© Independent Living Institute
Independent Living Institute,
Storforsplan 36, 10 tr
123 47 Farsta
Sweden
Tel. 08-506 22 179
info@independentliving.org
Promoting the self-determination of people with disabilities
Government Implementation of
the Standard Rules
As Seen By Member Organizations of
World Federation of the Deaf - WFD
© Dimitris Michailakis 1997
Accessibility
Table 9 (Question No. 9)
Regulations to ensure accessibility in the built environment
Total 25, No answer 6
WFD organizations reporting that: Frequency Valid Percent Accessibility standards exist 12 48,0 Accessibility standards do not exist 13 52,0
As Table 9 indicates, 52% of WFD organizations are reporting that no accessibility standards exist. This is a clear difference compared with NGOs in general, reporting that accessibility standards exist. WFD organizations report a lower percentage than those reported by governments, concerning regulations to ensure accessibility in the built environment.
Table 10 (Question No. 10)
Accessibility of the built environment
Total 25, No answer 6
WFD organizations reporting accessibility in: Frequency Valid Percent Public places 10 83,3 Outdoor environment 8 66,7 Transportation 9 75,0 Housing 7 58,3 Accessibility standards do not exist 13 52,0
As Table 10 indicates, the majority of WFD organizations are reporting that there are accessibility standards concerning public places, while accessibility standards concerning housing exist to a lesser extent. The main difference, compared with the NGOs in general is that the percentage for transportation reported by WFD organizations is higher. There are clear differences compared with the percentages reported by the governments. WFD organizations report a lower percentage regarding accessibility in public places and the outdoor environment but a higher percentage concerning accessibility in transportation.
Table 11 (Question No. 11)
Supervision of the accessibility in the built environment
Total 20, No answer 11
Accessibility in the built environment is observed by: Frequency Valid Percent National authority 9 45,0 Local Governments 9 45,0 The constructor 1 5,0 The organizers/providers of the activities 1 5,0 No responsible body exists 6 30,0
As Table 11 shows, 30% of WFD organizations are reporting that no responsible body exists to observe the accessibility in the built environment. Accessibility in the built environment, when existing, is most frequently observed by a national authority and by local governments. The same pattern prevails in replies compared with the NGOs in general. There are, however, clear differences in the percentages reported by WFD organizations concerning local governments, the constructor, the organizers/providers of the activities which are lower compared with those reported by NGOs generally. There are clear differences with the percentages reported by the governments. WFD organizations report a lower percentage concerning supervision of the accessibility in the built environment by a national authority, local governments and the constructor.
Table 12 (Question No. 12)
Measures to facilitate accessibility of the built environment
Total 22, No answer 9
Government measures promoted: Frequency Valid Percent Levelling off pavements 12 54,5 Marking parking areas 12 54,5 Installing automatic doors, lifts and accessible toilets 12 54,5 Ensure accessibility in public places 13 59,1 Improving accessibility in housing 8 36,4 Financial incentives/support for accessibility measures 6 27,3 Special lighting/contrast colours for visually impaired 4 18,2 Provision of specially adapted motor vehicles 7 31,8
According to WFD organizations the following measures to facilitate accessibility in the built environment are the most frequently promoted: levelling off pavements, marking parking areas and the accessibility in public places. The measure being least of all promoted is special lighting/contrast colours for visually impaired. There are no differences in the percentage reported, when compared with the NGOs in general, except regarding provision of specially adapted motor vehicles, where the percentage reported by WFD organizations is lower. There are clear differences regarding some measures, when compared with the percentages reported by governments. WFD organizations report a lower percentage concerning the following measures: marking parking areas, providing financial incentives/support for accessibility measures, using special lighting/contrast colours for visually impaired, and providing specially adapted motor vehicles.
Table 13 (Question No. 13)
Special transport system
Total 27, No answer 4
Special transport is available for: Frequency Valid Percent Medical treatment 13 92,9 Education 14 100,0 Work 11 78,6 Recreational purpose 11 78,6 No special transport system exists 13 48,1 Special transport exists 14 51,9
There are 48% of WFD organizations reporting that no special transport system exists. When existing, it is available, in most countries, for education and medical treatment. The main difference, when compared with the percentage reported by NGOs in general, is that fewer WFD organizations are reporting the existence of special transports. This is also the main difference, when compared with the percentages reported by governments.
Table 14 (Question No. 14)
Adaptation of the built environment
Total 25, No answer 6
Obstacles reported by WFD when building accessible environments: Frequency Valid Percent Attitudinal factors 12 48,0 Economic/budgetary factors 20 80,0 Technical factors 7 28,0 Geographical and climatic factors 3 12,0 Lack of legislation and regulations 14 56,0 Lack of planning and design capacity 12 48,0 Lack of knowledge, research and information 11 44,0 Lack of user participation 10 40,0 Lack of co-operation from other organizations 9 36,0 Lack of enforcement mechanism 14 56,0
As Table 14 shows, the three main obstacles reported by WFD organizations when building accessible environments, are economic/budgetary factors, lack of legislation and regulations and lack of enforcement mechanism. There are clear differences compared with the NGOs in general, regarding the importance of attitudinal factors and lack of planning and design capacity, where WFD organizations are reporting a lower percentage for the former and a higher one for the later. There are clear differences regarding some obstacles, when compared with the percentages reported by governments. WFD organizations report a lower percentage regarding geographical and climatic factors but a higher percentage regarding lack of legislation and regulations, lack of planning and design capacity, lack of user participation and lack of co-operation from other organizations.
Table 15 (Question No. 15)
Disability awareness component
Total 25, No answer 7
Disability awareness in the training: Frequency Valid Percent There is a disability awareness component 5 20,8 There is not a disability awareness component 19 79,2
The majority of WFD organizations are reporting that a disability awareness component is not incorporated in the training of planners, architects and construction engineers. The same pattern prevails compared with the NGOs in general, but there are clear differences in the percentage reported. WFD organizations report a lower percentage concerning the existence of a disability awareness component in the training, when compared with the percentages reported by governments.
Table 16 (Question No. 16)
Status of sign language
Total 30, No answer 1
The status of sign language as reported by WFD organizations: Frequency Valid Percent Recognized as the official language 11 36,7 As the first language in education 4 13,3 As the main means of communication 4 13,3 No officially recognized status 11 36,7
As Table 16 indicates, 37% of WFD organizations report that sign language has no officially recognized status, while 37% of the WFD organizations also report that sign language is recognized as the official language of deaf people. There is a clear difference, compared with the NGOs in general. NGOs are reporting that sign language in 29% of the countries, has no officially recognized status. This can be taken as a verification of the hypothesis that the answers sometimes diverge, because of lack of insight into the conditions of each disability group. There are minor differences, when compared with the percentages reported by governments.
Table 17 (Question No. 17)
Accessibility measures in media
Total 30, No answer 1
Accessibility measures in media Frequency Valid Percent Reporting accessibility measures 17 56,7 Reporting no accessibility measures 13 43,3
As Table 17 shows, the majority of WFD organizations are reporting that there are accessibility measures to encourage media to make their information services accessible for persons with disabilities. The percentage reported here, regarding the existence of accessibility measures in media, is higher when compared with the one reported by the NGOs in general. There are no differences in the percentage reported, when compared with those reported by the governments.
Table 18 (Question No. 18)
Accessibility measures in public information services
Total 29, No answer 2
Public information services Frequency Valid Percent Accessibility measures in information 9 31,0 No accessibility measures in information 20 69,0
The majority of the WFD organizations, however, report that there are no government measures to make other forms of public information services accessible for persons with disabilities. There is no clear difference compared with the percentage reported by the NGOís in general, but clear differences, when compared with the percentages reported by governments. WFD organizations report a lower percentage concerning accessibility in public information services.
Table 19 (Question No. 19)
Access to information and communication
Total 28, No answer 3
Services to facilitate information/communication Frequency Valid Percent Literature in Braille/tape 16 57,1 News magazines on tape/Braille 10 35,7 Sign language interpretation for any purpose 12 42,9 Sign language interpretation for major events 7 25,0 Easy readers for persons with mental disabilities 2 7,1 None 7 25,0
As Table 19 indicates, there are 25% of WFD organizations reporting that no services at all are provided in order to facilitate information and communication between persons with disabilities and others. The services most frequently provided are literature in Braille/tape and sign language interpretation, for any purpose, while less often services, such as easy readers for persons with disabilities, are provided. The main difference here is that WFD organizations are reporting a higher percentage regarding sign language interpretation for any purpose but a lower percentage regarding literature in Braille/tape, news magazines on tape/Braille and easy readers for persons with mental disabilities. There are clear differences, when compared with the percentages reported by governments. WFD organizations report a lower percentage regarding all of the above mentioned services, except for sign language interpretation for any purpose.
Contents of the WFD Report
