Background & Objectives: Despite significant advances in architecture and urban planning, public spaces—particularly administrative buildings—have largely been designed and constructed based on visually oriented principles to accommodate sighted users. However, people with visual impairments, as integral members of society, also require equitable access to public and administrative services. Despite international and national mandates that emphasize barrier–free environments, the majority of office buildings in Iran remain predominantly visually oriented, thereby creating profound perceptual, navigational, and functional obstacles for users with visual impairments. Blind individuals depend on a constellation of non–visual sensory modalities—including tactile, auditory, olfactory, and thermal cues, as well as proprioceptive feedback—to construct cognitive maps, orient themselves, and interact safely with built environments. Insufficient tactile indicators, limited auditory guidance, poorly defined spatial hierarchies, and a lack of coherent multisensory cues undermine their functional independence and overall quality of life. Accordingly, the present study was conducted to investigate multisensory design as an effective strategy for overcoming the sensory–perceptual barriers experienced by people who are blind in administrative environments and to develop a practical framework for the design of such spaces.

Methods: A sequential exploratory mixed–methods design was adopted. In the qualitative phase, data were collected through 15 in–depth, semi–structured interviews with blind individuals, architects, rehabilitation specialists, and experts from the State Welfare Organization, selected through purposive snowball sampling. Additionally, field observations were conducted in five government offices identified as high–use facilities for blind visitors. Qualitative analysis followed the Constructivist Grounded Theory approach, consisting of open, axial, and selective coding. MAXQDA 2020 facilitated data management and coding reliability, with inter–coder agreement confirmed using Cohen’s kappa (κ=0.89), indicating excellent reliability. In the quantitative phase, the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) was applied to prioritize the multisensory criteria identified in the qualitative stage. A fuzzy pairwise–comparison questionnaire was administered to 45 experts, of whom 30 provided valid responses that were analyzed. Content validity was established through expert review (CVI=0.90), and internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha (α=0.92). As FAHP is a multi–criteria decision–making technique rather than a hypothesis–testing procedure, p–values are not applicable. Instead, statistical soundness was demonstrated through the Consistency Ratio (CR=0.076), which was well below the acceptable threshold (0.10), reflecting strong coherence in expert judgments.

Results: The qualitative phase yielded 128 initial codes, 18 conceptual categories, and six overarching themes: physical–sensory dimensions, communication systems, spatial organization, psychological–social factors, managerial–executive factors, and environmental–contextual factors. Physical–sensory dimensions (importance coefficient=0.289) and communication systems (0.281) emerged as the most influential drivers of multisensory design. FAHP results ranked tactile indicators on floors and walls as the highest–priority criterion (weight=0.218), followed by auditory guidance systems (0.191) and simple, legible spatial organization (0.173). Olfactory cues (0.142), distinct tactile materials (0.135), and thermal–airflow variations (0.121) followed in descending order. Within tactile indicators, raised guiding strips showed the greatest local weight (0.352; global=0.077), followed by tactile warning surfaces (0.289; global=0.063), Braille signage (0.194; global=0.042), and tactile maps (0.165; global=0.036). Integrating both methodological strands resulted in a three–tier multisensory design model: (1) sensory infrastructure (combined weight=0.672), including tactile and auditory systems; (2) spatial cognition mechanisms (0.406), emphasizing legibility, predictability, and coherent circulation; and (3) supportive environmental cues (0.231), such as olfactory markers, thermal gradients, and airflow consistency. Model robustness was affirmed through convergent validity and reliability measures (CVI=0.90; KMO=0.87; CR=0.086).

Conclusion: Adopting a multisensory design approach in administrative environments, through the simultaneous and purposeful use of the remaining senses of people who are blind, can play an effective strategic role in enhancing their accessibility, navigation, and independent use. Therefore, it is recommended that the architectural design regulations for administrative buildings be revised with an emphasis on multisensory design principles and that the necessary mechanisms for supervision and training also be established.