Content uploaded by Victor Santiago Pineda
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Victor Santiago Pineda on Mar 02, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Journal of Public Space
2017 | Vol. 2 n. 4
https://www.journalpublicspace.org
ISSN 2206-9658 |
1
© Queensland University of Technology
EDITORIAL
The Inclusion Imperative.
Forging an Inclusive New Urban Agenda
1
Victor Santiago Pineda
University of California Berkeley, United States of America
victorpineda@berkeley.edu
Stephen Meyers
University of Washington, United States of America
sjmeyers@uw.edu
John Paul Cruz
World Enabled, United States of America
pong@worldenabled.org
Overview of the Inclusion Imperative. Inclusion in the Urban Century
Over the next 32 years, cities will shape virtually every aspect of global development,
including the manner in which rights to housing, health, and education are won or wasted,
implemented or ignored (Marcuse and Van Kempen, 2011; Sassen, 2011). The urban
century can transform the productive capacity and outcomes of the estimated 400-600
million urban citizens who live with disabilities. This number is set to increase dramatically
by 2050 when 66% of the global population will be living in cities (Acuto, 2013; Alger,
2013). Of the projected increase of 2.5 billion urban dwellers,
2
15-20% are expected to
be persons with disabilities.
3
Well-planned cities have dramatically improved the social
and economic outcomes for individuals with a range of disabilities, their families, and the
larger communities they participate in. Well-planned cities take into consideration the
widest range of needs and incorporate design standards that assume that a significant
portion of the population may have difficulty seeing, hearing, or moving around without
assistance.
A growing body of research now shows that the most pressing issue faced by millions of
persons with disabilities worldwide is not their disability but rather social exclusion
1
Portions of this paper were published by CBM and World Enabled in “The Inclusion Imperative: Towards
Disability-inclusive and Accessible Urban Development Key Recommendations for an Inclusive Urban
Agenda” at http://www.cbm.org/article/downloads/54741/The_Inclusion_Imperative__Towards_Disability-
Inclusive_Development_and_Accessible_Urban_Development.pdf
2
The proportion of the world’s urban population is expected to increase to approximately 57% by 2050.
African Development Bank, http://www.afdb.org/en/blogs/afdb-championing-inclusive-growth-across-
africa/post/urbanization-in-africa-10143/.
3
Approximately 90% of this increase will be concentrated in African and Asian cities like Shenzhen, Karachi,
Lagos, Guangzhou, Dhaka, Jakarta, and many others that have urbanized at a rate of 40-60% between 2000-
2010
THE JOURNAL OF PUBLIC SPACE
The Inclusion Imperative
2 | The Journal of Public Space, 2(4), 2017 | ISSN 2206-9658
© Queensland University of Technology
(Abendroth et al., 2015; Ahmmad et al., 2014; Al Qadi et al., 2012; Amedeo and Speicher,
1995; Anguelovski, 2013; Bezmez, 2013). Poor planning, and unregulated urban
development can have devastating consequences for persons with disabilities. According
to the United Nations CRPD Committee, “Without access to the physical environment,
to transportation… and to other facilities and services open or provided to the public,
persons with disabilities would not have equal opportunities for participation in their
respective societies.”4 The committee also states that “Accessibility is a precondition for
persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully and equally in society.”5
Gender, ethnicity, and poverty, compound existing exclusions for persons with
disabilities, limiting their access to opportunities. According to Nobel prize winning
economist Amartya Sen, the lack of access too often deprives persons with disabilities of
their right to mobility, education, and healthcare.6 Cities are under immense pressure to
ensure that urban development is inclusive and responds to the needs of marginalized
groups (Barber, 2013; Bell and De-Shalit, 2013). These pressures include responding to
the needs of older persons and persons with disabilities (Beard and Petitot, 2010; Honglin
2013; Clarke et al., 2008; Dumbaugh, 2008; Plouffe and Kalache, 2010; Murray, 1996).
What steps can urban planners, development practitioners, and scholars take to promote
a better understanding of access and inclusion for people with disabilities in cities?
The main goal of this chapter is to review the
global status of disability rights in urban
development and offer a set of recommendations
to ensure that local city initiatives respond to the
needs of persons with disabilities. The paper starts
with a baseline review of the progress made in
recent years and highlights good practices
alongside the voices of persons with disabilities.
The report also offers technical and policy recommendations derived from extensive
research on disability inclusive urban policy. The recommendations provide practical steps
and guide immediate and bold measures to (1) account for and report progress on the
rights of persons with disabilities in urban planning, policy and development, and (2)
ensure that key issues in the New Urban Agenda, such as accessibility and equality, truly
address the needs of everybody, including persons with disabilities.
Disability in Global Development
Globally, more than half of all people with disabilities now live in towns and cities and by
2030 this number is estimated to swell to between 750,000 - 1 billion.7 Persons with
disabilities face technical and environmental barriers such as steps at the entrances of
4 CRPD/C/GC/2
5 The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination guarantees
everyone the right of access to any place or service intended for use by the general public, such as
transport, hotels, restaurants, cafes, theatres and parks (art. 5 (f)). Thus, a precedent has been established in
the international human rights legal framework for viewing the right to access as a right per se.
6 Sen. Disability and Justice. 2004 retrieved August 5, 2015:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DISABILITY/214576-
1092421729901/20291152/Amartya_Sen_Speech.doc
7 Utilizing 5 billion urban dwellers, we calculated that 15-20% of these would be persons with disabilities.
Data sources derived from WHO World Disability Report (2011) and “Urbanization | UNFPA - United
Nations Population Fund.” Accessed May 3, 2015. http://www.unfpa.org/urbanization.
The long-standing neglect,
and marginalization of
urbanites with disabilities
will continue unabated
unless immediate and bold
measures are taken.
Victor Santiago Pineda, Stephen Meyers, John Paul Cruz
The Journal of Public Space, 2(4), 2017 | ISSN 2206-9658 | 3
© Queensland University of Technology
buildings, the absence of lifts in multi-floor buildings and a lack of information in accessible
formats. The built environment always relates to social and cultural development as well
as customs; therefore the built environment is under the full control of society (Robin,
2014).8 The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) includes
accessibility as one of its key underlying principles — a vital precondition for the effective
and equal enjoyment of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of persons with
disabilities. Accessibility should be viewed not only in the context of equality and non-
discrimination, but also as an integral part of the sustainable development agenda.9
The international community, in the Outcome Document of the UN High Level Meeting
on Disability and Development, reaffirmed its commitment to advancing a disability-
inclusive development agenda, emphasizing among other issues, the importance of
accessibility and inclusion for persons with disabilities in urban development contexts.10
As the international community embarks on implementing the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs), it is important to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe and
sustainable. This means actions and measures must ensure universal access to safe,
inclusive and accessible green and public spaces, adequate and affordable housing, urban
and peri-urban transport and basic services for all urban dwellers, whether or not they
live with a disability.11 It also means that persons with disabilities are included as full and
equal participants in the social, political, and economic life of cities and urban dwellings,
including representation in civil society and political decision making and access to
employment and income-generating activities on an equal basis with others.
The processes leading to the formulation of the
2016-2030 Sustainable Development Goals
recognize the critical need to include people with
disabilities more broadly in development.12 Forms
of inclusion are explicitly mentioned in Sustainable
Development Goal No.11, stating that cities should
be ‘inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable’. This
goal should explicitly engage universal design
principles and encourage cities to develop
regulations and building codes that comply with the
principle of universal design.13 Social inclusion thus
is understood to be a central aspect of a global, and
increasingly urbanized, form of development.
8 CRPD/C/GC/2
9 CRPD/C/GC/2
10 General Assembly Resolution 68/3.
11 Report of the Open Working Group of the General Assembly on Sustainable Development Goals , see
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/68/970&Lang= E
12 Rio+20 promised to strive for a world that is just, equitable and inclusive, and committed to work
together to promote sustained and inclusive economic growth, social development and environmental
protection and thereby to benefit all, in particular the children of the world, youth and future generations of
the world without distinction of any kind such as age, sex, disability, culture, race, ethnicity, origin,
migratory status, religion, economic or other status.
13 See targets 11.2 ‘By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems
for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the needs of
those in vulnerable situations, women, children, persons with disabilities and older persons’ and 11.7, ‘By
2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces, in particular for
women and children, older persons and persons with disabilities’.
Cities and human
settlements should be
‘inclusive, safe, resilient and
sustainable’ and targets
should explicitly state that
universal design principles
must be at the center of
urban development
regulations and building
codes.
The Inclusion Imperative
4 | The Journal of Public Space, 2(4), 2017 | ISSN 2206-9658
© Queensland University of Technology
Although disability inclusive development has influenced the Sustainable Development
process, its coordination and administration on the local level requires additional
specifications and guidelines. Like other urban issues, tackling accessibility will require
assessing and responding to shortcomings in infrastructure management, municipal codes,
land use, transportation planning, housing and community development, mobility, social
services, and broader monitoring of human rights on a local level.
Calls for an ambitious New Urban Agenda have gained momentum on a global stage. A
disability inclusive New Urban Agenda has the potential to transform geographies of
exclusion, dependence, isolation, and despair14 into thriving active communities that
according to Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen, afford disabled citizens the “capabilities to live
the type of lives they have reason to value.”15 More inclusive communities are forming at
global, regional, national and local levels. By creating a barrier-removal plan or a plan for
accessibility cities, town, and villages can implement the CRPD and other internationally
adopted agreements concerning the human rights of people with disabilities.16
Forging an Inclusive New Urban Agenda
Cities are at the epicenter of the global
sustainable development agenda; how that
agenda is shaped will determine the character of
our future cities and towns (Artuso, 2013). The
Third United Nations Conference on Housing
and Sustainable Development (Habitat III) and
the meetings leading up to the conference
provide a critical opportunity for the disability
community to help shape a more accessible and inclusive urban future. Habitat III aims to
help cities fulfill their role as drivers of sustainable development, and hence shape the
implementation of new global development and climate change goals. Habitat III will be
one of the first United Nations global summits after the adoption of the Sustainable
Development Goals. It provides an opportunity to include accessibility and universal
design as a key principle guiding how cities, towns and villages are planned, built and
managed.17
The international community has an opportunity to change the current status quo. More
than 100 countries are currently drafting their National Reports, the key documents that
identify challenges, emerging trends and a prospective vision for urban development.
Unfortunately, of the 65 national or regional statements submitted to the second
preparatory meeting, none mention disability nor disability related accessibility as a
14 Likewise, in developed countries, rapid urbanization can result segregation ordinances, privatized spaces,
and exclusions of undesirable or destabilizing social groups. Cities will increasingly be looking for ways to
turn the tide on increasing concentrations of poverty, inequality, and social marginalization.
15 Amartya Sen. 1999.
16 The United Nations, and other organizations such as the World Bank, UNICEF, UNDP, WHO, UNDESA
have undertaken important work in the area of disability inclusive development.
17 The Conference welcomes the participation and contributions of all Member States and relevant
stakeholders, including parliamentarians, civil society organizations, regional and local government and
municipality representatives, professionals and researchers, academia, foundations, women and youth
groups, trade unions, and the private sector, as well as organizations of the United Nations system and
intergovernmental organizations.
VOICES: Ambrose Murangira
Kampala, Uganda
“If we measure what we value, then
society at large does not value the
perspectives or needs of persons
with disabilities.”
Victor Santiago Pineda, Stephen Meyers, John Paul Cruz
The Journal of Public Space, 2(4), 2017 | ISSN 2206-9658 | 5
© Queensland University of Technology
specific area of concern.18 These reports and statements have the potential to help cities
share ideas on how universal designed accessible cities can be built. 19 States have a key
opportunity to include a disability perspective in the planning and preparatory efforts that
lead to the New Urban Agenda.
Likewise, National Urban Forums have the potential to enrich national reports and share
perspectives on disability inclusive development.20 These Forums contribute to building a
knowledge base and provide a forum for policy debate and advocacy activities that
support the National preparations, but as of yet have not explicitly shown how to make
the New Urban Agenda more disability inclusive. This is particularly important as the next
host of the World Urban Forum (WUF), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, is preparing for WUF9
in close connection with the Habitat III process.
At all levels there continues to be a lack of
reliable data on disability. This hinders the ability
of development actors to assess progress and
take action.21 For example, urban indicators
measuring accessibility of the built environment,
mobility barriers, or budget allocations for local
community based programs that support the
implementation of Article 19 of the CRPD
“Community and Independent Living” are rarely measured.22
Diversity, inclusion, cooperation, and innovations in local practice characterized the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and are also guiding the preparatory process to
Habitat III. But many questions remain to be answered: Will these processes be made
more inclusive of the broad needs of persons with disabilities? What criteria should be
used when assessing the administrative and coordinating capacity of governments, civil
society, the private sector and other stakeholders to effectively identify and eliminate
physical barriers? What actions can be taken now to ensure a more inclusive urban
future? Before we answer these questions, it’s important to review the landscape of
research on disability and urban studies.
Assessing specific challenges.
Multidimensional and cross sectional analysis is needed.
The World Report on Disability Summary, published in 2011 by the World Health
Organization and the World Bank within the framework of the largest consultation on
18 We reviewed 65 national or regional reports hosted on the website for Habitat III available at
http://unhabitat.org/prepcom2/. (accessed on May 5, 2015)
19 The second session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Housing and
Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III) was held in Nairobi, Kenya, from Tuesday, 14 April to
Thursday, 16 April 2015. Documents we reviewed included governmental, and regional reports
submitted/presented during the second preparatory meeting in Nairobi, Kenya April 17, 2015.
20At the sixth session of the World Urban Forum (Naples, September 2012), WUC partners endorsed and
launched the ‘Manifesto for Cities – The Urban Future We Want’ a statement about the urgency to address
urbanization challenges and calling for an inclusive partners process for the Habitat III Conference. This
statement failed to mention disability as a specific area of focus.
21 The World Development Reports and the World Development Indicators have only begun to consider
disability.
22 Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland support municipal programs that allow people with significant
disabilities to have the support needed to live safely in their own homes and communities.
VOICES: Mohammed Loutfy
Beirut, Lebanon
“We should unite with all
stakeholders to anchor disability
inclusion into the New Urban
Sustainable Development Agenda.”
The Inclusion Imperative
6 | The Journal of Public Space, 2(4), 2017 | ISSN 2206-9658
© Queensland University of Technology
disability to date and with the active involvement of hundreds of professionals in the field
of disability, stresses that the built environment, transport systems and information and
communication are often inaccessible to persons with disabilities (p. 10). Persons with
disabilities are prevented from enjoying some of their basic rights, such as the right to
seek employment or the right to health care, owing to a lack of accessible transport and
inaccessible buildings and infrastructure. The level of implementation of accessibility laws
remains low in many countries and persons with disabilities are often denied their right to
freedom of expression and full political participation in their communities owing to the
inaccessibility of information and communication.23
Poorly planned cities create a series of interconnected barriers that limit mobility options,
increase environmental hazards, and ultimately prevent persons with disabilities from
enjoying their right to accessible housing. Such barriers put persons with disabilities in a
precarious, often challenging position, whereby the rights to education, employment and
security of tenure are denied due to a lack of adequate housing. Urban Centers in all
developing nations struggle to control the expansion of informal and inaccessible housing.
Informal housing and unplanned growth often results in housing that has limited access to
latrines, water and sanitation, electricity and other energy sources, and affordable
transportation. Many informal developments increase the marginalization of their resident
populations by crowding them together and restricting their mobility. These very urban
issues are also the main factors that deprive persons with disabilities wellbeing, dignity
and the benefits of social and economic development on an equal basis with others.
A limited number of publications have recently focused on disability in urban planning
specifically or or the built environment more generally. While these books, chapters, and
articles represent a significant contribution towards understanding the social, political, and
economic participation of persons with disabilities
living in cities around the world, they also
demonstrate the challenges that lie ahead for
researchers who want to develop comprehensive
and comparable research regarding disability
inclusion in urban environments globally.
Growing a base for empirical evidence
There has been relatively little empirical work done on either disability inclusion by urban
studies scholars or urban environments by disability studies scholars.24 For example, in a
keyword search of Disability & Society, a leading disability studies journal, not a single
article was coded for either “city” or “urban” from the last 30 years of publications. The
same can be said for an index search of the Disability Studies Quarterly, the oldest academic
journal dedicated to disability studies. The journal Urban Studies contains no articles from
the past fifty years of publication indexed under “disability.” When journals such as these
do publish articles that address disability in urban environments, the research is almost
exclusively focused on inclusive design25. Mainstream fields of inquiry, such as economics,
sociology, anthropology, public health, public policy, architecture, and law have produced
23 CRPD/C/GC/2
24 A few notable exceptions include, Imrie, Dear, Gleeson, Chouinard, Prince.
25 Inclusive design, as a field of research and practice, brings together concepts and methodologies from
both disability studies, architecture, design.
Capability enhancing
communities are increasingly
offering innovative
approaches to long-standing
urban challenges.
Victor Santiago Pineda, Stephen Meyers, John Paul Cruz
The Journal of Public Space, 2(4), 2017 | ISSN 2206-9658 | 7
© Queensland University of Technology
even less substantive research on disability inclusion in urban spaces. That being said, in
the available literature, the following insights have emerged:
1. Cities can promote innovation and/or fragmentation of disability policy.
2. Urban centers can potentially create opportunities for persons with disabilities or
additional barriers for them.
3. The experience of persons with disabilities in urban environments varies widely
not only with respect to local conditions, but also in terms of the intersecting
identities of people with disabilities within the borders of the same municipality.
Cities promote innovation for, but also the fragmentation of national disability
policy
Disability inclusion policies vary greatly across countries, within countries, and between
cities. For example, municipal policy innovations have allowed persons with disabilities to
enjoy a greater degree of autonomy and individual choice. Such innovations can occur in
states undergoing administrative decentralization, where greater responsibility in
implementing policies are given to local governments who are, in turn, empowered to
test innovative ideas and formulate policies in close collaboration with local groups.26 In
Yerevan, for example, the city architect formed a partnership with disability rights groups,
whereby they worked together to identify, prioritize, and monitor the construction of
hundreds of sloped curb cuts in the historic city center. This initiative was successful, with
the end result that it is now being replicated to address bus stops and the provision of
other municipal services. Developing such partnerships can help address human resource
constraints and provide added momentum as cities begin to address the needs of persons
with disabilities. Such responsive and collaborative approaches to broader social issues
are needed.27 But, decentralized policies can also lead to inequalities and exclusions on
the basis of residence, where opportunities available in one city or human settlement are
not available in others within the same national context.
China’s disability employment policy, for example, provides an example of where
decentralization can have varied results where access to rights and benefits are ensured in
one municipality, but not in another (Shang 2000). In China, the history of work units,
which were organized locally following the Revolution, means that employment and rights
and benefits associated with labor for persons with disabilities are overseen by
municipalities and administered by the individuals’ work unit.28 In the past, local work
units were responsible for ensuring that persons with disabilities who were able to work
were assigned jobs. If their work unit was unable to provide job placements, then persons
with disabilities received benefits which were nationally determined and far lower than
what could be gained through employment. While work units no longer play the same
role they played before economic reforms, their legacy has meant that ensuring
employment for persons with disabilities has remained a local responsibility. In recent
26 Although support for decentralization has grown so has the proliferation of short-term policies. As such
urban interventions promoting inclusion fall short with technical or financial support to effectively
implement comprehensive transformations on the local level.
27 Pineda, Victor Santiago (2008), “Enabling Justice: Spatializing Disability in the Built Environment.” Critical
Planning Journal, 15: 111–23. and Pineda, Victor Santiago. “The Capability Model of Disability: Assessing the
Success of the UAE Federal Law No. 29 of 2006.” University of California Los Angeles, 2010.
28 Shang, Xiaoyuan (2000), “Bridging the Gap between Planned and Market Economies: Employment Policies
for People with Disabilities in Two Chinese Cities.” Disability & Society, 15, no. 1: 135–56.
The Inclusion Imperative
8 | The Journal of Public Space, 2(4), 2017 | ISSN 2206-9658
© Queensland University of Technology
years, national and local policies have encouraged the development of competitive
markets. As such, municipal governments have incentivized and supported businesses to
include persons with disabilities through “welfare production” policies that provide tax
breaks to businesses that employ significant numbers of persons with disabilities. Over
the course of ten years, this policy quadrupled the number of persons with disabilities
employed. However, local markets’ integration into the global economy determined the
availability of jobs and their distribution. For example, in one of China’s fastest growing
cities, 90% of persons with disabilities eligible for jobs were employed, but in an equally
sized city that had been much less successful in supporting competitive enterprises, fewer
than 50% of those eligible have been integrated into the workplace.29 Thus, the
decentralization of disability employment policies has meant that opportunities vary
widely for persons with disabilities in China on the basis of municipal residence, despite
persons with disabilities in China living under the same national government.
Similar to China, Australia divides responsibilities between national, state (regional), and
municipal governments. Medical care is national, education is state, and respite care is
local.30 Likewise, in India the provision of disability services is supposed to be coordinated
between agencies at different scales, oftentimes this coordination fails, duplicating efforts
in certain sectors such as medical care, and neglecting efforts to promote independent
living. The fragmentation of disability policy between administrative units creates both
challenges and opportunities in policy design, implementation and monitoring efforts. In
some cases, it provides the opportunity for innovation at the local level and allows local
governments to tailor policies to their distinct local populations. But, it can also create
large inconsistencies in the protection and provision of rights and benefits on the basis of
residence.
Cities can create opportunities, but also barriers
Cities are forums for citizen engagement with political, economic, and social
development; they can also force modernization efforts to be more inclusive. In Egypt,
disability protests broke out in Cairo and Alexandria, inspired by the larger Arab Spring
movement. In 2010, persons with disabilities demanded more equitable distribution of
jobs, housing, and income support from the Egyptian government, blocking one of Cairo’s
main roads. By 2011, the disability protests expanded their demands by using a
modernization and democratization frame, ensuring the right to participate in elections by
demanding that voting places be made accessible,
and by asserting their right to independence
through demands for modernizing transportation
systems to be made accessible.31 In smaller
Egyptian cities, however, persons with disabilities
have not been able to organize larger coalitions
that can modernize disability inclusive
transportation with a more democratic ‘urban
citizenship’ approach.
29 Ibid.
30 Stevens, Carolyn S. (2010). “Disability, Caregiving and Interpellation: Migrant and Non-Migrant Families of
Children with Disabilities in Urban Australia.” Disability & Society 25, no. 7: 783–96.
31 Barnartt, Sharon N. (2014). “The Arab Spring Protests and Concurrent Disability Protests: Social
Movement Spillover or Spurious Relationship?” Studies in Social Justice 8, no. 1: 67–78.
Cities are often at the
forefront of modernization in
comparison to their
surrounding areas. This
development, however, can
have negative consequences
for persons with disabilities.
Victor Santiago Pineda, Stephen Meyers, John Paul Cruz
The Journal of Public Space, 2(4), 2017 | ISSN 2206-9658 | 9
© Queensland University of Technology
Cities are often at the forefront of modernization in comparison to their surrounding
areas. This development, however, can also have negative consequences for persons with
disabilities (Gleeson, 2001). In Cuenca, Ecuador, the modernization of the bus system
created barriers to access rather than remove them. New buses intended to be more
efficient though the installation of turnstiles made it difficult for many persons with
disabilities to board (Rattray, 2013).32 This example for Ecuador supports the findings of a
comparative study between rural and urban persons with disabilities in South Africa.
While persons with disabilities living in South African cities were less likely to experience
barriers rooted in negative social attitudes towards persons with disabilities, they were
much more likely to experiences barriers resultant of inaccessible products and
technology that they used on a daily basis.33 For this reason, it is vital that cities and states
develop technical standards, inspection regimes, and penalties that ensure barrier-free
development, such as in the expansion and modernization urban transit, as China has
recently done (Pan, 2011).34 In Turkey the local government Istanbul, has moved swiftly
in recent years to establish new institutions and implement new social policies for
persons with disabilities, these changes have been top-down and framed by traditional
notions of charity and benevolence, rather than resulting from local residents with
disabilities joining together in a social movement and asserting their “right to the city”.35
As such, Turkey’s efforts to modernize have further marginalized people with disabilities
into a dependent status.
Cross-cutting identities imply varied experiences in urban environment
The enjoyment of rights and full participation of persons with disabilities are often
differentiated on the basis of other identities they share. For example, some women with
disabilities in Bandung, Indonesia, have adopted the concept of self-determination and
independent living in the face of a patriarchal culture and inaccessible environment. This
group, however, is made up of women of middle- and upper-class backgrounds who can
afford chauffeurs, personal assistants, and
so forth.36 Other factors also determine the
utilization of rights and services. A study of
families that include persons with
disabilities in urban Australia found that in
Melbourne, where 25% of the population is
foreign-born, migrant parents of children
with disabilities were far less likely to
access respite care and other forms of
support offered by the municipality than
32 Rattray, Nicholas A. (2013). “Contesting Urban Space and Disability in Highland Ecuador.” City & Society
25, no. 1: 25–46.
33 Maart, S., A. H. Eide, J. Jelsma, M. E. Loeb, and M. Ka Toni (2007). “Environmental Barriers Experienced
by Urban and Rural Disabled People in South Africa.” Disability & Society 22, no. 4: 357–69.
34 Pan, Haixiao. “Implementing Sustainable Urban Travel Policies in China,” 2011. http://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/transport/implementing-sustainable-urban-travel-policies-in-china_5kg9mq40ldvg-en.
35 Bezmez, Dikmen (2013). “Urban Citizenship, the Right to the City and Politics of Disability in Istanbul.”
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37, no. 1: 93–114. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01190.x.
36 Komardjaja, Inge (2004). “Independent Living and Self-Determination of Women with Physical Disabilities
in Bandung, Indonesia.” Disability Studies Quarterly 24, no. 3. http://www.dsq-sds.org/article/view/509/686.
These examples reinforce the need
to think more holistically. Current
approaches fail to highlight the
powerful ways social identities
influence public opinions, and how
cross-cutting social identities can
mobilize public actions to address
social isolation and exclusion.
The Inclusion Imperative
10 | The Journal of Public Space, 2(4), 2017 | ISSN 2206-9658
© Queensland University of Technology
native-born Australians (Durst et al., 2001).37
Cross-cutting identities, however, also offer opportunities for promoting disability
inclusion. For example, a project in Israel was successful in using mosques in Jerusalem
and other urban centers as venues for inclusion. Imams, who were introduced to
disability rights, emphasized Islam’s commitment to equality and disability inclusion, raising
disability inclusion throughout the community and drawing significant numbers of new
congregants with disabilities into their communities.38 These examples reinforce the need
to think more holistically. Current approaches fail to highlight the powerful ways that
cross-cutting social identities can both be harnessed for inclusion or contribute towards
social isolation and exclusion (Durst, 2006; Edwards, 2001; Fincher, 2003; Friedner and
Osborne, 2013).
Transforming good intentions to measurable actions
Effective solutions are often inhibited by policy
fragmentation, poor accountability, and lack of
political will. Legal reforms can create new
incentives elevating accessibility and stimulating
new investments in infrastructure, and
innovations in design (Hall and Imrie 2004).
New ways of engaging the private sector will be
needed to address supply and demand for
accessibility.
In addition, the lack of a cohesive disability
policy at both the local and national level limits
the impact of existing efforts to include
accessibility requirements in planning, policy, and design (Langdon and Lazar, 2014). This
is compounded by gaps in local leadership, budget allocation, local capacity, lack of
engagement with targeted groups, and by limiting beliefs about persons with disabilities.
For example in many countries such as Ethiopia, China, Qatar, and the United Arab
Emirates, local governments are utilizing language of equal opportunities and rights-based
development, yet still limit the ability of persons with disabilities to form their own
associations, organize awareness raising campaigns, and fundraise to strengthen their
organizational capacity at both the national and local levels.
Accessibility of the built environment is not seen as a priority by local and municipal
governments in many parts of the world. In Cape Town39, Kampala40, and Nairobi,41
efforts to promote accessibility often get pushed aside by other important priorities such
as poverty alleviation, provision of affordable housing, and upgrading decaying
infrastructure. Efforts should focus on engaging the local authorities that set zoning, land
37 Stevens, Carolyn S. (2010). “Disability, Caregiving and Interpellation: Migrant and Non-Migrant Families of
Children with Disabilities in Urban Australia.” Disability & Society 25, no. 7: 783–96.
38 Mizrachi, Nissim (2014). “Translating Disability in a Muslim Community: A Case of Modular Translation.”
Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry 38, no. 1: 133–59.
39 Maart, S., A. H. Eide, J. Jelsma, M. E. Loeb, and M. Ka Toni (2007). “Environmental Barriers Experienced
by Urban and Rural Disabled People in South Africa.” Disability & Society 22, no. 4: 357–69.
40 “AYWDN: Med Ssengoba, Uganda - YouTube.” Accessed May 7, 2015.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if0rmVwyyJ0&list=PL407C8373BB7BE5C3&index=12 .
41 “AYWDN: Rose Kwamboka, Kenya - YouTube.” Accessed May 7, 2015.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZm8emJaLDU&list=PL407C8373BB7BE5C3&index= 5.
VOICES: Della Leonor
Roxas City, Philippines
“We don’t need more laws. We
need to implement the laws we
have. In my city we have 99% policy
and just 1% implementation. My
desire for the cities of the future is
that we Persons with Disability will
no longer demand accessibility but
rather that it is readily available”.
Victor Santiago Pineda, Stephen Meyers, John Paul Cruz
The Journal of Public Space, 2(4), 2017 | ISSN 2206-9658 | 11
© Queensland University of Technology
use, transportation, and building regulations in these cities to ensure that persons with
disabilities, as members of a marginalized community, are prioritized and within these
larger initiatives.
Voluntary measures towards accessibility, however, will not bring about needed changes.
Mandatory regulation is necessary for lasting urban transformation to occur. For example,
Australia set a goal that all new housing stock will meet a basic level of visitability by 2020.
Visitability is defined as the capacity for a dwelling to facilitate inclusion and participation
of all people in family and community
activities. A study of Australia’s voluntary
national guidelines on visitability showed that
voluntary practices failed to ensure the right
of adequate housing (Ward and Franz 2015).
As such, new construction of accessible
housing has not been realized because there is
no legal mandate and Australia will fail to
reach its accessible housing targets.42
However, in some cases where legal and
regulatory standards exist, they are not
enforced. For example, in Venezuela, Article
81 of the national constitution enshrines the
rights of persons with disabilities to equal
treatment in all aspects of life, including
making public spaces accessible. However,
governance and existing funding mechanisms
have thus far failed to address accessibility. According to local disability advocates, funding
for disability programs is primarily channeled through the “Mission Jose Gregorio
Hernandez”, a public sector charitable initiative providing rehabilitation, not barrier-free
urban development. According to Angel Gouveia, a deaf activist who helped draft Article
81 of the constitution stated, “In Caracas, Valencia, and Maracaibo, prosthetics are well
funded, but accessibility of buildings or streets
is not.” This echoes other findings from
Accra, Ghana where monumental public
buildings demonstrate authority of the state,
but lack consideration towards accessibility.43
Gaps exist across sectors, and scales. To fill
these gaps, governments are beginning to
incentivize innovation across the board.
Innovations in urban development allow for
new broad-based local coalitions to form
around equity, access, walkability, bikeability,
and broader ecological sustainability. Such
coalitions can further a disability inclusive
message and spark new dialogues between urban planners, architects, policy makers, and
other groups to jointly develop detailed technical guidance for inclusive urban
42 Ward, Margaret, and Jill Franz (2015). “The Provision of Visitable Housing in Australia: Down to the
Detail.” Social Inclusion 3, no. 2: 31–43.
43 Danso, A. K., J. Ayarkwa, and Ayirebi Dansoh (2011). “State of Accessibility for the Disabled in Selected
Monumental Public Buildings in Accra, Ghana”. http://ir.knust.edu.gh/handle/123456789/3406.
VOICES:
J
uan Angel De Gouveia
Caracas, Venezuela
“Our needs and aspirations as urban
or rural citizens are often overlooked
by our national or local governments.
We are invisible and our economic,
social, or cultural contributions too
often unrealized due to unnecessary
physical or social barriers. Rights-
based development needs substantial
coordination, financing, and
leadership. Mayors, State Governors,
Parliamentarians, need to understand
the challenges in our cities, and the
ways they have failed us.”
Governments must revolutionize
their approach to urban
development and unite broad-
based local coalitions for inclusion
that mandate local disability
rights groups, urban planners,
architects, policy makers, and
other groups to jointly develop
detailed technical guidance for
inclusive urban development
efforts, and develop a coalition to
overhaul existin
g
a
pp
roaches.
The Inclusion Imperative
12 | The Journal of Public Space, 2(4), 2017 | ISSN 2206-9658
© Queensland University of Technology
development efforts and develop a coalition to overhaul existing approaches. This is
especially important for overlooked populations including persons with mental illness
(Whitehead and Barnard, 2013).
Cities that are successfully implementing programs are still few and far between. For
example, in Kampala, disability inclusive laws protect the rights of persons with disabilities
and people with disabilities participate in the public policy process, but too often local
administrative agencies lack the capacity to deliver services and implement laws. Likewise
in Lima, Peru laws and public attitudes match international norms, but low political will
and administrative and coordinating failures limit progress. In other cases, a city may need
to develop policies programs to bolster efforts in all five sectors. Very few governments
can do this successfully without the active engagement of civil society or the private
sector.
Recommendations for Global Reporting
This section provides guidance on the types of specific data and information that member
states will need to compile for status reports on the rights of persons with disabilities in
urban contexts. The Rio+20 outcome document and subsequent meetings member states
were encouraged to take urgent steps to improve the quality, coverage and availability of
disaggregated data to ensure that persons with disabilities were not left behind. In
addition, to comply with national implementation and monitoring of the SDGs and the
CRPD, States must maintain, strengthen, designate or establish a framework, with one or
more independent mechanisms to monitor efforts at all levels of government.
Statistics and data collection should be disaggregated, as appropriate, and used to help
assess the implementation of obligations under the SDGs and the CRPD. In order to
monitor the implementation of the SDGs, it will be important to improve the availability
of and access to data and statistics disaggregated by income, gender, age, race, ethnicity,
migratory status, and disability to support the monitoring of the implementation of the
SDGs. States parties must actively work to identify and address the barriers faced by
persons with disabilities in exercising their rights.44 States parties can support capacity-
building efforts, including through the exchange and sharing of information, experiences,
training programs and best practices. Member states should facilitate cooperation in
research and access to scientific and technical knowledge and, as appropriate, provide
technical assistance.45
To support global reporting efforts, we offer herein five interrelated criteria or pillars for
evaluation and assessment of inclusive urban development. With the following evaluative
criteria, member states can easily conduct rapid assessments at the level of a
neighborhood, city, or state or nation. The five pillars of the DisCo Policy Framework
developed by Victor Pineda (2010) help structure data collection efforts and help city
managers to determine the concrete steps needed to ensure that local efforts are aligned
to international normative framework. These include:
1. Legislative Measures
2. Executive and Budgetary Support
3. Administrative and Coordinating Capacity
4. Attitudes towards PWDs in urban life
5. Participation of PWDs in urban development
44 CRPD Article 31
45 CRPD Article 32
Victor Santiago Pineda, Stephen Meyers, John Paul Cruz
The Journal of Public Space, 2(4), 2017 | ISSN 2206-9658 |
13
© Queensland University of Technology
Figure 1: Urban Policy Framework based on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
can be used to conduct rapid assessments of inclusive urban development.
1) Legislative Measures: States parties must monitor legal or regulatory changes, policies or
reforms at various levels of government, from local ordinances to national laws.
Furthermore states and local municipalities must document the local level laws exist to
guide implementation of accessibility and disability related policies at the local level. By
looking at legislative measures, local governments can work to address non-
compliance.
2) Executive and budgetary support: States parties develop and implement urban policy
under varying types of political and financial structures. Public commitments, financial
or budgetary appropriations should be continuously assessed. This can be done by
reviewing government reports, official press releases or from expert interviews with
key stakeholders. Strategies should be developed to remove institutional barriers and
secure political and financial commitments.
3) Administrative and coordinating capacity: Local agencies often lack institutional capacity
and may have a deficit of capable human resources to implement substantive changes.
States parties should report on the governance mechanisms. Governments must
conduct stakeholder mapping to better understand possible deficits in administrative
and coordinating capacity. Are the responsible parties effectively working across
sectors and scales? By looking closely at this pillar, program fragmentation and overlap
can be avoided.
4) Participation of targeted group: States parties must report on the level of participation of
targeted beneficiaries in urban development. States parties should also report on the
number of persons with disabilities in leadership positions, as well as the quality and
types of engagements between local governments and disabled persons organization.
The Inclusion Imperative
14 | The Journal of Public Space, 2(4), 2017 | ISSN 2206-9658
© Queensland University of Technology
5) Awareness of needs and attitudes towards targeted group: States parties must report on
their efforts to promote and monitor awareness raising efforts. States can report on
the metrics they use to assess communication and outreach initiatives (social media
and traditional media). In addition, states parties should continuously study the
prevalence of biases and negative attitudes towards people with disabilities. Negative
attitudes towards people with disabilities can inhibit progress from being made.
For all the data collection efforts listed above, states must ensure strong, multi-
stakeholder efforts that promote sustained collaboration, information sharing and
knowledge exchange between all disability and development actors. Strong coordination
of data collection efforts can help ensure that public sector efforts generate the desired
changes.
Recommendations for an Inclusive Urban Agenda
A New Urban Agenda must ensure that all elements of the built environment, including
land use, transportation, housing, energy, and infrastructure, work together to provide
accessible, and affordable places for living, working, and recreation, with a high quality of
life that meets the livelihood needs of all citizens and groups. In addition, the agenda must
ensure that the planning process actively involves all segments of the community and
includes persons with various types of disabilities in analyzing issues, generating visions,
developing plans, and monitoring outcomes.
The following recommendations can help realize this goal:
I. Recommendations to ensure access in the built environment
1.1 Plan for Multimodal Transportation
A multimodal transportation system allows people to use a variety of transportation
modes, including walking, biking, and other mobility devices (e.g., wheelchairs), as well
as transit where possible. According to Arnot and Swartz (2012) such a system
reduces dependence on automobiles and encourages more active forms of personal
transportation, improving health outcomes and increasing the mobility of those who
are unable or unwilling to drive (e.g., youth, persons with disabilities, the elderly).
Fewer cars on the road also translate to reduced air pollution and greenhouse gas
emissions with associated health and environmental benefits (Audirac, 2008).
1.2 Plan for Transit Oriented Development
Transit-oriented development (TOD) is characterized by a concentration of higher
density mixed use development around transit stations and along transit lines, such
that the location and the design of the development encourage transit use and
pedestrian activity. TOD allows communities to focus new residential and
commercial development in areas that are well connected to public transit. This
enables residents to more easily use transit service, which can reduce vehicle-miles
traveled and fossil fuels consumed and associated pollution and greenhouse gas
emissions. It can also reduce the need for personal automobile ownership, resulting
in a decreased need for parking spaces and other automobile-oriented infrastructure.
1.3 Provide complete streets serving multiple functions
Complete streets are streets that are designed and operated with all users in mind—
including motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit riders (where applicable)
of all ages and abilities—to support an accessible and affordable multi-modal
transportation system. A complete street network is one that safely and conveniently
accommodates all users and desired functions, though this does not mean that all
Victor Santiago Pineda, Stephen Meyers, John Paul Cruz
The Journal of Public Space, 2(4), 2017 | ISSN 2206-9658 | 15
© Queensland University of Technology
modes or functions will be equally prioritized on any given street segment. Streets
that serve multiple functions can accommodate travel, social interaction, and
commerce, to provide for more vibrant neighborhoods and more livable
communities.
1.4 Plan for mixed land-use patterns that are walkable and bikeable
Mixed land-use patterns are characterized by residential and nonresidential land uses
located in close proximity to one another. Mixing land uses and providing housing in
close proximity to everyday destinations (e.g., shops, civic places, workplaces) can
increase walking and biking and increase personal mobility. Mixed land-use patterns
should incorporate safe, convenient, accessible, and attractive design features (e.g.,
sidewalks, bike street furniture, bicycle facilities, street trees) to promote walking and
biking.
1.5 Prioritize access with infill development
Infill development is characterized by development or redevelopment of undeveloped
or underutilized parcels of land in otherwise built-up areas, which are usually served
by or have ready access to existing infrastructure and services.
1.6 Encourage design standards appropriate to the community context
Design standards are specific criteria and requirements for the form and appearance
of development within a neighborhood, corridor, special district, or jurisdiction as a
whole. These standards serve to improve accessibility or protect the function and
aesthetic appeal of a community or neighborhood. Design standards typically address
building placement, building massing and materials, and the location and appearance of
elements (such as landscaping, signage, and street furniture.) All these features have
accessibility and design considerations for people with disabilities. Access
considerations can encourage development that is compatible with the community
context and that enhances sense of place. While accessible design standards will not
be specified in a comprehensive city-wide master plan, the plan can establish the
direction and objectives that detailed accessibility standards should achieve.
1.7 Provide accessible public facilities and spaces
Public facilities play an important role in every city, and they should be able to
accommodate persons of all ages and abilities. Public facilities and spaces such as
schools, parks, civic or community centers, public safety facilities, arts and cultural
facilities, recreational facilities, plazas, should be equitably distributed throughout the
city. They should be located and designed to be safe, served by different
transportation modes, and accessible to visitors with mobility impairments.
1.8 Conserve and enhance historic resources
Historic resources are buildings, sites, landmarks, or districts with exceptional value
or quality for illustrating or interpreting the cultural heritage of a city. It is important
to address accessibility in the conservation and enhancement of historic resources.
Examples of how to do this effectively exist.
1.9 Implement accessibility standards into green building design and energy conservation
A green building is characterized by design features that, if used as intended, will
minimize the environmental impacts of the building over the course of its lifespan. In
addition, social sustainability including principles of Universal Design should be
considered in parallel to environmental impact assessment. This reduces the need to
retrofit in the future and supports change of behavior that is more accepting of
accessibility.
The Inclusion Imperative
16 | The Journal of Public Space, 2(4), 2017 | ISSN 2206-9658
© Queensland University of Technology
II. Recommendations to Ensure Equity
2.1 Plan for improved health and safety for at-risk populations
An at-risk population is characterized by vulnerability to health or safety impacts
through factors such as race or ethnicity, socioeconomic status, geography, gender,
age, behavior, or disability status. These populations may have additional needs
before, during, and after a destabilizing event such as a natural or human-made
disaster or period of extreme weather, or throughout an indefinite period of
localized instability related to an economic downturn or a period of social turmoil.
At-risk populations include children, the elderly, and persons with disabilities, those
living in institutionalized settings, those with limited language proficiency, and those
who are transportation disadvantaged.
2.2 Provide a range of housing types
A range of housing types is characterized by the presence of residential units of
different sizes, configurations, tenures, and price points located in buildings of
different sizes.
2.3 Provide accessible and quality public services, facilities, and health care to minority and low-
income neighborhoods
A public service is a service performed for the benefit of the people who live in (and
sometimes those who visit) the jurisdiction. A public facility is any building or
property—such as a library, park, or community center—owned, leased, or funded
by a public entity. Public services, facilities, and health care should be located so that
all members of the public have safe and convenient transportation options to reach
quality services and facilities that meet or exceed industry standards for service
provision. Public services and facilities and healthcare providers often underserve
minority and low-income neighborhoods.
2.4 Protect vulnerable populations from natural hazards
A natural hazard is a natural event that threatens lives, property, and other assets.
Natural hazards include floods, high wind events, landslides, earthquakes, and
wildfires. Vulnerable neighborhoods face higher risks than others when disaster
events occur. A population may be vulnerable for a variety of reasons, including
location, socioeconomic status or access to resources, lack of leadership and
organization, and lack of planning.
III. Recommendations for Authentic Participation
3.1 Engage stakeholders at all stages of the planning process
Engaging stakeholders throughout the planning process—from creating a community
vision to defining goals, principles, objectives, and action steps, as well as in
implementation and evaluation—is important to ensure that the plan accurately
reflects community values and addresses community priority and needs. In addition,
engagement builds public understanding and ownership of the adopted plan, leading
to more effective implementation.
3.2 Seek diverse participation in the plan development process
A robust comprehensive planning process engages a wide range of participants across
generations, ethnic groups, and income ranges. Especially important is reaching out to
groups that might not always have a voice in community governance, including
representatives of disadvantaged and minority communities.
3.3 Promote leadership development in disadvantaged communities during the planning process
Victor Santiago Pineda, Stephen Meyers, John Paul Cruz
The Journal of Public Space, 2(4), 2017 | ISSN 2206-9658 | 17
© Queensland University of Technology
Leaders and respected members of disadvantaged communities can act as important
contacts and liaisons for planners in order to engage and empower community
members throughout the planning process. Participation in the process can
encourage development of emerging leaders, especially from within communities that
may not have participated in planning previously.
3.4 Provide ongoing and understandable information for all participants
Information available in multiple, easily accessible formats and languages are key to
communicating with all constituents, including non-English speakers. Such
communication may involve translating professional terms into more common lay
vocabulary.
3.5 Continue to engage the public after the comprehensive plan is adopted
Stakeholder engagement should not end with the adoption of the comprehensive
plan. An effective planning process continues to engage stakeholders during the
implementing, updating, and amending of the plan, so that the public remains involved
with ongoing proposals and decisions.
IV. Recommendations for implementation and coordination
4.1 Be Persuasive in communicating a plan for accessibility
A persuasive plan communicates key principles and ideas in a readable and attractive
manner in order to inspire, inform, and engage readers. It uses up-to-date visual
imagery to highlight and support its recommendations.
4.2 Be Consistent across plan components and modalities
A consistent plan frames proposals barrier removal as sets of mutually reinforcing
actions in a systems approach aligning the plan with broader public programs and
regulations.
4.3 Coordinate with the plans of other jurisdictions and levels of government
A coordinated plan for disability inclusive development is aligned horizontally with
plans, priorities and forecasts of adjacent jurisdictions and vertically with federal,
state, and regional plans.
4.4 Comply with applicable anti-discrimination laws and mandates
A compliant plan meets requirements of mandates and laws concerning preparing,
adopting, and implementing integrated plans, programs, and policies.
4.5 Be transparent in the plan’s substance
A transparent plan clearly articulates the rationale for all goals, objectives, policies,
actions, and key plan maps. It explains the “what, how, and why” of each
recommendation.
4.6 Use formats that go beyond paper
A plan that goes beyond paper is produced in a web-based format and/or other
accessible, user-friendly formats in addition to a standard printed document. Planning
websites can be used both to engage and to inform citizens and different
constituencies about the plan.
Conclusion
Cities’ efforts to promote disability inclusion are often fragmented and insufficient to
address the magnitude of the problem. This chapter reviewed the key urban challenges to
implementing the newly launched Sustainable Development Goals in urban environments.
Furthermore this chapter offered recommendations for making global reporting on the
The Inclusion Imperative
18 | The Journal of Public Space, 2(4), 2017 | ISSN 2206-9658
© Queensland University of Technology
SDG’s and the New Urban Agenda more disability inclusive. The multi-dimensional and
interdependent nature of social exclusion demands a comprehensive and integrated set of
solutions. This baseline report also noted that the scholarly research community has not
sufficiently engaged issues of disability inclusion in cities and human settlements, resulting
in a dearth of qualitative and quantitative studies that could contribute theory, methods,
and knowledge towards the development of public policy.
This paper demonstrates that human rights and equity-based approaches to inclusive
urban development are underway. In the near future, additional energy needs to be put
towards not only activating evidence-to-action pathways identified herein, but also
addressing more fundamental questions such as improving transparency, accountability
and accessibility of services for persons with disabilities; legal reforms necessary to make
the SDG’s and CRPD a reality at national, regional, and municipal levels; the type, location
and extent of data needed to improve policy deliberations and measure human rights of
persons with disabilities; and, indeed, context-specific methods of assessing negative social
attitudes, as well as mobilizing civil society to address complex factors and persistent
challenges.
The recommendations presented herein can make a meaningful contribution to the
effective implementation of SDG’s in urban development. Coordinating efforts to improve
and scale up disability inclusive urban development can spur innovations in other areas of
urban policy, such as poverty alleviation, environmental sustainability, access to quality
education, and increasing participation, and in doing so help eliminate the root causes of
persistent inequality, marginality, and dependence not only for persons with disabilities
but for other marginalized groups.
It is our belief that a comprehensive, scalable, universal and inclusive approach to urban
development can address the ills that confront cities, ills that continue to marginalize,
stigmatize, and disenfranchise millions of urban citizens that live with disabilities.
Unnecessary barriers can be identified and eliminated through innovative and cooperative
approaches with civil society. The voices of persons with disabilities attest to the urgency
and need for global leadership on this vital global development issue.
The disability perspective is opening new efforts towards equity and inclusion and bringing
to life key targets of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and the New
Urban Agenda. Disability responsive urban development helps steer the New Urban
Century away from repeating costly mistakes and towards an inclusive, barrier-free, rights
based urban future for all.
Bibliography
Abendroth, Lisa M., and Bryan Bell (2015). Public Interest Design Practice Guidebook: SEED
Methodology, Case Studies, and Critical Issues. Routledge.
Acuto, Michele (2013), Global Cities, Governance and Diplomacy: The Urban Link. Routledge.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=mJaCX0qiRy0C&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=Global
+Cities,+Governance+and+Diplomacy&ots=Oia0VlHVWt&sig=fZB8cPrLxL34O_mKS7_IZI
Yr5fA.
Ahmmad, M. Roungu, and M. Nurul Islam (2014). “Impact of Disability on Quality of Life of Urban
Disabled People in Bangladesh.” International Journal of U-& E-Service, Science & Technology, 7,
no. 4. http://www.sersc.org/journals/IJUNESST/vol7_no4/21.pdf.
Alger, Chadwick F. (2013), The UN System and Cities in Global Governance. Springer.
http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-319-00512-6.pdf.
Victor Santiago Pineda, Stephen Meyers, John Paul Cruz
The Journal of Public Space, 2(4), 2017 | ISSN 2206-9658 | 19
© Queensland University of Technology
Al Qadi, Naim Salameh, and Ayman Awad Gharib (2012).“The Economic and Social Changes
Faced by People with Special Needs Arising from Poverty in the South Region of the
Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.” Canadian Social Science, 8, no. 4: 28–37.
Amedeo, Douglas, and Kate Speicher (1995). “Essential Environmental and Spatial Concerns for
the Congenitally Visually Impaired.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 14, no. 2
(January 1): 113–22. doi:10.1177/0739456X9501400204.
Anguelovski, Isabelle (2013). “New Directions in Urban Environmental Justice Rebuilding
Community, Addressing Trauma, and Remaking Place.” Journal of Planning Education and
Research 33, no. 2 (June 1): 160–75. doi:10.1177/0739456X13478019.
Arnot, Madeleine, and Sharlene Swartz (2012). “Youth Citizenship and the Politics of Belonging:
Introducing Contexts, Voices, Imaginaries.” Comparative Education 48, no. 1 (February 1): 1–
10. doi:10.1080/03050068.2011.637759.
Artuso, Mario (2014). “UN Habitat, State of the World’s Cities 2012/13 – Prosperity of Cities,
London, Earthscan, 2013, 184 Pp., ISBN 13: 978-0-415-83888-7. Tab. Graph. Images.” Urban
Research & Practice 7, no. 3 (September 2): 359–60. doi:10.1080/17535069.2014.968363.
Audirac, Ivonne (2008). “Accessing Transit as Universal Design.” Journal of Planning Literature 23,
no. 1 (August 1): 4–16. doi:10.1177/0885412208318558.
Barber, Benjamin R. (2013). If Mayors Ruled the World: Dysfunctional Nations, Rising Cities. Yale
University Press.
Beard, John R., Charles Petitot, and others (2010). “Ageing and Urbanization: Can Cities Be
Designed to Foster Active Ageing.” Public Health Reviews, 32, no. 2: 427–50.
Bell, Daniel A., and Avner De-Shalit (2013). The Spirit of Cities: Why the Identity of a City Matters in a
Global Age. Princeton University Press.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Bf0wAAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=The+
spirit+of+cities+why+the+indentity+of+a+city+matter+in+a+global+age&ots=r_e0diFXvf&s
ig=eHMJKNUiO9t0W6Jab9HWxlmh1vU.
Bezmez, Dikmen (2013). “Urban Citizenship, the Right to the City and Politics of Disability in
Istanbul.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37, no. 1: 93–114.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01190.x.
Chen, Honglin (2013). “A Study of Older People with Disability: Evidence from Two
Cosmopolitan Cities.” Ageing International 38, no. 4: 328–42.
Clarke, Philippa, Jennifer A. Ailshire, Michael Bader, Jeffrey D. Morenoff, and James S. House
(2008). “Mobility Disability and the Urban Built Environment.” American Journal of
Epidemiology 168, no. 5: 506–13.
Dumbaugh, Eric (2008). “Designing Communities to Enhance the Safety and Mobility of Older
Adults A Universal Approach.” Journal of Planning Literature 23, no. 1 (August 1): 17–36.
doi:10.1177/0885412208318559.
Durst, Douglas, Mary Helen Sinkins Bluechardt, Georgina Morin, and Melissa Rezansoff (2001).
Urban Aboriginal Persons with Disabilities: Triple Jeopardy!. Social Policy Research Unit,
University of Regina.
Durst, Douglas, Shelly Manuel South, S. K. Regina, and Mary Bluechardt (2006). “Urban First
Nations People with Disabilities Speak out.” Journal of Aboriginal Health September, 35.
Edwards, Claire (2001). “Inclusion in Regeneration: A Place for Disabled People?” Urban Studies
38, no. 2 (February 1): 267–86. doi:10.1080/00420980125583.
Fincher, Ruth (2003). “Planning for Cities of Diversity, Difference and Encounter”.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/07293682.2003.9995252.
Friedner, Michele, and Jamie Osborne (2013). “Audit Bodies: Embodied Participation, Disability
Universalism, and Accessibility in India.” Antipode, 45, no. 1: 43–60. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8330.2012.00990.x.
Gleeson, Brendan (2001). “Disability and the Open City.” Urban Studies 38, no. 2: 251–65.
Hall, Peter, and Rob Imrie (2014), Inclusive Design: Designing and Developing Accessible Environments.
Taylor & Francis.
The Inclusion Imperative
20
| The Journal of Public Space, 2(4), 2017 | ISSN 2206-9658
© Queensland University of Technology
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Wbk2149hXsEC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Rob+I
mrie+History+of+Disability&ots=fQMwYgNM4x&sig=DLA6Bc5hRlNAxkrUzc8RWxflR_A.
Langdon, P. M., Jonathan Lazar, A. Heylighen, and H. Dong (2014). Inclusive Designing: Joining
Usability, Accessibility, and Inclusion. Springer.
Marcuse, Peter, and Ronald Van Kempen (2011). Globalizing Cities. John Wiley & Sons.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qNGPJej9lskC&oi=fnd&pg=PT11&dq=globaliz
ing+cities&ots=Qu6M0_gVGM&sig=ypwwfjP4KZSOg60g1ITVIgD_GFc.
Murray, William (1996). “Planning Residential Environments with Persons with Mental
Retardation.” Journal of Planning Literature 11, no. 2 (November 1): 155–66.
doi:10.1177/088541229601100201.
Pan, Haixiao (2011). “Implementing Sustainable Urban Travel Policies in China”. http://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/transport/implementing-sustainable-urban-travel-policies-in-
china_5kg9mq40ldvg-en.
Plouffe, Louise, and Alexandre Kalache (2010). “Towards Global Age-Friendly Cities: Determining
Urban Features That Promote Active Aging.” Journal of Urban Health 87, no. 5: 733–39.
Rattray, Nicholas A. (2013). “Contesting Urban Space and Disability in Highland Ecuador.” City &
Society 25, no. 1: 25–46.
Robin, Hambleton (2014). Leading the Inclusive City: Place-Based Innovation for a Bounded Planet.
Policy Press.
Sassen, Saskia (2011). Cities in a World Economy. Sage Publications.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=HdEgAQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT13&dq=Cit
ies+in+a+World+Econom+y&ots=ur0u2kcNs6&sig=13fuQTus6BBOjJKi5TSpy2ezBRU.
Shang, Xiaoyuan (2000). “Bridging the Gap between Planned and Market Economies: Employment
Policies for People with Disabilities in Two Chinese Cities.” Disability & Society 15, no. 1:
135–56.
Ward, Margaret, and Jill Franz (2015). “The Provision of Visitable Housing in Australia: Down to
the Detail.” Social Inclusion 3, no. 2: 31–43.
Whitehead, Graham, and Adam Barnard (2013). “Developing Inclusive Environments in Mental
Health Provision for People with Disabilities.” The Journal of Mental Health Training, Education
and Practice, 8, no. 2: 103–11.
To cite this article:
Pineda, V. S., Meyer, S., Cruz, J. P. (2017). The Inclusion Imperative. Forging an Inclusive New
Urban Agenda. The Journal of Public Space, 2(4), 1-20. DOI: 10.5204/jps.v2i4.138
This article has been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication in The Journal of Public Space.
Please see the Editorial Policies under the ‘About’ section of the journal website for further information.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial 4.0
International License - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
