How stores fighting thieves risk putting off shoppers with disabilities and kids

“Welcome”, the sign at the supermarket entrance says, above a drawing of a shopper walking in and pushing a trolley.

But for many shoppers – especially those with wheelchairs, walkers or pushing kids in prams – it looks anything but welcoming.

Ten white batons stretch into the middle of the entryway, which you have to push through to enter. A Reddit user^[1] snapped the photo at a Woolworths store in suburban Melbourne this month and it soon went viral^[2].

According to Woolworths, it’s a trial at just one store^[3], being tested to see if deters thieves.

Retail theft is a huge, growing problem^[4] in Australia. There were more than 268,000 cases of theft in retail settings^[5] last year, according to data released in September. That came after 2024 research found record levels^[6] of shoplifting, employee theft, fraud and customer aggression costing up to A$7.79 billion.

Woolworths is not alone in trialling^[7] tougher physical security measures; other supermarkets here and in New Zealand have used this style of entry before. Kmart^[8], Bunnings^[9] and other retailers are also testing new styles of security gates.

But as researchers in disability discrimination and inclusive planning, this new Woolworths entry appears to be the most overtly hostile – and potentially unsafe – design we’ve seen in Australian retail to date.

If this is where retail security is headed, it could have unwelcome, unintended consequences for millions of Australians.

One design does not fit all

More than one in five Australians – around 5.5 million people^[10] – have a disability of some kind. This includes millions of older Australians. More than half^[11] of Australia’s 4.2 million people^[12] aged 65 and over live with disabilities. Others also live with chronic health conditions^[13].

Then there are around 1.5 million kids^[14] aged four or under, many of them pushed around in strollers.

Some of those millions of people may feel fine and be able to walk upright through a baton barrier entry.

But what if you’re a parent pushing a toddler in a low stroller^[15]? Or in a wheelchair and using walking sticks (like Lisa)? Or totally blind and using a guide dog (like Paul)? Would you feel comfortable using that trial Woolworths entrance?

The day-to-day reality millions of Australians live with is that too many public places^[16] are not designed^[17] with us in mind.

Read more: What does a building need to call itself 'accessible' – and is that enough?^[18]

Why do ‘universal’ vs ‘hostile design’ matter?

The idea of “universal design^[19]” is design for everyone: our different sizes, ages and bodies, and the different ways we think, feel and experience space.

When we start from that perspective, we end up designing spaces that work better and are safe for everyone.

In contrast to universal design, “hostile^[20]” or “defensive architecture^[21]” is when you design something to deter antisocial behaviour, often justified as crime prevention measures. Examples of hostile design include:

• benches with armrests in the middle of the seat to stop anyone lying down

• metal studs on ledges, windowsills, or under bridges deter sitting or sleeping.

• concrete seating or “leaning benches^[22]”, so people can’t sit or linger long.