Universal design compliance in selected cultural centres in South-west and South-South Nigeria

Abstract

Cultural centres are important public institutions that support cultural preservation, education, recreation, and civic participation; however, their compliance with Universal Design (UD) principles in Nigeria remains underexplored. This study evaluated the level of UD compliance in three state-owned cultural centres in South-West and South-South Nigeria—the John Randle Centre for Yoruba History and Culture (Lagos State), the Ibadan Cultural Centre (Oyo State), and the Oba Akenzua Cultural Centre (Edo State)—with reference to the Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities (Prohibition) Act, 2018. A qualitative case study approach was adopted, and data were collected through structured on-site observations conducted between December 2024 and February 2025. A nine-component evaluation framework derived from the Act and established UD literature was applied, with each component assessed using a three-tier implementation scale and a Universal Design Compliance Index (UDCI) calculated for comparative analysis. The findings revealed notable disparities in compliance, with the John Randle Centre achieving the highest UDCI score of 83.3%, followed by the Ibadan Cultural Centre (50.0%) and the Oba Akenzua Cultural Centre (38.9%). Car parking, wayfinding and signage, and tactile surfaces were the most consistently neglected accessibility components. The study identifies a significant gap between statutory accessibility requirements and existing cultural infrastructure, highlighting the need for stronger enforcement mechanisms, improved professional training, and clearer technical standards to promote more inclusive public environments in Nigeria.

1 Introduction

Humans have continuously shaped physical environments to suit functional needs Yet, as spatial complexity has grown, these environments have increasingly excluded certain user groups, particularly persons with disabilities, whose needs are not always reflected in conventional design practice (Basnak et al., 2015; Kapsalis et al., 2022).

Nigeria, a rapidly growing nation with over 219 million people (Jimoh, 2024), includes individuals with and without disabilities, underscoring that people with physical disabilities are integral members of every community. Their full inclusion ensures active societal participation and equitable living standards.

The 1981 International Year for Disabled Persons observed in Nigeria through seminars, exhibitions, and symposia marked a significant milestone in creating awareness and promoting the rights of people with disabilities (Adiela, 2023). These efforts highlighted the need for environments that support everyone.

Despite such efforts (Soyingbe et al., 2007), found that many Nigerian public buildings hinder access for people with disabilities. Their study of 257 facilities revealed limited inclusive infrastructure, contradicting inclusive education goals like SDG 4 (Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all). Such exclusion undermines societal potential by restricting the talents and contributions of these individuals. To address this, Universal Design (UD) must be integrated into public facilities, especially cultural centres.

Cultural centers are built environments essential for preserving, celebrating, and promoting a community’s cultural identity. They foster creativity, inspire social engagement, and improve urban environments, all of which strengthen the cultural tapestry of cities (Umukoro, 2023). On the other hand, Universal Design (UD) seeks to create environments usable by people of all ages, sizes, and abilities (Sholanke and Eleagu, 2024; Müller, 2023). When applied to cultural facilities, UD ensures accessibility and enhances user engagement (Mrak and Matan, 2022; Rappolt-Schlichtmann and Daley, 2013).

Universal Design (UD) was introduced in the 1980s by architect Ronald Mace through his work in disability studies. He emphasized that built environments should serve people of all ages, abilities, and identities (Zanettin and Rundle, 2022; Preiser and Ostroff, 2001). Mace and his colleagues founded the Center for Universal Design (CUD) at North Carolina State University to promote this idea. In 1997, the CUD outlined seven core principles: equitable use, flexibility in use, simple and intuitive use, perceptible information, tolerance for error, low physical effort, and appropriate size and space for use (Olodeoku et al., 2024). These principles provide a framework that remains central to discussions on accessibility and inclusive design. Applying UD in cultural centres enhances accessibility for individuals with disabilities and enriches the experience for all users (González-Herrera et al., 2023; Jamilah and Zulaikha, 2021).

This study aims to evaluate the level of compliance with Universal Design (UD) principles in selected cultural centers in South-West and South-South Nigeria through the development and application of a structured evaluation framework.

The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents a review of relevant literature on cultural centres and Universal Design principles. Section 3 describes the research methodology, including the development and justification of the evaluation framework. Section 4 presents and analyses findings from the three case studies. Section 5 discusses the broader implications of these findings, and Section 6 offers conclusions and recommendations.

2 Literature review

2.1 The need for accessibility evaluation in nigerian cultural centres

Cultural centres are public institutions serving diverse user groups, including persons with disabilities, older adults, and visitors with varying mobility and sensory needs. As publicly funded spaces, they are subject to the provisions of the Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities (Prohibition) Act of 2018, which mandates that public buildings incorporate design features ensuring equitable access for all users. Unlike administrative or office buildings, cultural centres are explicitly designed for broad civic participation they host exhibitions, performances, community events, and educational programmes that draw visitors across the full spectrum of age and ability. Their social mandate therefore makes them among the most important and most visible test cases for inclusive design in the Nigerian built environment (Umukoro, 2023; González-Herrera et al., 2023). Yet despite this significance, cultural centres have received limited dedicated scrutiny within the existing Nigerian accessibility literature, which has focused primarily on museum buildings and university facilities (Ibem et al., 2017; Uzodinma et al., 2024).

Existing studies consistently document significant accessibility deficits across Nigerian public buildings more broadly (Soyingbe et al., 2007). found that the majority of 257 surveyed public facilities lacked inclusive infrastructure. Ibem et al. (2017) evaluated museum buildings in southwest Nigeria and found that while approachability criteria were broadly met, accessibility and usability requirements were not (Uzodinma et al., 2024). documented the absence of functional lifts, inadequate signage, and wheelchair circulation barriers in federal university buildings, while Sholanke and Eleagu (2024) identified absent dropped curbs, open drainage channels, and inadequately designed ramps and handrails in Ogun State university buildings. Although UD as a formal concept originates in the United States, this study draws on international literature to contextualize accessibility obligations in public cultural buildings, given the limited availability of directly comparable studies from sub-Saharan Africa. Together, these findings confirm a persistent gap between legislative intent and built reality in Nigerian public architecture and establish the need for a structured, criteria-based evaluation of cultural centre compliance.

2.2 Universal design: principles as evaluation criteria

2.3 Evaluation framework: UD structures in cultural centres

Translating the seven UD principles into a practical evaluation instrument requires identifying specific, observable, and measurable design components. Drawing on the Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities (Prohibition) Act of 2018 and established UD literature (Mosca et al., 2024; Sholanke et al., 2018; Uzodinma et al., 2024), this study defines nine structural components as its evaluation criteria. These are the features assessed consistently across all three case studies in Section 4.

Access strategy: Accessible routes, levelled thresholds, automatic doors, and evacuation provisions for users requiring assistance.

Car parking: Designated accessible bays near entrances, with appropriate markings, drop-off zones, and ramp connections to the main building.

Walkways and ramps: Appropriately graded ramps, adequate bidirectional widths, safety railings, slip-resistant finishes, and clear unobstructed paths.

External areas: Slip-resistant paved paths without steps, minimised grate openings, and wayfinding signage between entrances and key activity areas.

Internal areas: Accessible routes connecting all key spaces, minimum 2-m corridor widths, and adequate colour contrast between walls and floors.

Lifts: Passenger lifts meeting minimum dimensional requirements for wheelchair users, with slip-resistant flooring and clear floor-level signage.

Stairs and vertical circulation: Handrails, consistent riser heights, and anti-slip finishes; always paired with an accessible vertical alternative.

Wayfinding and signage: High-contrast, standardised directional signage to services, exits, and safety information throughout the facility.

Tactile surfaces: Firm, high-contrast tactile indicators at hazard points, level changes, and key navigation routes.

Each component is assessed against a three-tier implementation scale- Not Implemented, Partially Implemented, or Implemented applied consistently across all case studies to enable direct comparison. The methodology for applying this framework is described in Section 3.

3 Research methodology

3.1 Research design

This study adopted a qualitative case study research design to evaluate the level of Universal Design (UD) compliance in selected Nigerian cultural centres. The case study approach is particularly suited to this research because it enables in-depth, context-sensitive analysis of complex phenomena within real-world settings (Hollweck, 2016; Sena, 2023). A qualitative observational method is employed, supported by a structured evaluation framework to ensure systematic and consistent analysis across case studies.

3.2 Case selection

Three state-owned cultural centres were selected from Nigeria’s South-West and South-South geopolitical zones: the John Randle Centre for Yoruba History and Culture (Lagos State), the Ibadan Cultural Centre (Oyo State), and the Oba Akenzua Cultural Centre (Edo State). These zones together encompass twelve states: Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo, and Ekiti in the South-West, and Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Cross River, Delta, Edo, and Rivers in the South-South representing areas of high cultural institution density and demographic diversity in Nigeria.

Cases were selected purposively based on three criteria. First, typological diversity: the three centres represent a spectrum from recently renovated (John Randle Centre, reopened 2023) to legacy structures built in the post-independence era (Ibadan Cultural Centre) and early 1990s (Oba Akenzua Cultural Centre). This range enables temporal and comparative analysis of UD implementation across different construction periods. Second, public accessibility: all three centres are state-owned and open to the general public, making them subject to the 2018 Act and appropriate for compliance evaluation. Third, regional representation: the selection spans two geopolitical zones and three states, ensuring that findings reflect regional variation rather than a single local context. The small sample size is acknowledged as a limitation; findings are therefore presented as indicative rather than statistically generalisable, and recommendations are directed toward policy and professional practice rather than population-level inference.

3.3 Data collection

Primary data were collected through structured on-site observation between December 2024 and February 2025. An observation checklist was developed based on the nine-component evaluation framework established in Section 2.3 derived from the Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities (Prohibition) Act of 2018 and aligned with UD literature (Mosca et al., 2024; Sholanke et al., 2018; Uzodinma et al., 2024). The checklist assessed the following components at each centre: access strategy, car parking, walkways and ramps, external areas, internal areas, lifts, stairs and vertical circulation, wayfinding and signage, and tactile surfaces.

Each site was visited on multiple occasions to verify initial observations and reduce the risk of observer bias. Observations were supplemented by photographic documentation, providing visual evidence of both compliant and non-compliant features. All photographs focused exclusively on architectural elements; no individuals were photographed. Secondary data were drawn from UD literature, official building documentation, and publicly available information about each centre.

This study did not incorporate user perception surveys or stakeholder interviews. This is acknowledged as a limitation. The decision was made to maintain a focused scope, the physical compliance of existing built features against defined criteria within the constraints of a single-phase observational study. Future research should incorporate Likert-scale user perception surveys and stakeholder engagement to provide a more comprehensive picture of accessibility from the user’s perspective.

3.4 Evaluation and scoring framework

To move beyond purely descriptive assessment and enable systematic comparison across case studies, each of the nine evaluation components was scored using a three-tier implementation scale. The scale and its corresponding numeric values are defined and shown in Table 1 below. Table 1 presents the three-tier Universal Design implementation scoring framework used for compliance assessment.

With nine components evaluated per building and a maximum score of 2 per component, the maximum possible compliance score for each centre is 18. A UD Compliance Score (UDCS) is calculated for each centre by summing component scores, and a UD Compliance Index (UDCI) is derived by expressing this as a percentage of the maximum:

This index enables direct comparison between centres and provides an objective basis for ranking compliance levels. Component scores and overall indices for all three case studies are presented in Section 4, alongside a cross-case comparison table.

3.5 Data analysis

The collected data were analyzed through structured content analysis. Observations for each center were organized thematically according to the nine evaluation components, and each component was assigned a score using the three-tier scale. Results are presented descriptively using text, photographic evidence, and summary tables, and comparatively, using the UDCI to rank overall compliance across the three centers. The discussion in Section 5 synthesizes these findings in relation to the 2018 Act, existing Nigerian accessibility literature, and the broader implications for policy and professional practice.

4 Findings and analysis

4.1 Case study 1: John Randle centre for yoruba history and culture, Lagos state

The John Randle Centre is a state-owned cultural facility located in Onikan, Lagos Island, Lagos State. The centre was reopened in 2023 following comprehensive redevelopment and now houses a museum, exhibition spaces, a swimming pool, and a community leisure zone. As a recently renovated public building, it represents the most contemporary application of accessibility standards among the three cases studied. Table 2 summarizes the Universal Design compliance assessment for the John Randle Centre for Yoruba History and Culture.

4.1.1 Analysis of accessibility features

Access Strategy (Score: 2 — Implemented). The centre demonstrates a well-executed access strategy. Visitors benefit from a clear visual connection to entrances, supported by levelled thresholds, automated doors, and integrated ramps as shown in Figures 1-3. These features collectively ensure that persons with mobility impairments, including wheelchair users, can enter the facility with minimal physical barriers.

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 2

FIGURE 3

Walkways and Ramps (Score: 1 — Partially Implemented). Concrete walkways provide durable and generally accessible circulation. However, ramp provision is inconsistent across the site. Notably, the recreational building’s cantilevered first-floor lounge has no ramp, escalator, or lift serving it as shown in Figure 4, making this level entirely inaccessible to wheelchair users.

FIGURE 4

Car Parking (Score: 1 — Partially Implemented). Entry ramps to the parking area are present, but there are no designated accessible parking bays, no clear markings for persons with disabilities, and no drop-off zone adjacent to the main entrance as shown in Figure 5. This limits accessibility from the point of arrival.

FIGURE 5

External Areas (Score: 2 — Implemented). The external circulation areas are well-designed. Clear, continuous, and slip-resistant pathways connect all major entrances to key activity nodes across the site, supporting intuitive navigation for all usersas shown in Figure 6.

FIGURE 6

Internal Areas (Score: 1 — Partially Implemented). The main exhibition building is served by a lift and escalator, and corridor widths generally accommodate wheelchair movement. However, the first-floor lounge of the recreational building is accessible only by stairs, leaving this space non-inclusive for wheelchair users as shown in Figure 7.

FIGURE 7

Lifts (Score: 2 — Implemented). A passenger lift and an escalator are installed in the main exhibition building, facilitating vertical movement across multiple floors. Both are functional and serve the primary public areas of the centre.

Stairs and Vertical Circulation (Score: 2 — Implemented). Stairs throughout the facility are well-designed with consistent riser heights, safety handrails, and anti-slip finishesas shown in Figures 8, 9 respectively. These features support safe navigation for ambulatory users across all floor levels.

FIGURE 8

FIGURE 9

Stair design meets safety and accessibility requirements for ambulatory users.

Wayfinding and Signage (Score: 2 — Implemented). The center performs strongly in wayfinding. High-contrast colour coding, tactile textures, and well-positioned directional signage enable users including those with visual impairments to navigate the facility independently as shown in Figure 10.

FIGURE 10

Tactile Surfaces (Score: 2 — Implemented). Tactile surfaces are present throughout key areas of the centre, including at ramp bases, stair approaches, and major circulation routes, providing essential orientation cues for visually impaired visitors as shown in Figure 11.

FIGURE 11

4.2 Case study 2: the Ibadan cultural centre, Oyo state

The Ibadan Cultural Centre is a state-owned public institution located on Festac Road at the base of Mokola Hill, Ibadan, Oyo State. The main building is a three-story structure comprising a reception lobby, rehearsal hall, cinema, art gallery, auditorium, and administrative offices. An adjacent traditional cultural village, a cluster of mud-built structures, forms part of the complex. As a legacy building constructed in the post-independence era, the center presents the challenges typical of older public structures in meeting contemporary accessibility standards. Table 3 summarizes the Universal Design compliance assessment for the Ibadan Cultural Centre.

4.2.1 Analysis of accessibility features

Access Strategy (Score: 1 — Partially Implemented). A clear visual connection exists between the main entrance and key activity zones. However, the absence of levelled thresholds, automatic doors, and entry ramps at primary access points creates significant barriers for wheelchair users and persons with limited mobility as shown in Figure 12.

FIGURE 12

Walkways and Ramps (Score: 1 — Partially Implemented). Concrete walkways are present throughout the main building complex but are not supplemented by ramps or tactile paving, particularly in the adjacent cultural village as shown in Figure 13. This limits independent access for wheelchair users and visually impaired visitors in a significant portion of the site.

FIGURE 13

Car Parking (Score: 0 — Not Implemented). The center lacks designated accessible parking bays, entry ramps from the parking area, and any PWD markings or signage as shown in Figure 14. This represents a complete failure of the car parking accessibility criterion from the point of arrival.

FIGURE 14

External Areas (Score: 2 — Implemented). Despite deficiencies elsewhere, external circulation pathways perform adequately. Clear and well-connected pathways link the entrance zones to the core activity areas of the main building, providing spatial clarity and reasonable flow for ambulatory users as shown in Figure 15.

FIGURE 15

Internal Areas (Score: 1 — Partially Implemented)- Internal corridor widths are generally adequate, but the absence of ramps and functional vertical circulation means wheelchair users cannot access upper floors. The two primary performance venues the main auditorium and rehearsal hall—are not accessible to wheelchair users via compliant routes.

Lifts (Score: 1 — Partially Implemented). Two passenger lifts are installed within the building; however, both are non-functional at the time of observation as shown in Figure 16. The physical infrastructure exists but provides no accessibility benefit in its current state, rendering vertical movement between floors impossible for users who cannot use stairs.

FIGURE 16

Stairs and Vertical Circulation (Score: 2 — Implemented). Stairs within the building are properly constructed with safety handrails, consistent riser heights, and anti-slip finishes as shown in Figure 17. While the absence of functional lifts limits overall vertical accessibility, the stairs themselves meet baseline safety standards for ambulatory users.

FIGURE 17

Wayfinding and Signage (Score: 0 — Not Implemented). While some color variation and textural difference exist in the interior, there is no standardized directional signage, no Braille indicators, and no consistent wayfinding system. Navigation is particularly difficult for visually impaired users and those unfamiliar with the building layout.

Tactile Surfaces (Score: 1 — Partially Implemented). Tactile surfaces are present in limited areas of the main building but are entirely absent in the cultural village as shown in Figure 18. Given that the cultural village is intended as an outdoor learning and cultural education space, this absence significantly undermines its inclusiveness.

FIGURE 18

4.3 Case study 3: the Oba Akenzua cultural centre, Benin city

The Oba Akenzua Cultural Centre is a government-owned multi-purpose cultural facility located in Benin City, Edo State. Commissioned in 1995, it was designed to serve as a centre for cultural education, artistic expression, and heritage preservation. The centre hosts festivals, exhibitions, school programmes, and community events. As a legacy structure now undergoing planned renovation, it represents the oldest building in this study and exhibits the most significant accessibility deficiencies. Table 4 summarizes the Universal Design compliance assessment for the Oba Akenzua Cultural Centre.

4.3.1 Analysis of accessibility features

Access Strategy (Score: 1 — Partially Implemented). The building layout provides a clear visual connection between major activity zones, offering a coherent spatial arrangement. However, the absence of levelled thresholds, automated doors, and dedicated entry ramps at primary access points as shown in Figure 19, poses significant challenges for wheelchair users and persons with limited mobility

FIGURE 19

Walkways and Ramps (Score: 1 — Partially Implemented). As shown in Figure 20, ramps have been provided at the entrances to the main auditorium but are absent at the building’s major entrances and exits. This partial provision means wheelchair users can access one internal venue but cannot independently enter or exit the building through its primary access points.

FIGURE 20

Car Parking (Score: 0 — Not Implemented). There are no designated accessible parking bays, entrance ramps from the parking area, or marked pathways connecting parking to the main building. This completely fails the car parking accessibility criterion.

External Areas (Score: 2 — Implemented). The external areas show a relatively higher degree of inclusivity. Clear pathways connect key entrances and high-traffic zones, enhancing spatial legibility and assisting all users in navigating the external environment as shown in Figure 21.

FIGURE 21

Internal Areas (Score: 1 — Partially Implemented). The interior is well-lit and ventilated, contributing to general user comfort. However, the absence of wheelchair-accessible circulation routes and the lack of a lift mean that persons with mobility impairments cannot access all areas of the building independently.

Lifts (Score: 0 — Not Implemented). There is a total absence of passenger lifts within the building. This makes any elevated or upper-floor sections completely inaccessible to wheelchair users, elderly visitors, and those with chronic mobility impairments—a critical and absolute barrier to vertical accessibility.

Stairs and Vertical Circulation (Score: 2 — Implemented). Stairs connecting different floor levels are well-constructed, featuring handrails and slip-resistant finishes as shown in Figure 22. While they serve ambulatory users adequately, their status as the sole means of vertical circulation is a significant overall accessibility failure given the absence of any lift or ramp alternative.

FIGURE 22

Wayfinding and Signage (Score: 0 — Not Implemented). No standardised directional signage is present. While minor colour variations and textural differences exist in some areas, these do not constitute a functional wayfinding system. The absence of consistent signage impedes navigation for all users, particularly those with cognitive or visual impairments visiting for the first time.

Tactile Surfaces (Score: 0 — Not Implemented). Tactile surfaces are completely absent throughout the building and its grounds. This represents a critical gap in inclusive design, rendering the centre entirely non-navigable for blind or partially sighted users without assistance.

4.4 Cross case comparison

Table 5 presents a consolidated comparison of UD compliance scores across the three case studies. The scores reveal a clear compliance hierarchy, with the John Randle Centre performing significantly better than the two legacy buildings.

The cross-case analysis reveals three important patterns. First, external areas and stair design are the only components where all three centres score uniformly well (2/2), suggesting that surface-level circulation and basic stair safety are reasonably understood and implemented even in legacy buildings. Second, car parking, wayfinding, and tactile surfaces are the most consistently neglected components with two of three centres scoring zero on each indicating a systemic blind spot in Nigerian cultural centre design that cuts across building age and renovation status. Third, lift provision shows the starkest divergence between the recently renovated John Randle Centre (fully implemented) and the two legacy buildings (partially and not implemented respectively), confirming that vertical accessibility for non-ambulatory users remains the most critical unresolved challenge in older cultural infrastructure.

5 Discussion

5.1 Synthesis of UDCI findings

The UD Compliance Index scores across the three case studies- 83.3% for the John Randle Centre, 50.0% for the Ibadan Cultural Centre, and 38.9% for the Oba Akenzua Cultural Centre reveal a compliance hierarchy that is directly correlated with building age and renovation history. The John Randle Centre, which underwent comprehensive redevelopment and reopened in 2023, significantly outperforms the two legacy buildings across seven of the nine evaluation components. This confirms that recent renovation, when guided by contemporary accessibility standards, can substantially improve UD compliance. However, even the best-performing center falls short of full compliance, scoring zero on accessible car parking provision a finding that points to a persistent blind spot in the design and management of Nigerian cultural facilities regardless of their renovation status.

The two legacy buildings the Ibadan Cultural Centre (1960s) and the Oba Akenzua Cultural Centre (1995) both fall below the 50% UDCI threshold, indicating systemic and widespread non-compliance. Critically, both centres score zero on car parking and wayfinding and signage, and the Oba Akenzua Centre scores zero on lifts, wayfinding, and tactile surfaces simultaneously. This pattern suggests that these omissions are not isolated oversights but reflect a broader failure to integrate accessibility thinking into the original design of these buildings and a subsequent failure to retrofit them as standards evolved. The cross-case analysis therefore reveals two distinct accessibility problems: design-stage omissions in legacy buildings, and implementation gaps in elements such as car parking that persist even in recently renovated facilities.

One finding that cuts across all three centres is the consistent strength of external areas and stair design (both scoring 2/2 at every centre), alongside the consistent weakness of car parking, wayfinding and signage, and tactile surfaces. This pattern suggests that surface-level circulation and basic stair safety have been adequately understood and implemented, but that features requiring deliberate, specialised attention on wayfinding systems, tactile networks, and accessible parking infrastructure remain systematically neglected. These are precisely the features that most directly enable independent navigation for persons with visual impairments and mobility disabilities, meaning that the areas of greatest failure are those with the highest impact on the most vulnerable user groups.

5.2 Policy-practice gap: The 2018 act and built reality

The Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities (Prohibition) Act of 2018 established a 5-year transitional period for public buildings to be modified to meet accessibility standards, a period that ended in January 2024 (LawPàdí, 2026; World Report 2019, 2019). The findings of this study, conducted between December 2024 and February 2025, reveal that the two legacy cultural centres evaluated remain substantially non-compliant well beyond this deadline. The Ibadan Cultural Centre achieves only 50% compliance, while the Oba Akenzua Cultural Centre reaches just 38.9%. Both centres lack the accessible parking, consistent wayfinding, and tactile surface systems explicitly required under the Act features that Section 8 of the Act mandates for all public buildings.

This gap between legislative intent and built reality is not unique to the centres studied here. Recent reports indicate that as many as 98% of public buildings in Nigeria remain inaccessible to persons with disabilities despite the existence of the legal framework (Mefor-Nwachukwu, 2026). The National Commission for Persons with Disabilities (NCPWD), established under the Act to oversee enforcement, has acknowledged limited capacity to pursue systematic compliance monitoring across the country’s public building stock (NCPWD, 2026). The 2023 Persons with Disabilities (Accessibility) Regulations, which provide more detailed technical standards than the 2018 Act itself, similarly suffer from weak enforcement with limited awareness among planners, architects, and building officials outside major urban centres (Ejim and Okoye, 2025).

The John Randle Centre’s comparatively strong compliance score (83.3%) demonstrates that the 2018 Act’s requirements are achievable when public investment is made in comprehensive renovation guided by accessibility standards. Its remaining gap in accessible car parking is particularly instructive: even a well-resourced renovation can overlook specific accessibility components if no formal compliance checklist is applied at project completion. This finding directly supports the argument made by Olodeoku et al. (2024) that the absence of specific technical dimensions in the National Building Code (NBC) for accessible car parking means that public buildings routinely fail to make provision for usable parking for wheelchair users, regardless of how well other accessibility features are implemented.

5.3 Benchmarking against existing nigerian literature

The findings of this study are broadly consistent with, and extend, the existing body of Nigerian UD compliance research. Ibem et al. (2017) evaluated three museum buildings in southwest Nigeria and found that while approachability criteria were met, none of the sampled buildings fully satisfied accessibility or usability requirements. The present study’s findings at the Ibadan and Oba Akenzua centres mirror this pattern: external approaches and basic stair safety are adequately provided, but internal circulation, vertical access, wayfinding, and tactile systems fall significantly short. Cultural centres, like the museum buildings studied by (Ibem et al., 2017) appear to treat the building envelope as the primary accessibility concern while neglecting the deeper, more specialist provisions that determine usability for persons with disabilities once inside the facility.

Uzodinma et al. (2024) documented comparable deficiencies in federal university buildings across southwest Nigeria specifically inadequate ramps, non-functional lifts, poor wayfinding systems, and insufficient parking for PWDs. The non-functional lifts at the Ibadan Cultural Centre and the complete absence of lifts at the Oba Akenzua Cultural Centre replicate this finding in a different building typology, confirming that vertical accessibility failure is a systemic issue across Nigerian public building types and not specific to any single institution or sector. Similarly, Ikudayisi and Taiwo (2022) found that compliance with accessibility requirements in Ibadan’s public spaces was uneven and often weakly enforced a characterisation that aptly describes the condition of the Ibadan Cultural Centre specifically, which is located in the same city.

Where this study extends the existing literature is in the introduction of a quantitative UDCI framework applied specifically to cultural centre buildings, enabling direct inter-building comparison and percentage-based compliance ranking. Previous Nigerian UD studies have largely relied on descriptive or categorical assessment (Ibem et al., 2017; Sholanke and Eleagu, 2024; Uzodinma et al., 2024). The application of a scored evaluation framework here provides a more precise and reproducible instrument for future compliance monitoring, and positions cultural centres previously under-studied within this literature as a distinct and important building typology for accessibility research and policy attention. Adewale and Odewumi (2024), in their evaluation of community centres in Lagos Mainland, similarly called for more structured and replicable assessment approaches in Nigerian public cultural buildings, a gap this study directly addresses.

5.4 Explaining the gaps: governance, enforcement, and building age

The compliance deficits documented in this study are not primarily attributable to the absence of a legislative framework, the 2018 Act and the 2023 Accessibility Regulations together provide a reasonably comprehensive normative basis for accessible building design. Rather, the gaps reflect three interrelated governance failures. First, weak enforcement mechanisms: the NBC’s building approval process does not systematically incorporate accessibility criteria, and inspection regimes do not include post-occupancy compliance checks for existing public buildings (Adewale and Odewumi, 2024; Nigeria Building Codes, 2024). Without consistent inspections linked to accessibility criteria, legacy buildings have no external pressure to retrofit. Second, inadequate professional awareness: the pattern of partial implementation observed across all three case studies where some features are provided but not others suggests that accessibility is not being approached as an integrated, comprehensive system but as a checklist of individual elements. This is consistent with the broader finding of (Adewale and Odewumi, 2024) that the perceptible information principle of UD is poorly understood and inconsistently applied in Nigerian public buildings. Third, building age and retrofit economics: both the Ibadan and Oba Akenzua centres were built before the 2018 Act and in some cases before any formal Nigerian accessibility standard existed. Retrofitting older structures to full accessibility compliance involves structural interventions particularly for lifts and ramp systems that require dedicated capital investment and political will at the state government level.

Taken together, these findings point to a systemic conclusion: achieving meaningful UD compliance in Nigerian cultural centres will require not only capital investment in retrofit, but also a fundamental shift in how accessibility is governed, monitored, and professionalised. The 2018 Act provides the legal mandate. The 2023 Regulations provide technical guidance. What remains missing is the enforcement infrastructure independent monitoring bodies, accessibility-linked building approval processes, mandatory post-occupancy assessments, and professional training for architects and facility managers that would translate these frameworks into consistent built outcomes. As the NCPWD’s own documentation acknowledges, minimum accessibility standards have been drafted but their enforcement across public buildings remains a work in progress (NCPWD, 2026). Until this infrastructure is established, cultural centres and other public buildings will continue to fall short of the inclusive ideals that both the law and Universal Design principles demand.

6 Conclusion

This study set out to evaluate the level of Universal Design compliance in three state-owned cultural centres in Nigeria’s South-West and South-South geopolitical zones, using a structured nine-component evaluation framework derived from the Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities (Prohibition) Act of 2018 and aligned with established UD literature. The findings provide clear, evidence-based answers to this objective.

The John Randle Centre for Yoruba History and Culture achieved a UD Compliance Index of 83.3%, demonstrating that comprehensive, accessibility-guided renovation of public cultural buildings is achievable within the Nigerian context and can produce facilities that broadly meet the requirements of the 2018 Act. However, even this best-performing centre failed on accessible car parking, a finding that reveals how individual accessibility components can be overlooked even in well-resourced renovations, particularly where specific technical guidance in the National Building Code remains absent (Olodeoku et al., 2024; Adewale and Odewumi, 2024).

The Ibadan Cultural Centre and the Oba Akenzua Cultural Centre achieved UDCIs of 50.0% and 38.9% respectively both falling substantially below the threshold of meaningful compliance. Both legacy centres scored zero on car parking and wayfinding and signage; the Oba Akenzua Centre additionally scored zero on lifts and tactile surfaces. These omissions are not incidental they represent the features most critical to independent navigation and mobility for persons with disabilities, and their absence directly contradicts the inclusive mandate of both the 2018 Act and the Universal Design principles that underpin it.

Taken together, the findings confirm three conclusions. First, building age and renovation history are the primary determinants of UD compliance in Nigerian cultural centres, recently renovated buildings significantly outperform legacy structures. Second, certain accessibility components particularly wayfinding and signage, accessible parking, and tactile surfaces are systemically neglected across all building types and renovation statuses, pointing to a professional and regulatory blind spot that transcends individual building characteristics. Third, the 5-year transitional compliance period mandated by the 2018 Act has ended without producing meaningful compliance in the legacy buildings studied, confirming that legislative intent alone, in the absence of enforcement infrastructure, is insufficient to drive accessible design outcomes. These conclusions align with and extend the findings of (Uzodinma et al., 2024), Ibem et al. (2017), and Ikudayisi and Taiwo (2022), positioning cultural centres as a distinct and under-examined building typology within Nigeria’s broader accessibility deficit.

Beyond their empirical contribution, these findings carry a broader significance. Cultural centres are not peripheral public spaces they are institutions explicitly designed to serve all members of society, preserving heritage and enabling civic participation. When they exclude persons with disabilities, they contradict their own social mandate. Transforming these buildings into genuinely inclusive spaces is therefore not merely a compliance exercise but a prerequisite for their fulfilment of the cultural and democratic functions for which they exist (González-Herrera et al., 2023; Umukoro, 2023).

6.1 Recommendations

6.1.1 For policymakers and regulatory bodies

The most urgent policy priority is the establishment of mandatory, periodic accessibility compliance audits for all state-owned cultural buildings. The NCPWD, in collaboration with state Ministries of Culture and Tourism, should institute post-occupancy assessments using a standardised evaluation instrument such as the nine-component UDCI framework applied in this study with results publicly reported and linked to capital maintenance budgets. Given that the 5-year transitional compliance period mandated by the 2018 Act lapsed in January 2024, retrospective enforcement can no longer be deferred (LawPàdí, 2026; Global Disability Fund, 2025). Alongside this, the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing should update the National Building Code to include specific technical dimensions for accessible car parking, a gap that Olodeoku et al. (2024) and (Adewale and Odewumi, 2024) have shown leads to routine parking accessibility failures even in newly renovated public buildings. Finally, the building plan approval process should embed checklist-based accessibility reviews against the 2023 Accessibility Regulations as a statutory condition for all new construction and major renovations, giving practical effect to the provision in Section 8 of the 2018 Act that prohibits approval of plans lacking accessibility features.

6.1.2 For cultural centre facility managers

Several high-impact accessibility improvements can be achieved at the three studied centres with relatively modest investment and without structural modification. At the Ibadan Cultural Centre, the immediate restoration of the two non-functional passenger lifts is the single highest-impact intervention available, it would unlock wheelchair and mobility-impaired access to all floors at minimal structural cost. At the Oba Akenzua Cultural Centre and Ibadan Cultural Centre, the installation of standardised, high-contrast directional signage systems with Braille supplements would immediately improve navigability for visually impaired and first-time visitors; (Sholanke and Jegede, 2024) found that improved signage was among the most positively rated accessibility interventions by users in a comparable Nigerian leisure facility. Across all three centres, the designation and clear marking of accessible parking bays proportionate to total parking capacity and adjacent to main entrances represents a low-cost, high-visibility intervention that would address the most consistently neglected component across the study. Finally, tactile ground surface indicators should be installed along all primary circulation routes, at ramp approaches, stair landings, and hazard zones a critical omission at the Oba Akenzua Cultural Centre, where tactile surfaces are entirely absent, and a partial gap at both other centres.

6.1.3 For the architecture and design profession

The pattern of selective, piecemeal accessibility provision observed across all three case studies points to a professional practice gap that regulatory reform alone cannot close. Architects involved in the design and renovation of public buildings should treat UD compliance as an integrated system rather than a checklist of individual features, conducting pre-design accessibility audits of existing conditions and post-occupancy evaluations against the 2018 Act and 2023 Accessibility Regulations to ensure comprehensive rather than partial compliance. The UDCI framework developed in this study offers a replicable instrument for both purposes (Agada et al., 2024) More broadly, architecture schools and professional bodies including the Nigerian Institute of Architects (NIA) and the Architects Registration Council of Nigeria (ARCON) should embed structured UD training into curricula and continuing professional development programmes, with particular emphasis on the components most consistently neglected in Nigerian practice: wayfinding systems, tactile surface networks, and accessible parking infrastructure (Uzodinma et al., 2024). As (Agada et al., 2024) argue, meaningful improvement in UD outcomes in Nigeria requires not only better regulation but a genuine contextualisation of Universal Design principles within the realities of local professional practice, resource constraints, and cultural perceptions of disability.

6.2 Limitations and directions for future research

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. The sample size of three buildings limits the generalizability of findings beyond the specific centres studied; results are therefore presented as indicative of broader patterns rather than statistically representative of all cultural centres in the two geopolitical zones. The study relied exclusively on structured observation by the research team, without user perception surveys or stakeholder interviews, meaning that the lived experience of persons with disabilities navigating these spaces is not captured alongside the physical compliance data. The possibility of observer bias inherent in any single-team observational study was mitigated through multiple site visits and photographic documentation, but cannot be eliminated entirely. Finally, the study provides a static, cross-sectional snapshot of each centre’s accessibility at a single point in time and cannot account for seasonal variations, ongoing maintenance, or planned renovation works.

Future research should address these limitations in four directions. Expanding the sample to include cultural centres across all six geopolitical zones of Nigeria would provide a nationally representative baseline for UD compliance in this building typology. Incorporating Likert-scale user perception surveys targeting persons with disabilities, elderly visitors, and caregivers would complement physical compliance data with experiential evidence. Longitudinal studies tracking UDCI scores before and after targeted interventions such as lift restoration, wayfinding installation, or accessible parking designation would provide empirical evidence of the impact of specific retrofit measures. Finally, comparative studies benchmarking Nigerian cultural centre compliance against international standards such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility guidelines or the European EN 17210 accessibility standard would situate Nigeria’s compliance trajectory within a global context and identify transferable best practices for the Nigerian regulatory environment.

References

• 1

  AdewaleB.OdewumiA. (2024). Adoption of inclusive architecture design strategies in selected community centres, Lagos mainland, Nigeria. Civ. Eng. Archit.12, 4257–4276. 10.13189/cea.2024.120635

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2

  AdielaO. (2023). Understanding disability and disability rights in Nigeria. Glob. J. Polit. Law Res.11, 40–51. 10.37745/gjplr.2013/vol11n14051

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 3

  AgadaD.GuobadiaJ.OjoB. (2024). The role of universal design in enhancing safety and accessibility in construction sites in south-south Nigeria. Int. J. Res. Publ. Rev.5, 407–507. 10.55248/gengpi.5.1024.2719

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 4

  BasnakM.TaukeB.WeidemannS. (2015). Universal Design in Architectural Education: Who Is Doing It? How Is It Being Done?Chicago IL: Architectural Research Centers Consortium (Perkins + Will) 2015 Conference.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5

  EjimA.OkoyeU. (2025). Evaluating the implementation of the disability act in Nigeria: what are the challenges?J. Soc. Work Dev. Soc.7, 22–40. 10.4314/jswds.v7i1.2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 6

  González-HerreraA. I.Díaz-HerreraA. B.Hernández-DionisP.Pérez-JorgeD. (2023). Educational and accessible museums and cultural spaces. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun.10 (1), 67. 10.1057/s41599-023-01563-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 7

  IbemE. O.OniO. O.UmorenE.EjigaJ. (2017). An appraisal of universal design compliance of museum buildings in Southwest Nigeria. Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res.12 (23), 13731–13741.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 8

  IkudayisiA. E.TaiwoA. A. (2022). Accessibility and inclusive use of public spaces within the city-centre of Ibadan, Nigeria. J. Place Manag. Dev.15 (3), 316–335.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 9

  JamilahA. Q.ZulaikhaS. R. (2021). Accessibility for persons with disabilities in creating inclusion-based services in the Asian-African conference museum. JPI J. Pendidik. Inklusi5 (2), 56–67. 10.26740/inklusi.v5n2.p56-67

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 10

  JimohM. (2024). Nigeria’s population in 2063: exploring the challenges and opportunities in advance. Soc. Sci. Res. Netw.(SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 4821696). 10.2139/ssrn.4821696

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 11

  KapsalisE.JägerN.HaleJ. (2022). Disabled-by-design: effects of inaccessible urban public spaces on users of mobility assistive devices – a systematic review. Disabil. Rehabilitation Assistive Technol.19, 1–19. 10.1080/17483107.2022.2111723

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 12

  LawPàdí (2026). LawPàdí. Available online at: https://lawpadi.com/ (Accessed May 6, 2026).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 13

  Mefor-NwachukwuC. (2026). Only 2% of buildings in Nigeria are accessible to persons with disabilities – agbo. Whistler Newsp. Available online at: https://thewhistler.ng/only-2-of-buildings-in-nigeria-are-accessible-to-persons-with-disabilities-agbo/ (Accessed April 9, 2025).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 14

  MrakI.MatanC. (2022). Can you access culture? An evaluation model for the accessibility of cultural locations. Adv. Civ. Archit. Eng.13 (24), 32–46. 10.13167/2022.24.4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 15

  MoscaE. I.CrottiG. B.CapolongoS.BuffoliM. (2024). “Universal design in university environments. Are the new buildings more inclusive? a tool for equal design assessment,” in Universal design 2024: shaping a sustainable, equitable and resilient future for all. (IOS press), 215–222. 10.3233/shti241006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 16

  MüllerL. (2023). Who are we building for? Tracing universal design in urban development. Stud. Health Technol. Inf.303, 3–9. 10.3233/SHTI230392

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 17

  NCPWD (2026). NCPWD Home. Available online at: https://ncpwd.gov.ng/ (Accessed May 6, 2026).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 18

  NullR. (Editors) (2013). Universal design: Principles and models. Oxford and New York, NY: CRC Press.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 19

  OlodeokuM.AlokunA.AlagbeO.EgwaborJ.BuseriJ. (2024). Exploring universal design principles in the built environment: an empirical review. Afr. J. Environ. Sci. Renew. Energy16, 84–98. 10.62154/ajesre.2024.016.010352

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 20

  PreiserW.OstroffE. (2001). Universal Design Handbook.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 21

  Rappolt-SchlichtmannG.DaleyS. (2013). Providing access to engagement in learning: the potential of universal design for learning in museum design. Curator56, 307–321. 10.1111/cura.12030

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 22

  SholankeA.AdeboyeA.AlagbeO.FadipeD.IyohaJ. (2018). “Universal design framework for the development of adaptable architectural studios for learning environments,” in INTED2018 Proceedings (IATED), 8213–8224.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 23

  SholankeA.EleaguJ. (2024). Appraisal of universal design strategies for enhancing social inclusion in the development of sporting facilities. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.1342, 012024. 10.1088/1755-1315/1342/1/012024

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 24

  SholankeA. B.JegedeO. O. (2024). Users’ satisfaction level with universal design strategies: a case study of barracuda beach resort, eti-osa, Lagos. Covenant J. Res. Built Environ. 12 (2). Available online at: https://journals.covenantuniversity.edu.ng/index.php/cjrbe/article/view/4835 (Accessed November 16, 2025).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 25

  SoyingbeA.OgundairoA. M.AdenugaO. (2007). A study of facilities for physically disabled people in public buildings in Nigeria. Available online at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Study-of-Facilities-for-Physically-Disabled-in-in-Soyingbe-Ogundairo/befd690b7e1cd209204aace1d698e476b7b42c96 (Accessed March 21, 2025).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 26

  UmukoroJ. O. (2023). Towards invigorating cultural centres in Nigeria. LWATI A J. Contemp. Res.20 (4), 2–6. Available online at: https://www.ajol.info/index.php/lwati/article/view/261340 (Accessed August 5, 2025).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 27

  UzodinmaU.SholankeA.DimunaK.AkinolaA.EneV.Nduka-KaluI. (2024). Universal design compliance in south-West nigeria’s federal universities’ faculty of environmental science buildings. Civ. Eng. Archit.12, 4277–4292. 10.13189/cea.2024.120636

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 28

  World Report 2019 (2019). Human Rights Watch. Available online at: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019 (Accessed May 6, 2026).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 29

  ZanettinF.RundleC. (2022). The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Methodology. 10.4324/9781315158945

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article