An Inclusive Park Design Based on a Research Process: A Case Study of Thammasat Water Sport Center, Pathum Thani, Thailand (2024)

1.1. Introduction

The prevalence of disability, affecting over 15% of the global population as reported by the WHO [1] is often underestimated, particularly in densely populated areas where the exclusion of disabled individuals in design processes is a significant concern. In reality, the population size of those living with disabilities can be considered even larger given the chance of contracting a disability during over the lifespan [2,3], as well as the wide range of disabilities [1,2,3]. This underestimation overlooks the dynamic nature of disability, encompassing a broad spectrum of conditions and the potential for acquiring disabilities throughout one’s life. The development of inclusive parks is crucial for ensuring equitable access to recreational spaces, which supports social inclusion, improves quality of life, and fosters community for individuals with disabilities. By offering safe, accessible outdoor environments for exercise, relaxation, and connection with nature, inclusive parks not only benefit people with disabilities but also enhance the collective experience of public spaces, promoting diversity and equality. The number of disabled people in each context is often underappreciated and underestimated.

Inclusive parks are crucial for promoting social inclusion, physical activity, and the well-being of communities. They address systemic barriers that restrict access for individuals with disabilities, offering spaces where people of all abilities can enjoy recreational activities and build social connections. Such parks encourage physical health among disabled individuals by providing opportunities for exercise and outdoor recreation, leading to improved fitness and overall health. Beyond accessibility, inclusive parks symbolize a shift towards a more equitable society, challenging traditional norms and fostering acceptance and diversity. This research advocates for the rights and inclusion of all community members, aiming to create environments where everyone can participate fully and independently. Emphasizing inclusive park designs represents a significant step towards a more inclusive, empathetic, and equitable world.

In this regard, the UN Disability Inclusion Strategy states that “the lack of disability-related data, including qualitative and disaggregated data, is one of the major barriers to the accurate assessment of disability inclusion in the development and humanitarian contexts” [4]. Moreover, the more blurred and liminal situation of those marginalized with invisible conditions such as depression and schizophrenia must also be considered when holistically identifying the population living with disability [2]. The difficulty in accurately estimating the number of people living with disability is that the impacts extend beyond the traditional health sciences and include those connected to the personal and social isolation of the affected individuals [5] and are linked to issues of loneliness [6]. The interrelationships between traditional healthcare and its related disciplines can be rendered as factors of inequity [2,3], as represented in Figure 1.

The four factors of inequity that contribute to the definition of individual health and wellbeing can be described as follows:

Structural factors account for the ‘very broad socioeconomic and political context and the mechanisms that generate social stratification’ [3]. This factor affects the key components that shape the base of the healthcare system, for example, the capacity of the State to structure its welfare programs.

Social determinants include the social life conditions of a given person. The social sphere existing around a single individual is a relevant factor in defining life possibilities, for instance, a social network which can affect their social behavior.

Risk factor considers issues of noncommunicable diseases, environmental factors, and a healthy and active lifestyle. It is a holistic view of the topic that includes the private sphere and the behaviors of an individual.

Health system factors include the accessibility of the health services, information, medical support, etc. It is a factor dependent on the conditions of welfare within the State, by the organization of the general healthcare system, and it affects the possibilities of individuals to receive care and medical assistance at different levels.

The general underappreciation of these factors by the public and urban stakeholders results in an underestimation of the needs of people with disabilities and to a lack of physical spaces of inclusion, especially in peripheral metropolitan areas. In this study, we employ the pragmatic epistemology of designing by research, which incorporates elements of the (post)positivist, constructivist, and advocacy/participatory epistemologies [7]. Post(positivist) epistemology evaluates project performance, exploring the effectiveness of universal design for diverse disabilities. Constructivist epistemology focuses on the designer’s ability to create landscapes, employing ideation and reflective techniques tailored to community engagement. Advocacy/participatory epistemology involves the community in problem identification and data gathering. This research, aiming to redevelop a park, utilized pragmatic design research, interpreting inequity factors as opportunities. These guided this study’s four phases: literature review, data collection, data analysis, and park design, with each phase highlighting specific opportunities for addressing inequity.

1.2. The Research Gap

This research intends to fill in the gaps that arise from these premises and its territory. The context is part of the metropolitan peri-urban development and its present diversities and characteristics. In this context, a well-established industrial economy providing a 6th of the GDP of the country, a social and ethnically diverse population, the loss of agricultural destinations despite urbanized lands, and a new land use plan which aims for more intense urban development have emerged [8,9]. All these emerging facts do not constitute elements in favor of the topics of the provision of public spaces, green spaces, inclusiveness, and social bonding. In the instances analyzed, there is no mention of the topic of disability, which is still treated as a health rather than a social issue disconnected from any territorial instance [8,9]. Subsequentially, the gaps highlighted and tackled by this research are a blend of social and physical aspects which further marginalize weak actors and general social bonding within this context.

This research prioritizes the engagement of individuals with disabilities as crucial contributors, bringing their unique firsthand knowledge and experiences to the forefront of accessibility and inclusivity in park design. Their involvement through pragmatic design via research methods guarantees that the outcomes are deeply user-centered, addressing a spectrum of needs and ensuring that the parks are accessible to everyone. This process of active collaboration not only meets the requisite legal and ethical standards but also paves the way for innovation, as it allows designers to uncover and mitigate potential accessibility barriers through direct feedback. Such collaborative efforts result in the development of practical features and amenities that significantly enhance the usability of these public spaces for individuals with disabilities.

Moreover, this study advocates for a paradigm shift towards the social model of disability, which recognizes disability as a complex interplay of social, environmental, and institutional barriers, rather than merely a medical or individual issue. This model calls for an overhaul of systemic biases, advocating for changes that ensure full participation and inclusion of people with disabilities in all facets of society. It highlights the necessity of designing public spaces that are not just physically accessible but also inclusive, fostering a sense of belonging and community.

In essence, the involvement of people with disabilities in the creation of inclusive parks is pivotal. It not only ensures that these spaces cater effectively to the needs of individuals with disabilities but also advances the broader goals of social inclusion, diversity, and equity. By valuing and integrating the perspectives of those with lived experiences of disability, park designs can become more than just accessible; they can become spaces that celebrate diversity and facilitate community integration, embodying the principles of social justice and equality. This approach not only enriches the lives of individuals with disabilities but also enhances the communal fabric by creating more welcoming and inclusive environments for everyone.

This research plays a vital role in expanding the ongoing discussions about equality, accessibility, and urban rights for individuals with disabilities. By delving into these issues, this research can provide valuable insights and evidence to support the development of more inclusive policies and practices. This contribution is crucial for enhancing the understanding of the barriers that people with disabilities face in urban environments. Additionally, thorough research can help to identify effective strategies for removing these obstacles, thus promoting a more equitable access to city spaces and resources. In this way, this research not only enriches the discourse on the rights of people with disabilities but also actively supports the pursuit of these rights in practical and meaningful ways.

1.3. Questions and Objectives of the Research

This article develops the aforementioned four opportunities, following the definition of the principles for inclusive and accessible parks in Pathum Thani Province, Thailand [8], and the selection of a green existent area (The Thammasat Water Sport Center) within this provincial context where a possible redevelopment into an inclusive and accessible park for people with disabilities is expected to have potential success [9].

The research questions of this article expand these considerations, dividing them into two main strains. In reference to the socioeconomic features of the context, we asked “How a research process that involves stakeholder engagement on green and inclusive spaces, can provide insightful information from disabled population?” In reference to the physical and environmental aspects, and to the selected site deemed as the best in the province to redevelop an existent underutilized green space into an inclusive park for the autonomous access by the weak actors [8], we asked “How to transfer the insights information from the research process into an inclusive park, keeping these into account and localizing them in a real site”. These questions aim to bridge the gaps with the subsequent objective of this research.

The objective of this research presented herein is a product of the convergence of the two questions and is to employ pragmatic research to develop the design for an inclusive park for people with disabilities in the selected context. This article develops the questions and answer them, illustrating the process of research and the result of the pragmatic research: the new redeveloped park. The contribution of this article is consequentially theoretical (illustrating a process) and pragmatical, illustrating the tangible results of the theoretical and participative research processes.

We begin by introducing a quantitative study with questionnaire surveys conducted with local stakeholders and people with disabilities. Secondly, we describe the rationale and the choices taken in the phase of insight analysis, and we explore limitations and constraints emerging from the perception of the users, the context, and the design process. The design project developed from the combined analysis is then discussed and evaluated, including the exploration of limitations existent between the perception of the users and the design features. This research aims to utilize pragmatic research methodologies to create an inclusive park design at Thammasat University Rangsit Campus Water Sport Center, tailored specifically for individuals with disabilities. This study’s primary objective is to incorporate the diverse perspectives and requirements of disabled individuals directly into the park’s design, ensuring the space is universally accessible and meets a broad spectrum of needs. By synthesizing socio-environmental considerations with practical design strategies, this project endeavors to serve as a replicable model for inclusive urban development in various settings.

1.4. Site Area and Context

This project is located within the perimeter of the Thammasat University (TU), Rangsit Campus, Pathum Thani Province, in an open space used at the moment as a parking lot overlooking the entrance of the Water Sport Complex Building (Figure 2). The space is surrounded by commercial activities (small shops and cafes) and cultural and sportive recreation spaces (gym and multi-purpose room); the presence of this landmark influenced several design choices especially in terms of accessibility and layout.

The site has a surface area of 2334 sqm (roughly 54 × 43 m) and is bordered on the north side by Sanya Dharmasakti Road; the road and park are separated by a cyclo-pedestrian sidewalk which runs parallel to the road. The main entrance is located on the opposite side facing the main parking lot, and it is only opened for occasions of special events. On the west, the space is bordered by the iconic semi-covered access stairway of the Water Sport Complex Building. Wheelchair access to the complex is provided behind the staircase.

On the south, the site is bordered by the aforementioned commercial activities, recreational spaces, and a parking lot; on the east, it is bordered by a wide-open space connected to the three Gymnasiums. This open space, the Water Sports Complex Building, the three Gymnasiums and the Main Stadium with its Plaza were architectural landmarks of the masterplan designed for the 1998 Asian Games and were subsequently integrated in TU’s Master planning for the campus, blending all the spaces with green corridors during the years.

At the moment, the detailed layout of the area consists of a space divided in two sections: one is an open space of pavement with limited green provision, separated from the road and bordering the commercial activities on the south, located outside the Complex to the east; the other area is a space for cars, with parking lots surrounding a green roundabout which directs and organizes the traffic coming from the Sanya Dharmasakti Road. The project inputs provided by the stakeholder allows the repurposing of this space with a project that overwrites the existing layout with a new, more rational organization of the access lane and traffic and the overall design of an inclusive and accessible park which follows the main conceptual key-points established in the first phase of the research [8].

This space would represent the only ad hoc dedicated space for users with disabilities in the Pathum Thani province [9]; hence, it aims to be a recognizable, functional, easy to access, and well-known green landmark in the province and in the TU Campus area. The disabled community in general would be able to see in this space a tangible help and support for the enjoyment of social life, of multi-sensorial green spaces and water bodies, and of specific sportive, playful, and recreational activities, regardless of their disabilities.

4.1. Background of the Survey Participants

The background of the survey participants provides the demographic base for the project elaboration.

A sample of 384 persons with disabilities participated in the survey; their disabilities were categorized into eight groups: (1) people with vision impairments, 14.06%, (2) people with hearing problems, 14.06%, (3) people with mobility skills or physical problems, 14.06%, (4) people experiencing mental health issues or behavioral problems, 14.06%, (5) people with intellectual challenges, 14.06%, (6) people with learning difficulties, 14.06%, (7) people experiencing some form of autism, 14.06%, and (8) people with multiple disabilities, 1.58% (Figure 5a).

There was a slightly greater proportion of female respondents at 51.30%. The age distribution of the participants can be classified into three categories: (1) 32.81% children, ages 13–14 years, (2) 34.38% adults between 15 and 59 years, and (3) 32.81% elderly with ages of 60–65 (Figure 5b). In Figure 5c, occupations of the respondents were (1) students at 34.64% and (2) self-employed at 24.74% (3) personal business at 17.19% (4) office worker at 10.16% (5) government employees at 6.25% (6) retiree at 2.86% (7) housekeeper 2.08% (8) unemployed at 1.30% and (9) others at 0.78%. With respect to living assistance, 66.41% were able to help themselves and did not require a caregiver’s assistance, while 49.50% did require some help from the caregivers (Figure 6).

Three considerations emerged. No disability prevailed over the others; middle aged group are the most present; and no need for caregivers forms the majority of participants.

4.2. Need for Programs and Facilities in a Public Park

The answers provided the research team with a functional and typological base to orient design choices.

The overwhelming majority of respondents, 98.70%, preferred to exercise with the general public. Furthermore, 58.70% preferred individual exercise, 29.60% would enjoy a group of 2–3 people, and 10.70% would like to exercise with a group larger than 3 people.

Outdoor exercise behaviors can be summarized as follows: (1) 35.80% of the respondents favored walking–running activities, (2) 20.90% preferred cycling, (3) 14.30% suggested multi-purpose exercises such as balancing, stretching exercises, yoga, aerobics, tai chi, etc., and (4) 2.90% required exercise in wheelchairs for disabled people (Table 3).

The interests in passive recreation activities for public spaces can be summarized as follows: (1) 46.50% for meeting point activity, (2) 39.90% for picnic activity, (3) 11.70% for drawing activity, and (4) 2.00% for other modes of activities.

In addressing public park space and facilities requirements, six items were discussed. First, the results revealed that accommodation pavilions were desirable for 30.70% of people with intellectual disabilities (with no physical indication of any design, but just as a general idea of construction), 26.90% for people with hearing disabilities, and 23.50% for people with autism. Second, a multi-purpose exercise activity yard was preferred by people with learning disabilities (19.00%) and people with multiple disabilities (15.20%). Third, parking space for people with disabilities was a top priority for people with mobility disabilities, at 15.50%. Fourth, social spaces were most important for people with visual impairment (14.20%). Fifth, 14.20% of people with visual impairment and 15.20% of people with multiple disabilities (highest value item) would like access to specialized exercise equipment. In addition, the highest response for people with mental health disabilities (13.90%) were bathroom areas and a recreation space. This is summarized in Table 4.

Activities that relied on balancing and coordination and movement of the body such as Tai Chi and yoga are often engaged in as a group with lead performers and with or without rhythmic music, and this results in higher social interactions. These activities can be performed at either indoor or outdoor spaces.

Physical enjoyment activities desired by the respondents can be categorized into two types as follows: (1) dancing activities such as imitating dance moves, creative dancing, etc., and (2) playing music, including band music and independent musical activity, etc.

It can be clearly seen that people with disabilities have a great demand for physical recreation activities. In addition, alternative recreational supporting activities were identified, including meditation and mindfulness activities. Indeed, some of the respondents expressed interest in religious and spirituality-related activities such as meditation and mindfulness which required trainers and caretakers to ensure safety of the participants. Some suggestions to facilitate these activities included having a peaceful area by a pond in the absence of disturbing noises from traffic. The benefits of these activities for people living with disabilities include better daily activities performance and improved working efficiency.

We also see an opportunity to add new activities that are shared between people with disabilities and general users. These two groups can exchange views in a social setting and collaborative participation would provide an opportunity for the general public to better understand and appreciate living with a disability. Some respondents suggested that using a public park by themselves was an issue of concern. Therefore, an assistance service should ensure equal and safe access to the park. It appears that all groups with disabilities included in this study would benefit from guardians to help them access public spaces, especially those with multiple disabilities and who may have difficulties in accessing information, equipment, or asking for help in case an accident occurs.

In short, the insights that emerged with more recurrency are the following: a preference of walking for the active space activities and of social meeting for the passive ones; preference for individual exercise and interest in other open-air recreational uses; and claim for a general undefined pavilion and other general services. All the activities of the redeveloped park are desired to be conducted in an environment blended with the general public and assisted by a general stewardship facilitating the accessibility and the fruition.

4.3. Recommendations of Participants from the Survey

“Parks should be designed in a way that the disabled people can use safely on their own”, one of the research’s participants added. Other recommendations were provided in regards to the physical qualities of the spaces.

Key recommendations for balancing-exercise guidelines were to install handrails, as well as having walking sticks and crutches available. Furthermore, advice on choosing smooth, non-slippery, and soft surface materials was provided, to help those with disabilities to reduce the probability of a fall and the risk of injury. Moreover, the selection of fitness accessories should consider ease of use, convenience, light weight, and safety as the utmost important risk prevention measure. In addition, a caregiver assistantship may be considered in choosing equipment and methods of exercise.

Some major recommendations for hands and arm muscle exercises were provided for ball accessories. Consideration must be allocated to ball size where a small size is appropriate for hand compression and a moderate size for ball throwing, receiving, and passing activities. The balls also should have appropriate weight to prevent accidents during exercise. Moreover, a high-level handrail node including single and double railings should be established, and stocked with body protection equipment such as gloves, helmets, sleeves, etc.

The guidelines for enhancing physical activity spaces in sports fields emphasize several structural and accessibility improvements. Firstly, the installation of sun and rain protection roofs, along with increased tree coverage, is recommended to provide shaded areas that facilitate outdoor activities in various weather conditions. Additionally, the guidelines advocate for the removal of obstacles within exercise areas and the selection of soft materials for surface cladding, particularly in corner areas, to minimize the risk of injuries resulting from collisions.

Regarding the usability of spaces, the guidelines suggest providing an adequate number of seating options, including cushions and other resting facilities, to enhance comfort during activities. Furthermore, the installation of information signboards that clearly display directions and details is advised to improve the navigability of the space.

To better accommodate individuals with hearing impairments, the guidelines also recommend equipping some physical activity resources, such as balls used in sports like basketball and table tennis, with sound-producing devices. This modification aims to make these activities more accessible and enjoyable for everyone, ensuring inclusivity in sports field environments.

Considering protection measures for some activities, net installation can prevent balls from leaving the activity area and make it easier to collect the balls as well as preventing their interference with other activities in another area. Moreover, it was suggested to have assistants for informing about the proper use and participation for each activity.

Additional suggestions are to provide a special wheelchair service free of charge. Wheelchairs should be rotated freely in all directions and should be regularly maintained and safe to use. The new park should also provide accessories for wheelchairs such as belts for fastening. Activities should be performed on flat smooth surfaces with no physical obstacles and a wider path to support wheelchair movement, as well as supporting ramps for more convenient access. In addition, there should be a specific green physical activities area designed for wheelchair accessibility.

Further recommendations on relaxation and provision of a peaceful atmosphere for relieving stress and worry should include a design having great numbers of trees to provide shade and fresh air. Moreover, there should be lawn areas where children can run, sit, and play, as well as decorations, monuments, and entertainment such as running water, fountains, and music for relaxation.

In summary, based on respondent recommendations, open spaces should have (1) no obstructions, (2) smooth surfaces, (3) no level variations, (4) clear path separation for walkways, jogging, and bicycles, (5) clear and sufficient information boards, (6) easily accessible meeting points, (6) a variety of learning improvement activities, (7) a green area without cars and noise interference, (8) a food distribution area, (9) a bicycle lending service, (10) clean and all-accessible bathrooms, and (11) a close distance to the car parking area, etc.

A set of additional recommendations from the respondents can be describes as follows: (1) there should be a variety of standardized, universally-accessible exercise equipment for supporting every activity, (2) having group exercises together with general users, (3) sponsoring sporting events for people with disabilities, (4) have coaches and caregivers available to help on using equipment, (5) the need for having clean bathrooms, (6) a suitable waiting area, (7) a food distribution point, (8) a vocational training center to provide services to support activities, (9) spaces allocated to people with disabilities proportionately, (10) clear symbols, sound signals, and ramps to facilitate wheelchair access, (11) spaces with tree-shaded areas, (12) installed emergency buttons that allow assistances to reach in case of needing help, and (13) the park should be free of charge.

The set of functional recommendations included in this section constituted the last input provided by the participants and a valuable set of prescriptions to be adapted to the site. The designers’ interpretation of all the insights received is discussed in the next section.

4.4. From Insight to Design Criteria

The nature of the open questions offered to the participants produced a diversity of results unrelated to any specific site: to avoid biases, the participants were not instructed on the specific project details, and the specific location of the project was not disclosed nor mentioned. The other set of insights coming from the close-ended questionnaire and graded with the Likert scale produced, similarly, a general appreciation of the statements proposed in connection with the personal views of the participants. Each of these insights was also remarkably related to the specific disability—or mix of disabilities—of every participant. As a result, the broad range of insights provided a comprehensive ideal impression of a park to be interpreted: an optimal idea, rather than a direct set of inputs to be followed in the design.

The second phase of the research weighted and evaluated these insights: the design team balanced these with the site specifications, opportunities, and constraints, in defining a proposal which tried to create a compromise between the results and the real possibilities. The first consideration was taken on the specificities of the survey sample.

The presence in the demographics of almost one-third of participants aged 13–14 implied a constraint on independence of movement related to the minor age, rather than to their specific disabilities. This issue was considered by the designers in relation to two site specificities: one, the site macro area does not allow an easy movement or reachability of the area at the urban scale—besides the presence of public transportation lines and public vans; two, the site’s surroundings are freely accessible but are strongly connected to the community of the Thammasat University, whose staff and students correspond to another demographic and live in the area surrounding the site. For these reasons, the designers determined that autonomous access and autonomous fruition of the park for the demographic 13–14 is less likely to happen. This consideration was received in the design in two ways: creating a space connected to a parking lot and the bus stop (hence, accessible by the external users of the TU), and by the decision to provide activities and playground devices suitable for users of 14 years and above, but not below. Accompanied users of this younger demographic would have to rely on the other spatial provisions (i.e., the open spaces or physical activities of movement), fostering in this way social integration in different manners.

Similarly, consideration was allocated to the 34.60% of the sample’s composition that are students of different ages and the 24.70% that were self-employed. The designers aimed to prioritize the areas for social engagement, inclusion, and integration for these demographic transversal groups (not connected to the age) for two specific reasons: to blend in the context of students from diverse school grades and backgrounds and to provide the self-employed an opportunity for public social gatherings with students, a demographic different from their employment status. As such, these principles were conceptualized in the design via open-structured and semi-structured spaces. Another data point strengthened this last spatial consideration: over 73% of the participants affirmed they had no underlying diseases which could additionally affect movement, while over 65% indicated their health satisfaction was 8/10 or higher on a Likert scale. Consequently, open-structured and semi-structured spaces were conceptually imagined as blending into the exercise area to promote a seamless transition between passive and active recreations.

The last element of reflection connected to the demographic is an elaboration of the 99% of users who declared to be willing to use exercise areas in public. Of these, most of the participants would like to conduct individual exercise (58.70%), and secondly, in a group of 2–3 people (29.60%); finally, in 3 or more for the remaining 11.70%. These data were crossed with the consideration that 66.40% of the sample identifies as a self-assisted person, while 93% identified as a person which can explore the space with no constraints. Put together, these insights reinforced the general overall conceptual idea of autonomous use and access of the park by all the seven ranges of disabilities and a general idea of ‘unity through difference’ furtherly elaborated later in the process and explained in Section 5.2.

An element of reflection about the main environmental and physical aspects of the context were the last factor to be considered in two manners and was indirectly present in the suggestions received. Firstly, the tropical climate drives human behavior and general design choices that limits the overall fruition of open spaces, requiring a particular climatic attention [37,38,39,40] and essential considerations on climate change [41].

Secondly, the socially vibrant context would also drive some of the choices in terms of accessibility, inclusion, operational times, and integration into the existent flows of people and vehicles. This is specified in the next section, which describes the design intervention arising from the insights presented here. The features of the site, of the context, and of the design are illustrated with figures to further clarify the research-through-design methodology that was adopted.

The results of this research highlight the multifaceted preferences and needs of individuals with disabilities concerning public park facilities. Surveying 384 participants with diverse disabilities, the study found a strong preference for inclusive, interactive, and multifunctional recreational spaces. Most respondents (98.70%) expressed a desire to engage in physical activities alongside the general public, with preferences distributed among solitary exercises (58.70%), small group activities (29.60%), and larger group interactions (10.70%). This indicates a significant inclination towards social interaction and community involvement within recreational settings.

The participants also voiced specific needs for park facilities, suggesting a demand for universally accessible designs that accommodate a wide range of disabilities. Key facilities highlighted included accommodation pavilions, multi-purpose yards, and accessible parking, with special attention to the needs of those with intellectual disabilities, hearing impairments, and autism. The survey underscored the importance of safety and accessibility, recommending the installation of handrails, non-slip surfaces, and other adaptive equipment to enhance the usability of park environments.

In conclusion, this study illustrates the critical role of inclusive design in enhancing public parks to better serve diverse communities, particularly those with disabilities. The insights gained underscore the necessity of considering a broad spectrum of needs in park design, advocating for environments that not only accommodate all users but also promote their active participation and engagement. These findings provide valuable guidelines for developing public spaces that are not just accessible but truly inclusive, fostering a sense of community and belonging among all users.

5.1. Project Rationale

The design strongly promotes the inclusion of this often-marginalized share of society, considering differences and unity, as mentioned shortly in Section 4.4.

The main site-specific design concept is “Finding Unity Through Difference”. This guiding concept allows the designers to both maintain and yet integrate the “unity”–“difference” dichotomy in the conceptual and practical dimensions of the design.

“Unity” and “difference” represent the users together, with their differences, and summarizes the goal of creating a unique space where space users and passers-by can meet and gather, with ease of access, no divisions or barriers, and regardless of the presence or the level of disabilities which may affect a user of this space.

From the physical point of view, “unity” and “difference” represent the guidelines for the definition of spatial layouts, materials, activities, furniture, and landscape design solutions which compose the design of the park. These items are materialized here often in a triangular shape with rounded edges. This recurrent shape of the design is present in the main layout of the areas, in the finishing of the pavements, in the shape of “the mountain”, and in other diverse elements. The triangle symbolizes the stability that many users of the park are looking for in the context (as per the survey), the certainty for the park to be a new element which can enrich the disabled users’ life, and a stable presence the users will be able to count on. The rounded edges symbolize the ease of park use for the users.

5.2. Project Features and Description

Firstly, given the nature of the project, a redevelopment, great attention was allocated to mobility, circulation, and pedestrian security—themes particularly felt in the Thai context and in an area which can suffer from traffic congestion in the rush hours and that would affect the space as well. Pursuing inclusivity, safety, and ease of access as the survey suggested, the project connects itself seamlessly to the context, to the cyclo-pedestrian mobility, and to the features surrounding the space (Figure 7). Practically, the design includes also the following:

As visible in Figure 7, the park consists of a few main elements distributed in an asymmetrical layout: a green corridor running along the perimeter of the site; another inner ring of green; and a central area. The first two elements surround a central area, a quadrangular core subdivided into two triangular areas—a “main” (with the ‘multi-purpose area’ as a center) and a “secondary” one (with the ‘basketball’ and ‘sitting’ areas).

The green corridor consists of new and existent trees, grass, bushes, and a water body. Another inner ring runs parallel to the main triangular core and contains other trees and a lawn, enclosed by flowerbeds. Their purpose, in accordance with the user consultation emerging from phase one of the research, the site-specific investigations, and the contemporary literature on the topic [8,9], is to provide sensorial enjoyment and pleasantness. Moreover, the physical layout of the trees encloses the area of the activities, providing a sense of visual enclosure and serving as a green barrier to absorb the sound and physically separate the safe area of the park from the surrounding campus and roadways.

The quadrangular core’s space is defined by the design criterion of “passive” and “active” zones, which subdivide the spaces (Figure 8). The “passive zones” are related to the idea of the passive enjoyment of the green space: a sensorial enjoyment which does not imply the exertion of physical exercise in the space. Seating, gathering, resting under the shaded zones, and relaxation are possible in the open spaces connected to these concepts—as remarked in the survey by the prospected users. While seatings are mostly located on the northern edge of the main triangular core, alongside the concrete walls delimiting the green corridors and the water fountain, the whole design is characterized by a sequence of shaded and open spaces: five “flowers” of metal structures and texture coverings provide shade and complete the design of the open spaces. The pavement is characterized by different colorations. This graphic support, to aid those who are partially sighted and to convey a general message of vibrancy, is paved with a soft layer of blended concrete and rubber which provides comfort and safety. The design additionally includes open green spaces freely accessible for multiple purposes.

In contrast, the “active” zones facilitate physical activities. Spaces for the structured active enjoyment of the space include fitness equipment and a basketball court in the northern and western portion of the park; a playground and a fitness area; and the two connected elements of an artificial ground and a walking lane which loops around the premises. The provision for spaces of activity is greater than the spaces of passive uses, as emerged by the insights analyzed in the previous sections.

The fitness equipment consists of machines popular with active exercises and that are specifically designed for users with disabilities of the dominant demographics of use (above 14 years of age), to favor the bond with the future users. Similarly, the playground area is designed with equipment for adults that includes swings and seesaws to foster physical and sensory engagement and enjoyment. The active zone is located in the north-west area around the shading devices to guarantee rest and sun protection for the users. The area shares also the activity of basketball, with the installation of a half-court area, the positioning of which does not affect the other users. Basketball is a favorite activity in Thailand and the presence of the basket in an asymmetric context without the normal rectangular court dimension has the benefit of providing the idea of the game stimulating different plays and challenging activities. The rest of the area is a general, free non-shaded open space.

The artificial ground is a hill, 1.65 m high, located on the eastern side of the area. It is reachable through the walking lane by the sides and through “the mountain” by the main open space, a soft and walkable ascent with climbing supports diversely colored. The walking lane extends alongside the perimeter of the main triangular core for a loop of 100 m; it climbs the hill, and it is navigable by wheelchair, respecting the slope design criteria prescribed by the Thai regulations for accessibility and codified design [42].

The minimum width of 1.70 m allows the passage of more people or a combination of wheelchairs with people. Alongside its course, metal parapets protect the uses and are present active devices of activity. An anchoring device runs parallel to the path on a metal frame mounted at different heights. It allows the walkers with mobility or visual impairment to hold a moveable handle which can guide them on this path

The unstructured active enjoyment zone is another important feature defining the spaces. It includes, as per the passive zones, the open spaces which allow free movements, walks, runs, and collective exercise by groups of users, in cooperation with the local stakeholders who can promote further interactions within the spaces. These spaces, by their nature, favor an informal gathering of users and social inclusion, allowing people to find new spaces to conduct social or other outdoor activities.

5.3. Social Inclusion of the People with Disabilities in the Park with Physical Activities

Whereas the park blends and encourages sitting and passive enjoyment, the design of recreational activities that can foster active social integration while promoting good health for people with disabilities is a main core of the project. This core is developed with two main principles: one of challenges and the other of sensorial engagement.

The principle of the challenge, emerging from the interpretation of the studies conducted, consists of a balance of inclusive elements that leverage accessible and controlled physical challenges. At the center of the northeast open space, the aforementioned artificial ground is created and paired with another solid element with a triangular base, the “mountain”. It is an artificial hill clad in a soft rubber blend which allows and invites engagement through climbing. This element is constructed with a progressive slope and several anchor points designed to develop a challenge, a sense of achievement, to support sensorial balance and active mobility exercise.

In a similar way, the edge of the hill is designed to encourage the throw of a ball/weight towards the square, in a shot-putting manner, targeting a specific angle which does not harm other visitors or people climbing the mountain. It is possible to conduct this activity on the level of the square also. The involvement of the same dual sense of engagement/challenge is amplified by the design of the floors: parallel lines with different color contrast and distance indicators allows the participants of the activity to measure the length of the throwing. In this sense, the design of the pavement with the color contrast and the parallel lines helps to identify the position of the thrown object. This opens further possibilities of enjoyment, engagement, and research to be developed in the future daily operational routine of the park and in collaboration with sports experts, physiotherapists, and other personnel affiliated with the various Thammasat faculties. Under this aspect, social integration hence constitutes a base for institutional integration, an aspect which goes positively beyond the redevelopment of the park into an inclusive space and targets the largest public stakeholder involved here, Thammasat University.

On the other hand, the topic of sensorial engagement can be enjoyed at the site in both active and passive forms. The park offers a wide variety of possibilities for the engagement of the senses with open space, natural ventilation, sun, water, and greenspace, elements capable of stimulating different sensorial sensations. The position of the park in between a cluster of sportive, recreational, and commercial activities facilitates spontaneous access, thereby enticing unplanned visits to the space. The presence of continuous seating, of generous greenspace, and of a water body with a fountain favors visitor aggregation, while concurrently providing opportunities for private and collective moments of sensorial engagement. For example, the open spaces can host active and reflective activities such as group-classes of mindfulness or meditation in a public space—a further experience of inclusion in the public context for people with different disabilities, as the survey insights suggested.

5.4. Green Landscape Design

The design of green spaces warrants further elaboration. The greenspace was deemed as crucial by the designers in accordance with the results of the survey, the TU Masterplan for a green campus and to provide real possibilities of sensorial engagement while being consistent with concepts of nature-based solutions, relevant nowadays in the landscape discipline [43] and in this context [44]. This empowerment of the greenspace design involves the maintenance of the existent trees with their relocation on the site and the plantation of 22 new trees of different arboreal species. Shrubs and grass are planted in the areas at the edge of the site to accomplish two additional goals other than the visual, sensorial, and environmental ecosystem benefits. The first is water collection: while an irrigation network supplies water in the dry season, permeable soils and water collection hubs facilitate the on-site collection of stormwater runoff and subsequent conveyance for treatment. The secondary goal is the protection and enclosing of the space for the activities. The water fountain is included to provide an element of variety, functioning as a sensorial and material point of engagement which creates a sensorial, acoustic, and visual landmark due to its position on the site, visible to the public road. Figure 9 and Figure 10 provide comprehensive rendered images of the park.

This research project focuses on the latest completed phase, specifically the description and discussion of the design stage. The team has intentionally omitted the approval process and public hearings for two reasons: first, the process is not formally concluded, and second, detailing these steps would deviate from the objectives and scope of this paper. By doing so, the research remains aligned with its stated goals and maintains a clear focus on the relevant aspects of the design process.

The next section discusses results of this study and its limitations, points of convergence, and divergence of the research insights coming from the surveys (as discussed in the Section 4) and their reflection in the design process.