In 2024 a group of us, all autistic adults connected through the Aspect support service in Cork and Kerry, came together to design, conduct and report on our experiences of urban space. This concluded with our illustrated report “The Sensory City, Cork“.

During the course of our collaboration we had some focus group sessions and group walks through parts of Cork City to iteratively design and test a survey for a wider group of Aspect clients in Cork and Kerry. The survey was completed by 76 people, who were all invited to contribute, in words and pictures, to a set of conclusions and recommendations from the survey of our collective autistic experience of urban space.

The Aspect service, part of the Rehab Group, kindly provided meeting space and supported our communication and survey dissemination process.

We tried a number of themes and descriptions in our focus group discussions, until we settled on 8 characteristics of place. We used a visual thesaurus, maps and paper notes to refine the wording into labels we all agreed worked to capture the main elements of our experiences. We tried a number of represntations, including emoji and words, settling on a five point text description with words that varied according to the question (e.g. whether a characteristic had been designed “Very well / Well / Moderately / Slightly / Not at all” or whether it affected the respondent “Every time / Often / Sometimes / Occasionally / Never”.

Initial word	Refined description
Sound	Noise or sound
Visual	Lighting, brightness or flicker
Odour	Smells or odour
Tactile	Unpleasant surfaces or textures
Navigation	Poor signs or getting lost
Anxiety	Anxiety or doubt
Social	Too much social contact
Floor	Uneven or broken flooring

We then tried walking with the draft questionnaire, scribbling over and refining the descriptions to use for a wider sample of autistic adults within Aspect.

Geotagging software allowed us to photograph features of our walks, and to later locate each photograph on a map using the embedded GPS coordinates in the phone or camera files. It also produced a rough route map if we had taken enough images along the way. We chose to use paper and an online textual questionnaire as these were these easiest ways to collect anonymous input from our respondents and preserve privacy.

We asked people to think about getting to education, work, shopping, leisure or healthcare, and to think about the everyday experiences, a place that is uncomfortable or difficult, and a place that is comfortable or where they like to spend time. We had free text sections throughout where people could add their own additional comments or nominate alternative characteristics and places. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there was little difference between the everyday experience and the uncomfortable place – most urban environments seem to be poorly designed for autistic senses. A pleasant place would be one in which all 8 characteristics were addressed equally well.

People nominated (in descending order) “Anxiety or doubt”, “Noise or sound”, “Too much social contact” and “Lighting, brightness or flicker” as the most significant characteristic limiting access to public places.
The characteristic of “Uneven or broken flooring” was the least important to respondents. It is perhaps too narrow – especially in our largely young and mobile cohort. The characteristic could be broadened in future work to reflect a wider range of proprioceptive need, spatial safety, or adequate peripersonal space along the route.

Respondents added three new characteristics of “Temperature”, “Judgement or attitudes” and “Unwritten rules”. A number of people also voiced the need to have a companion when out which, while not strictly a characteristic of a place, may be implicitly or explicitly more difficult due to the design or regulation of some public places and activities.

We received plenty of comments to inform the report and the initial set of conclusions and recommendations we sent out for review to all respondents. In our focus group we had identified “School or college”, “Workplace”, “Shop”, “Waiting room”, “Street”, “Library”, “Gallery or museum” and “Park or garden” among the places people need or want to reach for everyday activities. Respondents additionally nominated “Café, restaurant or bar”, “Relaxation room”, “Bus or train”, “Cinema”, “Public Toilet” and “Golf course” as locations of everyday activities. We counted how often each category of place was nominated as an uncomfortable place people need and a comfortable place people might choose to spend time. Some categories are perceived as both comfortable and uncomfortable by different people, while others are overwhelmingly one or the other. This indicates that some categories of place (“Libraries”, “Park or garden” and “Other”, which includes “Relaxation room”) have been designed well, addressing the barriers experienced by autistic people, and other categories (“Street”, “Waiting room”, “Shop” and “Workplace”) have not been designed well for autistic inclusion. The divergent perceptions of “School or college” as either comfortable or uncomfortable, in different respondents experiences, may reflect the degree to which some schools and colleges have worked to create inclusive learning environments.

Conclusions

• The city contains many difficult or uncomfortable places, with noise, lighting, smell. Autistic people (and other groups) are more negatively affected, making access to the city unequal.
• Places do not need to be uncomfortable or inaccessible. Some schools and shops are positively described, and similar attitude and intervention could work elsewhere. Designs that are good for us are designs that are good for everyone – big impacts could be made with small changes in some buildings.
• Sensory friendly places and events should be open to anyone who needs them, with no gatekeeping through ID cards or requests for evidence of a diagnosis.
• Attitudes have generally improved; but secondary school still poor.
• There is a lack of nearby parking for people with invisible disabilities.
• We are adults with the full range of adult wants and needs, and must not be infantilized when we disclose our autistic identity to seek assistance or support.
• Physical places and psychological space are closely interwoven.

Recommendations

• “Autism friendly” must mean genuinely accessible change, with accredited definitions.
• Permanent changes are preferable to a weekly “autism hour”.
• Intense lighting, temperature, noise (e.g. music or coffee machines) require quiet refuge areas.
• Waiting rooms and other places we have no choice to attend need a gradation of isolation from TV, radio and other noise.
• Everyone must feel welcome.
• Nearby parking is required for invisible disabilities.
• Identity can be disclosed using the sunflower lanyard, AsIAm ID card or JAM card, and requires public recognition and appropriate responses.
• Respect all identities – make allowances and support for the needs people express without without requiring disclosure or evidence of a diagnosis.
• We need safe, quiet and considerate spaces.
• We will identify specific places, categories of place and a network of paths between refuge spaces, connecting us with our everyday needs.
• A public network, city map and place reviews (like “UR in Luck” in New York or the “SoundPrint” app) could add an inclusive dimension to festival and event publicity.

We have individually and collectively identified specific places and categories of place and experience that are positive and rewarding aspects of our experience of city and urban spaces. Barriers – mostly sensory – limit our access to these places, and detract from our comfort in enjoying them.

We could (individually, or as a group) map out the places we want or need to access, the spaces between them, the sensory impact of connections, and map networks that work towards a less stressful experience navigating the city.

Many of the recommendations we make to increase accessibility and inclusion involve minimal cost. The interventions that would make the urban landscape more accessible to autistic people would also benefit other neurodivergent groups and people experiencing anxiety and depression, without inconvenience to anyone.

Acknowledgements

Completion of this survey would not have been possible without the support of Aspect AS Support Service, part of RehabCare, who facilitated communication between clients, initial focus group and design meetings, sensory walks and disseminating the survey to clients who wished to participate.

Red Ink, a group of neurodiverse artists, have been instrumental in the development of the sensory map.

The illustrated report “The Sensory City, Cork” is available here as a 6 MByte PDF file.