 �1.344No. of obstacles �0.396 �0.618 �0.508Current rate of employees with physical disabilities �1.740 �1.976* �0.217Current rate of older employees �1.246 �0.679 �1.415Current rate of non-traditional employees in total �0.812 �0.859 �0.217Expected change in number of employees with physical disabilities �1.563 �0.856 �0.929Expected change in number of older employees �1.721 �0.127 �0.818Expected change in number of non-traditional employees in total �0.780 �0.998 �0.490

Pearson chi-square v2 p f

Diversity mission—workplace policy 3.491 0.062 0.179

Diversity mission—workplace design manual 0.071 0.790 �0.048Workplace policy—workplace design manual 0.037 0.847 �0.036

Mann–Whitney U (z) Diversity in

corporate mission

UD/BF in

workplace policy

UD/BF in workplace

design manual

Japan

Familiality with accessibility/BF �0.137 �2.168* –

Familiality with UD �0.947 �0.617 –

Current degree of practice �0.701 �2.369* –

Degree of future practice �1.536 �2.624** –

Upgrade of practice �0.120 �0.101 –

No. of advantages �0.116 �1.474 –

No. of disadvantages �0.342 �1.195 –

No. of obstacles �1.161 �0.355 –

Current rate of employees with physical disabilities �1.112 �0.712 –

Current rate of older employees �0.452 �1.088 –

Current rate of non-traditional employees in total �1.023 �0.427 –

Expected change in number of employees with physical disabilities �0.587 �1.460 –

Expected change in number of older employees �0.105 �0.641 –

Pearson chi-square v2 p f

Diversity mission-workplace policy 3.618 0.057 0.242

* Significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

** Significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).

Spearman’s rho Current employment rate among overall employees Expected change in the number in future

Employees with


Older

employees

Non-traditional

employees in total

Employees with


Older

employees

Non-traditional

employees in total

Japan

Current rate of employees with


– �0.075 0.287 0.289 0.200 –

Current rate of older employees – – 0.734** �0.235 0.162 –

Current rate of non-traditional

employees in total

– – – �0.004 0.204 –

Expected change in number of

employees with physical

disabilities

– – – – 0.431** –

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

Table B (continued)


Table D

Relational analyses based on workplace characteristics

Industrya Type of

building occupancyaAverage age

of occupantsaNo. of

occupantsb

US

Familiality with accessibility/BF 0.293 4.992 3.022 0.202

Familiality with UD 3.449 2.397 2.169 0.210

Current degree of practice 0.474 0.939 0.126 0.027

Degree of future practice 1.727 0.970 1.305 0.088

Upgrade of practice 0.288 0.108 1.968 0.198

No. of advantages 4.652 0.956 1.163 0.188

No. of disadvantages 2.676 2.341 0.059 �0.012No. of obstacles 0.103 1.743 0.778 �0.099Current rate of employees with physical disabilities 2.656 2.959 0.485 0.149

Current rate of older employees 7.723* 1.935 8.574* 0.343*

Current rate of non-traditional employees in total 3.136 7.844* 4.477 0.147

Expected change in number of employees with


0.329 4.242 0.241 �0.116

Expected change in number of older employees 1.523 1.740 1.217 �0.112Expected change in number of non-traditional

employees in total

2.957 3.503 0.176 �0.194

Diversity in corporate missionc 2.139 1.857 3.813 �1.619dBF/UD in workplace policyc 0.212 4.550 0.303 �1.239dBF/UD in workplace design manualc 5.965 0.451 3.706 �1.538d

Japan

Familiality with accessibility/BF 1.747 9.032* 0.006 0.159

Familiality with UD 1.885 1.683 0.145 0.050

Current degree of practice 1.218 4.147 0.225 0.389*

Degree of future practice 2.256 0.335 0.071 0.314

Upgrade of practice 1.080 4.333 0.016 0.062

No. of advantages 1.139 1.156 1.261 0.306*

No. of disadvantages 0.497 7.217* 0.190 0.064

No. of obstacles 0.283 0.655 0.069 0.086

Current rate of employees with physical disabilities 2.118 3.316 0.282 0.212

Current rate of older employees 1.075 0.057 1.781 �0.068Current rate of non-traditional employees in total 5.847 1.297 0.241 �0.178Expected change in number of employees with


0.492 2.755 0.738 0.405**

Expected change in number of older employees 1.304 0.682 0.266 0.081

Diversity in corporate missionc 7.251* 2.797 0.058 �0.984dBF/UD in workplace policyc 5.895 7.349* 0.662 �3.063**,d

* Significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).

** Significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).aKruskal–Wallis test (chi-square).bSpearman’s rho.cPearson chi-square test.dMann–Whitney test (z).


References

[1] U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Interim Projections by Age, Sex, Race,

and Hispanic Origin, retrieved November 7, 2004, from http://

www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/, March 2004.

[2] National Institute of Population and Social Security Research,

Nihon no Shorai Suikei Jinko: Heisei 14 Nen 1 Gatsu Suikei

[Population Projection for Japan: 2001–2050], retrieved June 17,

2002, from http://www.ipss.go.jp/Japanese/newest02/newest02.html,

January 2002.

[3] U.S. Census Bureau, DP-2. Profile of Selected Social Characteristics:

2000, in: Census 2000 Summary File 4, retrieved November 7, 2004,

from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=

D&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF4_U_DP2&-ds_name=D&-_lang=en&-

redoLog=false, n.d.

[4] U.S. Census Bureau, DP-2. Social Characteristics: 1990, in: 1990

Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tape File 3, re-

trieved November 7, 2004, from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/

QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=D&-qr_name=DEC_1990_STF3_DP2&-

ds_name=D&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false, n.d.

[5] Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW), Chiteki-Shogai-

ji(sha) Kiso Chosa Kekka no Gaiyo [A Basic Survey on People with

Cognitive Impairments 2000: The Summary of the Results],

retrieved July 18, 2002, from http://www.mhlw.go.jp/houdou/

0109/h0919-3.html, September 2001.

[6] MHLW, Shintai-Shogaiji(sha) Jittai Chosa Kekka no Gaiyo [A Survey

on the Actual Conditions of People with Physical Impairments 2001:

The Summary of the Results], retrieved July 18, 2002, from

http://www.mhlw.go.jp/houdou/2002/04/h0411-2.html, April 2002.

[7] D. Arthur, Recruiting, Interviewing, Selecting, and Orienting New

Employees, AMACOM Books, New York, 1998.

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/

http://www.ipss.go.jp/Japanese/newest02/newest02.html

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=D&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF4_U_DP2&-ds_name=D&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=D&-qr_name=DEC_1990_STF3_DP2&-ds_name=D&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false

http://www.mhlw.go.jp/houdou/0109/h0919-3.html

http://www.mhlw.go.jp/houdou/2002/04/h0411-2.html

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/

http://www.ipss.go.jp/Japanese/newest02/newest02.html

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=D&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF4_U_DP2&-ds_name=D&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=D&-qr_name=DEC_1990_STF3_DP2&-ds_name=D&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false

http://www.mhlw.go.jp/houdou/0109/h0919-3.html

http://www.mhlw.go.jp/houdou/2002/04/h0411-2.html


[8] J. Gandz, A Business Case for Diversity, retrieved November 8, 2002,

from http://www.equalopportunity.on.ca/eng_g/documents/BusCase.

html, 2001.

[9] JFMA-UD (Japan Facility Management Promotion Association, The

Universal Design Research Committee), Office no Universal Design

ni Mukete (Toward Universal Design at Offices), Japan Facility

Management Promotion Association, Tokyo, Japan, 2004.

[10] B. Wilkerson, Business Case for Accessibility: How Accessibility-

Awareness Strengthens Your Company’s Bottom Line, retrieved

October 31, 2002, from http://www.equalopportunity.on.ca/usefiles/

item/23549/BusAccess.pdf, 2001.

[11] Center for Universal Design, The Principles of Universal Design, Ver.

2.0, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 1997.

[12] R.L. Mace, Universal design: barrier free environments for everyone,

Designers West 33 (1) (1985) 147, 148, 150, 152.

[13] E. Ostroff, Universal design: the new paradigm, in: W.F.E. Preiser, E.

Ostroff (Eds.), Universal Design Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York,

NY, 2001, pp. 1.3–1.12.

[14] S. Danforth, A pragmatic evaluation of three models of disability in

special education, Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities

13 (4) (2001) 343–359.

[15] S.R. Jones, Toward inclusive theory: disability as social construction,

NASPA Journal 33 (1996 (Summer)) 345–347.

[16] G. Albrecht, The social meaning of impairment and interpretation of

disability, The Disability Business: Rehabilitation in America, Sage

Publications, Newbury Park, CA, 1992, pp. 67–90.

[17] World Health Organization, Towards a Common Language for

Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF, World Health Organization,

Geneva, Switzerland, 2002.

[18] S. Iwarsson, A. Stahl, Accessibility, usability and universal design-

positioning and definition of concepts describing person–environment

relationships, Disability and Rehabilitation 25 (2) (2003) 57–66.

[19] A. Mullick, E. Steinfeld, Universal design: what it is and what it isn’t,

Innovation: The Quarterly Journal of the Industrial Designers Society

of America 16 (1) (1997) 14–18.

[20] B.R. Connell, J.A. Sanford, Research implications of universal

design, in: E. Steinfeld, G.S. Danford (Eds.), Enabling Environ-

ments: Measuring the Impact of Environment on Disability and

Rehabilitation, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York,

1999, pp. 35–57.

[21] J.P.S. Salmen, U.S. accessibility codes and standards: challenges for

universal design, in: W.F.E. Preiser, E. Ostroff (Eds.), Universal Design

Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 2001, pp. 12.1–12.8.

[22] P. Welch, C. Palames, A brief history of disability rights legislation in

the United States, in: P. Welch (Ed.), Strategies for Teaching Universal

Design, Adaptive Environments, Boston, MA, 1995.

[23] R.L. Mace, A Perspective on Universal Design, retrieved Septem-

ber 29, 2004, from http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/center/history/

ronmace_ud21conf.html, 1998.

[24] R. Imrie, Oppression, disability and access in the built environment,

in: T. Shakespeare (Ed.), The Disability Reader: Social Science

Perspective, Cassell, London, 1998, pp. 129–146.

[25] M.F. Story, Principles of universal design, in: W.F.E. Preiser, E.


NY, 2001, pp. 10.3–10.19.

[26] K.L. Milchus, J.A. Sanford, Workplace accessibility: it’s more than

just getting in the building, Presented at the IFMA World Workplace

2004, Salt Lake City, UT, October 17–192004, .

[27] J.L. Mueller, Office and workplace design, in: W.F.E. Preiser, E.


NY, 2001, pp. 45.1–45.11.

[28] Herman Miller, Inc., Designing for Accessibility: Application Guide,

Herman Miller, Zeeland, MI, 1994.

[29] U.S. Department of Defense, The Workplace Ergonomics Workbook:

An Illustrated Guide to Assessing Ergonomic Needs in the Office

Workplace and Planning Effective Solutions, U.S. Department of

Defense, Washington, DC, 1998.

[30] W.F.E. Preiser, The evolution of post-occupancy evaluation: toward

building performance and universal design evaluation, in: Federal

Facilities Council (Ed.), Learning from Our Buildings: A State-of-the-

Practice Summary of Post-Occupancy Evaluation, National Academy

Press, Washington, DC, 2001, pp. 9–22.

[31] W.F.E. Preiser, Toward universal design evaluation, in: W.F.E. Preiser,

E. Ostroff (Eds.), Universal Design Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New

York, NY, 2001, pp. 9.1–9.18.

[32] S. Nitanai, K. Shiokawa, Y. Saito, Guidelines for universally

accessible and usable workplaces, IFMA World Workplace Europe

Conference Proceedings—Prague 2003, International Facility Man-

agement Association, Houston, TX, 2003.

[33] U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, The Benefits of

Participating in WPP, retrieved July 10, 2002, from http://www.osha,

gov/oshprogs/vpp/benefits.html, 1999.

[34] H.W. Hendrick, Good ergonomics is good economics, Proceedings

of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 40th Annual

Meeting, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica,

CA, 1996, (retrieved July 15, 2004, from http://hfes.org/Piblications/

GoodErgoGoodEco.html).

[35] M. O’Neill, Ergonomic Design for Organizational Effectiveness,

Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 1998.

[36] M. Oxenburgh, P. Marlow, A. Oxenburgh, Increasing Productivity and

Profit through Health and Safety, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2004.

[37] P. Loprest, E. Maag, Barrier to and Supports for Work among Adults

with Disabilities: Results from the NHIS-D, The Urban Institute,

Washington, DC, 2001.

[38] Tennessee Association for Disability Rights, The disabilities act is

creating a better society, Disability News 4 (1) (1999 (Summer))

(retrieved November 8, 2002, from http://www.tadr.org/disnews7).

[39] G. Vanderheiden, J. Tobias, Barriers, Incentives and Facilitators

for Adoption of Universal Design Practices by Consumer Pro-

duct Manufacturers, retrieved May 27, 2004, from Trace R&D

Center Website http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/hfes98_barriers/barriers_

incentives_facilitators.htm, n.d.

[40] S. Bruyere, Disability Employment Policies and Practices in Private

And Federal Sector Organizations, Cornell University, School of

Industrial and Labor Relations Extension Division, Program on

Employment and Disability, Ithaca, NY, 2000.

[41] Japan National Assembly of Disabled Peoples’ International, Shogai-

Sha Koyo-Ritsu Mitassei Kigyomei no Kaiji Seikyu [Disclosure of

the Names of Companies That Do Not Meet the Legal Quota of the

Employment of People with Disabilities], retrieved September

15, 2004, from http://www.dpi-japan.org/2issues/2-10koyou/top/htm,

2003.

[42] J.W. Stein, ADA: an integrated approach, Maintenance Solution,

retrieved February 8, 2003, from http://www.facilitiesnet.com/ms/

Sep00/sep00management.shtml, September 2000.

Yoko Saito

Education

& The University of Michigan: Doctoral Program in Architecture, 2002–

present (major-design studies; minor-management and organizations).

& Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan: M. Eng. in Architecture and Civil

Engineering, 1996 (architectural history specialization).

& Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan: B. Arch. 1994.

Area of research interests

& Application of universal design in the workplace and its impact on

workers and organizations.

& Building accessibility for people with disabilities and elderly people.

& Programming and post-occupancy evaluation of workplace design.

& Impact of workplace design and strategic facility management on

organizational effectiveness.

http://www.equalopportunity.on.ca/eng_g/documents/BusCase.html

http://www.equalopportunity.on.ca/usefiles/item/23549/BusAccess.pdf

http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/center/history/ronmace_ud21conf.html

http://www.osha,gov/oshprogs/vpp/benefits.html

http://hfes.org/Piblications/GoodErgoGoodEco.html

http://www.tadr.org/disnews7

http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/hfes98_barriers/barriers_incentives_facilitators.htm

http://www.dpi-japan.org/2issues/2-10koyou/top/htm

http://www.facilitiesnet.com/ms/Sep00/sep00management.shtml

http://www.equalopportunity.on.ca/eng_g/documents/BusCase.html

http://www.equalopportunity.on.ca/usefiles/item/23549/BusAccess.pdf

http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/center/history/ronmace_ud21conf.html

http://www.osha,gov/oshprogs/vpp/benefits.html

http://hfes.org/Piblications/GoodErgoGoodEco.html

http://www.tadr.org/disnews7

http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/hfes98_barriers/barriers_incentives_facilitators.htm

http://www.dpi-japan.org/2issues/2-10koyou/top/htm

http://www.facilitiesnet.com/ms/Sep00/sep00management.shtml

Awareness of universal design among facility managers in Japan and the United States

Documents

Transcript of Awareness of universal design among facility managers in Japan and the United States