Making the City of Melbourne more inclusive for people - Melbourne Disability … · 2019-06-06 · people with disability, disability advocates, academics, and City of Melbourne

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).

Making the City of Melbourne more inclusive for people - Melbourne Disability … · 2019-06-06 · people with disability, disability advocates, academics, and City of Melbourne

Documents