Article Proof - please reference Small, J., & Darcy, S. (2010). Chapter 1: Tourism, disability and mobility. In S. Cole & N. Morgan (Eds.), Tourism and Inequality: Problems and Prospects (pp.1-20). Wallingford CABI. 1 Tourism, Disability and Mobility Jennie Small and Simon Darcy Introduction In more economically developed countries, tourism is considered part of the modern experience with all people having the right to travel. Nonetheless, there are many groups of people who do not take holidays or do not fully participate in the holiday experience for reasons such as low income, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, body size and disability. This chapter focuses on disability, in particular mobility, and argues that people with disabilities should expect the same rights to citizenship and the same quality of life as the non-disabled, which include the right to travel and participate in leisure activities (United Nations, 1993). Exclusion from full participation equates to social inequality. The United Nation’s (2006) Convention of the Rights of People with Disabilities has been signed by all but a few nations and provides a philosophical agreement that people with disability should not be discriminated against in any areas of citizenship. However, how each nation state implements such a convention is left to its own discretion. A number of nations including the USA, Australia and the UK have taken a legislative approach to enshrining the principles of disability rights within their legal systems. A review of legislation can be a guide to examine the relative position of disability within tourism. The chapter commences with a general overview of disability demographics, different approaches to disability and the concepts required for an understanding of the disability experience. Using Australia as a case study, it reviews the implementation of the United Nations (UN) Convention through the 17-year history (1993–2008) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 [Comm]. An examination of complaint cases highlights the specific experiences of social inequality experienced by people with mobility disability. Disability Demographics Disability is a part of the diversity of human communities rather than a deviation from an objective norm. All communities contain individuals with disabilities with the World Health Organization (WHO) (1997) and the UN (2009b) estimating that an average 10% of the population have a disability. This equates to 650 million people with disabilities living in the world today. The World Health Organization forecasts that there will be one billion people with disabilities living in the world by 2050, an increase of 350 million. These figures are estimates based on disability statistics collected from the minority of nations who collect this information. World Bank statisticians recognize that: the operational definitions for collecting this information vary widely depending on whether from a census or a specific disability survey; there is a cultural context to collecting this information where self-identification of © CAB International 2011. Tourism and Inequality: Problems and Prospects (eds S. Cole and N. Morgan) 1 2 J. Small and S. Darcy disability is problematic in developing nations; and the conceptualizations of disability are dynamic and evolving (Metts, 2004). Despite these caveats, there are significant numbers of people identified with disabilities in nation states with sizeable domestic and outbound tourism markets. There are major implications for the developing BRIC nations of Brazil, Russia, India and China. Figure 1.1 presents the best available disability statistics and proportions of people with disabilities in nation states where this information is collected. The WHO’s International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicap’s (ICIDH) (1997, 2001) framework and the statistical data collection for the nation states identify that approximately half of all disabilities are identified as ‘physical disabilities’ that affect a person’s activities of daily living including mobility, self-care and communication. The following discus- sion focuses on the mobility component of ‘physical disabilities’. To develop a greater understanding of the definitions of physical disability and the mobility dimension of access (discussed in full later), see the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare paper, which presents a very clear articulation of this dimension of access (Wen and Fortune, 1999). Within these estimates is a well understood nexus between the increasing numbers of seniors and the increasing rates of disability as people age over the lifespan. As Darcy and Dickson (2009) established, a ‘whole-of-life approach’ identifies that at any time 30% of the community have some form of disability or access need: this includes families with young children and those experiencing temporary disabling sporting injuries and other medical conditions. This is discussed later in relation to the argument for universal design. Fig. 1.1. Nation states disability numbers and percentage (Darcy and Dickson, 2009). Chapter 1 Approaches to Disability: Medical Approach, Social Approach and Embodiment Two broad approaches to an understanding of disability are the medical and the social approaches. The medical approach is founded on the ‘personal tragedy theory of disability’ (Oliver, 1996). Here the focus is on the individual and his/her impairment (functional/psychological losses). It is the fault of the individual because of, for example, blindness, deafness, paralysis, mental health issues etc. that they cannot participate fully in social life. This discourse views able-bodiedness as the social norm and, hence, excludes the ‘abnormal’ (people with impairments) from citizenship. For example, a tourist to Sydney who is a wheelchair user may not be able to access all public areas of Sydney Opera House. The medical model would explain this inability of access as related to the medical condition – paralysis. Social approaches to conceptualizing disability challenge that disability is the result of an individual’s impairment, their ‘personal tragedy’ (Oliver, 1996) and instead conceptualize disability as the product of the disabling social environment and the prevailing attitudes (Barnes, 1996). The individual’s embodiment (their impairment) is not the cause of the person’s exclusion but rather it is the oppressive social environment and attitudes that produce disability (Oliver, 1996; Goggin and Newell, 2005). The social approach places disability on the social, economic and political agendas. Returning to the example of the tourist in a wheelchair at Sydney Opera House, the reason that the tourist is prevented from accessing all of the public areas is that the building was constructed without lifts/ramps to all areas, as these were not considered socially necessary in the design of the building. The social approach recognizes that the ‘normal activities and roles’ are informed by the dominant medical model of disability and this socially constructed environment creates disabilities on top of the person’s 3 impairment. The social structures are a product of historical development and cannot be divorced from their cultural context. The cultural context involves both a material and ideological transformation of the way people with impairments are treated by society. As Gleeson (1999: 13) comments, society has in the past changed its attitude towards institutional oppression of other groups in society, such as women and indigenous groups, ‘while continuing to ignore the material hardships and injustices to which they are subjected’. The Union of Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPAIS) was the first to articulate that the social model distinguishes between impairment and disability (UPAIS, 1975): • impairment – part of an individual’s embodiment; and • disability – social disadvantage that is the product of the disabling social environment and attitudes. ‘It is the disabling social practices that transform the individual’s impairment (embodiment) into a disability’ (Small and Darcy, 2010). To understand disability, one needs to focus on disabling barriers, hostile social attitudes and the material relations of power. It can be seen that the social model is more emancipatory than the medical model. Nonetheless, according to Shakespeare and Watson (2001), there are three central criticisms of the social model. These criticisms focus on impairment, the impairment/disability dualism and the issue of individual identity. They highlight that impairment and disability are not dichotomous but are different places and times on a continuum. They suggest that disability should not be reduced to just a medical condition or to just social barriers alone, as it is more complex. Our lived experiences are corporeal/embodied and we need to take both impairment and social structures into account. For example, the tourist with mobility impairment may suffer from fatigue related to the impairment. No matter how accessible a tourist site is for a tourist with an impairment, the 4 J. Small and S. Darcy fatigue will/can prevent the individual from full participation. Shakespeare and Watson conclude that an embodied ontology offers a starting point for disability studies to begin to develop a more adequate social theory of disability creating a space and place for embodiment within the social paradigm. ‘In effect, the embodied ontology challenges the dichotomies of impairment/ disability and illness/health and offers a model that intertwines structure and agency’ (Small and Darcy, 2010). Concepts Required for an Understanding of Disability As identified in Fig. 1.2 below, we propose that an understanding of disability requires knowledge of four concepts: types or dimensions of disability; levels of support needs; access enablers; and universal design. These four concepts and their interdependence form the basis of a comprehension of disability and tourism and hence, what is known as accessible tourism. As Packer et al. (2006) suggest, there is a complex interplay between the individual, the environment and the tourism context, which demonstrates how people with disabilities can be excluded in tourism. At one or more of these interfaces, people can become marginalized through a series of structural constraints that may require a series of institutional responses to provide an enabling tourism environment (Darcy, 2002). Relatively little research has empirically examined how these interfaces create social inequality with most research on disability and tourism limited to a focus on people with physical disabilities who require mobility access, for example Israeli’s (2002) study, which identified some seven basic considerations for destination site accessibility for mobility. However, as identified by Packer et al.’s (2006) research, accessible tourism is more complex. To this end, Darcy (2002; in press) identified impairment, independence, level of support needs and aids used as statistically significant determinants of a person’s likelihood to travel and how often they travelled. Studies by Burnett and Bender-Baker (2001) and Darcy (1998) on travel criteria of people with mobility disabilities found that the level of support needs was an important way to segment disability travel. Similarly, Bi et al. (2007) found that level of support needs and functional ability were major influences on the perceptions of accessibility and attitudinal barriers to transport, accommodation, hospitality and attractions. In summary, the literature suggests that the disability/dimensions of access, the support needs and the accessibility of the environment (enablers) are important to understanding the tourist experiences of people with disabilities. Each of these concepts is now considered prior to extending this understanding to universal design. Disability and Dimensions of Access Traditionally, disability has been largely understood through medical approaches in the definition, categorization and statistical collection of data on disability outlined by the WHO’s ICIDH. As stated above, within these approaches there is a focus on the Fig. 1.2. Concepts for an understanding of disability (Small and Darcy, 2010). Chapter 1 disabling medical conditions of individuals (WHO, 2002b). Within the frameworks of classification, there are literally thousands of conditions that can be diagnosed for the individual’s lack of ability. However, this type of information does not provide meaningful direction to creating enabling environments. These shortcomings of the ICIDH have been recognized by many commentators including the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (2006). Policy makers have attempted to provide a better categorization to understand the practical requirements of creating an enabling environment. For example, the way that disability is defined under national disability discrimination legislation focuses far more on the dimensions of disability as an outcome of their access needs. As such, the Australian Disability Discrimination Act 1992’s definition of disability aggregates major dimensions rather than focusing on individual conditions. In doing so, it identifies: physical (mobility); sensory (hearing and vision); intellectual; psychiatric; neurological; learning, physical disfigurement; and the presence in the body of disease-causing organisms. Darcy in interpreting the ICIDH-1 (World Health Organization, 1997) stated that the access needs of tourists with disabilities could be reduced to three dimensions of access: physical; sensory; and communication (Darcy, 1998). In subsequent research (Darcy, in press), these dimensions of access were expanded to include: • • • • mobility; vision; hearing; cognitive/learning – involving issues of speech or understanding; • mental health; • sensitivities – including respiratory, food and chemical; and • other. The advantage of the above conceptualization is that the focus is on the provision of the broad dimensions for access to create enabling environments, as advocated by social approaches to 5 disability (Oliver, 1990, 1996; Thomson, 1997; Thomas, 1999; Swain et al., 2004; Thomas, 2007). Level of Support Needs Another factor that contributes to a greater understanding of disability is an individual’s level of support requirements. Any individual has needs in everyday living. The level of support needs of individuals with mobility disabilities can be identified on a continuum. At one end of the continuum are those who live independently in the community with no support required while at the other extreme are those who require a high level of one-onone support 24 h a day. The level of an individual’s support needs directly affects their social participation. In disability statistics, this has been referred to as the relative ‘severity’ of a person’s disability or their functional ability (WHO, 2002a). For the purposes of this chapter, this approach can be referred to as a ‘medical’ conceptualization that focuses on ‘loss’ experience and attributes this loss as the reason for reduced social participation. The level of support needs is generally described in the following terms: independent (no support needs); low; medium; high; very high (requires 24-h support). Access Enablers The discussion so far has focused on the intersection between disability and level of support needs and has shown the complexity of an understanding of disability. A further layer to this understanding can be found through the disability studies literature, which seeks to change disabling environments to enabling environments (Swain et al., 2004) by focusing attention on the lived experience of people with disabilities and the barriers that they face in their everyday living. Access enablers for those with a mobility impairment can be conceptualized in three broad categories: 6 J. Small and S. Darcy • Adaptive or assistive technology that maximizes the abilities of people with disabilities: this may include mobility equipment such as wheelchairs, walking frames etc. • Environmental or structural enablers: these are well articulated through the access and mobility codes for building. In their most basic form, enablers require a continuous pathway for people with mobility impairment to experience environments seamlessly. Basic inclusions to enable mobility include ramps, lifts and accessible toilets. • Attitudes/behaviour of others: a significant area of consideration goes beyond adaptive equipment and environmental enablers to challenge disabling attitudes towards people with disabilities. The literature on attitudes and behaviour is substantial with a number of applications in the tourism literature (Daruwalla and Darcy, 2005) in regard to attitudes to customer service and employment (van Lin et al., 2001; Ross, 2004; Slonaker et al., 2007). Universal Design Universal design is a paradigm that incorporates intergenerational and lifespan planning, recognizing the nexus between ageing, disability and the continuum of ability of people over their lifespan (Aslaksen et al., 1997; Steinfeld and Shea, 2001). Universal design has been defined as: … the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design…The intent of the universal design concept is to simplify life for everyone by making products, communications, and the built environment more usable by more people at little or no extra cost. The universal design concept targets all people of all ages, sizes and abilities. (Center for Universal Design, 2003) Universal design is based on seven principles to facilitate equitable access across the lifespan (Preiser and Ostroff, 2001; Center for Universal Design, 2003, 2005): • • • • • • • Principle 1: Equitable Use. Principle 2: Flexibility in Use. Principle 3: Simple and Intuitive Use. Principle 4: Perceptible Information. Principle 5: Tolerance for Error. Principle 6: Low Physical Effort. Principle 7: Size and Space for Approach and Use (Center for Universal Design, 2009). The implication of this design approach is that access would become central to a design rather than an add-on for compliance reasons. As indicated in Fig. 1.3, it is not only those with access needs who benefit but all users as a universally designed environment considers occupational and safety issues, making it a safer environment for all. There has been a call for the tourism industry to adopt universal design principles as a foundation to achieving greater social sustainability (Rains, 2004; Walsh, 2004). Figure 1.4 below illustrates a universally designed water playground with level access in Cairns, Queensland, that provides an equality of experience for children with or without mobility disabilities. With this brief understanding of the underlying concepts that require consideration in understanding accessible tourism, the chapter now moves to examine tourism and disability in Australia. Tourism and Disability in Australia Australia is one of the few countries with national tourism statistics that provides a comparison between the tourism participation of the general population and people with disabilities. As outlined by Dwyer and Darcy (2008) and shown in Fig. 1.5, people with disabilities, when compared with the general population, travel at the same rate for day trips but at a much lower rate than the general population for overnight domestic travel (21% less) and international Chapter 1 7 Fig. 1.3. Universal design beneiciaries (proportion of Australians) (Darcy and Dickson, 2009). Fig. 1.4. Universal design water playground in Cairns, Queensland (©Darcy 2005, with permission). travel (51% less). This is despite progress in the past 25 years in removing barriers in the transport, accommodation and attraction sectors. An explanation for the difference between the two groups in domestic and international travel is continued inequality in the provision of accessible air travel and hotel accommodation (Darcy et al., 2008). The level of social inequality is further exacerbated by the dimension of disability and access for the traveller. As Fig. 1.6 shows, people with impairments related to mental health, vision, speech, physical affecting arms and/or legs, hearing, general physical and acquired brain injury/stroke travel significantly less than the nondisabled. These figures are illuminating but 8 J. Small and S. Darcy 30.0 27.8% 25.0 22.1% Percentage 20.0 14.6% 14.6% 15.0 10.0 5.6% 5.0 2.7% 0.0 Day trip Overnight PWD Outbound Non-disabled n=16,054 Fig. 1.5. Comparative travel patterns (Dwyer and Darcy, 2008). 100 90 80 Percentage 70 60 50 40 30 20 24% 25% Mental health Vision 29% 30% 35% 31% 35% 35% 36% 36% 37% 38% Mood Other 10 0 Speech Physical Hearing (arms/legs) Physical Acquired Other LT Medicated (general) brain additional condition injury/ stroke , % Trav; , % Non-trav Fig. 1.6. Impairment by traveller (n=5741). From Darcy (2003), based on the 1998 Bureau of Tourism Research’s Domestic Tourism Monitor. do not provide an understanding of where tourism inequality exists. People with disabilities do not cite their impairment as a reason for nonparticipation but instead a series of structural constraints (Darcy, 2003). This suggests the social construction of the tourism environment is the major deterrent to full tourism citizenship. However, the tourism industry has a history of resistance to provide enabling environments and positive customer service initiatives (Daruwalla and Darcy, 2005), preferring to perceive that people with disability do not want to travel rather than question industry’s preconceptions and lack of knowledge on how to assist tourists with a disability. These findings are supported by Chapter 1 the complexity of constraints identified by Daniels et al. (2005) in analysing the ‘travel tales’ of people with disabilities. A key finding of the research into the tourist experiences of people with a disability is that travel is a highly anxious experience (Darcy, 1998, 2002): Travelling with a disability is a never ending nightmare, hell on Earth, indescribable, nerve wracking, stomach churning, unbelievably expensive experience [Tourist with a mobility impairment]. (Darcy, 2002) The remainder of the chapter discusses the intersection between human rights, disability and tourism inequality and reviews the operation of the disability legislation to understand the ways in which people with mobility disabilities experience discrimination within the tourism sector. Human Rights, Disability and Tourism Inequality Central to the UN human rights declarations was the recognition that people with disabilities should enjoy the rights of citizenship of its signatory nations. The UN provides the foundation of citizenship through the international framework of human rights of which the UN’s Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (2006) is the most recent addition. Each country operationalizes these rights under its own legislative and policy frameworks. Given the various UN conventions over the years, it is surprising that only 40 countries have introduced specific disability discrimination legislation (United Nations, 2009a). Table 1.1 shows a chronology of disability discrimination legislation for a sample of countries. It is through these frameworks that governments resource and regulate their implementation of the UN Convention as a way to empower people with disabilities to achieve all their rights of citizenship. Yet, as Hutchison (1997: 3) notes, human rights is only part of establishing citizenship. Hutchison acknowledges that ‘Rights and responsibility, empowerment, inclusion, and ‘getting a life’ are all important’ but ‘citizenship is much more than each of these separate components added together … It is a more tangible concept that includes all of these things, but something more. It is at the core of what it is to be human’. The chapter now examines the framework that ensures equality of experience before the law of those with disabilities and the general population. It does so by reviewing the Australian context of implementing the UN Convention through the 17 years experience of having a disability discrimination legislation in place. In the first instance, the framework is reviewed so that the mechanisms for implementing the Disability Discrimination Act are understood. The remainder of the chapter then specifically examines the major areas of social inequality in tourism for people with mobility disabilities. Table 1.1. National disability discrimination legislation. Year 1990 1990 1992 1995 Country USA China Australia UK 1995 India 1996 1996 Costa Rica Hong Kong Legislation Americans with Disabilities Act The Law of People’s Republic of China on the Protection of Disabled Persons Disability Discrimination Act Disability Discrimination Act Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act Law No. 7600 on Equality for Persons with Disabilities Disability Discrimination Ordinance (1996) Source: United Nations (2009a); UN ESCAP (2008). 9 10 J. Small and S. Darcy Australian Human Rights Commission1 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Half of all complaint cases lodged to the Australian Human Rights Commission are based on disability discrimination. The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 [Comm] became the first Australian disabilityspecific human rights legislation where previously disability had been part of statebased antidiscrimination legislation together with gender, age and race. For a full explanation of the way that the Disability Discrimination Act operates across the cultural industries, see Darcy and Taylor (2009). The premise of the Disability Discrimination Act was that disability discrimination happens when a person with a disability is treated less fairly than someone without a disability. Discrimination can be direct or indirect. Direct discrimination occurs when the person with a disability is treated less favourably than a person without disability, in circumstances that are not materially different. An example would be a wheelchair user refused permission by the ticket seller to enter a particular tourist attraction because of their disability. Indirect discrimination occurs when a person with a disability is required to comply with a condition, to which the person cannot comply because of the disability, and is thus disadvantaged. An example would be when the wheelchair user is unable to access the tourist attraction because of a step at the entrance. Implicit in the Act is the expectation that, in both cases, reasonable adjustments should be made for the person with the disability to ensure the person is not treated less favourably than someone without a disability. As Fig. 1.7 shows, there are four strategies used by the Disability Discrimination Act to achieve the objectives of the Act: 1. To eliminate, as far as possible, discrimination against persons on the ground of disability in the areas of: (i) work, accommodation, education, access to premises, clubs and sport; and (ii) the provision of goods, facilities, services and land; and (iii) existing laws; and (iv) the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. 2. To ensure, as far as practicable, that persons with disabilities have the same rights to equality before the law as the rest of the community. 3. To promote recognition and acceptance within the community of the principle that persons with disabilities have the same fundamental rights as the rest of the community. The strategies of education, public enquiries, Disability Action Plans, fcDisability Standards and complaint cases/Federal court actions are all used to challenge underlying institutional inequalities in Australian society and promote fuller participation in citizenship by people with disabilities (Jones and Basser Marks, 1999). Each of these strategies will now be examined to assess the level of engagement of the tourism sector. Education Central to the objectives of the Disability Discrimination Act is the ongoing education of the public about disability discrimination. While disability awareness training has taken place within 1. Reactive: complaint cases/Federal court actions 2. Strategic: disability action plans 4. Disability Standards 3. Eduction Fig. 1.7. Disability Discrimination Act strategies. Chapter 1 organizations and regions, it has largely gone on without formal documentation and evaluation. One study which has tested the impact of disability awareness training in the tourism industry (Daruwalla and Darcy, 2005) has shown the positive impact of such training. Public enquiries The Australian Human Rights Commission has the power in the Disability Discrimination Act to call a public inquiry for matters or issues deemed to be a concern for many people in the community. This fulfils the role of a class action without the need for individuals formally to take an action. This power has been used only infrequently. Relevant to tourism, is the public inquiry into accessible taxis in NSW (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 2002). Disability Action Plans Disability Action Plans seek to provide a strategic approach to identifying disabling practices and environments within organizations and provide an enabling outcomebased framework for addressing identified access issues. Disability Action Plans are voluntary for state and Commonwealth government, although they were strongly recommended by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, the Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department and a number of state government departments. As of mid-2009 there were 599 plans registered with the Australian Human Rights Commission (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2009a). Of the Commonwealth and state tourism authorities, only Tourism NSW (2000) has lodged a Disability Action Plan. As part of the Disability Action Plan strategies, all staff have completed a disability awarenesstraining programme (Daruwalla and Darcy, 2005). Tourism Victoria developed a draft document under the Disability Action Plan provisions, circulated it for comment but 11 did not release it publicly (Tourism Victoria, 2007). Only one specific tourismrelated business in the hospitality sector lodged a Disability Action Plan. It did so as a means to protect the organization from a complaint case while building work was planned (Access Solutions, 2008). The transport sector has been the most active in developing Disability Action Plans as the disability standard in accessible public transport focused the attention on the sector. Disability Standards The Disability Discrimination Act provides the power for the Attorney General to instigate research for consultation concerning the development of Disability Standards. The premise was that Disability Standards provide a higher level of certainty for developers and operators and, hence, reduce delays and costs that may arise from the complaints system (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 1993). Since the inception of the Disability Discrimination Act, two standards have been progressed. First, the Disability Standard for Accessible Public Transport (Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department, 2001a, 2001b). This Disability Standard has recently undergone a 5-year review, which has cautiously shown a steady improvement in the accessibility of public transport albeit with variations from the government and private sector providers. The submissions to the inquiry showed air travel and charter operations still lag behind and create significant disadvantage for people (including tourists) with disabilities. More recently, there have been prolonged negotiations for the Draft Disability Standard for Access to Premises to harmonize the Building Codes of Australia and the Disability Discrimination Act (Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department, 2009a, 2009b). The Australian Buildings Codes Board discussion paper outlined the issues surrounding the standard, the Building Codes of Australia review and the AS1428 (Australian 12 J. Small and S. Darcy Building Codes Board, 2001). A delay of some 7 years from the original discussion paper to the Draft of these Disability Standards was partly related to the industry resistance to the provisions about the proportion of accessible class 3 hotel and motel accommodation (Innes, 2006; House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, 2009). A major area of contention is the make-up of the Australian Building Codes Board where the disability perspective is cast as an outsider, as there is no representative on the board itself or on the Building Codes Committee. Hence, decision-making power is controlled by the building industry rather than having direct input from disability sector or the Australian Human Rights Commission. Complaints and Federal court actions By far the main strategy used by people with disabilities to redress their discrimination is complaint cases and Federal court actions. Under the Disability Discrimination Act, people with a disability have the right of complaint when they believe they have been discriminated against. Ninety five per cent of complaints brought to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (now known as the Australian Human Rights Commission) are dealt with through staff investigation and conciliation (Hastings, 1995, 1997). Depending on the nature of the complaint, conciliation may result in: payment of damages; job reinstatement or job promotion; an apology; changes in policies or practices; and/or some other outcome. If complaints cannot be resolved through conciliation then the people with disabilities can ask for the complaint to go to a Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission hearing (pre-2000) or have the complaint heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The advantage of a Federal court decision is that it is binding on the parties, whereas a Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission/Australian Human Rights Commission ruling is not (Hastings, 1995). As Thornton (2000) believes, a weakness of the complaint system is the confidentiality of the process that individualizes the outcomes rather than contributing towards the challenging of the social norms of discrimination through the public reporting of outcomes. Brandy vs Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1995 HCA PLPR 19) determined that it was unconstitutional for the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission formally to hear complaints and make binding decisions. Therefore, all complaints requiring an enforceable, legally binding and public decision must be heard by the Federal Court of Australia. Unfortunately, the Federal court is also a cost jurisdiction where any individual bringing a court action may not only have their own costs of representation to bear but also have costs of the other party awarded against them. There has been in drop in the number of Federal court actions under the Disability Discrimination Act since the cost jurisdiction was introduced. Darcy and Taylor (2009) reviewed the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act since 1993 when over 7000 complaint cases had been lodged (an average of 575 per year). Just under half of the complaints cases each year are for employment, followed by goods/services/ facilities (25%), and access to premises (7%) (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 2007). Only the summaries of a small number (421) of complaints are made publicly available because of confidentiality agreements. As Table 1.2 shows, when the sectoral areas were analysed, tourism and hospitality accounted for 27% of all cases. Of these, airlines attracted the most cases followed by accommodation and hospitality. Through examining complaints, one can understand how tourists with mobility disability experience social inequality. It is recognized that these tourists might also have additional impairments, which require further provisions for accessibility. The complaints included below are those specifically related to mobility disability and the tourist experience. An examination Chapter 1 13 Table 1.2. Complaint cases. Sector Sport or recreation The arts/leisure Tourism Hospitality/clubs Retail/supermarkets Local and Commonwealth government Other Total Frequency 27 44 73 41 30 62 138 415 Percentage 6.5 10.6 17.6 9.9 7.2 14.9 33.3 100.0 Source: Darcy and Taylor (2009). of the complaint case outcomes identifies that discrimination occurs in many sectors of the tourism industry: transport; accommodation; tourist attractions; and tours (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2009b). In analysing the complaint cases of those with a mobility disability, three themes emerge: • lack of accessible infrastructure; • inadequate information provision; and • lack of inclusive customer service provisions. Although not included below, local residents’ complaints to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, which relate to their experiences in their home region, may also be relevant to those who visit this region. For example, complaints about local restaurants, local buses and trains, railway stations, parking spaces, shopping centres, cinemas, theatres, festivals, swimming pools, beaches, banks, ATMs, footpaths, etc., are also relevant to the tourist with a mobility disability who visits these sites and wants to use these facilities and services. No doubt there are many complaints by tourists with a mobility disability that have not been formally submitted because of a number of factors including the temporary nature of visitation as well as the time, money and emotional resources required to submit and see a complaint through to its end. All complaints summaries sourced in the boxes below are taken from the Australian Human Rights Commission (2009b). Lack of accessible infrastructure Since tourism requires travel and a stay of at least one night away from home, accessibility of transport and accommodation are essential for tourism to take place. At the destination, accessible public transport, accessible day trips and tours, and accessible tourist attractions and restaurants are required to ensure tourists with a mobility disability can fully participate in the tourist experience. The following complaints relate to provision of steps instead of ramps, height of counters, inaccessible toilet facilities, a heavy door to be opened, and narrow doorways and corridors. • A man with a mobility impairment complained that a budget airline’s terminal building was inaccessible because the entrance was by steps with no ramp access is (sic) provided. The complaint was settled when the airline agreed to install ramps and review other access features (2001, transport). • A man who uses a wheelchair complained that airline club lounge facilities were inaccessible. The complaint was settled with an agreement to include a section of the reception desk at a lower height and to install tables with a variety of heights within the club (2001, transport). • A woman with a mobility impairment complained that a caravan park did not have accessible toilet facilities. The complaint was settled when the park advised that accessible facilities were 14 • • • • J. Small and S. Darcy being constructed (2002, access to premises). A man whose wife uses a wheelchair complained that on a holiday cruise they had booked, although initial boarding and cabin arrangement were accessible, access had been impossible or unsafe at ports along the way. The complaint was settled with payment of over $4000 to refund fares and other expenses, an apology and an agreement for the company’s disability access officer to meet with the complainants to discuss services and procedures for passengers with disabilities (2006, transport). A woman who uses a wheelchair complained that on a visit to Sydney she had been unable to access a coffee shop as both entrances had steps. The respondent indicated that there were difficulties with providing access as the premises had heritage value, but agreed to raise the matter with the Australian Heritage Commission (which provides information on upgrading heritage premises for access). The complaint was settled with an agreement to provide ramp access at one of the entrances (2004, access to premises). A man who has a mobility impairment resulting from childhood polio complained that a new museum building had a step in the path from the disability parking spaces, and heavy manual glass entrance doors. This meant he could not enter the building unless another member of the public came along and held the doors open. The respondent agreed, as a short-term measure, to re-site the disability parking to a position adjacent to a lift and accessible entrance on the lower level of the building. As a longer term solution, the respondent agreed to find funds to alter the mechanism of the main entry doors and replace them with automatic sliding doors (2001, access to premises). A man who uses a wheelchair for mobility complained of restricted wheelchair accessibility on a rail operator’s longdistance services because of dimensions of doors, corridors and toilet doors. In conciliation, the complainant accepted undertakings that while it would not be feasible to modify the carriages concerned to provide access as desired, the operator provided a narrow wheelchair that did allow access to the train; new carriages would be accessible; and the operator would consult with the complainant on any feasible minor modifications (2000, transport). • A woman lodged a complaint against a state railway authority regarding lack of accessible toilets on stations throughout that state. The rail authority advised that there was a plan in place to make stations accessible by 2020 in accord with proposed transport standards and that the station nearest the complainant’s home, a main transit station, was scheduled for conversion by July 1997, although this plan did not include an accessible toilet. The complainant proposed the installation of portable toilets as an interim step but was advised this was impracticable because of the need to remove waste, security issues and so on. In December 1996, the rail authority agreed to build a permanent accessible toilet within the station. This was completed in early March 1997 and the complainant confirmed that she was satisfied with the outcome (1997, transport). • A woman who uses a wheelchair complained that a wildlife viewing centre had been permitted to move from an accessible to an inaccessible venue. The matter was settled with payment of financial compensation and agreement by the venue to install suitable access (2004, goods, services and facilities). ‘Accessible’ infrastructure constructed is not accessible. if poorly • A woman who uses a wheelchair complained that her local council, which had approved construction of a motel with disability access, had failed to note on final inspection that a number of features of the accessible suite were not in fact accessible to people who use Chapter 1 wheelchairs and that a disabled parking space was lacking. The matter was settled when the council advised that rectification of the motel access features had been arranged, and that staff had increased their vigilance on access issues (2000, access to premises). Inadequate information provision For tourists with a mobility disability, much time and effort goes into the planning of a holiday. The tourism industry needs to provide accurate information to enable appropriate decisions to be made. As stated by Small and Darcy (2010), ‘The general accessibility of properties, the associated facilities and the specific criteria of rooms and bathrooms require detailed and accurate information provision, communication and marketing’. Unfortunately, ‘research has consistently shown that information about tourism accommodation was not available, was not provided accurately when requested or was misunderstood by the managers and staff interacting with guests (Murray and Sproats, 1990; Gallagher and Hull, 1996; Upchurch and Seo, 1996; Turco et al., 1998; Ray and Ryder, 2003; Darcy, 2004; Daniels et al., 2005; Small and Darcy, 2010). The following complaints stem from the provision of inaccurate information. • A woman whose husband has had both legs amputated complained that a harbour cruise that the couple had booked was not wheelchair accessible without assistance, although she had been assured when booking that access was provided. The complaint was settled when the operator agreed to update its website and other information to ensure that accurate information was provided on the requirements for access to its boats (2003, goods, services and facilities). • A woman who uses a wheelchair complained that a holiday room for herself and her family was not accessible despite assurances when booking. There was a step at the door and the 15 bathroom was not wheelchair accessible. The respondent advised that it had not been clear from the booking request that fully independent access was required. The complaint was settled with an apology, an agreement to purchase a portable ramp and payment of compensation (2002, accommodation). • A woman who uses a wheelchair complained that after she had booked a hotel room on line with a request for an accessible room, she had been advised there were in fact six steps at the hotel entrance. The complaint was settled when the hotel agreed to change its online information to indicate the lack of independent access and to offer staff assistance with access where required (2004, accommodation). Customer service attitude Tourism is a service-based industry that needs to understand that people with disabilities must be treated equally before the law. Customer service issues have been highlighted in a number of complaint cases. Complaints provide an insight into the need for disability awareness training for customer service staff. In some instances, the discrimination toward people with disabilities is direct and conscionable. In other cases, it involves less favourable treatment where a person with a disability is not treated in the same manner as the non-disabled. • A man who uses a wheelchair complained that he had been refused travel by an airline unless accompanied by a carer, although he had previously flown alone with no problems. The complaint was settled when the airline agreed to provide a letter confirming the complainant could travel independently (200, transport). • A man who uses a manual wheelchair complained that an airline had advised that he would not be able to travel on certain flights. The complaint was 16 J. Small and S. Darcy settled when the airline apologised and advised that its information systems had been improved to make clearer to staff what limitations there were on its ability to carry some powered chairs and not on folding manual chairs (2007, public transport). • The daughter of a woman who has had a stroke and uses a wheelchair complained that she had been discriminated against on the basis of the mother’s disability when she booked cabins on a cruise boat. Only outside cabins, which were higher priced, were accessible, and there were also access problems with an associated tour. After a conciliation conference the complaint was settled with an agreement to reimburse the cost of the tour and improve accessibility information (2001, goods, services and facilities). • A man who uses a wheelchair complained that he had been discriminated against by being charged an additional fee for use of the accessible accommodation at some holiday cottages. The matter was settled without admission of liability when the new owners of the cottages advised that no such additional fee would be charged by them (1995, accommodation). Conclusion Social inclusion occurs when all individuals can participate fully in tourism. As the above discussion indicates, there are many tourists, including those with a mobility disability, who are excluded from participating, or from participating fully, in tourism as a consequence of lack of accessible infrastructure, poorly constructed ‘accessible’ infrastructure, inadequate information provision and/or lack of inclusive customer service provisions. This chapter has focused on Australia, a country with a 17-year history of disability discrimination legislation. While the discussion is specific to Australia, there are universal themes of social exclusion that are mirrored across the other more economically developed countries and also the less economically developed countries. As other marginalized groups like women, indigenous people and homosexuals have found, formal declarations, and even legislation, do not in themselves guarantee social justice or equality. Rather, there is the requirement for political will, enforcement, education and changes in social and cultural attitudes and behaviour. This is not a simple task or a straightforward process and is often not fully recognized or understood by many of the organizations that are, or should be, involved and affected. Questions 1. Think of a tourism attraction in your home town. What are the mobility provisions for access? How could the attraction adopt universal design principles to achieve greater social sustainability? 2. Research the website of the attraction and its printed promotional material. What information is provided on mobility access? Is there adequate information for a person with a mobility disability to consider visitation? 3. Access the archives of your local newspaper and search on the words, disabled, or disability and access. Select an article that describes a significant access issue that has occurred in your local area. What were the major areas of contention? Has there been an outcome to this issue? Learning Activity – Local Council Access Committee Contact your local Council and determine whether the Council has an Access Committee of professionals who consider access-related matters or a committee of local people with disabilities who perform a role. If it does, organize to attend the next Access Committee meeting. Go prepared to find out what provisions (e.g. accessible Chapter 1 parking, toilets, etc.) are available for supporting accessible tourism environments in your area. Find out who the members of the access committee are and how they can support your efforts to be inclusive in planning the local environments through networks, service providers, information etc. Make enquiries as to how the information discussed in the Access Committee gets incorporated and implemented within Council decisions, policies and procedures. Provide an example of a successful accessible environment outcome – provide photos where appropriate. 17 If Council does not have an Access Committee, identify who within Council has the major responsibilities for dealing with access-related issues. Interview them about how access-related issues are incorporated into Council decisions, policies and procedures (adapted from Darcy and Daruwalla, 2002). Notes 1 Previously known as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC). References Access Solutions (2008) Coast Hotel Coffs Harbour: Disability Action Plan For completion by December 2010. http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/action_plans/Register/register.html Aslaksen, F., Bergh, S., Bringa, O.R. and Heggem, E.K. (1997) Universal Design: Planning and Design for All. The Norwegian State Council on Disability, Oslo. Australian Building Codes Board (2001) Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) – Disability Standard on Access to Premises Directions Report. Australian Building Codes Board, Canberra. Australian Human Rights Commission (2009a) Disability Action Plan Register. Australian Human Rights Commission http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/action_plans/Register/register.html (accessed 20 September 2009). Australian Human Rights Commission (2009b) Disability Discrimination Act Complaints Cases Register and Decisions. http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/decisions/decisions.html (accessed 7 November 2009). Barnes, C. (1996) Theories of disability and the origins of the oppression of disabled people in western society. In: Barton, L. (ed.) Disability and Society: Emerging Issues and Insights. Longman, New York, pp. 40–59. Bi, Y., Card, J.A. and Cole, S.T. (2007) Accessibility and attitudinal barriers encountered by Chinese travellers with physical disabilities. International Journal of Tourism Research 9, 205–216. Burnett, J.J. and Bender-Baker, H. (2001) Assessing the travel-related behaviors of the mobility-disabled consumer. Journal of Travel Research 40, 4–11. Center for Universal Design (2003) Universal Design Principles. http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/about_ud/ about_ud.htm (accessed 13 September 2004). Center for Universal Design (2005) Universal Design Principles. http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/about_ud/ about_ud.htm (accessed 20 May 2009). Center for Universal Design (2009) Universal Design Principles. http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/about_ud/ about_ud.htm (accessed 20 May 2009). Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department (2001a) Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport. AGPS, Canberra. Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department (2001b) Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport Guidelines. AGPS, Canberra. Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department (2009a) Draft Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2009. http://www.ag.gov.au/premisesstandards (accessed 2 December 2008). Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department (2009b) Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards Guidelines 2009. http://www.ag.gov.au/premisesstandards (accessed 2 December 2008). Daniels, M.J., Drogin Rodgers, E.B. and Wiggins, B.P. (2005) ‘Travel tales’: an interpretive analysis of constraints and negotiations to pleasure travel as experienced by persons with physical disabilities. Tourism Management 26, 919–930. 18 J. Small and S. Darcy Darcy, S. (1998) Anxiety to Access: Tourism Patterns and Experiences of New South Wales People with a Physical Disability. Tourism New South Wales, Sydney. Darcy, S. (2002) Marginalised participation: physical disability, high support needs and tourism. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 9, 61–72. Darcy, S. (2003) Disabling journeys: the tourism patterns of people with impairments in Australia. Paper presented at the Riding the Wave of Tourism and Hospitality Research, CAUTHE – Southern Cross University, Lismore, 5–8 February. Darcy, S. (2004) Disabling journeys: the social relations of tourism for people with impairments in Australia – an analysis of government tourism authorities and accommodation sector practices and discourses. Forthcoming Ph.D., University of Technology, Sydney, Sydney. http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/dspace/ handle/2100/260. Darcy, S. (In press) Inherent complexity: disability, accessible tourism and accommodation information preferences. Tourism Management. Published online doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.08.010. Darcy, S. and Daruwalla, P.S. (2002) Inclusive special event planning for people with disabilities. In Harris, R. and Allen, J. (eds) Regional Event Management Handbook. The Australian Centre for Event Management (UTS) and the Department of Industry, Science and Resources, Sydney, pp. 91–103. Darcy, S. and Dickson, T. (2009) A whole-of-life approach to tourism: the case for accessible tourism experiences. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 16, 32–44. Darcy, S. and Taylor, T. (2009) Disability citizenship: An Australian human rights analysis of the cultural industries. Leisure Studies 28, 419–441. Darcy, S., Cameron, B., Dwyer, L., Taylor, T., Wong, E. and Thomson, A. (2008) Technical report 90064: Visitor accessibility in urban centres. http://www.crctourism.com.au/BookShop/BookDetail.aspx?d=626. Daruwalla, P.S. and Darcy, S. (2005) Personal and societal attitudes to disability. Annals of Tourism Research 32, 549–570. Dwyer, L. and Darcy, S. (2008) Chapter 4 – Economic contribution of disability to tourism in Australia. In Darcy, S., Cameron, B., Dwyer, L., Taylor, T., Wong, E. and Thomson, A. (eds) Technical Report 90040: Visitor accessibility in urban centres. Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre, Gold Coast, pp. 15–21. Gallagher, J.M. and Hull, A.H. (1996) Cruise ship accommodations for passengers with physical limitations due to disability or age. American Journal of Occupational Therapy 50, 685–687. Gleeson, B. (1999) Geographies of Disability. Routledge, London. Goggin, G. and Newell, C. (2005) Disability in Australia: Exposing a Social Apartheid. University of New South Wales Press, Sydney. Hastings, E. (1995) Clarification of High Court decision about the enforcement of HREOC determinations. HREOC, Sydney. Hastings, E. (1997) FounDDAtions: Reflections on the First Five Years of the Disability Discrimination Act in Australia. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Sydney. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (2009) Access All Areas: Report of the Inquiry into Draft Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards. http://www.aph. gov.au/house/committee/laca/disabilitystandards/report.htm Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1993, 1 December 2001) Issues Paper: Disability Standards under the Disability Discrimination Act. www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/standards/ issues93.htm (accessed 23 December 2001). Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (2002) Report: Inquiry into the NSW wheelchair accessible taxi service. www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/inquiries/taxi/direction.htm Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (2007) Annual Report. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Sydney. Hutchison, P. (1997) Citizenship – Setting the Scene (Keynote Address). Paper presented at the Citizenship … beyond Disability Conference, Brisbane, 10–12 October, pp. 3–17. Innes, G. (2006) Building access and no holiday for the disabled, Website, The Daily Telegraph, 21 January. Israeli, A. (2002) A preliminary investigation of the importance of site accessibility factor for disabled tourists. Journal of Travel Research 41, 101–104. Jones, M. and Basser Marks, L.A. (1999) Disability rights and law in Australia. In Jones, M. and Basser Marks, L.A. (eds) Disability, Divers-ability and Legal Change. Kluwer Law International, London, pp. 189–208. Metts, R. (2004) Disability and Development. Background Paper prepared for the Disability and Development Research Agenda Meeting. Report to the World Bank, Washington, DC. Chapter 1 19 Murray, M. and Sproats, J. (1990) The disabled traveller: tourism and disability in Australia. Journal of Tourism Studies 1, 9–14. Oliver, M. (1990) The Politics of Disablement. Macmillan, Houndmills, Basingstoke. Oliver, M. (1996) Understanding Disability: From Theory to Practice. Macmillan, Houndmills, Basingstoke. Packer, T., McKercher, B. and Yau, M. (2006) Understanding the complex interplay between tourism, disability and environmental contexts. FINADAPT Working Paper 11. Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki. Preiser, W.F.E. and Ostroff, E. (2001) Universal Design Handbook. McGraw-Hill, New York. Rains, S. (2004) Universal design and the international travel & hospitality industry. Paper presented at the Designing for the 21st Century III, Rio de Janeiro, 7–12 December. Ray, N.M. and Ryder, M.E. (2003) ‘Ebilities’ tourism: an exploratory discussion of the travel needs and motivations of the mobility-disabled. Tourism Management 24, 57–72. Ross, G.F. (2004) Ethics, trust and expectations regarding the treatment of disabled staff within a tourism/ hospitality industry context. International Journal of Hospitality Management 23, 523–544. Shakespeare, T. and Watson, N. (2001) The social model of disability: an outdated ideology? In Barnartt, S.N. and Mandell Altman, B. (eds) Exploring Theories and Expanding Methodologies. JAI Press, Stamford, CT, Vol. 2, pp. 9–28. Slonaker, W.M., Wendt, A.C. and Baker, B. (2007) Employment discrimination in the restaurant industry. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 48, 46–58. doi: 10.1177/0010880406297591. Small, J. and Darcy, S. (2010) Understanding tourist experience through embodiment: the contribution of critical tourism and disability studies. In Buhalis, D., Darcy, S. and Ambrose, I. (eds) Accessible Tourism: Concepts and Issues. Channel View, Clevedon, pp. 1–25. Steinfeld, E. and Shea, S.M. (2001) Fair housing: toward universal design in multifamily housing. In: Preiser, W.F.E. and Ostroff, E. (eds) Universal Design Handbook. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 35.31–35.13. Swain, J., Finkelstein, V., French, S. and Oliver, M. (2004) Disabling Barriers – Enabling Environments, 3rd edn. Sage, London. Thomas, C. (1999) Female Forms: Experiencing and Understanding Disability. Open University Press, Buckingham. Thomas, C. (2007) Sociologies of Disability and Illness: Contested Ideas in Disability Studies and Medical Sociology. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, Basingstoke. Thomson, R.G. (1997) Extraordinary Bodies: Figuring Physical Disability in American Culture and Literature. Columbia University Press, New York. Thornton, M. (2000) Neo-liberalism, discrimination and the politics of resentment. In Jones, M. and Marks, L.A.B. (eds) Explorations on Law and Disability in Australia. Federation Press, Leichhardt, NSW, pp. 8–27. Tourism New South Wales. (2000) Disability Action Plan: 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2002. Tourism New South Wales, Sydney. Tourism Victoria. (2007) DRAFT – Victorian Accessible Tourism Plan. Tourism Victoria. http://www.tourism. vic.gov.au/images/assets/All_TXT/VicAccessibleTourismPlanAppendix1-2007Draft.txt Turco, D.M., Stumbo, N. and Garncarz, J. (1998) Tourism constraints – people with disabilities. Parks and Recreation Journal 33, 78–84. UN ESCAP (2008) Disability at a glance: a Proile of 28 Countries and Areas in Asia and the Paciic, Vol. 2002. http://www.unescap.org/esid/psis/disability United Nations (Producer) (2009b) Fact Sheet on Persons with Disabilities (Media Release). http://www.un. org/disabilities/default.asp?id=18 (5 January 2009). United Nations (1993) Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (General Assembly resolution 48/96). United Nations, Geneva. United Nations (2006) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, New York. http://www.un.org/ esa/socdev/enable/rights/convtexte.htm: United Nations General Assembly A/61/611, 6 December 2006. United Nations (2009a) Enable. http://www.un.org/disabilities/, 2 June 2009. UPAIS (1975) Fundamental Principles of Disability. Union of Physically Impaired Against Segregation and The Disability Alliance, London. Upchurch, R.S. and Seo, J.W. (1996) Civic responsibility and market positioning: complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Facilities 14(5/6). van Lin, M., Prins, R. and Zwinkels, W. (2001) The employment situation of disabled persons in the EU. © EIM Zoetermeer, Commissioned by DG Employment and Social Affairs. 20 J. Small and S. Darcy Walsh, C.J. (2004) Rio de Janeiro Declaration on Sustainable Social Development, Disability & Ageing. Paper presented at the Designing for the 21st Century III – an international conference on universal design, Rio de Janeiro, 7–12 December. Wen, X. and Fortune, N. (1999) The Definition and Prevalence of Physical Disability in Australia. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra. World Health Organization (1997) International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps (ICIDH). World Health Organization, Geneva. World Health Organization (2001) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICIDH2). World Health Organization, Geneva. World Health Organization (2002a) ICF CHECKLIST: Version 2.1a, Clinician Form for International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. World Health Organization, Geneva. World Health Organization (2002b) Towards a Common Language for Functioning, Disability and Health – ICF. World Health Organization, Geneva.