Introduction by Croakey: The theme of International Day of People with Disability this year is ‘amplifying the leadership of persons with disabilities for an inclusive and sustainable future’.
Marking the day, on 3 December, António Guterres, United Nations Secretary-General, said that “we need the leadership of persons with disabilities more than ever”. However, people with disability have often been “denied their right to contribute to solutions” to crises that disproportionately impact them.
Through the recently adopted Pact for the Future, the countries of the world committed to correcting this injustice for persons with disabilities of all ages, for present and future generations, Guterres said in a statement.
Below, RMIT academics Professor Hannah Badland, Dr Amanda Alderton and Dr Elroy Dearn, argue the benefits of neighbourhood universal design for a more affordable, accessible and inclusive society.
Hannah Badland, Amanda Alderton and Elroy Dearn write:
Most of us will experience disability at some point. With at least half of all Australians aged 65 years and older having a disability, adopting universal design principles into where we live, work, and play is critical for building an accessible and inclusive society.
Universal design is an approach to designing environments so that they “can be accessed, understood and used to the greatest extent possible by all people regardless of their age, size, ability or disability”, according to Professor Weimo Zhu, Department of Kinesiology and Community Health, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and colleagues.
Universal design has already played a critical role in shaping our built environments, including dropped kerbs, ramps, and automatic doors.
We argue the concept needs to be taken further, to the level of the neighbourhood, to create a truly accessible and inclusive society for people with disability.
The Disability Wellbeing Monitoring Framework, co-designed with people and carers of people with disability, tells us neighbourhoods matter.
Neighbourhoods need to have accessible and inclusive features and resources, including physical environments, transport systems, healthy food, decent housing, employment and education opportunities, social and civic involvement. They also need to be places where people feel safe.
Accessible, inclusive, and safe neighbourhoods make a difference to the lives of people with disabilities, and they also benefit society at large through affording its citizens’ participation, independence, and opportunity across life stages.
Yet unacceptable disparities continue to exist when we consider where people live. People with disability have much poorer housing experiences, experience greater disadvantage, and have limited work opportunities, compared with their non-disabled peers.
We also know Australians with disability are more likely to be raised in and live in disadvantaged neighbourhoods.
Policy context
Mounting evidence suggests that poorer health outcomes are not inevitable consequences of a person’s impairment, but instead are the result of persistent social exclusion and material hardship, influenced by factors such as community design, access to resources, economic inequality, and policy shortcomings.
We argue that everyone, and especially those with disability, should be able to live in accessible and inclusive neighbourhoods. Further, failing to design truly accessible and inclusive neighbourhoods for all is a violation of the human rights of people with disability, as enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability.
So what does universal design mean in the policy context?
The Australian Disability Strategy recognises the importance of neighbourhoods by providing guidance on inclusive and accessible education, social infrastructure, housing, public open space, public transport, and walkability. Yet the direction offered is high-level and difficult to implement, monitor, and measure.
At a state level, the Victorian Department of Families, Fairness, and Housing, for example, advocates for the adoption of universal design principles in public open space, health infrastructure, and public toilets.
While there is no doubt this is important infrastructure to have universally designed, it falls well short of delivering on the breadth of the neighbourhood features that people with disability want and need. We argue that a wider frame is needed for developing and retrofitting neighbourhoods using universal design principles.
This is especially important if the vision of the Royal Commissions into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability is realised.
This includes a future where people with and without disability live, learn, work, play, create, and engage together in safe and diverse communities, have the power of choice, independence, and dignity to take risks, make contributions to communities that value their presence and treat them with respect, and are culturally safe and belong in families, communities, and peer networks.
Layered over accessible and inclusive neighbourhoods is the consideration of affordability. ‘Liveable’ neighbourhoods are often expensive and gentrifying neighbourhoods risk displacing poorer residents, including those with disability who may face more limited housing choices.
We already know people with disability experience greater neighbourhood adversity, therefore any actions to improve accessibility need to be careful not to reinforce processes of displacement through piecemeal approaches.
Adopting universal design principles as a minimum across all new and retrofitted urban developments will support both children and adults with disability to reach their full potential and contribute to society. If universal design becomes the benchmark for neighbourhood design, it will also help flatten the inequities we see tied to gentrified and ‘liveable’ neighbourhoods.
Recognising neighbourhoods as a critical lever to supporting people’s trajectories through opportunity and independence fits squarely with the UN Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, for access to, participation in, and opportunities for independence.
No one loses if our neighbourhoods are universally designed.
Author acknowledgement
We have used person-first language in this paper. We know person-first language continues to be an important part of many people’s identity. We acknowledge and recognise that many people with disability prefer to use identity-first language because they see their disability as a key part of their identity. This article was written on the unceded lands of the Woi Wurrung and Boon Wurrung Peoples of the Eastern Kulin Nations and respect is paid to Elders past, present, and future.
Hannah Badland is an ARC Future Fellow (FT230100131). Amanda Alderton is an RMIT Vice-Chancellor’s Postdoctoral Research Fellow. This work was supported by the Research Alliance for Youth Disability & Mental Health (NHMRC Synergy Grant: 2010290), Building Better ARC Future Fellowship (FT230100131), and Centre of Research Excellence in Achieving Health Equity for All People with Disabilities (NHMRC CRE: 2035278).
Professor Hannah Badland investigates how the built environment is connected to health, wellbeing, and inequities in both adults and children internationally, with an interest in populations disadvantaged by the system and inadequate policies. Hannah is the Director of the Social Equity Research Centre at RMIT and an Australian Research Council Future Fellow.
Dr Amanda Alderton is a Vice Chancellor’s Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the Social Equity Research Centre at RMIT. Drawing on her experience as a classroom teacher, Amanda works across disciplines including public health, health geography, urban studies, and developmental psychology. She holds a PhD in Global, Urban and Social Studies (RMIT University) and a Master of Public Health (University of Melbourne).
Dr Elroy Dearn is a research fellow at RMIT University who has held senior policy roles in state government and at the Victorian Office of the Public Advocate. Their research interests include institutionalisation, housing, disability and mental health policy, and human rights. Elroy is a research committee member of the National Disability Research Partnership.
See Croakey’s archive of articles on disability and health
