Grant Maynard says that using the word ‘inclusive’ is leaving out people with disability. Racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia and transphobia are taking the spotlight. Events that celebrate the International Day of People with Disability cater specifically for people with disability. So is this a good thing on just one day of the year?
In the week of International Day of People with Disability, “I can rock up to any advertised event confidently, knowing it will be accessible and affordable.”
Start times, access information, wheelchair accessibility and bathroom availability will be clearly set out. Maynard says, “then, like magic, the conversations and accessibility stop.” He calls it pinkwashing for people with disabilities.
It’s a tokenistic gesture that doesn’t translate to long-term positive outcomes. One day does not make a difference in and of itself.
When the term ‘neurodiversity’ entered our language it gave us a new world view and perspective on humanity and diversity. It challenges the notion that there is such as thing as a ‘standard’ brain. Design disciplines have seen opportunity in sustainable design. Now there is opportunity in neurodiverse design.
Workplaces should design for brains not just for bodies. But what does that look like? Big companies like Deloitte and EY are re-shaping their workplaces. Image of EY Perth office.
Neurodiverse design in architecture
An article in The Fifth Estate by Catherine Carter takes up the topic of neurodiversity and architecture. Current estimates are that around 15-20 percent of the global population is neurodivergent. This means their brains process information differently from the ‘typical’ population. Consequently, they may perceive and interact differently with their surroundings.
Carter says the best designs won’t be where differences coexist, but where they are celebrated. They will include spaces that avoid harsh lighting, distracting noise and visual clutter. Flexible layout with distinct zones and quiet areas, and collaborative spaces to suit tasks and moods are also helpful. Natural elements such as plants and organic materials help reduce cognitive load.
One of the big consulting firms, EY has established 23 Neurodiverse Centers of Excellence where tech people work on complex projects. EY is also redesigning their offices with soundproof spaces, enhanced lighting and signage.
Deloitte claims to have found five key drivers that neurodivergent thinkers bring to problem solving. Cognitive diversity can drive new ideas and counter groupthink. Neurodivergent people often have intense focus to push through setbacks and overcome problems.
Building for brains not bodies
Designing for neurodivergent employees means that everyone benefits. Who doesn’t like a comfortable office with plants and soundproofing? As an AI-powered future looms, workplaces are shapeshifting again. Places need to nurture minds of employees, not just their bodies. People have more flexibility today in how and where they work. Let’s design for that and for the diversity of the population.
Policy decisions to provide fare free public transport is based on the assumption that it will reduce car use. However, several case studies show this is not the case. Car owners are strongly connected to their vehicles for many reasons. While more journeys might be made on free transport, it could lead to walking less. Nevertheless, free public transport is good for people on low incomes.
Fare-free public transport does not necessarily lead to less car use. However, it does lead to more people making more journeys. But what about social outcomes?
Free transport as social justice
A research paper from Norway looks as the impact of free public transport on social outcomes. In the process, it looks at case studies is several cities across the world. The paper covers attitudes towards free transport, accessibility, and the impact on travel behaviour.
Positive outcomes included benefits to low income people in most case studies, but not to increased employment. One of the findings is that when free transport is provided, it does not, by itself, equalise mobility for people. It’s much more complex than that.
Social plus environmental policy
The research paper turns to Stavanger, a large city in Norway that is committed to reducing their carbon footprint. Significant progress is underway with electric buses, intelligent traffic lights, and parking solutions. Cars, cyclists, buses, and pedestrians all have to be managed for the best outcomes for all.
Norway has an overarching policy of implementing universal design principles in the built environment, digital technology, and services. Consequently, transport accessibility is at a higher level than most other countries.
Rather than a widespread move away from driving, current transit users just used it more. However, the case studies generally show a small shift away from car use. Image from Life in Norway.
Service quality such as comfort and frequency needed to be carefully managed to retain customer satisfaction. This in turn can lead to greater costs in expanding and maintaining infrastructure. Nevertheless, people on low incomes can get about more easily and increase participation in everyday activities.
Respondents in the Stavanger study found financial barriers were removed with free transport. This enabled them to access healthcare, education and job possibilities. In the Stavanger case, the public awareness campaign was successful in encouraging a shift away from private vehicles. Emphasis on service quality is needed to continue this success.
From the conclusion
In Stavanger, free public transport advanced accessibility, public transport use, and social welfare outcomes. It has potential as a game-changing urban transportation policy. However, investments in infrastructure, service quality, and integration with more comprehensive urban planning initiatives are necessary to guarantee long-term sustainability.
Utilising technology such as Intelligent Transportation Systems and real-time updates will optimise services and improve user experience. Targeted education programs to highlight the advantages of public transport can encourage people to switch from driving their cars.
Working together with neighborhood organizations, businesses, and educational institutions can help to further promote public transportation as an accessible, equitable, and sustainable mode of transportation for all groups. Stavanger’s experience serves as a model for communities looking for fair and environmentally friendly transportation options.
Based on evidence, Philip Taylor’s blog article busts some well-worn myths about ageing and work. Population ageing has led to a lot of debate about prolonging working lives to reduce pension costs. There’s also much said about labour shortages as many current workers retire. But older people say they are discriminated against in the workplace. So, what is the reality?
International evidence challenges the current assumptions and misconceptions about older people and work. Age discrimination can happen at any age.
Taylor’s article goes right to the point in dispelling eight myths about discrimination only happening to older people. The research references are included in the article. Here are the myths in brief.
The myths
Myth 1: Age discrimination is only experienced by older people. Younger people also report discrimination based on age. Paradoxically, older people may also be perpetrators of age discrimination, including other older people.
Myth 2: Generations have different orientations to work. Employee life stage and competing home life responsibilities at any age are key – not generation. Claims that one generation has ‘better’ attributes than another are not helpful for workplace managers.
Myth 3: Older people are a homogenous group. Older and younger people have different aspects of their identity that impact their work experience of inclusion and exclusion. People are not one dimensional at any age. Should we, therefore, even talk about ‘older workers’ or just talk about workers or staff?
Myth 4: Older workers outperform younger ones in terms of reliability, loyalty, work ethic and life experience. Performance is unrelated to age. Addressing ageism with these stereotypes is no good for either older or younger people. Job performance varies more between people of the same age than between different ages.
Myth 5: Older people have a lifetime of experience that managers should recognise. It’s not experience itself that’s valuable, it’s relevant experience. It’s too easy to see older people as societal perceptions of ‘the past’ and not able to contribute to the future.
Myth 6: Younger workers are more dynamic, entrepreneurial, and tech-savvy than older workers. People should not be assumed to have (or not have) a given quality just because of their age. Workers of various ages may have similar skills, attributes and experiences.
Myth 7: Younger workers feel entitled and won’t stick around. In reality younger workers are more likely to be in insecure employment and to experience unemployment. Age has little to do with commitment to work. Youth unemployment rates are often higher than those of older people.
Myth 8: Older people who stay on at work are taking jobs from younger people. Evidence is that when employment rates increase for older people, they also increase for younger people. So age may have no effect. One is not substituting the other.
In summary
Ageism can happen at any age and using stereotypes is unhelpful at both ends of the age spectrum. Pitting generations against each other doesn’t engender an inclusive workplace approach for either management or staff. The focus on discrimination of older people in the workplace leaves younger people invisible in the discourse.
The title of this informative article is,Myth busting aging at work. You will re-think the way ageism is applied – it’s about all ages. After all, we are all in this together.
Mainstream housing remains one of the last areas to be subject to mandated universal design principles or access standards. Public infrastructure, such as commercial buildings, shopping centres and transport, is subject to at least some basic access requirements. Regardless of the evidence of social and economic benefits, mainstream housing developers remain resistant to change.
A conference paper from Ireland adds to the existing literature on why universally designed homes are good for everyone. The paper is a prelude to a larger study with a detailed cost benefit analysis.
There is a substantial body of evidence indicating that investment in universally designed homes can result in savings in other areas of expenditure.
Investment in universally designed homes is particularly cost effective when compared to age-specific housing and long term residential care. Reduction in injurious falls is a saving for the health budget as well as quality of life for the occupant.
The authors cite research by others on the economic value of universal design which indicate the benefits outweigh the costs. Consequently, policy interventions to encourage construction of accessible housing are justified. However, future research should include longitudinal studies to assess the full impact of benefits.
This paper examines the social value and economic benefits of Universal Design (UD) Homes. It focuses on assessing the potential financial savings arising in various areas of expenditure due to investment in UD Homes. Investment in the provision of UD Homes can result in improved quality of life and more cost-effective forms of investment.
UD Homes are particularly cost-effective in the context of age friendly housing. It has the potential to reduce the need for long-term residential care and to avoid injurious falls.
Note: This research underpins a forthcoming cost benefit analysis (CBA) under development by the Irish National Disability Authority (NDA). This paper and the associated CBA research have been informed by a comprehensive stakeholder consultation process. This includes persons with disabilities and older persons, Disabled Persons’ Organisations (DPOs), Approved Housing Bodies, Irish Local Authority representatives, officials of housing and disability policy focussed Government departments and other public bodies, academics and industry representatives.
Established public transportation systems are built on roads and rail: buses, trams and trains with fixed routes. Digital technology has brought some disruptive features to the mobility landscape. Rideshare, demand-responsive transport, and Mobility as a Service are examples of systems that rely on digital technology. Digital mobility users are a diverse group but what about those who are left out?
The rapid advancement of digital technology has led to a shift of travel habits. New business models have emerged along with transport patterns. But what if you can’t use this technology?
The race for improvements in digital services is good news for experienced users, but such improvements are lost on others. Exclusion arises from online only services, access to a suitable device, and ability to use the technology. Prior experience or negative attitudes are also a barrier to inclusion.
According to the literature, the main reasons for digital exclusion are:
Age – being older is related to lower levels of tech use
Income level – affordability of devices
Gender – women underestimate their skills
Education level – correlated with digital skills
Place of residence – rural / urban divide
Disability – physical ability to use transport and apps
Migrant status – linguistic and cultural differences
Can personas explain diversity for designers?
In a case study, researchers found that only about 10% of the population uses the new mobility solutions regularly. So they devised 8 personas to see if this was a way of helping designers improve their applications.
Their research paper explains how the they devised the personas based on population data. They claim this is a new method for developing personas specifically for analysing the digital divide in mobility. While 90% of people had no problem using the internet regularly, around 15% had serious issues with mobility related technology.
The researchers were able to identify “pain points” for users and highlight the main limitations users have while using digital mobility solutions. Peoples’ motivations and attitudes also play an important role in the uptake of this technology.
Addressing digital exclusion requires an understanding of the factors leading to it. In this paper, we explore to what extent new digital mobility solutions can be considered inclusive. First we take into account the diverse perspectives of the users of transport services.
We present a set of personas which are derived from a population survey of a Barcelona metropolitan area. From this we gained an understanding of end user needs and capabilities in digital mobility. Overall, roughly 15% of this population cannot access and effectively use digital technologies, thereby hindering their use of many digital mobility services.
This work provides information about the diversity of potential users by analysing different stories and travel experiences of the personas; this in turn can inspire decision makers, developers, and other stakeholders along the design process. The methodological approach for developing personas could be also potentially useful for mobility service providers and policymakers who aim to create more inclusive and user-centred transport ecosystems that meet the needs of diverse users.
Amnesty International has created a list of five inclusive language tips that puts the person first rather than how society defines them. The five elements are pronouns, gender, First Nations Peoples, cultural diversity, and disability. The aim of this list is to help create a culture of respect and inclusion.
“Inclusive language is language free from words, phrases or tones that reflect prejudiced, stereotyped or discriminatory views of particular people or groups.”
How people use pronouns for themselves and others has changed significantly in recent years. If you are not sure what someone’s pronoun is, ask respectfully and preferably privately. Avoid ask “What pronouns do you prefer?” because their pronouns and identity are not a preference.
The list of tips gives examples of language to use and avoid in relation to gender-specific terms. Many of these are commonly understood now.
The section on First Nations Peoples has a longer list of language to avoid. A lesser known aspect is using generic terms that excludes the lived experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. Comments such as ‘all Australians have access to quality medical care’ excludes their lived experience.
More than 30% of Australia’s population was born overseas. Asking where a person is from can make them feel set apart from others. Avoid referring to their ethnic or racial background unless there is a valid or legal reason for doing so.
The section on disability and accessibility covers the usual material. Avoid language that implies heroism or victim status. If it is not necessary to acknowledge that a person has a disability then don’t mention it. A list of language to use and avoid is included here.
The title of the blog article is 5 Inclusive Language Tips You Need to Know About. Of course, people can fall into more than one of the five groups. Take care not to miss one while focusing on another.
The design of playspace equipment and landscape design need to go together for a universally designed play experience. Everyone should have the opportunity to experience a variety of challenging and engaging play experiences. To be inclusive, most equipment should be designed to suit both adults and children. The New South Wales Government has a section in it’s very successful Everyone Can Play guide on play equipment and universal design.
Play equipment is an important part of the play experience and needs to be considered as part of the overall design of a playspace. Consequently, the overall landscape plan and the equipment must work together.
This section of the NSW Planning website also explains the difference between inclusive and accessible design. Accessibility is commonly associated with mobility standards and safety compliance. In playspaces, access standards are important for aspects such as surfacing, equipment design and toilets. Inclusive playspaces go beyond the basics of accessibility.
Typical inclusive play equipment includes a flush carousel, hammock or basket swing, in-ground trampolines, and ramp access to a feature structure. Theme play equipment and use colour palettes that respond to the local context. And ensure surface treatments are easy to use and accessible.
The key point is to do the best you can with the resources available regardless of location or size of the playspace. The guidance lists design steps which includes the six design principle in the Everyone Can Play guide. Not mentioned, but implicit in the guide is to involve the local community in the design of the playspace.
Universal design and play
The NSW Department of Planning website also has a section on inclusive design in relation to playspaces. It covers the definition, who it serves, and why inclusive playspaces are important. The NSW Department of Planning has changed its terminology from the first iteration of Everyone Can Play from universal design to inclusive design. This is to fit with their other planning policies.
Inclusive play spaces are easy to access, have a range of play options and facilities to create a comfortable environment. The key questions are: Can I get there? Can I play? Can I stay? These questions underpin the whole design.
Inclusive playspaces provide a welcoming place where everyone feels comfortable and can enjoy play experiences together. A sub section of the webpage includes an explanation of universal design and how it informs the Everyone Can Play Guide.
Universal design, as a general concept across all aspects of design isn’t always connected to universal design for learning (UDL). The ‘average’ learner is a myth. Together, the learners previously labelled as in the minority are collectively the majority. That’s why we need to join the dots between universal design and UDL.
“Learners today are not a homogeneous group, instead they bring a variety of rich cultures, abilities, multiple and intersectional identities, varied lived experiences, and educational backgrounds.”
An opinion piece by Tracy Galvin discusses the role universal design and UDL in tertiary education. With financial pressures across the education sector globally, the answers aren’t simple. The focus is on profit making, the reduction in government funding and the shift toward competition, marketisation and privatisation of education. That means learners have become consumers.
Learners who cannot readily consume market model education services are more likely to be left out. However, inclusive education is a basic human right that aligns with the sustainable development goals. The updated CAST UDL Guidelinesattempt to address critical barriers rooted in biases and systems of exclusion.
Making UDL part of other asset-based approaches to learning frameworks
Emphasising identity and intersectionality as part of diversity
Acknowledging individual and systemic biases as barriers to learning
Shifting from educator-centred to learner-centred language.
This opinion piece aims to frame the changing nature of tertiary education by advocating a shared unified inclusive approach through a UD/UDL lens. Learning environments, staff development, structures, processes and technologies need an inclusive practice lens.
There will always be structural societal factors at play, but there’s an opportunity to move towards a shift to find a balance. The paradigms of capitalism and privatisation continue to dominate. A universal design approach can mitigate those extremes and bring them closer to a social model of education.
Across institutions there are many inclusion allies, advocates, initiatives, strategies, policies and professional development supports. So why are so many learners leaving courses, not engaging, not attending and not seeing the value of education?
Is it the pendulum shift toward marketisation, commercialisation and privatisation? Learners are not seeing institutions as spaces and places of equity and justice any more. Do they see factories where money needs to cross hands? Where on this spectrum is the balance for enhancement? Could universal design and universal design for learning be at least the starting point?
The diversity of learners is due to international students, refugees, asylum seekers, neurodivergent learners, carers, and disabled learners. We know this variability exists with the increase in learners registered with the disability or wellbeing services. While variability and diversity should be celebrated it requires adequate resources and funding.
A literature review from Norway takes an older person’s view of transport equity and accessibility. Being able get out and about on a daily basis to shop, visit friends, and medical appointments is essential for everyone. As people age, this ability becomes even more important in terms of maintaining health and independence. The review proposes that local government implement universal design for mobility.
Older people who do not have access to private transport need to use public transport. Yet they face barriers in the built environment and public transportation infrastructure such as:
Poorly built public vehicles and road systems
Insecure and unsafe services
Lack of wayfinding and walkability assistance
Reduced accessible transportation options
Undesirable attitudes of the general public.
The research paper covers the method for the literature review and the search terms used. A three tiered system is one way of solving the problem. First, a traditional fixed route service that suits people with no, or low level limitations. Second, fixed route services offering some flexibility with low floor buses. The third option is a special transport service. The bottom line is that a “one size fits all” is not the answer.
Implementing an equitable mobility design involves an integrated method to address the weaknesses of traditional design approaches. However, this requires a user-centred approach that involves older peoples’ requirements. Hence a universal design approach with co-design methods.
Several factors impact the mobility of older people: psychological state, health, and physical ability that can vary from day to day.
“Thus, for any public transportation system to achieve social inclusion or equity and equality its accessibility must be universal for everyone in society.”
Conclusions
The research paper compares policies and strategies in the UK, Canada and European countries. Investment at a local level is essential for features such as wind shelters, accessible vehicles, level footpaths, and appropriate ways to provide transport information.
Another paper that recommends that the design of public spaces should consider older people at the outset of the design. That is, they should involve older people in the design and redesign of pedestrian and walkway networks. The findings highlight how to employ universal design for mobility equity and compare mobility policies for older people.
People above 65 years of age often have limits to accessing the local environment and participation in society. Their ability to travel independently and freely to participate in society is crucial for their quality of life. The question of how to maintain mobility equity and equality for older people is, however, a complex one.
This is because older people are often faced with physical barriers around the public transportation and built environment. Municipalities have not involved older people in the design of mobility accessibility initiatives.
The findings from our study present factors influencing local environment in achieving mobility equity from the perspectives of older people. Evidence underpins guidelines grounded in a universal design framework to help inform urban transport policies.
Age Friendly Ecosystems: A book
This book examines age friendliness from a place-based approach. It looks at neighbourhoods, campuses and health environments. The topics covered are:
Creating an Age-Friendly Environment Across the Ecosystem
Age Friendliness as a Framework for Equity in Aging
Age-Friendly Voices in the Pursuit of an Age-Friendly Ecosystem
Age-Friendly Futures: Equity by Design
The book emphasises the connection between design and health, examines the age-friendly movement and resources for equity and environmental justice. The full title is, Age-Friendly Ecosystems for Equitable Aging by Design. This is not open access.
