Research on the importance of universal design for the everyday lives and social participation of different population groups in the Nordic countries: A scoping review

• Listen to the summary (3:38 minutes, mp3)

Introduction

Universal design means that products, environments, programmes and services are designed so that all people can use them to the greatest extent possible, without the need for special adaptation. In Norway, universal design is both a political objective and an obligation set out in the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Act, and in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which was incorporated into Norwegian law on January 1^st, 2026. A lack of universal design creates barriers that limit participation in employment, education, cultural and leisure activities and social communities for persons with disabilities. At the same time, functional ability changes throughout life for everyone, and universal design is therefore relevant to the whole population when viewed in a life-course perspective.

Although strengthened regulation and competence building have contributed to positive developments in the field, previous assessments suggest that work on universal design varies considerably, not least between municipalities. If policy is to build on up-to-date knowledge, decision-makers need a comprehensive overview and understanding of the available evidence, including research. We have not identified any systematic review that synthesises the Nordic research literature in this field.

Objective

The objective of this scoping review was to map and describe the research literature on universal design in Norway and the Nordic countries, and what this literature says about the significance of universal design for the general population and for different population groups' living conditions, everyday life and societal participation.

Methods

We conducted a systematic scoping review in accordance with established international guidance for scoping reviews and a published protocol. In line with the methodological approach of scoping reviews, we did not assess methodological quality, risk of bias or confidence in the body of evidence. We included empirical Nordic primary studies and systematic reviews of Nordic research published between 2016 and 2026. Studies had to examine the significance of universal design for living conditions, everyday life or societal participation in the general population and in groups that a lack of universal design may particularly affect, including persons with physical, sensory, psychological or cognitive impairments, older people and children.

We searched six international databases and supplemented these with searches in national databases, government directorates, service-user organisations and other relevant sources. From each publication, we systematically extracted data on study design, population groups, societal domains and main findings, among other variables. We used machine learning functions and artificial intelligence to support study selection, data extraction and text synthesis. We summarised the results narratively and report them according to societal domains and research questions.

Results

We included 120 studies (presented in 125 publications) from the Nordic countries, 47 of which were conducted in Norway. Qualitative designs dominate the material, followed by mixed-methods studies and a smaller number of quantitative studies. Only three studies use a longitudinal design. The best-covered societal domains are outdoor areas, local neighbourhoods and public spaces; transport and mobility; and ICT and digitalisation. Education, public administration and services, and housing and the home environment are also represented, while employment, culture and leisure, and tourism and retail receive less attention. Most of the studies concern persons with disabilities, particularly persons with various physical disabilities.

Across societal domains, the studies describe universal design as an important precondition for independence, everyday functioning and participation. Universally designed environments, transport solutions, digital services and educational settings give people greater opportunities to take part in employment, education, leisure and social life. Participants in several studies emphasise that universal design benefits not only persons with disabilities but can improve the user experience for everyone. The studies also describe universal design as a means of reducing the need for visible individual accommodation, and thereby of counteracting stigma.

The studies examine barriers arising from a lack of universal design considerably more thoroughly than they examine benefits. The barriers reported most frequently were physical ones, such as thresholds, stairs, inaccessible toilets, inadequate lighting and poor winter maintenance. Barriers to information and communication were also prominent, including inaccessible websites, digital services requiring electronic ID, a lack of real-time information, and information that was unavailable in accessible formats. Several studies describe sensory and cognitive barriers such as noise, crowding, unpredictability and complex digital interfaces. The studies also frequently report organisational and systemic barriers. These included fragmented services, unclear division of responsibility, and processes in which persons with disabilities must themselves coordinate, document and argue for their own needs. Across several societal domains, the studies also describe negative attitudes, a lack of competence, and solutions that worked poorly in practice despite meeting formal requirements. These barriers reduce participation in society and lead to social isolation, loss of access to services, a greater need for help from others, loss of energy and reduced quality of life. The studies further show that barriers often interact, so that the cumulative effect of barriers in carrying out an activity or along a travel chain matters more than any single barrier alone.

Discussion

This scoping review shows that a substantial Nordic evidence base on universal design exists, particularly concerning the barriers people experience when universal design is lacking and the consequences of these barriers. At the same time, the evidence base varies across societal domains and population groups. The research provides a detailed picture of the challenges persons with disabilities encounter in everyday life. The research literature we identified examines the benefits of universal design far less thoroughly. It also covers several societal domains relatively weakly, including employment, culture, tourism and retail, and persons with complex disabilities, minority groups, and children and young people studied in societal domains other than education are underrepresented in the research literature.

The studies consistently show that the significance of barriers arising from inadequate universal design varies between population groups, while certain barriers recur across population groups and societal domains. These include the barriers people experience in the physical and digital environment, a lack of competence in universal design, and the gap between requirements and practice, in which genuine accessibility fails to materialise even where legal requirements exist and are complied with.

The evidence base describes experiences and perceptions well, but documents causal relationships less well. This is because most of the studies are qualitative and draw on small samples. There are few longitudinal studies, and few that directly examine the effects of increased universal design on participation, health or living conditions over time. In line with scoping review methodology, we did not assess the methodological quality of the studies, their risk of bias, or our confidence in the body of evidence, nor did we conduct a detailed synthesis of the results across the studies. The results should therefore be used with caution.

Conclusion

The literature we identified mainly concerns persons with various disabilities, with physical disabilities being best represented. Outdoor and public spaces, transport and ICT are the best covered, while culture and leisure, employment, early childhood education and care, tourism and retail are the least covered. Qualitative studies with small samples dominate, and mixed-methods and cross-sectional studies are also represented, whereas longitudinal studies and studies that can assess the effects of universal design are largely lacking.

The evidence base indicates that universal design can contribute to greater independence, participation, sense of safety and quality of life, while also reducing the need for individual accommodation and counteracting stigma. A lack of universal design consistently produces physical, digital, organisational and attitudinal barriers that can limit participation, access to services and the experience of independence. The research also shows that barriers arising from a lack of universal design often interact, and that they particularly affect persons with disabilities. The evidence base is broad, but research explores the benefits of universal design far less than the barriers arising from its absence. There is a particular need for research that examines the significance of universal design over time and covers underrepresented groups and societal domains, as well as research on why universal design is not realised in practice even when requirements exist and are complied with.