Green, Ralph & Jackson, Mary Ann

Report

Universal Mobility Index Pilot Kensington, Melbourne 2011

Authors

Ralph Green & Mary Ann Jackson

Executive Summary The Universal Mobility Index (UMI), a new tool to measure the overall accessibility of neighbourhoods, was piloted in Kensington in inner city Melbourne. A focus group was conducted prior to the pilot. This forum revealed that people with disabilities encountered barriers to mobility frequently in their everyday lives.

Secondly that current methods of detecting, reporting and treating barriers are haphazard, lacking any systemic, logical approach. There was no consensus on which parts of the built environment were likely to present the most barriers – Commercial, Public Buildings or Infrastructure. It was thought that Private Dwellings were likely to be more inaccessible than the other three categories.

The UMI pilot area included the strip shopping area of Kensington centred on Macaulay Road (see Map appendix 1) and a surrounding area comprising commercial and public buildings, private dwellings and infrastructure such as footpaths, road crossings, street furniture, railway stations and bus stops etc (see Tables 1 & 2). Groups of people with differing disabilities affecting their mobility in the built environment inspected a statistically significant random sample (90% confidence ±10 error) of buildings and infrastructure elements. The groups rated the selected elements on a five point Likert scale from ‘very bad’ to ‘very good’.

This provided the raw data for scoring elements as well as categorical cumulative ratings on a scale from 0 to 1, where 0 represents ‘very bad’ accessibility and 1 represents ‘very good’ accessibility.

Commercial Buildings (0.38) and Private Dwellings (0.40) showed ‘bad’ to ‘average’ accessibility. Public buildings (0.62) accessibility was found to be ‘average’ to ‘good’ and statistically significantly better compared to the other two building categories (independent T test p<0.05). Infrastructure (0.56) overall showed only ‘average’ accessibility. Infrastructure sub-components accessibility performed variably with disabled parking spaces (0.48) worse than ‘average’ while public spaces (0.58) and road crossings (0.58) were marginally better than ‘average’.

Overall Priv. Dwell.

VBad

Bad

0

0.25

Av.

Comm B.

0.5

Pub. B.

Infrastructure

Good

0.75

VGood

1

The overall UMI Score for the Built Environment as a whole was a disappointing 0.48. This low result confirms claims by disabled persons’ organisations that urban environments discriminately constrain the mobility of those with mobility impairments, limiting educational, employment, recreational opportunities and causing social exclusion.

A second part of the UMI, the Policy Environment Component used a questionnaire to assess the human rights agreements and disability discrimination act operating in the country of the pilot area. Additionally if/how people with disabilities have a voice in policy formulation affecting the accessibility of the built environment via a disability advisory committee. Scoring on the human rights and disability discrimination section (0.73) was ‘good’. Representation of people with disabilities in built environment policy making (0.52) was only ‘average’.

The combined overall UMI Policy Environment Score was an ‘average to ‘good’ 0.64.

Combining the Built Environment Score (0.48) and the Policy Environment Score (0.64) gave an overall UMI Pilot Score for the Kensington Activity Centre neighbourhood of an ‘average’ 0.56 (see Figure 3). While the Policy Environment (0.64) rated slightly higher this is yet to translate into an accessible built environment (0.48). In particular the rights of people with disabilities to access goods and services (Commercial Buildings 0.38) and to visit neighbours friends and relatives (Private Dwellings 0.40) are being denied. A partial explanation is that the voices of people with disabilities are not currently being well represented via a Disability Advisory Committee (0.52) in policy making forums affecting the form (accessibility) of the built environment.

The Pilot demonstrated the UMI to be the first tool able to assess the overall accessibility of a neighbourhood, identifying and prioritising barriers for removal. The UMI is inclusive and participatory, placing people with disabilities at the centre of decision making on how their local environment can be made more accessible.

Adoption of the UMI by government, responsible authorities and disabled persons’ organisations can address the current fragmented and exclusionary nature of access considerations across the built environment.

2

Background Barriers to mobility discriminately constrain the autonomy of people with disabilities (PwDs) to exercise their full human capabilities through denying or restricting participation in community, educational, occupational and many other activities, resulting in oppression and stigmatisation. A range of stakeholders endeavours to remove barriers and prevent their further creation through legislation, production of guidelines, monitoring and advocacy for people with disabilities. These stakeholders include all three levels of government, public and private institutions, transport authorities, contractors, disabled persons organisations and individuals.

Historically there has been no systematic, logical method of identifying the location of barriers and prioritising their removal. Access audits provide detailed information, usually about one building or complex but their brief usually does not extend ‘beyond the doorstep. Thus failing to reveal barriers in transport (e.g. inaccessible tram stops) or infrastructure (e.g. uncut footpath curbs) which may frustrate people with disabilities earlier in their journey. Additionally the isolated islands of information produced by access audits are not correlated or systematically addressed. Policy makers who affect the form, i.e. the accessibility, of the built environment are therefore left in somewhat of a statistical vacuum. This knowledge deficit is analogous to economists being unable to measure inflation or to public health officials being ignorant of childhood immunisation rates. The ability to measure the overall accessibility of neighbourhoods would allow monitoring of policy initiatives to prove their effectiveness at improving accessibility. It would also allow identification and prioritisation for removal of barriers encountered within the lived experience of people with disabilities. Additionally an overall measurement or rating would show which parts of the built environment are under performing allowing resources, including the application of access audits, to be targeted where most effective. Finally such a rating would allow stakeholders, including disabled persons associations to demonstrate the current extent of ‘accessibility’ and advocate more effectively for change.

The first method of measuring the overall accessibility of neighbourhoods – buildings and the infrastructure which connects them – was devised by Visionary Design Development’s Director of Research, Ralph Green in a recent university thesis1. This report provides details and outcomes of the first pilot of the Universal Mobility Index (UMI) performed in the inner Melbourne neighbourhood of Kensington. Support was provided by City of Melbourne and supervision by University of Melbourne via a minor thesis on the ‘strengths and challenges’ of implementation. The pilot aimed to not only test the methodology of the UMI but also to assess whether it represented an opportunity for meaningful inclusion of people with disabilities and equitable partnership with disabled persons organisations.

1

Green R. J., (2011) An Introductory Theoretical and Methodological Framework for a Universal Mobility Index (UMI) to Quantify, Compare, and Longitudinally Track Equity of Access Across the Built Environment; Journal of Disability Policy Studies; January 27, vol. 21 No. 4 219-229

3

UMI Pilot Methodology Those requiring more comprehensive and or technical details about the UMI should contact the author (ralph@vdd.com.au, T +61 3 9372 5651) for a copy of, or refer to, the published journal article cited in the above discussion in the Background section.

Pre-Implementation The area selected for the pilot revolved around the Kensington Activity Centre on Macaulay Road. (See attached map, appendix 2). Preliminary boundaries were decided after a number of considerations. To the east and the south natural borders exist such as the Moonee Ponds Creek and the Childers Street industrial estate, respectively. To the north the Racecource Road Activity Centre, with a greater range of services than Macualay Road, means those living equidistant or closer to Racecourse Road would likely choose the more local convenience. To the west JJ Holland Park offered another natural boundary however the social housing estate to the east of the park was at the time of the pilot undergoing building works. We know that people with disabilities are more likely to live in low cost housing. Ideally the housing estate would have been included but construction works prevented this.

City of Melbourne agreed to assist with the pilot by sourcing people with mobility restrictions for a preimplementation focus group, to form a steering committee and providing meeting rooms.

A focus group consisting of six people with disabilities affecting their mobility was convened. Attendees included three full time and one part-time wheelchair users. Prior to and during questions all were naive to the existence of the UMI concept and the impending pilot. At the conclusion of the focus group members were given information about the UMI pilot and invited to join both the steering committee and the survey teams.

Two focus group members agreed to sit on the steering committee. A third person with visual impairment was recruited from the City of Melbourne Disability Advisory Council, Built Environment Working Group. The Committee was completed by additional members, Ralph Green and the City of Melbourne Metro Access Project Officer. Thus the pilot was overseen by people of whom a majority had disabilities affecting their mobility.

The Steering Committee grappled with the decision of whether to include people with visual impairment on the survey teams. This issue revolved around the differences between physical barriers in the built environment and way finding by people with vision loss. More specifically would the inclusion of way finding feedback enhance or corrupt the survey data? Are physical negotiation and way finding sufficiently related to be considered together for ratings in an index that was conceived to measure physical rather than sensory nor cognitive barriers to mobility? After some deliberation it was decided to include people with vision impairment in the survey teams. Boundaries were confirmed.

The Built Environment Component of the UMI Mapping of the area was completed by Ralph Green during February and March 2011. The location and classification of every building in the pilot area was completed. Additionally footpaths, road crossings (intersections), bus stops, railway stations, street furniture (seats, bins, post boxes) were recorded. Each built environment element was given a specific identification tag. The classifications and the degree of disaggregation (separation into subcategories) of Infrastructure, is shown in Table 1. In contrast to the building categories, Infrastructure required further disaggregation due to its diversity. Failure to disaggregate infrastructure to the level shown risked oversight of important elements such as one or both of the two railway stations.

Infrastructure

Public Buildings

Commercial Buildings

Private Dwellings

Transport Facilities Train Stations Bus Stops Tram Stops Disabled Parking Footpaths Public Spaces Road Crossings Misc Infrastructure* *(street furniture, bins, post boxes, bicycle loops)

Churches Post Offices Libraries Town Halls Health Clinics Govt Offices Community Facilities Schools Pharmacies

Banks Shops Restaurants Business Offices Accommodation Factories Warehouses Showrooms

Houses Units Flats

Table 1. Classification of Built Environment Elements.

4

Random sampling was applied at the 90% confidence interval and ±10 error (p < 0.1). This was at both a lower confidence and a higher error than convention. Statistical sampling is usually performed at the 95% confidence level with ± 5 error (p < 0.05). Applying this higher statistical standard would have increased the number of built environment elements approximately threefold; a task the steering committee considered too demanding of the time and endurance of the volunteers with disabilities who made up the survey teams. Additionally the goals of the pilot – to test the logic and methodology of the UMI – would not be compromised. The lower sampling does however reduce the confidence of the pilot outcomes and conclusions to a small degree.

The sample built environment elements to be surveyed were plotted on four quadrant maps, the quadrants being separated by Macualay Road east to west and the Craigieburn Rail Line north to south (see map appendix 2). Topography of quadrants 1 and 2 is flat whereas 3 and 4 are more undulating. Quadrant 2 contained a larger proportion of commercial/industrial premises. Shops and Services are more common in quadrant 3 and 4. Table 2 shows total population numbers and sample sizes.

C o m m erc ia l B u ild in g s

P o p 22 3

S a m p le 52

P u b lic B u ild in g s

P o p 20

S a m p le 16

P riv a te D w e llin g s

P o p 14 97

S a m p le 65

Pop 2 Pop 7 P o p 18

S a m p le 2 S a m p le 7 S a m p le 14

Pop Pop Pop Pop

S a m p le S a m p le S a m p le S a m p le

In frastru c tu re

T ran s p o rt

T rain S tatio n s B u s S to p s D isa b le d P arkin g B a ys

F o o tp ath s P u b lic S p a ce s R o a d C ro ss in g s M isc In fras tru ctu re T o tals

18 3 6 86 59

T o tal P o p 210 1

50 6 38 32

T o tal S am p le 282

Table 2. Populations of Built Environment Elements Mapped in the Pilot area and the sample sizes required for 90% confidence interval and ± 10 error.

Mary Ann Jackson met, introduced and briefed the survey teams as well as escorting the them between built environment elements. Briefing entailed advising that the volunteers use their experience of moving through the built environment to come to a consensus on the accessibility of each element inspected on a five point scale from ‘very bad’ to ‘very good’. Further that it was not necessary that they know construction standards (e.g. minimum door widths, maximum ramp slope) but if they did possess this knowledge it may be used but need not be relied on exclusively for rating. The number of survey team members varied from a maximum of five to a minimum of two. All groups included a person with vision impairment and a wheel chair user. In the case of members with vision impairment where they were not able to personally transverse elements, e.g. pathway to the entry door of a private dwelling, Mary Ann explained the characteristics. This explanation took in gate, footpath width and slope, surface quality, number of steps, width of door etc. Additionally some surveyors with vision impairment were able to use their residual vision to assess contrast clues. Surveyors were asked to come to a consensus score on the accessibility of the built environment element being assessed. Where consensus was not possible individual ratings were recorded and the average applied.

The Policy Environment Component of the UMI The Policy Environment Questionnaire (see appendix 3) was distributed to a wide range of local government, and NGO stakeholders. Response was poor with only 4 questionnaires returned.

Weightings and Final UMI Score Response to the Built Environment weighting survey (see appendix 4) was slightly greater with 8 returns.

Post-Implementation Interviews A post-implementation focus group was planned through invitation of all involved in the pilot i.e. PreImplementation Focus Group members, Steering Committee, and survey team participants. Logistical problems prevented a quorum so it was decided to conduct post-implementation telephone interviews instead.

Results of the Kensington UMI Pilot were made available to all 8 interviewees prior to questioning.

5

Results Focus Group Key Findings • • • •

People with disabilities encountered barriers to mobility in everyday activities including their own homes Barriers exist in all three of the building categories as well as across infrastructure types It was thought that Private Dwellings would show the worst accessibility but there was no consensus on the likely performance of the other three categories There was no consensus on whether a group of people with differing disabilities would be able to agree on a rating for a building or piece of infrastructure Built Environment Component (0.48)

Sub-Component

UMI Score

Infrastructure Public Buildings 0.56

0.62

Commercial Buildings 0.38

Private Dwellings 0.40

Overall Rating

0.48

The Public Buildings result of 0.62 was statistically significantly different from that of both Commercial Buildings 0.38 and Private Dwellings 0.40 (independent one tailed T-test p < 0.05). It is not possible to statistically compare infrastructure with the other Built Environment components due to the different method of calculation from sub-component scores.

When inspecting built environment elements Survey Teams were able to reach consensus on how accessible the element in question was on a five point ‘very bad’ to ‘very good’ on three out of four occasions (74.6%).

Where consensus was not possible individual scores were recorded then averaged.

Infrastructure (0.56): Disaggregated ratings are shown below.

Transport 0.52 ↑↑ Train Stations 0.50 Bus Stops 0.57 Disabled Parking 0.48

Footpaths 0.55

Public Spaces 0.58

Road Crossings 0.58

Misc. Infrast.

0.56

Public Buildings (0.62): were the most accessible Built Environment category but small in number (pop 20, sample size 16) so no sub category statistical analysis was performed.

Commercial Buildings (0.38): were the least accessible. Sub categorisation was performed during mapping but statistical sampling was not extended to sub-categories. Nonetheless the ratings are likely demonstrative of the true accessibility of these building types (see Figure 1).

6

UMI Score

Com m ercial Building Categories UMI Scores 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00

Figure 1

0.56

0.29

0.29

Factory/W'house

Office/Show room

UMI Scores for Commercial Building types

Shops/Services

Private Dwellings (0.40): scored equally poorly as Commercial Buildings. During mapping ‘terraces’ were defined as single front with one entrance and built boundary to boundary or with common walls on both sides.

Single front dwellings with a side lane on one or both sides were categorised as ‘houses’ as were all double front dwellings whether attached or not. Flats were multiple dwellings with a single main entrance.

Thus ‘terraces’ have limited choices for modifications to enhance accessibility for their single front entrance. In contrast ‘houses’ have more opportunity for an accessible entrance via a side path or by access at via the rear. Although ‘terraces’ may have rear lane access in the Kensington pilot area this almost exclusively meant navigating across uneven bluestone paving.

Again sub categorisation was performed during mapping but statistical sampling was not extended to subcategories. Nonetheless as for Commercial Buildings, the ratings are likely demonstrative of the true accessibility of these building types (see Figure 2).

UMI Score

Private Dwelling Categories UMI Scores

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

0.6

Figure 2 0.4 0.26

Flats

Houses

UMI Scores for Private Dwelling types

Terraces

Built Environment Weighting Survey: returned results (Figure 3) of greater importance of accessibility for infrastructure with similar lesser weightings for the other three components. Thus infrastructure was considered 16-18% more important to be barrier free.

7

Built Environm ent Com ponent Weightings ( to 1.00) 1.6 1.4

Figure 3

1.2

Built Environment weightings of relative barrier free importance. Had all categories been rated equally their scores would all equal 1.

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Infrastructure

Public Buildings

Commercial Buildings

Private Dw ellings

These weightings applied to the Built Environment Component have the following effect on scores (see Figure 4). While the overall Built Environment Score of 0.48 unweighted improves only marginally to 0.50 with weightings, the score for infrastructure gains significantly growing from an unweighted 0.56 to a weighted 0.80.

The higher reading acknowledges the relative importance of infrastructure being barrier free on the overall built environment component score, as revealed by the Built Environment Weighting Survey. Further research is required on the incorporation of weightings in UMI calculations.

Affects of w eighting Built Environm ent Com ponent Scores

Private Dw ellings

Figure 4

w eighted

Weighted and unweighted Built Environment Component Scores

unw eighted

Infrastructure 0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

UMI Score

Policy Environment Component The first six questions relating to human rights agreements and a disability discrimination act scored a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;goodâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 0.73. The second set of nine probing the policy cycle resulting in the form (i.e. accessibility) of the built environment and the influence people with disabilities have on this process via a disability advisory council, scored 0.52 (see Appendix 3). The overall score for the Policy Environment Component was 0.64.

8

Overall UMI Score for Kensington Activity Centre Combining the Built Environment Component (0.48) and Policy Environment Component (0.64) gives a final overall UMI score of 0.56 (see Figure 3).

UMI 0.56 Policy Environment Component 0.64

Built Environment Component 0.48

Infrastructure 0.56

Transport Facilities 0.52

Train Stations 0.5

Public Buildings 0.62

Footpaths 0.55

Bus Stops 0.57

Commercial Buildings 0.38

Public Spaces 0.58

Disabled Parking Bays 0.48

Private Dwellings 0.40

Road Crossings 0.58

Misc. Infrast.

0.56

Figure 3 UMI overall and disaggregated component and subcomponent scores

Post-implementation Interviews Participants whether involved in the Focus Group or Survey Teams were unanimously positive about their experience with the pilot. Survey Team members commented on the value of learning how differing impairments affected the mobility of others. It was felt that the results validated their own experiences of frustration and exclusion by barriers. There was broad agreement that the data could be used by individuals and disabled persons’ organisations in advocating for a more accessible built environment. Similarly government and responsible authorities should use the information to target resources for barrier removal.

There was cautious optimism that the Policy Environment scores provided a guideline as to the current influence, or lack there of, that people with disabilities have on policy making affecting accessibility in the built environment.

Discussion People with disabilities continue to encounter barriers to mobility in everyday activities across all parts of the built environment. The poor Built Environment Component score of 0.48 provides confirmation. Australia has made some progress with Human Rights Agreements and a disability discrimination act (0.72). These agreements and laws are yet to result in an accessible built environment for all (0.48). A partial explanation may be that people with disabilities lack an effective voice (0.52) in policy making affecting access in the built environment.

The focus group was unable to predict the pilot’s poor accessibility outcome for Commercial Buildings (0.38), nor the stronger performance of Public Buildings (0.62). Only a low result for Private Dwellings (0.40) received any degree of predictive consensus. This of course may be due to these outcomes being peculiar to Kensington. However a discussion with four members of a Kensington based disabled persons’ organisation involved in mobility aid training in the area was revealing. Only the member who had been a participant in the Survey Teams was able to predict the poor Commercial Buildings outcome, no doubt assisted by ‘insider information’. The other three members, despite their close familiarity with the pilot area, were no better than the focus group at forecasting where barriers in the built environment were likely to be located.

9

Infrastructure (0.56) sub components varied throughout a narrow range of slightly worse than ‘average’ (disabled parking spaces 0.48) to only slightly above ‘average’ (public spaces 0.58, road crossings 0.58).

Since infrastructure provides the connections between public, commercial buildings and private dwellings its ‘average’ accessibility continually presents barriers en route. The complexity of infrastructure and the myriad of government, authorities and private contractors responsible for design, installation and maintenance present a challenge to management coordination. The UMI component scores provide a basis for such management.

Public Buildings (0.62) was the only category to feature ‘average’ to ‘good’ accessibility. This showed access to essential services though less than ‘good’ was better than for other building categories or infrastructure types. The lower result for infrastructure (0.56) raises questions regarding frustration or denial of access to public buildings through en route barriers.

The poor accessibility result for Commercial Buildings (0.38) and the sub categories within illustrate the barriers to employment people with disabilities face in employment in Kensington, in both white collar (office/showroom 0.29) and blue collar (factory/warehouse 0.29) workplaces. Additionally access to local retailers for purposes of purchases or employment (shops/services 0.56) is only marginally above ‘average’.

Social inclusion of people with disabilities is hindered by poor access when visiting the homes of friends and family (0.40), with the majority of residential building stock having ‘bad’ (terraces 0.26) to worse than ‘average’ (houses 0.40) accessibility.

The Built Environment Weighting results (Infrastructure 1.43, Public Buildings 0.90, Commercial Buildings 0.87, Private Dwellings 0.80) indicates it may be equally important to improve the accessibility of Infrastructure (0.56) despite it being higher than Commercial buildings (0.38) and Private Dwellings (0.40).

Limitations of the Pilot Precaution should be exercised in drawing any hard conclusions after a single pilot of a new tool that purports to be suitable for implementation across varied socio-political landscapes worldwide. Further potential pilots outside capital cities and overseas can provide further data and refinement of the UMI concept.

Conclusion Notwithstanding the limitations outlined above, the initial pilot has proved to be an inclusive, participatory experience for all 24 persons involved, especially the large majority of those (22) with disabilities. The UMI has the potential to provide for the first time a cogent, systematic method of assessing the overall accessibility of neighbourhoods. It empowers people with disabilities by placing them at the centre of decision making on how the built environment should be made more accessible, arming them with the outcome data for effective advocacy. The Policy Environment Component illuminates the degree of inclusion of the opinions of people with disabilities in the policy making process whilst also demonstrating how their voices may be better heard.

A tentative conclusion is that despite their personal experiences individual people with disabilities may not be able to nominate which categories of the built environment are under performing. Conversely a group of people with differing impairments affecting their mobility were able to come to a consensus on three out of four (74.6%) of occasions. This provides a mechanism for the first time, of both identifying and prioritising barriers for removal, through targeting those barriers which affect the most people with disabilities more severely.

Since retro-fitting accessibility features to established buildings is often expensive in comparison to universal design from initial conception, the UMI represents a valuable tool to direct the available resources where they can be most effective.

Adoption of the UMI by government, responsible authorities and disabled persons’ organisations, can address the fragmented nature of current access considerations across the built environment and the exclusion of people with disabilities in the policy process that shapes this environment.

10

Appendices 1.

Kensington pilot area map

2.

Policy Environment Questionnaire

3.

Built Environment weighting survey

11

Appendix 1. Map of Kensington UMI Pilot Area

12

Appendix 2. Policy Environment Questionnaire Thank you for assisting with this research. The questionnaire below is a checklist for scoring how well different countries perform when providing for access for people with disabilities. Information about the Universal Mobility Index project can be downloaded from http://www.vdd.com.au/Documents/Universal%20Mobility%20Index.pdf Instructions: The following questions have been formulated to apply to countries around the world, but should be answered in regard to the situation in Melbourne, Victoria. Please answer each question by placing a check (just click on the box with your mouse) in the check box. If you want to change your answer simply uncheck the box and check another. If you donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know the answer donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t check any boxes, just move on to the next question. Any number of people from within your organisation can participate. Feel free to pass on this questionnaire to other accessibility stakeholder organisations.

Queries? Ph 9372 5651 ask to speak with Ralph Green or ralph@vdd.com.au .

Important: When completed save the document to your computer then return as an attachment via e-mail to majarch@vdd.com.au or ralph@vdd.com.au

Section 1. Human Rights Questions Q1. Is the country a signatory to major human rights conventions including those dealing with disability?

Q2. Is there a disability discrimination act (DDA or equivalent) based on human rights conventions?

Q3. Does the DDA apply to access within the built environment (B.E)?

Q4. Are building construction access standards based on the DDA? Q5. Can people with disabilities (PwD) and disabled persons organisations (DPOs) win access discrimination claims via the DDA? Q6. Is there a history of successful claims under the DDA against government, the wealthy elite, and corporations?

Section 2. Political Representation and Policy Making Questions Q8. Is there a disability advisory council/committee (DAC) or equivalent?

Q9. Is DAC membership representative of local/country DPOs? Q10. How well is the DAC resourced including capacity building?

Q11. Does the DAC provide advice to government departments responsible for the built environment (B.E.)?

Please check one box for each question None/few Some Most/all

No

Partially based

Yes

(if No go to Section 2) No

Partially

Most cases

No

Partially

Closely

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Effectively No

Sometimes

Often

Please check one box for each question No

Of a sort

Yes

(go to Question 16) No

Partially

Highly

Inadequately

Partially

Well

Limited

Some

All

(Continued next page) 13

Diagram: Model Policy Cycle for policy making affecting the form of the built environment

Q12. Is the DAC involved in agenda setting and evaluation of policies affecting access in the built environment as per the policy cycle diagram above?

Q13. Does the DAC provide advice to government outside of the B.E. departments?

Q14. Are there expert, non-disabled advisors as members of the DAC?

Q15. Is the DAC able to seek expert advice from outside sources?

Q16. Are there PwD appointed to ministerial or senior public service positions in departments responsible for the B.E.?

Hardly

Some involvement

Involved as shown

No

Some

Broadly

Majority

Some

None/chair only

(go to Question 16) Not easily

Sometimes

Easily

None

Some

Most departments

Abbreviations: DDA = disability discrimination act; B.E. = built environment*; PwD = people with disabilities; DPO = disabled persons organisation; DAC = disability advisory council/committee * The built environment is every part of the environment made or modified by humans â&#x20AC;&#x201C; buildings, machines, footpaths, parks but not natural bushland.

Many thanks,

Ralph Green Director of Research Visionary Design Development, Kensington VIC.

14

Appendix 3: Built Environment Weighting Survey Thank you for assisting with this research. This is a very short question about your access priorities.

Information about the Universal Mobility Index project can be downloaded from http://www.vdd.com.au/Documents/Universal%20Mobility%20Index.pdf Instructions: The built environment has been divided into four categories (see below). We want to know your opinion on whether it is more important for some of the categories to be accessible for people with disabilities than others. Please allocate a total of 100 points between the categories by clicking on then typing, your scores in the shaded boxes in the table below. If you want to change your initial points allocation simply backspace and re-type.

Feel free to pass on this questionnaire to anyone or any organisation whose members may experience mobility difficulties.

Queries? Ph 9372 5651 ask to speak with Ralph Green or ralph@vdd.com.au .

Important: When completed save the document to your computer then return as an attachment via e-mail to majarch@vdd.com.au or ralph@vdd.com.au

Built Environment Categories ->

Infrastructure

Public Buildings

Commercial Buildings

Private Dwellings

Transport Facilities Footpaths Public Spaces Road Crossings Accessible Parking

Churches Post Offices Libraries Town Halls Health Clinics Govt Offices Community Facilities Schools Pharmacies

Banks Shops Restaurants Business Offices Factories Showrooms Warehouses Accommodation

Houses Units Flats

Type the number of points for accessibility importance you allocate here ->

(must equal)

+

+ +

= 100 total

Many thanks,

Ralph Green Director of Research Visionary Design Development, Kensington VIC.

15