Are the lives of children really considered in our planning processes? The main reason for not walking to school is not the distance. There are several other factors at play here, particularly safety. However, getting to school and other activities is not a priority in land use and transport planning. Consequently, many schools are not conveniently and safely accessible by footpath or public transport. Result – they are reliant on cars.
Traffic, personal safety, convenience in busy schedules, lack of safe, reliable public transport are key issues. Consequently, driving is seen as the only viable option to ensure children arrive safely and on time.
Hulya Gilbert and Ian Woodcock discuss the issues in an article in The Fifth Estate. Road trauma is the leading cause of death for 1-14 year olds. That’s one issue. The other is that using the car for safety and convenience reduces physical activity. Getting to school on foot is good for gaining independence and opens up opportunities for social interaction.
School drop-off danger zone
Poor planning on the placement of schools often results in chaotic and dangerous school drop-offs. Gilbert and Woodcock say the afternoon pick ups are the most dangerous of all. Local school travel plans attempt to overcome some of the issues, but it is a piecemeal approach.
An alternative approach: Child Friendly Index
With a focus on population ageing there is a risk of leaving children out of urban planning decisions. However, what is good for children is good for everyone. Gilbert and Woodcock have devised a Child-Friendliness Index which combines social and built environment attributes. The Index demonstrates that areas with higher levels of friendliness have higher levels of walking, cycling and public transport when accessing schools.
The Index enhances understanding of what attributes make a ‘local school’. It provides concrete pointers towards specific actions and interventions. As such it supports the development of clear polices so that children can reach a wider range of environments.
Once again, designing for a marginalised group has benefits for everyone. Children should always be part of a universal design approach. Their experiences matter too.
Universal design in its broadest sense is about social sustainability. As such it links closely with other sustainability concepts such as “green” building and healthy cities. Sustainable design is like universal design because it is good design. That means it is less likely to be noticed until it’s not there. Four articles explain more on this topic.
Can universal design create social sustainability?
Applying the principles of universal design at the formation stage of planning can lead to harmonious, accessible, sustainable and healthy cities. This is the conclusion of a European study.
The study looked at the design and development of city space from the perspective of the varying levels of human capabilities. The overall aim of the research was to raise the quality of urban planning, and to develop tools for healthy cities compatible with the principles of sustainability. You can download the PDF of Sustainable Urban Development: Spatial Analyses as Novel Tools for Planning a Universally Designed City, by Joanna Borowczyk.
Forgotten social sustainability
When it comes to sustainability, how many people think about social sustainability as well? Environments and people are inter-linked. The Sustainable Development Goals make this clear and one unifying factor is universal design. A new book chapter investigates the issues further.
“In this chapter, Rieger and Iantkow discuss socially sustainable design, especially its emphasis on universal and inclusive design. They present a history of thinking on accessible design in Alberta, which has moved toward greater inclusion. They also explain the incorporation of these concepts in design education and a greater social consciousness toward the need for accessibility. However, they stress that this isn’t enough.
Sustainability from an ergonomic perspective
The focus of sustainability has been on energy efficiency and all things “green”. But sustainability should have a broader context argues Erminia Attaianese. She claims that this narrow focus is paradoxical as maximising the building’s efficiency is not always maximising the comfort and efficiency of the building’s occupants.
“Green” buildings are often labelled and measured as “sustainable” but social sustainability is missing from the list. True sustainability includes social, economic and environmental factors. The US LEED green building rating system uses the term “sustainable throughout but is focused more on environmental factors. This is confusing because green is not the same as sustainable.
Stella Shao in a thesis poster says that as a consequence we are getting “energy efficient buildings that are not designed for people”. Prioritising social sustainability is good for people and the planet.
Using the Tulsa City-County Library as an example of sustainable design Shao lists three key factors for social sustainability
Comfort rooms for people who are neurodivergent, nursing, overstimulated, or need privacy for religious rituals.
Universal wayfinding to help orient people to make the space legible for people of different cultures, languages and abilities.
Comfort options for visual, acoustic and spatial comfort so every visitor can find a space comfortable for them.
Image from the poster
Shao’s literature review for this study revealed very few research articles on this topic which meant there was no best practice to refer to.
While green buildings today are labeled as “sustainable,” many fall short on social sustainability metrics. This study examines what the current state of research and development is on social sustainability in green buildings and what the best practices are.
Green building rating systems are a major trend in the academic research. However, they are criticized for valuing environmental sustainability over social sustainability. Document analysis confirms that LEED, the most widely used green building rating system, does not adequately address social sustainability.
The LEED-certified Tulsa City-County Library demonstrates how to properly balance social and environmental sustainability in a building. Recommendations are made for future green buildings based on the data collected.
An article focused on the social dimension of sustainability says that universal design is the way to go. It argues that there are promising results for a better future for social sustainability. In doing so, it presents universal design in all its formats in a clear and informed way. The way in which universal design is presented and discussed has particular clarity. For example,
“Universal design is always accessible, but because it integrates accessibility from the beginning of the design process, it is less likely to be noticeable.
Universal design sometimes employs adaptable strategies for achieving customization, but it is best when all choices are presented equally. Some universal design is transgenerational, but the approach is inclusive of more than just age-related disabilities.
Universal design is sometimes adaptable and sometimes transgenerational but always accessible. Universal design, adaptable design, and transgenerational design are all subsets of accessible design. Sometimes a design can be considered to be two of these subsets, and some designs are all three. Not all accessible design is universal. Universal design is the most inclusive and least stigmatizing of the three types of accessible design because it addresses all types of human variation and accessibility is integrated into design solutions.”
The paper concludes that design schools should include the philosophy of universal design throughout their education program.
Despite of the number of people injured in the Iran-Iraq war, and legislation for accessibility, urban spaces in Tehran still have a long way to go.
Hence this article outlining research on finding solutions for increasing access in the built environment. The research asks: What is causing inefficiency in the regulation of universal design, why is social participation by people with disabilities limited, and which factors are contributing to universal design? It seems the issues are worldwide regardless of whether the population is affected by war.
The consequences show that many of problems are rooted in cultural issues. The people must attend to disability as a public concern which can involve everybody. They must comprehend that all members of society, regardless of their physical condition, have the right to use public facilities independently.
The second problem is related to lack of any integrated approach to applying universal design. This research proposes some solutions such as preparation a universal design master plan, an integrated approach for implementation project in all organizations, and public education for improving citizens’ knowledge about universal design.
The smart city concept offers promising solutions using technology to optimise infrastructure and services. However, whether people with disability and others will benefit is unknown. Data insights and assistive technology should offer solutions for inclusive environments, but do they? Researchers in the UK outline the challenges for people with disability and explore the role of smart solutions in urban planning. Based on their findings, the researchers propose policy recommendations.
Briefly the challenges are:
Physical barriers
Transportation challenges
Communication barriers
Social isolation
Emergency preparedness
Financial barriers
Policy implications and recommendations
The smart city recommendations below are explained further in the research paper.
Inclusive urban planning frameworks and ensuring access standards are always applied
Collaborative governance models, and co-design with stakeholders
Access standards and guidelines specifically for smart city initiatives for all infrastructure
Inclusive procurement practices for products and services that meet access standards
Accessible public transportation across infrastructure, system planning and services
Data privacy and security means updating privacy laws and regulations
Capacity building and training based on universal design principles and assistive technology
Funding mechanisms to ensure dedicated funding streams are available for innovations
Prioritising accessibility in smart city initiatives can engender social inclusion and economic empowerment for all residents. Embracing universal design principles advances a more just urban future for all.
Smart cities hold great promise for revolutionising urban living. However, their potential to improve the lives of people with disabilities remains underexplored. This paper investigates the challenges faced by individuals with disabilities in everyday urban environments. It explores how smart technology can mitigate these challenges.
By leveraging data-driven insights, smart cities can create more inclusive environments that enhance the overall quality of life for people with disability. This paper discusses the various issues encountered by individuals with disabilities and proposes strategies for utilising smart technology to address these challenges effectively.
Smart cities: the road to inclusion?
The smart city is about connecting technology with urban planning. But will it solve all the accessibility and inclusion problems?
Women, children and people with disability face difficulties accessing public space. This is because of safety concerns and physical barriers in the built environment. But public space must be welcoming and meaningful for all citizens. This is where community-led activities in designing public space becomes important.
Two researchers looked at digital technologies to see how they could help reframe public space design to be more inclusive. Technology should go beyond data collection to playing a central role in promoting social responsibility. Their research established a framework for creating inclusive public spaces based on site visits and users’ opinions.
The research study emphasises the importance of involving citizens in the governance of public spaces. They provide valuable data and insights about the quality and use of these spaces.
Involving citizens in leveraging smart technology for monitoring, providing real-time information and services improves facility efficiency, and creates an eco-friendly environment.
This paper promotes the development of an urban public space that caters for a diverse community, fostering a sense of belonging and well-being for all.
London’s Smart City Strategy
Although technology offers several benefits for more inclusive and liveable environments, there are also drawbacks.
Inclusiveness is embedded in the London Smart City Strategy, but there is still room for improvement.
Improving citizen engagement through collaborations, increased transparency, and measures for preventing data misuse and misinterpretation will boost inclusiveness.
The London case study highlights the potential barriers in implementing inclusive strategies for smart cities in practice. The valuable lessons may provide good information for other cities.
City-wide technology offers hope for people with disability, but only if there is a shift towards universal design and inclusive solutions.
An article by Marcin Frackiewicz discusses the possibilities for smart and inclusive cities from a optimistic perspective of technology.
Street cameras to help keep people safe and automatic doors are commonplace technology. And newer ideas such as ridesharing are possible because of technology. Apps for real-time updates for public transport to minimise unpleasant surprises. So what else can we look forward to?
Frackiewicz claims that the use of data for fine-tune urban services enables a place for “undervalued voices”. He optimistically says smart city technology is equalising, by making sure that everyone thrives.
How to design a smart city that’s inclusive of wheelchair users? That was the challenge for a diverse group of engineers. Their project goal was to create a 3D simulation of a smart city that is sustainable and accessible as well as smart.
Underpinning their design concepts were the Sustainable Development Goals. These goals have inclusion and universal design at their heart. The team documented their project from the formation of their group through to the final creation.
Their report shows pictures of their Lego creations, sketches and artist impressions of sites. Smart services are the vision for the future, such as autonomous vehicles and how they will fit into the fabric of our community designs. They also considered smart parking, trains, trash systems and lighting.
This is a very detailed but well-laid out report. It reads more like a story, with plenty to share, including their spin-off into mobile apps. They had planned to do the final presentation using virtual reality, but COVID-19 and a university shut-down cut that short. The title of the 19MB report is, Smart City Simulator: “Phase Two” – The Wheelchair Challenge.
Oslo Metropolitan University (OsloMet) assigned a project with the aim of addressing these issues. The main part of the task was to create a wheelchair accessible Smart City, as a visual simulation. Researchers focused on wheelchair users and all kinds of limitations: blindness, deafness, mobility difficulties, old, young, and pregnant women.
Based on our results, a Lego model built by Oracle, we asked participants what belongs in a Smart City, and what challenges specifically the participants with disabilities have in their everyday life in cities.
After the research, we decided to create a Smart City in Universal Design. We implemented an electric autonomous public transport system, a smart trash system, a smart parking system and a smart lighting system.
Gender equity for women is a fine aim, but it’s not just about social attitudes or equal pay. Urban environments have a role to play when it comes to workforce participation. According to researchers in the UK, the way we design urban spaces is yet to catch up with this aim. Their paper on gender responsive urban planning takes a user-centred look at how women use urban space.
It wasn’t so long ago that women stayed home performing household tasks and walking to the shops for daily food supplies. Meanwhile, men were free to range the urban environment, assuming they were fit and able.
People produce spaces through their everyday use. Feelings of streets, squares and other spaces are important aspects in how they are experienced. This is essential knowledge for urban planners.
The researchers’ exploratory study involved participants taking a walk to a central point and then giving feedback. Accessibility, comfort, safety and convenience emerged as themes. Their research paper outlines the method in detail and poses future planning strategies.
Future planning strategies
Planning strategies identified in the study included:
Incorporating social activities, not just economic ones, that embrace diversity and promote inclusion. Temporary art spaces and pop-up streets are two examples
Seeing and being seen give a sense of safety. More lighting to illuminate dark places such as underpasses
Aesthetic features add to the sense of comfort and safety. More greenery, street furniture, attractive shopfronts artworks and fountains
In the UK shops with awnings are not commonplace, but awnings offer shelter from the weather, particularly the rain. Another simple by useful strategy to make places more welcoming.
Editor’s note on terminology: if a study is about women specifically, it should say so. “Gender responsive” studies should be seen from a broader perspective and not used as code for women. However, environments designed with women in mind will be more comfortable for more people and take in gender diverse communities.
From the abstract
This research investigates gender walks as a method for gathering knowledge in urban planning and design processes. It is about gender-sensitive design, which aims to tackle gender inequalities in cities.
Intersectional gender-aware design is complex. Therefore we look at walking – in its simplicity and effectiveness – as a responding strategy. A comparison of three existing exploratory walk insights outlines the criteria for the initial design of our walking audit method.
The knowledge gained on gender-aware planning from both urban design and sociological perspectives provide support and critique for the ongoing City Centre Transformation Programme. The aim is to optimise public spaces for women’s inclusion, safety and enjoyment.
Gender inclusivity in streetscapes
In 2010 the Los Angeles Department of Transport published a report on gender inclusivity in streetscapes and transportation planning. The findings showed women and girls, especially those on low incomes, were at a disadvantage in this car-centric city. So what to do about it? The Department of Transport devised infrastructure design strategies that also included amenities in streetscapes.
While there is discussion about gender differences in transportation needs, little improvement has been made to solve the issues. And this is not just in Los Angeles. The first transportation report,Changing Lanes, provided the baseline information. The follow up is a report, using case studies, provides design strategies.
Case studies
Five case studies from different cities informed the recommendations.
Street Lighting: Seattle
Public Seating: New York
Bus Stop Amenities: Portland, Oregon
Pedestrian Infrastructure: Minneapolis
Bicycle Infrastructure: Austin
Photo credit Steve Morgan for TriMet, Portland Oregon.
Note the small seat or shelf on the the bus stop pole. Perhaps a perch seat higher up the pole is better for people who cannot rise from a seat placed so low. The bottom right photo indicates a cycle lane between the bus shelter and the boarding platform. However, there is space for prams and wheelchairs under the shelter. Backrests on the seats would add extra comfort.
Planning recommendations
Six recommendations for improvements are based on the case studies.
Take a proactive approach to identifying deficiencies in infrastructure
Use geospatial data to prioritise
Set quantitative goals with success criteria
Establish goals between city agencies for partnerships and cooperation
Collect self-disclosed information on the gender of participants during public outreach
Include a gender equity component in project prioritisation methods
This is an easy to read report which supports other research on inclusive and accessible infrastructure. For example, wide level footpaths, kerb extensions and pedestrian safety islands.
The title of the report is Designing Streetscapes for Gender Inclusivity, published by UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies. There are some good examples applicable to many other jurisdictions.
From the abstract
Within the US, Los Angeles has been at the forefront of making efforts to factor gender inclusivity into transportation planning. In 2021, LADOT released Changing Lanes: A Gender Equity Transportation Study. This study found that LA’s current transportation system is not adequately serving low-income people of colour, women, girls, and gender diverse groups.
To address these inequities, LADOT is taking the next steps to implement gender-inclusive transportation infrastructure design strategies. This paper presents case studies that support walking, biking, rolling, and waiting.
Each case study focused on a different strategy for improving gender inclusivity in streetscape design. That is, pedestrian street lighting, public seating, bus stop amenities, pedestrian infrastructure, and bike infrastructure. The implementation of these design strategies can ensure the needs of women, girls, and gender diverse groups who rely on active transportation and public transit are met.
Imogen Howe writes that wellbeing goes beyond the physical and mental health of an individual. It is a holistic concept of health and wellness. It encompasses social connectedness, belonging and inclusion and the ability to contribute meaningfully to society. Wellbeing is also about feeling valued and respected, and environmental contextual factors such as connection to community and place. She explains wellbeing by design as:
“The relationship between the built environment and wellbeing is well known. But, when it comes to wellbeing, buildings and urban spaces frequently disappoint people with disabilities by being inaccessible, stigmatising, creating the feeling of being out-of-place, a misfit in places you have a fundamental right to be in.” Signs such as the one pictured, say that “we didn’t think about you in our design”.
Exclusion of people with disability because the problem arises from older buildings is no excuse. Howe says building upgrades are essential when considering the barriers beyond access standards. She says that designers must consider psychological and emotional aspects of wellbeing as well. It’s more than just getting into a building.
Howe also says that designers must be respectful of users’ energy and time. People with disability and/or long term health conditions have less energy available to them each day. It takes longer to do basic tasks, so they also have less time to spare. The built environment can whittle away, bit by bit, precious energy and time so there is nothing left for fun things.
The title of the article is Wellbeing for Whom? and published by the Australian Institute of Architects magazine, Architecture Bulletin.
What do you think accessibility means? Does it mean compliance with AS1428.1 or the ability to enter a building and spaces within it? Is it about usability? Even if it means all these things, the word accessibility is too limited to encompass all the considerations for people with disabilities…
Community consultation is a vexed issue when officials and community representatives interpret “consultation” in different ways. A Swedish study found, unsurprisingly, that officials expected a fast consultation process for ready-made projects. On the other hand, employees of disability groups were expecting to be more involved. They were expecting participation and partnership. The consequence is conflict.
Swedish national and local policies introduced universal design concepts to make disability part of human diversity. However, appropriately involving people with disability in decisions is another matter. Image from the article.
It is not uncommon to find unsolvable conflicts in a suburban project where planners clash with unaddressed local problems. But the result should not be a wilful dismissal of citizens’ issues. Participation should reduce the risk of contested or disregarded outcomes. However, disregarding disability issues in project development builds mistrust of local authorities.
The Swedish study examined the perception of consultation with people with disability in three Swedish cities, applying a universal design approach. The paper includes many references to the literature to support their qualitative research.
Consultation
The findings of the go-along study, and participant observation at meetings revealed a complex picture of participation styles. In one situation, the consultation expert referred to the needs of people with disability as “opposing interests”. The consultant treated the workshop as an opportunity for them to “blow off steam”.
Partnership
Disability organisation employees saw themselves as partners with the right to negotiate outcomes. But this did not correspond with their experience. Their involvement was too late in the process, and after procurement requirements were set. Having lived experience is they key point, not whether participants understand accessibility legislation. Indeed, openness and creativity are more important than accessibility expertise.
The municipal project leaders were oriented towards Consultation because they wanted to quickly get ready-made proposals confirmed. Employees of disability organizations collaborated with officials as partners in the administration of and recruitment for workshops. However, they wanted ongoing feedback to influence the result.
These different expectations on the aim of participation entailed misunderstandings. So did unclear roles regarding representativity and the asymmetry of resources and interests. Failure to communicate opportunities for influence and the limited roles given to participants generated feelings of uncertainty and mistrust.
Officials were unsure about the legitimacy of participants, and participants about the conditions for influencing the process. These findings suggest that the aim and role of participation would gain from being clarified in advance. Topics such as previous experiences, policy, constraints, and opportunities for influence should be discussed at pre-workshop stage. Thus, co-creative dialogues might be developed.
Gender neutral toilet facilities are the subject of discussion in academic research, legislation and architectural briefs. Urban planners say any toilet away from home should be informed by the proportion of needs in society. Enter the gender neutral category of amenity as the solution that can best resist bias and discrimination. But maybe it doesn’t.
Nicole Kalms and Laura McVey argue that “the proposed legislative changes for the provision of ‘all gender’, ‘gender-neutral’ or ‘unisex’ toilets operate under an incorrect assumption that gender neutrality will lead to greater inclusion”.
The proposed legislative changes note that one in 500 people in Victoria identify as trans, but fail to note that one in two Victorians are women. Kalms and McVey claim that rather than offering inclusivity, it will further penalise those already disadvantaged in amenity design.
The issue of signage
Repurposing women’s public facilities or accessible toilets as gender-neutral is an ad hoc response to the real issues.
“This will multiply the ad hoc arrangements where a sign and/symbol on an existing ‘female’ or ‘disabled’ toilet provides a ‘gender-neutral’ or ‘all genders’ amenity, leaving the men’s facility intact”. Indeed, it will double men’s toilet options.
The article goes on to discuss different sections of the population including people who are homeless, and women from culturally diverse backgrounds. Public toilets are also places of personal care and of refuge from sexual violence. An important discussion paper which shows how the default to the male toilet is the norm – they remain the same. Women’s toilets have become the “adaptable” quick-fix place for all other groups. But at the cost to whom?
In summary
“We therefore suggest that current reform proposals for inclusivity do not go far enough, and put forward the need for a more ‘radical redesign of public sanitary facilities. Such a radical redesign, we argue, requires a needs based design ethos based on users’ requirements. This approach reiterates the importance of more inclusive design, but does so by considering and prioritising those most significantly and disproportionately impacted and neglected by current design.”
The title of the book chapter is, Commentary on Let Us Pee in The Feminist Legislation Project. An important discussion on how easy it is to exclude people in design, albeit unintentionally. Another reason for engaging in co-design and co-creation processes.
The first Digital Service Standard was created by the UK’s Government in the early 2010s. The aim was to improve the relationship between people and government with easier access to digital services. The original 26 criteria were reduced to 18 to make them more manageable and then to 14. The criteria were mandatory. If any service did not meet them, it would not be hosted on government websites.
Australia’s Digital Transformation Office (DTO) released its own criteria based on those of the UK in 2015. The DTO later became the Digital Transformation Agency (DTA) and gradually it was ignored.
The DTA recently released a brand new DSS 2.0 which became mandatory in July 2024. It covers staff-facing services and citizen-facing services with 10 criteria. But the wording has turned a bit fuzzy for a standard.
Standards list things you must do such as, apply certain dimensions. Or things that must be true when tested, such as a bridge being capable of taking a certain weight. The bridge example leaves it open to the designers to be inventive and creative in meeting that criteria.
The new Standard DSS 2.0 has fuzzy criteria such as “understand” and “identify”. Understand, identify and act are not a testable criteria.
But what’s the real problem?
The DSS Standard has a lot of sensible ideas, albeit untestable, but the real problem is that there are several other digital standards that must be applied. The Digital Access Standard, the Digital Inclusion Standard, and the Digital Performance Standard. They each add another 5 criteria, many of which are untestable.
And why does it matter?
Designers might think they are meeting the criteria of “considering diverse user needs”. But how will they know they are? It’s easy to assume and guess diverse user needs.
“In disability, there’s nobody more dangerous than a person with good intentions and no know-how.” Standards have a lot of power so the outcomes must be measurable and achievable.
Standards give users a sense of security with specific and achievable outcomes. If a standard is vague, confusing, and untestable it loses its authority.
Grabrails in the home are considered one of the most stigmatising functional support devices, particularly by older people. Several design attempts have tried colour, wavy shapes, or “hiding” them as bathroom shelving and toilet roll holders. Installation of grabrails, regardless the design, are resisted until there is a major health event or a fall. But what if grabrail design doubled as a piece of artwork?
The two pictures below show a completely different way of designing grabrails. These designs might not be suitable for all users, people who need help with their balance in wet areas might benefit. Perhaps this solution is better than no solution.
The Inclusive Housing Living Lab in Hasselt, Belgium, focuses on research for real-life situations. The pictures above are taken from a conference paper which explains the role of the Living Lab. Research projects focus on universal design solutions with input from users and designers and occupational therapists.
Fitting all showers with grabrails as standard would dissolve the stigma and prevent falls. However, this is unlikely to occur except in public places.
The paper includes a renovation project turning an old building into a rehabilitation centre. Local authorities wanted to keep some of the existing elements such as steps which then required a creative solution.
The aim of the Living Lab is to show that good design can minimise the need for personal assistance. It is locally based and introduces visitors, students and professionals to a universal design approach.
Below are images of “disguised” grabrails: a shower shelf, a soap dish, a toilet roll holder and a towel rail.
Images of Invisia bathroom products.
From the abstract
This paper states the underlying concept and motivation of the design and building process of a Universal Design Living Lab. The UD-lab is located in Belgium and has three main ambitions. They are demonstration, conducting research and offering information on the added values of designing universally. Global real life initiatives are important for driving a general awareness on universal design as ongoing activity.
This conference paper is from the UD2014 conference in Sweden.
The Human Rights Commission has produced a guide on 5 common Myths and Misconceptions about Racism. Each of these is explained further and are listed as:
Misconception that racism is about individual actions and beliefs
The myth of meritocracy
Misconception of not “seeing” race
The myth that “racism is a thing of the past”
Misconceptions about anti-racism
British colonisation has shaped the way we talk about race and racism in Australia and has ongoing impacts. The Australian Human Rights Commission’s (AHRC) guideis one of self-reflection and education. It aims to support and enhance understandings of race, racisim, and anti-racism. It asks us to stop and think about the various opinions, stories and terms used and think critically about the myths and misconceptions.
Many ideas predate colonisation in Australia built upon re-existing ideas of racial hierarchies that classified humans based on physical difference. The result is ongoing structural and systemic racism. These deeply rooted myths prevent productive conversations to address racism.
“Anti-racism involves actively working to challenge racist policies, practices, culture, and ideas. It requires more than being “not racist”. It involves active decisions that seek to combat injustice and promote racial equity. Developing an anti-racism skillset and practice is an important part of promoting a better and more equitable society.
It would be useful to have a briefer document with just the key points, although there is an accessible Word version. Concepts and terminology are explained in detail, and the five myths and misconceptions are challenged, explained and discussed.
The AHRC acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of the land, sea, waterways, and sky throughout Australia and pays respect to First Nations Elders past and present. Saltwater People designed the guide.
