Olav Rand Bringa is credited with bringing a universal design approach to Norwegian planning regulations back in 1999. The result was a forward thinking document, Norway Universally Designed 2025. Bringa has followed the evolution of universal design thinking for 25 years until his retirement last year.
Bringa has given a lot of thought to the evolution of the universal design concept, the language we use, and it’s application. He was part of the early movement and wrote about the processes in, Universal Design and Visitability: from Accessibility to Zoning (page 97). Although it began with the built environment it soon included the digital world.
Here are past posts that refer to Bringa’s work and the landmark document Norway Universally Designed 2025.
Norway universally designed by 2025
The Norwegian Government took the principles of universal design and applied them across all policies to create maximum inclusion. This made everyone responsible for inclusion at every level – in the built environment, outdoor areas, transport, and ICT.
In 2008, Norway launched its first Action Plan 2009-2013 with the goal of a universally designed Norway by 2025.
The focus on was on people with disability, accessible built environments and minimising discrimination. The plan covered the actions of the public service and all ministries. “The Government’s work is based on universal design. Universal design is an expression of a value put on equality by society.“
In 2010, Norway amended its Planning and Building Act, among others, to include universal design. The plan was to take a staged approach to upgrading public buildings and spaces.
The Delta Centre took responsibility to coordinate the actions in Norway’s 2015-2019 plan in 2016. This plan covers ICT and communications to a more detailed level.
Olav Rand Bringa provides extra insights in his paper, From Visions to Practical Policy: The Universal Design Journey in Norway. What did We learn? What did we gain? And what now?
He outlines the remaining barriers to implementation along with the successes. This paper draws together Bringa’s extensive experience in the field of universal design.
A guide for universal design is not enough
Guides give guidance, but you need to know the point of universal design. Knowing the point is a key success factor in taking a universal design approach. That’s why a guide is not enough – you need to know the point of it.
The point is inclusion – it’s about society, not just design. The focus on compliance with standards does not tell you the reason, only what to do. An article in Citylab provides some examples of how Norwegian designers are embracing the principles of universal design.
St Olav’s Hospital in Trondheim is a good example of implementing universal design across the whole hospital setting. That’s from the outdoor and external features through to the internal design. The Chief Architect says, “Guidelines are not enough, you need clear intentions. You have to know what’s the point of this”.
“It looks like a nice urban environment,” said Onny Eikhaug, Program Leader at the Norway Design Council. “It doesn’t look like a hospital, it doesn’t smell like a hospital.” DOGA, The Innovation Award for Universal Design.
Accessibility by another name – does it work?
Norway uses the term “accessible” to signify solutions specifically for people with disability when not required generally in the population. An interesting distinction by Olav Rand Bringa using his 20 years of experience working in the field of universal design.
Bringa says succinctly, “The term accessibility for people with disabilities does not broadcast an understanding of qualities beyond the targeted user group”. Consequently other terms try to compensate for this. The image is of the Olso Opera House with a universally graded access.
However, it is difficult to move away from “accessibility” because it is perpetuated in legal and other statutory documents. Bringa writes thoughtfully about the issues of getting language right to get inclusion right. An important contribution to the quest for inclusive societies. The title of the article is, Universal Design as a Technical Norm and Juridical Term – A Factor of Development or Recession? it’s open access.
From the abstract
Norway introduced universal design as an ideological and technical concept in Norway in 1996. Since then universal design has replaced accessibility for people with disabilities in national policies, laws, regulations, standards, projects and everyday language.
“Accessibility” characterises solutions made more exclusively for people with disabilities. Few countries have made extensive use of the concept of universal design with challenges from lawmakers, architects, economists, user organizations, and entrepreneurs.
This paper reflects on more than 20 years of extensive use of the concept of universal design. It asks the question: Is universal design an academic invention with little extra positive impact compared to accessibility for people with disability? Or does the concept defend its supposed role as a step towards a society with equal opportunities for all?
Legal documents favour visible disabilities
Previous papers have highlighted successes and where there is room for improvement. A 2024 Norwegian study looks at universal design through a legislative lens and finds legal documents favour visible disabilities.
In more recent years, people with invisible disabilities have raised their voices in the disability rights movement. However, their voices are yet to be incorporated into legislative documents.
Historically, people with mobility and vision impairments led the way in disability rights. Consequently, legilsation was formed with their needs in mind.
The Norwegian researchers wanted to find out if there is a “disability prestige” at play. This is where some disabilities count more than others. Or is it something as basic as just having your disability visible to others? The researchers concluded that visibility was more important to explain discrimination between groups.
In Australia the Access to Premises Standard also favours people with mobility and vision impairments.
The context of the study was transport. They discuss the wording of documents and how terms such as “reduced mobility” are interpreted. It can mean a person with a physical and/or a cognitive impairment. In legislation, it is most often linked to bodily movement.
Prestige versus visibility
Mobility impairments are mentioned more frequently than other disabilities in Norwegian documents. Vision impairments, also frequently mentioned, come in second. The conclusion is that discrimination between disability types is mostly explained by the visibility of a disability.
Why does this matter? When provision for other disabilities and long term health conditions are absent in legal documents, businesses and services don’t consider them.
The title is, How laws of universal design discriminate between different types of disabilities – Lessons learned from Norway.