Making the City of Melbourne more inclusive for people - Melbourne Disability … · 2019-06-06 ·...
Transcript of Making the City of Melbourne more inclusive for people - Melbourne Disability … · 2019-06-06 ·...
Making the City of Melbourne more inclusive for people with disabilityJerome N Rachele, Ilan Wiesel, Ellen van Holstein, Tessa de Vries, Celia Green, Ellen Bicknell
May 2019
We acknowledge the Traditional Owners of the land on which we work, and pay our respects to the Elders, past and present.
© University of Melbourne, 2019
ISBN: 978 0 7340 5527 9
DOI: 10.26188/5cecbad2cc1b6
Suggested Citation: Rachele J.N., Wiesel I., van Holstein E., de Vries T., Green C., Bicknell E. (2019). Making the City of Melbourne more inclusive for people with disability, Melbourne: University of Melbourne
An electronic version and an Easy English summary of this document can be opbtained from disability.unimelb.edu.au
1
Research TeamDr Jerome Rachele, Co-Lead Investigator, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health,University of Melbourne, and NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Disability and Health
Dr Ilan Wiesel, Co-Investigator, School of Geography, University of Melbourne
Dr Ellen van Holstein, Co-Investigator, School of Geography, University of Melbourne
Ms Tessa de Vries, Project advisor, Melbourne Disability Institute, University of Melbourne
Ms Celia Green, Workshop Lead, Centre of Research Excellence in Disability and Health, University of Melbourne, UNSW, Canberra
Ms Ellen Bicknell, Research Assistant, Centre for Health Equity, University of Melbourne
AcknowledgementsFundingThe research is co-funded by the City of Melbourne, Melbourne Disability Institute, and MelbourneSustainable Society Institute, and Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation
Additional SupportThe research team acknowledges the support provided by the NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Disability and Health.
City of Melbourne PartnersMs Vickie Feretopoulos, Co-Lead Investigator, City of Melbourne
Ms Georgie Myer, Team Leader Community Engagement and Partnerships and Acting Manager,Placemaking and Engagement, City of Melbourne
Mr Peter Whelan, Metro Access, City of Melbourne
Stakeholder GroupsThe following organisations provided advice and support recruiting participants for the stakeholder workshops conducted in February 2019:
• City of Melbourne Disability AdvisoryCommittee
• City of Melbourne InclusiveMelbourne Steering Committee
• Reinforce Self Advocacy Group• Deaf Blind Victoria• Blinds Sports Victoria• Yooralla• Scope Australia
• Brain Injury Matters• Association of Children with Disability• Victorian Advocacy League for
Individuals with Disability, VALID• Blind Citizens Australia• Disability Justice Advocacy• Victorian Mental Illness Awareness
Council
1
Research TeamDr Jerome Rachele, Co-Lead Investigator, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, and NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Disability and Health
Dr Ilan Wiesel, Co-Investigator, School of Geography, University of Melbourne
Dr Ellen van Holstein, Co-Investigator, School of Geography, University of Melbourne
Ms Tessa de Vries, Project advisor, Melbourne Disability Institute, University of Melbourne
Ms Celia Green, Workshop Lead, Centre of Research Excellence in Disability and Health, University of Melbourne, UNSW, Canberra
Ms Ellen Bicknell, Research Assistant, Centre for Health Equity, University of Melbourne
AcknowledgementsFunding The research is co-funded by the City of Melbourne, Melbourne Disability Institute, and Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, and Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation
Additional Support The research team acknowledges the support provided by the NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Disability and Health.
City of Melbourne Partners Ms Vickie Feretopoulos, Co-Lead Investigator, City of Melbourne
Ms Georgie Myer, Team Leader Community Engagement and Partnerships and Acting Manager, Placemaking and Engagement, City of Melbourne
Mr Peter Whelan, Metro Access, City of Melbourne
Stakeholder Groups The following organisations provided advice and support recruiting participants for the stakeholder workshops conducted in February 2019:
• City of Melbourne Disability Advisory Committee
• City of Melbourne Inclusive Melbourne Steering Committee
• Reinforce Self Advocacy Group • Deaf Blind Victoria • Blinds Sports Victoria • Yooralla • Scope Australia
• Brain Injury Matters • Association of Children with Disability • Victorian Advocacy League for
Individuals with Disability, VALID • Blind Citizens Australia • Disability Justice Advocacy • Victorian Mental Illness Awareness
Council
Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 4
Disability and the right to inclusion .................................................................................................... 4 Policy context ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Overview of the City of Melbourne .................................................................................................... 5
Project Aims ............................................................................................................................................ 6 Methods .................................................................................................................................................. 6
Participants ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Ethics ............................................................................................................................................... 6
Group Concept Mapping ..................................................................................................................... 7 Brainstorming ideas ........................................................................................................................ 7 Sorting and rating............................................................................................................................ 7
Data analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 8 Themes ............................................................................................................................................ 8 Ratings ............................................................................................................................................. 8
Results..................................................................................................................................................... 8 Ideas and themes generated .............................................................................................................. 9
Physical and mobility disability ....................................................................................................... 9 Sensory disability .......................................................................................................................... 10 Intellectual disability ..................................................................................................................... 10 Psychosocial disability ................................................................................................................... 10
Rating importance and feasibility ..................................................................................................... 11 Key Findings .......................................................................................................................................... 16
Consulting people with disability ...................................................................................................... 16 Legislation ......................................................................................................................................... 16 Public transport ................................................................................................................................. 16 Footpaths .......................................................................................................................................... 16
Discussion ............................................................................................................................................. 16 Strengths and limitations .................................................................................................................. 16 Future research directions ................................................................................................................ 17
Concluding Comments ......................................................................................................................... 17 References ............................................................................................................................................ 18 Appendix ............................................................................................................................................... 19
3
Executive Summary
This study brought together people with disability, City of Melbourne staff, disability advocates, and academics, with the aim of generating ideas on how to make the City of Melbourne more inclusive for people with disability. It further aimed to ascertain which of these ideas were the most important and feasible to implement.
The City of Melbourne Disability Advisory Committee and City of Melbourne – Melbourne Disability Institute Steering Committee assisted the research team throughout the project. Findings from this study will inform the development of the City of Melbourne’s Disability Action Plan and other relevant strategies.
This study used a method called group concept mapping, a mixed-method approach that collects data from participants who are affected by, or are able to influence, an issue under consideration. In early 2019, five workshops were held with the aim of generating ideas on how to make City of Melbourne more inclusive for people with disability. Each workshop focused on a different type of disability: physical and mobility, sensory, intellectual, and psychological disability, and one workshop brought together people with different disability types. Workshops were attended by people with disability, disability advocates, academics, and City of Melbourne staff. Overall, 79 people participated across the five workshops, and together they devised 240 unique ideas to make the City of Melbourne
more inclusive for people with disability. A total of 93 participants then sorted these ideas into themes, and rated each idea based on its importance and feasibility of implementation.
Ideas that were common across all disability types included those relating to consulting people with disability, legislation, public transport, and footpaths. A key focus of the study was to identify ideas that were rated as important by people with disability, disability advocates, and academics, and ideas rated as feasible to implement by City of Melbourne staff. Ideas that were considered to be both important and feasible were those relating to: consulting people with disability during planning, educating employers about inclusion and equal opportunity, increasing access to a diversity of employment opportunities, providing accessible government forms, advocating to the state government on the needs of people with disability, ensuring that the City of Melbourne is a visibly inclusive organisation, providing Easy English information about people’s entitlements, and training policy officers and local compliance officers about diversity of disabilities.
This study was a collaboration between the Melbourne Disability Institute at the University of Melbourne, and the City of Melbourne, with funding from the Melbourne Disability Institute and Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute at the University of Melbourne, City of Melbourne, and Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation.
Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 4
Disability and the right to inclusion .................................................................................................... 4 Policy context ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Overview of the City of Melbourne .................................................................................................... 5
Project Aims ............................................................................................................................................ 6 Methods .................................................................................................................................................. 6
Participants ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Ethics ............................................................................................................................................... 6
Group Concept Mapping ..................................................................................................................... 7 Brainstorming ideas ........................................................................................................................ 7 Sorting and rating............................................................................................................................ 7
Data analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 8 Themes ............................................................................................................................................ 8 Ratings ............................................................................................................................................. 8
Results..................................................................................................................................................... 8 Ideas and themes generated .............................................................................................................. 9
Physical and mobility disability ....................................................................................................... 9 Sensory disability .......................................................................................................................... 10 Intellectual disability ..................................................................................................................... 10 Psychosocial disability ................................................................................................................... 10
Rating importance and feasibility ..................................................................................................... 11 Key Findings .......................................................................................................................................... 16
Consulting people with disability ...................................................................................................... 16 Legislation ......................................................................................................................................... 16 Public transport ................................................................................................................................. 16 Footpaths .......................................................................................................................................... 16
Discussion ............................................................................................................................................. 16 Strengths and limitations .................................................................................................................. 16 Future research directions ................................................................................................................ 17
Concluding Comments ......................................................................................................................... 17 References ............................................................................................................................................ 18 Appendix ............................................................................................................................................... 19
3
Executive Summary
This study brought together people with disability, City of Melbourne staff, disability advocates, and academics, with the aim of generating ideas on how to make the City of Melbourne more inclusive for people with disability. It further aimed to ascertain which of these ideas were the most important and feasible to implement.
The City of Melbourne Disability Advisory Committee and City of Melbourne – Melbourne Disability Institute Steering Committee assisted the research team throughout the project. Findings from this study will inform the development of the City of Melbourne’s Disability Action Plan and other relevant strategies.
This study used a method called group concept mapping, a mixed-method approach that collects data from participants who are affected by, or are able to influence, an issue under consideration. In early 2019, five workshops were held with the aim of generating ideas on how to make City of Melbourne more inclusive for people with disability. Each workshop focused on a different type of disability: physical and mobility, sensory, intellectual, and psychological disability, and one workshop brought together people with different disability types. Workshops were attended by people with disability, disability advocates, academics, and City of Melbourne staff. Overall, 79 people participated across the five workshops, and together they devised 240 unique ideas to make the City of Melbourne
more inclusive for people with disability. A total of 93 participants then sorted these ideas into themes, and rated each idea based on its importance and feasibility of implementation.
Ideas that were common across all disability types included those relating to consulting people with disability, legislation, public transport, and footpaths. A key focus of the study was to identify ideas that were rated as important by people with disability, disability advocates, and academics, and ideas rated as feasible to implement by City of Melbourne staff. Ideas that were considered to be both important and feasible were those relating to: consulting people with disability during planning, educating employers about inclusion and equal opportunity, increasing access to a diversity of employment opportunities, providing accessible government forms, advocating to the state government on the needs of people with disability, ensuring that the City of Melbourne is a visibly inclusive organisation, providing Easy English information about people’s entitlements, and training policy officers and local compliance officers about diversity of disabilities.
This study was a collaboration between the Melbourne Disability Institute at the University of Melbourne, and the City of Melbourne, with funding from the Melbourne Disability Institute and Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute at the University of Melbourne, City of Melbourne, and Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation.
Introduction Disability and the Right to Inclusion The United Nations Convention on the Right of Persons with Disabilities recognises “the equal right of all persons with disabilities to live in the community, with choices equal to others” (Article 19) and emphasises the responsibility of all signatory states – including Australia – “to facilitate full enjoyment by persons with disabilities of this right and their full inclusion and participation in the community”.1
The right to be included in the community includes the opportunity to choose where and with whom one lives on an equal basis with others, access to personal and community support services and facilities. The Convention also stresses people with disabilities’ right for personal mobility with the greatest possible independence. Statements on inclusion include the right to not be excluded on the basis of disability from general or mainstream systems of employment, education, and health, and the right to participate on an equal basis with others in political and public life, cultural life, recreation, leisure and sport.
Disability arises from the interaction between features of a person’s body and features of the society in which that person lives. Activity limitations (difficulties in executing a task or action such as mobility, self-care and communication), result from the interaction of physical, cognitive or psychosocial impairments (differences in body function or structure) and environmental restrictions on social, economic, cultural and political participation.2 Currently, around 4.3 million Australians (18.3% of the population) live with disability, including 3.7 million living in urban environments.3
From the 1980’s, the disability movement has progressed from local and national organisations that were predominantly ‘for’ people with disability, towards organisations ‘of’ people with disability. The principle of
self-determination has been key to the disabled movement globally and has been promoted with the slogan ‘nothing about us without us’. The modern disability movement has been greatly influenced by the ‘social model of disability’, which has been coined ‘the big idea’ of the disabled movement. The social model of disability takes disability as arising from interactions between people with impairments and a disabling environment. It replaced the ‘medical model of disability’, which understood disability as resulting from impairment. The new model led to a political strategy of barrier removal: if people with impairments are disabled by society, then the priority is to dismantle disabling barriers in order to promote the inclusion of people with impairments, rather than pursue a strategy of cure or rehabilitation. The rights of people with disability to participate in society on an equal basis to those without a disability are recognised in The National Disability Strategy 2010-2020,4 the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability.1 Fundamental to each of these strategies and schemes is a focus on maximising health outcomes and social and economic participation.
Policy Context The National Disability Strategy 2010-204 followed Australia’s ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability in 2008. The strategy sets out a 10-year national plan for improving the lives of Australians with disability, their families and carers. The strategy will assist governments in meeting their obligations of several acts and agreements, including: United Nations Convention on the Right of Persons with Disabilities, National Disability Agreement, Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Commonwealth), Disability Services Act 1986 (Commonwealth), Equal Employment Opportunity legislation, Public Service Acts,
5
and other State/Territory legislation including the Australian Capital Territory and Victorian Charters of human rights.
The National Disability Strategy 2010-20204 outlines that it is the role of all levels of government – Commonwealth, State, Territory and local – to develop policies, deliver programs and services and fund infrastructure to remove barriers. Thus, all government levels have a responsibility to ensure inclusion, accessibility and connection across levels of government in all matters affecting the lives of people with disability.
Overview of the City of Melbourne Melbourne is experiencing a period of rapid growth and change. Currently, greater Melbourne is home to approximately 4.5 million residents, 5.2% whom have disclosed that they have a health condition or disability requiring assistance with core activities of daily living.5 The local government area of the City of Melbourne covers a small cluster of inner suburbs from Southbank in the south to
Kensington, Parkville and Carlton in the north, and has a weekday population estimated at 911,000 people, which is expected to rise to 1.4 million in 2036.6 The City of Melbourne is currently home to approximately 136,000 residents, with 2.0% of residents disclosing that they require assistance with core activities of daily living.7 The most prevalent forms of disability among City of Melbourne residents include physical (35%), sensory (15%), psychosocial (11%), and intellectual (9%) disabilities.8 The City of Melbourne’s disability action plan has previously been a part its wider Melbourne for All People Strategy, 2014-17. A primary goal stated in the Melbourne for All People strategy is to turn Melbourne into “a barrier free city for people of all ages and abilities”, including supporting employment of people with disability at the City of Melbourne, ensuring its facilities and communications are accessible, and partnering with businesses and other organisations in the municipality to improve accessibility for people with disability.
Introduction Disability and the Right to Inclusion The United Nations Convention on the Right of Persons with Disabilities recognises “the equal right of all persons with disabilities to live in the community, with choices equal to others” (Article 19) and emphasises the responsibility of all signatory states – including Australia – “to facilitate full enjoyment by persons with disabilities of this right and their full inclusion and participation in the community”.1
The right to be included in the community includes the opportunity to choose where and with whom one lives on an equal basis with others, access to personal and community support services and facilities. The Convention also stresses people with disabilities’ right for personal mobility with the greatest possible independence. Statements on inclusion include the right to not be excluded on the basis of disability from general or mainstream systems of employment, education, and health, and the right to participate on an equal basis with others in political and public life, cultural life, recreation, leisure and sport.
Disability arises from the interaction between features of a person’s body and features of the society in which that person lives. Activity limitations (difficulties in executing a task or action such as mobility, self-care and communication), result from the interaction of physical, cognitive or psychosocial impairments (differences in body function or structure) and environmental restrictions on social, economic, cultural and political participation.2 Currently, around 4.3 million Australians (18.3% of the population) live with disability, including 3.7 million living in urban environments.3
From the 1980’s, the disability movement has progressed from local and national organisations that were predominantly ‘for’ people with disability, towards organisations ‘of’ people with disability. The principle of
self-determination has been key to the disabled movement globally and has been promoted with the slogan ‘nothing about us without us’. The modern disability movement has been greatly influenced by the ‘social model of disability’, which has been coined ‘the big idea’ of the disabled movement. The social model of disability takes disability as arising from interactions between people with impairments and a disabling environment. It replaced the ‘medical model of disability’, which understood disability as resulting from impairment. The new model led to a political strategy of barrier removal: if people with impairments are disabled by society, then the priority is to dismantle disabling barriers in order to promote the inclusion of people with impairments, rather than pursue a strategy of cure or rehabilitation. The rights of people with disability to participate in society on an equal basis to those without a disability are recognised in The National Disability Strategy 2010-2020,4 the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability.1 Fundamental to each of these strategies and schemes is a focus on maximising health outcomes and social and economic participation.
Policy Context The National Disability Strategy 2010-204 followed Australia’s ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability in 2008. The strategy sets out a 10-year national plan for improving the lives of Australians with disability, their families and carers. The strategy will assist governments in meeting their obligations of several acts and agreements, including: United Nations Convention on the Right of Persons with Disabilities, National Disability Agreement, Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Commonwealth), Disability Services Act 1986 (Commonwealth), Equal Employment Opportunity legislation, Public Service Acts,
5
and other State/Territory legislation including the Australian Capital Territory and Victorian Charters of human rights.
The National Disability Strategy 2010-20204 outlines that it is the role of all levels of government – Commonwealth, State, Territory and local – to develop policies, deliver programs and services and fund infrastructure to remove barriers. Thus, all government levels have a responsibility to ensure inclusion, accessibility and connection across levels of government in all matters affecting the lives of people with disability.
Overview of the City of Melbourne Melbourne is experiencing a period of rapid growth and change. Currently, greater Melbourne is home to approximately 4.5 million residents, 5.2% whom have disclosed that they have a health condition or disability requiring assistance with core activities of daily living.5 The local government area of the City of Melbourne covers a small cluster of inner suburbs from Southbank in the south to
Kensington, Parkville and Carlton in the north, and has a weekday population estimated at 911,000 people, which is expected to rise to 1.4 million in 2036.6 The City of Melbourne is currently home to approximately 136,000 residents, with 2.0% of residents disclosing that they require assistance with core activities of daily living.7 The most prevalent forms of disability among City of Melbourne residents include physical (35%), sensory (15%), psychosocial (11%), and intellectual (9%) disabilities.8 The City of Melbourne’s disability action plan has previously been a part its wider Melbourne for All People Strategy, 2014-17. A primary goal stated in the Melbourne for All People strategy is to turn Melbourne into “a barrier free city for people of all ages and abilities”, including supporting employment of people with disability at the City of Melbourne, ensuring its facilities and communications are accessible, and partnering with businesses and other organisations in the municipality to improve accessibility for people with disability.
Project AimsBringing together people with disability, City of Melbourne staff, disability advocates, and academics, this project aims to identify ideas that can help make the City of Melbourne more inclusive for people with disability. It further aims to ascertain which of these ideas are the most important, and feasible to implement. Findings from this study will inform the development of the City of Melbourne’s Disability Action Plan and other relevant strategies.
MethodsParticipants Participants were invited through a range of channels and known networks, including those of the City of Melbourne and the Melbourne Disability Institute at the University of Melbourne. The number and type of participants from each workshop and the number of ideas generated are presented in Table 1. The number and type of participants that were involved in sorting and rating of ideas are presented in Table 2. As
expected from the research design, people with disability and City of Melbourne staff outnumbered disability advocates and academics.
EthicsThe study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of The University of Melbourne (Ethics ID 1853032).
Table 1: Number of participants and ideas generated per brainstorming workshop by participant category and disability type.
Disability types
Participant categories Mixed Physical/ mobility Sensory Intellectual Psychosocial
City of Melbourne staff 4 6 5 5 5 People with disability 8 10 4 6 5 Disability advocates 3 4 1 2 2 Academics 1 1 1 2 1 Ideas generated 81 39 55 29 36 Total ideas generated* NA 105 96 72 108 *following categorisation of mixed group
Table 2: Number of sorting and rating participants by participant category and disability type.
Disability types Participant categories Physical/ mobility Sensory Intellectual Psychosocial City of Melbourne staff 11 13 9 10 People with disability 16 8 6 8 Disability advocates 3 1 2 1 Academics 1 1 1 2
7
Group Concept Mapping This project used group concept mapping (GCM),9 a mixed-method approach designed to capture the experiences of a population of interest. The method collects qualitative data from the population groups who are affected by, or affect, the issue under consideration.10 The method contains two main steps. First, workshops are held to brainstorming statements in response to a focus prompt. Second, the statements are sorted into themes, and each statement is rated on a Likert scale. These last tasks can be completed in-person or online.
Brainstorming IdeasBrainstorming was undertaken in five structured workshops: one for each of physical and mobility disability, sensory disability, intellectual disability, psychosocial disability, and one with multiple disability types. The workshops comprised of two parts – the first being small group discussion to generate ideas and the second part being a whole group discussion around the generated ideas from each group and this offered opportunity for additional ideas to emerge. A facilitator moderated both parts of the workshops. During the workshops, participants were seated at three separate tables each containing four types of participants: people with disability, City of Melbourne staff, disability advocates and academics.
The workshops began with the facilitator explaining the aims of the project and how the workshop would be structured. Small group discussions then followed with participants at each table asked to generate ideas in response to the prompt “What are some ways that the City of Melbourne could be made more inclusive for people with sensory disability”. The prompt was changed to reflect the disability type on which the workshop was focused. Participants were advised that there were no wrong or infeasible ideas at this stage of the research
and were encouraged to consider ideas relating to all life domains including education, employment, housing, attitudes, the built environment and transport. Each table was given a prompt sheet with visual and written prompts relating to these life domains to help facilitate ideas. A scribe was nominated at each table to record the ideas being generated. The small group discussions were followed by a whole-of-group discussion, moderated by the workshop facilitator. The scribe from each table reported back to the whole group on the ideas that had been generated by each table group. All ideas were captured live by a member of the research team. Ideas were read and discussed aloud and typed into a document which was projected on a large screen at the front of the room. This allowed everyone to follow the process. If new ideas were generated during the whole-of-group discussion these were also captured live.
Workshops ran for approximately one hour each. Interpreters and support staff were provided by the City of Melbourne. In addition, some participants were accompanied by a personal support person or paid support worker to assist their participation in the workshop. Two researchers reviewed the full list of statements for each group, and obvious duplicates and non-relevant statements were removed. Further, two researchers independently coded the statements from the mixed disability workshop into one of the four disability types, statements were coded to multiple disability types where appropriate. Any disagreements were discussed with a third researcher until consensus was reached.
Sorting and RatingSorting and rating tasks were completed after the workshops. Participants had the option of completing the tasks in-person with the assistance of research staff or online using CS Global MAX web-based software.11
Project AimsBringing together people with disability, City of Melbourne staff, disability advocates, and academics, this project aims to identify ideas that can help make the City of Melbourne more inclusive for people with disability. It further aims to ascertain which of these ideas are the most important, and feasible to implement. Findings from this study will inform the development of the City of Melbourne’s Disability Action Plan and other relevant strategies.
MethodsParticipants Participants were invited through a range of channels and known networks, including those of the City of Melbourne and the Melbourne Disability Institute at the University of Melbourne. The number and type of participants from each workshop and the number of ideas generated are presented in Table 1. The number and type of participants that were involved in sorting and rating of ideas are presented in Table 2. As
expected from the research design, people with disability and City of Melbourne staff outnumbered disability advocates and academics.
EthicsThe study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of The University of Melbourne (Ethics ID 1853032).
Table 1: Number of participants and ideas generated per brainstorming workshop by participant category and disability type.
Disability types
Participant categories Mixed Physical/ mobility Sensory Intellectual Psychosocial
City of Melbourne staff 4 6 5 5 5 People with disability 8 10 4 6 5 Disability advocates 3 4 1 2 2 Academics 1 1 1 2 1 Ideas generated 81 39 55 29 36 Total ideas generated* NA 105 96 72 108 *following categorisation of mixed group
Table 2: Number of sorting and rating participants by participant category and disability type.
Disability types Participant categories Physical/ mobility Sensory Intellectual Psychosocial City of Melbourne staff 11 13 9 10 People with disability 16 8 6 8 Disability advocates 3 1 2 1 Academics 1 1 1 2
7
Group Concept Mapping This project used group concept mapping (GCM),9 a mixed-method approach designed to capture the experiences of a population of interest. The method collects qualitative data from the population groups who are affected by, or affect, the issue under consideration.10 The method contains two main steps. First, workshops are held to brainstorming statements in response to a focus prompt. Second, the statements are sorted into themes, and each statement is rated on a Likert scale. These last tasks can be completed in-person or online.
Brainstorming IdeasBrainstorming was undertaken in five structured workshops: one for each of physical and mobility disability, sensory disability, intellectual disability, psychosocial disability, and one with multiple disability types. The workshops comprised of two parts – the first being small group discussion to generate ideas and the second part being a whole group discussion around the generated ideas from each group and this offered opportunity for additional ideas to emerge. A facilitator moderated both parts of the workshops. During the workshops, participants were seated at three separate tables each containing four types of participants: people with disability, City of Melbourne staff, disability advocates and academics.
The workshops began with the facilitator explaining the aims of the project and how the workshop would be structured. Small group discussions then followed with participants at each table asked to generate ideas in response to the prompt “What are some ways that the City of Melbourne could be made more inclusive for people with sensory disability”. The prompt was changed to reflect the disability type on which the workshop was focused. Participants were advised that there were no wrong or infeasible ideas at this stage of the research
and were encouraged to consider ideas relating to all life domains including education, employment, housing, attitudes, the built environment and transport. Each table was given a prompt sheet with visual and written prompts relating to these life domains to help facilitate ideas. A scribe was nominated at each table to record the ideas being generated. The small group discussions were followed by a whole-of-group discussion, moderated by the workshop facilitator. The scribe from each table reported back to the whole group on the ideas that had been generated by each table group. All ideas were captured live by a member of the research team. Ideas were read and discussed aloud and typed into a document which was projected on a large screen at the front of the room. This allowed everyone to follow the process. If new ideas were generated during the whole-of-group discussion these were also captured live.
Workshops ran for approximately one hour each. Interpreters and support staff were provided by the City of Melbourne. In addition, some participants were accompanied by a personal support person or paid support worker to assist their participation in the workshop. Two researchers reviewed the full list of statements for each group, and obvious duplicates and non-relevant statements were removed. Further, two researchers independently coded the statements from the mixed disability workshop into one of the four disability types, statements were coded to multiple disability types where appropriate. Any disagreements were discussed with a third researcher until consensus was reached.
Sorting and RatingSorting and rating tasks were completed after the workshops. Participants had the option of completing the tasks in-person with the assistance of research staff or online using CS Global MAX web-based software.11
Participants were asked to sort the ideas generated form the workshops into piles in a way that made sense to them. Restrictions were that each idea could only be sorted into one pile, all piles had to contain more than one idea, and the ideas had to be sorted into more than one pile. After sorting the ideas, participants labelled each pile according to their interpretation of its contents. Participants were then asked to rate ideas, each on a 5-point Likert scale, based on their importance of implementation (where 1 = relatively unimportant, and 5 = extremely important), and then again on their feasibility of implementation (where 1 = relatively infeasible, and 5 = extremely feasible).
Data Analysis ThemesDetailed analytic approaches for group concept mapping are available elsewhere.10 Briefly, the relationships between ideas were estimated using data from the sorting task. Next, representative groupings of ideas were identified using cluster analysis. The number
of clusters was decided from iterative reviews of cluster contents. Clusters were labelled and interpreted based on their contents and participants’ original pile labels from the sorting sessions.
Ratings Overall ratings for each idea were generated by averaging the ratings given to that idea by each participant. Cluster ratings were calculated by summing the average rating for each idea, within each cluster. Multiple comparisons were made between City of Melbourne and people with disability, disability advocates, and academics, on both importance and feasibility. A particular focus was placed on ideas and clusters which people with disability, disability advocates, and academics (hereafter referred to as the Disability Group) rated as important, and City of Melbourne staff rated as feasible. Our conclusions highlight the ideas rated in the top 10% for importance by the Disability Group, in the top 10% for feasibility by City of Melbourne staff, or both. The raw mean ratings are available as an appendix.
9
ResultsIdeas and Themes Generated The number of ideas generated per workshop ranged from 29 in the intellectual disability workshop, to 81 in the mixed workshop. After integratingideas from the mixed workshop into each of the disability categories, the number of ideas generated ranged from 72 in the intellectual disability category to 108 in the psychosocial disability category. The following section presents the key themes and ideas generated around each theme.
Physical and Mobility DisabilityPhysical access (26 ideas) Ideas focused on features such as street furniture, including the predictability and consistency of their layout and accessibility, as well as the frequency of seating and rest spots around the city. Ideas also related to street surfaces such as types of pavement, cleanliness, kerb design, and footpath width. Ideas related to accessible toilets were also part of this theme.
Transport (23 ideas) Many of the ideas in this theme related to public transport, including stop design and the quality of services. Ideas about stop design related to safety, shelter, signage, accessibility and consistency of design. Ideas about public transport services related to the availability of accessible public transport (including availability of ramps), conflict between bikes, prams, and wheelchairs, and the availability of space on vehicles and platforms. Other ideas related to expanding service coverage, including the expansion of the free tram zone. Some ideas were about parking (including the availability of accessible parking spaces), taxi collection spaces, and accessible hire vehicles.
Other ideas related to accessible watercraft and share bikes.
Participation (19 ideas) Participants devised ideas around inclusive organisations, including representation of people with disabilities in organisations, employment quotas, equal opportunity, and training people managers about accessibility. Other ideas related to events, including segregation of patrons, and attitudes towards rituals, such as the expectation to ascend stairs at graduation.
Tourism (14 ideas) Ideas in this theme related to the provision of information about the accessibility of venues and events such as the quality of accessible seating, online booking processes and accessible rides. Other ideas related to the accessibility of tourist and leisure facilities included the provision of accessible tourist activities such as recumbent bikes, City of Melbourne volunteers on streets, and sign-posting for charging points for electric wheelchairs and scooters.
Buildings (14 ideas) Many of the ideas in this cluster related to legislation: improving Australian Standards and building codes, improving policing of building code compliance, embedding universal design principals in legislation, and consideration of the Disability Discrimination Act when designing new building. Some ideas related to accessible bathrooms, including the design of accessible toilets and conflict of use when accessible toilets are used as baby change areas or storage. Some ideas also related to accessible housing, entering buildings and shops, and building emergency evacuation procedures.
Law and policy (9 ideas) Participants stressed the need to consult people with disability on projects and policy changes. Ideas in this theme revolved around the Disability Discrimination Act, and the
importance of compliance with the act. Participants also highlighted the need to continually update legislation in line with technology. For example, participants raised the need to update standards for wheelchair
Participants were asked to sort the ideas generated form the workshops into piles in a way that made sense to them. Restrictions were that each idea could only be sorted into one pile, all piles had to contain more than one idea, and the ideas had to be sorted into more than one pile. After sorting the ideas, participants labelled each pile according to their interpretation of its contents. Participants were then asked to rate ideas, each on a 5-point Likert scale, based on their importance of implementation (where 1 = relatively unimportant, and 5 = extremely important), and then again on their feasibility of implementation (where 1 = relatively infeasible, and 5 = extremely feasible).
Data Analysis ThemesDetailed analytic approaches for group concept mapping are available elsewhere.10 Briefly, the relationships between ideas were estimated using data from the sorting task. Next, representative groupings of ideas were identified using cluster analysis. The number
of clusters was decided from iterative reviews of cluster contents. Clusters were labelled and interpreted based on their contents and participants’ original pile labels from the sorting sessions.
Ratings Overall ratings for each idea were generated by averaging the ratings given to that idea by each participant. Cluster ratings were calculated by summing the average rating for each idea, within each cluster. Multiple comparisons were made between City of Melbourne and people with disability, disability advocates, and academics, on both importance and feasibility. A particular focus was placed on ideas and clusters which people with disability, disability advocates, and academics (hereafter referred to as the Disability Group) rated as important, and City of Melbourne staff rated as feasible. Our conclusions highlight the ideas rated in the top 10% for importance by the Disability Group, in the top 10% for feasibility by City of Melbourne staff, or both. The raw mean ratings are available as an appendix.
9
ResultsIdeas and Themes Generated The number of ideas generated per workshop ranged from 29 in the intellectual disability workshop, to 81 in the mixed workshop. After integratingideas from the mixed workshop into each of the disability categories, the number of ideas generated ranged from 72 in the intellectual disability category to 108 in the psychosocial disability category. The following section presents the key themes and ideas generated around each theme.
Physical and Mobility DisabilityPhysical access (26 ideas) Ideas focused on features such as street furniture, including the predictability and consistency of their layout and accessibility, as well as the frequency of seating and rest spots around the city. Ideas also related to street surfaces such as types of pavement, cleanliness, kerb design, and footpath width. Ideas related to accessible toilets were also part of this theme.
Transport (23 ideas) Many of the ideas in this theme related to public transport, including stop design and the quality of services. Ideas about stop design related to safety, shelter, signage, accessibility and consistency of design. Ideas about public transport services related to the availability of accessible public transport (including availability of ramps), conflict between bikes, prams, and wheelchairs, and the availability of space on vehicles and platforms. Other ideas related to expanding service coverage, including the expansion of the free tram zone. Some ideas were about parking (including the availability of accessible parking spaces), taxi collection spaces, and accessible hire vehicles.
Other ideas related to accessible watercraft and share bikes.
Participation (19 ideas) Participants devised ideas around inclusive organisations, including representation of people with disabilities in organisations, employment quotas, equal opportunity, and training people managers about accessibility. Other ideas related to events, including segregation of patrons, and attitudes towards rituals, such as the expectation to ascend stairs at graduation.
Tourism (14 ideas) Ideas in this theme related to the provision of information about the accessibility of venues and events such as the quality of accessible seating, online booking processes and accessible rides. Other ideas related to the accessibility of tourist and leisure facilities included the provision of accessible tourist activities such as recumbent bikes, City of Melbourne volunteers on streets, and sign-posting for charging points for electric wheelchairs and scooters.
Buildings (14 ideas) Many of the ideas in this cluster related to legislation: improving Australian Standards and building codes, improving policing of building code compliance, embedding universal design principals in legislation, and consideration of the Disability Discrimination Act when designing new building. Some ideas related to accessible bathrooms, including the design of accessible toilets and conflict of use when accessible toilets are used as baby change areas or storage. Some ideas also related to accessible housing, entering buildings and shops, and building emergency evacuation procedures.
Law and policy (9 ideas) Participants stressed the need to consult people with disability on projects and policy changes. Ideas in this theme revolved around the Disability Discrimination Act, and the
importance of compliance with the act. Participants also highlighted the need to continually update legislation in line with technology. For example, participants raised the need to update standards for wheelchair
access as these become larger and develop new electric features.
Sensory DisabilityReasonable adjustments (29 ideas) Many of the ideas related to ensuring that adjustments are made for people with disability to ensure they have the same opportunities to participate. These included the provision of captioning and interpreters at events, accessible government forms, accessible bathrooms, employment opportunities for people with disability, and education and training.
Public amenity (25 ideas) Ideas in this cluster concerned use of footpaths, including clutter, lack of space, conflict of use (buskers, cafes etc), cleanliness, tripping hazards, and blind spots around corners. Some ideas related to improving the smell of public spaces and toilets, while others related to the accessibility at events, restaurants, other leisure facilities such as art galleries, and the accessibility of bathrooms and city apartments.
Navigation (24 ideas) Ideas in this cluster related to technology including visual and audio announcements, assistive software (e.g. apps showing the location of service providers, public transport, and navigational hazards), Bluetooth beacons, WIFI zones, and online and on-site 3D maps. Some ideas related to the use of tactile indicators, location of accessible parking, dedicated taxi pick-up and drop-offs, and the number of Travellers’ Aid locations, while others related to signage and wayfinding.
Public transport (18 ideas) Participants devised ideas relating to the accessibility of trains and trams, (real-time) information about accessible journeys and stops, transport staff at stations, and space for mobility aides. Other ideas related to stop design including accessibility, consistency of design, and shelter.
Intellectual Disability Culture (25 ideas) Ideas in this category related to a variety of topics including employment of people with disability, inclusive organisations, reducing discrimination, providing training for customer service and event staff and disability support workers.
Information accessibility (19 ideas) Participants stressed the importance of ensuring information is communicated in Easy English, that visual and audio announcements are accurate and easy to understand, signage is accessible and consistent in design (including Easy English and large fonts). Ideas also related to the clarity of evacuation procedures, maps, and information about events.
Physical access (16 ideas) Ideas related to accessible buildings, street furniture, toilets and playgrounds. Many ideas related to footpaths, including clutter, tripping hazards, and contrast for different surface types, while other ideas related to the accessibility of recreation facilities and accessible housing.
Public transport (12 ideas) Ideas related to ensuring that the delivery of information is consistent, accurate, and easy to understand, the accessibility of stops, accessible seating for people with invisible disabilities, and accessible taxi collection points.
Psychosocial DisabilityPublic spaces (47 ideas) Ideas were about the provision of a variety of spaces including quiet spaces, safe spaces, rest spaces, and green spaces such as parks and gardens. Other ideas related to clutter, conflict (e.g. shared paths with bicycles) and distractions on footpaths, lighting, signage, smells, noise, and accessible parking and toilets.
11
Awareness (31 ideas) Participants devised ideas about awareness of diversity of disability, communicating with people with psychosocial disability (including training), outreach services, quality of mental health care, psychological first aid, and support workers. Other ideas related to support for advocacy groups, employment, and stigma in the media.
Public transport (20 ideas) Many ideas were about interactions on public transport, including training of public transport staff and protective service officers about diversity of disability and friendliness in general, interactions with assistance dogs, visual and audio announcements (including those relating to disruption), and use of public transport smart cards (‘myki’).
Housing (10 ideas) Ideas related to improving security and tenure of housing, providing more transition housing, soundproofing in private housing, eco-friendly housing and social housing. Other ideas related to supported accommodation for those over 65 years of age who don’t need to live in a nursing home, and strategies to make it easier to find suitable and supportive hotel accommodation.
Rating Importance and Feasibility The focus of this study is to identify ideas which people with disability, disability advocates, and academics (the Disability Group) rated as important, and City of Melbourne staff rated as feasible. Each idea was rated on a 5-point Likert scale, based on their importance of implementation (where 1 = relatively unimportant, and 5 = extremely important), and then again on their feasibility of implementation (where 1 = relatively infeasible, and 5 = extremely feasible). Ideas which are rated in the top 10% on importance by the Disability Group or feasibility by City of Melbourne staff are presented in Table 3.
A full list of ideas and clusters, their importance and feasibility ratings by participant type, is available in Appendix 1.
access as these become larger and develop new electric features.
Sensory DisabilityReasonable adjustments (29 ideas) Many of the ideas related to ensuring that adjustments are made for people with disability to ensure they have the same opportunities to participate. These included the provision of captioning and interpreters at events, accessible government forms, accessible bathrooms, employment opportunities for people with disability, and education and training.
Public amenity (25 ideas) Ideas in this cluster concerned use of footpaths, including clutter, lack of space, conflict of use (buskers, cafes etc), cleanliness, tripping hazards, and blind spots around corners. Some ideas related to improving the smell of public spaces and toilets, while others related to the accessibility at events, restaurants, other leisure facilities such as art galleries, and the accessibility of bathrooms and city apartments.
Navigation (24 ideas) Ideas in this cluster related to technology including visual and audio announcements, assistive software (e.g. apps showing the location of service providers, public transport, and navigational hazards), Bluetooth beacons, WIFI zones, and online and on-site 3D maps. Some ideas related to the use of tactile indicators, location of accessible parking, dedicated taxi pick-up and drop-offs, and the number of Travellers’ Aid locations, while others related to signage and wayfinding.
Public transport (18 ideas) Participants devised ideas relating to the accessibility of trains and trams, (real-time) information about accessible journeys and stops, transport staff at stations, and space for mobility aides. Other ideas related to stop design including accessibility, consistency of design, and shelter.
Intellectual Disability Culture (25 ideas) Ideas in this category related to a variety of topics including employment of people with disability, inclusive organisations, reducing discrimination, providing training for customer service and event staff and disability support workers.
Information accessibility (19 ideas) Participants stressed the importance of ensuring information is communicated in Easy English, that visual and audio announcements are accurate and easy to understand, signage is accessible and consistent in design (including Easy English and large fonts). Ideas also related to the clarity of evacuation procedures, maps, and information about events.
Physical access (16 ideas) Ideas related to accessible buildings, street furniture, toilets and playgrounds. Many ideas related to footpaths, including clutter, tripping hazards, and contrast for different surface types, while other ideas related to the accessibility of recreation facilities and accessible housing.
Public transport (12 ideas) Ideas related to ensuring that the delivery of information is consistent, accurate, and easy to understand, the accessibility of stops, accessible seating for people with invisible disabilities, and accessible taxi collection points.
Psychosocial DisabilityPublic spaces (47 ideas) Ideas were about the provision of a variety of spaces including quiet spaces, safe spaces, rest spaces, and green spaces such as parks and gardens. Other ideas related to clutter, conflict (e.g. shared paths with bicycles) and distractions on footpaths, lighting, signage, smells, noise, and accessible parking and toilets.
11
Awareness (31 ideas) Participants devised ideas about awareness of diversity of disability, communicating with people with psychosocial disability (including training), outreach services, quality of mental health care, psychological first aid, and support workers. Other ideas related to support for advocacy groups, employment, and stigma in the media.
Public transport (20 ideas) Many ideas were about interactions on public transport, including training of public transport staff and protective service officers about diversity of disability and friendliness in general, interactions with assistance dogs, visual and audio announcements (including those relating to disruption), and use of public transport smart cards (‘myki’).
Housing (10 ideas) Ideas related to improving security and tenure of housing, providing more transition housing, soundproofing in private housing, eco-friendly housing and social housing. Other ideas related to supported accommodation for those over 65 years of age who don’t need to live in a nursing home, and strategies to make it easier to find suitable and supportive hotel accommodation.
Rating Importance and Feasibility The focus of this study is to identify ideas which people with disability, disability advocates, and academics (the Disability Group) rated as important, and City of Melbourne staff rated as feasible. Each idea was rated on a 5-point Likert scale, based on their importance of implementation (where 1 = relatively unimportant, and 5 = extremely important), and then again on their feasibility of implementation (where 1 = relatively infeasible, and 5 = extremely feasible). Ideas which are rated in the top 10% on importance by the Disability Group or feasibility by City of Melbourne staff are presented in Table 3.
A full list of ideas and clusters, their importance and feasibility ratings by participant type, is available in Appendix 1.
Table 3: Ideas for making the City of Melbourne more inclusive for people with physical and mobility disability, rated as important by people with physical and mobility disability, academics, and advocates, and feasible by City of Melbourne staff.
PHYSICAL AND MOBILITY DISABILITY Important Feasible Transport
67 Make all tram stops accessible Participation
28 Educate employers to promote inclusivity and equal opportunity 38 Increase access to a diverse range of jobs (full-time, part-time, working from
home)
66 Ensure City of Melbourne is an inclusive organisation (e.g. train staff to provide disability support)
100 Make sure people with disability are not segregated from other patrons at events Tourism
6 Make it easier to find information about the accessibility of venues and events (e.g. put information on event websites/Google maps)
7 Include information about accessible tourism on the City of Melbourne website 18 Create a comprehensive accessibility resource, curated by City of Melbourne, to
help ensure accessibility for everyone, including alternative options for access in different settings
Buildings 9 Improve the quality and consistency of Australian Standards and building codes
(e.g. incorporate more universal design principles)
19 When designing new buildings, make sure people always consider the Disability Discrimination Act from the start
43 Include universal design principles in planning schemes and planning policy Law and Policy
44 Introduce a system to assess Disability Discrimination Act compliance 45 Always consult people with disability before planning things for people with
disability ('nothing about us without us')
56 Regularly update legislation and standards to keep up with new technology (e.g. larger, electric wheelchairs)
88 Make accessibility the norm across all levels of government
13
Table 4: Ideas for making the City of Melbourne more inclusive for people with sensory disability, rated as important by people with sensory disability, academics, and advocates, and feasible by City of Melbourne staff.
SENSORY DISABILITY Important Feasible Reasonable adjustments
3 Make the City of Melbourne website more accessible (e.g. image descriptions, audio reader, Auslan videos)
6 Ensure government forms are accessible, succinct and easier to fill out 7 Make it easier to report accessibility issues (e.g. via SMS)
22 Advocate to the State Government on the needs of people with disability in future traffic modelling
36 Consult people with disabilities in the initial planning stages of new projects 54 Make funding applications user friendly and accessible for different needs (e.g.
arts, community and advocacy grants)
57 Improve community awareness of disability (including diverse communication methods, Auslan, use of guide dogs or canes)
60 Put more information about accessibility on the City of Melbourne website 61 Warn people in advance if there are specific access issues at events (e.g. low
light)
67 Improve service and security staff awareness of disability (e.g. public housing staff, gallery/event staff, shop assistants, restaurant owners)
73 Ensure that the City of Melbourne is a visibly inclusive organisation (e.g. public support for people with disabilities, staff receive high-quality disability training)
79 Provide training that takes into account Aboriginal community perspectives on disability
Public amenity 35 Ensure compliance with building codes in terms of accessibility 78 Ensure building standards and planning laws are consistent and reflect best
practice in accessibility
Navigation 48 Ensure correct Braille is available at key locations (e.g. elevator buttons, train
stations, street corners)
92 Ensure location information is accessible for people with vision impairments
13
Table 4: Ideas for making the City of Melbourne more inclusive for people with sensory disability, rated as important by people with sensory disability, academics, and advocates, and feasible by City of Melbourne staff.
SENSORY DISABILITY Important Feasible Reasonable adjustments
3 Make the City of Melbourne website more accessible (e.g. image descriptions, audio reader, Auslan videos)
6 Ensure government forms are accessible, succinct and easier to fill out 7 Make it easier to report accessibility issues (e.g. via SMS)
22 Advocate to the State Government on the needs of people with disability in future traffic modelling
36 Consult people with disabilities in the initial planning stages of new projects 54 Make funding applications user friendly and accessible for different needs (e.g.
arts, community and advocacy grants)
57 Improve community awareness of disability (including diverse communication methods, Auslan, use of guide dogs or canes)
60 Put more information about accessibility on the City of Melbourne website 61 Warn people in advance if there are specific access issues at events (e.g. low
light)
67 Improve service and security staff awareness of disability (e.g. public housing staff, gallery/event staff, shop assistants, restaurant owners)
73 Ensure that the City of Melbourne is a visibly inclusive organisation (e.g. public support for people with disabilities, staff receive high-quality disability training)
79 Provide training that takes into account Aboriginal community perspectives on disability
Public amenity 35 Ensure compliance with building codes in terms of accessibility 78 Ensure building standards and planning laws are consistent and reflect best
practice in accessibility
Navigation 48 Ensure correct Braille is available at key locations (e.g. elevator buttons, train
stations, street corners)
92 Ensure location information is accessible for people with vision impairments
Table 5: Ideas for making the City of Melbourne more inclusive for people with intellectual disability, rated as important by people with intellectual disability, academics, and advocates, and feasible by City of Melbourne staff.
INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY Important Feasible Culture
3 Provide better disability training for customer service and event staff 12 Create more incentives for accessibility (e.g. award for most inclusive
business/most inclusive city/loyalty card for accessible businesses)
21 Test accessibility at the start of projects (not just in the middle or at the end) 32 Provide more opportunities for people with disabilities to have their say on
policies and projects
37 Reduce discrimination in employment 40 Make it compulsory for major events to meet accessibility standards (including
accessible toilets and changing places)
50 City of Melbourne should drive accessibility in employment and be a visible employer of people with disability
Information accessibility 4 The changing places website should include links to other government services
31 Provide Easy English information about people's entitlements 61 Reduce conflict between bikes and pedestrians on footpaths (e.g. better bike
parking, clearer bike lanes)
71 Improve emergency alerts and evacuation signs (e.g. Easy English) Physical access
29 Improve signage for public toilets 30 Ensure public toilets and changing places are well-maintained 45 Make buildings more accessible 64 Create more accessible and adaptable housing (including apartments)
Public transport 1 Make public transport information more consistent and accurate (including
information about transport disruptions)
47 Make an announcement before the last accessible stop (give plenty of warning) 59 Improve accessible transport in regional Victoria
15
Table 6: Ideas for making the City of Melbourne more inclusive for people with psychosocial disability, rated as important by people with psychosocial disability, academics, and advocates, and feasible by City of Melbourne staff.
PSYCHOSOCIAL DISABILITY Important Feasible Public spaces
6 Update the national public toilet map with the latest accessible toilets and changing places
12 Make a map that shows accessible and supportive services (e.g. accommodation, toilets, Travellers Aid, facilities, sports and cultural venues, quiet spots and water fountains)
20 Ensure public spaces (e.g. libraries) are safe spaces 49 Highlight existing quiet spaces, libraries and any available/bookable rooms across
the city
Awareness 13 Provide more diverse and flexible employment options for people with diverse
needs
39 Increase awareness of customer-facing staff (e.g. transport, hospitality, security) so they understand people's sensitivities and supports (e.g. assistance animals)
41 Improve general training and resourcing of City of Melbourne information staff (e.g. red shirt visitor staff)
47 Make funding applications user friendly and accessible for different needs (e.g. arts, community, and advocacy grants)
50 Provide psychological first aid training for City of Melbourne information staff (e.g. red shirt visitor staff)
53 Provide more, better quality mental health care 67 Ensure organisations such as government and business provide ongoing disability
awareness and support training for their employees (e.g. how to work with distressed clients)
71 Provide support for a diverse range of advocacy groups (e.g. across all age ranges)
75 Ensure City of Melbourne is an inclusive organisation 97 Provide more, better quality general health care
101 Improve reactions from first responders to be more positive towards people with psychosocial disability
107 Train policy officers and local laws/compliance officers to understand diversity of disability
Public transport 15 Improve training of public transport staff and protective services officers (e.g. to
encourage friendlier attitudes towards passengers)
Housing 8 Improve security and tenure of housing
27 Increase support from City of Melbourne for communities in public housing 99 Provide more social housing
15
Table 6: Ideas for making the City of Melbourne more inclusive for people with psychosocial disability, rated as important by people with psychosocial disability, academics, and advocates, and feasible by City of Melbourne staff.
PSYCHOSOCIAL DISABILITY Important Feasible Public spaces
6 Update the national public toilet map with the latest accessible toilets and changing places
12 Make a map that shows accessible and supportive services (e.g. accommodation, toilets, Travellers Aid, facilities, sports and cultural venues, quiet spots and water fountains)
20 Ensure public spaces (e.g. libraries) are safe spaces 49 Highlight existing quiet spaces, libraries and any available/bookable rooms across
the city
Awareness 13 Provide more diverse and flexible employment options for people with diverse
needs
39 Increase awareness of customer-facing staff (e.g. transport, hospitality, security) so they understand people's sensitivities and supports (e.g. assistance animals)
41 Improve general training and resourcing of City of Melbourne information staff (e.g. red shirt visitor staff)
47 Make funding applications user friendly and accessible for different needs (e.g. arts, community, and advocacy grants)
50 Provide psychological first aid training for City of Melbourne information staff (e.g. red shirt visitor staff)
53 Provide more, better quality mental health care 67 Ensure organisations such as government and business provide ongoing disability
awareness and support training for their employees (e.g. how to work with distressed clients)
71 Provide support for a diverse range of advocacy groups (e.g. across all age ranges)
75 Ensure City of Melbourne is an inclusive organisation 97 Provide more, better quality general health care
101 Improve reactions from first responders to be more positive towards people with psychosocial disability
107 Train policy officers and local laws/compliance officers to understand diversity of disability
Public transport 15 Improve training of public transport staff and protective services officers (e.g. to
encourage friendlier attitudes towards passengers)
Housing 8 Improve security and tenure of housing
27 Increase support from City of Melbourne for communities in public housing 99 Provide more social housing
Key FindingsThe following section details this study’s key findings, including themes and ideas that were present across all disability types.
Consulting People with Disability The need for consultation was emphasised in participant responses across all disability types, with many participants highlighting principles such as “nothing about us without us”, meaning that decisions impacting people with disability must involve direct input from people with lived experience of disability who live, work or spend leisure time in the City of Melbourne.
Legislation Legislation was a key theme across all disability types. This included ideas about consulting people with disability in the design of legislation, building codes, the Disability Discrimination Act, compliance with legislation, education about legislation, and updating legislation in line with new technology and universal design principles.
Public Transport Transport as a theme was present across all disability types, but often for different reasons. Physical accessibility of trams and trains, and stop design were raised by people with physical and mobility disability and sensory disability; while communication accessibility, including the need for announcements that were easy to understand and accurate with key information repeated, and a friendly approach by staff was raised by people with sensory disability, intellectual disability, and psychosocial disability.
Footpaths Footpath clutter, tripping hazards, cleanliness and conflict of use, was a concern across all disability types. Also raised were contrast for different surfaces, blind spots around corners, kerb design, rest spots, footpath width, accessibility around construction, and the layout and accessibility of street furniture.
DiscussionThe following section details the strengths and limitations of the study, future research directions, and lessons learned.
Strengths and Limitations This study had several strengths. First, including different disability types allowed us to explore the diverse types of accessibility barriers in depth. It also allowed us to identify potential for conflicting priorities across different disability types, for example, tactile indicators that provide guidance for people with vision impairment but can be a tripping hazard for people with mobility impairment). Second, including staff from the City of Melbourne enabled us to understand the issues that policymakers identified as being important for people with disability, and
feasible to implement, allowing prioritisation of ideas through direct engagement with both citizens and decision makers in local government. Further, feedback obtained from City of Melbourne staff indicated that the experience was a positive professional development exercise, and that it is likely to inform their work moving forward.
This study also had several limitations. First, there was an overrepresentation of people with physical and mobility disability, and underrepresentation of people with intellectual disability. Further, where participants were unable to undertake in-person sorting and rating, the online software had poor accessibility. It also required participants to have access to the internet and
17
an associated device to undertake the tasks. Tasks (especially the sorting task) were complex, and additional materials such as Easy English instructions and cue cards would have made participation easier for some. Last, feasibility ratings by City of Melbourne staff may not have been completed by staff in relevant areas. For example, ideas related to building code compliance might have been completed by staff working in the ‘International and Civic Services’ portfolio. Recording the different roles of City of Melbourne participants would have enabled us to consider the varying levels of expertise in analyses (e.g. weighting).
Future Research Directions The project gave rise to a number of relevant priorities for future research. First, all study participants were adults. Further research is required to explore inclusion among children and young people with disability. Second, jurisdictional responsibilities are highly
variable across different levels of government. There is a need to involve state and federal levels of government to better understand how collaboration between government levels and departments can help tackle issues faced by people with disability. Third, we allowed participants to determine how they conceptualised both inclusion and feasibility. Undertaking further research to understand what ‘inclusion’ means to people with disability, and City of Melbourne staff, would add context to our findings. Further, understanding how City of Melbourne staff conceptualised feasibility would provide additional insight into what constitutes a ‘feasible’ idea to implement for various aspects such as time (e.g. within the next 6 months, 2 years, 5 years) and budget. Fourth, follow-up work exploring how the City of Melbourne addresses some of the key concerns identified in this study and acts on this study’s findings would help us to the value of this project.
Concluding CommentsThis study provided valuable new information on how to improve inclusion for people with disability in a key local government area in Australia. This study supports the notion that to understand what makes a city truly inclusive for people with disability, you first need to consider the diversity of disability, and by extension, the diversity of people’s needs. The inclusion of key ideas identified as
both important to people with disability, and feasible by City of Melbourne staff provide crucial information to inform future policy in the City of Melbourne. We hope that this study’s findings result in meaningful change and reinforce the importance for ongoing participation of people with disability in both research and policy design.
17
an associated device to undertake the tasks. Tasks (especially the sorting task) were complex, and additional materials such as Easy English instructions and cue cards would have made participation easier for some. Last, feasibility ratings by City of Melbourne staff may not have been completed by staff in relevant areas. For example, ideas related to building code compliance might have been completed by staff working in the ‘International and Civic Services’ portfolio. Recording the different roles of City of Melbourne participants would have enabled us to consider the varying levels of expertise in analyses (e.g. weighting).
Future Research Directions The project gave rise to a number of relevant priorities for future research. First, all study participants were adults. Further research is required to explore inclusion among children and young people with disability. Second, jurisdictional responsibilities are highly
variable across different levels of government. There is a need to involve state and federal levels of government to better understand how collaboration between government levels and departments can help tackle issues faced by people with disability. Third, we allowed participants to determine how they conceptualised both inclusion and feasibility. Undertaking further research to understand what ‘inclusion’ means to people with disability, and City of Melbourne staff, would add context to our findings. Further, understanding how City of Melbourne staff conceptualised feasibility would provide additional insight into what constitutes a ‘feasible’ idea to implement for various aspects such as time (e.g. within the next 6 months, 2 years, 5 years) and budget. Fourth, follow-up work exploring how the City of Melbourne addresses some of the key concerns identified in this study and acts on this study’s findings would help us to the value of this project.
Concluding CommentsThis study provided valuable new information on how to improve inclusion for people with disability in a key local government area in Australia. This study supports the notion that to understand what makes a city truly inclusive for people with disability, you first need to consider the diversity of disability, and by extension, the diversity of people’s needs. The inclusion of key ideas identified as
both important to people with disability, and feasible by City of Melbourne staff provide crucial information to inform future policy in the City of Melbourne. We hope that this study’s findings result in meaningful change and reinforce the importance for ongoing participation of people with disability in both research and policy design.
References
1. UN General Assembly. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. General Assembly Resolutions 2006;61:106.
2. World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF Geneva: World Health Organization, 2001.
3. Australia Bureau of Statistics. Disability, Ageing and Carers, Australia: Summary of Findings, 2015. Canberra: ABS, 2016.
4. Council of Australian Governments. 2010–2020 National Disability Strategy. Canberra: Commonweath of Australia, 2011.
5. Australia Bureau of Statistics. ABS Table Builder 2016 Census- Counting Persons, Place of Usual Residence, Greater Melbourne (GCCSA). 2017.
6. City of Melbourne. City of Melbourne Daily Population Estimates and Forecasts: 2017 update. 2017.
7. Australian Bureau of Statistics. ABS Table Builder 2016 Census- Counting Persons, Place of Usual Residence, Melbourne (C). https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/LGA24600?opendocument.
8. City of Melbourne. Melbourne for All People Strategy, 2014-17. 2014. 9. Trochim WM. An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Evaluation
and Program Planning 1989;12(1):1-16. 10. Trochim W, Kane M. Concept mapping: an introduction to structured conceptualization in
health care. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2005;17(3):187-191. 11. Concept Systems Incorporated. The Concept System® Global MAX™. Build 2016.046.12.
Web-based Platform. 2016.
References
1. UN General Assembly. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. General Assembly Resolutions 2006;61:106.
2. World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF Geneva: World Health Organization, 2001.
3. Australia Bureau of Statistics. Disability, Ageing and Carers, Australia: Summary of Findings, 2015. Canberra: ABS, 2016.
4. Council of Australian Governments. 2010–2020 National Disability Strategy. Canberra: Commonweath of Australia, 2011.
5. Australia Bureau of Statistics. ABS Table Builder 2016 Census- Counting Persons, Place of Usual Residence, Greater Melbourne (GCCSA). 2017.
6. City of Melbourne. City of Melbourne Daily Population Estimates and Forecasts: 2017 update. 2017.
7. Australian Bureau of Statistics. ABS Table Builder 2016 Census- Counting Persons, Place of Usual Residence, Melbourne (C). https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/LGA24600?opendocument.
8. City of Melbourne. Melbourne for All People Strategy, 2014-17. 2014. 9. Trochim WM. An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Evaluation
and Program Planning 1989;12(1):1-16. 10. Trochim W, Kane M. Concept mapping: an introduction to structured conceptualization in
health care. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2005;17(3):187-191. 11. Concept Systems Incorporated. The Concept System® Global MAX™. Build 2016.046.12.
Web-based Platform. 2016.
19
App
endi
xTa
ble
A1. I
deas
on
how
to m
ake
the
City
of M
elbo
urne
mor
e in
clus
ive
for p
eopl
e w
ith p
hysic
al a
nd m
obili
ty d
isabi
lity,
incl
udin
g im
port
ance
and
feas
ibili
ty ra
tings
for e
ach
idea
with
in th
emes
by
peop
le w
ith d
isabi
lity,
disa
bilit
y ad
voca
tes,
and
acad
emic
s (di
sabi
lity
grou
p), a
nd C
ity o
f Mel
bour
ne st
aff.
Clus
ter a
nd st
atem
ent
Impo
rtan
ce
Feas
ibili
ty
Disa
bilit
y gr
oup
City
of
Mel
bour
ne
Tota
l Di
sabi
lity
grou
p Ci
ty o
f M
elbo
urne
To
tal
PHYS
ICAL
AN
D M
OBI
LITY
DIS
ABIL
ITY
Phys
ical
acc
ess
3.93
3.
88
3.91
3.
79
3.45
3.
67
4 Re
mov
e al
l str
eet k
erbs
3.
52
2.18
3.
06
2.89
1.
50
2.40
5
Mak
e th
e la
yout
of s
tree
t fur
nitu
re m
ore
pred
icta
ble
and
cons
isten
t 3.
48
3.73
3.
56
3.67
3.
27
3.48
10
M
ake
it ea
sier t
o fin
d el
evat
ors a
nd to
get
upd
ates
if th
ey a
ren'
t w
orki
ng (e
.g. i
nter
activ
e m
obili
ty m
ap, s
igns
or m
arke
rs o
n flo
or)
4.19
4.
00
4.13
4.
11
3.82
3.
97
12
Impr
ove
acce
ss to
her
itage
bui
ldin
gs
3.95
3.
64
3.84
3.
47
2.91
3.
27
24
Incl
ude
signa
ge o
n th
e fr
ont o
f sho
ps sh
owin
g th
e le
vel o
f acc
essib
ility
in
side
the
shop
3.
76
3.82
3.
78
4.00
3.
73
3.94
25
Bett
er si
gns a
t ent
ranc
es o
f bui
ldin
gs so
peo
ple
know
how
to g
et in
4.
30
4.00
4.
19
4.33
4.
18
4.26
26
M
ake
all p
layg
roun
ds a
cces
sible
for a
ll ch
ildre
n 4.
10
4.64
4.
28
3.82
3.
73
3.83
30
En
sure
stre
et a
nd ro
ad su
rfac
es a
re sm
ooth
and
with
out t
rippi
ng
haza
rds
4.52
4.
27
4.44
3.
39
3.00
3.
29
32
Add
cont
rast
to d
iffer
ent t
ypes
of s
urfa
ces (
e.g.
tact
ile a
nd v
isual
) 3.
86
3.73
3.
81
3.67
3.
55
3.68
33
Im
prov
e w
ayfin
ding
(mak
e it
easie
r to
find
your
way
aro
und
the
city
) 4.
05
4.30
4.
13
4.17
4.
36
4.26
40
In
crea
se th
e nu
mbe
r of a
cces
sible
toile
ts a
nd c
hang
ing
plac
es
4.48
4.
18
4.38
3.
94
3.18
3.
74
42
Prov
ide
mor
e sa
fe te
mpo
rary
ram
ps o
n co
nstr
uctio
ns si
tes
4.14
3.
64
3.97
3.
94
3.64
3.
87
47
Ensu
re th
at T
actil
e Gr
ound
Sur
face
Indi
cato
rs /
Brai
lle tr
ails
do n
ot
conf
lict w
ith w
heel
chai
r use
rs
3.90
4.
09
3.97
3.
50
3.36
3.
48
52
Inst
all m
ore
auto
mat
ic se
nsor
doo
rs in
City
of M
elbo
urne
offi
ces
3.43
3.
55
3.47
3.
94
3.18
3.
74
58
All t
oile
ts sh
ould
be
acce
ssib
le to
eve
ryon
e 4.
10
4.55
4.
26
3.28
3.
18
3.16
59
Im
prov
e th
e am
enity
of p
ublic
toile
ts (e
.g. b
ette
r sm
ellin
g, a
bove
and
be
yond
min
imum
des
ign
stan
dard
s)
3.95
4.
36
4.09
4.
00
3.91
3.
97
Clus
ter a
nd st
atem
ent
Impo
rtan
ce
Feas
ibili
ty
Disa
bilit
y gr
oup
City
of
Mel
bour
ne
Tota
l Di
sabi
lity
grou
p Ci
ty o
f M
elbo
urne
To
tal
60
Prov
ide
bett
er m
obili
ty a
cces
s in
rest
aura
nts a
nd c
afes
(e.g
. mak
e su
re
whe
elch
airs
can
fit u
nder
tabl
es)
4.05
3.
91
4.00
3.
56
3.18
3.
39
74
Crea
te m
ore
freq
uent
seat
ing
and
rest
spot
s aro
und
the
city
4.
05
3.64
3.
91
4.11
3.
82
4.03
76
Ke
ep p
eopl
e up
date
d of
cha
nges
on
cons
truc
tion
sites
blo
ckin
g ac
cess
, up
date
d in
real
tim
e.
3.57
4.
09
3.75
3.
72
3.55
3.
71
81
Mak
e it
easie
r for
peo
ple
to c
ross
the
road
at t
raffi
c lig
hts (
e.g.
long
er
wal
k sig
nals,
an
app
to in
tera
ct w
ith tr
affic
ligh
ts)
4.43
3.
91
4.25
4.
33
3.91
4.
23
83
Redu
ce c
lutt
er a
nd o
bsta
cles
on
foot
path
(e.g
. str
eet f
urni
ture
, bol
lard
s, sig
ns)
3.90
4.
00
3.94
3.
61
3.64
3.
68
84
Impr
ove
the
safe
ty a
nd c
onsis
tenc
y of
foot
path
cut
-out
s (al
so c
alle
d "k
erb
cuts
"/"k
erb
ram
ps")
4.
19
4.09
4.
16
3.83
3.
36
3.71
89
Mak
e bu
sy c
ity st
reet
s cle
aner
3.
65
3.45
3.
58
3.67
3.
64
3.71
94
M
ake
outd
oor f
urni
ture
mor
e ac
cess
ible
and
com
fort
able
3.
76
3.64
3.
72
3.94
3.
82
3.84
96
W
iden
foot
path
s 4.
00
3.73
3.
91
3.06
2.
73
2.97
99
Im
prov
e on
-str
eet a
cces
sible
par
king
(e.g
. bet
ter l
ocat
ions
, no
obst
ruct
ions
, mor
e pa
rkin
g sp
aces
) 4.
19
3.82
4.
06
4.00
3.
45
3.81
Tran
spor
t 3.
99
3.84
3.
93
3.67
3.
15
3.49
1
Prov
ide
hire
veh
icle
s tha
t mob
ility
impa
ired
peop
le c
an u
se
3.29
3.
09
3.22
3.
44
3.45
3.
39
11
Impr
ove
publ
ic tr
ansp
ort o
ptio
ns fo
r peo
ple
with
disa
bilit
y at
larg
e ev
ents
(e.g
. shu
ttle
bus
es a
t lar
ge e
vent
site
s)
4.43
4.
27
4.38
4.
17
3.73
4.
00
21
Prov
ide
mor
e sh
elte
r at p
ublic
tran
spor
t sto
ps (e
.g. m
ake
the
who
le
plat
form
shad
ed/s
helte
red)
3.
76
4.27
3.
94
3.78
3.
36
3.68
22
Offe
r acc
essib
le sh
are
bike
s 3.
14
2.45
2.
91
3.33
2.
64
3.16
23
Im
prov
e re
al ti
me
tool
s to
help
pla
n tr
avel
jour
ney
(e.g
. disr
uptio
ns, l
ast
acce
ssib
le st
op)
4.19
4.
00
4.13
4.
12
3.82
4.
03
36
Have
con
siste
nt tr
am st
op d
esig
ns
4.24
4.
64
4.38
3.
56
3.82
3.
74
41
Exte
nd th
e fr
ee tr
am zo
ne
3.29
3.
00
3.19
3.
83
3.00
3.
61
46
Impr
ove
the
freq
uenc
y of
sign
age
alon
g pu
blic
tran
spor
t pla
tform
s (m
ake
sure
the
who
le p
latfo
rm is
sign
post
ed)
4.19
4.
18
4.19
4.
33
3.91
4.
23
48
Redu
ce c
onfli
ct b
etw
een
bike
s, w
heel
chai
rs a
nd p
ram
s on
publ
ic
tran
spor
t 3.
95
3.64
3.
84
3.83
2.
64
3.42
49
Impr
ove
the
safe
ty a
nd a
cces
sibili
ty o
f tra
in st
atio
ns a
nd p
latf
orm
s 4.
38
4.55
4.
44
4.28
3.
36
3.97
54
Re
duce
the
gap
betw
een
the
trai
n an
d th
e pl
atfo
rm
4.57
4.
00
4.38
3.
44
2.45
3.
10
Clus
ter a
nd st
atem
ent
Impo
rtan
ce
Feas
ibili
ty
Disa
bilit
y gr
oup
City
of
Mel
bour
ne
Tota
l Di
sabi
lity
grou
p Ci
ty o
f M
elbo
urne
To
tal
60
Prov
ide
bett
er m
obili
ty a
cces
s in
rest
aura
nts a
nd c
afes
(e.g
. mak
e su
re
whe
elch
airs
can
fit u
nder
tabl
es)
4.05
3.
91
4.00
3.
56
3.18
3.
39
74
Crea
te m
ore
freq
uent
seat
ing
and
rest
spot
s aro
und
the
city
4.
05
3.64
3.
91
4.11
3.
82
4.03
76
Ke
ep p
eopl
e up
date
d of
cha
nges
on
cons
truc
tion
sites
blo
ckin
g ac
cess
, up
date
d in
real
tim
e.
3.57
4.
09
3.75
3.
72
3.55
3.
71
81
Mak
e it
easie
r for
peo
ple
to c
ross
the
road
at t
raffi
c lig
hts (
e.g.
long
er
wal
k sig
nals,
an
app
to in
tera
ct w
ith tr
affic
ligh
ts)
4.43
3.
91
4.25
4.
33
3.91
4.
23
83
Redu
ce c
lutt
er a
nd o
bsta
cles
on
foot
path
(e.g
. str
eet f
urni
ture
, bol
lard
s, sig
ns)
3.90
4.
00
3.94
3.
61
3.64
3.
68
84
Impr
ove
the
safe
ty a
nd c
onsis
tenc
y of
foot
path
cut
-out
s (al
so c
alle
d "k
erb
cuts
"/"k
erb
ram
ps")
4.
19
4.09
4.
16
3.83
3.
36
3.71
89
Mak
e bu
sy c
ity st
reet
s cle
aner
3.
65
3.45
3.
58
3.67
3.
64
3.71
94
M
ake
outd
oor f
urni
ture
mor
e ac
cess
ible
and
com
fort
able
3.
76
3.64
3.
72
3.94
3.
82
3.84
96
W
iden
foot
path
s 4.
00
3.73
3.
91
3.06
2.
73
2.97
99
Im
prov
e on
-str
eet a
cces
sible
par
king
(e.g
. bet
ter l
ocat
ions
, no
obst
ruct
ions
, mor
e pa
rkin
g sp
aces
) 4.
19
3.82
4.
06
4.00
3.
45
3.81
Tran
spor
t 3.
99
3.84
3.
93
3.67
3.
15
3.49
1
Prov
ide
hire
veh
icle
s tha
t mob
ility
impa
ired
peop
le c
an u
se
3.29
3.
09
3.22
3.
44
3.45
3.
39
11
Impr
ove
publ
ic tr
ansp
ort o
ptio
ns fo
r peo
ple
with
disa
bilit
y at
larg
e ev
ents
(e.g
. shu
ttle
bus
es a
t lar
ge e
vent
site
s)
4.43
4.
27
4.38
4.
17
3.73
4.
00
21
Prov
ide
mor
e sh
elte
r at p
ublic
tran
spor
t sto
ps (e
.g. m
ake
the
who
le
plat
form
shad
ed/s
helte
red)
3.
76
4.27
3.
94
3.78
3.
36
3.68
22
Offe
r acc
essib
le sh
are
bike
s 3.
14
2.45
2.
91
3.33
2.
64
3.16
23
Im
prov
e re
al ti
me
tool
s to
help
pla
n tr
avel
jour
ney
(e.g
. disr
uptio
ns, l
ast
acce
ssib
le st
op)
4.19
4.
00
4.13
4.
12
3.82
4.
03
36
Have
con
siste
nt tr
am st
op d
esig
ns
4.24
4.
64
4.38
3.
56
3.82
3.
74
41
Exte
nd th
e fr
ee tr
am zo
ne
3.29
3.
00
3.19
3.
83
3.00
3.
61
46
Impr
ove
the
freq
uenc
y of
sign
age
alon
g pu
blic
tran
spor
t pla
tform
s (m
ake
sure
the
who
le p
latfo
rm is
sign
post
ed)
4.19
4.
18
4.19
4.
33
3.91
4.
23
48
Redu
ce c
onfli
ct b
etw
een
bike
s, w
heel
chai
rs a
nd p
ram
s on
publ
ic
tran
spor
t 3.
95
3.64
3.
84
3.83
2.
64
3.42
49
Impr
ove
the
safe
ty a
nd a
cces
sibili
ty o
f tra
in st
atio
ns a
nd p
latf
orm
s 4.
38
4.55
4.
44
4.28
3.
36
3.97
54
Re
duce
the
gap
betw
een
the
trai
n an
d th
e pl
atfo
rm
4.57
4.
00
4.38
3.
44
2.45
3.
10
21
Clus
ter a
nd st
atem
ent
Impo
rtan
ce
Feas
ibili
ty
Disa
bilit
y gr
oup
City
of
Mel
bour
ne
Tota
l Di
sabi
lity
grou
p Ci
ty o
f M
elbo
urne
To
tal
57
Incr
ease
the
avai
labi
lity
of a
cces
sible
pub
lic tr
ansp
ort (
e.g.
acc
essib
le
tran
spor
t on
all l
ines
, mor
e lo
w-fl
oor t
ram
s)
4.57
4.
64
4.59
3.
72
2.73
3.
39
61
Mak
e it
easie
r to
get o
n an
d of
f pub
lic tr
ansp
ort (
e.g.
mak
e it
easy
to
find
the
acce
ssib
le d
oor a
nd m
ake
mor
e do
ors a
nd c
arria
ges a
cces
sible
) 4.
48
4.36
4.
44
3.78
3.
18
3.58
65
Free
Ube
r ser
vice
in th
e ci
ty fo
r peo
ple
with
disa
bilit
y 2.
62
2.18
2.
47
2.22
2.
18
2.16
67
M
ake
all t
ram
stop
s acc
essib
le
4.70
4.
64
4.68
3.
33
2.73
3.
10
77
Mor
e ra
mps
for t
ram
s (ev
en lo
w-r
ise tr
ams)
4.
24
4.27
4.
25
3.78
3.
27
3.65
80
Cr
eate
a p
arki
ng sy
stem
that
bet
ter p
riorit
ises p
eopl
e w
ith a
cces
sibili
ty
requ
irem
ents
4.
10
3.64
3.
94
3.72
3.
36
3.65
91
Dedi
cate
d di
sabi
lity
taxi
col
lect
ion
spot
for p
ick
up a
nd d
rop
offs
3.
90
3.91
3.
91
3.61
4.
00
3.77
92
In
crea
se sp
ace
on p
ublic
tran
spor
t 4.
30
3.82
4.
13
3.17
2.
91
3.10
93
O
ffer a
cces
sible
wat
ercr
aft (
e.g.
can
oes)
3.
00
2.64
2.
88
2.89
2.
64
2.84
97
Im
plem
ent u
nive
rsal
des
ign
on p
ublic
tran
spor
t 4.
50
4.18
4.
39
3.76
3.
00
3.47
98
In
crea
se p
ublic
tran
spor
t out
side
of th
e ci
ty
4.52
4.
00
4.34
3.
44
2.64
3.
19
101
Ensu
re a
cces
sible
par
king
spac
es d
o no
t bec
ome
clea
rway
s 4.
43
3.91
4.
25
4.11
3.
73
4.00
Pa
rtic
ipat
ion
4.07
3.
95
4.03
4.
07
3.77
3.
96
2 Cr
eate
opp
ortu
nitie
s for
peo
ple
to e
xper
ienc
e w
hat i
t's li
ke to
hav
e a
phys
ical
disa
bilit
y 2.
43
3.09
2.
66
2.36
3.
09
2.62
3 Es
tabl
ish e
mpl
oym
ent q
uota
s for
peo
ple
with
disa
bilit
y 4.
19
3.36
3.
91
4.22
3.
45
3.95
28
Ed
ucat
e em
ploy
ers t
o pr
omot
e in
clus
ivity
and
equ
al o
ppor
tuni
ty
4.76
4.
64
4.72
4.
86
4.45
4.
71
29
Crea
te a
pro
gram
to li
nk p
eopl
e w
ith d
isabi
lity
with
spor
ts fa
ns w
ho c
an
acco
mpa
ny th
em to
eve
nts (
e.g.
AFL
) 3.
48
3.45
3.
47
3.52
3.
27
3.43
35
Trai
n pe
ople
man
ager
s so
they
und
erst
and
acce
ssib
ility
4.
29
4.55
4.
38
4.31
4.
36
4.33
37
Ch
ange
att
itude
s tow
ards
est
ablis
hed
ritua
ls (e
.g. w
alki
ng u
p th
e st
airs
at
gra
duat
ion)
4.
30
3.45
4.
00
4.24
3.
80
4.09
38
Incr
ease
acc
ess t
o a
dive
rse
rang
e of
jobs
(ful
l-tim
e, p
art-
time,
wor
king
fr
om h
ome)
4.
70
4.36
4.
58
4.68
4.
40
4.59
53
Crea
te g
reat
er re
pres
enta
tion
and
visib
ility
for p
eopl
e w
ith d
isabi
lity,
so
it be
com
es n
orm
al to
see
peop
le w
ith d
isabi
litie
s in
all s
ettin
gs
4.48
4.
27
4.41
4.
46
4.36
4.
42
55
Incr
ease
acc
ess t
o in
clus
ive
soci
al g
roup
s 4.
24
3.91
4.
13
4.26
4.
00
4.17
Clus
ter a
nd st
atem
ent
Impo
rtan
ce
Feas
ibili
ty
Disa
bilit
y gr
oup
City
of
Mel
bour
ne
Tota
l Di
sabi
lity
grou
p Ci
ty o
f M
elbo
urne
To
tal
63
Mak
e su
re e
vent
org
anise
rs c
onsid
er a
cces
sibili
ty a
t the
star
t of t
he
even
t pla
nnin
g ph
ase
4.65
4.
10
4.47
4.
64
4.00
4.
42
66
Ensu
re C
ity o
f Mel
bour
ne is
an
incl
usiv
e or
gani
satio
n (e
.g. t
rain
staf
f to
prov
ide
disa
bilit
y su
ppor
t) 4.
57
4.36
4.
50
4.57
4.
36
4.50
68
Empl
oy p
eopl
e w
ith li
ved
expe
rienc
e of
disa
bilit
y as
exp
erts
and
pay
th
em a
ppro
pria
tely
4.
57
4.18
4.
44
4.51
4.
27
4.43
69
Prov
ide
trai
ning
that
take
s int
o ac
coun
t Abo
rigin
al c
omm
unity
pe
rspe
ctiv
es o
n di
sabi
lity
4.10
3.
91
4.03
4.
15
3.82
4.
03
72
Educ
ate
high
scho
ol st
uden
ts a
bout
disa
bilit
y le
gisla
tion
and
acce
ssib
le
desig
n 3.
95
3.55
3.
81
3.87
3.
45
3.72
85
All p
oliti
cian
s and
pol
icy-
mak
ers s
houl
d liv
e in
a w
heel
chai
r for
one
m
onth
2.
10
2.55
2.
25
1.99
2.
55
2.19
90
Impr
ove
educ
atio
n fo
r bus
ines
ses s
o th
ey u
nder
stan
d ho
w to
be
acce
ssib
le
4.43
4.
27
4.38
4.
50
4.00
4.
33
95
Mak
e fu
ndin
g ap
plic
atio
ns u
ser f
riend
ly a
nd a
cces
sible
for d
iffer
ent
need
s (e.
g. a
rts g
rant
s/co
mm
unity
/adv
ocac
y gr
ants
) 3.
90
3.82
3.
88
3.88
3.
91
3.89
100
Mak
e su
re p
eopl
e w
ith d
isabi
lity
are
not s
egre
gate
d fr
om o
ther
pat
rons
at
eve
nts
4.57
4.
73
4.63
4.
65
4.55
4.
61
103
Impr
ove
com
mun
ity u
nder
stan
ding
of d
isabi
lity
and
anti-
disc
rimin
atio
n e.
g. a
cces
sibili
ty is
for e
very
one,
disa
bilit
y is
dive
rse,
inde
pend
ence
is
key
4.57
4.
45
4.53
4.
58
4.36
4.
50
Tour
ism
3.
87
3.80
3.
85
3.85
3.
65
3.78
6
Mak
e it
easie
r to
find
info
rmat
ion
abou
t the
acc
essib
ility
of v
enue
s and
ev
ents
(e.g
. put
info
rmat
ion
on e
vent
web
sites
/Goo
gle
map
s)
4.33
4.
36
4.34
4.
39
4.73
4.
48
7 In
clud
e in
form
atio
n ab
out a
cces
sible
tour
ism o
n th
e Ci
ty o
f Mel
bour
ne
web
site
4.14
4.
45
4.25
4.
61
4.82
4.
71
8 M
ake
all t
ouris
t and
leisu
re fa
cilit
ies a
cces
sible
(e.g
. Res
taur
ant T
ram
, Ci
ty B
aths
, poo
ls an
d ot
her p
ublic
spac
es)
4.50
4.
45
4.48
3.
28
2.91
3.
10
18
Crea
te a
com
preh
ensiv
e ac
cess
ibili
ty re
sour
ce, c
urat
ed b
y Ci
ty o
f M
elbo
urne
, to
help
ens
ure
acce
ssib
ility
for e
very
one,
incl
udin
g al
tern
ativ
e op
tions
for a
cces
s in
diffe
rent
sett
ings
3.95
4.
27
4.06
4.
17
4.55
4.
35
20
Incr
ease
the
num
ber o
f City
of M
elbo
urne
vol
unte
ers o
n th
e st
reet
s 2.
86
3.00
2.
91
3.61
3.
91
3.74
34
M
ake
mor
e cl
early
-sig
npos
ted
char
ging
poi
nts f
or e
lect
ric w
heel
chai
rs
and
scoo
ters
aro
und
the
city
3.
95
3.73
3.
87
4.28
3.
73
4.13
Clus
ter a
nd st
atem
ent
Impo
rtan
ce
Feas
ibili
ty
Disa
bilit
y gr
oup
City
of
Mel
bour
ne
Tota
l Di
sabi
lity
grou
p Ci
ty o
f M
elbo
urne
To
tal
63
Mak
e su
re e
vent
org
anise
rs c
onsid
er a
cces
sibili
ty a
t the
star
t of t
he
even
t pla
nnin
g ph
ase
4.65
4.
10
4.47
4.
64
4.00
4.
42
66
Ensu
re C
ity o
f Mel
bour
ne is
an
incl
usiv
e or
gani
satio
n (e
.g. t
rain
staf
f to
prov
ide
disa
bilit
y su
ppor
t) 4.
57
4.36
4.
50
4.57
4.
36
4.50
68
Empl
oy p
eopl
e w
ith li
ved
expe
rienc
e of
disa
bilit
y as
exp
erts
and
pay
th
em a
ppro
pria
tely
4.
57
4.18
4.
44
4.51
4.
27
4.43
69
Prov
ide
trai
ning
that
take
s int
o ac
coun
t Abo
rigin
al c
omm
unity
pe
rspe
ctiv
es o
n di
sabi
lity
4.10
3.
91
4.03
4.
15
3.82
4.
03
72
Educ
ate
high
scho
ol st
uden
ts a
bout
disa
bilit
y le
gisla
tion
and
acce
ssib
le
desig
n 3.
95
3.55
3.
81
3.87
3.
45
3.72
85
All p
oliti
cian
s and
pol
icy-
mak
ers s
houl
d liv
e in
a w
heel
chai
r for
one
m
onth
2.
10
2.55
2.
25
1.99
2.
55
2.19
90
Impr
ove
educ
atio
n fo
r bus
ines
ses s
o th
ey u
nder
stan
d ho
w to
be
acce
ssib
le
4.43
4.
27
4.38
4.
50
4.00
4.
33
95
Mak
e fu
ndin
g ap
plic
atio
ns u
ser f
riend
ly a
nd a
cces
sible
for d
iffer
ent
need
s (e.
g. a
rts g
rant
s/co
mm
unity
/adv
ocac
y gr
ants
) 3.
90
3.82
3.
88
3.88
3.
91
3.89
100
Mak
e su
re p
eopl
e w
ith d
isabi
lity
are
not s
egre
gate
d fr
om o
ther
pat
rons
at
eve
nts
4.57
4.
73
4.63
4.
65
4.55
4.
61
103
Impr
ove
com
mun
ity u
nder
stan
ding
of d
isabi
lity
and
anti-
disc
rimin
atio
n e.
g. a
cces
sibili
ty is
for e
very
one,
disa
bilit
y is
dive
rse,
inde
pend
ence
is
key
4.57
4.
45
4.53
4.
58
4.36
4.
50
Tour
ism
3.
87
3.80
3.
85
3.85
3.
65
3.78
6
Mak
e it
easie
r to
find
info
rmat
ion
abou
t the
acc
essib
ility
of v
enue
s and
ev
ents
(e.g
. put
info
rmat
ion
on e
vent
web
sites
/Goo
gle
map
s)
4.33
4.
36
4.34
4.
39
4.73
4.
48
7 In
clud
e in
form
atio
n ab
out a
cces
sible
tour
ism o
n th
e Ci
ty o
f Mel
bour
ne
web
site
4.14
4.
45
4.25
4.
61
4.82
4.
71
8 M
ake
all t
ouris
t and
leisu
re fa
cilit
ies a
cces
sible
(e.g
. Res
taur
ant T
ram
, Ci
ty B
aths
, poo
ls an
d ot
her p
ublic
spac
es)
4.50
4.
45
4.48
3.
28
2.91
3.
10
18
Crea
te a
com
preh
ensiv
e ac
cess
ibili
ty re
sour
ce, c
urat
ed b
y Ci
ty o
f M
elbo
urne
, to
help
ens
ure
acce
ssib
ility
for e
very
one,
incl
udin
g al
tern
ativ
e op
tions
for a
cces
s in
diffe
rent
sett
ings
3.95
4.
27
4.06
4.
17
4.55
4.
35
20
Incr
ease
the
num
ber o
f City
of M
elbo
urne
vol
unte
ers o
n th
e st
reet
s 2.
86
3.00
2.
91
3.61
3.
91
3.74
34
M
ake
mor
e cl
early
-sig
npos
ted
char
ging
poi
nts f
or e
lect
ric w
heel
chai
rs
and
scoo
ters
aro
und
the
city
3.
95
3.73
3.
87
4.28
3.
73
4.13
23
Clus
ter a
nd st
atem
ent
Impo
rtan
ce
Feas
ibili
ty
Disa
bilit
y gr
oup
City
of
Mel
bour
ne
Tota
l Di
sabi
lity
grou
p Ci
ty o
f M
elbo
urne
To
tal
39
Impr
ove
acce
ssib
ility
of e
vent
boo
king
pro
cess
es (e
.g. o
nlin
e tic
ket
book
ings
) 4.
14
4.00
4.
09
4.39
4.
09
4.32
51
Mak
e al
l sea
ting
at e
vent
s acc
essib
le
3.86
3.
10
3.61
3.
11
2.64
2.
84
64
Prov
ide
supp
ort w
orke
rs a
nd p
orta
ble
equi
pmen
t for
hire
in th
e ci
ty
(e.g
. mob
ile su
ppor
ts, t
rans
fer b
oard
s, co
mm
ode
chai
r, sh
ort t
erm
bo
okin
gs o
f att
enda
nt/p
erso
nal c
are
wor
kers
)
4.29
3.
82
4.13
3.
78
3.64
3.
74
70
Impr
ove
acce
ssib
ility
of p
erso
nal g
room
ing/
styl
ing
serv
ices
(e.g
. ha
irdre
sser
s, ta
ttoo
ists)
3.
52
3.50
3.
52
3.33
2.
91
3.10
71
Prov
ide
bett
er m
obili
ty a
cces
s at e
vent
s e.g
. ens
ure
acce
ssib
le se
atin
g ha
s goo
d vi
ews,
impr
ove
tem
pora
ry st
ruct
ures
such
as r
amps
4.
43
4.18
4.
34
4.00
3.
73
3.94
75
Mor
e fr
ee W
iFi z
ones
to m
ake
navi
gatin
g th
e ci
ty e
asie
r 3.
67
3.55
3.
63
4.00
3.
45
3.87
86
M
ake
rides
acc
essib
le a
t eve
nts (
e.g.
Roy
al M
elbo
urne
Sho
w, M
oom
ba)
3.38
3.
36
3.38
2.
94
2.73
2.
87
87
Mor
e op
tions
for a
cces
sible
tour
ism (e
.g. r
ecum
bent
bik
e to
urs)
3.
90
3.36
3.
72
3.89
3.
27
3.71
Bu
ildin
gs
4.38
4.
15
4.30
4.
15
3.45
3.
90
9 Im
prov
e th
e qu
ality
and
con
siste
ncy
of A
ustr
alia
n St
anda
rds a
nd
build
ing
code
s (e.
g. in
corp
orat
e m
ore
univ
ersa
l des
ign
prin
cipl
es)
4.65
4.
36
4.55
4.
41
3.00
3.
90
13
Redu
ce c
onfli
ct o
f use
for t
oile
ts e
.g. s
epar
ate
baby
cha
nge,
don
't us
e fo
r sto
rage
, don
't us
e un
less
you
hav
e a
disa
bilit
y 4.
10
3.82
4.
00
3.94
3.
45
3.81
14
Impr
ove
polic
ing
of b
uild
ing
code
com
plia
nce
4.45
3.
82
4.23
4.
06
3.09
3.
74
15
Incl
ude
univ
ersa
l des
ign
prin
cipl
es in
legi
slatio
n 4.
80
4.18
4.
58
4.56
3.
64
4.23
16
M
ake
retr
ofitt
ing
with
uni
vers
al d
esig
n pr
inci
ples
a p
riorit
y (e
.g.
thro
ugh
the
use
of in
cent
ives
) 4.
50
4.09
4.
35
4.17
3.
36
3.90
19
Whe
n de
signi
ng n
ew b
uild
ings
, mak
e su
re p
eopl
e al
way
s con
sider
the
Disa
bilit
y Di
scrim
inat
ion
Act f
rom
the
star
t 4.
76
4.55
4.
69
4.56
4.
00
4.32
27
Mak
e bu
ildin
gs m
ore
acce
ssib
le
4.81
4.
64
4.75
3.
89
3.55
3.
74
31
Impr
ove
emer
genc
y ev
acua
tion
proc
edur
es fo
r peo
ple
with
disa
bilit
y 4.
57
4.36
4.
50
4.11
4.
00
4.13
43
In
clud
e un
iver
sal d
esig
n pr
inci
ples
in p
lann
ing
sche
mes
and
pla
nnin
g po
licy
4.89
4.
36
4.70
4.
50
3.18
4.
03
62
Revi
ew w
hat p
erm
its a
re a
lloca
ted
on th
e st
reet
s (e.
g. b
uske
rs, c
afes
, ac
tiviti
es th
at g
ener
ate
crow
ds)
3.48
3.
64
3.53
4.
12
3.91
4.
07
Clus
ter a
nd st
atem
ent
Impo
rtan
ce
Feas
ibili
ty
Disa
bilit
y gr
oup
City
of
Mel
bour
ne
Tota
l Di
sabi
lity
grou
p Ci
ty o
f M
elbo
urne
To
tal
79
Impr
ove
acce
ssib
le to
ilet s
tand
ards
, inc
ludi
ng to
ilet h
eigh
ts a
nd to
ilet
roll
hold
er p
lace
men
t?
4.05
4.
09
4.06
4.
33
3.45
4.
03
102
Mak
e m
ore
acce
ssib
le h
ousin
g an
d ap
artm
ents
(e.g
. with
key
room
s on
grou
nd fl
oor)
4.
48
4.36
4.
44
3.72
2.
82
3.35
104
Impr
ove
way
s of c
onta
ctin
g bu
ildin
g ow
ners
(e.g
. but
tons
on
the
fron
t of
bui
ldin
gs)
3.86
3.
82
3.84
3.
67
3.73
3.
68
105
Crea
te st
rong
er re
quire
men
ts fo
r acc
essib
ility
with
in sh
ops (
e.g.
redu
ce
the
use
of st
eps)
4.
43
4.00
4.
28
3.94
3.
18
3.68
Law
and
Pol
icy
4.24
4.
03
4.17
4.
20
3.74
4.
04
17
Impr
ove
disa
bilit
y sig
nage
to te
ach
the
publ
ic a
bout
the
dive
rsity
of
disa
bilit
y (in
clud
ing
invi
sible
disa
bilit
y)
3.65
4.
00
3.77
3.
55
4.09
3.
75
44
Intr
oduc
e a
syst
em to
ass
ess D
isabi
lity
Disc
rimin
atio
n Ac
t com
plia
nce
4.80
4.
09
4.55
4.
77
4.10
4.
55
45
Alw
ays c
onsu
lt pe
ople
with
disa
bilit
y be
fore
pla
nnin
g th
ings
for p
eopl
e w
ith d
isabi
lity
('not
hing
abo
ut u
s with
out u
s')
4.90
4.
80
4.87
4.
88
5.00
4.
92
50
Teac
h ca
rpen
ters
abo
ut th
e Di
sabi
lity
Disc
rimin
atio
n Ac
t 3.
48
2.82
3.
25
3.43
2.
91
3.24
56
Re
gula
rly u
pdat
e le
gisla
tion
and
stan
dard
s to
keep
up
with
new
te
chno
logy
(e.g
. lar
ger,
elec
tric
whe
elch
airs
) 4.
19
4.45
4.
28
4.20
4.
45
4.29
73
Empl
oy st
aff w
ho a
re d
edic
ated
to e
nsur
ing
univ
ersa
l bui
ldin
g de
sign
4.55
3.
64
4.23
4.
52
3.60
4.
21
78
Impr
ove
cons
truc
tion
wor
kers
' aw
aren
ess o
f disa
bilit
y (e
.g. w
heel
chai
r et
ique
tte,
not
par
king
in a
cces
sible
par
king
spot
s)
3.86
3.
82
3.84
3.
93
3.73
3.
86
82
Mak
e it
easie
r to
repo
rt a
cces
sibili
ty is
sues
4.
48
4.36
4.
44
4.46
4.
18
4.36
88
M
ake
acce
ssib
ility
the
norm
acr
oss a
ll le
vels
of g
over
nmen
t 4.
57
4.36
4.
50
4.52
4.
55
4.53
Clus
ter a
nd st
atem
ent
Impo
rtan
ce
Feas
ibili
ty
Disa
bilit
y gr
oup
City
of
Mel
bour
ne
Tota
l Di
sabi
lity
grou
p Ci
ty o
f M
elbo
urne
To
tal
79
Impr
ove
acce
ssib
le to
ilet s
tand
ards
, inc
ludi
ng to
ilet h
eigh
ts a
nd to
ilet
roll
hold
er p
lace
men
t?
4.05
4.
09
4.06
4.
33
3.45
4.
03
102
Mak
e m
ore
acce
ssib
le h
ousin
g an
d ap
artm
ents
(e.g
. with
key
room
s on
grou
nd fl
oor)
4.
48
4.36
4.
44
3.72
2.
82
3.35
104
Impr
ove
way
s of c
onta
ctin
g bu
ildin
g ow
ners
(e.g
. but
tons
on
the
fron
t of
bui
ldin
gs)
3.86
3.
82
3.84
3.
67
3.73
3.
68
105
Crea
te st
rong
er re
quire
men
ts fo
r acc
essib
ility
with
in sh
ops (
e.g.
redu
ce
the
use
of st
eps)
4.
43
4.00
4.
28
3.94
3.
18
3.68
Law
and
Pol
icy
4.24
4.
03
4.17
4.
20
3.74
4.
04
17
Impr
ove
disa
bilit
y sig
nage
to te
ach
the
publ
ic a
bout
the
dive
rsity
of
disa
bilit
y (in
clud
ing
invi
sible
disa
bilit
y)
3.65
4.
00
3.77
3.
55
4.09
3.
75
44
Intr
oduc
e a
syst
em to
ass
ess D
isabi
lity
Disc
rimin
atio
n Ac
t com
plia
nce
4.80
4.
09
4.55
4.
77
4.10
4.
55
45
Alw
ays c
onsu
lt pe
ople
with
disa
bilit
y be
fore
pla
nnin
g th
ings
for p
eopl
e w
ith d
isabi
lity
('not
hing
abo
ut u
s with
out u
s')
4.90
4.
80
4.87
4.
88
5.00
4.
92
50
Teac
h ca
rpen
ters
abo
ut th
e Di
sabi
lity
Disc
rimin
atio
n Ac
t 3.
48
2.82
3.
25
3.43
2.
91
3.24
56
Re
gula
rly u
pdat
e le
gisla
tion
and
stan
dard
s to
keep
up
with
new
te
chno
logy
(e.g
. lar
ger,
elec
tric
whe
elch
airs
) 4.
19
4.45
4.
28
4.20
4.
45
4.29
73
Empl
oy st
aff w
ho a
re d
edic
ated
to e
nsur
ing
univ
ersa
l bui
ldin
g de
sign
4.55
3.
64
4.23
4.
52
3.60
4.
21
78
Impr
ove
cons
truc
tion
wor
kers
' aw
aren
ess o
f disa
bilit
y (e
.g. w
heel
chai
r et
ique
tte,
not
par
king
in a
cces
sible
par
king
spot
s)
3.86
3.
82
3.84
3.
93
3.73
3.
86
82
Mak
e it
easie
r to
repo
rt a
cces
sibili
ty is
sues
4.
48
4.36
4.
44
4.46
4.
18
4.36
88
M
ake
acce
ssib
ility
the
norm
acr
oss a
ll le
vels
of g
over
nmen
t 4.
57
4.36
4.
50
4.52
4.
55
4.53
25
Tabl
e A2
. Ide
as o
n ho
w to
mak
e th
e Ci
ty o
f Mel
bour
ne m
ore
incl
usiv
e fo
r peo
ple
with
sens
ory
disa
bilit
y, in
clud
ing
impo
rtan
ce a
nd fe
asib
ility
ratin
gs fo
r eac
h id
ea w
ithin
th
emes
by
peop
le w
ith d
isabi
lity,
disa
bilit
y ad
voca
tes,
and
aca
dem
ics (
disa
bilit
y gr
oup)
, and
City
of M
elbo
urne
staf
f.
Clus
ter a
nd st
atem
ent
Impo
rtan
ce
Feas
ibili
ty
Disa
bilit
y gr
oup
City
of
Mel
bour
ne
Tota
l Di
sabi
lity
grou
p Ci
ty o
f M
elbo
urne
To
tal
SEN
SORY
DIS
ABIL
ITY
Reas
onab
le a
djus
tmen
ts
4.16
4.
01
4.08
3.
97
3.76
3.
85
2 Pr
ovid
e au
dio
desc
riptio
ns fo
r visu
al e
nter
tain
men
t e.g
. film
s, sp
orts
ev
ents
, tel
evisi
on
4.10
3.
69
3.87
3.
90
3.69
3.
78
3 M
ake
the
City
of M
elbo
urne
web
site
mor
e ac
cess
ible
(e.g
. im
age
desc
riptio
ns, a
udio
read
er, A
usla
n vi
deos
) 4.
40
4.38
4.
39
4.60
4.
77
4.70
6 En
sure
gov
ernm
ent f
orm
s are
acc
essib
le, s
ucci
nct a
nd e
asie
r to
fill o
ut
4.70
4.
31
4.48
4.
60
4.23
4.
39
7 M
ake
it ea
sier t
o re
port
acc
essib
ility
issu
es (e
.g. v
ia S
MS)
4.
20
4.15
4.
17
4.33
4.
38
4.36
8
Prov
ide
bett
er d
isabi
lity
acce
ss e
duca
tion
to c
onst
ruct
ion
staf
f 4.
20
3.85
4.
00
4.00
4.
00
4.00
9
Prov
ide
bett
er c
omm
unic
atio
n ab
out a
cces
sible
ven
ues a
nd
perf
orm
ance
s (e.
g. d
ownl
oada
ble
acce
ss g
uide
s)
4.40
3.
92
4.13
4.
50
4.00
4.
22
10
Assig
n pe
ople
to h
elp
fill i
n go
vern
men
t for
ms
3.80
3.
33
3.55
3.
60
3.23
3.
39
14
Prov
ide
live
capt
ions
for s
peak
ers a
t all
conf
eren
ces
4.10
3.
62
3.83
4.
20
3.75
3.
95
22
Advo
cate
to th
e St
ate
Gove
rnm
ent o
n th
e ne
eds o
f peo
ple
with
di
sabi
lity
in fu
ture
traf
fic m
odel
ling
4.90
4.
31
4.57
4.
50
4.23
4.
35
27
Prov
ide
mor
e su
ppor
t for
org
anisa
tions
to e
mpl
oy p
eopl
e w
ith d
isabi
lity
4.30
4.
00
4.13
4.
10
3.38
3.
70
36
Cons
ult p
eopl
e w
ith d
isabi
litie
s in
the
initi
al p
lann
ing
stag
es o
f new
pr
ojec
ts
5.00
4.
85
4.91
4.
80
4.77
4.
78
44
Incr
ease
the
num
ber o
f City
of M
elbo
urne
vol
unte
ers o
n th
e st
reet
s 3.
40
3.62
3.
52
4.00
3.
77
3.87
46
Im
prov
e w
ays o
f con
tact
ing
build
ing
owne
rs a
nd b
uild
ing
secu
rity
(e.g
. SM
S nu
mbe
r or b
utto
n in
side
elev
ator
s and
at t
he b
uild
ing
entr
ance
) 4.
30
3.77
4.
00
3.20
3.
00
3.09
49
Impr
ove
com
mun
icat
ion
abou
t con
stru
ctio
n w
ork
(e.g
. aud
io w
arni
ngs,
be
tter
bar
riers
, onl
ine
war
ning
s, re
al ti
me
upda
tes)
4.
00
3.77
3.
87
3.60
3.
54
3.57
53
Incr
ease
fund
ing
for A
usla
n in
terp
rete
rs to
supp
ort p
eopl
e ac
cess
ing
publ
ic h
ousin
g 4.
00
3.92
3.
96
3.60
3.
62
3.61
54
Mak
e fu
ndin
g ap
plic
atio
ns u
ser f
riend
ly a
nd a
cces
sible
for d
iffer
ent
need
s (e.
g. a
rts,
com
mun
ity a
nd a
dvoc
acy
gran
ts)
3.50
4.
23
3.91
4.
30
4.23
4.
26
Clus
ter a
nd st
atem
ent
Impo
rtan
ce
Feas
ibili
ty
Disa
bilit
y gr
oup
City
of
Mel
bour
ne
Tota
l Di
sabi
lity
grou
p Ci
ty o
f M
elbo
urne
To
tal
57
Impr
ove
com
mun
ity a
war
enes
s of d
isabi
lity
(incl
udin
g di
vers
e co
mm
unic
atio
n m
etho
ds, A
usla
n, u
se o
f gui
de d
ogs o
r can
es)
4.60
4.
08
4.30
4.
50
3.85
4.
13
60
Put m
ore
info
rmat
ion
abou
t acc
essib
ility
on
the
City
of M
elbo
urne
w
ebsit
e 3.
80
4.38
4.
13
4.40
4.
38
4.39
61
War
n pe
ople
in a
dvan
ce if
ther
e ar
e sp
ecifi
c ac
cess
issu
es a
t eve
nts
(e.g
. low
ligh
t) 4.
00
3.92
3.
96
3.90
4.
15
4.04
64
Ensu
re e
duca
tiona
l sup
port
s mee
t ind
ivid
ual n
eeds
3.
90
4.00
3.
96
3.00
3.
08
3.05
67
Im
prov
e se
rvic
e an
d se
curit
y st
aff a
war
enes
s of d
isabi
lity
(e.g
. pub
lic
hous
ing
staf
f, ga
llery
/eve
nt st
aff,
shop
ass
istan
ts, r
esta
uran
t ow
ners
) 4.
60
4.23
4.
39
4.40
3.
77
4.04
70
Incr
ease
fund
ing
for p
ublic
hou
sing
4.40
4.
23
4.30
3.
56
2.62
3.
00
71
Ensu
re n
on-d
isabl
ed p
eopl
e do
not
use
acc
essib
le b
athr
oom
s e.g
. run
an
edu
catio
n ca
mpa
ign
3.10
2.
85
2.96
2.
60
2.46
2.
52
73
Ensu
re th
at th
e Ci
ty o
f Mel
bour
ne is
a v
isibl
y in
clus
ive
orga
nisa
tion
(e.g
. pu
blic
supp
ort f
or p
eopl
e w
ith d
isabi
litie
s, st
aff r
ecei
ve h
igh-
qual
ity
disa
bilit
y tr
aini
ng)
4.78
4.
23
4.45
4.
50
4.23
4.
35
75
Prov
ide
assis
tanc
e to
hel
p pe
ople
with
disa
bilit
y fin
d w
ork
4.33
4.
00
4.14
3.
80
3.54
3.
65
79
Prov
ide
trai
ning
that
take
s int
o ac
coun
t Abo
rigin
al c
omm
unity
pe
rspe
ctiv
es o
n di
sabi
lity
3.90
4.
38
4.17
3.
90
4.08
4.
00
80
Prov
ide
bett
er c
aptio
ns a
t cin
emas
(on-
scre
en c
aptio
ns a
nd la
rger
text
siz
e)
3.70
3.
62
3.65
3.
80
3.54
3.
65
91
Crea
te c
ompu
lsory
disa
bilit
y em
ploy
men
t quo
tas
4.00
4.
15
4.09
3.
70
3.31
3.
48
93
Incr
ease
var
iety
of j
ob o
ppor
tuni
ties f
or p
eopl
e w
ith d
isabi
lity
(e.g
. cr
eativ
e jo
bs)
4.40
4.
38
4.39
3.
20
3.46
3.
35
Publ
ic a
men
ity
3.64
3.
72
3.69
3.
07
3.10
3.
09
1 Re
mov
e al
l str
eet k
erbs
2.
40
2.31
2.
35
1.60
1.
77
1.70
5
Redu
ce c
onfli
ct o
n fo
otpa
ths s
o pe
ople
don
't cr
eate
haz
ards
or b
lock
fo
otpa
ths a
nd b
raill
e tr
ails
(e.g
. caf
es, b
uske
rs, p
eopl
e lo
okin
g do
wn
at
thei
r pho
nes)
4.20
3.
77
3.96
3.
40
2.92
3.
13
12
Redu
ce c
lutt
er o
n fo
otpa
ths (
e.g.
hav
e de
fined
bou
ndar
ies a
roun
d ou
tdoo
r fea
ture
s and
sign
age)
3.
80
3.92
3.
87
3.30
3.
08
3.17
16
Redu
ce c
ircul
ar p
illar
s in
publ
ic sp
aces
2.
70
3.00
2.
87
2.10
2.
46
2.30
18
M
ake
all t
ouris
t and
leisu
re fa
cilit
ies a
cces
sible
, e.g
. Res
taur
ant T
ram
, Ci
ty B
aths
, poo
ls an
d ot
her p
ublic
spac
es
3.70
4.
15
3.96
2.
30
3.00
2.
70
Clus
ter a
nd st
atem
ent
Impo
rtan
ce
Feas
ibili
ty
Disa
bilit
y gr
oup
City
of
Mel
bour
ne
Tota
l Di
sabi
lity
grou
p Ci
ty o
f M
elbo
urne
To
tal
57
Impr
ove
com
mun
ity a
war
enes
s of d
isabi
lity
(incl
udin
g di
vers
e co
mm
unic
atio
n m
etho
ds, A
usla
n, u
se o
f gui
de d
ogs o
r can
es)
4.60
4.
08
4.30
4.
50
3.85
4.
13
60
Put m
ore
info
rmat
ion
abou
t acc
essib
ility
on
the
City
of M
elbo
urne
w
ebsit
e 3.
80
4.38
4.
13
4.40
4.
38
4.39
61
War
n pe
ople
in a
dvan
ce if
ther
e ar
e sp
ecifi
c ac
cess
issu
es a
t eve
nts
(e.g
. low
ligh
t) 4.
00
3.92
3.
96
3.90
4.
15
4.04
64
Ensu
re e
duca
tiona
l sup
port
s mee
t ind
ivid
ual n
eeds
3.
90
4.00
3.
96
3.00
3.
08
3.05
67
Im
prov
e se
rvic
e an
d se
curit
y st
aff a
war
enes
s of d
isabi
lity
(e.g
. pub
lic
hous
ing
staf
f, ga
llery
/eve
nt st
aff,
shop
ass
istan
ts, r
esta
uran
t ow
ners
) 4.
60
4.23
4.
39
4.40
3.
77
4.04
70
Incr
ease
fund
ing
for p
ublic
hou
sing
4.40
4.
23
4.30
3.
56
2.62
3.
00
71
Ensu
re n
on-d
isabl
ed p
eopl
e do
not
use
acc
essib
le b
athr
oom
s e.g
. run
an
edu
catio
n ca
mpa
ign
3.10
2.
85
2.96
2.
60
2.46
2.
52
73
Ensu
re th
at th
e Ci
ty o
f Mel
bour
ne is
a v
isibl
y in
clus
ive
orga
nisa
tion
(e.g
. pu
blic
supp
ort f
or p
eopl
e w
ith d
isabi
litie
s, st
aff r
ecei
ve h
igh-
qual
ity
disa
bilit
y tr
aini
ng)
4.78
4.
23
4.45
4.
50
4.23
4.
35
75
Prov
ide
assis
tanc
e to
hel
p pe
ople
with
disa
bilit
y fin
d w
ork
4.33
4.
00
4.14
3.
80
3.54
3.
65
79
Prov
ide
trai
ning
that
take
s int
o ac
coun
t Abo
rigin
al c
omm
unity
pe
rspe
ctiv
es o
n di
sabi
lity
3.90
4.
38
4.17
3.
90
4.08
4.
00
80
Prov
ide
bett
er c
aptio
ns a
t cin
emas
(on-
scre
en c
aptio
ns a
nd la
rger
text
siz
e)
3.70
3.
62
3.65
3.
80
3.54
3.
65
91
Crea
te c
ompu
lsory
disa
bilit
y em
ploy
men
t quo
tas
4.00
4.
15
4.09
3.
70
3.31
3.
48
93
Incr
ease
var
iety
of j
ob o
ppor
tuni
ties f
or p
eopl
e w
ith d
isabi
lity
(e.g
. cr
eativ
e jo
bs)
4.40
4.
38
4.39
3.
20
3.46
3.
35
Publ
ic a
men
ity
3.64
3.
72
3.69
3.
07
3.10
3.
09
1 Re
mov
e al
l str
eet k
erbs
2.
40
2.31
2.
35
1.60
1.
77
1.70
5
Redu
ce c
onfli
ct o
n fo
otpa
ths s
o pe
ople
don
't cr
eate
haz
ards
or b
lock
fo
otpa
ths a
nd b
raill
e tr
ails
(e.g
. caf
es, b
uske
rs, p
eopl
e lo
okin
g do
wn
at
thei
r pho
nes)
4.20
3.
77
3.96
3.
40
2.92
3.
13
12
Redu
ce c
lutt
er o
n fo
otpa
ths (
e.g.
hav
e de
fined
bou
ndar
ies a
roun
d ou
tdoo
r fea
ture
s and
sign
age)
3.
80
3.92
3.
87
3.30
3.
08
3.17
16
Redu
ce c
ircul
ar p
illar
s in
publ
ic sp
aces
2.
70
3.00
2.
87
2.10
2.
46
2.30
18
M
ake
all t
ouris
t and
leisu
re fa
cilit
ies a
cces
sible
, e.g
. Res
taur
ant T
ram
, Ci
ty B
aths
, poo
ls an
d ot
her p
ublic
spac
es
3.70
4.
15
3.96
2.
30
3.00
2.
70
27
Clus
ter a
nd st
atem
ent
Impo
rtan
ce
Feas
ibili
ty
Disa
bilit
y gr
oup
City
of
Mel
bour
ne
Tota
l Di
sabi
lity
grou
p Ci
ty o
f M
elbo
urne
To
tal
21
Impr
ove
the
smel
l of t
oile
ts
2.80
2.
82
2.81
2.
40
2.92
2.
70
26
Incr
ease
spac
e on
nar
row
lane
way
s 3.
10
3.08
3.
09
2.30
2.
00
2.13
28
En
sure
con
siste
nt d
esig
n an
d pl
acem
ent o
f acc
ess r
amps
and
stre
et
cros
sings
. 3.
80
3.77
3.
78
3.40
3.
46
3.43
29
Impr
ove
the
smel
l of p
ublic
spac
es
2.30
2.
77
2.57
2.
20
2.54
2.
39
31
All t
oile
ts sh
ould
be
acce
ssib
le to
eve
ryon
e 3.
80
4.54
4.
22
3.10
3.
54
3.35
35
En
sure
com
plia
nce
with
bui
ldin
g co
des i
n te
rms o
f acc
essib
ility
4.
70
4.23
4.
43
4.30
3.
77
4.00
37
Im
prov
e sa
fety
at c
onst
ruct
ion
sites
(e.g
. tac
tile
indi
cato
rs, p
edes
tria
n di
vers
ions
aw
ay fr
om tr
affic
) 4.
40
4.33
4.
36
3.90
3.
92
3.91
45
Ensu
re sa
fe a
nd fu
nctio
ning
ele
vato
rs a
re a
vaila
ble
in p
ublic
spac
es
4.00
3.
69
3.82
3.
50
2.92
3.
17
51
Ensu
re th
at T
actil
e Gr
ound
Sur
face
Indi
cato
rs /
Brai
lle tr
ails
do n
ot
conf
lict w
ith w
heel
chai
r use
rs
3.90
3.
62
3.74
3.
50
3.46
3.
48
56
Mak
e bu
sy c
ity st
reet
s cle
aner
2.
90
2.77
2.
83
2.80
2.
85
2.83
59
En
sure
ther
e ar
e no
'blin
d sp
ots'
arou
nd b
uild
ing
corn
ers
3.20
3.
08
3.13
2.
60
2.23
2.
39
66
Prov
ide
alte
rnat
ive
acce
ss o
ptio
ns fo
r pub
lic a
rt a
nd h
istor
ical
ven
ues
(e.g
. rep
licas
that
peo
ple
can
touc
h, B
raill
e in
form
atio
n bo
ards
, aud
io
desc
riptio
ns)
3.70
4.
23
4.00
3.
30
3.38
3.
35
69
Incr
ease
qui
et sp
aces
(e.g
. qui
et se
atin
g) o
n ci
ty st
reet
s 3.
60
3.69
3.
65
3.10
3.
15
3.13
78
En
sure
bui
ldin
g st
anda
rds a
nd p
lann
ing
law
s are
con
siste
nt a
nd re
flect
be
st p
ract
ice
in a
cces
sibili
ty
4.70
4.
46
4.57
4.
10
3.85
3.
96
82
Incr
ease
ligh
ting
at a
rt g
alle
ries,
or a
llow
per
sona
l lig
htin
g (e
.g. t
orch
es)
for p
eopl
e w
ith v
ision
impa
irmen
t 3.
30
3.69
3.
52
3.40
3.
85
3.65
84
Ensu
re st
reet
and
road
surf
aces
are
smoo
th a
nd w
ithou
t trip
ping
ha
zard
s 4.
30
4.15
4.
22
3.20
2.
85
3.00
88
Mak
e re
stau
rant
s mor
e ac
cess
ible
(e.g
. bet
ter l
ight
ing,
Bra
ille
men
us)
3.50
3.
69
3.61
2.
70
3.15
2.
96
94
Impr
ove
acce
ss a
t eve
nts (
e.g.
pro
vide
inte
rpre
ters
and
hig
h-qu
ality
ac
cess
ible
seat
ing)
4.
40
4.25
4.
32
3.70
3.
77
3.74
95
Mak
e m
ore
acce
ssib
le a
part
men
ts
3.90
4.
31
4.13
2.
90
3.15
3.
04
96
Have
mor
e ac
cess
ible
bat
hroo
ms i
n th
e ci
ty
4.00
4.
62
4.35
3.
60
3.54
3.
57
Nav
igat
ion
3.
83
3.85
3.
84
3.69
3.
44
3.55
Clus
ter a
nd st
atem
ent
Impo
rtan
ce
Feas
ibili
ty
Disa
bilit
y gr
oup
City
of
Mel
bour
ne
Tota
l Di
sabi
lity
grou
p Ci
ty o
f M
elbo
urne
To
tal
4 Ad
d au
dio
spea
kers
telli
ng p
eopl
e w
hat s
tree
t the
y're
on
3.40
3.
08
3.22
2.
80
3.08
2.
96
13
Mak
e su
re v
isual
and
aud
io a
nnou
ncem
ents
are
cle
ar a
nd a
ccur
ate
4.50
4.
38
4.43
4.
60
3.77
4.
13
17
Crea
te a
n in
tera
ctiv
e m
obili
ty m
ap to
ale
rt p
eopl
e if
elev
ator
s are
n't
wor
king
3.
20
3.77
3.
52
3.10
3.
23
3.17
19
Mor
e fr
ee W
ifi zo
nes t
o m
ake
navi
gatin
g th
e ci
ty e
asie
r 3.
50
4.00
3.
78
4.00
3.
77
3.87
23
Pr
ovid
e la
rge
prin
t sig
nage
at k
ey lo
catio
ns (e
.g. t
rain
stat
ions
, str
eet
corn
ers)
4.
50
4.08
4.
27
4.30
3.
77
4.00
24
Prov
ide
tact
ile si
gns a
t ped
estr
ian
cros
sings
show
ing
the
num
ber o
f tr
affic
lane
s and
the
dire
ctio
n of
traf
fic
4.20
3.
85
4.00
3.
40
3.69
3.
57
25
Allo
w m
ore
time
to c
ross
the
road
(e.g
. an
app
that
can
influ
ence
the
traf
fic li
ghts
to h
elp
peop
le c
ross
the
road
in ti
me)
4.
40
4.15
4.
26
3.60
3.
46
3.52
30
Free
Ube
r ser
vice
in th
e ci
ty fo
r peo
ple
with
disa
bilit
y 2.
40
2.77
2.
61
2.00
2.
08
2.04
34
Pr
ovid
e on
line
and
on-s
ite 3
D m
aps f
or k
ey a
reas
(e.g
. tra
in st
atio
ns)
with
bra
ille,
larg
e pr
int a
nd a
udio
opt
ions
3.
90
4.15
4.
04
3.70
3.
38
3.52
40
Add
cont
rast
to d
iffer
ent t
ypes
of s
urfa
ces (
e.g.
tact
ile a
nd v
isual
) 4.
22
3.77
3.
95
3.70
3.
54
3.61
41
De
velo
p as
sistiv
e so
ftw
are
that
show
s loc
atio
n of
serv
ice
prov
ider
s, pu
blic
tran
spor
t and
nav
igat
iona
l haz
ards
(e.g
. bol
lard
s and
stre
et
furn
iture
)
3.70
4.
00
3.87
3.
60
3.62
3.
61
42
Impr
ove
way
-find
ing
acro
ss th
e ci
ty (e
.g. m
ore
Brai
lle tr
ails
and
tact
ile
path
s, c
lear
pat
hs o
f tra
vel a
long
bui
ldin
g lin
es)
4.30
3.
92
4.09
4.
10
3.92
4.
00
48
Ensu
re c
orre
ct B
raill
e is
avai
labl
e at
key
loca
tions
(e.g
. ele
vato
r but
tons
, tr
ain
stat
ions
, str
eet c
orne
rs)
4.70
3.
85
4.22
4.
00
3.77
3.
87
52
Use
tact
ile in
dica
tors
to sh
ow w
here
to fi
nd se
ats
3.50
3.
23
3.35
3.
30
3.38
3.
35
55
Incr
ease
the
num
ber o
f Tra
velle
rs' A
id lo
catio
ns
3.10
3.
38
3.26
3.
30
3.15
3.
22
63
Incl
ude
mob
ility
info
rmat
ion
on a
ll m
aps (
e.g.
maj
or e
vent
map
s, Go
ogle
map
s)
4.30
4.
00
4.13
4.
10
3.77
3.
91
68
Impr
ove
the
cons
isten
cy a
nd q
ualit
y of
sign
age
(e.g
out
side
build
ings
, on
con
stru
ctio
n sit
es a
nd p
ublic
tran
spor
t) 3.
70
4.08
3.
91
4.00
3.
62
3.78
72
Impr
ove
loca
tions
for a
cces
sible
par
king
3.
60
3.69
3.
65
3.40
3.
00
3.17
77
De
dica
ted
disa
bilit
y ta
xi c
olle
ctio
n sp
ot fo
r pic
k up
and
dro
p of
fs
3.70
4.
08
3.91
3.
78
2.92
3.
27
81
Incr
ease
the
use
of b
luet
ooth
bea
cons
in p
ublic
spac
es a
nd b
uild
ings
3.
20
3.77
3.
52
3.80
3.
31
3.52
85
En
sure
onl
ine
info
rmat
ion
(incl
udin
g m
aps)
refle
ct th
e co
nsta
nt c
hang
es
in th
e ci
ty
3.67
4.
15
3.95
4.
00
3.77
3.
87
Clus
ter a
nd st
atem
ent
Impo
rtan
ce
Feas
ibili
ty
Disa
bilit
y gr
oup
City
of
Mel
bour
ne
Tota
l Di
sabi
lity
grou
p Ci
ty o
f M
elbo
urne
To
tal
4 Ad
d au
dio
spea
kers
telli
ng p
eopl
e w
hat s
tree
t the
y're
on
3.40
3.
08
3.22
2.
80
3.08
2.
96
13
Mak
e su
re v
isual
and
aud
io a
nnou
ncem
ents
are
cle
ar a
nd a
ccur
ate
4.50
4.
38
4.43
4.
60
3.77
4.
13
17
Crea
te a
n in
tera
ctiv
e m
obili
ty m
ap to
ale
rt p
eopl
e if
elev
ator
s are
n't
wor
king
3.
20
3.77
3.
52
3.10
3.
23
3.17
19
Mor
e fr
ee W
ifi zo
nes t
o m
ake
navi
gatin
g th
e ci
ty e
asie
r 3.
50
4.00
3.
78
4.00
3.
77
3.87
23
Pr
ovid
e la
rge
prin
t sig
nage
at k
ey lo
catio
ns (e
.g. t
rain
stat
ions
, str
eet
corn
ers)
4.
50
4.08
4.
27
4.30
3.
77
4.00
24
Prov
ide
tact
ile si
gns a
t ped
estr
ian
cros
sings
show
ing
the
num
ber o
f tr
affic
lane
s and
the
dire
ctio
n of
traf
fic
4.20
3.
85
4.00
3.
40
3.69
3.
57
25
Allo
w m
ore
time
to c
ross
the
road
(e.g
. an
app
that
can
influ
ence
the
traf
fic li
ghts
to h
elp
peop
le c
ross
the
road
in ti
me)
4.
40
4.15
4.
26
3.60
3.
46
3.52
30
Free
Ube
r ser
vice
in th
e ci
ty fo
r peo
ple
with
disa
bilit
y 2.
40
2.77
2.
61
2.00
2.
08
2.04
34
Pr
ovid
e on
line
and
on-s
ite 3
D m
aps f
or k
ey a
reas
(e.g
. tra
in st
atio
ns)
with
bra
ille,
larg
e pr
int a
nd a
udio
opt
ions
3.
90
4.15
4.
04
3.70
3.
38
3.52
40
Add
cont
rast
to d
iffer
ent t
ypes
of s
urfa
ces (
e.g.
tact
ile a
nd v
isual
) 4.
22
3.77
3.
95
3.70
3.
54
3.61
41
De
velo
p as
sistiv
e so
ftw
are
that
show
s loc
atio
n of
serv
ice
prov
ider
s, pu
blic
tran
spor
t and
nav
igat
iona
l haz
ards
(e.g
. bol
lard
s and
stre
et
furn
iture
)
3.70
4.
00
3.87
3.
60
3.62
3.
61
42
Impr
ove
way
-find
ing
acro
ss th
e ci
ty (e
.g. m
ore
Brai
lle tr
ails
and
tact
ile
path
s, c
lear
pat
hs o
f tra
vel a
long
bui
ldin
g lin
es)
4.30
3.
92
4.09
4.
10
3.92
4.
00
48
Ensu
re c
orre
ct B
raill
e is
avai
labl
e at
key
loca
tions
(e.g
. ele
vato
r but
tons
, tr
ain
stat
ions
, str
eet c
orne
rs)
4.70
3.
85
4.22
4.
00
3.77
3.
87
52
Use
tact
ile in
dica
tors
to sh
ow w
here
to fi
nd se
ats
3.50
3.
23
3.35
3.
30
3.38
3.
35
55
Incr
ease
the
num
ber o
f Tra
velle
rs' A
id lo
catio
ns
3.10
3.
38
3.26
3.
30
3.15
3.
22
63
Incl
ude
mob
ility
info
rmat
ion
on a
ll m
aps (
e.g.
maj
or e
vent
map
s, Go
ogle
map
s)
4.30
4.
00
4.13
4.
10
3.77
3.
91
68
Impr
ove
the
cons
isten
cy a
nd q
ualit
y of
sign
age
(e.g
out
side
build
ings
, on
con
stru
ctio
n sit
es a
nd p
ublic
tran
spor
t) 3.
70
4.08
3.
91
4.00
3.
62
3.78
72
Impr
ove
loca
tions
for a
cces
sible
par
king
3.
60
3.69
3.
65
3.40
3.
00
3.17
77
De
dica
ted
disa
bilit
y ta
xi c
olle
ctio
n sp
ot fo
r pic
k up
and
dro
p of
fs
3.70
4.
08
3.91
3.
78
2.92
3.
27
81
Incr
ease
the
use
of b
luet
ooth
bea
cons
in p
ublic
spac
es a
nd b
uild
ings
3.
20
3.77
3.
52
3.80
3.
31
3.52
85
En
sure
onl
ine
info
rmat
ion
(incl
udin
g m
aps)
refle
ct th
e co
nsta
nt c
hang
es
in th
e ci
ty
3.67
4.
15
3.95
4.
00
3.77
3.
87
29
Clus
ter a
nd st
atem
ent
Impo
rtan
ce
Feas
ibili
ty
Disa
bilit
y gr
oup
City
of
Mel
bour
ne
Tota
l Di
sabi
lity
grou
p Ci
ty o
f M
elbo
urne
To
tal
87
Ensu
re a
cces
sible
par
king
spac
es d
o no
t bec
ome
clea
rway
s 3.
30
3.92
3.
65
3.70
3.
15
3.39
89
Im
prov
e co
mm
unic
atio
n ab
out h
azar
ds a
nd e
mer
genc
ies,
thro
ugh
dive
rse
met
hods
(e.g
. SM
S an
d vi
sual
com
mun
icat
ion)
4.
30
4.31
4.
30
4.20
3.
62
3.87
92
Ensu
re lo
catio
n in
form
atio
n is
acce
ssib
le fo
r peo
ple
with
visi
on
impa
irmen
ts
4.60
4.
08
4.30
4.
20
3.69
3.
91
Publ
ic tr
ansp
ort
3.92
4.
05
3.99
3.
67
3.39
3.
51
11
Prov
ide
mor
e ac
cess
ible
low
-floo
r tra
ms
4.30
4.
08
4.17
3.
80
3.15
3.
43
15
Prov
ide
mor
e tr
ansp
ort s
taff
that
can
ass
ist p
eopl
e at
stat
ions
(e.g
. hel
p w
ith fi
ndin
g ac
cess
ible
faci
litie
s, c
omm
unic
atin
g an
noun
cem
ents
) 4.
20
4.00
4.
09
4.00
3.
69
3.83
20
Exte
nd th
e fr
ee tr
am zo
ne
2.80
3.
92
3.43
3.
80
3.54
3.
65
32
Incr
ease
the
num
ber o
f acc
essib
le p
ublic
tran
spor
t sto
ps
4.10
4.
69
4.43
3.
60
3.38
3.
48
33
Impr
ove
tran
spor
t acc
essib
ility
in re
gion
al V
icto
ria
4.00
4.
23
4.13
3.
60
3.15
3.
35
38
Prov
ide
bett
er in
form
atio
n on
acc
essib
le jo
urne
ys a
nd st
ops,
incl
udin
g la
st a
cces
sible
stop
and
alte
rnat
ives
4.
50
4.23
4.
35
4.50
3.
85
4.13
39
Impr
ove
visu
al d
ispla
ys o
n pu
blic
tran
spor
t veh
icle
s and
at
stat
ions
/sto
ps (e
.g. b
right
ly li
t, va
riety
of c
olou
rs a
nd si
zes)
4.
30
3.92
4.
09
4.40
3.
77
4.04
43
Mak
e it
easie
r to
loca
te tr
am st
ops o
nlin
e an
d on
site
3.
90
4.15
4.
04
3.90
3.
92
3.91
47
Im
prov
e re
al ti
me
tool
s for
com
mun
icat
ing
disr
uptio
n an
d he
lp p
lan
trav
el jo
urne
y 4.
10
4.23
4.
17
3.80
3.
38
3.57
50
Have
con
siste
nt tr
am st
op d
esig
n an
d pl
acem
ent
3.80
3.
92
3.87
2.
80
3.15
3.
00
58
Incr
ease
shel
ter a
t pub
lic tr
ansp
ort s
tops
3.
40
3.69
3.
57
3.56
3.
69
3.64
62
Pr
ovid
e vi
sual
and
aud
io in
form
atio
n ab
out s
tops
dur
ing
jour
neys
4.
33
4.08
4.
18
4.30
3.
83
4.05
65
M
ake
all t
ram
stop
s acc
essib
le
4.20
4.
15
4.17
2.
70
2.77
2.
74
74
Mak
e pu
blic
tran
spor
t inf
orm
atio
n sp
eake
rs e
mit
an a
udio
soun
d (e
.g.
beep
s) to
mak
e th
em e
asie
r to
loca
te
3.50
3.
62
3.57
3.
20
3.54
3.
39
76
Educ
ate
peop
le n
ot to
occ
upy
acce
ssib
le se
atin
g on
tran
spor
t 3.
30
3.69
3.
52
3.60
3.
15
3.35
83
Cr
eate
mor
e ro
om fo
r mob
ility
aid
s on
publ
ic tr
ansp
ort
3.90
3.
77
3.83
3.
10
3.15
3.
13
86
Mak
e it
easie
r to
get o
n an
d of
f pub
lic tr
ansp
ort (
e.g.
mor
e ac
cess
ible
do
ors,
easie
r to
loca
te a
cces
sible
doo
rs)
4.00
4.
00
4.00
3.
80
3.23
3.
48
90
Prov
ide
mor
e ac
cess
ible
car
riage
s on
trai
ns
3.90
4.
46
4.22
3.
60
2.77
3.
13
Tabl
e A3
. Ide
as o
n ho
w to
mak
e th
e Ci
ty o
f Mel
bour
ne m
ore
incl
usiv
e fo
r peo
ple
with
inte
llect
ual d
isabi
lity,
incl
udin
g im
port
ance
and
feas
ibili
ty ra
tings
for e
ach
idea
with
in
them
es b
y pe
ople
with
disa
bilit
y, d
isabi
lity
advo
cate
s, a
nd a
cade
mic
s (di
sabi
lity
grou
p), a
nd C
ity o
f Mel
bour
ne st
aff.
Clus
ter a
nd st
atem
ent
Impo
rtan
ce
Feas
ibili
ty
Disa
bilit
y gr
oup
City
of
Mel
bour
ne
Tota
l Di
sabi
lity
grou
p Ci
ty o
f M
elbo
urne
To
tal
INTE
LLEC
TUAL
DIS
ABIL
ITY
Cultu
re
4.37
4.
25
4.27
4.
07
3.46
3.
68
3 Pr
ovid
e be
tter
disa
bilit
y tr
aini
ng fo
r cus
tom
er se
rvic
e an
d ev
ent s
taff
4.75
4.
60
4.67
4.
67
4.30
4.
44
6 En
sure
peo
ple
are
awar
e of
thei
r sur
roun
ding
s and
don
't bl
ock
the
foot
path
(e.g
. bus
kers
, gui
ded
tour
s, pe
ople
look
ing
dow
n at
thei
r ph
ones
)
4.25
4.
00
4.11
3.
00
2.80
2.
88
8 Im
prov
e co
mm
unity
att
itude
s tow
ards
disa
bilit
y (in
clud
ing
invi
sible
di
sabi
lity)
4.
38
4.40
4.
39
3.50
3.
20
3.31
10
Empl
oy m
ore
peop
le w
ith d
isabi
lity
in fr
ont-
of h
ouse
/pub
lic-fa
cing
role
s 4.
13
4.00
4.
06
4.00
3.
60
3.75
11
In
crea
se th
e nu
mbe
r of i
ntel
lect
ual d
isabi
lity
advo
cate
s 4.
63
4.00
4.
28
4.50
3.
10
3.63
12
Cr
eate
mor
e in
cent
ives
for a
cces
sibili
ty (e
.g. a
war
d fo
r mos
t inc
lusiv
e bu
sines
s/m
ost i
nclu
sive
city
/loya
lty c
ard
for a
cces
sible
bus
ines
ses)
3.
88
3.70
3.
78
4.50
4.
10
4.25
16
Crea
te m
ore
oppo
rtun
ities
for p
eopl
e to
find
wor
k th
at m
atch
es th
eir
skill
s 4.
63
4.30
4.
44
4.00
3.
10
3.44
17
Prov
ide
mor
e st
aff i
n pu
blic
pla
ces w
ho c
an su
ppor
t peo
ple
with
di
ffere
nt n
eeds
(e.g
. hel
p pe
ople
whe
n di
srup
tions
occ
ur o
r rep
eat
visu
al a
nnou
ncem
ents
)
4.50
4.
30
4.39
4.
00
3.50
3.
69
18
Ensu
re th
at th
e Ci
ty o
f Mel
bour
ne is
an
incl
usiv
e or
gani
satio
n 4.
63
4.40
4.
50
4.17
3.
90
4.00
20
Pr
ovid
e be
tter
qua
lity
com
mun
ity se
rvic
es (e
.g. b
ette
r lin
kage
s bet
wee
n se
rvic
es, c
ater
ing
for m
ultip
le d
isabi
lity
type
s)
4.38
4.
10
4.22
3.
67
3.10
3.
31
21
Test
acc
essib
ility
at t
he st
art o
f pro
ject
s (no
t jus
t in
the
mid
dle
or a
t the
en
d)
4.50
4.
40
4.44
4.
33
4.30
4.
31
23
Incr
ease
use
of S
ocia
l Sto
ries f
or a
rang
e of
disa
bilit
y ty
pes,
incl
udin
g ad
ults
and
chi
ldre
n 3.
25
3.00
3.
11
3.67
2.
89
3.20
26
Ensu
re b
ette
r rep
rese
ntat
ion
of p
eopl
e w
ith d
isabi
litie
s (e.
g. o
n tv
) 4.
00
4.30
4.
17
3.33
2.
90
3.06
27
Pa
y pe
ople
with
disa
bilit
ies a
nd a
dvoc
ates
for t
heir
expe
rtise
4.
63
4.20
4.
39
4.50
3.
60
3.94
32
Pr
ovid
e m
ore
oppo
rtun
ities
for p
eopl
e w
ith d
isabi
litie
s to
have
thei
r say
on
pol
icie
s and
pro
ject
s 4.
75
4.60
4.
67
4.83
4.
40
4.56
34
Mak
e su
re th
e pr
oces
ses f
or h
elpi
ng lo
st c
hild
ren
are
incl
usiv
e of
di
ffere
nt n
eeds
e.g
. chi
ldre
n w
ith a
utism
4.
00
4.40
4.
22
4.33
3.
20
3.63
Tabl
e A3
. Ide
as o
n ho
w to
mak
e th
e Ci
ty o
f Mel
bour
ne m
ore
incl
usiv
e fo
r peo
ple
with
inte
llect
ual d
isabi
lity,
incl
udin
g im
port
ance
and
feas
ibili
ty ra
tings
for e
ach
idea
with
in
them
es b
y pe
ople
with
disa
bilit
y, d
isabi
lity
advo
cate
s, a
nd a
cade
mic
s (di
sabi
lity
grou
p), a
nd C
ity o
f Mel
bour
ne st
aff.
Clus
ter a
nd st
atem
ent
Impo
rtan
ce
Feas
ibili
ty
Disa
bilit
y gr
oup
City
of
Mel
bour
ne
Tota
l Di
sabi
lity
grou
p Ci
ty o
f M
elbo
urne
To
tal
INTE
LLEC
TUAL
DIS
ABIL
ITY
Cultu
re
4.37
4.
25
4.27
4.
07
3.46
3.
68
3 Pr
ovid
e be
tter
disa
bilit
y tr
aini
ng fo
r cus
tom
er se
rvic
e an
d ev
ent s
taff
4.75
4.
60
4.67
4.
67
4.30
4.
44
6 En
sure
peo
ple
are
awar
e of
thei
r sur
roun
ding
s and
don
't bl
ock
the
foot
path
(e.g
. bus
kers
, gui
ded
tour
s, pe
ople
look
ing
dow
n at
thei
r ph
ones
)
4.25
4.
00
4.11
3.
00
2.80
2.
88
8 Im
prov
e co
mm
unity
att
itude
s tow
ards
disa
bilit
y (in
clud
ing
invi
sible
di
sabi
lity)
4.
38
4.40
4.
39
3.50
3.
20
3.31
10
Empl
oy m
ore
peop
le w
ith d
isabi
lity
in fr
ont-
of h
ouse
/pub
lic-fa
cing
role
s 4.
13
4.00
4.
06
4.00
3.
60
3.75
11
In
crea
se th
e nu
mbe
r of i
ntel
lect
ual d
isabi
lity
advo
cate
s 4.
63
4.00
4.
28
4.50
3.
10
3.63
12
Cr
eate
mor
e in
cent
ives
for a
cces
sibili
ty (e
.g. a
war
d fo
r mos
t inc
lusiv
e bu
sines
s/m
ost i
nclu
sive
city
/loya
lty c
ard
for a
cces
sible
bus
ines
ses)
3.
88
3.70
3.
78
4.50
4.
10
4.25
16
Crea
te m
ore
oppo
rtun
ities
for p
eopl
e to
find
wor
k th
at m
atch
es th
eir
skill
s 4.
63
4.30
4.
44
4.00
3.
10
3.44
17
Prov
ide
mor
e st
aff i
n pu
blic
pla
ces w
ho c
an su
ppor
t peo
ple
with
di
ffere
nt n
eeds
(e.g
. hel
p pe
ople
whe
n di
srup
tions
occ
ur o
r rep
eat
visu
al a
nnou
ncem
ents
)
4.50
4.
30
4.39
4.
00
3.50
3.
69
18
Ensu
re th
at th
e Ci
ty o
f Mel
bour
ne is
an
incl
usiv
e or
gani
satio
n 4.
63
4.40
4.
50
4.17
3.
90
4.00
20
Pr
ovid
e be
tter
qua
lity
com
mun
ity se
rvic
es (e
.g. b
ette
r lin
kage
s bet
wee
n se
rvic
es, c
ater
ing
for m
ultip
le d
isabi
lity
type
s)
4.38
4.
10
4.22
3.
67
3.10
3.
31
21
Test
acc
essib
ility
at t
he st
art o
f pro
ject
s (no
t jus
t in
the
mid
dle
or a
t the
en
d)
4.50
4.
40
4.44
4.
33
4.30
4.
31
23
Incr
ease
use
of S
ocia
l Sto
ries f
or a
rang
e of
disa
bilit
y ty
pes,
incl
udin
g ad
ults
and
chi
ldre
n 3.
25
3.00
3.
11
3.67
2.
89
3.20
26
Ensu
re b
ette
r rep
rese
ntat
ion
of p
eopl
e w
ith d
isabi
litie
s (e.
g. o
n tv
) 4.
00
4.30
4.
17
3.33
2.
90
3.06
27
Pa
y pe
ople
with
disa
bilit
ies a
nd a
dvoc
ates
for t
heir
expe
rtise
4.
63
4.20
4.
39
4.50
3.
60
3.94
32
Pr
ovid
e m
ore
oppo
rtun
ities
for p
eopl
e w
ith d
isabi
litie
s to
have
thei
r say
on
pol
icie
s and
pro
ject
s 4.
75
4.60
4.
67
4.83
4.
40
4.56
34
Mak
e su
re th
e pr
oces
ses f
or h
elpi
ng lo
st c
hild
ren
are
incl
usiv
e of
di
ffere
nt n
eeds
e.g
. chi
ldre
n w
ith a
utism
4.
00
4.40
4.
22
4.33
3.
20
3.63
31
Clus
ter a
nd st
atem
ent
Impo
rtan
ce
Feas
ibili
ty
Disa
bilit
y gr
oup
City
of
Mel
bour
ne
Tota
l Di
sabi
lity
grou
p Ci
ty o
f M
elbo
urne
To
tal
36
Prov
ide
trai
ning
that
take
s int
o ac
coun
t Abo
rigin
al c
omm
unity
pe
rspe
ctiv
es o
n di
sabi
lity
4.13
4.
10
4.11
3.
83
3.60
3.
69
37
Redu
ce d
iscrim
inat
ion
in e
mpl
oym
ent
5.00
4.
90
4.94
3.
83
3.00
3.
31
38
Impr
ove
mat
erna
l and
chi
ld h
ealth
nur
ses'
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
disa
bilit
y 4.
63
4.40
4.
50
4.50
3.
80
4.06
40
M
ake
it co
mpu
lsory
for m
ajor
eve
nts t
o m
eet a
cces
sibili
ty st
anda
rds
(incl
udin
g ac
cess
ible
toile
ts a
nd c
hang
ing
plac
es)
4.88
4.
30
4.56
3.
33
3.60
3.
50
50
City
of M
elbo
urne
shou
ld d
rive
acce
ssib
ility
in e
mpl
oym
ent a
nd b
e a
visib
le e
mpl
oyer
of p
eopl
e w
ith d
isabi
lity
4.63
4.
40
4.50
4.
67
4.10
4.
31
51
Prov
ide
bett
er tr
aini
ng fo
r disa
bilit
y su
ppor
t wor
kers
4.
13
4.10
4.
11
5.00
3.
70
4.19
55
Re
inst
ate
the
Mel
bour
ne M
obili
ty C
entr
e th
at h
ad it
s fun
ding
cut
3.
88
3.70
3.
78
4.33
2.
40
3.13
63
M
ake
fund
ing
appl
icat
ions
use
r frie
ndly
and
acc
essib
le fo
r diff
eren
t ne
eds (
e.g.
art
s, c
omm
unity
and
adv
ocac
y gr
ants
) 4.
25
4.00
4.
11
4.00
3.
10
3.44
68
Incr
ease
fund
ing
for p
eopl
e w
ith in
telle
ctua
l disa
bilit
ies s
o it'
s in
line
with
oth
er fu
ndin
g 4.
38
4.20
4.
28
3.33
2.
90
3.06
Info
rmat
ion
acce
ssib
ility
4.
20
4.28
4.
17
4.28
3.
66
3.85
4
The
chan
ging
pla
ces w
ebsit
e sh
ould
incl
ude
links
to o
ther
gov
ernm
ent
serv
ices
2.
50
3.80
3.
22
3.83
4.
20
4.06
5 M
ake
park
ing
info
rmat
ion
easie
r to
find
and
unde
rsta
nd o
n th
e st
reet
an
d on
line
(e.g
. cre
ate
an a
pp)
3.63
4.
20
3.94
4.
17
4.00
4.
06
14
Mor
e fr
ee W
ifi zo
nes t
o m
ake
navi
gatin
g th
e ci
ty e
asie
r 4.
50
3.50
3.
94
4.50
3.
50
3.88
15
M
ake
sure
visu
al a
nd a
udio
ann
ounc
emen
ts a
re a
ccur
ate
and
easy
to
unde
rsta
nd (e
.g. n
ot to
o fa
st, r
epea
t key
info
rmat
ion)
4.
75
4.50
4.
61
4.33
3.
90
4.06
19
Prov
ide
mor
e ac
cess
ible
info
rmat
ion
abou
t eve
nts a
nd a
ttra
ctio
ns (e
.g.
soci
al st
orie
s, e
asy
Engl
ish g
uide
s)
4.00
3.
70
3.83
4.
83
4.00
4.
33
22
Mak
e pa
rkin
g in
stru
ctio
ns e
asie
r to
unde
rsta
nd (e
.g. c
reat
e an
app
) 3.
88
3.90
3.
89
4.50
3.
50
3.88
31
Pr
ovid
e Ea
sy E
nglis
h in
form
atio
n ab
out p
eopl
e's e
ntitl
emen
ts
5.00
4.
00
4.44
4.
83
4.20
4.
44
39
Prov
ide
mor
e sh
elte
r and
rest
spac
es a
t pub
lic tr
ansp
ort s
tops
4.
25
4.10
4.
17
3.67
3.
50
3.56
42
M
ake
it ea
sier f
or p
eopl
e to
cro
ss th
e ro
ad m
ore
slow
ly
4.00
4.
50
4.28
3.
67
3.50
3.
56
46
Prov
ide
a cl
ear a
nd c
onsis
tent
way
of n
avig
atin
g ar
ound
the
city
(e.g
. co
nsist
ent s
ymbo
ls/m
arke
rs)
4.63
4.
60
4.61
4.
83
3.70
4.
13
Clus
ter a
nd st
atem
ent
Impo
rtan
ce
Feas
ibili
ty
Disa
bilit
y gr
oup
City
of
Mel
bour
ne
Tota
l Di
sabi
lity
grou
p Ci
ty o
f M
elbo
urne
To
tal
56
Mak
e th
e Ci
ty o
f Mel
bour
ne w
ebsit
e ea
sier t
o un
ders
tand
(e.g
. inc
lude
a
deci
sion
tree
, Eas
y En
glish
vid
eos)
4.
00
4.40
4.
22
4.83
3.
90
4.25
57
Inst
all m
ore
acce
ssib
le si
gns s
how
ing
stre
et n
ames
and
how
to g
et in
to
the
build
ing
(eas
y En
glish
, lar
ge fo
nt, a
t an
acce
ssib
le h
eigh
t)
4.63
4.
10
4.33
4.
67
3.50
3.
94
60
Prov
ide
mor
e m
ap fo
rmat
s (e.
g. la
rger
size
, sen
sory
map
s, in
tera
ctiv
e di
gita
l map
s)
4.25
4.
40
4.33
4.
33
3.50
3.
81
61
Redu
ce c
onfli
ct b
etw
een
bike
s and
ped
estr
ians
on
foot
path
s (e.
g.
bett
er b
ike
park
ing,
cle
arer
bik
e la
nes)
4.
88
4.30
4.
56
4.33
2.
60
3.25
65
Mak
e it
easie
r to
find
disa
bilit
y-fr
iend
ly sh
ops (
e.g.
a m
ailin
g lis
t or
disa
bilit
y-fr
iend
ly sy
mbo
l) 4.
38
4.20
4.
28
4.67
3.
11
3.73
67
Ensu
re p
eopl
e do
n't p
ark
in a
cces
sible
par
king
spot
s with
out a
per
mit
(thi
s inc
lude
s con
stru
ctio
n an
d de
liver
y w
orke
rs)
4.38
4.
60
4.50
3.
17
2.60
2.
81
69
Add
audi
o sp
eake
rs te
lling
peo
ple
wha
t str
eet t
hey'
re o
n 3.
50
3.67
3.
59
3.00
3.
20
3.13
71
Im
prov
e em
erge
ncy
aler
ts a
nd e
vacu
atio
n sig
ns (e
.g. E
asy
Engl
ish)
4.88
4.
30
4.56
4.
67
3.80
4.
13
72
Prov
ide
orie
ntat
ion
wal
ks in
the
CBD
to h
ighl
ight
key
serv
ices
and
fa
cilit
ies
3.88
4.
00
3.94
4.
50
3.90
4.
13
Phys
ical
acc
ess
4.28
4.
32
4.23
3.
85
3.54
3.
62
7 En
sure
all
wat
er fo
unta
ins a
re a
t acc
essib
le h
eigh
ts
3.50
4.
30
3.94
3.
33
3.90
3.
69
9 M
ove
stre
et fu
rnitu
re a
way
from
wal
ls to
allo
w a
cle
ar p
athw
ay
4.13
4.
20
4.17
4.
00
3.90
3.
94
25
Incr
ease
the
num
ber o
f cha
ngin
g pl
aces
in th
e ci
ty a
nd p
rovi
de m
ore
info
rmat
ion
abou
t how
to fi
nd th
em
4.25
4.
00
4.11
3.
00
3.20
3.
13
29
Impr
ove
signa
ge fo
r pub
lic to
ilets
4.
50
4.10
4.
28
4.33
4.
30
4.31
30
En
sure
pub
lic to
ilets
and
cha
ngin
g pl
aces
are
wel
l-mai
ntai
ned
4.75
4.
20
4.44
4.
80
4.10
4.
33
35
Ensu
re a
cces
sible
toile
ts a
re n
ot lo
cked
or g
ive
peop
le w
ith d
isabi
lity
and
publ
ic in
form
atio
n st
aff t
he k
eys
4.75
4.
40
4.56
4.
33
3.90
4.
06
41
Impr
ove
way
s of c
onta
ctin
g bu
ildin
g ow
ners
(e.g
. but
tons
on
the
fron
t of
bui
ldin
gs)
3.38
4.
00
3.72
3.
50
3.10
3.
25
43
Redu
ce fo
otpa
th c
lutt
er
4.63
4.
30
4.44
4.
50
3.40
3.
81
44
Mak
e al
l pla
ygro
unds
acc
essib
le
3.63
4.
20
3.94
3.
33
3.80
3.
63
45
Mak
e bu
ildin
gs m
ore
acce
ssib
le
5.00
4.
60
4.78
4.
00
3.40
3.
63
48
Add
cont
rast
to d
iffer
ent t
ypes
of s
urfa
ces (
e.g.
tact
ile a
nd v
isual
) 4.
00
4.10
4.
06
4.17
3.
60
3.81
49
Re
duce
trip
haz
ards
on
foot
path
s 4.
63
4.40
4.
50
4.50
3.
50
3.88
53
Al
l toi
lets
shou
ld b
e ac
cess
ible
to e
very
one
4.38
3.
90
4.11
2.
67
3.20
3.
00
Clus
ter a
nd st
atem
ent
Impo
rtan
ce
Feas
ibili
ty
Disa
bilit
y gr
oup
City
of
Mel
bour
ne
Tota
l Di
sabi
lity
grou
p Ci
ty o
f M
elbo
urne
To
tal
56
Mak
e th
e Ci
ty o
f Mel
bour
ne w
ebsit
e ea
sier t
o un
ders
tand
(e.g
. inc
lude
a
deci
sion
tree
, Eas
y En
glish
vid
eos)
4.
00
4.40
4.
22
4.83
3.
90
4.25
57
Inst
all m
ore
acce
ssib
le si
gns s
how
ing
stre
et n
ames
and
how
to g
et in
to
the
build
ing
(eas
y En
glish
, lar
ge fo
nt, a
t an
acce
ssib
le h
eigh
t)
4.63
4.
10
4.33
4.
67
3.50
3.
94
60
Prov
ide
mor
e m
ap fo
rmat
s (e.
g. la
rger
size
, sen
sory
map
s, in
tera
ctiv
e di
gita
l map
s)
4.25
4.
40
4.33
4.
33
3.50
3.
81
61
Redu
ce c
onfli
ct b
etw
een
bike
s and
ped
estr
ians
on
foot
path
s (e.
g.
bett
er b
ike
park
ing,
cle
arer
bik
e la
nes)
4.
88
4.30
4.
56
4.33
2.
60
3.25
65
Mak
e it
easie
r to
find
disa
bilit
y-fr
iend
ly sh
ops (
e.g.
a m
ailin
g lis
t or
disa
bilit
y-fr
iend
ly sy
mbo
l) 4.
38
4.20
4.
28
4.67
3.
11
3.73
67
Ensu
re p
eopl
e do
n't p
ark
in a
cces
sible
par
king
spot
s with
out a
per
mit
(thi
s inc
lude
s con
stru
ctio
n an
d de
liver
y w
orke
rs)
4.38
4.
60
4.50
3.
17
2.60
2.
81
69
Add
audi
o sp
eake
rs te
lling
peo
ple
wha
t str
eet t
hey'
re o
n 3.
50
3.67
3.
59
3.00
3.
20
3.13
71
Im
prov
e em
erge
ncy
aler
ts a
nd e
vacu
atio
n sig
ns (e
.g. E
asy
Engl
ish)
4.88
4.
30
4.56
4.
67
3.80
4.
13
72
Prov
ide
orie
ntat
ion
wal
ks in
the
CBD
to h
ighl
ight
key
serv
ices
and
fa
cilit
ies
3.88
4.
00
3.94
4.
50
3.90
4.
13
Phys
ical
acc
ess
4.28
4.
32
4.23
3.
85
3.54
3.
62
7 En
sure
all
wat
er fo
unta
ins a
re a
t acc
essib
le h
eigh
ts
3.50
4.
30
3.94
3.
33
3.90
3.
69
9 M
ove
stre
et fu
rnitu
re a
way
from
wal
ls to
allo
w a
cle
ar p
athw
ay
4.13
4.
20
4.17
4.
00
3.90
3.
94
25
Incr
ease
the
num
ber o
f cha
ngin
g pl
aces
in th
e ci
ty a
nd p
rovi
de m
ore
info
rmat
ion
abou
t how
to fi
nd th
em
4.25
4.
00
4.11
3.
00
3.20
3.
13
29
Impr
ove
signa
ge fo
r pub
lic to
ilets
4.
50
4.10
4.
28
4.33
4.
30
4.31
30
En
sure
pub
lic to
ilets
and
cha
ngin
g pl
aces
are
wel
l-mai
ntai
ned
4.75
4.
20
4.44
4.
80
4.10
4.
33
35
Ensu
re a
cces
sible
toile
ts a
re n
ot lo
cked
or g
ive
peop
le w
ith d
isabi
lity
and
publ
ic in
form
atio
n st
aff t
he k
eys
4.75
4.
40
4.56
4.
33
3.90
4.
06
41
Impr
ove
way
s of c
onta
ctin
g bu
ildin
g ow
ners
(e.g
. but
tons
on
the
fron
t of
bui
ldin
gs)
3.38
4.
00
3.72
3.
50
3.10
3.
25
43
Redu
ce fo
otpa
th c
lutt
er
4.63
4.
30
4.44
4.
50
3.40
3.
81
44
Mak
e al
l pla
ygro
unds
acc
essib
le
3.63
4.
20
3.94
3.
33
3.80
3.
63
45
Mak
e bu
ildin
gs m
ore
acce
ssib
le
5.00
4.
60
4.78
4.
00
3.40
3.
63
48
Add
cont
rast
to d
iffer
ent t
ypes
of s
urfa
ces (
e.g.
tact
ile a
nd v
isual
) 4.
00
4.10
4.
06
4.17
3.
60
3.81
49
Re
duce
trip
haz
ards
on
foot
path
s 4.
63
4.40
4.
50
4.50
3.
50
3.88
53
Al
l toi
lets
shou
ld b
e ac
cess
ible
to e
very
one
4.38
3.
90
4.11
2.
67
3.20
3.
00
33
Clus
ter a
nd st
atem
ent
Impo
rtan
ce
Feas
ibili
ty
Disa
bilit
y gr
oup
City
of
Mel
bour
ne
Tota
l Di
sabi
lity
grou
p Ci
ty o
f M
elbo
urne
To
tal
58
Mak
e al
l tou
rist a
nd le
isure
faci
litie
s acc
essib
le (e
.g. R
esta
uran
t Tra
m,
City
Bat
hs, p
ools
and
othe
r pub
lic sp
aces
) 4.
38
4.10
4.
22
3.33
2.
70
2.94
64
Crea
te m
ore
acce
ssib
le a
nd a
dapt
able
hou
sing
(incl
udin
g ap
artm
ents
) 4.
88
4.80
4.
83
4.00
2.
56
3.13
70
M
ake
busy
city
stre
ets c
lean
er
3.75
3.
40
3.56
4.
00
3.10
3.
44
Publ
ic tr
ansp
ort
4.17
4.
11
4.07
3.
93
3.11
3.
42
1 M
ake
publ
ic tr
ansp
ort i
nfor
mat
ion
mor
e co
nsist
ent a
nd a
ccur
ate
(incl
udin
g in
form
atio
n ab
out t
rans
port
disr
uptio
ns)
4.38
4.
80
4.61
4.
50
4.10
4.
25
2 M
ake
sure
sign
s for
acc
essib
le se
atin
g on
pub
lic tr
ansp
ort i
nclu
de
peop
le w
ith in
visib
le d
isabi
litie
s 4.
75
4.00
4.
33
4.33
4.
00
4.13
13
Exte
nd th
e fr
ee tr
am zo
ne
2.38
3.
40
2.94
4.
33
2.30
3.
06
24
Free
Ube
r ser
vice
in th
e ci
ty fo
r peo
ple
with
disa
bilit
y 3.
13
2.70
2.
89
2.17
1.
70
1.88
28
He
lp p
eopl
e fin
d in
form
atio
n on
wha
t to
do w
hen
you
miss
you
r sto
p 4.
13
4.00
4.
06
3.83
3.
70
3.75
33
In
crea
se d
isabi
lity-
frie
ndly
taxi
s 4.
38
4.20
4.
28
3.50
3.
10
3.25
47
M
ake
an a
nnou
ncem
ent b
efor
e th
e la
st a
cces
sible
stop
(giv
e pl
enty
of
war
ning
) 5.
00
4.50
4.
72
5.00
4.
00
4.38
52
Crea
te a
disa
bilit
y ta
xi c
olle
ctio
n sp
ot fo
r pic
k up
and
dro
p of
fs
4.25
3.
80
4.00
4.
33
3.20
3.
63
54
Crea
te a
disa
bilit
y st
icke
r for
myk
i (i.e
. pub
lic tr
ansp
ort s
mar
t car
d)
4.25
3.
90
4.06
5.
00
3.10
3.
81
59
Impr
ove
acce
ssib
le tr
ansp
ort i
n re
gion
al V
icto
ria
4.88
4.
50
4.67
3.
33
2.10
2.
56
62
Have
con
siste
nt tr
am st
op d
esig
ns
3.75
3.
90
3.83
2.
83
3.10
3.
00
66
Mak
e it
easie
r to
get o
n an
d of
f pub
lic tr
ansp
ort (
e.g.
mor
e tim
e to
exi
t, m
ake
it ea
sier t
o ge
t to
the
acce
ssib
le d
oors
) 4.
75
4.30
4.
50
4.00
3.
00
3.38
Tabl
e A4
. Ide
as o
n ho
w to
mak
e th
e Ci
ty o
f Mel
bour
ne m
ore
incl
usiv
e fo
r peo
ple
with
psy
chos
ocia
l, in
clud
ing
impo
rtan
ce a
nd fe
asib
ility
ratin
gs fo
r eac
h id
ea w
ithin
them
es
by p
eopl
e w
ith d
isabi
lity,
disa
bilit
y ad
voca
tes,
and
acad
emic
s (di
sabi
lity
grou
p), a
nd C
ity o
f Mel
bour
ne st
aff.
Clus
ter a
nd st
atem
ent
Impo
rtan
ce
Feas
ibili
ty
Disa
bilit
y gr
oup
City
of
Mel
bour
ne
Tota
l Di
sabi
lity
grou
p Ci
ty o
f M
elbo
urne
To
tal
PSYC
HOSO
CIAL
DIS
ABIL
ITY
Publ
ic sp
aces
3.
53
3.62
3.
57
3.36
3.
45
3.41
2
Mak
e pu
blic
nap
ping
spac
es
3.00
2.
89
2.95
3.
00
2.90
2.
95
3 In
crea
se a
cces
sible
par
king
3.
60
3.50
3.
55
3.50
3.
70
3.60
5
Mor
e fr
ee W
ifi zo
nes t
o m
ake
navi
gatin
g th
e ci
ty e
asie
r 3.
50
3.90
3.
70
3.90
3.
60
3.75
6
Upd
ate
the
natio
nal p
ublic
toile
t map
with
the
late
st a
cces
sible
toile
ts
and
chan
ging
pla
ces
4.00
3.
90
3.95
4.
70
4.50
4.
60
7 O
ffer e
ar p
lugs
at q
uiet
hub
s tha
t you
can
take
aw
ay fo
r fre
e or
at l
ow
cost
3.
30
3.40
3.
35
4.10
3.
60
3.85
9 Ke
ep fo
otpa
ths s
moo
th a
nd c
lear
of h
azar
ds
4.20
4.
20
4.20
3.
40
3.80
3.
60
12
Mak
e a
map
that
show
s acc
essib
le a
nd su
ppor
tive
serv
ices
(e.g
. ac
com
mod
atio
n, to
ilets
, Tra
velle
rs A
id, f
acili
ties,
spor
ts a
nd c
ultu
ral
venu
es, q
uiet
spot
s and
wat
er fo
unta
ins)
4.10
4.
10
4.10
4.
60
4.40
4.
50
14
Redu
ce c
lutt
er a
nd d
istra
ctio
n on
foot
path
s 3.
30
4.30
3.
80
3.50
3.
90
3.70
19
Re
duce
con
flict
of u
se o
n fo
otpa
ths (
e.g.
revi
ew sp
ace
take
n by
stre
et
trad
ers,
sign
s, bu
sker
s)
3.20
3.
90
3.55
3.
70
3.50
3.
60
20
Ensu
re p
ublic
spac
es (e
.g. l
ibra
ries)
are
safe
spac
es
4.00
4.
50
4.25
3.
50
4.30
3.
90
22
Prov
ide
desig
nate
d qu
iet/
calm
low
-sen
sory
spac
es a
roun
d th
e ci
ty a
nd
at tr
ain
stat
ions
(e.g
. sou
ndpr
oofe
d po
ds, w
heel
chai
r acc
essib
le)
4.10
3.
50
3.80
3.
70
3.50
3.
60
23
Prov
ide
mor
e se
rvic
es fo
r ass
istan
ce a
nim
als (
e.g.
off
lead
gre
en sp
aces
) 3.
50
3.70
3.
60
3.70
3.
40
3.55
25
Re
duce
pat
tern
s on
stai
rs
3.30
3.
30
3.30
3.
40
2.40
2.
90
32
Desig
n fo
otpa
ths t
akin
g in
to a
ccou
nt p
eopl
e w
ho w
alk
at d
iffer
ent
pace
s 2.
90
3.20
3.
05
2.30
3.
10
2.70
34
Mak
e bu
ildin
g an
d pl
anni
ng re
gula
tions
and
cod
es m
ore
acce
ssib
le a
nd
ensu
re c
ompl
ianc
e (e
.g. v
ia a
sses
smen
ts)
3.70
3.
60
3.65
4.
00
3.40
3.
70
35
Mak
e qu
iet h
ubs a
t lar
ge sc
ale
even
ts, p
rovi
ding
ear
plu
gs, r
est s
pace
, dr
inki
ng w
ater
, no
soun
ds, s
oft l
ight
ing
4.10
3.
60
3.85
3.
90
4.00
3.
95
36
Crea
te m
ore
gree
n sp
aces
and
com
mun
ity g
arde
ns
4.10
4.
00
4.05
4.
10
3.80
3.
95
42
Incr
ease
acc
essib
le to
ilets
and
cha
ngin
g pl
aces
4.
40
3.80
4.
10
3.70
3.
70
3.70
Tabl
e A4
. Ide
as o
n ho
w to
mak
e th
e Ci
ty o
f Mel
bour
ne m
ore
incl
usiv
e fo
r peo
ple
with
psy
chos
ocia
l, in
clud
ing
impo
rtan
ce a
nd fe
asib
ility
ratin
gs fo
r eac
h id
ea w
ithin
them
es
by p
eopl
e w
ith d
isabi
lity,
disa
bilit
y ad
voca
tes,
and
acad
emic
s (di
sabi
lity
grou
p), a
nd C
ity o
f Mel
bour
ne st
aff.
Clus
ter a
nd st
atem
ent
Impo
rtan
ce
Feas
ibili
ty
Disa
bilit
y gr
oup
City
of
Mel
bour
ne
Tota
l Di
sabi
lity
grou
p Ci
ty o
f M
elbo
urne
To
tal
PSYC
HOSO
CIAL
DIS
ABIL
ITY
Publ
ic sp
aces
3.
53
3.62
3.
57
3.36
3.
45
3.41
2
Mak
e pu
blic
nap
ping
spac
es
3.00
2.
89
2.95
3.
00
2.90
2.
95
3 In
crea
se a
cces
sible
par
king
3.
60
3.50
3.
55
3.50
3.
70
3.60
5
Mor
e fr
ee W
ifi zo
nes t
o m
ake
navi
gatin
g th
e ci
ty e
asie
r 3.
50
3.90
3.
70
3.90
3.
60
3.75
6
Upd
ate
the
natio
nal p
ublic
toile
t map
with
the
late
st a
cces
sible
toile
ts
and
chan
ging
pla
ces
4.00
3.
90
3.95
4.
70
4.50
4.
60
7 O
ffer e
ar p
lugs
at q
uiet
hub
s tha
t you
can
take
aw
ay fo
r fre
e or
at l
ow
cost
3.
30
3.40
3.
35
4.10
3.
60
3.85
9 Ke
ep fo
otpa
ths s
moo
th a
nd c
lear
of h
azar
ds
4.20
4.
20
4.20
3.
40
3.80
3.
60
12
Mak
e a
map
that
show
s acc
essib
le a
nd su
ppor
tive
serv
ices
(e.g
. ac
com
mod
atio
n, to
ilets
, Tra
velle
rs A
id, f
acili
ties,
spor
ts a
nd c
ultu
ral
venu
es, q
uiet
spot
s and
wat
er fo
unta
ins)
4.10
4.
10
4.10
4.
60
4.40
4.
50
14
Redu
ce c
lutt
er a
nd d
istra
ctio
n on
foot
path
s 3.
30
4.30
3.
80
3.50
3.
90
3.70
19
Re
duce
con
flict
of u
se o
n fo
otpa
ths (
e.g.
revi
ew sp
ace
take
n by
stre
et
trad
ers,
sign
s, bu
sker
s)
3.20
3.
90
3.55
3.
70
3.50
3.
60
20
Ensu
re p
ublic
spac
es (e
.g. l
ibra
ries)
are
safe
spac
es
4.00
4.
50
4.25
3.
50
4.30
3.
90
22
Prov
ide
desig
nate
d qu
iet/
calm
low
-sen
sory
spac
es a
roun
d th
e ci
ty a
nd
at tr
ain
stat
ions
(e.g
. sou
ndpr
oofe
d po
ds, w
heel
chai
r acc
essib
le)
4.10
3.
50
3.80
3.
70
3.50
3.
60
23
Prov
ide
mor
e se
rvic
es fo
r ass
istan
ce a
nim
als (
e.g.
off
lead
gre
en sp
aces
) 3.
50
3.70
3.
60
3.70
3.
40
3.55
25
Re
duce
pat
tern
s on
stai
rs
3.30
3.
30
3.30
3.
40
2.40
2.
90
32
Desig
n fo
otpa
ths t
akin
g in
to a
ccou
nt p
eopl
e w
ho w
alk
at d
iffer
ent
pace
s 2.
90
3.20
3.
05
2.30
3.
10
2.70
34
Mak
e bu
ildin
g an
d pl
anni
ng re
gula
tions
and
cod
es m
ore
acce
ssib
le a
nd
ensu
re c
ompl
ianc
e (e
.g. v
ia a
sses
smen
ts)
3.70
3.
60
3.65
4.
00
3.40
3.
70
35
Mak
e qu
iet h
ubs a
t lar
ge sc
ale
even
ts, p
rovi
ding
ear
plu
gs, r
est s
pace
, dr
inki
ng w
ater
, no
soun
ds, s
oft l
ight
ing
4.10
3.
60
3.85
3.
90
4.00
3.
95
36
Crea
te m
ore
gree
n sp
aces
and
com
mun
ity g
arde
ns
4.10
4.
00
4.05
4.
10
3.80
3.
95
42
Incr
ease
acc
essib
le to
ilets
and
cha
ngin
g pl
aces
4.
40
3.80
4.
10
3.70
3.
70
3.70
35
Clus
ter a
nd st
atem
ent
Impo
rtan
ce
Feas
ibili
ty
Disa
bilit
y gr
oup
City
of
Mel
bour
ne
Tota
l Di
sabi
lity
grou
p Ci
ty o
f M
elbo
urne
To
tal
43
Free
Ube
r ser
vice
in th
e ci
ty fo
r peo
ple
with
disa
bilit
y 2.
70
2.60
2.
65
2.00
1.
56
1.79
45
Al
low
mor
e tim
e to
cro
ss th
e ro
ad (e
.g. a
n ap
p th
at c
an in
fluen
ce th
e tr
affic
ligh
ts to
hel
p pe
ople
cro
ss th
e ro
ad in
tim
e)
3.30
3.
30
3.30
3.
30
2.90
3.
10
46
Impr
ove
signa
ge a
t ent
ranc
es o
f bui
ldin
gs so
peo
ple
know
how
to g
et in
3.
60
3.40
3.
50
4.10
3.
60
3.85
48
Al
l toi
lets
shou
ld b
e ac
cess
ible
to e
very
one
4.00
4.
30
4.15
2.
10
3.70
2.
90
49
High
light
exi
stin
g qu
iet s
pace
s, li
brar
ies a
nd a
ny a
vaila
ble/
book
able
ro
oms a
cros
s the
city
3.
90
3.80
3.
85
4.30
4.
30
4.30
51
Add
cont
rast
to d
iffer
ent t
ypes
of s
urfa
ces (
e.g.
tact
ile a
nd v
isual
) 3.
70
3.80
3.
75
3.20
3.
30
3.25
54
In
crea
se c
ultu
ral r
ecre
atio
n op
tions
for a
dults
with
disa
bilit
ies,
incl
udin
g ol
der a
dults
3.
70
4.20
3.
95
3.40
3.
70
3.55
55
Impr
ove
the
smel
l of t
oile
ts
3.20
3.
00
3.11
2.
90
2.90
2.
90
56
Mak
e w
ayfin
ding
map
s in
the
city
larg
er a
nd a
t diff
eren
t sca
les
3.60
3.
44
3.53
4.
00
4.00
4.
00
58
Impr
ove
inad
equa
te li
ghtin
g 3.
80
3.70
3.
75
3.80
3.
80
3.80
59
M
ake
busy
city
stre
ets c
lean
er
3.11
3.
40
3.26
3.
00
3.70
3.
35
60
Impr
ove
way
s of c
onta
ctin
g bu
ildin
g ow
ners
(e.g
. but
tons
on
the
fron
t of
bui
ldin
gs)
2.90
3.
50
3.20
3.
10
3.30
3.
20
61
Enco
urag
e ca
fes/
rest
aura
nts a
nd b
usin
esse
s to
have
seat
ing
avai
labl
e on
requ
est t
hat i
s out
of t
he w
ay a
nd c
an b
e re
serv
ed fo
r an
xiou
s/di
stre
ssed
peo
ple
3.40
3.
50
3.45
2.
50
3.20
2.
85
63
Offe
r spe
cific
'qui
et' o
peni
ng h
ours
at e
xhib
ition
s and
ven
ues (
e.g.
N
atio
nal G
alle
ry o
f Vic
toria
qui
et m
orni
ngs)
3.
80
3.40
3.
60
4.40
3.
60
4.00
65
Mak
e a
visu
al a
nd ta
ctile
line
to T
rave
llers
Aid
and
inte
grat
e th
e lin
e w
ith a
n ac
cess
ible
map
3.
20
3.80
3.
50
3.70
3.
90
3.80
74
Mak
e al
l tou
rist a
nd le
isure
faci
litie
s acc
essib
le (e
.g. R
esta
uran
t Tra
m,
City
Bat
hs, p
ools
and
othe
r pub
lic sp
aces
) 3.
60
4.20
3.
90
2.30
3.
00
2.63
77
Desig
n in
tern
al sp
aces
so n
oise
is a
bsor
bed
(e.g
. car
pets
) 3.
90
3.40
3.
65
3.30
3.
50
3.40
82
Cr
eate
a n
ew m
echa
nism
for p
eopl
e w
ith d
isabi
lity
to re
ceiv
e co
nces
sion
ticke
ts a
t ven
ues a
nd e
vent
s (e.
g. 'w
aged
' and
'unw
aged
') 3.
70
3.40
3.
55
3.00
2.
70
2.85
84
Incr
ease
wid
th o
f foo
tpat
hs
3.10
3.
70
3.40
2.
40
2.70
2.
55
90
Mak
e su
re q
uiet
spac
es a
re sa
fe sp
aces
4.
40
4.00
4.
20
3.00
3.
80
3.40
Clus
ter a
nd st
atem
ent
Impo
rtan
ce
Feas
ibili
ty
Disa
bilit
y gr
oup
City
of
Mel
bour
ne
Tota
l Di
sabi
lity
grou
p Ci
ty o
f M
elbo
urne
To
tal
91
Dedi
cate
d di
sabi
lity
taxi
col
lect
ion
spot
for p
ick
up a
nd d
rop
offs
3.
80
3.60
3.
70
3.60
3.
20
3.40
93
Ba
n al
l str
eet c
anva
sser
s (i.e
. peo
ple
who
acc
ost y
ou o
n th
e st
reet
to
prom
ote
thei
r bus
ines
s or c
harit
y)
2.90
3.
70
3.30
2.
60
2.90
2.
75
95
Ensu
re p
eopl
e ke
ep to
the
left
and
are
mor
e aw
are
of th
emse
lves
whe
n w
alki
ng o
n fo
otpa
ths
3.00
3.
20
3.10
2.
00
2.90
2.
45
96
Impr
ove
the
smel
l of p
ublic
spac
es
3.10
2.
50
2.80
2.
50
2.80
2.
65
98
Desig
n bu
ildin
gs w
ith m
ultip
le e
ntry
poi
nts
3.00
3.
20
3.11
2.
70
2.60
2.
65
100
Redu
ce c
lutt
er o
f sig
nage
on
stre
ets a
nd b
uild
ings
3.
00
3.90
3.
47
3.00
3.
80
3.40
10
2 Pr
omot
e/hi
ghlig
ht c
afes
that
are
qui
et
3.44
3.
20
3.32
3.
90
3.70
3.
80
105
Mak
e bi
ke la
nes c
lear
er so
they
don
't lo
ok li
ke fo
otpa
ths
3.20
3.
70
3.45
3.
60
3.50
3.
55
106
Prov
ide
mor
e ac
cess
ible
wat
er fo
unta
ins a
cros
s the
city
and
at t
rain
st
atio
ns
3.44
3.
70
3.58
3.
70
3.90
3.
80
Awar
enes
s 4.
20
3.92
4.
06
3.78
3.
62
3.70
4
Ensu
re th
ere
are
non-
verb
al o
ptio
ns fo
r rai
sing
issue
s and
idea
s with
in
the
com
mun
ity a
s con
fron
tatio
n ca
n be
diff
icul
t or i
mpo
ssib
le
4.00
4.
00
4.00
4.
00
3.60
3.
80
10
Mak
e it
man
dato
ry to
hav
e a
liter
acy
pers
on to
ass
ist p
eopl
e w
ith
bure
aucr
acy
3.60
3.
40
3.50
3.
10
3.20
3.
15
13
Prov
ide
mor
e di
vers
e an
d fle
xibl
e em
ploy
men
t opt
ions
for p
eopl
e w
ith
dive
rse
need
s 4.
60
4.40
4.
50
3.00
3.
60
3.32
18
Crea
te a
n on
goin
g pr
ogra
m o
f disa
bilit
y aw
aren
ess a
mba
ssad
ors
3.80
3.
40
3.60
4.
20
4.00
4.
10
26
Ensu
re o
rgan
isatio
ns a
llow
for d
iver
se c
omm
unic
atio
n m
etho
ds
4.20
4.
20
4.20
4.
00
3.60
3.
80
31
Prov
ide
trai
ning
that
take
s int
o ac
coun
t Abo
rigin
al c
omm
unity
pe
rspe
ctiv
es o
n di
sabi
lity
4.20
4.
00
4.10
4.
30
3.60
3.
95
33
Prov
ide
dive
rse
way
s of a
cces
sing
and
usin
g of
ficia
l doc
umen
tatio
n (e
.g.
face
-to-fa
ce o
ptio
ns in
add
ition
to o
nlin
e an
d pa
per f
orm
s)
4.30
4.
00
4.15
4.
40
3.50
3.
95
39
Incr
ease
aw
aren
ess o
f cus
tom
er-fa
cing
staf
f (e.
g. tr
ansp
ort,
hosp
italit
y,
secu
rity)
so th
ey u
nder
stan
d pe
ople
's se
nsiti
vitie
s and
supp
orts
(e.g
. as
sista
nce
anim
als)
4.60
4.
00
4.30
4.
60
3.70
4.
15
41
Impr
ove
gene
ral t
rain
ing
and
reso
urci
ng o
f City
of M
elbo
urne
in
form
atio
n st
aff (
e.g.
red
shirt
visi
tor s
taff)
4.
10
3.89
4.
00
4.80
4.
30
4.55
44
Addr
ess s
tigm
a in
the
med
ia re
gard
ing
men
tal h
ealth
4.
40
4.10
4.
25
3.30
3.
40
3.35
47
M
ake
fund
ing
appl
icat
ions
use
r frie
ndly
and
acc
essib
le fo
r diff
eren
t ne
eds (
e.g.
art
s, c
omm
unity
, and
adv
ocac
y gr
ants
) 4.
20
4.10
4.
15
4.10
4.
20
4.15
Clus
ter a
nd st
atem
ent
Impo
rtan
ce
Feas
ibili
ty
Disa
bilit
y gr
oup
City
of
Mel
bour
ne
Tota
l Di
sabi
lity
grou
p Ci
ty o
f M
elbo
urne
To
tal
91
Dedi
cate
d di
sabi
lity
taxi
col
lect
ion
spot
for p
ick
up a
nd d
rop
offs
3.
80
3.60
3.
70
3.60
3.
20
3.40
93
Ba
n al
l str
eet c
anva
sser
s (i.e
. peo
ple
who
acc
ost y
ou o
n th
e st
reet
to
prom
ote
thei
r bus
ines
s or c
harit
y)
2.90
3.
70
3.30
2.
60
2.90
2.
75
95
Ensu
re p
eopl
e ke
ep to
the
left
and
are
mor
e aw
are
of th
emse
lves
whe
n w
alki
ng o
n fo
otpa
ths
3.00
3.
20
3.10
2.
00
2.90
2.
45
96
Impr
ove
the
smel
l of p
ublic
spac
es
3.10
2.
50
2.80
2.
50
2.80
2.
65
98
Desig
n bu
ildin
gs w
ith m
ultip
le e
ntry
poi
nts
3.00
3.
20
3.11
2.
70
2.60
2.
65
100
Redu
ce c
lutt
er o
f sig
nage
on
stre
ets a
nd b
uild
ings
3.
00
3.90
3.
47
3.00
3.
80
3.40
10
2 Pr
omot
e/hi
ghlig
ht c
afes
that
are
qui
et
3.44
3.
20
3.32
3.
90
3.70
3.
80
105
Mak
e bi
ke la
nes c
lear
er so
they
don
't lo
ok li
ke fo
otpa
ths
3.20
3.
70
3.45
3.
60
3.50
3.
55
106
Prov
ide
mor
e ac
cess
ible
wat
er fo
unta
ins a
cros
s the
city
and
at t
rain
st
atio
ns
3.44
3.
70
3.58
3.
70
3.90
3.
80
Awar
enes
s 4.
20
3.92
4.
06
3.78
3.
62
3.70
4
Ensu
re th
ere
are
non-
verb
al o
ptio
ns fo
r rai
sing
issue
s and
idea
s with
in
the
com
mun
ity a
s con
fron
tatio
n ca
n be
diff
icul
t or i
mpo
ssib
le
4.00
4.
00
4.00
4.
00
3.60
3.
80
10
Mak
e it
man
dato
ry to
hav
e a
liter
acy
pers
on to
ass
ist p
eopl
e w
ith
bure
aucr
acy
3.60
3.
40
3.50
3.
10
3.20
3.
15
13
Prov
ide
mor
e di
vers
e an
d fle
xibl
e em
ploy
men
t opt
ions
for p
eopl
e w
ith
dive
rse
need
s 4.
60
4.40
4.
50
3.00
3.
60
3.32
18
Crea
te a
n on
goin
g pr
ogra
m o
f disa
bilit
y aw
aren
ess a
mba
ssad
ors
3.80
3.
40
3.60
4.
20
4.00
4.
10
26
Ensu
re o
rgan
isatio
ns a
llow
for d
iver
se c
omm
unic
atio
n m
etho
ds
4.20
4.
20
4.20
4.
00
3.60
3.
80
31
Prov
ide
trai
ning
that
take
s int
o ac
coun
t Abo
rigin
al c
omm
unity
pe
rspe
ctiv
es o
n di
sabi
lity
4.20
4.
00
4.10
4.
30
3.60
3.
95
33
Prov
ide
dive
rse
way
s of a
cces
sing
and
usin
g of
ficia
l doc
umen
tatio
n (e
.g.
face
-to-fa
ce o
ptio
ns in
add
ition
to o
nlin
e an
d pa
per f
orm
s)
4.30
4.
00
4.15
4.
40
3.50
3.
95
39
Incr
ease
aw
aren
ess o
f cus
tom
er-fa
cing
staf
f (e.
g. tr
ansp
ort,
hosp
italit
y,
secu
rity)
so th
ey u
nder
stan
d pe
ople
's se
nsiti
vitie
s and
supp
orts
(e.g
. as
sista
nce
anim
als)
4.60
4.
00
4.30
4.
60
3.70
4.
15
41
Impr
ove
gene
ral t
rain
ing
and
reso
urci
ng o
f City
of M
elbo
urne
in
form
atio
n st
aff (
e.g.
red
shirt
visi
tor s
taff)
4.
10
3.89
4.
00
4.80
4.
30
4.55
44
Addr
ess s
tigm
a in
the
med
ia re
gard
ing
men
tal h
ealth
4.
40
4.10
4.
25
3.30
3.
40
3.35
47
M
ake
fund
ing
appl
icat
ions
use
r frie
ndly
and
acc
essib
le fo
r diff
eren
t ne
eds (
e.g.
art
s, c
omm
unity
, and
adv
ocac
y gr
ants
) 4.
20
4.10
4.
15
4.10
4.
20
4.15
37
Clus
ter a
nd st
atem
ent
Impo
rtan
ce
Feas
ibili
ty
Disa
bilit
y gr
oup
City
of
Mel
bour
ne
Tota
l Di
sabi
lity
grou
p Ci
ty o
f M
elbo
urne
To
tal
50
Prov
ide
psyc
holo
gica
l firs
t aid
trai
ning
for C
ity o
f Mel
bour
ne
info
rmat
ion
staf
f (e.
g. re
d sh
irt v
isito
r sta
ff)
3.78
4.
20
4.00
4.
50
4.30
4.
40
52
Incr
ease
the
num
ber o
f City
of M
elbo
urne
vol
unte
ers o
n th
e st
reet
s 3.
00
3.00
3.
00
3.60
3.
40
3.50
53
Pr
ovid
e m
ore,
bet
ter q
ualit
y m
enta
l hea
lth c
are
4.80
4.
10
4.45
3.
20
3.30
3.
25
62
Stre
amlin
e an
d im
prov
e of
ficia
l doc
umen
tatio
n an
d fo
rms (
e.g.
few
er
form
s, p
lain
Eng
lish)
4.
40
4.10
4.
25
3.70
4.
10
3.90
67
Ensu
re o
rgan
isatio
ns su
ch a
s gov
ernm
ent a
nd b
usin
ess p
rovi
de o
ngoi
ng
disa
bilit
y aw
aren
ess a
nd su
ppor
t tra
inin
g fo
r the
ir em
ploy
ees (
e.g.
how
to
wor
k w
ith d
istre
ssed
clie
nts)
4.70
4.
00
4.35
4.
30
3.90
4.
10
68
Impr
ove
com
mun
ity a
ttitu
des a
nd u
nder
stan
ding
abo
ut d
isabi
lity
(e.g
. in
visib
le d
isabi
litie
s, pe
ople
'fal
ling
thro
ugh
the
crac
ks')
4.40
4.
10
4.25
3.
00
3.40
3.
20
70
Crea
te a
new
mec
hani
sm fo
r peo
ple
with
disa
bilit
y to
rece
ive
disc
ount
ed su
ppor
t ser
vice
s (e.
g. a
n al
tern
ativ
e to
the
heal
thca
re c
ard)
4.
10
3.50
3.
80
3.50
2.
90
3.20
71
Prov
ide
supp
ort f
or a
div
erse
rang
e of
adv
ocac
y gr
oups
(e.g
. acr
oss a
ll ag
e ra
nges
) 4.
60
3.60
4.
10
3.90
3.
50
3.70
72
Trai
n ho
tel s
taff
to b
ette
r com
mun
icat
e w
ith p
eopl
e w
ith a
div
ersit
y of
ne
eds
3.80
3.
50
3.65
3.
50
3.20
3.
35
73
Trai
n al
l sta
ff in
pub
lic fa
cilit
ies (
e.g.
libr
arie
s) to
hel
p m
edia
te b
etw
een
peop
le a
nd su
ppor
t peo
ple
with
psy
chos
ocia
l disa
bilit
ies
4.10
3.
90
4.00
3.
67
3.40
3.
53
75
Ensu
re C
ity o
f Mel
bour
ne is
an
incl
usiv
e or
gani
satio
n 4.
10
4.67
4.
37
4.10
4.
30
4.20
76
Pe
ople
with
live
d ex
perie
nce
of d
isabi
lity
shou
ld le
ad m
obili
ty
awar
enes
s tra
inin
g 4.
30
4.00
4.
15
4.50
4.
10
4.30
79
Prov
ide
mor
e ou
trea
ch se
rvic
es
4.00
4.
00
4.00
3.
40
3.50
3.
45
86
Prov
ide
mor
e su
ppor
t wor
kers
to a
tten
d N
atio
nal D
isabi
lity
Insu
ranc
e Sc
hem
e pl
anni
ng se
ssio
ns a
nd a
llow
peo
ple
the
choi
ce o
f sup
port
w
orke
r
3.80
3.
90
3.85
2.
90
3.50
3.
20
87
Allo
w b
ooka
ble
appo
intm
ents
for i
nter
actio
ns w
ith b
urea
ucra
cy/c
ounc
il so
you
can
mee
t in
a pr
ivat
e ro
om to
avo
id q
ueue
s/pu
blic
wai
ting
4.30
3.
90
4.10
3.
70
3.60
3.
65
89
Ensu
re st
aff w
orki
ng in
disa
bilit
y se
ctor
hav
e, a
nd d
raw
on,
the
lived
ex
perie
nce
of p
eopl
e w
ith d
isabi
lity
4.40
4.
30
4.35
4.
10
4.00
4.
05
97
Prov
ide
mor
e, b
ette
r qua
lity
gene
ral h
ealth
car
e 4.
50
4.22
4.
37
2.90
2.
80
2.85
Clus
ter a
nd st
atem
ent
Impo
rtan
ce
Feas
ibili
ty
Disa
bilit
y gr
oup
City
of
Mel
bour
ne
Tota
l Di
sabi
lity
grou
p Ci
ty o
f M
elbo
urne
To
tal
101
Impr
ove
reac
tions
from
firs
t res
pond
ers t
o be
mor
e po
sitiv
e to
war
ds
peop
le w
ith p
sych
osoc
ial d
isabi
lity
4.78
4.
00
4.37
3.
70
3.50
3.
60
104
Prov
ide
an o
ptio
n on
pho
ne sy
stem
s to
pres
s a b
utto
n to
talk
to a
pe
rson
with
men
tal h
ealth
/com
pass
ion
trai
ning
3.
44
3.00
3.
21
2.80
2.
60
2.70
107
Trai
n po
licy
offic
ers a
nd lo
cal l
aws/
com
plia
nce
offic
ers t
o un
ders
tand
di
vers
ity o
f disa
bilit
y 4.
70
4.10
4.
40
4.20
4.
20
4.20
Publ
ic tr
ansp
ort
3.70
3.
63
3.66
3.
57
3.10
3.
34
1 M
ake
publ
ic tr
ansp
ort f
ree
3.60
2.
90
3.25
3.
60
2.00
2.
80
11
Exte
nd th
e fr
ee tr
am zo
ne
4.00
3.
44
3.74
4.
10
3.20
3.
65
15
Impr
ove
trai
ning
of p
ublic
tran
spor
t sta
ff an
d pr
otec
tive
serv
ices
of
ficer
s (e.
g. to
enc
oura
ge fr
iend
lier a
ttitu
des t
owar
ds p
asse
nger
s)
4.70
4.
20
4.45
4.
60
3.60
4.
10
16
Impr
ove
the
accu
racy
of p
ublic
tran
spor
t inf
orm
atio
n (e
.g. m
ore
accu
rate
map
s, be
tter
info
rmat
ion
tech
nolo
gy)
4.00
4.
30
4.15
3.
80
3.80
3.
80
17
Crea
te a
ugm
ente
d re
ality
app
s with
acc
urat
e an
d tim
ely
info
rmat
ion
2.50
2.
90
2.70
2.
20
3.00
2.
60
28
Have
a p
erso
n av
aila
ble
to re
peat
visu
al a
nnou
ncem
ents
at s
tatio
ns
3.40
3.
50
3.45
3.
40
3.10
3.
25
37
Publ
ish so
cial
stor
ies a
nd v
isual
pla
ns fo
r maj
or e
vent
s and
att
ract
ions
to
hel
p pe
ople
pre
pare
thei
r visi
t 3.
40
3.80
3.
60
4.20
3.
90
4.05
38
Mak
e it
easie
r to
get o
n an
d of
f pub
lic tr
ansp
ort (
e.g.
mak
e it
easy
to
find
the
acce
ssib
le d
oor a
nd m
ake
mor
e do
ors a
nd c
arria
ges a
cces
sible
) 4.
00
4.00
4.
00
3.40
3.
10
3.25
40
Cons
isten
tly a
nnou
nce
the
last
acc
essib
le st
op o
n tr
ams
3.90
3.
80
3.85
4.
80
3.30
4.
05
57
Mak
e pu
blic
tran
spor
t ann
ounc
emen
ts to
teac
h pe
ople
abo
ut p
rope
r in
tera
ctio
n w
ith se
rvic
e do
gs
3.40
3.
00
3.20
4.
10
2.90
3.
50
64
Impr
ove
real
tim
e to
ols f
or c
omm
unic
atin
g di
srup
tion
and
help
pla
n tr
avel
jour
ney
4.00
3.
90
3.95
3.
30
3.50
3.
40
66
Offe
r bet
ter u
nder
stan
ding
and
supp
ort t
o co
rrec
t myk
i (i.e
. pub
lic
tran
spor
t sm
art c
ard)
mist
akes
e.g
. a d
edic
ated
loca
tion
whe
re y
ou c
an
go to
disc
uss y
our c
ircum
stan
ces
3.40
3.
50
3.45
3.
30
3.50
3.
40
78
Impr
ove
safe
ty o
f tra
m a
nd tr
ain
door
s tha
t aut
omat
ical
ly c
lose
3.
60
3.80
3.
70
3.50
3.
20
3.35
81
M
ake
sure
visu
al a
nd a
udio
ann
ounc
emen
ts a
re a
ccur
ate
and
easy
to
unde
rsta
nd (e
.g. n
ot to
o fa
st, r
epea
t key
info
rmat
ion)
4.
30
4.10
4.
20
4.30
3.
50
3.90
83
Mak
e a
myk
i (i.e
. pub
lic tr
ansp
ort s
mar
t car
d) h
elp
lane
/ 'sl
ow la
ne' o
n pu
blic
tran
spor
t 3.
11
3.30
3.
21
3.10
2.
00
2.55
85
Have
con
siste
nt tr
am st
op d
esig
ns
3.22
3.
90
3.58
2.
60
2.90
2.
75
Clus
ter a
nd st
atem
ent
Impo
rtan
ce
Feas
ibili
ty
Disa
bilit
y gr
oup
City
of
Mel
bour
ne
Tota
l Di
sabi
lity
grou
p Ci
ty o
f M
elbo
urne
To
tal
101
Impr
ove
reac
tions
from
firs
t res
pond
ers t
o be
mor
e po
sitiv
e to
war
ds
peop
le w
ith p
sych
osoc
ial d
isabi
lity
4.78
4.
00
4.37
3.
70
3.50
3.
60
104
Prov
ide
an o
ptio
n on
pho
ne sy
stem
s to
pres
s a b
utto
n to
talk
to a
pe
rson
with
men
tal h
ealth
/com
pass
ion
trai
ning
3.
44
3.00
3.
21
2.80
2.
60
2.70
107
Trai
n po
licy
offic
ers a
nd lo
cal l
aws/
com
plia
nce
offic
ers t
o un
ders
tand
di
vers
ity o
f disa
bilit
y 4.
70
4.10
4.
40
4.20
4.
20
4.20
Publ
ic tr
ansp
ort
3.70
3.
63
3.66
3.
57
3.10
3.
34
1 M
ake
publ
ic tr
ansp
ort f
ree
3.60
2.
90
3.25
3.
60
2.00
2.
80
11
Exte
nd th
e fr
ee tr
am zo
ne
4.00
3.
44
3.74
4.
10
3.20
3.
65
15
Impr
ove
trai
ning
of p
ublic
tran
spor
t sta
ff an
d pr
otec
tive
serv
ices
of
ficer
s (e.
g. to
enc
oura
ge fr
iend
lier a
ttitu
des t
owar
ds p
asse
nger
s)
4.70
4.
20
4.45
4.
60
3.60
4.
10
16
Impr
ove
the
accu
racy
of p
ublic
tran
spor
t inf
orm
atio
n (e
.g. m
ore
accu
rate
map
s, be
tter
info
rmat
ion
tech
nolo
gy)
4.00
4.
30
4.15
3.
80
3.80
3.
80
17
Crea
te a
ugm
ente
d re
ality
app
s with
acc
urat
e an
d tim
ely
info
rmat
ion
2.50
2.
90
2.70
2.
20
3.00
2.
60
28
Have
a p
erso
n av
aila
ble
to re
peat
visu
al a
nnou
ncem
ents
at s
tatio
ns
3.40
3.
50
3.45
3.
40
3.10
3.
25
37
Publ
ish so
cial
stor
ies a
nd v
isual
pla
ns fo
r maj
or e
vent
s and
att
ract
ions
to
hel
p pe
ople
pre
pare
thei
r visi
t 3.
40
3.80
3.
60
4.20
3.
90
4.05
38
Mak
e it
easie
r to
get o
n an
d of
f pub
lic tr
ansp
ort (
e.g.
mak
e it
easy
to
find
the
acce
ssib
le d
oor a
nd m
ake
mor
e do
ors a
nd c
arria
ges a
cces
sible
) 4.
00
4.00
4.
00
3.40
3.
10
3.25
40
Cons
isten
tly a
nnou
nce
the
last
acc
essib
le st
op o
n tr
ams
3.90
3.
80
3.85
4.
80
3.30
4.
05
57
Mak
e pu
blic
tran
spor
t ann
ounc
emen
ts to
teac
h pe
ople
abo
ut p
rope
r in
tera
ctio
n w
ith se
rvic
e do
gs
3.40
3.
00
3.20
4.
10
2.90
3.
50
64
Impr
ove
real
tim
e to
ols f
or c
omm
unic
atin
g di
srup
tion
and
help
pla
n tr
avel
jour
ney
4.00
3.
90
3.95
3.
30
3.50
3.
40
66
Offe
r bet
ter u
nder
stan
ding
and
supp
ort t
o co
rrec
t myk
i (i.e
. pub
lic
tran
spor
t sm
art c
ard)
mist
akes
e.g
. a d
edic
ated
loca
tion
whe
re y
ou c
an
go to
disc
uss y
our c
ircum
stan
ces
3.40
3.
50
3.45
3.
30
3.50
3.
40
78
Impr
ove
safe
ty o
f tra
m a
nd tr
ain
door
s tha
t aut
omat
ical
ly c
lose
3.
60
3.80
3.
70
3.50
3.
20
3.35
81
M
ake
sure
visu
al a
nd a
udio
ann
ounc
emen
ts a
re a
ccur
ate
and
easy
to
unde
rsta
nd (e
.g. n
ot to
o fa
st, r
epea
t key
info
rmat
ion)
4.
30
4.10
4.
20
4.30
3.
50
3.90
83
Mak
e a
myk
i (i.e
. pub
lic tr
ansp
ort s
mar
t car
d) h
elp
lane
/ 'sl
ow la
ne' o
n pu
blic
tran
spor
t 3.
11
3.30
3.
21
3.10
2.
00
2.55
85
Have
con
siste
nt tr
am st
op d
esig
ns
3.22
3.
90
3.58
2.
60
2.90
2.
75
39
Clus
ter a
nd st
atem
ent
Impo
rtan
ce
Feas
ibili
ty
Disa
bilit
y gr
oup
City
of
Mel
bour
ne
Tota
l Di
sabi
lity
grou
p Ci
ty o
f M
elbo
urne
To
tal
92
Mak
e pu
blic
tran
spor
t far
es w
here
you
don
't ne
ed to
rem
embe
r to
tap
on
3.80
3.
00
3.40
3.
10
2.60
2.
85
94
Incr
ease
pub
lic tr
ansp
ort o
utsid
e of
the
city
4.
10
4.20
4.
15
2.90
2.
60
2.75
10
3 In
crea
se sh
elte
r at p
ublic
tran
spor
t sto
ps
3.89
3.
60
3.74
3.
80
3.20
3.
50
108
Allo
w p
eopl
e m
ore
time
to e
nter
and
exi
t on
publ
ic tr
ansp
ort
3.50
3.
50
3.50
3.
33
3.10
3.
21
Hous
ing
4.
00
4.14
4.
00
3.15
3.
13
3.14
8
Impr
ove
secu
rity
and
tenu
re o
f hou
sing
4.90
4.
60
4.75
2.
90
3.00
2.
95
21
Incr
ease
and
impr
ove
soun
dpro
ofin
g in
priv
ate
hous
es e
spec
ially
in
tow
nhou
ses a
nd fl
ats t
hat s
hare
wal
ls 3.
30
3.30
3.
30
2.00
2.
70
2.35
24
Mak
e it
easie
r to
find
suita
ble
and
supp
ortiv
e ho
tel a
ccom
mod
atio
n 3.
22
3.70
3.
47
3.30
3.
60
3.45
27
In
crea
se su
ppor
t fro
m C
ity o
f Mel
bour
ne fo
r com
mun
ities
in p
ublic
ho
usin
g 3.
80
4.20
4.
00
3.50
4.
20
3.85
29
Prov
ide
mor
e su
ppor
ted
acco
mm
odat
ion
- inc
ludi
ng fo
r peo
ple
over
65
who
don
't ne
ed a
nur
sing
hom
e 4.
20
4.20
4.
20
3.00
3.
30
3.16
30
Build
mor
e ec
o-fr
iend
ly h
ousin
g 4.
00
3.80
3.
90
3.00
2.
90
2.95
69
Pr
ovid
e m
ore
tran
sitio
n ho
usin
g 4.
10
4.60
4.
35
3.40
2.
80
3.10
80
Pr
ovid
e m
ore
dive
rse
hous
ing
and
apar
tmen
t opt
ions
to m
eet i
ndiv
idua
l ne
eds
3.89
4.
30
4.11
3.
20
3.00
3.
10
88
Prov
ide
mor
e su
ppor
t to
peop
le a
fter
they
rece
ive
hous
ing
4.10
4.
10
4.10
3.
60
3.30
3.
45
99
Prov
ide
mor
e so
cial
hou
sing
4.44
4.
60
4.53
3.
40
2.70
3.
05
CRICOS Provider Code: 00116K
CONTACT US Melbourne Disability Institute
The University of MelbourneVictoria 3010 Australia
+61 3 8344 [email protected]
Intellectual property: Copyright in this publication is owned by the University and no part of it may be reproduced without the permission of the University.Disclaimer: The University endeavours to ensure that information contained in this publication is current and correct at the time of printing (May 2019).