Upgrading Existing Buildings to Universal Design. What Cost-Benefit Analyses Can Tell Us

This article is based on a project aimed at finding the benefits of different measures to upgrade existing public buildings and outdoor areas to be accessible for all. The study was initiated by The Ministry of Children and Equality. The ministry asked for a study of benefits based on a stated preferences (SP) method and an easy-to-complete calculation tool for CBA. In the project 18 commonly used measures and their typical costs were identified. The benefits of each measure were analysed in a stated preference study. The SP analyses included 9 multiple choices in 4 different sequences in an Internet based survey with 800 respondents. The project concluded that it is possible to use stated preferences survey to identify the respondent's valuation of measures to improve accessibility in existing buildings. Some of the measures have a high cost-/benefit ratio. The project report including the calculation manual is based on the average valuation for each measure. But in the background analyses (not referred in the report) there are also some analyses of valuations for target groups for the various measures. The target groups were defined for each measure based on information about the respondents' abilities and use of technical aids. The analyses presented in this paper indicate how valuation varies between the target groups and the average population. This is named the measures profile. Some measures have benefits for the target group that are only twice as high as for the average citizen while another type of measures has high benefits only the target group. The first type which has a wide profile often has high overall socioeconomic benefits, while the last group with a narrow profile more often has low overall socioeconomic benefits, but may be very important for certain user groups and therefore essential for the elimination of discrimination and exclusion of those groups.