Body Size and the Built Environment: Creating an Inclusive Built Environment using Universal Design Erin Pritchard Newcastle University erin.pritchard@newcastle.ac.uk The article has not been submitted for publication elsewhere, and will not be submitted elsewhere until a decision has been rendered by the Editor-in-Chief. Abstract Within Geography, the subject of body size is now gaining momentum, with a growing body of research that focuses on how the sized body interacts with, and experiences spaces. There is some contention as to whether body sizes which go beyond the norm are disabled, which is often blamed on a lack of understanding of what disability is. This paper argues that spaces are disabling for different body sizes, due to the way they are constructed, and that spaces need to be made enabling in order to provide equal access for all. It is suggested that writers within geographies of body size could change focus from how spaces are disabling, to how spaces can become enabling for different body sizes, through engaging with the concept of Universal Design. The main aim of Universal design is to accommodate for a range of different bodies, including different body sizes and thus providing equal access within the built environment. Keywords: Body Size, Built Environment, Disability, Universal Design. Introduction Within Geography, the subject of body size is now gaining momentum with a growing body of research that focuses on how different body sizes In reference to ‘different body sizes’ I mean those that exceed the norm by a considerable amount, including the very tall, very small, very fat and very thin. interact with, and experience spaces within the built environment, by which I mean urban spaces. In regards to urban spaces, they are spaces which are man made and thus for economic reasons are created to specifically accommodate for the average person. Hopkins (2008: 2121) suggests that, ‘understanding how people negotiate everyday spaces, which are planned for specific bodies, is crucial in advancing the knowledeges of geographies of body size’. If the size of a space or facility was not a contributing factor to a person’s disablement, then there would be no need to ergonomically construct a space or facility for the average sized person. Bodies which are not of a specific size experience spaces differently, affecting their use of spaces as they are disabling. A lack of consideration for various body sizes demonstrates that bodily variations are not given equal access to the built environment and that there is scope to show how spaces can be made to accommodate for different body sizes. This paper aims to bring together literature regarding various body sizes, disability in relation to the built environment and Universal Design to show it how it can be a welcome concept within geographies of body size. Universal design is based on the principle that there is only one population, comprised of individuals representing diverse characteristics and abilities (Iwarsson and Stahl, 2003). Universal design is defined as: The design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design (Mace 1985, in Steinfeld and Maisel, 2012: 12). Universal Design emerged from the disability rights movement, but with the aim of benefiting the wider population, including children (Steinfeld and Maisel, 2012). Thus, under Universal Design, spaces are not only made accommodating for particular disabilities, also for different body sizes and thus creating a more accommodating built environment for a wider range of people. The first part of this paper explores the arguments surrounding body size and disability, arguing that spaces are disabling for people whose body does not fit the average standard. The paper argues that body size is often contested as a disability, but through exploring notions of how disability is socially created demonstrates that body size can be a disability. In the second part, the paper aims to suggest that researchers within geographies of body size can move on from how spaces are disabling, to how spaces can be made enabling for different body sizes, using the concept of Universal Design. The second part of the paper explains how Universal Design can be beneficial for writers interested in the spatial experiences of people with different body sizes. Using Universal Design can help demonstrate which aspects of the built environments cause inaccessibility for different body sizes and how this inaccessibility can be resolved and overcome, thus showing how the built environment can accommodate for various body sizes. Geographies of Body Size Within social geographies, the subject of body size is now gaining momentum with a growing body of research which focuses on how the sized body interacts with, and experiences spaces (Colls, 2004, 2006; Evans et al., 2012; Hopkins, 2012; Longhurst, 2005, 2010). Longhurst (2005: 247) claims that, ‘body size, shape and weight play an important role in constructing everyday social and spatial relations’. If a space is too big or too small for a particular body then that body does not fit and is therefore disabled in that space. Longhurst (1997; 2005) points out how elements of the built environment such as narrow stairs and small changing rooms, form spatial barriers for people with large bodies. Spaces that are not created for a particular body size can be related to a social constructionist view of disability, whereby minority forms of embodiment are excluded from the built environment. Longhurst (1995, 1997, 2005, 2010) argues that spaces that do not accommodate for fat people are inaccessible and are thus disabling. The spatial difficulties faced by large people is blamed upon the creation of a particular standard of size within society which not everyone fits into and is therefore left to struggle, resulting in a disabling experience. Since Longhurst (2005) called for more geographers to take account of the sized body there has been an increase in work within geographies of body size, with a particular focus on fat bodies. Research includes how negative social attitudes and an unaccommodating built environment affect the emotional experiences of fat women (Colls, 2004, 2006). Colls (2004), focusing on women’s experiences of clothes shopping, claims that spaces which are not accommodating for women with fat bodies, such as changing rooms, can have an effect on their emotions. Changing rooms are often intimate spaces where the body is often on show and thus women can feel uncomfortable in these spaces. Added to this changing rooms are all made to a specific standard of size and thus fat women can have difficulties fitting into these spaces which could lead to the extra unwanted attention from other shoppers. Thus, this research shows how particular spaces can lead to different emotions. Hopkins (2012) explores the experiences of young people who identify themselves as fat and claims that because of their size they feel marginalised and discriminated against within society. Hopkins (2012) claims that how these young people feel is affected by space and time and that they may feel more or less comfortable in different spaces, such as spaces of consumption at lunch time. Whilst the young people may feel uncomfortable about their size around people, if these spaces are not size suitable they may encourage further feelings of social difference. Research also centres on how fat bodies negotiate the built environment spatially due to a lack of facilities to accommodate them (Hettrick and Attig, 2009; Huff, 2009; Longhurst, 1997, 2005, 2010). The way the built environment has been constructed means that it tends not to cater for fat bodies, resulting in fat people experiencing discomfort and embarrassment such as, when forced to sit in seats not built to accommodate their size (Longhurst, 2005). Longhurst (2010) considers spaces to be ‘disabling’, both emotionally and materially, for women who are fat, affecting their use of spaces where their fatness may be less acceptable. Focusing on women living in Hamilton, New Zealand, Longhurst explores how women who identify themselves as fat and claims that disability research, concerning the relationship between space and disability can be used to understand how fat people negotiate spaces. Longhurst goes on to discuss a number of material spaces which these women fell uncomfortable within due to them not ‘fitting’, such as within seats in the hairdressers or on airplanes. Longhurst also points out that fat people feel like they are encroaching on other people space, such as on an airplane, because the seats are too small for them. To overcome this problem Longhurst mentions how some fat people will buy two seats. Drawing on from this Huff (2009) and Hettrick and Attig (2009) show how different spaces, including on an airplane and within the classroom, are made to fit the average sized person and people who do not fit these standards are required to change in order to. Huff (2009) explores how the body is seen as capable of adapting itself to spaces which are constructed to fit specific standards set out by corporations as opposed to these spaces being adapted to suit a range of individuals. Drawing on mass production as an example Huff (2009) claims that creating products to a specific standard of size increases profits for corporations whilst relying on the user to adapt their body size, if need be, in order to fit a specific standard of size. As Huff (2009) points out, the introduction of paying for two seats by some airlines shows that the blame is placed on the person as opposed to the airlines failing to provide for needs of the general population. The writers argue that these spaces are exclusionary for fat bodies which do not fit with specific bodily standards within society and that because these people are unable to fit comfortably within these spaces affects them socially, as well as physically, such as pain when trying to fit into seats which are too small for them. This notion that spaces are created to suit the profit interests of corporations as opposed to individuals indicates that there is an opportunity to challenge corporations and changing spaces to suit a wide range of body sizes. Focusing on students bodies within classroom environment, Hettrick and Attig (2009) similarly focus on how classroom desks which are not size suitable for some students cause physical pain and social distress. They argue that again these desks are only made to suit a specific standard of body size and thus the classroom becomes a place which not only works to shape a student’s mind but also their body. They argue that classroom desks unconsciously attempt to change a student in order to fit in and become a conforming body. The student is once again required to change the body size in order to use a classroom desk without discomfort or social distress. These pieces of research show that different spaces can have a disabling affect on someone when their body size, in these cases being too big, is not accommodated for within the built environment. Hopkins (2008) has called for geographies of body size to expand and include the experiences of people with different sized bodies, such as the tall, thin or small body, which will provide different insights into how different body sizes experience the built environment. Different body sizes are going to experience different spatial relations from one another. The disabling experiences for a person who is fat will differ from that of someone who is small. For example, someone who is fat may not be able to fit into an airplane seat, but will be able to reach the overhead lockers. On the other hand for someone with dwarfism they will be able to fit into an airplane seat, but not be able to reach the overhead lockers. This demonstrates that the built environment disables different body sizes in different ways and there is a need to create spaces which are enabling for these different body sizes. In terms of the small body, Kruse (2002, 2003, 2010) examines the socio-spatial experiences of dwarfs within the built environment. Using the term ‘statuarized’ Kruse (2002, 2010) points out that dwarfs live in spaces that are physically constructed for people of average height, affecting a dwarf’s use of space. He points out how facilities such as cash machines are literally out of reach for dwarfs affecting how they interact with the built environment. Further drawing upon ‘statuarized’ spaces Kruse (2010) looks at how private spaces, including the home and spaces which hold annual events for the organisation ‘Little People of America A non-profit organisation which holds conferences, including an annual conference, in the USA for dwarfs. ’ have been adapted in order to be suitable for dwarfs. Whilst this can be acknowledged as a positive way to show how spaces can be made accommodating for dwarfs, as they are in spaces which only dwarfs occupy does not show how these adaptations may affect people with other body sizes, from the average sized to the very tall. Universal design is about the creation of spaces which include a variety of different bodies without disabling anyone when accommodating for someone else. Thus research also needs to engage with how spaces can be made accommodating for dwarfs, or any other body size, without affecting anyone else negatively. Research concerning other body sizes remains limited, which is why this paper mainly focuses on and uses examples of the small body and the fat body. Mostly focusing on the small and the fat body is not to suggest that other body sizes, such as the thin or tall, should not be accommodated for or that Universal Design does not. Body Size and Disability Over the past 40 years writers within disability studies have argued that it is the built environment which disables people with impairments, due to the way the built environment has been designed and constructed for the average sized, able-bodied Able bodied refers to those with no physical or mental impairmentperson (Barnes, 1991; Imrie, 1996, 1999, 2001, 2004; Oliver, 1990; UPIAS, 1975). In 1975 the Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS) published the document, The Fundamental Principals of Disability (UPIAS, 1975). The document made a distinction between impairment and disability. It claimed that impairment was not the cause of disability, but rather society: In our view, it is society which disables physically impaired people…disability is the disadvantage or restriction of activity caused by contemporary social organisation which takes little or no account of people who have physical impairments (UPIAS, 1975: 3, 14). Using this concept of disability UPIAS came up with the following definitions which separated impairment and disability: Impairment: lacking part or all of a limb, or having a defective limb, organism or mechanism of the body. Disability: the disadvantage or restriction of activity caused by a contemporary social organisation which takes no or little account of people who have physical impairments and thus excludes them from the mainstream of social activities (UPIAS, 1975 p.3-4). This definition of impairment does not quite cover body size as an impairment, yet, looking at their definition of disability, body size can been included and thus expanding the definition of impairment to include body size gives a more complete account of who is disabled. Oliver (1981) further developed the UPIAS theory of disability and came up with the social model of disability. Oliver (2004) states that disability can be understood in terms of two models: the medical model of disability and the social model of disability. The medical model of disability considers disability to be a medical problem that resides in the individual as a defect of the body which needs fixing through medical intervention in order to function within society (Oliver, 2004). This understanding of disability suggests that the person’s body needs to be changed, often through medical intervention, in order to meet society’s expectations and thus be able to function within the built environment created for the general population. The social model of disability shifts the focus away from disability being seen as the fault of the person but instead results from social restrictions, such as inaccessible buildings, houses and transport systems, which oppress and disable people with impairments. The social model shifts attention away from a person’s impairment to the problems created by disabling barriers, environments and cultures (Barnes, 2012). The main goal of the social model is to provide increased accessibility to the built environment for disabled people, through the elimination of disabling barriers. Freund (2001) uses a socio-material approach in order to explore the movement of the disabled body within spaces and how these movements become restricted due to the construction of material spaces. As Freund (2001: 691) states, ‘focusing on structure, one can move from asking what ‘bodies’ can function in a particular context to asking what types of structures can accommodate the widest range of bodies’. From this it can be claimed that disability becomes a product of social arrangements which can be reduced or eliminated (Shakespeare, 2006). As Freund (2001: 692) claims, ‘being ‘very’ tall or short can be disabling in a ‘one size fits all’ socio-material environment’. Thus we see that a person’s body size can be disabling in a society catered for the average size person. Focusing on how the built environment causes disablement for people with impairments Imrie’s (1996) book, ‘Disability and the City’ provides a detailed account upon how buildings and urban spaces are a key factor in the creation of disability. Imrie’s work on the disabling city focuses on how buildings create disablement due to how they have been designed and constructed for the average sized, able bodied person. Taking this into account presents how buildings are unsuitable for different body sizes. As Imrie (2004: 281) states: There is a tendency for architects to design and construct spaces to specific technical standards and dimensions, which revolve around the conception of the ‘normal’ body The ‘normal body’ Imrie (1996) bases upon Le Corbusier’s ‘Modular’ a conception of the normal body which is a person approximately six feet in height, taunt, strong and showing no signs of physical or mental impairments. Modular became a device to enable architects to create spaces and buildings based on the scale of a human being., creating physical barriers for anyone who does not fit the conception of the normal body. These dimensions, it can be argued can include the average stature and weight of a person, affecting anyone who is too big or too small accessing different spaces, resulting in their disablement, which Imrie rarely focuses on, tending to use wheelchair users as an example of people who are disabled. Physical barriers prevent disabled people from accessing a range of spaces, affecting where they can go and thus preventing equal access to the built environment (Imrie, 2004). Moving on from inaccessibility Imrie (1996) also focuses on how the built environment can become enabling through the implementation of different design practices including Universal Design. Imrie further points out that how disability access is provided, often through the implementation of disabled facilities, is not enough to provide an inclusive built environment. Accessibility is usually provided for a narrow range of users and often only when deemed ‘reasonable’. Kitchin and Law (2001) explore the accessibility of disabled public toilets and claim that they are inaccessible for a range of disabilities. Wendell (1996) suggests that different body sizes are disabled by the built environment, but claims that people’s understanding of disability can affect whether or not they are recognised as ‘disabled’. A lack of recognition also means that spaces and facilities will not be made to accommodate for those who are not recognised as disabled. Butler and Bowlby (1997) suggest that media images which show wheelchair users who are unable to gain entry into public buildings have helped to create a particular conception of the problems of disabled people encounter within the built environment. Adding to this argument, the image of a wheelchair user being unable to gain access into a building reinforces the idea that only certain impairments are disabled by the built environment. Disability tends to be understood as a mobility deficiency, which focuses architects’ attention on wheelchair users at the expense of other disabled people (Imrie 1996). Other researchers (Imrie, 1996; Morris, 2001; Reeve, 2006; Sutherland, 1981) also claim that disability tends to be understood as being a wheelchair user. A prominent abelist assumption is that you are not ‘really’ disabled unless the disability is visible, especially through an assistive device (Moshe and Powell, 2007). With a narrow conception of disability, accessibility and elimination of barriers may only be provided for particular impairments. Not accommodating for different body sizes means that spaces and facilities will not be size appropriate and therefore difficult or impossible to use. Within Geographies of body size writers are now beginning to question fatness as a disability, particularly in relation to the social model of disability (Brandon and Pritchard, 2011; Chan and Gillick, 2009; Cooper, 1997; Herndon, 2002; Kirkland, 2008; Longhurst, 1997, 2010). Cooper (1997) draws upon the social model of disability in order to claim that a built environment that does not cater for fat bodies causes their disablement in the same way the built environment causes disablement for someone in a wheelchair. It is the notion of who is disabled and who is not which Copper thinks affects the implementation of suitable spaces and facilities for particular people. Cooper (1997), Chan and Gillick (2009), and Kirkland (2008) point out that a lack of understanding of the social model of disability by other members of the public affects their perception of what disability can be. I suggest that people’s perception of what disability is, results in some contention as to whether or not different body sizes can be considered ‘disabled’. Herndon (2002) claims that, despite the fact that people often suffer from other impairments, such as mobility difficulties, their body size also causes their disablement in a built environment that does not accommodate for their bigness. Consider the following scenario, a wheelchair user goes into a bank and automatically goes to the low counter and later somebody with dwarfism does the same. The low counter is a suitable alternative from the higher counters that are aimed at people who are able to stand and who are of average stature. If there was no low counter both people would be left disabled as they would not be able to use a counter which is too high for them. A wheelchair user does not use the low counter because he cannot walk but because sitting in a wheelchair makes him shorter. It is the shortness of both the dwarf and the wheelchair user which leads to their disablement, it is only why they shorter that differs. Both the wheelchair user and the person with dwarfism share a common barrier to full access, but with a narrow conception of what disability is the accessibility and elimination of barriers may only be provided for people with particular impairments. One of the main reasons for a lack of acceptance as fatness being seen as a disability, is that people who are fat are often blamed for their size (Colls and Evans, 2009; Cooper, 1997; Huff, 2009; Longhurst 2010; Kirkland, 2008; and Rothblum, 1992). Kirkland (2008) focuses on anti-discrimination laws and explores how fat people are often seen as blameworthy and thus are not covered by these laws. Kirkland argues that it is common for fatness to be seen as personal choice and the attitudes of society is that to avoid discrimination the person needs to lose weight. She focuses on disability and how some fat people are reluctant to see themselves as disabled, as it is often viewed negatively, but still feel the need for a more accommodating built environment. It is not uncommon for disabled people to not consider themselves to be disabled (Watson, 2002). One of Kirkland’s participants, who does not consider herself to be disabled, touches on the notion of Universal Design in order to create spaces which accommodate for fat people. Garland-Thomson (2005) points out the similarities between fatness and disability, claiming that both fat people and disabled people are not accommodated for within the built environment. But this is Kirkland’s (2008) argument, there are laws which require that spaces are accessible for disabled people, yet because fatness is seen as blameworthy people who are fat are expected to loss weight in order to fit, whereas disability should be expanded to include fatness and thus reduce discrimination. Being blameworthy of one’s size cannot be applied to all body sizes. In terms of height, people with gigantism or dwarfism cannot change their height through dieting and only in some cases can their condition be treated through medical intervention, yet there is still contention as to whether or not they are disabled. Whilst it is possible for a fat person to lose weight it is also likely that the person will put the weight back on or that someone else will gain weight. Fatness should be seen as fluid and permanently existent within society. We cannot expect a society where everyone is of a similar size and weight and thus should not be expected to live in a built environment that caters for this ideal. This is where Universal Design can be adopted, as Universal Design aims to accommodate for the whole population and does not distinguish between the disabled and non-disabled, but rather just sees one population, made up of various bodies, of various sizes and with differing abilities. Enabling Spaces through Universal Design It is evident that many different writers, within geographies of body size, have been engaged with how spaces can be disabling for different body sizes, but writers could engage further as to how spaces can be made accommodating for these different body sizes. Universal design could help provide a transition from how spaces are disabling for various body sizes, to how they can become enabling. A great number of disabling structures and organizations can be prevented by creative, relatively inexpensive planning or correction (Freund, 2001). Creating spaces that can accommodate different body sizes gives greater access to more of the population. It has been proposed that the built environment can be adapted to accommodate a broad range of people, but often it is not due to a lack of imagination by planners (Hahn, 1986). Universal Design focuses on not just the removal of structural barriers but aims to achieve a more inclusive design approach (Iwarsson and Stahl, 2003). A more inclusive design approach would mean designing spaces for the majority of the population, resulting in spaces being suitable for range of different people. An understanding of human diversity is critical to designing a built environment that incorporates all users (Story et al., 1998). Universal Design not only accommodates for more common types of impairments, including wheelchair users, but also for people who are not always regarded as having a disability or whose disability is often contested. Advocates of Universal Design acknowledge that poorly designed products and environments are discriminatory and disable large sections of the population at various stages in the life course (Barnes, 2011). As some body sizes can change over the life course, such as losing or gaining weight, accommodating for these changes provides a more inclusive built environment for people throughout their life. Universal Design is composed of seven principles, principal seven is what I purpose to be useful for researchers within geographies of body size: Design Principle Seven – Size and Space: for approach and use. Appropriate size and space is designed for approach, reach, manipulation, and use, regardless of the users body size, posture or mobility (Centre for Universal Design 1997 in Steinfeld and Maisel, 2012: 12) Writers within geographies of body size could engage with this particular principle to show how the built environment could be made to accommodate people with different body sizes. Universal design can be used to address certain design issues, including creating spaces for people who are fat, through creating larger products that are structurally stronger to accommodate for larger bodies (Steinfeld and Maisel, 2012). Huff (2009) focuses on how airplane seats are unaccommodating for fat people. And similarly, Hettrick and Attig (2009) focus on how classroom desks are unsuitable for fat bodies arguing that they are only suitable for slimmer students. In both cases the writers focus on spaces where there is a multiple supply of seating, indicating that some seats could be made accommodating for fat people without taking away any seats suitable for the average sized person. Universal Design would mean the implementation of various seats on planes, some which are wider than others, and desks, in schools, which suit different needs, including a desk wide enough and strong enough for fat people or a seat with no arm rests, giving the user more space. Thus Universal design attempts to fight against corporeal standards of size by encouraging various sized spaces that do not require the user to change in order to fit into. In terms of body size, the concept of Universal Design aims to accommodate for both the tall and the small, and the fat and the thin, thus not discriminating one when providing for another. This is done through either providing multiple facilities provided at different heights, or adjustable facilities. Examples include, the “hi-low” water fountains that are made up of two spouts, at different levels, using the same plumping function (Steinfeld and Maisel, 2012). Universal Design permits people to carryout daily activities without hindrance or inconvenience (Barnes, 2011). Researchers could explore and argue how spaces can be adapted to provide better access for different body sizes, without causing problems for other users, including other body sizes. Another example is a door handle placed too high restricting access for someone with dwarfism. Using Universal Design the solution would be to either fit a longer door handle that is both suitable for tall and short people or to implement an automatic door. This way not only is the person with dwarfism given access, but the facility does not impede access for other users. Multiple facilities can be implemented at different levels in spaces where there is a high demand for them. Implemented facilities where there is a high demand can include implementing several hand dryers and sinks at different levels in public toilets, accommodating for people who are tall, of average stature and who are small. Referring back to Colls (2004) and Longhurst (2010), who claim that changing rooms are too small for fat bodies, Universal Design would include providing one wide fitting changing room amongst several others. This would help to provide a more suitable changing room for a fat person whilst still providing several regular changing rooms for other users. Adaptations such as these would allow more equal access to spaces within the built environment, reducing disablement for people with different body sizes. Thus while recognising the difficulties, referring to universal design would provide a case as to how these spaces can be made accommodating. Universal Design suggests that the design of places and products should occur in ways that do not draw attention to bodily difference, such as body size (Imrie, 1996). As discussed previously, spaces can have an emotional effect on people who are fat and can lead to social shame and feeling marginalised. Universal Design can help to reduce any negative effects on a person’s emotions, by designing spaces effectively, such as not drawing attention to a person’s body size, including when they cannot fit into a seat through the creation of various seat sizes and which look the same as all the other seats in that space. Being able to fit comfortably takes away what Hettrick and Attig (2009) mention about fat people feeling uncomfortable and anxious about fitting, in case of provoking unwanted attention towards their size. Conclusion In conclusion, in this paper it has been suggested that, using a social constructionist approach to disability, urban spaces within the built environment can be disabling for people who are not of average stature or weight, and that there have been numerous pieces of research regarding different body sizes to support this claim. In this paper it has been proposed that body sizes which exceed the norm are disabled as the built environment is not suitable for their size, in the same way the built environment is not suitable for other impairments. There needs to be a broader understanding of what disability can be and how the built environment creates inaccessibility for different bodies, in different ways. It has been argued that Universal Design is a useful attribute to geographies of body size as it can show how the built environment can be made to fit different body sizes, as its aim is not to disadvantage any group of users. It is therefore a useful concept in showing how different spaces can become accessible to people with different body sizes, rather than just people with functional limitations. Universal Design can help researchers to move on from how spaces are disabling for people with a body size which does not fit normal expectations, to how spaces can become enabling for different body sizes. It can be concluded from this paper that the built environment is disabling for a variety of bodies and therefore there need to be more changes within the built environment to make it more inclusive place for a broader range of people. Using Universal Design can show how a range of body sizes can be accommodated for, providing equal access to the built environment. Universal Design recognises that it is not only people with particular impairments who are in need of more accessible spaces, but for anyone, including those whose body does not fit the normal conception in size and weight. References: Barnes, C. (1991) ‘Disabled People in Britain and Discrimination: A Case for Anti- Discrimination’ Available online: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability- studies/archiveuk/Barnes/disabled%20people%20and%20discrim%20ch7.pdf (Accessed 01/09/2012) Barnes, C. (2011) ‘Understanding Disability and the Importance of Design for All’ Journal of Accessibility and Design for All, 1(1): 55-80 Barnes, C. (2012) Understanding the social model of disability In Watson, N., Roulstone, A. and Thomas, C. (eds) Routledge Handbook of Disability Studies London: Routledge pp.12-29 Brandon, T. and Pritchard, G. (2011) ‘‘Being Fat’: A Conceptual Analysis Using Three Models of Disability’, Disability and Society 26 (1) 79-92 Butler, R. and Bowlby, S. (1997) ‘Bodies and Spaces: An Exploration of Disabled People’s Experience of Public Space’ Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 15 (4) 411-433 Chan, K.C.N. and Gillick, C.A. (2009) ‘Fatness as a Disability: Questions of Personal and Group Identity’ Disability and Society 24 (2) 231-243 Colls, R. (2004) ‘Looking alright, feeling alright’: emotions, sizing and the geographies of women’s experiences of clothing consumption Social & Cultural Geography 5 (4), 583-596 Colls, R. (2006) Outsize / Outside: Bodily bigness and the emotional experiences of British women shopping for clothes Gender, Place and Culture 13 (5), 529- 545 Colls, R. and Evans, B. (2009) ‘Critical Geographies of Fat/Bigness/Corpulence’ Antipode 41 (5) 1011-1020 Cooper, C. (1997) ‘Can a Fat Woman Call Herself Disabled?’ Disability and Society 12 (1) 31-41 Evans, B., Crooks, L. and Coaffee, J. (2012) Obesity, fatness and the city: critical urban geographies Geography Compass 6 (2) 100-110 Freund, P. (2001) Bodies, Disability and Spaces: The Social Model and Disabling Spatial Organisations, Disability and Society 16 (5) 689-706 Garland Thomson, R. (2005) Feminist Disability Studies: A Review Essay, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 30 (2) 1557-1587 Hahn, H. (1986) ‘Disability and the Urban Environment: A Perspective on Los Angles’ Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 4, 273-288 Herndon, A. (2002) Disparate but Disabled: Fat Embodiment and Disability Studies NWSA Journal 14 (3) 120-138 Hettrick, A. and Attig, D. (2009) Sitting pretty: fat bodies, classroom desks and academic excess, In: Rothblum, E., and Solovay, S. (eds) The Fat Studies Reader New York: New York Press 197-204 Hopkins, P. (2008) ‘Critical Geographies of body size’ Geography Compass 2 (6), 2111-2126 Hopkins, P. (2012) ‘Everyday politics of fat’ Antipode 44 (4) 1227-1246 Huff, L.J. (2009) Access to the sky: airplane seats and fat bodies, In: Rothblum, E., and Solovay, S. (eds) The Fat Studies Reader New York: New York Press 176-186 Imrie, R. (1996) ‘Disability and the City’ Salisbury: The Baskerville Press Imrie, R. (1999) The body, disability and Le Corbusier’s conception of the radiant environment, In: Butler, R. and Parr, H. (Eds) Mind and Body Spaces London: Routledge 25-45 Imrie, R (2001) ‘Barriered and Bounded Places and the Spatialities of Disability’, Urban Studies, 38 (2) 231-237 Imrie, R. (2004) ‘From Universal to Inclusive design in the Built Environment’, In: Swain, J., French, S., Barnes. C. and Thomas, C. (Eds). Disabling Barriers, Enabling Environments. London: Sage, pp. 279-284 Iwarsson, S. and Stahl, A. (2003) ‘Accessibility, Usability and Universal Design – Positioning and Definition of Concepts Describing Person-Environment Relationships’ Disability and Rehabilitation 25 (2) 57-66 Kirkland, A. (2008) ‘Think of the Hippopotamus: rights consciousness in the Fat Acceptance Movement’ Law and Society Review 42 (2) 397-432 Kitchin, R. and Law, R. (2001) The Socio-Spatial Construction of (In) accessible Public Toilets, Urban Studies, 38 (2) 287-298 Kruse, R. (2002) ‘Social Spaces of little people: the experiences of the Jamisons’ Social and Cultural Geography 3 (2), 175-191 Kruse, R. (2003) ‘Narrating Intersections of gender and dwarfism in everyday spaces’, The Canadian Geographer 47 (4) 494-508 Kruse, R. (2010) ‘Placing Little People: Dwarfism and the Geographies of Everyday Life’ In V. Chouinard, E. Hall and R, Wilton (Eds) Towards Enabling Geographies Surrey: Ashgate pp.183-198 Longhurst, R. (1995) ‘The body and geography’ Gender, Place and Culture 2 (1), 97- 105 Longhurst, R. (1997) ‘(Dis) embodied geographies’ Progress in Human Geography 21 (4), 486 Longhurst, R. (2005) ‘Fat bodies: developing geographical research agendas’. Progress in Human Geography, 29 247-259 Longhurst, R. (2010) ‘The Disabling Affects of Fat: The Emotional and Material Geographies of Some Women Who Live in Hamilton, New Zealand’ In V. Chouinard, E. Hall and R, Wilton (Eds) Towards Enabling Geographies Surrey: Ashgate pp. 184-199 Mace, R. (1985) Universal Design: Barrier Free Environments for Everyone Los Angeles: Designers West Morris, J. (2001) ‘Impairment and Disability: Constructing an Ethics of Care that Promotes Human Rights’, Hypathia 16, 106 Moshe, B. N. and Powell, W.J.J. (2007), Sign of our times? Revis(it)ing the International Symbol of Access Disability and Society 22 (5) 489-505 Oliver, M. (1981) A new model of the social work role in relation to disability, In Campling, J. (ed.) The Handicapped Person: A new perspective for social workers London: RADAR p.19-32 Oliver, M. (1990) The Politics of Disablement London: Palgrave Oliver, M. (2004) The Social Model in Action: If I Had a Hammer, In Barnes, C. and Mercer, G. (eds) Implementing the Social Model of Disability Theory and Research. Leeds: The Disability Press, pp. 18-31 Reeve, D. (2006) '‘Am I a real disabled person or someone with a dodgy arm?’: A discussion of psycho-emotional disabilism and its contribution to identity constructions', paper presented at Disability Studies: Research and Learning, Lancaster University, 18-20 September. Rothblum, D. E. (1992) ‘The Stigma of Women’s Weight: Social and Economic Realities’ Feminism and Psychology 2 (1) 61-73 Shakespeare, T. (2006) Disability Rights and Wrong, London: Routledge Steinfeld, E. and Maisel, J.L. (2012) Universal Design: Creating Inclusive Environments, Hoboken: John Wiley and Son Story, F.M., Mueller, L.J. and Mace, L, R. (1998) The Universal Design File: Designing for People of All Ages and Abilities. Available online: http://designdev.ncsu.edu/openjournal/index.php/redlab/article/viewFile/102/5 6.pdf (Accessed 02/08/2012) Sutherland, A. T. (1981) Disabled We Stand, London: Souvenir Press Watson, N. (2002) ‘Well, I know this is going to sound very strange to you, but I don’t see myself as a disabled person: identity and disability’, Disability and Society 17 (5) 509-527 Wendell, S. (1996) The Rejected Body, London: Routledge UPIAS (1975) ‘Fundamental Principals of Disability’ Available online: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disabilitystudies/archiveuk/UPIAS/fundamental%20pr inciples.pdf (Accessed 01/09/2012) 1