Inclusive Housing Environments for People With Intellectual Disabilities: Systematic Review of Characteristics and Influencing Factors

ABSTRACT

Introduction

Although efforts have been made to adapt housing to the needs of people with intellectual disabilities, environmental factors remain fragmented and poorly systematised. This study identifies and organises these factors to inform more inclusive and responsive housing design.

Method

A systematic review following PRISMA guidelines was conducted across six databases, selecting 73 studies based on predefined criteria.

Results

An inductive matrix was developed to group the identified factors into five interrelated environmental dimensions: physical, social, natural, supportive and symbolic. This framework highlights the diversity and depth of elements relevant to housing design, moving beyond accessibility to adopt a biopsychosocial perspective that promotes well‐being and health. The methodological, geographical and temporal characteristics of the selected articles were also assessed.

Conclusions

This study proposes a pioneering and practical reference framework for designing and evaluating housing for people with intellectual disabilities. It also outlines directions for future research to support inclusive, evidence‐based policies and practices.

Summary.

• Pioneering systematic review

  • ○
    Introduces an innovative framework that integrates five key dimensions—physical, social, natural, supportive and symbolic—to guide the design of inclusive housing environments for individuals with intellectual disabilities.
  • ○
    This holistic matrix advances beyond purely functional models to address the complex interplay between space, identity and support needs.
• Impact on well‐being and health

  • ○
    Provides practical guidance for housing design and public policy aimed at promoting autonomy, community inclusion and emotional security.
  • ○
    The findings highlight the role of housing as a social determinant of health and well‐being, recognising that truly inclusive environments must address both structural and symbolic dimensions of living.
• Contribution to the research community

  • ○
    Systematises environmental factors relevant to housing, identifies key knowledge gaps—such as terminological inconsistencies, geographical biases and the limited participation of people with high support needs—and calls for more intersectional, participatory and context‐sensitive research to support evidence‐based and inclusive housing policies.

1. Introduction

Intellectual disability is a condition defined by the World Health Organization as a combination of significant limitations in intellectual functioning and adaptive behaviour, encompassing conceptual, social and practical skills (World Health Organization ²⁰¹¹). It affects more than two million people globally, a figure that continues to grow due to population ageing and increased life expectancy (World Health Organization ²⁰²³). This heterogeneous group faces multiple challenges, often exacerbated by the coexistence of other disabilities or medical conditions, which increases the complexity of their needs (Neely‐Barnes et al. ²⁰⁰⁸; Umb‐Carlsson and Jansson ²⁰⁰⁹).

The recognition of the rights of people with disabilities, especially since the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in 2006, has prompted a profound shift in how disability is understood and addressed. There has been a transition from a medical model—focused on individual limitations—towards a social model that emphasises the interaction between individuals and their environments, shaped by social structures and processes. Within this framework, the right to live independently and be included in the community, as established in article 19, places the issue of housing environments at the centre of the debate (Wiesel 2011; Shipton and Lashewicz ²⁰¹⁷).

The right to independent living has been advocated since the 1960s, when a group of people with disabilities in the United States began fighting for deinstitutionalization and the right to live in the community (Iáñez‐Domínguez ²⁰²⁴). The Independent Living Movement is based on principles of non‐discrimination, full and effective participation and inclusion, respect for difference and equal opportunities, asserting the right of individuals to make decisions about their own lives and to choose where and with whom to live (Felce et al. 1998; Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Lerdo‐Tejada ²⁰¹³; Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Morillo‐Quesen ²⁰¹³).

Despite these advances, the transition from large institutions to community‐based housing has introduced new challenges, particularly, in the availability of appropriate housing options. This issue is especially critical in the context of growing demand, exacerbated by the ageing of caregivers, the breakdown of traditional care models historically assigned to women and increased life expectancy (Eley et al. 2009; Quesada‐Cubo ²⁰²⁴). Consequently, most available services are allocated to those with the most severe and urgent needs, often without guaranteeing their suitability (Neely‐Barnes et al. ²⁰⁰⁸; Wiesel ²⁰¹¹).

Although community living has shown benefits, it does not inherently guarantee a better quality of life. Factors such as housing type, the surrounding environment, resident composition, support staff, organisational culture and hygiene management significantly impact outcomes (Mansell et al. 2008; Bigby et al. ²⁰¹⁷; Fisher et al. ²⁰²¹). In this sense, it is crucial to find a balance between individual needs, available options and housing supply (Wiesel 2011).

Despite progressive perspectives from governments, researchers and housing providers on the need for more inclusive housing solutions, there remains a lack of clarity regarding the set of environmental characteristics that should be considered in designing housing for people with intellectual disabilities. While initiatives such as the universal housing guidelines have emphasised aspects like accessibility and safety, they often fail to integrate other relevant components such as location, neighbourhood quality, overall spatial design or symbolic and relational environmental factors (Wright et al. 2017).

Literature has underscored the reciprocal relationship between place and people (Cummins et al. 2007), pointing out that physical and social environments—beyond accessibility—are key determinants of biopsychosocial well‐being. New housing initiatives should, therefore, address these needs as a dynamic integration of physical, psychological and social factors, rather than isolated components (Wister 2005; Eriksson and Lindström ²⁰⁰⁸). From this perspective, housing is not merely a physical space, but a living environment in constant interaction with its inhabitants, with a strong impact on autonomy, sense of belonging, participation and identity development (Wright et al. 2015).

Authors such as Schulz and Northridge (2004) have emphasised the need to consider the housing environment within a broader framework of social determinants of health across its physical, emotional, psychological and social dimensions. This ecological perspective recognises environments as complex systems in which the dynamic interactions between personal and environmental factors can either enable or hinder health and participation in society (Vlot‐van et al. ²⁰²⁰). In the absence of a consensus framework to identify and organise these characteristics, it becomes necessary to advance towards integrative proposals that move beyond partial approaches and guide housing design in ways that address the built environment, the home atmosphere and housing itself (Wright et al. 2015; Bailey et al. ²⁰²⁴).

In this regard, the framework proposed by Wright et al. (2017)—building on the theories of Ulrich (1991) and Gesler (1992)—identifies five interrelated environments: physical, social, natural, symbolic and care. The natural environment focuses on therapeutic elements such as the integration of green spaces; the physical on the characteristics of the home; the social on social networks and emotional or tangible support; the care environment on the efficiency and functionality of care services and the symbolic on self‐expression, sense of belonging and the feeling of home. This model provides a coherent structure for articulating different environmental dimensions, adaptable to diverse contexts and enabling a more holistic understanding of what it means to inhabit a space for individuals with intellectual disabilities. It ensures that individuals are valued for their uniqueness and capabilities, regardless of the severity of their disability, prioritising their interests, values, capacities and needs and promoting positive outcomes across all life domains (Douglas et al. 2023).

Although originally developed for people with complex disabilities in general, its specific application to intellectual disability—as proposed in this article—is, particularly, relevant given the lack of design frameworks and regulations that equitably consider these dimensions for this population.

Despite theoretical and regulatory advances, empirical evidence on environmental factors relevant to housing design for people with intellectual disabilities remains fragmented and poorly systematised. This gap hinders the development of evidence‐based proposals and limits the advancement of public policies and practices.

Therefore, the main objective of this article is to conduct a systematic review to identify and organise environmental factors that should be considered in the design of inclusive housing for people with intellectual disabilities, based on existing evidence regarding their relevance to the population's well‐being and overall health. Additionally, the study seeks to analyse the characteristics of the included studies—such as authorship, temporal evolution, country, methodology and journal—to identify knowledge gaps and current challenges in this field, approached from a Social Sciences perspective. This will contribute to the development of public policies and practices aimed at designing more inclusive housing environments.

2. Method

The method used in this study was a systematic review, as it enables the clear establishment of work phases, provides a specific procedure for each phase, ensures systematisation and promotes transparency (Codina 2018). This process was conducted in accordance with the standards of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses) statement (Page et al. 2021), to ensure transparent, comprehensive and accurate reporting. Following PRISMA guidelines facilitates evidence‐based decision‐making, minimises the impact of bias inherent to authorship, prevents redundant reviews and ensures the inclusion of up‐to‐date sources.

The PRISMA checklist includes 27 items, which, according to Codina (2018), are grouped into four phases: conducting a search for information in specialised databases, evaluating the retrieved documents using inclusion and exclusion criteria, performing a thematic analysis of the most relevant findings and synthesising the results obtained.

2.1. Literature Search Strategy and Evaluation

The period research and database work period spanned from January and June 2024.

The search was based on keywords. The initial list, created from the literature reviewed and the UNESCO Social Science Thesaurus, was iteratively adjusted. Ineffective or irrelevant terms were discarded, while others were added, refining the list to include the most commonly used terms specific to the study's focus in the selected databases. The final search formula was as follows: ((Intellectual disabilit*) AND (housing OR residential models OR desinstitutionalization)).

Six databases were used, applying the same Boolean terms: three general databases—Web of Science, Scopus and Dialnet—and three specific to the Social Sciences—Social Work Abstracts, PsycInfo and Sociology Database. The search for documents was conducted using the advanced search function with keywords and logical operators available in all the designated engines. The only data filtering applied was the selection of research disciplines related to the Social Sciences.

The database search identified a total of 705 records as potential documents. Following the PRISMA guidelines (Page et al. 2021), the process began by eliminating duplicate articles, resulting in 659 articles. In the initial screening phase, evaluations were based on titles, abstracts and keywords. Articles that did not meet the predefined inclusion criteria were excluded. These criteria included: original peer‐reviewed empirical research (without distinctions regarding methodology or sample); publication in high‐impact scientific journals; and thematic relevance to the study's focus. No restrictions were imposed on time period, language or country. The protocol is detailed in Table 1.

TABLE 1.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria for articles.

Inclusion	Exclusion
Contributions that include the search terms in their title, abstract and/or keywords	Articles not published in high‐impact scientific journals
Documents corresponding to scientific articles	Books, book chapters, conference abstracts and grey literature
Open access articles	Studies conducted in research disciplines unrelated to Social Sciences
Thematic alignment with the proposed object of study	Theoretical articles (e.g., systematic reviews, scoping, etc.)
Empirical studies (no distinction in methodology or sample)
No time limitation
No language restrictions
No country restriction

Source: Own elaboration.

In the second phase, 117 full‐text articles were evaluated, resulting in the selection of 73 articles that met all eligibility criteria by addressing housing environmental factors relevant to the well‐being and health of individuals with intellectual disabilities. The excluded articles did not meet the thematic criteria, either because they did not focus on this population or failed to explore the link between the housing environment and its implications for daily life. Two researchers independently and systematically reviewed the texts, resolving discrepancies through consensus with a third reviewer.

The study selection process is illustrated in the PRISMA 2020 flowchart in Figure 1, which outlines the phases of identification, selection, eligibility and inclusion of the studies considered in this research.

FIGURE 1.

Flow chart of the article selection process after applying the search criteria. Source: Own elaboration.

2.2. Analysis and Synthesis Strategy

The results were consolidated and imported into a pre‐designed data extraction form in Microsoft Excel for collection, selection and extraction. The following information was extracted from each study: authorship, title, journal and year of publication, abstract, keywords and reference (DOI, volume, pages). Additionally, detailed notes were taken on the analytical framework, objectives, methodology and techniques employed, results and conclusions. This process aimed to facilitate further analysis in light of any new findings suggested by subsequent articles. The analysis provided information on the factors and was thoroughly reviewed, taking into account the context of the type of evidence reported in each article.

The methods of analysis and inclusion criteria were specified in advance and documented in a protocol in PROSPERO (registration no. CRD4202455).

Quality assessments were carried out of the included articles using the Downs and Black (1998) scale, which consists of 27 items designed to ensure a meticulous and systematic review of the internal and external validity of the included studies. It evaluates critical aspects such as clarity of objectives, sample specification and size, adequacy of methods to minimise bias, accuracy in the presenting of results, replicability of the study and consideration of potential benefits and limitations. It also ensures that the conclusions drawn from the results are consistent and supported by the evidence presented.

3. Results

3.1. Main Characteristics of the Included Studies

3.1.1. Temporal Distribution of Scientific Output

The analysis of the 73 selected studies reveals a broad temporal distribution, spanning from 1994 to 2024. As shown in Figure 2, the volume of publications has remained relatively constant over time, with most years featuring between one and four studies. However, three notable peaks in publication output stand out: in 2008 (n = 7), 2011 (n = 6) and 2019 (n = 5), which may reflect periods of increased academic interest or institutional momentum. In the most recent 5‐year period, publication levels have remained steady, although they have not reached the peaks observed in previous years.

FIGURE 2.

Number of articles published per year. Source: Own elaboration.

3.1.2. Geographical Distribution and Thematic Focus

The geographical distribution of the studies reveals a clear concentration in Anglophone countries, reflecting the historical leadership of these regions in this field of research, as well as the limited presence of studies from the Global South. The United Kingdom stands out with 35 publications (representing nearly half of the total), followed by Australia (n = 11) and Ireland (n = 8). Other represented countries include Canada (n = 6) and Serbia (n = 3), as well as the Netherlands, the United States, Sweden, Spain and China (n = 2 each for the first four and n = 1 for China).

Regarding research objectives and areas of focus, the studies cover a wide range of themes. The most common are those comparing residential models in terms of effectiveness, quality or cost (n = 15), followed by investigations into housing resources and residents' internal experiences (n = 12). Several studies examine residents' housing needs and decision‐making processes (n = 9), as well as the impact on physical health, general well‐being and functional status (n = 9). Other areas include the development of community housing, participation in local communities and social inclusion (n = 8); resident–staff interactions and the quality of care provided (n = 6), including three studies specifically focused on professional roles and active support. Additional studies address social support networks (n = 3) and analyses of the impact of the housing environment on health (n = 3). Finally, some studies explore neighbourhood attitudes (n = 2) and family satisfaction with available housing resources (n = 2).

3.1.3. Methodological Approaches and Sample Composition

From a methodological perspective, the studies reveal significant diversity in design, reflecting the complexity of the phenomenon under investigation. Mixed‐method approaches are the most prevalent (n = 28), followed closely by qualitative (n = 23) and quantitative designs (n = 21), employing a wide range of techniques, including questionnaires, semi‐structured interviews and, to a lesser extent, focus groups and direct observation.

Regarding the samples, most studies focus on individuals with intellectual disabilities; however, this assertion requires nuance. In a significant number of cases, data were collected through third parties such as support staff or family members, which introduces important methodological challenges. In particular, the lack of cognitive adaptations in instruments and the absence of accessibility protocols raise concerns about the validity of the data from a person‐centred perspective. This bias limits the transformative potential of research to influence the design of environments that truly reflect users' needs.

In addition to individuals with intellectual disabilities, samples often included professionals, family members, personal assistants and neighbours, which allowed for a broader reconstruction of the housing environment from multiple perspectives.

To facilitate traceability, Table 2 presents a list of the articles in chronological order, coded by authorship, year, title, geographical area, research design and sample.

TABLE 2.

Characteristics of included studies in chronological order.

No.	References	Title	Country	Technique and type of research	Sample
1	Rogers et al. (1994)	The residential needs and preferences of persons with serious mental illness: a comparison of consumers and family members	United States	Survey (quantitative)	459 family members and 314 IDPs
2	Felce et al. (1995)	Resident behaviour and staff interaction with people with intellectual disabilities and seriously challenging behaviour in residential services	United Kingdom	Survey and observation (mixed)	16 PID
3	Felce and Perry (1996)	Adaptive behaviour gains in ordinary housing for people with intellectual disabilities	United Kingdom	Survey (quantitative)	51 PID
4	Hudson‐Allez and Barrett (1996)	Attitudes to people with intellectual disabilities moving into ordinary houses: what the neighbours say	United Kingdom	Survey and interview (mixed)	150 residents
5	Rapley and Beyer (1996)	Daily activity, community participation and quality of life in an ordinary housing network	United Kingdom	Survey and observation (mixed)	14 PID
6	Dagnan et al. (1998)	A longitudinal study of the quality of life of older people with intellectual disability after leaving hospital	United Kingdom	Survey (quantitative)	29 PID
7	Felce et al. (1998)	Service support to people in Wales with severe intellectual disability and the most severe challenging behaviours: processes, outcomes and costs	United Kingdom	Survey, interview and observation (mixed)	41 PID
8	Lowe et al. (1998)	The characteristics and residential situations of people with severe intellectual disability and the most severe challenging behaviour in Wales	United Kingdom	Survey and interview (mixed)	41 PID
9	Felce et al. (2000)	Exploring the relationships between costs and quality of services for adults with severe intellectual disabilities and the most severe challenging behaviours in Wales: a multivariate regression analysis	United Kingdom	Survey (quantitative)	300 PID
10	Emerson et al. (2000)	Quality and costs of community‐based residential supports, village communities, and residential campuses in the United Kingdom	United Kingdom	Survey and interview (mixed)	540 PID
11	Emerson et al. (2001)	Quality and costs of supported living residences and group homes in the United Kingdom	United Kingdom	Survey and interview (mixed)	300 PID
12	Walsh et al. (2001)	Family views of the quality of residential supports	United Kingdom and Ireland	Survey and interview (mixed)	291 PID
13	Felce et al. (2002)	Association between the provision characteristics and operation of supported housing services and resident outcomes	United Kingdom	Survey and observation (mixed)	97 PID
14	Hallam et al. (2002)	Costs of village community, residential campus and dispersed housing provision for people with intellectual disability	United Kingdom	Survey and interview (mixed)	86 PID
15	Felce et al. (2003)	Rational resourcing and productivity: relationships among staff input, resident characteristics, and group home quality	United Kingdom	Survey and interview (mixed)	163 IDPs and professionals
16	Perry and Felce (2003)	Quality of life outcomes for people with intellectual disabilities living in staffed community housing services: a stratified random sample of statutory, voluntary and private agency provision	United Kingdom	Survey, interview and observation (mixed)	154 PID
17	Bradshaw et al. (2004)	Implementation and evaluation of active support	United Kingdom	Observation (qualitative)	11 IDPs and 38 professionals
18	Emerson (2004)	Cluster housing for adults with intellectual disabilities	United Kingdom	Survey and observation (mixed)	918 PID
19	Felce and Perry (2004)	Resource input, service process and resident activity indicators in a Welsh national random sample of staffed housing services for people with intellectual disabilities	United Kingdom	Survey, interviews and observation (mixed)	51 dwellings
20	McConkey et al. (2004)	Views of people with intellectual disabilities of their present and future living arrangements	Ireland	Focus groups (qualitative)	180 PID
21	Bowey et al. (2005)	Assessing the barriers to achieving genuine housing choice for adults with a learning disability: the views of family carers and professionals	United Kingdom	Focus groups (qualitative)	Professionals and family carers
22	McConkey et al. (2005)	Social inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities: the impact of place of residence	Ireland	Survey (quantitative)	73 IDPs and professionals
23	Perry and Felce (2005)	Factors associated with outcome in community group homes	United Kingdom	Survey (quantitative)	154 PID
24	Forrester‐Jones et al. (2006)	The social networks of people with intellectual disability living in the community 12 years after resettlement from long‐stay hospitals	United Kingdom	Survey (quantitative)	213 PID
25	Young (2006)	Community and cluster centre residential services for adults with intellectual disability: long‐term results from an Australian‐matched simple	Australia	Survey (quantitative)	60 PID
26	McConkey (2007)	Variations in the social inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities in supported living schemes and residential settings	Ireland	Survey (quantitative)	620 PID
27	Borbasi et al. (2008)	‘No going back’ to institutional care for people with severe disability: reflections on practice through an interpretive study	Australia	Interview (qualitative)	19 IDPs, 10 professionals and 5 family members
28	Chou et al. (2008)	Outcomes and costs of residential services for adults with intellectual disabilities in Taiwan: a comparative evaluation	China	Survey and interview (mixed)	248 IDPs and carers
29	Felce et al. (2008)	Outcomes and costs of community living: semi‐independent living and fully staffed group homes	United Kingdom	Survey (quantitative)	70 PID
30	Gilbert et al. (2008)	Older family‐carers' views on the future accommodation needs of relatives who have an intellectual disability	United Kingdom	Interview (qualitative)	28 caregivers
31	Mansell et al. (2008)	Effect of service structure and organization on staff care practices in small community homes for people with intellectual disabilities	United Kingdom	Survey and observation (mixed)	359 IDPs and 352 professionals
32	Neely‐Barnes et al. (2008)	Community‐based, consumer‐directed services: differential experiences of people with mild and severe intellectual disabilities	United States	Survey and interview (mixed)	321 PID
33	Olin and Jansson (2008)	Common areas in group homes: arenas for different interests?	Sweden	Interview and observation (qualitative)	34 IDPs and professionals
34	Eley et al. (2009)	Accommodation needs for carers of and adults with intellectual disability in regional Australia: their hopes for and perceptions of the future.	Australia	Interview (qualitative)	156 IDPs and 146 carers
35	Randell and Cumella (2009)	People with an intellectual disability living in an intentional community	United Kingdom	Interview (qualitative)	15 PID
36	Weeks et al. (2009)	Current and future concerns of older parents of sons and daughters with intellectual disabilities	Canada	Survey and interview (mixed)	11 PID family members
37	Fisher and Purcal (2010)	Effective personalised housing support for people with disabilities ‐ case study analysis	Australia	Survey and interview (mixed)	12 IDPs and 6 managers
38	McConkey and Collins (2010a)	The role of support staff in promoting the social inclusion of persons with an intellectual disability	United Kingdom	Survey (quantitative)	245 professionals
39	McConkey and Collins (2010b)	Using personal goal setting to promote the social inclusion of people with intellectual disability living in supported accommodation	Ireland	Interview (qualitative)	130 PID
40	Van Alphen et al. (2010)	People with intellectual disability as neighbours: towards understanding the mundane aspects of social integration	The Netherlands	Interview (qualitative)	30 residents
41	Felce et al. (2011)	A comparison of activity levels among adults with intellectual disabilities living in family homes and out‐of‐family placements	United Kingdom	Survey (quantitative)	721 PID
42	Martinez‐Leal et al. (2011)	The impact of living arrangements and deinstitutionalisation in the health status of persons with intellectual disability in Europe	14 EU countries	Survey and interview (mixed)	1257 PID
43	Riches et al. (2011)	Transforming staff practice through active support	Australia	Survey (quantitative)	13 IDPs and 63 professionals
44	Shaw et al. (2011)	The housing and support needs of people with an intellectual disability into older age	United Kingdom	Interview and focus groups (qualitative)	25 IDPs and 10 family members
45	Stainton et al. (2011)	Comparison of community residential supports on measures of information & planning; access to & delivery of supports; choice & control; community connections; satisfaction; and, overall perception of outcomes	Canada	Survey (quantitative)	852 family members and professionals
46	Wiesel (2011)	Allocating homes for people with intellectual disability: needs, mix and choice	Australia	Interview (qualitative)	50 (policy makers, managers and organisations)
47	Felce and Perry (2012)	Diagnostic grouping among adults with intellectual disabilities and autistic spectrum disorders in staffed housing	United Kingdom	Survey and observation (mixed)	424 PID
48	Perry et al. (2012)	Targeted support and telecare in staffed housing for people with intellectual disabilities: impact on staffing levels and objective lifestyle indicators	United Kingdom	Survey and interview (mixed)	91 IDP professionals
49	Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Lerdo‐Tejada (2013)	Quality of life assessment of institutionalized adults with intellectual disabilities in Chile	Chile	Survey (quantitative)	83 PID
50	Perry et al. (2013)	Adults with intellectual disabilities and challenging behaviour: the costs and outcomes of in‐ and out‐of‐area placements	United Kingdom	Survey (quantitative)	76 PID
51	Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Morillo‐Quesen (2013)	Residential services for people with intellectual disabilities in Chile. Moving towards good practices	Chile	Focus group (qualitative)	Professionals
52	Drake (2014)	The transinstitutionalisation of people living in licensed boarding houses in Sydney	Australia	Interview (qualitative)	30 (15 staff community organisations, 12 government agencies and 3 pension owners)
53	Hole et al. (2015)	Home sharing and people with intellectual disabilities: a qualitative exploration	Canada	Interview (qualitative)	22 IDPs, 13 family members and 33 shared housing providers
54	Kilroy et al. (2015)	Staff perceptions of the quality of life of individuals with an intellectual disability who transition from a residential campus to community living in Ireland: an exploratory study	Ireland	Interview (qualitative)	8 IDPs and professionals
55	Marlow and Walker (2015)	Does supported living work for people with severe intellectual disabilities?	United Kingdom	Survey and interview (mixed)	6 IDPs, 5 family members and 17 professionals
56	Bigby et al. (2017)	Conundrums of supported living: the experiences of people with intellectual disability quality group home care for adults with developmental disabilities and/or mental health disorders: yearning for understanding, security and freedom	Australia	Interview and focus group (qualitative)	34 IDPs and professionals
57	Shipton and Lashewicz (2017)	Quality group home care for adults with developmental disabilities and/or mental health disorders: yearning for understanding, security and freedom	Canada	Focus group (qualitative)	23 family members and 29 agency representatives
58	Martínez‐Rivera (2019)	The experience of people with intellectual disabilities living in residential resources	Spain	Survey and interview (mixed)	156 professionals, family members and IDPs
59	Miskimmin et al. (2019)	Age‐friendly communities for older persons with intellectual disabilities	Canada	Focus group and interview (qualitative)	7 IDPs and 15 carers
60	Nicholson et al. (2019)	Comparing traditional‐residential, personalised residential and personalised non‐residential respite services: quality of life findings from an Irish population with mild–moderate intellectual disabilities	Ireland	Survey (quantitative)	82 IDPs and 81 professionals
61	Salmon et al. (2019)	Our homes: an inclusive study about what moving house is like for people with intellectual disabilities in Ireland	Ireland	Interview (qualitative)	35 PID
62	Verseghy et al. (2019)	Attainable dreams and harsh realities: housing for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities	Canada	Interview (qualitative)	29 (IDPs, family members, providers, policy makers, researchers and educators)
63	Ellis et al. (2020)	Creating community and belonging in a designated housing estate for disabled people	United Kingdom	Interview (qualitative)	13 PID
64	Vlot‐van et al. (2020)	Towards healthy settings for people with intellectual disabilities	14 EU countries	Interviews (qualitative)	41 experts
65	Fisher et al. (2021)	What place is there for shared housing with individualized disability support?	Australia	Interview and focus group (qualitative)	30 IDPs, 21 family members, 5 professionals, 4 managers
66	Heerings et al. (2024)	Burden of support: a counter narrative of service users' experiences with community housing services	The Netherlands	Interview and observation (qualitative)	20 IDPs, 10 family members, 8 experts
67	Stoeckel et al. (2022)	Supported housing services for people with intellectual disabilities and mental health problems in Serbia‐Social and community integration or mini‐institutions	Serbia	Survey (quantitative)	71 PID
68	Douglas et al. (2023)	Moving into new housing designed for people with disabilities: preliminary evaluation of outcomes	Australia	Survey (quantitative)	15 PID
69	Gutiérrez‐Cruz et al. (2023)	Effect of the environmental factor of coexistence on the physical condition of people with mild and moderate intellectual disabilities	Spain	Survey (quantitative)	PID
70	Bailey et al. (2024)	Building person‐centred homes: a case study of a cluster‐designed home for adults with intellectual disability in Australia	Australia	Interview (qualitative)	20 family members
71	Blood et al. (2024)	Moving house: how much choice do people with learning disabilities have about where they live?	United Kingdom	Interview (qualitative)	107 PID
72	Cvijetić et al. (2024)	The role of personal and environmental factors in autonomous behaviour of people with intellectual disability	Serbia	Survey (quantitative)	128 PID
73	Howard et al. (2024)	‘Not just a new house’: the complexities of undoing institutional practices and identities in transitions to community living	United Kingdom	Interview (qualitative)	35 (24 family members, 7 professionals, 4 leaders, 6 professionals)

Abbreviation: PID, persons with intellectual disability.

Source: Own elaboration.

3.2. Content Analysis

To provide an analytical framework for the factors identified in the review, the model of five environments developed by Wright et al. (2017) was adopted. This model distinguishes between the physical, social, natural, symbolic and supportive environments. In the latter case, Wright's original term ‘care environment’ was replaced with ‘supportive environment’ to avoid paternalistic connotations and to promote a focus on personal autonomy and independent living.

The adoption of this framework took place after the initial coding of the data and did not influence the inclusion or exclusion of categories, thereby reinforcing its utility as an analytical tool in exploratory research. Its value lies in its capacity to structure and synthesise information in a coherent and flexible manner without imposing a priori categories. Furthermore, its specificity with regard to housing for individuals with intellectual disabilities and its applicability in real‐world design contexts, makes it a relevant and effective reference. Unlike other approaches that focus exclusively on physical accessibility, this model incorporates relational, subjective and symbolic dimensions of the housing environment, which are highly sensitive to psychosocial factors (Wright et al. 2015, 2017).

The following sections present a detailed analysis of the findings according to each of these environmental dimensions. Each section includes specific examples from the reviewed studies and organises the identified indicators into thematic dimensions and categories, highlighting practical implications for the design and evaluation of inclusive housing policies.

3.2.1. Natural Environment

This dimension refers to the integration and quality of natural resources within the housing setting. It encompasses the relationship with the surrounding landscape (public or private), vegetation, bodies of water such as seas or oceans, fauna, climate and terrain—all of which impact physical and mental well‐being. Literature emphasises its therapeutic value, particularly, for people with intellectual disabilities, whose housing experience is highly responsive to environmental stimuli. Several studies underscore the positive effects of access to green spaces and natural light on emotional self‐regulation and comfort. The use of renewable energy is also identified as a contributing factor to sustainability and cost reduction, fostering more autonomous and efficient living environments.

This is detailed in Table 3, which organises the thematic categories and indicators identified in the reviewed studies.

TABLE 3.

Inductive analysis of categories and indicators in the natural environment.

Dimension of analysis	Category	Indicators	References
Natural environment	Natural resources	Public and private natural landscape	Eley et al. (2009); Van Alphen et al. (2010); Kilroy et al. (2015); Miskimmin et al. (2019)
		Use of renewable energies	Felce et al. (2008)

Source: Own elaboration.

3.2.2. Physical Environment

This dimension includes both external and internal structural features of housing, which are fundamental for ensuring accessibility, safety and functionality.

The external infrastructure refers to building elements managed by the wider community and connected to the broader social, cultural and demographic context. Location is particularly valued—ideally in central, normalised, well‐connected and non‐segregated areas—along with universal accessibility of the urban space and proximity to essential services (such as health centres, shops and recreational facilities), as these factors enhance mobility, autonomy and community participation. Equally important is access to and adaptation of public transport, which facilitates engagement in social, educational and leisure activities. Urban integration also requires avoiding design features that visibly mark these dwellings as specialised resources, as this may reinforce stigma. Long‐term sustainability is emphasised through the design of resilient housing that fosters socially connected and inclusive communities.

The internal design should prioritise the creation of home‐like, non‐institutional environments, with functional and aesthetically pleasing furnishings and adequate acoustic, thermal, ergonomic and environmental control, thereby ensuring comprehensive well‐being. The inclusion of private bedrooms is essential for safeguarding privacy, while shared spaces should promote interaction and communal living. Accessibility features should be tailored to individual needs to support independent mobility.

Small‐scale housing is identified as the most effective model, as it allows for the formation of more homogeneous groups and the provision of personalised support. The integration of assistive technologies (such as home automation, sensors and accessible communication systems) enhances functionality, safety and personal autonomy. Finally, the importance of conducting pre‐occupancy and regular evaluations is emphasised in order to adapt the environment to residents' evolving needs and ensure the long‐term sustainability of the housing model.

These indicators and dimensions are summarised in Table 4.

TABLE 4.

Inductive analysis of categories and indicators in the physical environment.

Dimension of analysis	Categories	Indicators	References
Physical environment	Outside infrastructure	Informed and empathetic neighbourhood	McConkey et al. (2004); Weeks et al. (2009)
		Accessibility to communication and transport systems	McConkey et al. (2005); McConkey and Collins (2010a, 2010b); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Lerdo‐Tejada (2013); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Morillo‐Quesen (2013); Miskimmin et al. (2019); Salmon et al. (2019); Verseghy et al. (2019); Ellis et al. (2020).
		Proximity to public services	McConkey et al. (2004); Perry et al. (2013); Blood et al. (2024)
		Proximity to human settlements and networks	Walsh et al. (2001); Randell and Cumella (2009); Kilroy et al. (2015); Verseghy et al. (2019); Bailey et al. (2024)
		Proximity to work and leisure facilities	Verseghy et al. (2019)
		Elements of stigmatisation	Lowe et al. (1998); Van Alphen et al. (2010); Walsh et al. (2001)
		Sustainability	Hole et al. 2015; Verseghy et al. (2019).
		Concentration/dispersion of specific dwellings	Rapley and Beyer (1996); Emerson et al. (2001); Bailey et al. (2024); Emerson (2004)
	Indoor infrastructure	Small dimension	Lowe et al. (1998); Emerson et al. (2001); Felce et al. (2000, 2002, 2003); Felce and Perry (2004); Bowey et al. (2005); Neely‐Barnes et al. (2008); Martinez‐Leal et al. (2011)
		Comfort systems	Lowe et al. (1998); Emerson et al. (2001); Perry and Felce (2003); Olin and Jansson (2008); Eley et al. (2009); Weeks et al. (2009); Van Alphen et al. (2010); Shaw et al. (2011); Kilroy et al. (2015); Shipton and Lashewicz 2017; Martínez‐Rivera (2019); Vlot‐van et al. (2020); Bailey et al. (2024)
		Security	Perry and Felce (2003); Felce et al. (2008); Eley et al. (2009)
		Common and social spaces	Olin and Jansson (2008); Kilroy et al. (2015); Miskimmin et al. (2019); Salmon et al. (2019); Heerings et al. (2024); Bailey et al. (2024); Blood et al. (2024); Howard et al. (2024); Howard et al. (2024)
		Single bedrooms	Eley et al. (2009); Martínez‐Rivera (2019); Heerings et al. (2024); Bailey et al. (2024).
		Physical accessibility	Fisher and Purcal (2010); Perry et al. (2013); Kilroy et al. (2015); Miskimmin et al. (2019); Vlot‐van et al. (2020).
		Personalisation	Felce et al. (1998, 2000); Chou et al. (2008); Eley et al. (2009); Fisher and Purcal (2010); McConkey and Collins (2010a, 2010b); Kilroy et al. (2015); Miskimmin et al. (2019); Nicholson et al. (2019)
		Specific support	Lowe et al. (1998); Hallam et al. (2002); Felce et al. (2008)
		Evaluation and adequacy of material resources	Felce et al. (2000); Perry and Felce (2003); Forrester‐Jones et al. (2006); Howard et al. (2024)
		Digital accessibility and intelligent systems	Gilbert et al. (2008); Bigby et al. (2017); Ellis et al. (2020)

Source: Own elaboration.

3.2.3. Social Environment

This dimension refers to the interpersonal relationships and social bonds that are formed both within the home and in the broader community setting. A key element is the selection of the cohabitation model, which should be flexible and tailored to individual needs—ranging from single‐occupancy dwellings to shared housing with small groups. Compatibility among residents is considered essential to fostering positive relationships, preventing conflict and promoting safe and enriching living environments.

Within this framework, the importance of encouraging participatory everyday dynamics—such as collaboration in household tasks—is emphasised, as these activities reinforce autonomy, a sense of belonging and mutual support. The quality of such interactions is decisive in shaping the housing experience, as they help create emotionally secure environments and contribute to psychosocial well‐being.

Community inclusion is another key pillar. Participation in social, cultural, recreational and employment activities enables individuals to build meaningful networks and broaden their opportunities for interaction. Three levels of social networks are identified as essential: community, family and friendship and peer‐to‐peer. Strengthening these networks contributes to enhancing social integration and reducing isolation.

Finally, the need to foster social contexts that promote healthy lifestyles is highlighted, including habits related to physical activity, balanced nutrition and personal responsibility in daily living. These practices have a positive impact not only on physical and mental health but also on self‐esteem, self‐determination and active participation in the community.

The main indicators and thematic categories for this dimension are summarised in Table 5.

TABLE 5.

Inductive analysis of categories and indicators in the social environment.

Dimension of analysis	Categories	Indicators	References
Environment social	Typology of supported housing options	Individual house	Rogers et al. (1994); Vlot‐van et al. (2020).
Living with people with disabilities		McConkey et al. (2004); Forrester‐Jones et al. (2006); Chou et al. (2008); Eley et al. (2009); Shaw et al. (2011); Stainton et al. (2011); Wiesel (2011); Felce and Perry (2012); Perry et al. (2013)
Living with people without disabilities	Rogers et al. (1994); Weeks et al. (2009); Shaw et al. (2011); Drake (2014); Kilroy et al. (2015); Verseghy et al. (2019); Fisher et al. (2021); Bailey et al. (2024)
Dynamics of coexistence	Promotion of social relations with peers	Forrester‐Jones et al. (2006); Eley et al. (2009); Randell and Cumella (2009); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Lerdo‐Tejada (2013); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Morillo‐Quesen (2013); Perry et al. (2013); Salmon et al. (2019); Vlot‐van et al. (2020).
Participatory domestic collaboration	Felce et al. (1998); Lowe et al. (1998); Walsh et al. (2001); Perry and Felce (2003); Young (2006); Eley et al. (2009); Fisher and Purcal (2010); Felce et al. (2011); Riches et al. (2011); Felce and Perry (2012); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Lerdo‐Tejada (2013); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Morillo‐Quesen (2013); Bailey et al. (2024); Howard et al. (2024)
Social and community participation	Rogers et al. (1994); Felce et al. (1995); Rapley and Beyer (1996); Dagnan et al. (1998); Felce et al. (1998); Emerson et al. (2001); Felce et al. (2002); Emerson (2004); Felce and Perry (2004); Neely‐Barnes et al. (2008); Eley et al. (2009); Weeks et al. (2009); McConkey and Collins (2010a, 2010b); Felce et al. (2011); Martinez‐Leal et al. (2011); Riches et al. (2011); Stainton et al. (2011); Perry et al. (2013); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Lerdo‐Tejada (2013); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Morillo‐Quesen (2013); Drake (2014); Hole et al. (2015); Kilroy et al. (2015); Marlow and Walker (2015); Bigby et al. (2017); Miskimmin et al. (2019); Ellis et al. (2020); Cvijetić et al. (2024); Stoeckel et al. (2022)
Community inclusion	Community interaction and support networks	Rapley and Beyer (1996); Dagnan et al. (1998); Emerson et al. (2001); Perry and Felce (2003); Forrester‐Jones et al. (2006); McConkey (2007); Olin and Jansson (2008); Fisher and Purcal (2010); Nicholson et al. (2019); Salmon et al. (2019); Verseghy et al. (2019); Vlot‐van et al. (2020); Stoeckel et al. (2022); Cvijetić et al. (2024)
Interaction and support networks with family and friends	Lowe et al. (1998); Young (2006); McConkey (2007); Chou et al. (2008); Felce et al. (2008); Eley et al. (2009); Randell and Cumella (2009); Fisher and Purcal (2010); McConkey and Collins (2010a, 2010b); Shaw et al. (2011); Perry et al. (2013); Kilroy et al. (2015); Bigby et al. (2017); Blood et al. (2024); Bailey et al. (2024)
Peer interaction and support networks	McConkey et al. (2005); Weeks et al. (2009); Marlow and Walker (2015); Heerings et al. (2024)
Links with leisure and employment	McConkey and Collins (2010a, 2010b); Randell and Cumella (2009)
Physical activity and promotion of sport	Emerson (2004); Felce et al. (2000); Gutiérrez‐Cruz et al. (2023)
Neighbourhood cohesion	Hudson‐Allez and Barrett (1996); McConkey et al. (2004); Randell and Cumella (2009); Van Alphen et al. (2010); Verseghy et al. (2019); Ellis et al. (2020); Howard et al. (2024); Bailey et al. (2024)
Diversity of alternatives	Gilbert et al. (2008); Van Alphen et al. (2010); Stainton et al. (2011)¸ Heerings et al. (2024); Douglas et al. (2023); Blood et al. (2024)
Autonomy, self‐determination and personal development	Felce et al. (1998, 2008); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Lerdo‐Tejada (2013); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Morillo‐Quesen (2013); Hole et al. (2015); Nicholson et al. (2019); Heerings et al. (2024); Cvijetić et al. (2024)
Healthy social life	Independence	Perry and Felce (2003); McConkey et al. (2005); Kilroy et al. (2015); Bigby et al. (2017); Salmon et al. (2019); Cvijetić et al. (2024)
	Empowerment, cognitive, socio‐emotional and self‐care development	Lowe et al. (1998); Felce et al. (2000); McConkey et al. (2005); Fisher and Purcal (2010); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Lerdo‐Tejada (2013); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Morillo‐Quesen (2013); Verseghy et al. (2019); Vlot‐van et al. (2020); Heerings et al. (2024)
	Self‐management and responsibility in daily and family life	McConkey et al. (2005); Fisher and Purcal (2010); Heerings et al. (2024); Howard et al. (2024)
Life and leisure skills	Felce et al. (1995); Felce and Perry (1996); Felce et al. (2002); Forrester‐Jones et al. (2006); McConkey (2007); Fisher and Purcal (2010); Douglas et al. (2023); Howard et al. (2024)
Nutrition and healthy eating	Eley et al. (2009); Martinez‐Leal et al. (2011); Drake (2014); Kilroy et al. (2015); Marlow and Walker (2015); Howard et al. (2024)

Source: Own elaboration.

3.2.4. Supporting Environment

This dimension encompasses the human, organisational and material resources that enable independent living, ensuring that individuals receive the necessary support to develop their life projects with dignity and autonomy. A central aspect is the availability and accessibility of suitable housing options, along with transparent access and selection processes, in which people with intellectual disabilities are empowered to express their preferences and make informed decisions about where and with whom to live.

Another critical aspect is the staffing and quality of professional support. This includes not only the availability of sufficient human resources but also the presence of professionals capable of providing personalised support tailored to individual needs. Particular value is placed on the presence of stable key support figures, individualised planning and supervision and ongoing staff training in specific competencies such as cognitive accessibility, diversity management (cultural and gender) and conflict resolution. Clear, accessible and respectful communication is considered essential for establishing trust‐based relationships and fostering active participation in decision‐making.

Effective management of the housing environment also requires coordination among families, service providers, interdisciplinary teams and public institutions. Organisational leadership, together with monitoring policies and continuous improvement strategies, contributes to creating more efficient and person‐centred environments. Finally, staff satisfaction and stability are regarded as key elements in ensuring continuity of support, minimising staff turnover and strengthening relational bonds with the individuals residing in these settings.

The main indicators and thematic categories for this dimension are summarised in Table 6.

TABLE 6.

Inductive analysis of categories and indicators in the supportive environment.

Dimension of analysis	Categories	Indicators	References
Supporting environment	Access to housing	Adequacy and sufficiency	Gilbert et al. (2008); Mansell et al. (2008); Eley et al. (2009); Weeks et al. (2009); Van Alphen et al. (2010); Stainton et al. (2011); Miskimmin et al. (2019); Verseghy et al. (2019); Fisher et al. (2021); Cvijetić et al. (2024)
Self‐selection		Douglas et al. (2023); Blood et al. (2024)
Customised transitions	Gilbert et al. (2008); Eley et al. (2009); Shaw et al. (2011); Martínez‐Rivera (2019); Bailey et al. (2024); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Lerdo‐Tejada (2013); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Morillo‐Quesen (2013)
Staffing and quality of personnel	Adequacy of human resources	Felce et al. (1998); Lowe et al. (1998); Emerson et al. (2001); Walsh et al. (2001); Felce et al. (2002); Perry and Felce (2003); Felce and Perry (2004); Mansell et al. (2008); McConkey et al. (2004); Perry and Felce (2005); Eley et al. (2009); Weeks et al. (2009); McConkey and Collins (2010a, 2010b); Riches et al. (2011); Stainton et al. (2011); Felce and Perry (2012); Perry et al. (2013); Hole et al. (2015); Kilroy et al. (2015); Shipton and Lashewicz (2017); Miskimmin et al. (2019); Howard et al. (2024); Blood et al. (2024); Howard et al. (2024)
Personalised professional attention	Felce et al. (1995); Emerson et al. (2001); Emerson (2004); Young (2006); Felce et al. (2008); Eley et al. (2009); McConkey and Collins (2010a, 2010b); Fisher and Purcal (2010); Martinez‐Leal et al. (2011); Stainton et al. (2011); Perry et al. (2013); Drake (2014); Marlow and Walker (2015); Vlot‐van et al. (2020); Fisher et al. (2021)
Evaluation and continuous quality improvement	Emerson et al. (2001); Walsh et al. (2001); McConkey et al. (2004); Perry and Felce (2005); Eley et al. (2009); Riches et al. (2011); Perry et al. (2013); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Lerdo‐Tejada (2013); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Morillo‐Quesen (2013); Kilroy et al. (2015); Marlow and Walker (2015); Marlow and Walker (2015); Drake (2014); Douglas et al. (2023); Howard et al. (2024)
Roles of support staff	Promoting autonomy and self‐determination	Felce et al. (1998); Perry and Felce (2003); McConkey et al. (2005); Fisher and Purcal (2010); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Lerdo‐Tejada (2013); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Morillo‐Quesen (2013); Hole et al. (2015); Kilroy et al. (2015); Bigby et al. (2017); Shipton and Lashewicz (2017); Nicholson et al. (2019); Salmon et al. (2019); Heerings et al. (2024); Cvijetić et al. (2024)
Functional skills development	Felce et al. (1995); Felce and Perry (1996); Felce et al. (2002); Forrester‐Jones et al. (2006); McConkey (2007); Fisher and Purcal (2010); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Lerdo‐Tejada (2013); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Morillo‐Quesen (2013); Douglas et al. (2023); Howard et al. (2024)
Supporting cognitive, emotional and social growth	McConkey et al. (2005); Eley et al. (2009); Martinez‐Leal et al. (2011); Drake (2014); Kilroy et al. (2015); Marlow and Walker (2015); Cvijetić et al. (2024); Howard et al. (2024)
Facilitating social and community participation	Felce et al. (1995); Rapley and Beyer (1996); Lowe et al. (1998); Felce et al. (2002); Perry and Felce (2003); McConkey et al. (2005); Olin and Jansson (2008); Weeks et al. (2009); Fisher and Purcal (2010); McConkey and Collins (2010a, 2010b); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Lerdo‐Tejada (2013); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Morillo‐Quesen (2013); Kilroy et al. (2015); Marlow and Walker (2015); Shipton and Lashewicz (2017); Miskimmin et al. (2019); Verseghy et al. (2019); Vlot‐van et al. (2020); Heerings et al. (2024); Howard et al. (2024); Cvijetić et al. (2024)
Individualised assistance and support	Eley et al. (2009); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Lerdo‐Tejada (2013); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Morillo‐Quesen (2013); Hole et al. (2015); Bigby et al. (2017); Salmon et al. (2019); Heerings et al. (2024); Bailey et al. (2024); Kilroy et al. (2015)¸ Randell and Cumella (2009)
Personalised care and routines	Felce et al. (2002); Young (2006); Chou et al. (2008); Shaw et al. (2011); Riches et al. (2011); Stainton et al. (2011); Kilroy et al. (2015); Martínez‐Rivera (2019); Fisher et al. (2021); Heerings et al. (2024); Stoeckel et al. (2022); Douglas et al. (2023); Howard et al. (2024)
Person‐centred planning	Bradshaw et al. (2004); McConkey et al. (2004); Perry and Felce (2005); Gilbert et al. (2008); McConkey and Collins (2010a, 2010b); Van Alphen et al. (2010); Riches et al. (2011); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Lerdo‐Tejada (2013); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Morillo‐Quesen (2013); Drake (2014); Hole et al. (2015); Kilroy et al. (2015); Marlow and Walker (2015); Shipton and Lashewicz (2017); Salmon et al. (2019); Ellis et al. (2020); Heerings et al. (2024); Douglas et al. (2023); Blood et al. (2024); Howard et al. (2024)
Inter‐institutional and inter‐disciplinary communication and relationship management	Emerson et al. (2001); Bowey et al. (2005); Gilbert et al. (2008); Riches et al. (2011); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Lerdo‐Tejada (2013); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Morillo‐Quesen (2013); Shipton and Lashewicz (2017); Howard et al. (2024)
Competencies of support staff	Communication and cognitive accessibility	Rogers et al. (1994); Neely‐Barnes et al. (2008); Weeks et al. (2009); Martínez‐Rivera (2019); Salmon et al. (2019); Heerings et al. (2024); Howard et al. (2024)
Planning and monitoring	Felce et al. (1998); Lowe et al. (1998); Felce et al. (2002); Felce et al. (2003); Bradshaw et al. (2004); Emerson (2004); Bowey et al. (2005); Young (2006); Felce et al. (2008); Gilbert et al. (2008); Mansell et al. (2008); Eley et al. (2009); Fisher and Purcal (2010); McConkey and Collins (2010a, 2010b); Riches et al. (2011); Perry et al. (2012); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Lerdo‐Tejada (2013); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Morillo‐Quesen (2013); Perry et al. (2013); Hole et al. (2015); Shipton and Lashewicz (2017)
Emergency management	Rogers et al. (1994); Emerson et al. (2001); Martinez‐Leal et al. (2011); Stainton et al. (2011); Perry et al. (2013); Kilroy et al. (2015)
Safeguarding equity and human rights	Mansell et al. (2008); Wiesel (2011); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Lerdo‐Tejada (2013); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Morillo‐Quesen (2013); Kilroy et al. (2015); Salmon et al. (2019); Heerings et al. (2024); Blood et al. (2024)
Diversity management	Forrester‐Jones et al. (2006); Weeks et al. (2009); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Lerdo‐Tejada (2013); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Morillo‐Quesen (2013); Fisher et al. (2021); Heerings et al. (2024); Howard et al. (2024); Cvijetić et al. (2024)
Management of assistive technologies	Perry et al. (2012)
Family and community mediation	Bradshaw et al. (2004); McConkey et al. (2004); McConkey et al. (2005); Gilbert et al. (2008); Weeks et al. (2009); Riches et al. (2011); Hole et al. (2015); Nicholson et al. (2019) Eley et al. (2009); Cvijetić et al. (2024)

Source: Own elaboration.

3.2.5. Symbolic Environment

This dimension refers to the personal, social and cultural meanings individuals assign to the spaces they inhabit, which directly influence identity formation, sense of belonging and emotional well‐being. From a sociological perspective, Bourdieu (1980) emphasises the importance of habitus—a system of internalised dispositions—in shaping the relationship between people and their environment. This framework helps explain how housing spaces are not only physically occupied but also symbolically experienced, shaping everyday practices, aspirations and ways of being in the world.

Self‐expression and self‐awareness are essential for creating environments that reflect the identities of their inhabitants. The ability to participate in daily decision‐making, personalise the space and access clear, understandable information supports empowerment and personal agency. These elements enhance self‐determination and foster a positive outlook on the future.

A sense of belonging is closely tied to social acceptance and environmental stability. When individuals feel valued, safe and recognised within their communities, their emotional well‐being and personal development are strengthened. The feeling of home is reinforced by place attachment, familiarity, companionship (including pets) and residential continuity—factors that contribute to the creation of an intimate, protective and meaningful environment.

Thus, the symbolic environment plays a key role in shaping the home as a space of refuge and self‐realisation, supporting holistic well‐being—social, physical, emotional, material and spiritual—and fostering the development of a resilient habitus.

These findings and thematic categories are presented in Table 7.

TABLE 7.

Inductive analysis of categories and indicators in the symbolic environment.

Dimension of analysis	Categories	Indicators	References
Symbolic environment	Self‐expression	Self‐awareness and positive outlook	Eley et al. (2009); Douglas et al. (2023)
		In everyday life	Bowey et al. (2005); Felce et al. (2008); Fisher and Purcal (2010); McConkey and Collins (2010a, 2010b); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Lerdo‐Tejada (2013); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Morillo‐Quesen (2013); Kilroy et al. (2015)
		On personal matters	Chou et al. (2008); Felce et al. (2008); Eley et al. (2009); Weeks et al. (2009); Fisher and Purcal (2010); McConkey and Collins (2010a, 2010b); Drake (2014); Kilroy et al. (2015); Hole et al. (2015); Bigby et al. (2017); Salmon et al. (2019); Salmon et al. (2019)
		In decision‐making	McConkey et al. (2005); Young (2006); Chou et al. (2008); Felce et al. (2008); Neely‐Barnes et al. (2008); Eley et al. (2009); Shaw et al. (2011); Stainton et al. (2011); Wiesel (2011); Drake (2014); Hole et al. (2015); Bigby et al. (2017); Vlot‐van et al. (2020); Douglas et al. (2023); Blood et al. (2024); Bailey et al. (2024).
		In access to information	Dagnan et al. (1998); Emerson et al. (2001); Emerson et al. (2001); Bowey et al. (2005); McConkey et al. (2005); Gilbert et al. (2008); Fisher et al. (2021); Blood et al. (2024)
	Sense of belonging	Social integration and group acceptance	Weeks et al. (2009); Shaw et al. (2011); Wiesel (2011); Martínez‐Rivera (2019); Miskimmin et al. (2019); Ellis et al. (2020); Stoeckel et al. (2022); Bailey et al. (2024)
		Well‐being and safety in the community	McConkey et al. (2005); Felce et al. (2008); Eley et al. (2009); Kilroy et al. (2015); Marlow and Walker (2015); Bigby et al. (2017); Martínez‐Rivera (2019); Miskimmin et al. (2019); Salmon et al. (2019); Ellis et al. (2020); Heerings et al. (2024)
		Feeling at home	Martínez‐Rivera (2019)
	Homey feeling	Stable environment	McConkey et al. (2004); Shaw et al. (2011); Martínez‐Rivera (2019); Salmon et al. (2019)
		Integral social, physical, emotional, personal, material and spiritual well‐being and satisfaction.	Emerson et al. (2001); Walsh et al. (2001); Perry and Felce (2003); Chou et al. (2008); Randell and Cumella (2009); Weeks et al. (2009); Fisher and Purcal (2010); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Lerdo‐Tejada (2013); Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Morillo‐Quesen (2013); Kilroy et al. (2015); Marlow and Walker (2015); Miskimmin et al. (2019); Stoeckel et al. (2022); Douglas et al. (2023)
		Animal companionship	Ellis et al. (2020)

Source: Own elaboration.

4. Conclusions

This study has succeeded in systematising, from an interdisciplinary perspective, the environmental factors that should inform the design and development of future housing for people with intellectual disabilities, based on the available scientific evidence. These factors were organised into five environmental dimensions—physical, social, natural, symbolic and supportive—adapted from the theoretical framework proposed by Wright et al. (2017). The redefinition of the original ‘care environment’ as a ‘supportive environment’ reflects a critical stance aimed at overcoming care‐based approaches and promoting models centred on autonomy and independent living.

Applying this framework enabled the study to transcend fragmented approaches and move towards a more ecological and holistic understanding of dwelling. In contrast to models that focus solely on physical and functional aspects, the findings emphasise that environments also operate symbolically, relationally, emotionally and politically, underscoring their role as social determinants of health and well‐being (Schulz and Northridge 2004). Thus, housing should not be understood merely as a physical structure but as a living space where real possibilities for inclusion or exclusion are configured.

This biopsychosocial and ecological perspective—aligned with authors such as Cummins et al. (2007), Wright et al. (2015) and Vlot‐Van et al. (2020)—demands recognition that dwelling is not simply residing in a space but entails constructing relationships, identities and life trajectories in constant interaction with the environment. Considering both resource‐based and non‐resource‐based factors, as well as process outcomes and user experiences (Emerson et al. 2001), the study reveals that improving technical features alone is insufficient.

The reviewed studies demonstrate persistent fragmentation that hinders the formulation of comprehensive standards. Therefore, the proposed framework may serve as a foundation for regulatory criteria towards genuinely inclusive housing. Additionally, the notion of inclusion is often reduced to mere physical placement. As various authors have noted, spaces may be structurally accessible while remaining exclusionary in their codes and practices (Felce et al. 2008; Hole et al. ²⁰¹⁵). The symbolic environment—often overlooked—captures this tension, referencing the emotional, identity‐related and cultural dimensions of inhabited spaces. Several studies have shown that even in structurally accessible settings, the absence of meaningful relationships, recognition and active participation can lead to feelings of alienation or detachment (Eley et al. 2009; Fisher and Purcal ²⁰¹⁰; Martínez‐Rivera ²⁰¹⁹). This symbolic dimension points to key aspects such as decision‐making, the sense of home, belonging and emotional security.

Regarding the other four environments: in the natural domain (still underexplored), the literature values connection with natural resources and the use of renewable energy sources. In the physical dimension, emphasis is placed on both external and internal structural features, ensuring inclusive integration within the urban fabric. The social dimension highlights the importance of support and integration across three levels: community, family and peer relationships. The supportive environment stresses the quality of human, organisational and material resources.

On the subject of deinstitutionalization, the evidence suggests that transitioning to supported housing does not guarantee inclusion. In many cases, a process of ‘transinstitutionalization’ persists, whereby exclusionary logics remain intact (Stoeckel et al. 2022), highlighting the need for a fundamental rethinking of current residential models and for the promotion of holistic well‐being (Rapley and Beyer 1996; Schulz and Northridge ²⁰⁰⁴).

This requires a shift towards flexible models that are responsive to the diversity within this population—age, gender, required support levels and personal life trajectories—and developed in collaboration with those directly affected. Although this population is often treated as homogeneous, the evidence reveals important differences that shape individuals' needs. Therefore, the results should be viewed as general guidelines, subject to adaptation based on personal characteristics. Progress must be made towards intersectional research (Douglas et al. 2023).

In this vein, the need for housing models that are personalised, collaborative and adaptable is emphasised (McConkey et al. ²⁰⁰⁴; Mansell et al. ²⁰⁰⁸; Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Lerdo‐Tejada ²⁰¹³; Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Morillo‐Quesen ²⁰¹³; Hole et al. ²⁰¹⁵; Blood et al. ²⁰²⁴). These models should include ongoing monitoring and pre‐ and post‐occupancy evaluations (Umb‐Carlsson and Jansson ²⁰⁰⁹; Weeks et al. ²⁰⁰⁹; Vlot‐van et al. ²⁰²⁰). Personalization must be person‐centred, respecting privacy, autonomy and freedom of choice and control. It is crucial to respect the right of people with intellectual disabilities to decide where, how and with whom they wish to live, providing the necessary services and supports to exercise this right effectively (Kilroy et al. 2015; Bigby et al. ²⁰¹⁷; Salmon et al. ²⁰¹⁹; Verseghy et al. ²⁰¹⁹).

The study also highlights limitations in the field: the scarcity of research beyond anglophone contexts introduces significant biases, underscoring the urgent need to expand the evidence base to other social and regulatory settings. In particular, the predominance of studies conducted in the United Kingdom raises concerns about the generalizability of the findings, as UK‐specific cultural, institutional and policy factors may not be representative of broader global contexts. Consequently, future research should aim to include more diverse geographical settings in order to validate current findings and capture a wider range of experiences, regulatory environments and implementation challenges. Furthermore, the review reveals the invisibility of voices with higher support needs, as well as a persistent lack of gender perspective, inclusive language and a life course approach in much of the existing literature.

Finally, the study denounces the terminological fragmentation stemming from an exclusionary epistemology. The heterogeneity in terminology—such as ‘mental illness’, ‘cognitive disability’, ‘learning difficulty’ or ‘developmental disability’ and the varying ways in which people with intellectual disabilities are referred to (e.g., ‘participants’, ‘users’, ‘clients’ or ‘tenants’)—creates confusion, hampers conceptual clarity and limits cross‐study comparability. A situated, collaborative research agenda oriented towards spatial justice is needed—one that conceptualises housing as a site of struggle and social transformation.

In conclusion, this study not only provides a novel systematisation of key housing‐related factors but also offers a strong theoretical justification for the adoption of a contemporary environmental framework. The model based on Wright et al. (2017) enables a more interactive understanding of dwelling, moving beyond the notion of housing as mere physical shelter and reaffirming its role as a social determinant of health and well‐being.

This framework is transferable to other population groups and provides a foundation for developing coherent, adaptable and evidence‐based standards. Its findings may guide research, policy and practice to ensure that independent living and community inclusion become real, enforceable rights. Achieving this will require political commitment and sufficient resources (Hallam et al. 2002; Mansell et al. ²⁰⁰⁸; Shaw et al. ²⁰¹¹; Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Lerdo‐Tejada ²⁰¹³; Córdova‐Vega, Jenaro‐Río, Flores‐Robaina, Cruz‐Ortiz, Morillo‐Quesen ²⁰¹³), as well as a collaborative approach involving governments, organisations and civil society—recognising people with intellectual disabilities as full citizens with equal rights.

Ethics Statement

This is a systematic review and no human ethics approval was required.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Quesada‐Cubo, M. , Iáñez‐Domínguez A., and Díaz‐Jiménez R. M.. 2025. “Inclusive Housing Environments for People With Intellectual Disabilities: Systematic Review of Characteristics and Influencing Factors.” Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 38, no. 6: e70142. 10.1111/jar.70142.

Data Availability Statement

Data available on request from the authors.