Independent Living Institute www.independentliving.org

CIB logo

 

 

 

Report of the
Fourth International Expert Seminar on
Building Non-Handicapping Environments:
Access Legislation and Design Solutions

Budapest, Hungary, September 2-4, 1991


Download the Budapest proceedings as a PDF file (480 KB)

Summary of the sessions


Workshop 1spaceAccess legislation

Chairperson:spaceBas Treffers, Netherlands
Rapporteur:spacePeter Dunn, Canada


Presentations were given by:

Zoltán Csorba, Mayor's Office, Budapest, Hungary

In 1981, the Municipal Council of Budapest built 80 specially designed homes for people with disabilities. However, under the old government there have been few changes since that time. Socialist states only placed a marginal emphasis on accessibility. What may be needed now are some new international recommendations for human rights. However, Budapest recently decided to form a barrier-free environment in main public areas and institutions. The Budapest master plan also needs to be changed given the changing economic and social conditions. The following are suggested ways of doing it by developing four types of zones: Discussion:spaceIssues were raised related to having all areas accessible. It was strongly recommended that all public transportation be accessible.

Tibor Polinszky, Budapest, Hungary

In Hungary 300,000 - 500,000 citizens have a physical disability. Hungary began to discuss the issues of accessibility in 1981. In 1986, issues were raised regarding the National Building Code. Since that time, considerable research has been carried out to develop standards for accessible construction in Hungary. Hungary is also considering adopting the European proposed design. There are special problems in Hungary which must be addressed including narrow stone doorways. Hungary is trying to promote accessible design in the universities, in research and the planning process. The present Building Code requires public buildings to be accessible. However, there are no specific design criteria.

Discussion:spaceIssues raised in the discussion included the importance of considering people with hearing and visual impairments; the high institutionalization of people with disabilities in Hungary; and the fact that design research of a similar nature has gone on in other countries since 1956 (i.e., reinventing the wheel).

Miloslav Maxa, Czechoslovak Building Center, Prague, Czechoslovakia

Czechoslovakia has not accomplished much in terms of access even with the new government since November 1989. In 1985, the government passed a decree stating that structures used by disabled people should be accessible. However, the government did not enforce these general regulations. Several draft guidelines have been developed for residential buildings, multi-family buildings and public buildings. The government also provided a subsidy to promote products and materials used for accessible design. In 1986, the Central Commission for the Environment for Disabled People in the Czech Republic in Prague was established. This body was reconstituted by the new government in 1991 to enforce building standards, provide consultation, promotion and publicity.

Vjatcheslav K. Stepanov, Club "Contacts", Soviet Union

From 1917 to 1986, there were no major efforts for persons who are disabled in the USSR. There was very little financial support for people with disabilities. It was very unusual to see people using wheelchairs in the community. In the last five years, organizations of persons with disabilities have been started. However, this process has been slow because of the lack of funds. Mr. Stepanov has written several books about accessible building elements and structures. Children with disabilities have been moved from big institutions to smaller ones of 6 - 8 children. Children with disabilities often go to segregated schools although there are also efforts towards integration. There are special institutions for those individuals with visual disabilities.

Discussion:spaceThere was discussion about whether persons who are disabled were 'sick'. Segregated education was questioned.

Felix M. Uritsky, Club "Contacts", Soviet Union

Club "Contacts" stresses the concept of independent living. Buildings in the Soviet Union are very inaccessible with heavy doors, many stairs and narrow passageways. The Soviet Union cannot import enough assistive devices because of the large demand in the Soviet Union and the high costs. The state system is still very clumsy and has a hard time responding to social needs. As a response, Club "Contacts" was developed with three shareholders as a non-profit partnership in conjunction with local persons with disabilities in Moscow. The Club is producing assistive devices and equipment in partnership with persons who are disabled.

Discussion:spaceIt was felt that this response was very innovative and stressed the relationship of assistive devices and independent living.

Gordana Rajkov, Muscular Dystrophy Association, Yugoslavia

One of the main activities of the MD Association of Yugoslavia is elimination of architectural barriers in cooperation with other groups of persons with disabilities. The first major step began in 1977 when groups of persons who are disabled met to discuss architectural barriers. The next step was to inform the public about the problems of barriers. The Ministers of Housing and Public Works in all of the republics were contacted, specific proposals for new regulations were recommended. In 1985-86, the federal government established a working group and adopted standards for parking, curbs, crossings and public buildings, lobbies and doorways of apartments. Also, the Republic adopted standards in the 1980's for special planning and land use which emphasized accessibility. Now, the MD Association is stressing the enforcement of these standards. The federal government declared 1989 the year of fighting architectural barriers. The MD Association dealt with these issues also at the local level using films about inaccessible local areas.



Workshop 1spaceDesign solutions

Chairperson:spaceJames D. Harrison
Rapporteur:spaceIan M. Eilenberg, Australia


Presentations were given by:



The first speaker of this session on design solutions was Joanne Milner from the Robert Gordon Institute in Scotland. She carried out research with the aim to prove that building designers do not give adequate consideration to the needs of people with disabilities, that they perceive persons who are disabled as a separate minority who require 'special' provisions. Within this context it is suggested that the building designer would be more able to serve the needs of people with disabilities, if building design education adopted a more user responsive philosophy. She noted that there has been a change in perception of persons with disabilities around the world. There is, however, a need for a holistic approach to the problem.

Her research was in three parts. The first part consisted of a survey by mail of which there was a 43 per cent response. Findings showed a definite improvement in access, one area was in the use of banks. In 1968, only 4 per cent of people with disabilities visited the banks themselves, but by 1990, 64 per cent went personally to the bank. Stage two was to look at the curriculum content of architecture courses. Of the architecture schools surveyed, 30 schools (79 per cent) responded. Only 8 schools specifically addressed barrier-free design. Of these only three gave specific lecture series, others by project work or briefings. Overall it appears that education in this area only occurs where a lecturer has a specific interest - personally disabled or with a relative or friend who has a disability. Stage 3 aimed at evaluating student awareness of barrier-free access for persons who are disabled. Her methods involved workshops, simulated exercises and site visits. By use of blind testing, it was clear that the widest education provided greatest awareness. Her conclusion was that lack of access awareness directly related to education programs.

A paper was read on behalf of Miloslav Maxa who explained that the greatest problem in Czechoslovakia was not lack of designer awareness, but more a lack of suitable materials and systems. The Czechoslovakian Building Center produced a document with 37 pages of suggested products and details and in 1900 reissued this document covering some 90 details. Over 7,000 copies of this document were distributed. One company has responded and has produced a remote controlled garage door. Private sponsorship is now required to advance this work.

Satoshi Kose from Japan gave an interesting presentation on the future problem of the aging Japanese population - 1 in 4 will be over 65 years of age by the year 2020. In Japan, cultural traditions are very important and quick changes are not possible. The aim is to modify existing designs to permit the people to remain in the same home throughout their lifetime - from infancy to old age. Recent government guidelines have recommended that all new houses be constructed to enable this to happen. He discussed specific problems, including the different methods of bathing used by the Japanese which creates more water in the bathroom than Western bathing, the Japanese custom of changing street shoes for slippers at the front door, beds that are on the floor, not raised like Western style beds, draining of balconies, etc. The solutions included gradings to build up surfaces to a single level and the elimination of steps.

Guidelines established in March 1990 were aimed at old persons, rather than persons with disabilities. There is no consideration of the use of wheelchairs indoors. Houses are generally too small. He showed a series of slides to demonstrate his various points.

Tina and Erik Bahn from Denmark discussed two related pieces of legislation from 1990: a) All old persons and those with disabilities must be able to stay in their own homes. b) The requirements to separate all waste into its various categories for disposal or recycling. They approached these two problems in three ways: how to separate the waste within the kitchen; how to take out the waste; and the problems of disposing of the waste into the correct receptacle outside the building. Their work was based on a block of apartments built in 1969-70 where the kitchens were due for upgrading. The occupiers took an active role in assessing the work, from the sketch plans to the final products. The initial solution to the waste in the kitchen started as a mobile unit and finished with a unit hinged to fold away under the internal corner of the bench, thus making good use of an often hard to get to part of any kitchen. This was readily accessible from a wheelchair.

The outdoor waste bins were very large with lids which often had to be held open with the head whilst the waste was deposited. The installation of a small section on the lid, with a pull handle device allowing the rubbish to fall in, solved this problem. The presenters showed a series of slides which illustrated the development of these assistive devices. They concluded that there is no one solution to cover every problem and that each problem requires a separate solution, but that the underlying approach is the same.


Discussion took place and two clear areas were enunciated:

Workshop 2spaceAccess legislation

Chairperson:spaceMarilyn Golden, USA
Rapporteur:spaceSan Yuenwah, Thailand


Presentations were given by:



Six papers containing case studies on access legislation in Europe, North America and Asia & Pacific Region were presented. The papers dealt with building regulations; access legislation for housing; access to national, recreational and cultural facilities; recent advances in promoting accessibility in a newly industrializing economy; and progress towards legislation to eliminate social and physical barriers to the full participation of people with disabilities.

The Norwegian presentation examined the effects of access regulations on planning, detailing and building, with special reference to dwellings, related outdoor spaces, and other structures in housing areas. It was based on information gathered from nearly 60 interviews with local building authorities, architects, and suppliers of industrialized housing. Site visits to "life-span" dwellings and new buildings had yielded additional information. Norwegian access building regulations applied to all new construction and major reconstruction work. The regulations covered buildings that were open to the general public as well as those where people with disabilities might work and be housed. Since the introduction of the regulations in 1976, the technical skills of planners and builders had improved, and so has their awareness of accessibility. Building plans existed for full accessibility but those were often not realized. In that regard, there were several main areas of concern that remained to be addressed. Firstly, there was a need for detailed drawings to be made available to workers, foremen, site engineers and local authority controllers. Secondly, parts of the regulations gave insufficient detail. That often led to difficulties in comprehension and implementation. Thirdly, insufficient clarity in the wording of specifications caused parts of the regulations to be disregarded. There was a need to incorporate life-span dwelling criteria into the regulations. These criteria were employed by the Norwegian State Housing Bank for giving loans for dwellings. Life span dwellings that were fully accessible received the best financing. Fourthly, there was a need for more systematic checking on actual compliance with regulations. Fifthly, there was a need to include accessibility into the education of the building professionals. On the accessibility issue, two national organizations of disabled people exerted continuous pressure on government departments.

The Australian presentation contained a critical discussion of the legislative provisions of access. While all buildings open to the public were required to provide access for people with disabilities, that requirement was more often observed in name than in deed. Nevertheless, many architects were increasingly giving attention to access to main entrances and elevators, partly as a result of standards covering facilities for persons with disabilities in elevators. These were also improvements in the accessibility of the interiors of buildings. The general improvement was traced not so much to conformance with legislation as to the economic incentive inherent in accessible buildings that had sale value. The implications of accessible construction for an aging population in Australia were pointed out.

The Canadian presentation described the development of an Access Plan for each of the national parks, historic sites and historic canals, under the Canadian Parks Service, one of the largest in the world. The planning exercise had been initiated in response to Federal Government legislation and directives on accessibility. The cooperation of agencies representing disabled persons in interpreting the directives and developing a process for implementation were outlined. Public speaking campaigns, training of all 5,000 service staff on disability issues, token awards for supporters and humanization of the accessibility issue to win the support of architects and developers were among the strategies that had been employed to promote accessibility. Among the results of those strategies were the availability of audio-cassettes of information on trails, large print signs, model exhibits that were designed for tactile perception, descriptive videos with captioning, and the installation of broadcasting and listening systems in all parks.

The Finnish presentation pertained to a national report on Finnish access legislation. Finnish access legislation included access norms based on performance criteria, building regulations in the norms of a national building code, and guidelines with detailed measurements on accessibility. While the guidelines served only as recommendations, the building regulations were binding. The presentation emphasized the need for clear mandatory regulations in place of vague performance criteria in building codes. Concerning enforcements, the presentation outlined an enforcement mechanism that was operative at the municipal level. Enforcement of a Finnish access legislation did not depend on the size of a structure, be it a new building or one under renovation, but on the type and use of the building itself. The structure should be open to the public in general, or owned by a public body, state or municipality. Enforcement of the installation of elevators in public buildings and business facilities through incorporation of the requirement in a binding regulation was underlined. In the private building sector, legislation covered services open to the public. However, public outdoor areas and private workplaces and residential buildings were not covered though numerous initiatives to improve accessibility in this area were under way. The presentation further highlighted the role of organizations of disabled people in bringing about access legislation. The National Association of Persons with Disabilities, in particular, prepared the technical papers required by the Ministry of Environment for improving building norms on accessibility.

The Singaporean presentation focussed on access legislation enacted within the past two years, including incentives to encourage the incorporation of access features. The legislation covered new and retrofitted public buildings, workplaces and barrier-free walkways in the public domain. The presentation examined the contrast of economic prosperity and a desire for a "more caring society" which had influenced the recent enactments of access legislation, along with concern over the provision of access facilities both for Singapore's increasingly aging society, as well as for a wider range of tourists. It was noted that the most significant step taken by public agencies had been the upgrading of continuous barrier-free walkway systems in the city. Initiatives were under way to resolve the mismatch between public and private sector provisions for accessibility. The Singapore Institute of Architects, in cooperation with the Singapore Council of Social Service, had formed the Accessibility Advisory Service to assist employers in improving the accessibility of the workplace, for which they could claim tax deductions up to a maximum of S$100,000. The special problems of designing barrier-free pedestrian routes in an equatorial climate were pointed out in the presentation.

The Byelorussian presentation introduced the efforts of the Byelorussian Society of Disabled Persons to help in the development of legislation to eliminate social and physical barriers to the full participation of people with disabilities in society. The Byelorussian Parliament was expected to adopt a draft law on the social protection of persons who are disabled. The society had participated in the development of building requirements for the creation of an accessible environment. The role of seven members of the Society as members of parliament was cited as being significant in supporting the Society's effect concerning legislation.


Workshop 2spaceDesign solutions

Chairperson:spaceAles Chytka, Czechoslovakia
Rapporteur:spacePauline Nee, U.K.


Presentations were given by:



Certain themes identified in these presentations, as well as other presentations throughout the seminar, were as follows:

All countries experience similar problems: people with disabilities are handicapped by their environment as much as by their disability. All societies are thus denied a full contribution from people with disabilities.

There are however significant differences which designers, legislators and activists must be aware of. Mr. Parakattel spoke about the problems in a country where many people cannot afford a wheelchair. Ms. Ghaem pointed out that Western design criteria did not address the cultural traditions of other countries.

The countries with less developed disability movements are using research carried out elsewhere, when appropriate. There is no point in reinventing the wheel: Ms. Kurylowicz used U.S. standards when designing adaptations for the theater; Ms. Ghaem used UN criteria of sizes of children when developing criteria for schools; Mr. Parakattel told how they had learnt from the mistakes of institutionalization, particularly useful in a developing country where its expense is also critical.

Of these countries only Iran had produced regulations for design, as late as in 1989. They were all devising and hoping to introduce regulations. In this they would learn from the wide ranging discussions throughout the seminar on the necessary adjuncts to legislation such as education, implementation, monitoring and enforcement.

The whole range of the urban environment must be considered, from urban planning to individual homes: Mr. Gnamus had considered in detail design in the home.

It is easier to provide access in the new buildings: Ms. Kurylowicz talked about the special problems/attitudes encountered when dealing with a building of special historic interest.

The concept of 'macro' or 'universal' design is informing debate and action in a positive and meaningful way: Mr. Gnamus explained how so-called 'normal' speeds for crossing roads are difficult to define. Even those people without significant disabilities will at some point have motion problems, particularly when very younger or older. Ms. Kurylowicz pointed out that certain steps leading up to the Krakow theater created a safety hazard as well as a barrier. Macro design attempts to create environments for a total population - environments which will not need adaptations to cater for specific disabilities.

The particular importance of integrating all education was stressed by Mr. Parakattel and Ms. Ghaem.



Plenary session The Americans with Disabilities Act
and other policy tools in the United States and Canada

Chairperson:spaceAdolf D. Ratzka, Sweden
Rapporteur:spaceSan Yuenwah, Thailand


Presentations were given by:



In a presentation on anti-discrimination legislation as a basis for barrier-free design, a comparison was made between the historical roots of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the U.S. civil rights movement and the prevalent British perception of accessibility as a charitable dispensation of a traditional welfare state. The lessons of the ADA that were perceived as being relevant for the British disability movement included the importance of networking and mutual support among people with different types of disabilities, high profile agitation and the leadership role of people with disabilities in advocacy. The presentation drew attention to some legislative shortcomings. For example, standards tended to be minimum and legislation per se did not win the hearts and minds of designers. It was proposed that existing political organizations such as trade unions be notified to work towards the achievement in the U.K. of the goal inherent in the ADA. For that, there was a need for closer links with the broader disability movement within Europe.

In a Californian presentation analyzing enforcement mechanisms for implementing access legislation, three conclusions were stated. Firstly, all three major levels of government (national, state and local) should participate in the enforcement of access legislation, with statutory provisions for enforcement by officials at each of those levels. Secondly, statutes should provide for private enforcement by individuals and groups. Thirdly, remedies in statutes should include the following:
The presentation identified four requirements for effective enforcement:
The efficacy of heavy penalties for negotiating enforcement by invoking the threat of the immediacy of a law suit was emphasized. There was, however, disagreement on this view.

A presentation on a U.S. non-profit housing service agency described activities to address three housing problems faced by people with disabilities: affordability, discrimination, and architectural barriers. Those activities included housing relocation, advocacy, counselling, home modification, and redesigning of government-built housing. The agency had developed a training manual for a training program on the Fair Housing Amendments Act. As a result of training and discussions on the Act, building designs are increasingly incorporating accessibility features. It was pointed out that the major changes contained in the Act were the inclusion of people with disabilities and families with children as protected groups, and specification of a judicial enforcement mechanism in the form of fiscal penalties.

The German presentation on anti-discrimination legislation covered the aspirations for a German policy tool that would be similar to the ADA, and the creation of a political alliance for anti-discrimination legislation, which benefitted from European networking. In the current developments on constitutional changes following the unification of East and West Germany, the German disability movement aspires to equalization of the general system of society through incorporation of the following components in revised legislation. These components are: an expansion of anti-discrimination provisions to cover people with psychiatric, other mental, and physical impairments, as well as the relationship between individuals, and not only between the state and the individual; and affirmative action, in addition to social subsidies. Further, human rights legislation should explicitly cover people with disabilities, while people with guardians should have the right to vote. Public transportation and housing policies should include access provisions. The need for legal service, counselling and independent living centers to support the movement for legislative change was noted, as was the desirability of including in new laws, funding provisions for those centers. The creation of a political alliance for German efforts towards anti-discrimination legislation was informed by a combined approach featuring civil disobedience, political lobbying and cross-disability solidarity. The consciousness-raising, networking, self-advocacy and publicity endeavors of a coalition of eight member organizations for anti-discrimination legislation were described.

The Seminar was further informed of the role of the European Network on Independent Living (ENIL) in campaigning for equal rights for people with disabilities in Europe as an effort to strengthen the European disability movement. Plans were under way for observation throughout Europe of a day (5 May 1992) of public protest against discriminating practices. The presentation on Working for Anti-discrimination Legislation drew from the experiences of the U.S. disability movement in achieving passage of the ADA. Central to the U.S. success were concerted and long-term efforts to effect change in the perception of people with disabilities as passive recipients of handouts to one that highlighted their active participation in society as tax payers, voters and consumers. This related both to the self-perception of people with disabilities and to public perception. A strong Independent Living Movement and awareness of disability rights were also viewed as fundamental to bringing about the ADA. The importance of unity across the disability movement was emphasized. Self-advocacy, face-to-face meetings with legislators, continuous and direct contact with officials, and telecommunications networking were among the strategies that had been used.

In the Canadian presentation on anti-discrimination and civil rights legislation, a comparative review was made of Canadian and U.S. efforts in that regard. Issues for consideration in adopting a civil rights approach and principles for barrier-free housing were identified. It was noted that legislative change occurred only if people advocated for that change. Moreover, implementation and enforcement mechanisms were necessary to support legislation. Professional groups had to develop an adequate understanding of disability issues and the relevant legislation, for implementation to be effective. Training and education materials had to be developed and programs had to be conducted for those groups, to assist them in translating the legislation into practical change at the local level.


Plenary session European access tools

Chairperson: Sven Thiberg, Sweden
Rapporteur: Bob Fern, Canada


Presentations were given by:



Presentations were made on the need to develop a manual on access that would be used by all the member states of the European Community (EC). The presentations also concerned the impact that this manual could have on non-member states. The presentations are summarized as follows:

Variation in access standards and the development of a draft manual
Speakers discussed the development of access standards in various European countries. In France, for example, although standards and legislation were in place in the 1970's, very little was done to implement the legislation. By comparison, the Netherlands and the Nordic countries (Sweden in particular) followed through with the implementation of their legislation. As a result, mobility impaired citizens of these countries now enjoy a high degree of access. However, they find it frustrating to travel outside their country where standards are often lower or non-existent.

Since the early 1980's, as other European countries developed legislation and implementation strategies, the EC has moved closer together. As a result, it became a goal of the EC to develop consistent legislation and standards. Led by the Netherlands, EC members met to develop a "manual of standards". Members agreed that standards would have to be phased in to allow some countries to raise their standards. Members also dealt with the provision of access to heritage and other buildings. (It was noted that the Netherlands has completed studies on access to heritage buildings and that other countries are interested in their findings.) The first draft of the manual is now in circulation for review and comment.

Note: It would be best if a formula could be found that will satisfy both sides (e.g. a standard that countries which are not as advanced in the area of access can accept while ensuring that more advanced countries will not lower their standard to match the new one). One approach could be to acknowledge this situation in the manual and to indicate that the manual is a minimum standard to be used at this time and that it will be revised in the future to match the current expectations of other countries.

Manual format
Other points raised concerned the format of the manual. These included: using more diagrams to illustrate the various points raised; using a more integrated approach; clarifying various issues (e.g. why the manual was developed and who will it benefit); and determining whether or not the manual should include design solutions.

Impact of the manual on non-member states
Ensuing critiques and discussions noted that the final manual would have an influence on how non-EC member countries would proceed with the issue. For example, participants from Nordic countries, because of their close affiliation with the EC, were concerned that their countries would adopt the lower standards contained in the manual. They asked for the opportunity to review and comment on the final draft. Participants from other countries (e.g. Hungary, Poland, Russia, Byelorussia and Thailand) stated that they were interested in the manual. They were hopeful that sections of the manual could be applied now in certain circumstances and that other sections might be applied later. Delegates from Canada and the United States also stated that they were interested in examining the manual.

The rapporteur must admit that the writing of the summary was not an easy task as he has not had the opportunity to see the manual.

Budapest CIB Report Contents |  CIB Contents


Home | About Us | Library | Links | Svenska    Listen Listen     Projects: Radio | Fashion Freaks | Study & Work | Training to Employment