Preserving the Past, Embracing the Future: Co-Design Strategies for Achieving Harmony Between Heritage Sites and Accessibility Needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada’s heritage sites, while fewer in number compared to Europe, face significant challenges in accessibility due to strict preservation laws. Many were built before social inclusion became a priority, making them difficult to navigate for individuals with disabilities. For example, cobbled streets with uneven surfaces or significant level differences create obstacles for wheelchair users and others with mobility challenges. This qualitative action research aimed to develop guidelines for shared street designs and innovative solutions that balance heritage preservation with inclusive accessibility. The study involved go along interviews with 21 participants with disabilities in Quebec City’s Petit-Champlain and Place-Royale areas, as well as the Old-Seminary. Insights from these interviews informed a co-design methodology involving three sessions with participants with disabilities, family caregivers, and experts in accessibility and heritage. The co-design sessions generated practical solutions such as lift platforms, accessible signage, and guided handrails, addressing both outdoor and indoor accessibility barriers. For indoor spaces, solutions included integrating acoustic panels and foldable seating, while outdoor recommendations emphasized autonomous access solutions like non-slip coatings and accessible elevators for winter conditions. It was concluded that achieving a balance between preservation and accessibility requires collaboration among architects, designers, heritage experts, and individuals with disabilities. This research highlights the importance of co-design as a method to ensure heritage sites remain culturally significant and universally accessible.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".