Universal Design and Accessibility as an Act or a State – A Comparison of Policies in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark

186 countries have ratified The Convention on Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD) since 2006. Sweden ratified the CRPD in 2008, Denmark in 2009, and Norway in 2013. In the context of the United Nations, the concept of Universal Design (UD) introduced in the CRPD is new. Previously, accessibility was the dominant concept. By ratifying the CRPD, these three countries have agreed to initiate or advocate for research and development aimed at utilising UD when designing goods, services, equipment, and facilities. Additionally, they have committed to encouraging the integration of UD in the formulation of standards and guidelines. As a starting point for a future debate about the research part, this paper studies the uptake of UD in national policy in the three countries. The findings show that the approach in each country differs. Norway quickly developed their own version of UD (that has been critisised by scholars), thus choosing a top-down approach. By contrast, Denmark has been reluctant and is still using the concept of accessibility, waiting for the different sectors to adopt the concept of UD in their own way - as a kind of bottom-up strategy. While Sweden, has chosen another approach between these two strategies focusing on UD as a guiding principle, accessibility, and a third concept: usability. Finally, the paper discusses these approaches in relation to the built environment, using a framework that distinguishes between and act (like a process) and a state (as a result). All three counties are characterised by a dual focus on both act and state in line with the literature; however, the state dominates. The paper argues that we must acknowledge this duality but focus more on the process-related aspect to further develop UD as a human right concept.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Studies in health technology and informatics
Published
2024-11-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3233/shti240976
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Healthcare innovation and challenges
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
8.08
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Universal Design and Accessibility as an Act or a State – A Comparison of Policies in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark

Inger Marie Lid, Sidse Grangaard, Per‐Olof Hedvall
2 citations
Studies in health technology and informatics
Healthcare innovation and challenges
8.08
article

Universal Design and Accessibility as an Act or a State – A Comparison of Policies in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark

Inger Marie Lid, Sidse Grangaard, Per‐Olof Hedvall
article en
2 citations

Abstract

186 countries have ratified The Convention on Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD) since 2006. Sweden ratified the CRPD in 2008, Denmark in 2009, and Norway in 2013. In the context of the United Nations, the concept of Universal Design (UD) introduced in the CRPD is new. Previously, accessibility was the dominant concept. By ratifying the CRPD, these three countries have agreed to initiate or advocate for research and development aimed at utilising UD when designing goods, services, equipment, and facilities. Additionally, they have committed to encouraging the integration of UD in the formulation of standards and guidelines. As a starting point for a future debate about the research part, this paper studies the uptake of UD in national policy in the three countries. The findings show that the approach in each country differs. Norway quickly developed their own version of UD (that has been critisised by scholars), thus choosing a top-down approach. By contrast, Denmark has been reluctant and is still using the concept of accessibility, waiting for the different sectors to adopt the concept of UD in their own way - as a kind of bottom-up strategy. While Sweden, has chosen another approach between these two strategies focusing on UD as a guiding principle, accessibility, and a third concept: usability. Finally, the paper discusses these approaches in relation to the built environment, using a framework that distinguishes between and act (like a process) and a state (as a result). All three counties are characterised by a dual focus on both act and state in line with the literature; however, the state dominates. The paper argues that we must acknowledge this duality but focus more on the process-related aspect to further develop UD as a human right concept.

Studies in health technology and informaticsVol. 320
VID Specialized University (NO), Mid Sweden University (SE), Aalborg University (DK)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Healthcare innovation and challenges
8.08
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.