Essentials of a comprehensive accessibility legislation
Javed Hassan, Association of Physically Disabled Persons, Pakistan
An issue of great concern for the disabled people
of developing countries has always been the inaccessibility of the man-made
environment. With advances in rehabilitation providing an ever-increasing
number of disabled persons with the capabilities to lead active productive
lives, it has become necessary that we "rehabilitate" the environment
as well. Great expense and effort is often thwarted by man-made barriers
such as high curbs, stairs without handrails, narrow and difficult entrances
and a host of other environmental inconveniences.
It has been said, and we emphasize, that "there can be no social integration
of disabled people into society unless you first take steps to ensure their
physical participation in it". It is imperative therefore that the
physical environment be so designed as to enable everyone including persons
with disabilities to participate in and contribute to community life. All
buildings and facilities meant for use by the general public should be made
usable and safe for all. This is of decisive importance to people with disabilities
for exercising their basic civil right of equality and full participation.
To ensure this, we need a strong legal instrument with effective enforcement
and implementation clauses and which provides for legal proceedings in case
of non-compliance. Such an instrument would learn from the inadequacies
of existing legislation while embodying the following five points:
1. The act should ensure the fullest access to and use of the built environment
and the complete integration of disabled or environmentally limited people
into the mainstream of society. If similar measures promoting employment,
housing and access to public accommodation and educational facilities exists
then it should be coordinated with such measures to achieve maximum impact.
2. The coverage of the act should be as broad as possible when balanced
against cost factors. That is, new construction which is cheaper to make
accessible should merit broader coverage than existing facilities, while
use of public funds in construction or alteration should merit greater coverage
than when private efforts are undertaken. Similarly, broader coverage should
be mandated where increased public use occurs. Finally, there should be
economic incentives in the form of tax provisions to induce compliance and
voluntary private initiatives.
3. The act should specify minimum standards of accessibility with flexible
means of updating them periodically. The standards should reflect an environmental
approach rather than a "brick and mortar" approach, and should
stress maximum integration of disabled and non-disabled persons within the
built environment. Disabled persons should have strong input in the standard-setting
process to ensure that standards fit their needs.
4. The act should contain a well-defined and complete implementation mechanism.
Authority and responsibility as well as procedures should be clearly stated
rather than left to uncertainty, with the authority being backed by a professional
staff. In addition, major affected interests, i.e. disabled persons, should
be included in the composition of that authority. The implementation mechanism
should include "before the fact" review of a design to ensure
compliance and to avoid construction of non-conforming facilities.
5. Effective administrative enforcement mechanisms should be provided with
resort to judicial enforcement only if necessary. The mechanism should take
account of any existing, similar mechanisms, with responsibility for standard-settings
waivers and enforcement being retained by the principal agency.
Environmental design standards
The next most important part or element of any legislative
measure addressing the removal of environmental barriers is the adoption
of the environmental design standards, for it is these standards that will
determine the accessibility of individual facilities. To be enforceable,
the law must ensure the specificity and flexibility of standards, i.e. any
standards adopted must be specific enough to provide practical guidance
to architects, engineers and contractors and give them correct information
about what is required. At the same time the standards must be flexible
enough to meet the needs of persons with different types of disabilities
and allow architects, engineers and contractors to utilize new and innovative
approaches to accessibility without being hindered by narrow standards.
In addition, the provision of guidelines specifying maximum integration,
safety and independence and mandating integrated facilities should help
ensure that standards adopted are consistent with the goals of the act.
This along with the provision of minimum standards, gives strong legislative
guidance to administrative discretion.
Administrative organization
Many existing legislative measures addressing the
removal of environmental barriers place administration of the law in traditional
building code or fire safety agencies or divide the authority for administration
among a number of agencies. They also seldom provide formal mechanisms for
input by concerned/interested or affected groups, especially physically
disabled persons in standard setting and implementation.
These approaches suffer from several problems. Many of the implementing
agencies are tied to existing concepts of structural and safety standards
which tend towards a "brick and mortar" approach to rather than
the desired environmental design concept. The philosophy behind any legislative
measure should be based on the fullest access and integration within the
total environment and not just ramps and elevators.
Additionally, the absence of formal mechanisms for input in the standard-setting
and the granting of variances/exemptions makes it less likely that the needs
of those persons the statute is meant to serve will be adequately represented.
Environmentally limited persons are a valuable source of information and
their input should be formally sought. Finally, coordination of policy-making
and implementation is frequently made more difficult by the fragmented administration
of many statutes. This can easily produce a wide degree a variation in the
effective implementation of the act's requirements.
Therefore a single administrative body, namely the Environmental Design
Board, responsible for policy making, standard-setting, rule-making, implementation
and granting of waivers is suggested. The policies, rules and standards
adopted by the Environmental Design Board are to be carried out by a Secretary
appointed by and answerable to the Board. Implementation will occur through
the review of plans and specifications for the construction of facilities
covered by the act and their inspection to ensure that construction is completed
in accordance with approved plans/specifications. Enforcement provisions
are utilized only where this procedure fails or is inapplicable.
The implementation function should involve both plan review, inspection
and enforcement. These tasks require the technical expertise of trained
and experienced professionals to review plans and specifications, answer
day-to-day technical questions, conduct inspections of built facilities,
conduct investigations and testify as expert witnesses in enforcement proceedings.
Thus, these tasks should be given to a secretary who can provide the required
technical expertise directly or through his or her staff that is necessary
to carry out the policy of the Board.
Putting the responsibility for policy-making and implementation in a single
entity greatly facilitates the coordination of standard-setting and implementation.
It avoids the fragmentation of these functions which can occur when authority
is distributed among several agencies. Such fragmentation can easily result
in a patchwork of standards, inconsistent implementation and make the achievement
of accessible, integrated facilities unlikely.
