Understanding the Social Model of Disability: Advancing a More Inclusive Built Environment

The social model of disability has become one of the most influential lenses through which scholars, policymakers, and practitioners critique the design of the built environment. By relocating the source of disablement from the individual body to the social, spatial, and institutional structures that surround it, the social model reframes accessibility as a matter of collective responsibility rather than personal accommodation. This paper critically examines how an understanding of the social model can be operationalised within architectural and spatial design practice to produce a more inclusive built environment. Drawing on the medical, social, and integrative sociomedical paradigms, the review traces how each model positions the built environment relative to the disabled body, and analyses why architecture remains a central site in which disablement is reproduced. Evidence from international standards, recent scholarship on neuro-inclusive and co-design approaches, and case studies of regulatory enforcement demonstrates that legislative compliance alone is insufficient; designers must move beyond the persistent "normate template" and engage disabled users meaningfully throughout the design process. The paper argues that understanding the social model is not an abstract theoretical exercise but a necessary precondition for producing built environments in which dignity, autonomy, and full societal participation are the spatial default rather than aspirational exceptions. The review concludes that an integrated, sociomedical and participatory design framework offers a route to dismantling physical, attitudinal, and procedural barriers in the built environment for all users.

Social Model of Disability, Accessibility, Inclusive Design, Built Environment

1. Abdul Kadir, S., & Jamaludin, M. (2018). Sustainable Life and Social Development through Universally Designed Environment. Asian Journal of Environment-Behaviour Studies, 3(9), 183–192. https://doi.org/10.21834/aje-bs.v5i17.49 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Abdul Kadir, S., Jamaludin, M., & Ab Rahim, A. (2018). Building Managers’ Views on Accessibility and UD Implementation in Public Buildings: Putrajaya. Journal of ASIAN Behavioural Studies, 3(6), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.21834/jabs.v3i6.236 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Ajani, O. A., & Ntombela, S. (2025). Advancing Inclusive Education in Higher Education:Challenges and Opportunities in Preparing Pre-ServiceTeachers to Support Students with Disabilities. International Journal of Management Knowledge and Learning, 14. https://doi.org/10.53615/2232-5697.14.25-41 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Awang, N. A., Chua, S. J. L., & Ali, A. S. (2017). Building Condition Assessment Focusing on Persons with Disabilities’ Facilities at Hospital Buildings. Journal of Design and Built Environment, 73–84. https://doi.org/10.22452/jdbe.sp2017no1.7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Babik, I., & Gardner, E. S. (2021). Factors Affecting the Perception of Disability: A Developmental Perspective. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.702166 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Barış, M. E., & Uslu, A. (2009). Accessibility for the disabled people to the built environment in Ankara, Turkey. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 4(9), 801-814. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Bickenbach, J., Rubinelli, S., & Stucki, G. (2017). Being a person with disabilities or experiencing disability: Two perspectives on the social response to disability. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 49(7), 543–549. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2251 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Biswas, S., & Rahman, A. T. A. (2025). Learning Inclusive Design in the Studio: Residence for Clients with Disabilities. Journal of Design Studio, 7(2), 359–372. https://doi.org/10.46474/jds.1746715 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Blanck, P., Schur, L., Kruse, D., Schwochan, S., & Song, C. (2003). Calibrating the Impact of the ADA’s Employment Provisions.Stanford Law & Policy Review, 14(2), 267–290. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Callaghan, A. N. (2023). From mandate to movement: making Toronto fully accessible. https://doi.org/10.32920/19027538 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Candeloro, G., Tartari, M., Varveri, R., D’Ignazio, M., Mastrolonardo, L., & Sacco, P. L. (2025). Marginalized Living and Disabling Spaces: A Bio-Cognitive Perspective. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14112234 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Cassi, R. (2023). Disability, Experience and Architecture:Towards Inclusive Sports and Leisure buildings. https://adk.elsevierpure.com/da/publications/30b384fb-860d-467b-b770-e90a698f6cd8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Chidiac, S. E., Reda, M. A., & Marjaba, G. E. (2024). Accessibility of the Built Environment for People with Sensory Disabilities—Review Quality and Representation of Evidence. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14030707 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Clarke, P., & George, L. K. (2005). The Role of the Built Environment in the Disablement Process. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2004.054494 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Crews, D. E., & Zavotka, S. (2006). Aging, Disability, and Frailty: Implications for Universal Design. Journal of PHYSIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, 25(1), 113–118. https://doi.org/10.2114/jpa2.25.113 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. D’Argenio, G., Prisco, M. D., Scavuzzo, G., & Bettarello, F. (2025). EXPERIENCE OF CO-DESIGNING SENSOR-FRIENDLY SPACES:INSIGHTS FROM PROGETTOAUTISMO FVG. ArTS Archivio Della Ricerca Di Trieste (University of Trieste Https://Www.Units.It/). https://hdl.handle.net/11368/3124439 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Doussard, C., Garbe, E., Moralès, J., & Billion, J. (2024). Universal Design for the Workplace: Ethical Considerations Regarding the Inclusion of Workers with Disabilities. Journal of Business Ethics, 194(2), 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05582-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Duncan, J., Butler, K., & Punch, R. (2025). Exploring the experiences of undergraduate students with disability who withdraw from university studies. The Australian Educational Researcher, 52(6), 4195–4219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-025-00894-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Egan, C. E. (2024). The Spectrum of Accessible Architectures: Designing for Neurodivergence. https://doi.org/10.22215/etd/2024-16069 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Haq, F. S. (2003). Career and Employment Opportunities for Women with Disabilities in Malaysia.Asia Pacific Disability Rehabilitation Journal, 14(1), 71-78. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Hoagland, I. E. (2019). How the Medical Model has Influenced United Nations Policies on Refugees with Disabilities. https://doi.org/10.62365/2576-0955.1027 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Isa, H. M., Zanol, H., Alauddin, K., & Nawi, M. H. (2016). Provisions of Disabled Facilities at The Malaysian Public Transport Stations. MATEC Web of Conferences, 66, 16–16. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20166600016 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Johansson, S., Hedvall, P., Larsdotter, M., Larsson, T., & Gustavsson, C. (2023). Co-Designing with Extreme Users: A Framework for User Participation in Design Processes. https://doi.org/10.16993/sjdr.952 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Kamarudin, H., Ariff, N. R. M., Ismail, W. Z. W., Bakri, A. F., & Ithnin, Z. (2014). Malaysian Scenario on Access and Facilities for Persons with Disabilities: A literature review. MATEC Web of Conferences, 15, 1019–1019. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20141501019 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Kapsalis, T., Jaeger, N., & Hale, J. (2022). Disabled-by-design: effects of inaccessible urban public spaces on users of mobility assistive devices – a systematic review. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2022.2111723 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Kitchin, R. (1998). “Out of Place”, “Knowing One’s Place”: Space, power and the exclusion of disabled people. Disability & Society, 13. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599826678 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Koesoemawati, D. J., Hasanuddin, A., Putri, F. K., Priyono, T. H., & Viphindrartin, S. (2025). Redefining pedestrian accessibility through inclusive design and community engagement. https://doi.org/10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2025-36-01-03 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Lawson, A., Eskytė, I., Orchard, M., Houtzager, D., & Vos, E. L. D. (2022). Pedestrians with Disabilities and Town and City Streets: From Shared to Inclusive Space? The Journal of Public Space, 7(2), 41–62. https://doi.org/10.32891/jps.v7i2.1603 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Lid, I. M. (2012). Developing the theoretical content in Universal Design. https://doi.org/10.1080/15017419.2012.724445 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Lindsay, S., Fuentes, K., Ragunathan, S., Li, Y., & Ross, T. (2024). Accessible independent housing for people with disabilities: A scoping review of promising practices, policies and interventions. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291228 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Liu, Z., Jamil, E., Sawadengdist, A., Hui, X., Kalai, K., & Tang, L. (2024). Delivering an inclusive built environment for students with disabilities in a Malaysian public university. https://doi.org/10.1108/qrj-07-2024-0157 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Lynch, S., & Proverbs, D. (2019). How adaption of historic listed buildings affords access. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 38(4), 589–605. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijbpa-11-2018-0093 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Madnani, J. (2026). Neuro-Inclusive Urban Design [European Organization for Nuclear Research]. In Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19167379 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Malaysia. (2008). The Persons with Disabilities Act of Malaysia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Marilyn, A., & Adero, M. (2025). The Politics of Disablement: A Review on Issues Pertaining to Access for All to Public Spaces. https://doi.org/10.51244/ijrsi.2025.1210000241 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Marín-Nicolás, J., & Pérez, M. P. S. (2022). An Evaluation Tool for Physical Accessibility of Cultural Heritage Buildings. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215251 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Mathiasen, N., & Frandsen, A. K. (2017). ARCH17: 3rd international conference on architecture, research, care and health. Conference Proceedings. https://vbn.aau.dk/da/publications/27545c34-1871-4c3a-8706-1836004ff896 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. McKinney, V., & Amosun, S. L. (2020). Impact of lived experiences of people with disabilities in the built environment in South Africa. African Journal of Disability, 9, 518–518. https://doi.org/10.4102/ajod.v9i0.518 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. McMahon, B. T., Rumrill, P. D., Roessler, R. T., Hurley, J., West, S. L., Chan, F., & Carlson, L. (2008). Hiring Discrimination Against People with Disabilities Under the ADA: Characteristics of Employers. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 18, 112-121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-008-9134-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Menatalla, K. (2025). Designing with, not for: Empowering people with a learning disability through inclusive architecture. In ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University). Cardiff University. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Merit, M. T., Gramkow, M. C., Kajita, M., & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2024). Asking the right question – guiding universal design practices. Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen). https://researchprofiles.ku.dk/da/publications/3dc3ad03-da00-4848-a6bb-7ce8be29efe2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Metts, R. (2004). Disability and development. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Meyers, A. R., Anderson, J. J., Miller, D. R., Shipp, K. M., & Hoenig, H. (2002). Barriers, facilitators, and access for wheelchair users: substantive and methodologic lessons from a pilot study of environmental effects. Soc Sci Med, 55(8),1435-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(01)00269-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Michopoulou, E., Darcy, S., Ambrose, I., & Buhalis, D. (2015). Accessible tourism futures: the world we dream to live in and the opportunities we hope to have. Journal of Tourism Futures, 1(3), 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1108/jtf-08-2015-0043 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Mladenov, T. (2025). AI and disabled people’s independent living: a framework for analysis. AI & Society, 41, 2593–2605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02642-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Orero, P., & Tor-Carroggio, I. (2018). User Requirements When Designing Learning e-Content: Interaction for All. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94794-5_6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Oyegoke, A. S., Ajayi, S., Abbas, M. A., & Ogunlana, S. O. (2024). Smart housing adaptations register with user matching functionalities for different mobility categories for the social housing sector. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijbpa-07-2022-0106 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Patil, A., & Raghani, S. (2025). Designing accessible and independent living spaces for visually impaired individuals: a barrier-free approach to interior design. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-025-02503-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Putnam, M., Geenen, S., Powers, L., Saxton, M., Finney, S., & Dautel, P. (2003). Health and Wellness: People with Disabilities Discuss Barriers and Facilitators to Well Being. Journal of Rehabilitation, 69, 37. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Rajvir, Mr. R., & Kumar, P. (2025). “Global Trends in the Prevalence and Classification of Persons with Disabilities (2000–2025): An Integrative Review of International Data and Policy Frameworks. International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, 6(11), 124–135. https://doi.org/10.55248/gengpi.06.1125.3808 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Reda, M. A., & Chidiac, S. E. (2025). Impact of Research on the Evolution of Accessibility Standards. Sustainability, 17(18), 8218–8218. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17188218 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Retief, M., & Letšosa, R. (2018). Models of disability: A brief overview. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v74i1.473 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Río, C. J., Mank, D., Bottomley, J., Doose, S., & Tuckerman, P. (2002). Supported employment in the international context: An analysis of processes and outcomes. https://doi.org/10.3233/jvr-2002-00138 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Rispoli, M., & Criado, T. S. (2024). Design Before Design: Learning to be Affected by Neurodiverse Spatial Practices. Design and Culture, 16(3), 357–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/17547075.2024.2375453 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Schwab, S. M., Spencer, C., Carver, N. S., Andrade, V., Hamilton, S., Greve, K., & Silva, P. L. (2022). Personal factors understood through the Ecological-Enactive Model of Disability and implications for rehabilitation research. https://doi.org/10.3389/fresc.2022.954061 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Toro, J., Kiverstein, J., & Rietveld, E. (2020). The Ecological-Enactive Model of Disability: Why Disability Does Not Entail Pathological Embodiment. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01162 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Tuğba, K., Hatice. (2022). Engeli Bulunan Bireylerin Mimarlık Disiplinine Katılımının Gerekliliği Üzerine Bir Araştırma. https://hdl.handle.net/11511/99526 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Watchorn, V., Tucker, R., Hitch, D., & Frawley, P. (2026). Enhancing universal design through co-design: perceptions of practice, process and outcomes. International Journal of Architectural Research Archnet-IJAR, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/arch-08-2025-0340 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Watson, B. C. D., & Puttock, R. (2025). Environments of Empathy: The Role of Architecture in Neurodiverse Well-Being. DigitalCommons - Kennesaw State University (Kennesaw State University). https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/undergradsymposiumksu/fall2025/fall2025/65 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Wazani, I. A., Mohamad, D., & Jaafar, M. (2021). ACCESSIBILITY FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES IN BUILT ENVIRONMENT OF URBAN AREA: CASE STUDY OF GEORGE TOWN, PENANG. https://doi.org/10.21837/pm.v19i19.1059 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Williams, V., Tarleton, B., Heslop, P., Porter, S., Sass, B., Blue, S., Merchant, W., & Mason-Angelow, V. (2017). Understanding disabling barriers: a fruitful partnership between Disability Studies and social practices? https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2017.1401527 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Wiman, R., & Sandhu, J. (2004). Integrating appropriate measures for people with disabilities in the infrastructure sector. http://www.julkari.fi/handle/10024/90771 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. Wu, Y., Ding, X., Dai, X., Zhang, P., Lu, T., & Gu, N. (2022). Alignment Work for Urban Accessibility: A Study of How Wheelchair Users Travel in Urban Spaces. https://doi.org/10.1145/3555165 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Yusof, L. M., & Jones, D. S. (2013). THE APPLICATION OF UNIVERSAL DESIGN LEGISLATION AND STANDARDS IN MALAYSIA AND AUSTRALIA. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. Zahari, N. A. M. (2025). PUBLIC BUILDING ACCESSIBILITY IN MALAYSIA: LEGAL CHALLENGES AND THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES. https://doi.org/10.51200/ljms.v19i2.6616 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. Zallio, M., & Clarkson, P. J. (2021). Inclusion, diversity, equity and accessibility in the built environment: A study of architectural design practice. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108352 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Bridging Customary and Statutory Land Systems: Policy Pathways for Effective Land Use Planning and Economic Development in Rural Zambia: Evidence from Masuku, Choma District