Policy and Policy Development Archives - Page 12 of 16 - Centre for Universal Design Australia

Universal design and talking human rights

Universal design isn’t just or only about disability. But it does have a major role to play in improving the lives of people with disability. The UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, cites universal design as the way to gain inclusion and equity. So does Australia’s National Disability Strategy. But discussions and actions on human rights often get diverted by politics and ideologies. The way we frame and word our responses can make a big difference in cutting through. But what words and what frame?

A Brilliant Way of Living our Lives: How to Talk about Human Rights by Anat Shenker-Osorio has some good answers and examples. The first part of the document looks at messaging pitfalls and fixes. The second part of the document looks at words that work, and the third part covers common critiques. Here is Shenker-Osorio’s introduction to the document:

“Using language data from advocacy, opposition, political speech and popular culture, I analyzed why certain messages resonate where others falter in the human rights sector in Australia, the UK and the US. Complementing this written discourse were 53 interviews with advocates in these three countries in order to draw out what we wish people believed – the vision for which we’d like to inspire increased activation from present supporters and persuade new ones. Recommendations
here also draw upon previous research and empirical testing across issues related to human rights.”

This article was featured in a longer piece on The Commons Social Change Library. It covers a long list of issues for advocates for all kinds of social change.

Editor’s note: It is worth noting the change in public attitude in the same sex marriage campaign. It gained momentum when it moved from the right to marry whoever you want to being about marrying the person you love. In that vein, universal design is about the people we love.

Liveable, accessible, sustainable and biophilic: which to choose?

Aspects of sustainability – social, economic, cultural and environmental – are all opportunities for designers. But what to consider and how to design? An article on ageing populations looks at design for all, universal design, inclusive design, human centred design, and biophilic design. The authors considered liveable, accessible, sustainable and biophilic designs. They conclude that universal design and biophilic design concepts create the best outcomes.

The article covers many of the well known facts in this field of research, and addresses the different design approaches and terminology. “Sustainable ageing” is discussed in terms of well-being, economic inclusion and the living environment.

The best approach is universal design

The authors conclude that in considering sustainability, the circular economy and social cohesion, the best approach is universal design. That’s because the universal design concept encourages diversity and social integration. It also creates favourable conditions for healthy ageing concepts.

Universal design is also applicable in the ageing at home concept. The design solutions of buildings and environment can be adapted for older people, avoiding the necessity of further reconstructions as the people age.

The article is titled, “Aging, Living Environment, and Sustainability: What Should be Taken into Account?“. A well-considered discussion that draws together the many approaches to designing for a diverse population.

From the abstract

Population ageing presents numerous challenges and the design and management of living environments are no exception. We bring together topics related to the living environment population ageing and the concept of sustainability.

We review of the existing design concepts currently applied to planning the environment for older people. These include (i) design for all, (ii) universal design, and (iii) inclusive design.

This review highlights the aspects of sustainability and population aging to consider in the design and management of living environments. We highlight the possibility of complementing the existing design concepts with biophilic design to strengthen social, psychological, and ecological aspects.

Images reproduced from the article.

Strategic intelligence and inclusive design

The World Economic Forum has a website on Strategic Intelligence that includes a section on inclusive design. While unnecessarily describing a dividing line between inclusive and universal design, the website does join the dots between different lines of work: technology, education, urban areas, human dignity, sustainable communities, and accessibility. Within these topics are further topics such as climate change and pathways to equality.

It’s a bit of a rabbit warren in terms of clicking on related topics and drilling down into other related issues, but it does try to draw things together. To get access to the material you have to sign up (free) and then you get a chance to do a survey and put your point of view about the topics. There is also access to many other resources related to social justice. Here is a snippet from the Accessibility and Disability section:

“While accessibility – to spaces both physical and virtual – is fundamental, it is also often confined to certain users as defined by economics or education, and therefore undermines the potential for equal participation. Inclusion, on the other hand, builds upon accessibility and goes further by accounting for unequal resources and barriers to participation. A truly inclusive strategy takes action to support participation.”

Home for Good

What is a home? It’s so much more than a shelter from the elements. The concept of home gives us a place in the world. It underpins our identity, our relationships and our understanding of who we are and where we fit in the scheme of things. It is intrinsic to the human condition. Yet it is overlooked in the development of policies to support housing provision.

Home for Good is a policy brief “intended to restore the idea of home as both a psychological and social asset to our discourse on housing, rather than just a financial asset. It is specifically concerned with the role of the home as we age, positing that successful ageing is dependent on a person’s access to a home that provides security, community, safety and autonomy”. The policy brief poses a policy framework for a national approach to providing older Australians with homes that meet their social, emotional, environmental, and psychological needs.

The policy brief says nothing about the design of homes, but it does tap into the real meaning of home for many older people – the social equity. Hence the reticence to move to age segregated living. The article can be downloaded from the Analysis & Policy Observatory. It’s by Emma Dawson and Myfan Jordan of Per Capita. Easy to read.

Also see 2013 qualitative Australian research about housing design and older people, Chasing ‘The Great Australian Dream’: Definition of and “Ideal Home’ among Baby Boomers. It’s interesting to not that in less than ten years our terminology has changed from “the elderly” and “the aged” to “older Australians”.

Extract from Abstract: “The study reveals that ‘ageing in place’, is a preferred option for the aged. This raises questions as to how well the housing system and neighbourhood environments are able to support ageing in place, and what aging factors should be taken into consideration when designing Baby boomer’s home to facilitate health and wellbeing. Therefore, this research designed a qualitative approach to investigate Australian Baby Boomers homes around Queensland, predominantly in the Brisbane area, using semi-structured interviews and observations.”

Access Standard for Other Standards

Did you know that all Australian Standards should include accessibility issues when they are being written? If you are on a standards committee or working party then it’s important to know. There are two access standard documents relevant to this topic.

- The global ISO Guide 71: Guide for addressing accessibility in standards, and
- The CEN-CENELC Guide 6 Guide for addressing accessibility in standards.

The ISO Guide 71 is a global standard and applies to Australia as well as other countries. CEN is the European standards agency. Their document is an adoption of ISO Guide 71. So, basically the same information but freely available.

Both standards are relevant to implementing the UNCRPD* and related national policies across the world. It is also useful for manufacturers and educators. Discussion on standards might seem a bit dry, but when you think of all the official Standards that are developed, it is good to know there is a guide for addressing accessibility issues within the content of those Standards. Key points are:

“ISO/IEC Guide 71:2014 provides guidance to standards developers on addressing accessibility requirements and recommendations in standards that focus, whether directly or indirectly, on systems (i.e. products, services and built environments) used by people. To assist standards developers to define accessibility requirements and recommendations, it presents a summary of current terminology relating to accessibility, issues to consider in support of accessibility in the standards development process, a set of accessibility goals (used to identify user accessibility needs), descriptions of (and design considerations for) human abilities and characteristics, and strategies for addressing user accessibility needs and design considerations in standards.”

CEN CENELEC Guide

The CEN Guide “… is an important goal for the whole of society that all people, regardless of their age, size or ability, have access to the broadest range of systems. Issues of accessibility to and usability of systems have become more critical as the number of people (such as older persons, children, persons with reduced abilities and persons with disabilities) with diverse user accessibility needs has increased.”

*The UNCRPD is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Are you Diverse or Diversish?

Sometimes wry humour and satire is the way to get the message across. Sheri Byrne-Haber’s article You might be #Diversish if… explains what Diversish means. It’s a satirical term for businesses and organisations that call themselves diverse because they have a diversity policy. However, when you look at what they actually do, the policy is just collecting dust. So their claims lack authenticity. The article includes a British satirical video that really represents many of the business conversations around diversity. Funny but serious.

Smart Cities for All Toolkit

How smart can a smart city be? ‘Smart’ is everything from the footpath to the website. So not so smart if it doesn’t include everyone and join the dots between all the factors that make a city a city. With digital transformations happening worldwide, the aim of the Smart Cities for All Toolkit is to eliminate the digital divide and improve urban environments for everyone.

The main part of the toolkit, the Inclusive Innovation Playbook, is detailed and aimed at a policy and planning level. Stakeholder participation and inclusion is an essential theme. Case studies assist with understanding. There is a helpful checklist at the end of the Playbook.

There’s a lot to digest, but this means it isn’t a cursory overview with simplistic solutions. It goes much deeper than a digital accessibility checklist. This is about joining the dots across city assets and leveraging them for everyone’s benefit. Other sections of the toolkit cover:

- Toolkit Overview
- Guide to adopting an ICT accessibility procurement policy
- Implementing priority ICT accessibility standards
- Communicating the case for stronger commitment to digital inclusion in cities
- Database of solutions for digital inclusion in cities

“The toolkit supports a range of organizations and roles related to Smart Cities, including government managers, policy makers, IT professionals, disability advocates, procurement officials, technology suppliers, and developers who design Smart City apps and solutions.

Each of the tools addresses a priority challenge identified by global experts as a barrier to the digital inclusion of persons with disabilities and older persons in Smart Cities.” See also Smart Cities for All: A Vision.

James Thurston of 3Gict came to Sydney in 2019 and discussed the issues and solutions in his keynote presentation in the video below.

5 Pillars of a Smart City

James Thurston is G3ict’s Vice President for Global Strategy and Development. He previously worked for Microsoft, so he knows the territory well. His keynote presentation at UD2021 Conference showed that technology is improving but it’s not inclusive. Cities have to do a lot more if we are to meet the challenges of the digital world.

He lists the five pillars as:

1. 1. Strategic Intent: inclusion strategy and leadership
  2. Culture: citizen engagement and transparency
  3. Governance & Process: procurement and partnerships
  4. Technology: Global standards and solution development
  5. Data: Data divide and solutions

There is more information on inclusive and accessible ICT in the resource section of the 3Gict website. 3Gict is the Global Initiative for Inclusive ICTs.

Counting costs that don’t count

Road workers in hi-vis vests are laying bitumen. Counting costs don't count. — Workers repairing the road

Ever wondered why economic arguments seem to fall on stony ground even when well researched and asked for? Seems politicians’ personal experience counts more when decisions are being made. A Norwegian researcher wanted to find out why road-building priorities diverge from those suggested by cost-benefit analysis. It is likely that many other policy decisions are made in a similar way, not just road investments. That’s why sometimes counting costs don’t count.

What can count most

Here is an excerpt from the findings about why factors other than cost criteria mean that counting costs don’t count:

Political institutions have created a form of gift relationship in the road sector, with the state as donor and municipalities as recipients.

To the extent that the state cannot scrutinize all assumptions and calculations of traffic, costs and benefits, an information asymmetry arises and favours the local receivers.

In cases of local/national conflict of interest, some key politicians and other stakeholders at the donor side either have their own agendas (such as campaigning), or their loyalty is with the recipient rather than the donor (society).

It seems reasonable that elected representatives are less likely to vote in accordance with the benefit/cost ratios of projects the more sceptical they are to the method of CBA. When sceptical, they are apt to look for alternative decision support, even if several studies have found CBA results to be quite robust.

The intention is not to argue that the benefit/cost ratio should be decisive when setting priorities among projects on classified roads. Rather it’s to highlight circumstances that tend to push CBA results into the background. The principle of choosing projects with high benefit/cost ratio may be supplemented by many other assessment criteria that the difference between professional and political judgement is dissolved.

The title of the article is, Why don’t cost-benefit results count for more? The case of Norwegian road investment priorities. Published in Urban, Planning and Transport Research an open access article.

From the abstract:

To begin, the benefit/cost ratio is virtually uncorrelated to the likelihood of a Norwegian classified road project entering the list of investments selected for the National Transport Plan. The purpose of the article is to explain what pushes cost-benefit results into the background in the prioritization process.

The reasons for their downgrading point to mechanisms that are at work not only in Norway. We looked for explanatory factors and incentives for cost-ineffective action among planners, bureaucrats and national politicians. We also looked at features of the planning process and the political system.

It seems the Norwegian Public Roads Administration puts little emphasis on its own cost-benefit calculations. Besides, the petroleum revenues of the state do not provide a strong reason for neglecting cost-benefit accounts.

We explain why professional and political authorities in Norway set road-building priorities diverging massively from those suggested by cost-benefit analysis.

The 100 year life

People expect to grow old, but they don’t plan to grow old. Public policy has to do more than just capture people when they can no longer care for themselves. Even if people plan for their older age, there are policy and built barriers preventing the continuation of a “decent life”. And housing is a key barrier.

The report, The 100-year life: the role of housing, planning and design, highlights the issues and provides recommendations. The report recommends an integrated approach to housing, planning and design to support people in later life. It stresses the importance of taking a universal design approach and co-production.

Developers, planners and local authorities also have an important role to play. And of course, focusing on older people means that people of all ages are included. While this is a UK project, there are many aspects that apply to other countries including Australia.

The research was conducted jointly by Design Council, Centre for Ageing Better and Social Care Institute for Excellence. The report in PDF was published in June 2018. The report includes references and resources.

See also the Colorado Lifelong Homes White Paper for a similar take on the issues of successful ageing in place.

“A decent life” as described by Amartya Sen.

Category: Policy and Policy Development

Universal design and talking human rights

Like this: