Policy and Policy Development Archives

Planners can play a leadership role

Post-COVID infrastructure projects are injecting life into economies around the world. So this is an opportune time to infuse universal design into all construction projects. Planners can play a leadership role in taking a universal design approach. But how will planners take the lead if it is not being taught? An article in the American Planning Association online magazine, Viewpoint, challenges educators to get up to speed with universal design. The author says it is time for justice in the built environment, and universal design is the way to go. However, designers have not embraced this concept. But perhaps the momentum is shifting. The title of the article is, Why Planning Education Should Embrace Universal Design. The author concludes,

“Some of the strongest forces on earth — economics, policy, politics, and a pandemic — will change the way we plan for the rest of the century. … formally teaching Universal Design at the university and professional certificate level is one of the best ways to guarantee that good planning rises organically from the diverse and unique needs of end users.”

Non-disabled planners and designers are yet to understand that they are designing for their future selves. One day, they will need universal design. By then it will be too late. The time to act is now. Designing for Di sability Justice, an essay published by the Harvard Design School, discusses the issues. Access standards are a barrier to design – they limit imagination. It’s more about completing a checklist and offsetting liability than design. Then it’s seen as limiting design and something to be tacked on. A change in thinking is needed so that universal design is tackled as a challenge not a chore.

A decent home is a human right

New Zealand has taken a human rights approach to housing in its proposed housing guidelines. The draft guidelines circulated for comment late last year contain no specific design features. Rather, the draft is based on a set of explicit values that a decent home is a human right. The use of the term ‘decent’ is grounded in the Treaty of Waitangi and the impact of colonisation.

The guiding value is that a home is “more than a shelter, bricks, mortar or a house”. It also means a village, relationships and responsibilities to place, people and the natural environment. Consequently, the guidelines mean a decent home is a warm, dry, safe, accessible, and healthy home. The right to a decent home also takes account of the historical, social, economic and legal context in New Zealand.

The private sector is expected to play their part in implementing decent homes. Human rights are not just government business, and that universal design has a role to play:

“One way for individuals, communities, government and the private sector to implement the UN ‘decency’ housing principles is to promote universal design. Universal design advances inclusive, accessible, healthy building and environment and respect for cultural diversity. It considers people throughout the life cycle from childhood to old age, and is alert to different scenarios, including disability.”

The inclusion of first peoples in the construction of the guidelines contrasts with other countries and their housing policies.

UN Conventions cited

The draft guidelines are underpinned by New Zealand’s obligations to several UN Conventions, which it lists as:

– Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
– International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966)
– Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965)
– The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979)
– Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989)
– Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2008)
– UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007)

There are 19 Guidelines in total each with a rationale, history and context. The document is 37 pages but easy to read. There is also a Word version on the New Zealand Human Rights webpage together with an overview of the guidelines.

What is Easy Read and who needs it?

page from Access Easy English on COVID. Writing for readers. — ***Example of Easy English***

Easy Read is a good example of how less is more. But conveying messages in fewer words is more difficult than writing more words. Easy Read is for people with low levels of literacy. It’s mostly used for essential information such as health alerts and legal terms and conditions. Writing with minimal words is a skillset of its own. It’s not easy. But it does make you think about what you really need or want to say.

Proficient readers can use Easy Read versions to get the take-home message quickly and easily. That’s also why it’s universal design – it’s for everyone. However, Easy Read is not the same as Easy English – the example in the image. It has even fewer words and focuses on actions not just information. Cathy Basterfield says that Easy Read is not simple enough for some people and explains this in a simple poster analysing the difference

Easy Read not the same as plain English or plain language. Complex documents such as research reports are beginning to include a plain language summary. However, these require an average level of literacy. They are usually presented as a paragraph or a list of sentences in dot points. Easy English drills down further to the key words and concepts. The techniques include:

- - a lot of white space
  - directly relevant illustrations (not photos) to convey the meaning of the text
  - short words and sentences
  - minimal punctuation
  - positive phrasing
  - bullets to separate items in a list.

Editors can learn from Easy English

The Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading blog has a more detailed article. It summarises Cathy Basterfield’s presentation at their annual conference. She shows how editorial professionals can learn from Easy English.

Blog writer, Anna Baildon, said she learned a lot from the session and had her assumptions challenged. She said she could see “the links to plain English but it goes further”. The headlines she remembers are:

- - It’s hard to write in Easy English
  - Access to written information should not be a reading test. It should be enabling
  - Unpacking the language so the meaning becomes accessible.
  - Access to information is a right. ‘Access’ means that a person reads, understands and knows what they can do.

The Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading has a guide to Editing in Plain English.

Many people need it

More than 40% of the population has low literacy skills. In some remote parts of Australia and in institutions it is higher than this. There are several reasons why so many Australians need information in easy to understand formats:

– acquired disabilities
– lifelong disabilities
– poor educational outcomes
– psychiatric or mental illness
– dyslexia
– early school leavers
– older people
– different cultural backgrounds
– hearing impaired and/or people from the Deaf community

Accessibility and universal design needs to be considered at the outset of any project, not as an afterthought. Information formats such as brochures and websites are no exception. Some important government documents include an Easy Read version, but this is still rare.

Cathy Basterfield has pioneered much of the work on Easy English in Australia. People with high level literacy skills can grasp the key points with little effort. And there are times when people with good literacy skills need help. For example, the stress of a court hearing can temporarily affect one’s reading skills and level of understanding.

Cathy Basterfield presented a paper on this topic at the Australian Universal Design Conference, UD2021. There is a related post on choice of typeface or font for easy reading. Cathy has an Easy English blogsite that explains more. She did a lot of work for COVID-19 too.

There is an Easy Read version of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Bumpy Road website is a good example of Cathy’s work for interacting with the justice system.

Standard for accessible standards

All standards should ensure they meet the goals of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. So there is a Standard for developing Standards documents to be inclusive, accessible and universally designed. ISO Guide 71 shows how to do this. On day two of UD2021 Conference, Emily Steel explained how the international Standard for accessible Standards documents.

The international standard has done all the thinking for us. The document guides standards committees as they write and update standards for their specific industry or profession. It is also useful for any committee developing guides or standards for accessibility and universal design. So, we don’t have to re-invent the wheel.

The Guide’s use of the the term “accessibility” relates closely to universal design. “The extent to which products, systems, services, environments and facilities can be used by people from a population with the widest range of characteristics and capabilities to achieve a specified goal in a specified context of use”.

ISO Guide 71 Accessibility Goals

The Guide has two main parts. The first describes user needs and 11 accessibility goals. These are similar to the 8 Goals of Universal Design. The second describes human characteristics and abilities, and design considerations.

1. 1. Suitability for the widest range of users
  2. Conformity with user expectations
  3. Support for individualisation
  4. Approachability
  5. Perceivability
  6. Understandability
  7. Controllability
  8. Usability
  9. Error tolerance
  10. Equitable use
  11. Compatibility with other systems.

Guide 71 was adapted by the European standards authority and is titled, CEN-CENELEC Guide 6. It is basically the same information.

There is also an Accessibility Masterlist by Gregg Vanderheiden. It’s a collaborative resource for understanding access features in digital applications. Also worth a look.

Ageing in Place vs Aged Care: The Costs

Three stacks of coins sit alongside a wooden cut-out of a house shape.

Most people want to stay in their own homes rather than go to an aged care institution. The Royal Commission into Aged Care report confirmed this. And the obvious follows – it’s also beneficial for governments because the costs of home care are less than institutional care. But are our homes designed to support care at home? According to an AHURI Brief, on average, someone on a home support program costs the Government around $3,900 per year. The cost of a person living in residential care costs around $69,000 a year. These figures are the annual ongoing cost per person. The cost of a home care package ranges from $9,000 a year to $52,000 per year depending on the level of support. The AHURI Brief includes a chart comparing the various costs of of the different packages and support against the cost of residential care. Another cost that could be reduced is the need for home modifications. Not only can people stay home more safely, care hours are also reduced. In rental accommodation such modifications can be denied by the landlord. That will lead to early entry into an institution. The AHURI Brief concludes, “We note that there is currently no discernible connection between the Australian Government aged care program and any Australian or State or Territory Government housing program. This must change.” The title of the AHURI Brief is, Better supporting older Australians to age in place. AHURI (Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute) is a national independent research network. AHURI’s work informs policy about housing and urban development. They have not engaged with the proposed reforms to the National Construction Code for improved accessibility in all new housing.

Are institutions still the way to go for aged care?

An older woman using a walking cane walks over a paved section towards the roadway. Are institutions still the way to go?

Why is it still OK for older people to be “put” in aged care institutions? We closed such places for people with disability and mental health conditions last century. There will still be a need for some people to receive care in a place that is not their home. But the vast majority could be better served with homes and neighbourhoods designed to support them. So, are institutions still the way to go for aged care? The Conversation has an article that discusses this issue arguing it’s time to support healthy ageing in place. “Age-friendly places aren’t just good for older people. They also support the needs of children, people with a disability and everyone else in a community.” The article includes the well-established global age-friendly framework devised by the WHO many years ago. It is still relevant today. As the authors say, the WHO framework covers the essential ingredients of liveable communities. And it supports well-being for all. The title of the article is, Aged care isn’t working, but we can create neighbourhoods to support healthy ageing in place. A previous post, Ageing in the right place, has links to more on this topic outlining alternatives to aged care institutions.

Disability and Planning Research

Planning research has not yet evolved to include disability perspectives. Is it because the medical model of disability still prevails? Or is it mistakenly believed that disability is not a design issue? Some might say it’s because the needs of people with disability are fragmented across government departments. Practitioners in the planning field are required to engage with communities, but it seems the researchers are not keeping up.

Two Canadian researchers took a look at the situation. A search of five prominent planning journals showed that people with disability largely remain invisible. The researchers found just 36 articles – most of which come from the US and the UK. Only 20 had people with disability as the central topic.

The authors describe the content of the papers that go back as far as 1916. Attitudes towards people with disability clearly changed over the years but including them in research did not. Papers that did mention people with disability generally added them to a list of other groups considered vulnerable or marginalised.

The paper concludes:

“Planning researchers and practitioners, therefore, must continue to question what knowledge, assumptions, and biases we may have toward PWD and experiences of disability that manifest through our environment. More broadly, planning scholarship can be strengthened by continuous questioning of self—on the processes through which certain knowledge is produced or a pursuit of certain knowledge is prioritised within the discipline. The development of critical discourse focusing on PWD can be a vehicle for such self-reflection.

The title of the article is, The Precarious Absence of Disability Perspectives in Planning Research. It is open access on cogitation press website, or you can download directly.

Digital transitioning requires mainstream accessibility

COVID has revealed our reliance communicating online and via social media. That’s why European countries are getting together to improve the accessibility of all digital services. The digital world has to be accessible to all. It is also part of the Sustainable Development Goals and “leave no-one behind”. That’s why digital transitioning requires mainstream accessibility.

The International Telecommunication Union has launched its ICT accessibility assessment for the Europe region. The COVID-19 pandemic has reinforced the importance of ICT accessibility. The report is designed to provide ITU members and stakeholders from the ITU Europe region with a holistic view of ICT accessibility requirements, the implementation status of ICT accessibility laws, regulations, policies and institutional frameworks, and with good practices and recommendations. Accessibility for all, including ICT is now a top priority.

A magazine article in Mirage titled, Accessible Europe 2021: Making ICTs accessible to all, provides an overview of the assessment report. By 2023 the ITU wants 90% of digital services to have the “seal of usability and accessibility”. This is part of the Accessible Europe project.

Videos more effective than policy

Policy is often seen as the way to make change. But when it comes to being inclusive it hasn’t worked very well. If policies, codes and papers are not accessible to all stakeholders, how can we create inclusion? Janice Rieger says videos are more effective than policy.

The title of her short paper and workshop is, Reframing Universal Design: Creating Short Videos for Inclusion. Her research provides insights on how videos travel and reach different audiences. This results in a significant impact and enacted change and informed policy. Dr Rieger concludes that “video impacts more than policies, codes and papers ever can”.

Here is an extract from her paper:

“Video is a visceral medium, offering the opportunity to reframe universal design practice and education. It captures movements and can be co-created with people with disabilities. Videos co-created for inclusion encourage detailed and rich embodied knowledge and experiences because information is prompted by association with one’s surroundings. Significantly, videos have the capacity to excavate personalized knowledge of those with different abilities and uncover systems of exclusion that are often hidden or naturalized, and shamedly rendered invisible through policies, codes and papers.”

In a short video titled, Wandering on the Braille Trail, Sarah Boulton explains how she navigates the environment using her white cane and tactile ground markers.

Age Friendly Communities Handbook

From Norway comes an Age Friendly Communities Handbook that presents information in easy to consume formats. Norway has been driving a universal design agenda through national and local government since 1999. Norway’s key document for this is Norway Universally Designed 2025. This Handbook fits nicely within that framework but with an emphasis on an ageing population.

The WHO Age-Friendly Cities guide is useful and detailed, but it’s showing its age. So this handbook comes at a good time.

The Handbook for Age-Friendly Communities is 70 pages with many photos and graphics. It covers the key steps in the planning cycle, aspects to consider in built design, transport, housing and social participation. Pre-requisites for age-friendly development are co-creation and communication.

Elements not considered in the WHO guide are plain language, internet use and how to co-create and gather information from older people. Checklists and examples are included. Fortunately the Handbook is in English so many more people can benefit from Norway’s 20 year’s experience. A great resource, particularly for local government.

Norway has reviewed its policies over time and began to include more than the built environment. They also developed a method for mapping their level of accessibility in 2017.

Alternative Age-Friendly Handbook

Front cover of the age friendly handbook. Simple layout white with black text — Front cover of Alternative Age Friendly Handbook

Alternative to what? you might ask. An Alternative Age-Friendly Handbook, with acknowledgement to the WHO’s work on age-friendly cities, takes a different approach to creating age-friendly urban places and spaces.

Focusing on small scale age-friendly urban actions the handbook takes the reader through some useful thinking processes. First, it avoids the language of “apocalyptic demography” where an ageing population is described in terms of disaster and catastrophe. Then it moves on to the participatory approaches that have evolved over the last ten years.

A refreshing presentation of a handbook – not the classic “how to” format. Rather a creative “think about…” While this is from the perspective of older people, much of the thinking and many of the processes apply to all age groups. It looks like a long document, but that is because it is in large print. An easy and engaging read. Published by the University of Manchester Library.

Category: Policy and Policy Development

Planners can play a leadership role

Like this: