Theoretical reflection on accessibility reveals its role in shaping environments, promoting empowerment, and addressing disability-related discrimination.
The paper presents a theoretical reflection on accessibility, developed through dialogue between an architect and a philosopher. It explores the cultural horizon of a transdisciplinary discipline whose conceptual boundaries remain fluid and examines the role accessibility can play in creating a freer and more inclusive society. At the core of the paper lies the concept of accessibility as a Cultural Generative Ecosystem, a dynamic and evolving construct through which accessibility operates as a transformative force. This ecosystem is embedded within a conceptual framework structured around specific Fields of Inquiry (Relational, Spatial, Institutional) and Domains (Person, Society, Environment). In this perspective, accessibility is presented as a complex process rooted in humanistic values and grounded in care ethics, phenomenological experience, and human rights. The paper highlights the potential of accessibility to counter diversity-related discrimination, promote empowerment, and guide the transformation of human habitats in line with people’s needs and expectations. At the same time, it acknowledges the objective and cultural challenges involved in cultivating an accessibility-oriented mindset. Following a comprehensive theoretical and methodological groundwork that lays the foundation for a broader conceptual reframing of accessibility, the paper identifies six conceptual determinants that define its complexity in the built environment, particularly in relation to disability and the relational nature of public space. These determinants—polysemous, contextual, multi-scalar and relational, corporeal and spatial-temporal, multi-criteria, and multi-component—are examined in relation to the four interwoven dimensions that structure the Cultural Generative Ecosystem of accessibility: technical, social, organizational, and generative. Together, they offer a framework for rethinking inclusive design as a situated, relational, and ethically grounded practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Laurìa et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: