Universal Design welfare facilities meet with the system / Cases in Norway and Australia
The 2014 Universal Design International Seminar has obtained written consent from the speaker to publish the summarized and edited content
SPEAKER: Kim Yong-Deuk (Professor of Social Welfare at Sungkonghoe University)
Universal Design has been used for a very long time and has been implemented as part of Seoul's design policy to create an urban environment that is safe and convenient for all citizens, regardless of gender, age, nationality and disability. But it is still difficult for citizens to feel it directly or to fully popularize it within the remit of our daily lives. At this point, we need to think about what strategies the Seoul Metropolitan Government should use in relation to its policies, understand how some countries, like Norway and Australia, understand "different" through the UD system, and look at examples where Seoul can choose to apply UD in the future, especially in relation to important issues regarding welfare services, facilities and space.
1. Origins of Universal Design
Universal Design is design for everyone. Its scope is wide-ranging, from products, architecture, environment, services, the urban environment and social institutional improvement, which should be easy to use regardless of age, gender, nationality or disability. Universal in the dictionary sense can be interpreted as universal or all, and it also contains the concept of planning and designing products, buildings and environments from the beginning to make them available to everyone.
Universal Design was initially designed as a standard for people with disabilities and the elderly but over time, the scope of its necessity expanded as it gradually targeted a larger number of people. The concept of UD is seen as a concept of life-span design or trans-generational design which goes far beyond the concepts of the barrier-free design, accessible design, and adaptable design of the past.
2. General Trends in Universal Design
According to Ronald Mace, an American architect and professor at the University of North Carolina who first coined the term "Universal Design”, one of the more significant changes in the term's use has been the removal of the label "special needs”. One of the problems with the term "special needs" is to remind people that "disabled people need more attention than ordinary people”. The four principles of universal design first presented by Ronald Mace, and the three principles added in 1997, are shown in the table above.
3. Universal Design Policy in Foreign Countries
In general, European countries appear to be co-structuring under the broad slogan "Design For All" in a similar concept to UD, but when considered in detail, there are significant differences among countries. There are moves to promote the economy by commercially developing UDs and to strengthen the economy by supporting research and development, while there are also government-led models with strong public sector initiatives rather than seeking commercial benefits.
The history of UD, based on the experience of other countries, can help establish Seoul's policy direction. That experience can be divided into countries that tend to focus on aging and those that focus on disabilities. The direction often depends on which areas have the upper hand. The UK was largely market-driven, Nordic countries like Norway have focused on the elderly, and the European Union has focused on disability. Additionally, Japan has a market-led and public-led tendency to consider both disabilities and the elderly under the influence of the U.S., which is centers on disabilities, and Australia is also similar to Japan's position.
1) Universal design in Norway
The department in charge of universal design policy in Norway, a country with a population of 5 million, is the Ministry of Children and Equality. The Norwegian government has focused on external assessment results, along with specific business plans to ensure universal design for disabled people in key areas of society and to improve accessibility by developing national plans from 2005 to 2008. Norway is a structure in which government ministries and local governments cooperate on policy based on the Norwegian government’s action plan for Universal Design. Norway's goals and strategies are based on two laws: the Anti-Discrimination and Accessibility Act and the Planning and Building Act. The national action plan for Universal Design specifies the specific year in which universal design should be applied: across all buildings, amenities, outdoor spaces, transportation and information and communications in Norway by 2025. In addition, statistics are collected for the development of Universal Design Assessment Indicators for the accuracy in detail of the action plan. The action plan for Universal Design prioritizes four key areas, focusing on the integration of universal design that is accessible across all areas, led by the nation, to revitalize the employment of the disabled.
Policy for implementation of Norway's key four areas; buildings and architecture
The Norwegian government's policy goal for houses and buildings is to build buildings that reflect the principles of universal design while being eco-friendly with scenic location requirements. Another goal is to expand the quantity of buildings and outdoor spaces designed with universal design, and the vision is to follow the principles of universal design, including public buildings and all privately operated buildings.
Statsbygg, an administrative reform body of the Norwegian government, also manages more than 1,500 national assets and 2.3 million square meters of land spread across 115 overseas locations, providing a database that can be a guide to alteration or accessibility. Additionally, maintenance funds are operated to support the redesign of existing buildings and in the design of new buildings. Funds are provided by the relevant department based on the nature of the building, and the policy emphasizes that buildings in welfare areas such as facilities for female victims and the disabled should follow the design principles of Universal Design specified in the Labour and Welfare Administration Act.
Policy for implementation of key 4 areas; Outdoor activity space
Universal design is included in the planning guidelines for national policy as a major goal of Norwegian Environment Ministry activities, and local governments are trying to ensure that all city-level institutions in Norway have universal design guarantees. To this end, all local governments prepare a local autonomy plan that includes guidance on universal design by 2015, which serves as a major principle of all local planning.
From 2005 to 2008, Norway's Ministry of Environment created a program that included 17 local governments across the country with improved accessibility through specific government business plans and links to universal design. Local governments that have made such pilot efforts have been a pioneer in disseminating universal design in Norway. The programmes that were implemented in 17 local governments allowed the coordination of the application and design of physical elements that equally provided opportunities for participation in society with strategies to eliminate discrimination and make it accessible to all. Regulations and guidelines on universal design in outdoor spaces can be linked to outdoor space goals such as 'building and amenities, environmental structures, transportation facilities, and infrastructure'. All of these plans will be carried out by local authorities, and the results will vary depending on the companies and departments that work together. Therefore, the experiences gained from managing and operating anti-discriminatory accessibility and gender equality laws can be positively applied to the plan.
Inclusive Playground Design
Analysis of Norway's Universal Design Policy
(1) Norway's master plan for UD centered on local governments
The most notable aspect of Norway's policy is that the government has begun working with the Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities (KS) to strengthen cooperation with local governments, which are entrusted with many powers such as decision-making and budgeting for universal design.
(2) Development of standard indicators for evaluation of UD national master plan
Due to the characteristics of universal design that are applied differently from culture to culture, it is difficult to prepare systematic evaluation indicators. However, the Norwegian government specifically mentions the development of standard indicators in the Universal Design National Framework Plan. The steering committee representing Norway's government departments and related departments conducts many activities, such as hosting a network forum for indicator development, and collects and analyzes existing data on local land and space to conduct a status check on sports facilities or physical activity facilities.
Also, Norwegian government departments and boards of directors are preparing standards for universal design in buildings, outdoor spaces, and transportation through international cooperation, and local governments are planning to standardize and apply three laws: establishment of an index system, development of universal design standards, and systematization of universal design.
2) Universal Design in the UK
The UK generally uses the term 'Inclusive Design' instead of UD. It was first used in 1994 and its application gradually increased. The UK’s Inclusive design guidelines are mainly developed by the Royal College of Art. There is no state policy of universal design like Norway, but many research institutes and schools are actively researching and implementing Inclusive Design. The British Standard Institute (2005) defined inclusive design as "the design of mainstream products and/or services that are accessible to, and usable by, as many people as reasonably possible, on a global basis, in a wide variety of situations and to the greatest extent possible without the need for special adaptation or specialized design”. The fundamental nature of the UK's inclusive design is ‘user-centered’, ‘population aware’, ‘business focused’, and includes the requirements for ‘functional’, ‘usable’, ‘attractive’, and ‘viable’.
The Case For Inclusive Design Report, published in 1994, states that inclusive design will bridge the gap between design of society and design for the elderly. Later, as the commercialization of inclusive design developed so that it could be commercially profitable, the concept of combining inclusive design, building technology, and storytelling moved away from the concept of design only for the disabled and created innovative products of all kinds. It sparked a shift in the concept of a more user-centric design for people. Since the first appearance of inclusive design in 1993, various attempts and processes in the UK have developed it, and the completeness has been gradually improved by knowledge exchange activities mainly organized by industry, universities and schools. Inclusive Design products and services have increased and are recognized as archetypal by users, but in reality, there are very few products that can be referred to as truly new that reflect the values of Inclusive Design. Researchers and designers need enough power to satisfy their aspirations and goals and accelerate change.
3) Universal Design in Australia
Australia enacted the Disability Service Act 1986 to incorporate a set of federal government-sponsored welfare programs for the disabled, and in 1992 enacted the DDA to ban discrimination in employment, housing, land, service sales and provision, unions, clubs, etc. From 2009 to 2014, the Australian Government developed a report providing support for the Accessibility Design Guide, which has a role for the Australian Government and its citizens, but also serves as a global standard for advancing the World Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and is the foundation of the Australian UD. The guide provides practical information on barrier-free architecture accessible to schools, hospitals, and courts, and includes minimizing barriers to architecture for the elderly, disabled, pregnant women, children, and patients, providing a context that helps to continuously develop and implement accessibility. Australia’s guidelines can be very helpful in organizing and orienting UD policy guides in Korea, as they include practical guidelines and commonly available checklists, diagrams, and examples for practitioners.
4. Implications for Korean policy
Through the UD policies we reviewed above, we find that there are clear differences in each country, which provides three implications for the entire social aspect of our country. First, for developing government-led guidelines and linking policies, we can refer to the effectiveness of government-led UD policy strategies, as in the case of Norway and Australia. It also provides specific manuals for UD policies, implementation, and evaluation by supporting links and collaboration between local governments-oriented ministries under the leadership of the government. Second, the UK government and universities are motivated by supporting UD research and projects to form budget support for activating UD research and implementation. To do so, research projects at each local government level must be encouraged. Third, for activities for universal consensus on UD, national consensus on the necessity of UD should be drawn through the formation of UD research institutes and associations at the national level, and UD monitoring activities of private organizations should be supported.
From a social welfare perspective, we have mainly thought about UD as a matter of space for people with mobility difficulties. But in fact, what is perceived as a problem in the environment of most social welfare users is that they are overemphasizing emotions and relationships, not space, such as school, friends, family, society, etc. Physical space has always been pushed out of the priorities of consideration in welfare. Therefore, it is time to recognize the direction of "people and space are one" rather than "people are part of space," and to think about Livingwell's concept as "where to live?" and apply UD as a means to solve this problem.
In addition, the general explanation of Wolfensberger's welfare services can be considered for consideration on how to create a space for welfare services in Korea. This emphasizes that welfare service facilities should not only emphasize fragmentary safety, but also consider both physical settings related to improving users' image and physical settings for actual capacity building.
The previous examples provide guidelines for measurement and evaluation criteria that explain details of UD at the national level, and I think that Korea will also sympathize with the need to develop integrated and detailed universal design standards. In establishing Seoul's design policies, if UD's related integrated information and detailed guidelines are developed for each aspect of the city, such as buildings, space, and transportation, it will be easier to meet and feel UD in our daily lives.
