Beyond Accessibility: Rethinking Universal and Inclusive Design in Bangkok’s Public Parks

Abstract

This study aims to critically assesses the application and limitations of Universal Design (UD) and Inclusive Design (ID) in Bangkok’s public parks and proposes a context-sensitive framework to enhance urban inclusivity. While UD has contributed significantly to improving physical accessibility—through standardized features such as ramps, tactile paving, and clear circulation paths—it often fails to address emotional comfort, cultural representation, and participatory engagement. In contrast, ID emphasizes co-creation, contextual adaptability, and symbolic inclusion, offering a more holistic and equity-driven approach. Using a five-dimensional comparative framework—philosophy, function, spatial logic, user engagement, and evaluation—this research analyzes three major public parks: Benjakitti Forest Park, Chatuchak (Railway) Park, and Chulalongkorn Centenary Park. Each site was evaluated through narrative critique, dimension scoring, and radar diagram visualizations. The findings reveal that while all three parks exhibit strong UD characteristics, they lack alignment with ID principles, particularly in the areas of community engagement and emotional resonance. These typologies highlight a broader trend in Thai public space planning, wherein accessibility is interpreted narrowly as compliance rather than inclusion. The study concludes by proposing policy and design recommendations for embedding ID into future park development, positioning ID not only as a design approach but as a paradigm for spatial justice, belonging, and cultural sustainability.

1. Introduction

In recent years, cities worldwide have increasingly adopted Universal Design (UD) as a means of fostering accessible, equitable, and user-friendly public spaces. Originating in the late 1980s, UD advocates for environments that are inherently accessible to all individuals—regardless of age, ability, or condition—without necessitating separate or specialized features [1,2]. Urban parks in cities such as Toronto, New York, and Berlin have successfully incorporated UD elements like step-free paths, sensory zones, and accessible recreational infrastructure [3,4]. These interventions benefit not only persons with disabilities but also a broader demographic including older adults, children, caregivers, and individuals with temporary mobility impairments [5].

In parallel, Inclusive Design (ID) has emerged as a more participatory and expansive paradigm, gaining prominence particularly in the UK since the early 2000s [6,7]. While UD focuses on standardized physical access, ID broadens the discourse to encompass emotional resonance, cognitive diversity, social belonging, and cultural representation [8]. Central to ID is the principle of co-creation—designing environments with, rather than merely for, the communities they serve [9]. International examples such as Guldbergs Plads in Copenhagen and Melbourne’s Royal Park Nature Play illustrate this ethos, integrating user input to craft sensory-rich, culturally responsive spaces [10]. In Southeast Asia, initiatives like Singapore’s Bishan–Ang Mo Kio and Thailand’s Thonburirom Park show early reflections of ID principles, though implementation remains inconsistent [11,12].

In Thailand, UD adoption has been largely shaped by demographic shifts—particularly population aging—and national obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). With projections estimating that over 20% of the population will be aged 60 or above by 2030 [13], public spaces are increasingly expected to support diverse user needs. Parks such as Benjakitti, Santiphap, and Chaloem Phrakiat now incorporate UD features like ramps, tactile paving, and accessible pathways [14]. Yet these interventions often emphasize technical compliance over holistic inclusion, neglecting aspects such as emotional comfort, cultural expression, and community participation [15,16].

A critical challenge in the Thai urban context lies in the conceptual conflation of UD and ID. This misalignment has resulted in an overreliance on physical accessibility standards, with limited attention to the experiential, emotional, and sociocultural dimensions of inclusion [17]. Consequently, many parks in Bangkok meet functional criteria but fail to engage the full diversity of users—particularly those from marginalized or underrepresented communities [18,19]. The absence of participatory design, co-creation, and cultural sensitivity diminishes the potential of public spaces to function as inclusive, pluralistic environments. In light of these gaps, this study seeks to:

• Examine the philosophical, functional, and spatial distinctions between UD and ID;
• Analyze how these frameworks are currently understood and implemented within the design of public parks in Bangkok;
• Propose a context-sensitive and participatory framework that can inform more socially inclusive and culturally attuned public park design in Thailand.

By clarifying conceptual distinctions and addressing overlooked dimensions of inclusion, this research contributes both theoretically and practically to the advancement of more equitable, adaptive, and representative urban public spaces. This paper extends existing research by clarifying the conceptual differences between UD and ID within the Thai context. It introduces a systematic comparative framework for critically evaluating park designs and offers practical recommendations to enhance inclusivity. In doing so, it addresses a notable gap by exploring how Bangkok’s public parks can move beyond physical accessibility toward comprehensive, meaningful inclusion.

Amid Bangkok’s rapid urban transformation and shifting demographics, the application of UD and ID in public park development offers a lens through which to examine spatial equity, design ethics, and user inclusion. Rather than proposing a universally applicable design model, this study offers a critical, context-sensitive framework grounded in Bangkok’s urban realities. It aims to illuminate how these globally recognized design paradigms are locally interpreted, misapplied, or limited in scope. While other planning paradigms—such as Active Design or Sustainable Urbanism—remain relevant, this research prioritizes UD and ID due to their institutional prominence in Thai planning discourse and their fundamentally contrasting philosophical foundations: standardization versus differentiation, neutrality versus recognition. By tracing how these two frameworks influence both spatial outcomes and experiential inclusion, the study seeks to reveal the epistemological gaps between formal accessibility and lived inclusivity, with implications for the future of equitable public space governance.

While other design paradigms—such as participatory design, responsive design, and design justice—offer valuable perspectives on public space, this study focuses on UD and ID due to their conceptual clarity and their usefulness in representing contrasting approaches to design. Participatory and responsive design are undoubtedly important and often intersect with ID, particularly through their emphasis on user involvement and flexibility. However, to maintain analytical focus and theoretical coherence, this study centers on UD and ID as the primary frameworks for critically examining existing practices and emerging possibilities in inclusive public space design.

2. Methods

This study adopts a qualitative, interpretive approach that prioritizes conceptual clarity and contextual relevance over empirical data collection. In light of the persistent conflation between UD and ID in Thailand’s urban planning discourse, the research is structured to develop a comparative framework that clarifies the distinctions between these paradigms and offers context-sensitive strategies for inclusive public park design.

2.1. Methodology

This study adopts a qualitative, interpretive research approach, emphasizing theoretical clarity and critical analysis over empirical data collection. The methodological approach integrates three components: (1) a narrative literature review, (2) comparative conceptual analysis, and (3) case study critique. Together, these components enable a multi-layered investigation of the theoretical underpinnings and real-world implications of UD and ID in park design, with particular attention to Bangkok and broader Thailand. Rather than conducting field surveys or interviews, the study emphasizes framework-building—constructing conceptual tools that help clarify, compare, and critique design approaches currently in practice.

2.2. Narrative Literature Review

The literature review adopts a narrative and interdisciplinary lens, drawing upon seminal works in UD and ID theory, environmental psychology, disability studies, and urban planning policy. Foundational texts—such as those by Mace, Story, and Clarkson—are examined alongside international policy frameworks, including the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), and local planning documents like Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) guidelines. [20] This review traces the historical and philosophical evolution of UD and ID, highlighting how their meanings and applications shift across cultural, institutional, and geographic contexts, especially between Western and Southeast Asian cities.

2.3. Comparative Framework

This study introduces a five-dimensional comparative framework to support a structured and meaningful evaluation of the selected public parks. The framework is designed to capture not only the physical characteristics of design but also the underlying philosophies, functional intentions, spatial strategies, participatory approaches, and evaluation criteria that shape how public spaces are conceived and experienced. It offers a way to critically examine how UD and ID—with their differing principles and methodologies—are interpreted and implemented in practice. While UD often emphasizes standardization and physical accessibility, ID places greater emphasis on adaptability, emotional resonance, and active user involvement. Through this lens, the framework enables a more comprehensive understanding of how specific design decisions influence the inclusivity of public space—both in form and in lived experience.

These five dimensions are grounded in well-established ideas from research in inclusive design, urban planning, and environmental psychology. Scholars like Clarkson et al. (2003), Heylighen (2011), and Costanza-Chock (2020) have all emphasized that real inclusion can’t be measured by technical standards alone [6,8,21]. Clarkson and colleagues stress the importance of designing for a wide range of users and needs [6]. Heylighen challenges the assumption that design can ever be truly “neutral,” arguing instead for approaches that embrace diversity [8]. Imrie points out that focusing only on compliance often overlooks the lived experiences of users [5], and Costanza-Chock highlights the importance of co-design and community participation as part of design justice [21].

Drawing on these insights, the framework used in this study turns abstract concepts into practical tools for analysis. It asks not only whether spaces are accessible, but whether they are emotionally supportive, culturally relevant, and designed with input from the people who use them. The following section outlines each of the five dimensions in detail, followed by an explanation of the assessment process used to evaluate the three selected parks.

• Philosophy: Underlying design intent and value systems. This criterion was chosen to uncover the foundational intent and value system that guided each project. By examining the core ethos—whether it was primarily focused on technical compliance and barrier removal (a common UD interpretation) or aimed at fostering broader social equity and a sense of belonging (the ideal of ID)—we can understand the fundamental motivations that frame all subsequent design decisions.
• Function: Purpose, priorities, and design logic. An analysis of the park’s intended purpose, programmatic priorities, and design logic was selected as a key criterion because it reveals a project’s implicit priorities. Determining what activities and uses a space is designed for allows us to critically assess who it is designed for, exposing whether the functional program serves a broad spectrum of users or privileges a narrow set of activities and abilities.
• Spatial Logic: How space is organized, navigated, and experienced. This criterion was selected to analyze the tangible expression of a project’s philosophy and function as manifested in its physical and experiential organization. How a space is laid out, how it facilitates navigation, and what sensory experiences it offers are direct consequences of its design intent. Examining the spatial logic is therefore essential for evaluating how effectively abstract goals were translated into a physical reality that shapes every user’s journey and interaction.
• User Engagement: Level and method of user participation. The level and method of user participation were chosen as a critical point of comparison because this is a primary operational differentiator between UD and ID. While UD can be implemented via a top-down, expert-led process, Inclusive Design is fundamentally a participatory methodology. This criterion is therefore vital for assessing whether a project was designed for a generic user or with a specific, diverse community, which directly impacts its social relevance and success.
• Evaluation Criteria: How success is defined and assessed. Finally, investigating how success is defined and measured was chosen because it reveals a project’s ultimate standard of accountability and what it truly values. Whether success is gauged by technical performance metrics such as code compliance, visitor numbers, or by qualitative social outcomes such as user well-being, community empowerment, provides a powerful insight into the depth of a project’s commitment to genuine, long-term human-centered impact.

The park evaluations were conducted by the research team. To ensure transparency in scoring, clear steps and benchmarks were established to assign scores within the five dimensions (philosophy, function, spatial logic, user engagement, and evaluation). The evaluation procedure was structured as follows:

• Initial assessments were individually conducted by each researcher, using clearly defined evaluation benchmarks derived from literature and UD and ID principles.
• Creating a scoring scale from 0 (strongly UD-aligned, emphasizing standardization and compliance) to 5 (strongly ID-aligned, emphasizing adaptability and co-creation).
• Assessing each park through secondary data (project documents, BMA guidelines, existing studies).
• Having an internal expert panel independently score each park, followed by team discussions to finalize consensus scores.
• Validating scores through cross-checks with existing critiques and literature on the selected parks.

The final scores (see

Table A1. Comparative Scoring of UD–ID Alignment Across Bangkok Parks Using Five Design Dimensions.

Dimension	Benjakitti	Chatuchak	Chulalongkorn
Philosophy	2	1	2
Function	2	1	3
Spatial Logic	2	1	3
User Engagement	1	1	1
Evaluation	2	1	2

) were then visualized in radar diagrams to clearly highlight the inclusivity strengths and gaps of each park.

2.4. Case Study Critiques

To ground theoretical insights in practical urban contexts, the study selects three selected Bangkok parks: Benjakitti Forest Park, Railway Park (Chatuchak), and Chulalongkorn Centenary Park. These parks were chosen based on their significance in Bangkok’s urban discourse, institutional diversity, and varied levels of accessibility and inclusive features. Data sources included field-based observation, official design documents, policy guidelines from responsible institutions (such as Bangkok Metropolitan Administration guidelines and Treasury Department reports), previous scholarly evaluations, and public critiques.

The comparative evaluation framework was systematically applied to the selected three parks. This case study critiques process was intentionally structured to demonstrate how the comparative framework could serve as a practical evaluative tool adaptable to diverse urban and cultural contexts. The case study critiques process highlighted the flexibility of the framework, indicating its potential to be adapted in contexts beyond Bangkok, enabling comparative insights into urban parks globally. Researchers can adjust criteria weightings or add context-specific sub-criteria to reflect local values, norms, and demographic characteristics, thus making the framework relevant and sensitive to diverse urban contexts.

Figure 1 below outlines the integrated research framework. It illustrates how theoretical foundations, comparative logic, and case-based reflections collectively support the development of a more ID model for public parks in Thailand.

This diagram clarifies the progression from theory to practice: the literature review establishes distinctions between UD and ID, which are then translated into five key comparative dimensions—philosophy, function, spatial logic, user engagement, and evaluation. These dimensions guide the analysis of selected case studies, revealing both strengths and gaps in current design practices. The output is a context-specific, participatory framework for future application. Rather than employing empirical surveys or interviews, the emphasis is on framework-building: generating conceptual tools to interpret design phenomena and evaluate inclusivity within Bangkok’s evolving park landscape.

It is important to acknowledge a limitation of this study’s methods—the absence of primary user data, such as interviews or surveys. While the interpretive approach using secondary sources and expert analysis provides valuable conceptual insights, direct engagement with park users would enhance the depth and validation of findings, offering richer perspectives on experiential and emotional dimensions of inclusivity.

3. Review of Literature

3.1. Universal Design (UD)

Universal Design emerged in the late 20th century as a transformative response to the architectural barriers faced by people with disabilities. Introduced by Ronald Mace in the 1980s, UD advocated for environments that are inherently accessible to all individuals, regardless of ability, without requiring retrofitting or specialized adaptations [1,22]. Rooted in postwar barrier-free design movements, UD evolved into a set of seven core principles: equitable use, flexibility in use, simple and intuitive operation, perceptible information, tolerance for error, low physical effort, and appropriate size and space for approach and use [23].

The strength of UD lies in its emphasis on physical accessibility, safety, and standardization, embedding accessibility into the design process rather than treating it as an add-on. It reshaped public building codes, transportation infrastructure, and urban planning. Spaces designed under UD principles typically include features such as curb cuts, ramps, accessible signage, wide pathways, and standardized furniture—all aimed at maximizing usability for the broadest range of users [5].

Despite these achievements, UD has been increasingly critiqued for its limitations. Scholars such as Imrie and Hall (2012) argue that while UD reduces physical barriers, it often neglects the social, emotional, cultural, and cognitive dimensions of human diversity [5]. Its emphasis on standardized accessibility can inadvertently promote a “one-size-fits-all” model that fails to address the lived experiences of marginalized groups, such as neurodivergent individuals, linguistic minorities, or culturally distinct communities [17].

Critics also note that UD prioritizes functional access over experiential richness [24]. While a ramp may enable entry, it does not guarantee that a user feels emotionally safe, culturally represented, or socially included. As a result, UD often satisfies compliance requirements without cultivating a genuine sense of belonging. These critiques have driven the rise of ID frameworks, which move beyond technical solutions to embrace adaptive, participatory, and context-sensitive approaches that frame diversity as a creative strength rather than a logistical constraint [6].

In Southeast Asian contexts such as Bangkok, UD has become increasingly visible in new public projects—especially in parks and transport hubs. However, the focus often remains on physical compliance through features like ramps, elevators, and tactile paving, with limited attention to sensory zones, quiet areas, multilingual communication, or culturally meaningful design. This disconnects between physical access and emotional or symbolic inclusion highlights the limitations of UD in rapidly diversifying urban environments.

Thus, while UD offers a vital foundation for accessibility, its conceptual and practical boundaries reinforce the need for complementary frameworks—particularly ID—that more holistically engage with the complexities of human diversity, equity, and well-being.

3.2. Inclusive Design (ID)

Inclusive Design emerged in direct response to the recognized limitations of UD—particularly its emphasis on standardization and physical access, often at the expense of cultural, emotional, and cognitive inclusion. Rooted in postmodern critiques of technocratic and one-size-fits-all approaches, ID emphasizes equity, diversity, adaptability, and contextual sensitivity as central to the design process [6,24]. Rather than designing for an abstract “average user,” ID centers the lived experiences of marginalized or underrepresented groups, aiming to create environments that respond flexibly to varied needs, identities, and abilities.

Unlike UD, which primarily seeks to eliminate physical barriers, ID prioritizes experiential inclusion—ensuring that users are not only able to access and navigate a space, but also feel welcomed, respected, and empowered within it. Experience, emotion, and cultural resonance thus become critical design considerations [25]. Exclusion, in this view, is not merely a question of access, but of social invisibility, symbolic erasure, and psychological discomfort within the built environment [24].

A defining characteristic of ID is its commitment to participatory and co-design methodologies. Unlike top-down models where users passively receive design outcomes, ID actively involves diverse stakeholders—such as persons with disabilities, neurodivergent individuals, linguistic minorities, and culturally marginalized groups—throughout the design process [9]. This participatory ethic results in more responsive and flexible design solutions while also democratizing the design process and challenging conventional expert-driven paradigms.

ID further emphasizes the fluidity and adaptability of space. Designs are intentionally “open-ended,” allowing users to engage with and reinterpret spaces based on their own capacities and preferences [8]. This aligns closely with contemporary movements in user-centered design and design justice, which argue that the built environment should redistribute power and agency, rather than reinforce structural inequalities [23].

In the urban context of Bangkok, ID offers a vital alternative to the dominant, compliance-driven applications of UD. While accessibility features such as ramps and tactile paving are increasingly common, truly inclusive environments—featuring multilingual signage, sensory gardens, culturally specific gathering zones, and safe spaces for neurodiverse or emotionally sensitive users—remain scarce. As Bangkok becomes more socially, linguistically, and culturally complex, ID offers both a strategic and ethical framework for shaping public spaces that foster belonging, equity, and pluralism, rather than providing mere physical access.

Thus, ID is not simply an extension of UD but represents a paradigm shift—from access to affective, relational, and cultural inclusion—redefining how public spaces can affirm the dignity, identity, and diversity of all users.

3.3. Comparative Dimensions of UD and ID

The distinction between UD and ID becomes particularly visible when examined across five critical dimensions: philosophy, function, spatial logic, user engagement, and evaluation. Philosophically, UD rests on the ideal of neutrality, aiming to create environments that can accommodate the widest range of users without the need for modification [1]. It assumes that a universal solution can address diversity. In contrast, ID rejects the notion of a neutral user, embracing diversity, difference, and context as central to the design process [6]. ID acknowledges that no single solution fits all users and instead designs for adaptability and relational inclusivity. The five analytic dimensions—design philosophy, function, spatial logic, user engagement, and evaluation—were synthesized from key UD and ID literature [5,15] to move beyond surface-level assessments of accessibility. This evaluative structure bridges technical planning indicators with experiential and symbolic markers of inclusion. Rather than treating parks as neutral infrastructure, the framework interrogates how they reflect (or omit) plural forms of identity, agency, and participation. Case selection focused on prominent Bangkok parks that exemplify different planning approaches, scales, and institutional contexts, providing a comparative lens without claiming statistical representativeness.

In terms of function, UD typically produces standardized and fixed solutions—such as the installation of curb cuts, wide doorways, or tactile signage—designed to serve a majority population without adaptation. Meanwhile, ID emphasizes flexibility and adaptability, creating systems and environments that can evolve based on user feedback, changing needs, and cultural shifts [26]. It seeks to allow multiple modes of interaction, participation, and reinterpretation.

The spatial logic also differs significantly. UD favors minimalist, rational, and often linear spatial organizations to ensure ease of navigation and predictability [22]. ID, however, promotes layered, diverse, and sensory-rich environments, recognizing that users perceive and experience space differently based on cognitive, sensory, and emotional conditions [8]. Inclusive spaces often integrate areas for reflection, varied seating arrangements, sensory stimulation, and symbolic cultural markers to support diverse forms of engagement.

Engagement strategies between the two models are similarly divergent. UD views users primarily as passive recipients—designers anticipate needs and provide standardized solutions. ID, by contrast, repositions users as active participants and co-creators of space [9]. It emphasizes participatory methods that invite users into the design process, recognizing them as experts of their own experience.

Finally, the models differ markedly in their evaluation criteria. UD success is typically assessed through compliance metrics: whether the built environment meets accessibility standards or regulatory guidelines (e.g., width of pathways, height of signage). ID success, however, is evaluated based on perceived inclusion, emotional comfort, sense of belonging, and actual user experience [21]. Thus, while UD focuses on technical achievement, ID demands a more nuanced, user-centered, and relational form of evaluation.

In summary, the divergence between UD and ID across these five dimensions illustrates that while UD remains a crucial foundation for accessibility, it is ID that truly aspires toward equity, adaptability, and belonging in the built environment. Figure 2 and Figure 3 illustrate five dimensions of UD and ID, accordingly.

Table 1. Comparative Design Framework of Universal Design and Inclusive Design.

Dimension	Universal Design	Inclusive Design
Philosophy	Neutrality, equality	Equity, difference, representation
Function	Standardized solutions	Adaptive, iterative
Spatial Logic	Minimalist, rational	Layered, diverse, sensory
User Engagement	Passive users	Active users, co-creators
Evaluation	Compliance-based	Perception and lived experience

presents comparative design framework of UD and ID.

3.4. Why Inclusivity Goes Beyond Accessibility

Although UD has significantly improved the physical accessibility of public spaces, its emphasis on functional and standardized design often overlooks the emotional, social, and cultural dimensions of inclusion. ID, developed in response to these limitations, recognizes that true accessibility must be multidimensional—attuned to the diversity of human minds, identities, bodies, and lived experiences. In complex, dynamic cities like Bangkok, where populations are rapidly diversifying, this expanded view of inclusion is essential for building equitable, meaningful, and responsive public spaces.

3.4.1. Multidimensional Access and the Limits of Neutrality

At the heart of this divergence is a difference in design philosophy. UD is grounded in neutrality and equality, aiming to create environments usable by the greatest number of people without adaptation [1,22]. It operates on the assumption that standardizing physical access features like ramps and signage meets the needs of most users. However, critics have noted that this often marginalizes people whose needs are emotional, cognitive, or culturally specific [15].

ID, on the other hand, is rooted in equity, difference, and representation. It treats access as a relational process—fluid, adaptive, and situated within users’ varied capacities and social identities [6,26]. Functionally, it relies on iterative design and feedback, continuously refined through engagement with underrepresented users. Spatially, it favors layered, multisensory environments that evoke belonging and comfort across neurodiverse, aging, and culturally specific populations.

3.4.2. Spatial Logic and Sensory Inclusion

This spatial logic plays out clearly in urban parks, where UD tends to produce clean, predictable environments—ramps, smooth paths, minimal visual clutter. But for a neurodivergent person or someone recovering from trauma, such environments may be overwhelming or alienating. ID, by contrast, accommodates difference by offering quiet zones, textured navigation, shaded reflection spaces, and culturally meaningful spatial cues. Kaplan and Kaplan (1989) and Hartig et al. (2003) stress that natural space design must account for affective and sensory experience—not just movement [27,28].

3.4.3. Engagement: From Passive Compliance to Co-Creation

Engagement also shifts dramatically between the two. UD typically positions users as recipients of expert decisions. ID invites them as co-creators. It relies on participatory processes—designing with, not for—especially among marginalized populations such as people with disabilities, LGBTQ+ communities, migrant groups, and neurodivergent individuals [9]. This engagement enriches the design process and empowers users to articulate needs beyond what regulations prescribe.

3.4.4. Evaluation: Beyond Metrics, Toward Lived Experience

Evaluation is another key point of departure. UD success is assessed through regulatory compliance: Are entrances wide enough? Is signage readable? These are crucial, but they do not account for perception and lived experience. ID introduces qualitative and affective evaluation: Do users feel welcome, respected, and seen? Does the space reflect their needs, language, and culture? [21]. The shift from checklist to emotional resonance reflects ID’s deeper ethical grounding.

3.4.5. Bangkok-Specific Observations: Accessibility Without Inclusion

Bangkok’s recent public park developments demonstrate this divide. Benjakitti Forest Park incorporates exemplary UD features—wide boardwalks, tactile paving, accessible bathrooms. Yet it lacks inclusive features such as gender-neutral restrooms, sensory zones, multilingual signage, and culturally symbolic design elements. Other spaces like Chulalongkorn Centenary Park and Chatuchak parks show similar patterns: accessible in form, but exclusive in experience.

These gaps are not merely oversights, but reflections of a conceptual limitation: UD solves for function, while ID solves for experience. In a pluralistic city like Bangkok, meeting compliance codes is no longer enough. The future of inclusive public space depends on embedding care, emotional safety, and cultural recognition into every layer of design. As Bangkok aspires to become a livable, equitable city, ID offers not just a strategy—but a paradigm shifts toward justice and belonging.

Previous research indicates that ID remains underrepresented in urban planning, often overshadowed by narrow interpretations of accessibility focused primarily on physical barriers [5,22]. Scholars emphasize that genuinely inclusive environments must address social dynamics, identity representation, emotional well-being, and equitable participation rather than merely technical compliance [17,18]. Costanza-Chock (2020) further advocates for design justice, calling for participatory processes that redistribute decision-making power to accommodate diverse community needs [21]. However, comprehensive frameworks integrating these sensory, emotional, and cultural dimensions remain limited, especially within rapidly diversifying urban contexts like Bangkok. To address this gap, this study develops an integrative comparative framework specifically tailored to critically assess and enhance inclusive practices in urban public parks.

4. Applications in Public Park Design

Across Thailand, public park initiatives increasingly demonstrate the incorporation of UD principles, particularly in response to an aging population and disability rights advocacy [29,30]. However, when examined through the five comparative dimensions—philosophy, function, spatial logic, user engagement, and evaluation—most of these projects reveal a superficial application of UD and a lack of deeper inclusion as defined by ID [6,21].

The Site Suitability Assessment conducted in Rangsit—a peri-urban municipality in Pathum Thani Province north of Bangkok—reflects a technocratic and neutral planning philosophy aligned with UD. Its core focus is on physical feasibility—topography, drainage, connectivity—rather than the symbolic or emotional needs of diverse communities. Functionally, the assessment delivers standardized solutions and neglects adaptability or iteration, with spatial logic that is rational and efficiency-oriented. Engagement remains passive, with no involvement of local users in shaping design outcomes, and evaluation is based purely on technical metrics rather than community perception [22,24].

Similarly, the Age-Friendly Community initiative in Rangsit Municipality—designed to enhance mobility, walkability, and safety for older adults—reflects a UD-driven approach focused on infrastructural functionality [31]. While it meets physical accessibility standards, it lacks attention to cultural representation, sensory diversity, and intergenerational inclusion. The design favors clarity and safety but offers little emotional or symbolic engagement. User participation is absent, and evaluation relies on adherence to formal metrics rather than lived experience or community resonance [8,15].

In contrast, the Tai-Lao Cultural Spaces project exemplifies the ethos of Inclusive Design. Co-created with local ethnic communities, the project embeds cultural symbols, memory, and ritual into the spatial fabric. Its adaptive layout supports layered, sensory-rich interactions, while engagement is high—users contribute actively to both design and programming. Here, success is measured not through technical compliance but through cultural relevance and community validation [9,26].

The Active Design framework, primarily developed for office settings, promotes physical health through movement-oriented planning [32]. However, its application tends to serve a narrow demographic, overlooking emotional regulation, sensory sensitivity, and diverse cultural rhythms. Despite its emphasis on usability, the absence of co-design limits user engagement, and evaluation remains rooted in behavior metrics rather than experiential inclusivity [21].

The Thammasat University Campus Plan (2034) similarly demonstrates UD-aligned aspirations for sustainable, accessible environments. However, its standardized and institutional spatial logic lacks participatory design and symbolic depth. Prioritizing infrastructural performance over affective or cultural inclusion, the plan reinforces a top-down model that limits opportunities for students and diverse users to shape the campus experience [17].

4.1. Bangkok Case Analysis

Bangkok’s major public parks present important case studies in the evolving application of UD in urban environments. Yet a closer investigation reveals persistent gaps when viewed through ID’s more relational and experiential framework [5,6]. The selection of Benjakitti Forest Park, Railway Park—Chatuchak Park, and Chulalongkorn University Centenary Park was guided by three interrelated criteria aligned with the study’s aim to critically assess UD and ID in Bangkok’s urban public spaces.

• Inclusive and Accessible Design: The selected parks demonstrate core UD features—sloped paths, accessible rest areas, and clear circulation—providing a consistent basis for evaluating physical accessibility. Their varying degrees of engagement with ID, including attention to emotional, sensory, and cultural dimensions, allow for a nuanced critique of how inclusion is understood and practiced.
• Institutional Variation: Developed under different entities—a state enterprise, a municipal authority, and a university—the parks reflect diverse institutional frameworks. These differences offer insight into how governance models shape user participation, spatial logic, and design intent.
• Urban Policy Significance: As high-profile projects within Bangkok’s planning discourse, these parks serve as influential models. Their visibility and symbolic value make them ideal for assessing how public policies translate ID principles into the built environment.

4.1.1. Benjakitti Forest Park

Benjakitti Forest Park is a flagship project in Bangkok’s green urban redevelopment, redeveloped and officially reopened in 2022 by the Treasury Department and the Royal Thai Army. Initially created to enhance urban ecology and recreation, the park attracts diverse users, including local residents and tourists, aligning with broader policy goals for sustainable living and green urban spaces. It is frequently cited as an exemplary implementation of UD. Its gently sloped paths, step-free bridges, accessible restrooms, and shaded seating demonstrate strong commitments to physical accessibility [33], reflecting core UD principles such as equitable use and low physical effort, thus accommodating various mobility needs [1,23]. The park’s linear and minimalist spatial layout further promotes clear navigation, contributing to its physical neutrality and legibility.

However, UD’s emphasis on standardized access and functional neutrality also reveals its limitations. By assuming a “universal” user, the park design overlooks cognitive, emotional, and cultural variations, and thus fails to engage a wider range of embodied experiences. UD, while foundational, tends to address the minimum threshold of inclusion—often defined by compliance—without confronting the deeper question of who feels genuinely welcome or represented.

From an ID perspective, Benjakitti Forest Park is less successful. ID extends beyond removing physical barriers to address diversity, identity, and participation in the design process. Yet the park lacks sensory-rich environments, quiet zones, or culturally expressive features that would support neurodivergent users, emotionally sensitive individuals, or Bangkok’s multi-ethnic residents. The absence of co-design processes reinforces a top-down, expert-driven model, leaving little space for community voices or lived experience to shape the park’s spatial narrative [21,34].

The park’s design logic mirrors modernist ideals of order, efficiency, and control, privileging circulation and visual openness over spatial variety, narrative richness, or emotional depth [5,35]. As a result, it becomes physically inclusive but experientially generic.

This case highlights the need to move beyond a compliance-based model of UD toward a value-driven model of ID—where emotional resonance, cultural specificity, and user agency are central to inclusive public space. Physical access remains essential, but true inclusion demands space for difference, dialogue, and belonging.

The evaluation of Benjakitti Forest Park in this study was based on observational fieldwork and its design plans and reports from Bangkok Metropolitan Administration’s Universal Design Handbook [21] supported by secondary literature reviewing its ecological and accessibility features [33]. Figure 4 below show the overall image and elements of Benjakitti Forest Park. Map of Benjakitti Forest Park in Bangkok is illustrated in the layout plan shows in Figure 5, demonstrating the UD-oriented accessibility but offers limited sensory and cultural diversity required for effective ID.

4.1.2. Railway Park—Chatuchak Park

Railway Park, opened in 2002 by the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA), is a popular urban green space situated next to the more formal Chatuchak Park. It primarily serves local residents and visitors from surrounding neighborhoods, providing active recreation and family-friendly activities consistent with Bangkok’s urban livability initiatives amid rapid urbanization. The park includes fundamental UD features such as flat, step-free walkways, wide circulation paths, and open lawns, ensuring accessibility for ambulatory users, families, and recreational groups. Its straightforward and predictable spatial layout supports functional ease and clear movement [22].

However, this application of UD leans heavily on standardization and physical neutrality, revealing inherent limitations. While physical barriers are minimized, the design presumes a generalized, able-bodied user. There is limited accommodation for cognitive, emotional, or sensory needs—no quiet zones for overstimulated users, no sensory gardens for neurodivergent individuals, and no culturally meaningful or memory-supportive features for older adults. The space, though accessible, risks feeling monotonous, anonymous, and socially flat.

From an ID perspective, the park reflects a significant gap. ID expands beyond physical access to consider user diversity, participatory design, and symbolic inclusion. It values spaces that engage emotion, identity, and cultural context. Yet, the design and programming of Railway Park appear to be top-down and expert-driven, with little evidence of community input or iterative design based on lived experience [15,24]. This results in a park that functions well for normative uses, but excludes more complex or marginalized ways of engaging space.

Moreover, success appears to be measured through user volume and maintenance efficiency rather than belonging, safety, or emotional satisfaction. As such, the park meets a baseline of accessibility but does not meaningfully support inclusion in its fullest sense. This case illustrates a broader critique: UD ensures entry, but ID ensures presence, recognition, and participation. For urban parks to become truly inclusive, they must move beyond technical compliance to embrace plural voices, sensory richness, and co-created meaning. Railway Park offers a functional landscape—but one that lacks the nuance and adaptability necessary for deep, inclusive engagement.

The assessment of Railway Park was conducted using on-site observation along with its design plans and the design guidelines and operational documents provided by Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) [20], along with insights from previous research studies on urban parks and accessibility in Bangkok [19,36] Elements of Railway Park—Chatuchak Park such as Open Lawns, Flower Garden, and Outdoor Gym is displayed in the Figure 6, while Figure 7 Map of Railway Park within Chatuchak Park in Bangkok—sowing predictable spatial organization aligns with UD principles but neglects diversity and user engagement aspects essential for ID.

4.1.3. Chulalongkorn Centenary Park

Chulalongkorn Centenary Park, completed in 2017, was designed by Landprocess for Chulalongkorn University as part of a sustainability-driven urban redevelopment. It primarily serves university students, staff, and surrounding community members, reflecting Bangkok’s increasing environmental awareness and urban climate resilience discourse. The park is frequently celebrated for its ecological approach, notably its stormwater retention system and climate-adaptive landscape. From a UD standpoint, it features gently sloped walkways, clear sightlines, and comfortable resting areas, aligning with UD principles such as equitable use, flexibility in use, and low physical effort [21,37]. Its linear form and open vistas enhance legibility and ease of navigation, particularly benefiting users with mobility constraints or visual impairments.

However, UD’s focus on functional accessibility and spatial neutrality—while necessary—does not guarantee social or emotional inclusivity. The park’s design is optimized for ecological performance and circulation efficiency but falls short when evaluated through the lens of ID, which broadens the frame by addressing diversity in cognition, emotion, and identity, emphasizing that truly inclusive environments must respond to varied user experiences and support participation, belonging, and cultural expression [21,34].

Chulalongkorn Park lacks spaces of sensory variation, narrative engagement, or symbolic meaning—critical for neurodivergent users, emotionally sensitive individuals, or communities seeking cultural recognition. The absence of quiet zones, memory-supportive pathways, or interpretive elements results in a space that, while accessible, feels emotionally generic and socially detached.

The expert-led design process reinforces this limitation. Without participatory planning or co-design, the park reflects a technocratic logic—evaluated through metrics like water retention and landscape performance—rather than the qualitative dimensions of human experience [6]. The space does not ask who its users are, what stories they carry, or how they might inhabit and reshape it.

This case highlights a critical tension: UD removes physical barriers, but ID invites users into meaningful spatial relationships. A truly inclusive park must move beyond compliance to embrace emotional depth, cultural nuance, and co-created meaning. Chulalongkorn Centenary Park shows that infrastructure can be accessible yet experientially limited—unless it centres plurality, voice, and lived experience in its design.

Evaluation of Chulalongkorn Centenary Park employed field-based observation and design documents and narratives provided by Landprocess, the landscape architecture firm responsible for the park design, complemented by secondary literature addressing its sustainable and inclusive design dimensions [34], as well as relevant urban planning policies and guidelines from Chulalongkorn University. Elements of universal designs in Chulalongkorn Centenary Park could be seen in Figure 8. As well as the map of Chulalongkorn Centenary Park in Bangkok which show linear circulation supports UD goals but misses opportunities for adaptable and culturally meaningful spaces that ID prioritizes in Figure 9.

4.2. Comparative Insights Across Bangkok Parks

A comparative analysis of Bangkok’s public parks reveals distinct typologies in how UD and ID principles are implemented or omitted. When viewed side by side, the strengths and limitations of each site become clearer—not only in their technical features but also in their underlying design philosophies, spatial logic, and user engagement

Benjakitti Forest Park and Railway Park (Chatuchak) both reflect a strong commitment to UD, but with different outcomes. Benjakitti, as a high-profile redevelopment, incorporates an extensive suite of accessible features: step-free bridges, shaded seating, and gently sloping walkways. Its spatial layout is linear and rational, promoting clarity of movement. Yet, it is largely devoid of symbolic or sensory elements, and lacks participatory origins. Railway Park, though more modest in intervention, similarly adheres to a philosophy of equal usability, offering wide open spaces and level walkways. However, unlike Benjakitti’s carefully curated design, Railway Park’s simplicity borders on spatial austerity—providing little diversity in user experience, especially for neurodiverse or emotionally sensitive visitors. While both parks succeed in physical accessibility, they do so through standardization rather than adaptation, situating them squarely within a UD-dominant typology.

In contrast, Chulalongkorn Centenary Park and Santiphap Park present a more nuanced comparison. Both parks meet basic UD benchmarks, yet they diverge in conceptual intent and spatial complexity. Chulalongkorn Park integrates sustainability and resilience into its core philosophy, employing green infrastructure and clear circulation paths. However, its design is fixed and top-down, lacking co-creation and experiential richness. Santiphap, on the other hand, functions as a compact neighbourhood park with passive recreational use. It offers basic accessibility but makes no attempt to engage users through symbolism, memory, or culture. Where Chulalongkorn Park fails to be emotionally inclusive despite its ecological innovation, Santiphap is functionally accessible but experientially flat. These two parks exemplify spatial minimalism—accessible in form but limited in their capacity to engage diverse users on emotional, symbolic, or cultural levels.

Tai-Lao Cultural Spaces, while not a flagship urban park, represents a rare instance of ID-aligned practice. Its co-design process with local ethnic communities produced layered, contextually resonant spaces—infused with symbolic markers, adaptive functions, and cultural memory. Unlike the other parks, which assume a universal user, Tai-Lao begins with difference and designs accordingly. Though limited in scale, it demonstrates the transformative potential of ID, suggesting that ID is not merely a matter of technical infrastructure but of relational ethics and representational justice.

Together, these paired comparisons reveal that the majority of Bangkok’s parks fall into either UD-dominant or minimalist categories, where inclusion is narrowly interpreted as compliance with physical access standards. In contrast, ID-aligned approaches remain rare, yet powerful, in showcasing how design can foster identity, agency, and belonging. This typological reading highlights that the difference between access and inclusion lies not in form alone, but in the politics of process—who is included in design, how difference is addressed, and what kinds of futures are imagined through space. Three spider diagrams in Figure 10 below illustrated different alignment of each parks.

To further elucidate the comparative strengths and limitations of UD and ID implementation across selected case studies, a spider diagram was employed as an analytical visualization tool. This method allows for the simultaneous mapping of multiple dimensions—philosophy, function, spatial logic, user engagement, and evaluation—to illustrate how each park aligns along a UD–ID continuum. Each axis represents one of the five evaluative dimensions derived from the study’s conceptual framework, scaled from 0 (representing full alignment with UD principles, such as standardization and compliance) to 5 (representing strong alignment with ID principles, such as adaptability, co-creation, and experiential richness). The three Bangkok case studies—Benjakitti Forest Park, Railway Park (Chatuchak), and Chulalongkorn Centenary Park—were scored based on their documented design features and alignment with theoretical criteria identified in prior sections. By plotting these values, the spider diagram offers a comparative visual synthesis that reveals key patterns: all three parks exhibit strong UD traits, particularly in infrastructural clarity and accessibility, but vary in their engagement with ID dimensions. Benjakitti Forest Park performs slightly better in functional adaptability and spatial logic, whereas Railway Park demonstrates a minimalistic approach with consistently low scores across all axes. Chulalongkorn Centenary Park, despite its ecological innovations, similarly lacks participatory design and symbolic inclusion. This diagrammatic analysis not only reinforces the typological reading presented in the textual discussion but also provides a multidimensional snapshot of each park’s relative position within the UD–ID design spectrum, thus clarifying their strengths, gaps, and potential trajectories for inclusive improvement.

5. Discussion

When examined comparatively, the three Bangkok parks reflect varying levels of engagement with UD and ID principles. Benjakitti Forest Park and Chulalongkorn Centenary Park showcase advanced implementation of UD, particularly in circulation design and infrastructural clarity, yet both fall short on participatory planning and symbolic inclusion. Railway Park and Santiphap Park, while offering baseline accessibility, reveal a deeper reliance on standardization and a lack of engagement with diverse sensory or cultural needs, marking them as typologies of spatial minimalism. In contrast, although less prominent in public discourse, Tai-Lao Cultural Spaces stands apart for embodying ID values—co-design, cultural specificity, and adaptability. This internal comparison suggests that scale and visibility do not necessarily correlate with inclusivity. Rather, it is the design process—who is included, how feedback is integrated, and which identities are acknowledged—that defines a park’s inclusiveness. These patterns reveal not only a dominant reliance on UD but also a lack of institutional capacity to implement ID in most public spaces.

The preceding analysis underscores the nuanced yet consequential distinctions between UD and ID in the context of public park development in Thailand, particularly within the urban fabric of Bangkok. While UD has made significant strides in embedding physical accessibility into the built environment, its predominance across case studies demonstrates a design paradigm that prioritizes standardized solutions, neutrality, and technical compliance. The application of UD in both national and municipal park projects has led to improvements in physical mobility, navigational clarity, and general usability for a wide range of users, particularly those with physical disabilities, older adults, and caregivers with children [1,25]. However, the analysis reveals that this approach, while necessary, is insufficient in achieving truly inclusive, equitable, and pluralistic public spaces.

Across Thai case studies—such as the Site Suitability Assessment in Rangsit and the Age-Friendly Community initiative—there is a clear emphasis on infrastructural logic and policy adherence, yet a simultaneous absence of symbolic, emotional, and cultural responsiveness. These projects align strongly with UD’s functional and spatial logic but falter in terms of engagement and evaluative depth. In contrast, the Tai-Lao Cultural Spaces project stands as an important counterexample, illustrating the capacity of ID to incorporate identity-based participation, adaptive design, and community-authored symbolism. This case illuminates the core strength of ID: its philosophical grounding in difference and equity, which allows for the production of spaces that are not merely accessible, but also resonant, empowering, and contextually meaningful [6,26].

In Bangkok’s urban parks, similar trends persist. Flagship projects like Benjakitti Forest Park and Chulalongkorn Centenary Park represent technical achievements in UD. They offer seamless mobility, ecological resilience, and infrastructure designed for safety and clarity. Yet, they remain shaped by a design philosophy that treats users as passive recipients rather than as cultural agents or emotional beings. The absence of sensory zones, symbolic landmarks, gender-neutral facilities, or multilingual communication tools reflects a missed opportunity to engage with the broader spectrum of human diversity, including neurodivergent users, ethnic minorities, and emotionally vulnerable populations [21,34].

The prevalence of expert-led planning further reinforces these limitations. In parks such as Chulalongkorn Centenary Park, the design process is technocratic—prioritizing metrics such as ecological performance, water retention, and infrastructural clarity. While these aspects contribute to physical functionality, they do not account for the symbolic or emotional needs of users. Without participatory design or co-creative engagement, these spaces fail to ask who their users are, what narratives they carry, or how different bodies and identities might inhabit and reshape the environment. As a result, design outcomes become experientially generic—visibly refined but socially mute—reinforcing the disconnect between access and inclusion.

The comparative framework applied in this study—analyzing the five dimensions of design philosophy, function, spatial logic, user engagement, and evaluation—clarifies that while UD satisfies the structural preconditions of access, ID addresses the relational, affective, and political dimensions of space. The gap between compliance and inclusion is therefore not a matter of design failure, but of epistemological framing. UD presupposes universality and equal treatment; ID foregrounds differentiated experience, co-creation, and representational justice. This distinction is not merely academic—it has profound implications for how cities like Bangkok design for the future. If public spaces are to become instruments of social inclusion rather than symbols of technocratic governance, design processes must shift from producing spaces that are only navigable to those that are also negotiable, relatable, and symbolically inhabited [5,24].

This discussion further suggests that the persistent reliance on UD without the integration of ID reinforces a form of spatial minimalism—one that may be physically open but socially and emotionally closed. Parks like Santiphap and Chatuchak, while accessible, remain culturally neutral and experientially uniform. Without participatory design methods or evaluative tools that capture user perception, planners risk perpetuating environments that appear inclusive in form yet remain exclusive in function. In response, this study advocates for the incorporation of ID principles into public space policy, educational curricula for designers, and institutional frameworks for urban planning.

Ultimately, the findings illuminate an urgent need to reframe inclusion not as an endpoint measured by infrastructure, but as an ongoing process of cultural negotiation, relational recognition, and design justice. In doing so, public parks in Bangkok and beyond can transform from accessible zones into truly inclusive commons—spaces that not only allow access, but affirm presence, plurality, and participation.

This paper contributes a conceptual and methodological intervention into the discourse on urban inclusion. Rather than prescribing replicable design solutions, the study offers a critical, scalable framework for interrogating how design paradigms—particularly UD and ID—manifest in lived environments. While the findings are contextually grounded in Bangkok, the implications extend to other cities navigating similar tensions between policy standardization and pluralistic representation. By clarifying how frameworks shape not just spatial form but also social imagination, the study deepens understandings of how inclusion must be evaluated relationally—not only by what is built, but by whom, for whom, and through what processes.

Table 2. Summary of UD vs. ID Discussion.

Design Framework	Philosophy	Function	Spatial Logic	User Engagement	Evaluation	Observed Outcomes in Thai Context
Universal Design	Neutrality and standardization; assumes equal access through uniform infrastructure	Standardized, fixed features such as ramps, walkways, and signage	Linear, rational, and minimalist organization for ease of navigation	Top-down, expert-driven with passive user roles	Compliance-based metrics: physical access, safety, technical standards	Improved physical accessibility but limited social or emotional inclusion
Inclusive Design	Equity, diversity, and contextual difference; recognizes diverse user needs and experiences	Adaptive, iterative solutions tailored to emotional, cultural, and sensory needs	Layered, diverse, and sensory-rich environments supporting varied experiences	Participatory, co-design with marginalized and diverse stakeholders	User-cantered metrics: perception, emotional comfort, cultural resonance	Rarely implemented; where applied (e.g., Tai-Lao spaces), shows strong community relevance and symbolic impact

below summarized the discussion of UD vs. ID in five dimensions.

6. Policy and Practice Implications

6.1. Clarifying Policy Frameworks

A fundamental step toward inclusive public space is the need to distinguish clearly between UD and ID in official planning. Current documents—such as those issued by the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA)—frequently conflate the two frameworks, reducing inclusion to a matter of technical compliance. National and municipal policies must define UD as a baseline physical standard, while positioning ID as an evolving process grounded in cultural relevance, emotional resonance, equity, and engagement. In parallel, evaluation protocols should be expanded. Rather than relying solely on physical audits—such as verifying the presence of ramps or signage—public park assessments must incorporate user-centered metrics. Post-occupancy evaluations should capture community feedback on safety, belonging, and emotional comfort, reflecting lived experience beyond regulatory form. Finally, formal regulatory guidelines must incorporate ID principles that are currently absent or inconsistently applied. Provisions for participatory design, sensory inclusion, cultural representation, and multilingual communication should be embedded in urban design standards as best practices—not treated as optional enhancements.

6.2. Shifting Design Practice

To embed inclusive values more deeply into the design profession, practitioners must be equipped to distinguish between legal compliance and the creation of meaningful, inclusive experiences. Professional organizations such as the Thai Association of Landscape Architects should take the lead in embedding ID into professional standards through certification programs, design competitions, and updated practice guidelines. Designers must also move beyond checklist thinking and engage more critically with questions of experience: What emotional atmosphere does the space create? Who might be excluded by default? Inclusive environments should integrate features such as gender-neutral restrooms, sensory gardens, symbolic landmarks, and culturally familiar seating arrangements to create experiences that are not only accessible but affirming and diverse. Furthermore, design strategies should prioritize adaptability and contextual relevance. Instead of relying on rigid templates or static solutions, design responses should reflect changing demographics and localized needs. Modular spatial configurations, multi-use zones, and designs that invite reinterpretation are especially vital in dynamic, multicultural urban environments such as Bangkok.

6.3. Transforming Institutional Culture and Education

Institutional transformation is key to embedding ID at a systemic level. First, co-design must be institutionalized as a normative planning practice, especially during early project stages. This shift will require public agencies to reform procurement protocols, ensuring that participatory processes are prioritized and incentivized. Second, academic programs in architecture, landscape architecture, and urban planning must be revised to better prepare future professionals. Curricula should introduce students to ID theory, participatory and ethnographic methods, emotional mapping, and principles of spatial justice. Design studios should emphasize community-engaged processes and user-led evaluation, equipping students to address real-world complexities. Third, capacity-building initiatives are essential for local governments. Municipal officials, engineers, and contractors—who often lack exposure to ID concepts—should be supported through workshops, interdisciplinary knowledge exchanges, and continuing education programs. Such institutional efforts will foster a broader cultural shift toward inclusive urbanism and ensure that ID becomes embedded not only in physical space but also in the structures of governance and professional development

7. Conclusions

The analysis has critically explored the conceptual and practical distinctions between UD and ID in the context of public park development in Bangkok. While UD has played a foundational role in promoting physical accessibility and establishing infrastructure standards, its scope remains largely confined to mobility and usability. In contrast, ID introduces a broader and more participatory paradigm—one that prioritizes equity, emotional resonance, cultural sensitivity, and user agency.

Comparative analysis and case-based critique reveal that public parks in Thailand continue to operate predominantly within a UD-centric framework, often conflating physical access with comprehensive inclusion. As a result, these environments may meet technical requirements while failing to address the social, symbolic, and emotional needs of diverse user groups—including neurodivergent individuals, cultural minorities, and other marginalized communities. Nevertheless, initiatives such as the Tai-Lao Cultural Spaces highlight the potential of participatory, context-sensitive approaches inspired by ID’s principles.

The proposed comparative framework offers a practical lens for rethinking public space through five critical dimensions—philosophy, function, spatial logic, user engagement, and evaluation—demonstrating the importance of designing not only for the body, but also for the mind, identity, and lived experience.

In moving toward more inclusive urban commons, inclusion must be reframed as a continuous, relational, and culturally grounded process rather than a checklist of accessible features. ID presents a compelling direction for urban development, offering a design ethic rooted in diversity, co-creation, and belonging—essential for fostering equitable and representative environments in a pluralistic society like Bangkok.

Embedding ID meaningfully into Thai urban planning will require coordinated shifts across design practice, institutional policy, and research. Co-design frameworks should be adopted from project initiation through post-occupancy evaluation, supported by flexible procurement protocols, interdisciplinary collaboration, and updated standards that reflect inclusive values. Policymaking must treat participatory planning as a requirement, not an optional gesture. Simultaneously, future research should move beyond structural metrics to prioritize emotional well-being, symbolic inclusion, and spatial justice, supported by longitudinal data on user perception and experience.

Together, these pathways can guide the evolution of public parks from spaces of passive accessibility to inclusive commons—sites of empathy, identity, and collective belonging.