Public Urban Public
sportation environment buildings
KOTAKU Guide
to Disability Inclusion
AUGUS T 2 0 2 3
© 2023 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank
1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433
Telephone: 202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org
Some rights reserved
This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings,
interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views
of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The
World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries,
colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any
judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the
endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.
Nothing herein shall constitute or be considered to be a limitation upon or waiver
of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved.
Rights and Permissions
This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license (CC BY 3.0 IGO)
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo. Under the Creative Commons Attribution
license, you are free to copy, distribute, transmit, and adapt this work, including for commercial
purposes, under the following conditions:
Attribution— The National Slum Upgrading Project (NSUP/ KOTAKU) Universal Accessibility
Toolkit was prepared by a team led by Yuko Arai, composed of Alex Robinson, Eliana Pires de
Souza, Fernando Alonso, Francesco Cocco, Jeremia Sir Nindyo Mamola, Risye Dwiyani and
Tony Hartanto Widjarnarso under the guidance of Satu Kristiina Kahkonen, Country Director
for Indonesia and Timor-Leste and Ming Zhang, Practice Manager of the World Bank’s Urban,
Disaster Risk Management, Resilience and Land Global Practice (GPURL). The implementation
of NSUP/ KOTAKU was led by the Task Team Leaders, Evi Hermirasari, Andre Bald and Kumala
Sari. The Team is grateful to all advice received from the peer reviewers, Charlotte Vuyiswa
McClain-Nhlapo and Narae Choi. Lisa Ferraro Parmelee gave editorial support, and Amy Chan
designed the report. We end with a final word of gratitude to the Australian Government
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT).
Translations—If you create a translation of this work, please add the following disclaimer
along with the attribution: This translation was not created by The World Bank and should not
be considered an official World Bank translation. The World Bank shall not be liable for any
content or error in this translation.
Adaptations—If you create an adaptation of this work, please add the following disclaimer
along with the attribution: This is an adaptation of an original work by The World Bank. Views
and opinions expressed in the adaptation are the sole responsibility of the author or authors
of the adaptation and are not endorsed by The World Bank.
Third-party content—The World Bank does not necessarily own each component of the content
contained within the work. The World Bank therefore does not warrant that the use of any
third-party owned individual component or part contained in the work will not infringe on the
rights of those third parties. The risk of claims resulting from such infringement rests solely
with you. If you wish to re-use a component of the work, it is your responsibility to determine
whether permission is needed for that re-use and to obtain permission from the copyright
owner. Examples of components can include, but are not limited to, tables, figures, or images.
All queries on rights and licenses should be addressed to
World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433,
USA; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org.
Cover, clockwise from upper left: Detail of accessible mobility chain urban sequence (from
home to public buildings); A person in a wheelchair reaching a toilet door handle, © Eka
Pristianto; Implementation of accessible design; Children using the space around the public
toilet facility in Tanjungrejo, Malang City, © Malang City Coordinator Team; Detail of example of
snowball sampling.
Cover design: Amy Chan
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
Contents
Abbreviations and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
a. Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
b. Purpose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
c. Target audience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
d. Structure of the guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2. Disability Inclusion: Key Concepts and Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
a. Describing disability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
b. Principles of disability-inclusive development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
i. Inclusive development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
ii. Participation and representation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
iii. Disability data and prevalence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
iv. Intersectionalities and horizontal inequalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
c. Accessibility and inclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
i. Universal accessibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
ii. Reasonable accommodation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
iii. Inclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3. Implementing Disability Inclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
a. Organizations of persons with disabilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
i. Importance of working with OPDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
ii. Potential contributions of OPDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
iii. Considerations for working with OPDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
b. Disability data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
i. The issue with disability data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
ii. Hidden populations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
iii. Identifying persons with disabilities in a kelurahan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
iv. The Washington Group questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
v. Measuring barriers and monitoring inclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
c. Institutional engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
i. Disability as a crosscutting issue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
ii. Planning at the kelurahan level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
iii. Sustaining good practice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
d. Managing disability inclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
i. Leadership and standard setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
ii. Planning and budgeting for disability inclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
Boxes
Box 1.1. Post-CRPD Disability Laws and Regulations, Indonesia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Box 2.1. Inclusive Cities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Box 3.1. The Washington Group Short Set of Questions on Functioning . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Box 3.2. Examples of Items for Inclusion in an Accessibility Checklist for
Meetings and Events. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Box 3.3. Disability Inclusion Indicators in the Australian Aid Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Box 3.4. From Identification to Participation and Inclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Box 3.5. Observations on Women’s Participation in Community
Settlement Planning (RPLP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Box 3.6. Drawing on Established Inclusion Mechanisms in KOTAKU. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Box 3.7. Examples of Resource Allocations for Program Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Figures
Figure 2.1. The Social Model of Disability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Figure 2.2. Examples of Intersecting Identity Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Figure 2.3. Examples of UA users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 2.4. Key Components of Disability-Inclusive Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Figure 3.1. Four data collection points for disability inclusive urban
development programming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Figure 3.2. Illustrative Example of Snowball Sampling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Maps
Map 2.1. Percentage of Persons with Disabilities in Urban Areas by Province.. . . . . . . . 14
6
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ANCP Australian NGO Cooperation Program
Asosiasi Pemerintah Kota Seluruh Indonesia
APEKSI
(Indonesian Association of City Governments)
Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah
BAPPEDA
(Regional Development Planning Agency)
Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional
BAPPENAS
(National Development Planning Agency)
BPD Badan Permusyawaratan Desa (Village Consultative Body)
Badan Penanggulangan Bencana Daerah
BPBD
(Regional Disaster Management Agency)
BPS Badan Pusat Statistik (National Statistics Office)
CRPD Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
DSU Disability service unit
DFAT Department for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Australia)
DPRD Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah (Regional People’s Representative Council)
KOTAKU Kota Tanpa Kumuh (Indonesia’s Slum Upgrading Program)
Lembaga Pemberdayaan Masyarakat
LPM
(Community Empowerment Institution in urban areas)
MPWH Ministry of Public Works and Housing
OPD Organization of persons with disabilities
PIU Project Implementation Unit
Pemberdayaan Kesejahteraan Keluarga
PKK
(Family Welfare Organization or women’s group)
RISKESDAS Riset Kesehatan Dasar (Basic Health Survey)
RPLP Rencana Penataan Lingkungan Permukiman (Community Settlement Plan)
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
SAKERNAS Survei Angkatan Kerja Nasional (National Labor Force Survey)
SUSENAS Survei Sosial Ekonomi Nasional (National Socioeconomic Survey)
TAD Tim Advokasi Difable (Disability Advocacy Team)
UA Universal accessibility
UNESCAP United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
7
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
1. Introduction
a. Background
Understandings of disability have evolved over the years. Today, we know the major
contributing factors to disability are barriers in society. Barriers and inaccessible
environments prevent persons with disabilities from living independently and
participating fully in society and the communities in which they live. Urban planning
and design are inherently linked to disability, as poor design will create barriers and be
disabling, while good design will actively remove barriers, improve accessibility, promote
independence, and facilitate societal participation for all.
An estimated 151 million people, or around 56 percent of Indonesia’s population, live
in urban areas. This figure is expected to rise to 220 million by Indonesia’s centenary
of independence in 2045 (World Bank 2019). While the process of urbanization has
been accompanied by increasing opportunities and standards of living for many, the
benefits and potential gains in prosperity have grown at a slower pace, and they remain
uneven (ibid.). Slums, including in smaller cities, are not uncommon. Population
pressure, competition for space, and congestion are also detracting from the livability
of urban areas. For many persons with disabilities, constraints on livability further limit
movement, access to services, work opportunities, and social life.
In partnership with the government of the Republic of Indonesia and with support from
the Australian government’s Department for Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), the World
Bank has been working to improve disability inclusion in Indonesia’s Slum Upgrading
Program (Kota Tanpa Kumuh, or Cities without Slums). Implementation of KOTAKU is
led by Indonesia’s Ministry of Public Works and Public Housing (Kementrian Perkerjaan
Umum dan Perumahan, or Kemen MPWH). This guide draws on experiences from the
KOTAKU program and is one of three companion publications addressing accessibility,
disability, and inclusion in KOTAKU.
b. Purpose
Following the adoption in 2006 of the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), disability inclusion has gained widespread recognition,
including in the three major global development frameworks of 2015 (UN 2015a,
2015b, 2015c). Before 2015, disability was largely absent from normative development
frameworks. Current frameworks recognize disability inclusion as vital in addressing
inequities, eliminating poverty, and building resilience to disaster risk.
8
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
This guide contributes to efforts to widen disability inclusion, among them the
commitment in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development to “leave no one behind”
and the vision in the Quito Declaration on Sustainable Cities and Human Settlements
for All of “equal use and enjoyment of cities” by all people (UN 2017). The guide also
aligns with the World Bank’s Disability Inclusion and Accountability Framework 2022,
Environmental and Social Framework 2017, and DFAT’s Development for All strategies
(World Bank 2022; Government of Australia 2015). Crucially, it supports efforts to
translate the Indonesian government’s policy and regulatory commitments to disability
inclusion into practice and meaningful impact (see box 1.1).
Box 1.1. Post-CRPD Disability Laws and Regulations, Indonesia
The following are key Indonesian laws and regulations concerning disability. The
introduction of regulations accelerated following Indonesia’s ratification of the CRPD
in 2011.
• 2006: UN adoption of CRPD
• 2006: Regulation 30 on Technical Guidelines on Accessibility in Building Construction
and the Environment
• 2008: CRPD comes into effect
• 2011: Law 19 on Ratification of the CRPD
• 2014: Regulation 14 on Management, Protection, and Participation of Persons with
Disabilities in Disaster Management
• 2016: Law 8 on Persons with Disabilities
• 2017: Regulation 98 on Provision of Accessible Public Transportation Services for
Users with Special Needs
• 2019: Master Plan on Persons with Disabilities (25-year plan)
• 2019: Regulation 70 on Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation of Respect,
Protection, and Fulfillment of Rights of Persons with Disabilities
• 2020: Regulation 13 on Adequate Accommodation for Students with Disabilities
• 2020: Regulation 39 on Adequate Accommodation for Persons with Disabilities in the
Judicial Process
• 2020: Regulation 60 on Disability Service Units in the Labor Sector
• 2020: Regulation 68 on National Disability Commission
• 2020: Regulation 42 on Accessibility of Settlements, Public Services, and Protection
from Disasters for Persons with Disabilities
• 2021: Decree 50 on Membership of the National Disability Commission
9
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
c. Target audience
This guide is intended for government planners and managers responsible for urban
development programs, such as KOTAKU. This includes national and subnational
government staff, including Project Implementation Units (PIUs) in World Bank projects.
Key concepts and principles of disability inclusion are outlined, with further detail
on practical implementation provided to give planners and managers a fuller picture
of disability inclusion in action. This information will assist with resource planning,
monitoring, and policy compliance.
The guide will also be of interest to urban planners and program managers in the private
and nongovernmental sectors, while providing points of reference for representatives of
organizations of persons with disabilities (OPDs).
d. Structure of the guide
Following this introduction, the guide is organized into two main parts. Part 2 outlines
key concepts and principles of disability-inclusive urban development. This includes how
disability is understood today, issues of participation and representation, disability data,
and the relationship between universal accessibility and reasonable accommodation.
This background will help planners and managers anticipate the key actions required to
ensure disability inclusion.
Part 3 offers practical guidance on implementing disability inclusion and considerations
for design, planning, and resourcing. Illustrative examples of practice from Indonesia
and lessons learned from KOTAKU are provided.
WORLD BANK
A universal benefit of UA is children using public spaces, such as these children playing
soccer in Baciro Village.
10
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
2. Disability Inclusion:
Key Concepts and Considerations
a. Describing disability
The CRPD deliberately does not provide a definition of disability. This is in recognition of
the diversity of disability and of how understandings and parameters of disability and
health conditions continue to evolve over time.1
According to the CRPD,
Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental,
intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may
hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others
(UN 2006).
This description is based on the social model of disability, which directs attention to
how barriers in society “disable” persons who have impairments (see figure 2.1). This
contrasts with the medical model understanding that a person’s disability can be cured,
or “fixed,” through medical intervention. The social model stresses that it is society, and
not persons with disabilities, that must change.
Figure 2.1. The Social Model of Disability
Disability = Impairment + Barriers
Recognizing that disability is caused by barriers in society or the environment in which
we live has important implications for urban development programming. First, it widens
responsibility for disability inclusion to everyone, including urban designers, architects,
engineers, planners, and program administrators. Second, it requires addressing a
range of barriers that go beyond physical barriers and the improvement of physical
access to infrastructure. To ensure urban areas are livable for persons with disabilities,
attitudinal, communication, and institutional barriers also need to be considered and
addressed.
1. The recognition of autism, for example, as a disability is relatively recent. Autism was first included in the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1980 (Rosen et al. 2021).
11
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
b. Principles of disability-inclusive development
This section introduces key principles of disability-inclusive development that should
be applied to urban development programming. Topics relating to participation and
accessibility are informed by the CRPD and reflected in Law No. 8 2016 on Persons
with Disabilities. Discussion of disability data is informed by regional commitments
to the Incheon Strategy to “Make the Right Real” for Persons with Disabilities and
global stakeholder recommendations for reporting on Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs; UNESCAP 2012; International Disability Alliance 2017). The overview of
intersectionalities and inequalities is informed by World Bank and DFAT understandings
of social inclusion. Practical examples and approaches to translating these principles
into action are presented in part 3 of this guide.
Example of a poorly designed guiding block
strip in Yogyakarta. The guiding block leads
directly into the external corner of a building
that is resticting the passageway.
Consulting with persons with disabilities
improves urban design and minimizes
financial and reputational risk by ensuring
investments provide seamless accessiility
and are fit for purpose.
Photo: KOTAKU management team.
i. Inclusive development
Prior to the CRPD, little attention was paid at the global and national levels to disability
inclusion in human development. The Millennium Development Goals, for example,
made no direct reference to disability. As noted (see section 1.b), the major frameworks
addressing poverty elimination, risk reduction, and climate change now clearly
emphasize disability inclusion and the inclusion of all members of society.
The World Bank defines social inclusion as “the process of improving the ability,
opportunity, and dignity of people, disadvantaged on the basis of their identity, to
take part in society” (World Bank 2013). This is extended to inclusive cities (see
box 2.1). The World Bank notes that social inclusion is closely linked to poverty
reduction but is broader in scope, with some groups excluded from full participation
in society irrespective of income (ibid.). Applying a social inclusion perspective,
however, requires consideration of why some groups, such as persons with disabilities,
are overrepresented among the poor and are unable to gain access to services or
contribute to decision making. It also draws attention both to the multidimensional
nature of poverty and how different identity characteristics intersect to place individuals
or groups at heightened risk of poverty and marginalization (see section 2.b.iv).
12
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
Box 2.1. Inclusive Cities
The World Bank’s approach to inclusive cities is centered on three core areas:
• Spatial dimension: Access to land, housing, and infrastructure
• Social dimension: Rights and participation
• Economic dimension: Opportunities for all
This multidimensional approach “beyond bricks and mortar” provides a basis for
understanding and informing urban development that can unlock the potential of cities
to benefit all members of society.
Source: World Bank 2015.
ii. Participation and representation
The motto of the disability community is “Nothing About Us Without Us.” Decision
making on the removal of barriers and the best ways to ensure disability inclusion must
include the participation of persons with disabilities. According to the Committee on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities,
The active and informed participation of everyone in decisions that affect their lives
and rights is consistent with the human rights–based approach in public decision-
making processes, and ensures good governance and social accountability (UN
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2018).
Indonesian civil society includes a strong, vibrant, and active disability community,
including representative organizations of persons with disabilities (OPDs), at national
and local levels. OPDs differ from other civil society organizations in that they
are “led, directed and governed by persons with disabilities” (ibid.). They include
national umbrella organizations; cross-disability organizations that represent people
with different impairment types; organizations that focus on particular impairments;
organizations of women with disabilities; and organizations that include family members
with disabilities, including children.2
Standard practice 1: OPDs should be identified in advance of program design and
consulted throughout all stages of urban development programming.
iii. Disability data and prevalence
Accurate data disaggregated by disability are needed to gain an understanding
of differences in participation and opportunity between persons with and without
disabilities and to inform policy development, program planning, and resourcing.
Different definitions of disability and approaches to the collection of these data,
however, have resulted in a range of prevalence estimates. Disability prevalence figures
2. For an example list of national OPDs, see https://ppdi.or.id/daftar-opd-nasional/.
13
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
in 2019 for Asia and the Pacific ranged from 24 percent for New Zealand to 1.1 percent
for Brunei Darussalam (UNESCAP 2019). The World Health Organization now estimates
that 16 percent of the world’s population have significant disabilities (WHO 2022).
In Indonesia, there is no standard approach to disability data collection. The ministries
of Social Affairs (Kementerian Sosial, or Kemensos), Health (Kementerian Kesehatan, or
Kemenkes), and Education, Culture, Research, and Technology (Kementerian Pendidikan,
Kebudayaan, Riset dan Teknologi, or Kemendikbudristek) all have different approaches
to collecting disability data. The National Statistics Office (Badan Pusat Statistik, or BPS)
has also used a range of tools to collect these data.
As part of international efforts to improve the quality and comparability of disability
data, including for SDG reporting, BPS has been moving away from asking direct
questions, such as “Do you have a disability?” The use of direct questions results in
underreporting and low disability prevalence figures. To avoid issues with underreporting,
BPS has adopted the Washington Group questions (see 3.b) for use in multiple surveys,
including the Population Census 2010, the National Socioeconomic Survey (SUSENAS)
2012, and the National Labor Force Survey (SAKERNAS) 2016. Question modifications
and differences in use, including potential sampling differences, have contributed to
prevalence figures ranging from 4.3 percent from the 2010 Census (see map 2.1) to
12.15 percent from SAKERNAS 2016 (Cameron and Suarez 2017). The Basic Health
Survey (RISKESDAS) 2018, resulted in disability prevalence rates of 22 percent for
adults between 18 and 59 years of age (KEMENKES, n.d.).
Map 2.1. Percentage of Persons with Disabilities in Urban Areas by Province.
Source: Cameron and Suarez 2017.
Note: Based on 2010 Census data with a 4.3 percent disability prevalence rate.
Despite differences in available data, our understanding of the extent of disability
prevalence confirms the urgent need for greater inclusion in urban development
programming. For reference, the RISKESDAS 2018 disability prevalence figure for urban
areas was 21.9 percent.
14
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
While prevalence figures and the ability to disaggregate data sets by disability are
needed to understand differences in opportunities between persons with and without
disabilities, other disability-related data are also relevant to urban development
programming. Examples include documentation of barriers and related accessibility
interventions and use; budget allocations for accessibility and inclusion; recorded
engagement with OPDs and subsequent actions; and documented human resource
development within program teams.
Standard practice 2: Identify persons with disabilities and monitor participation
throughout the program cycle. Ensure identification and data collection are adequately
planned for and resourced at program outset.
iv. Intersectionalities and horizontal inequalities
Commitments in the 2030 Agenda to leave no one behind and ensure equitable
development have increased interest in intersectionality.3 Intersectionality refers to
how identity and social characteristics are connected and overlap, for example, gender,
ethnicity, and disability (see figure 2.2). These overlapping characteristics affect
individuals’ access to opportunities and their inclusion in society. The barriers a woman
with disabilities faces, for instance, may be different from those faced by a man with
disabilities.
Figure 2.2. Examples of Intersecting Identity Characteristics
Gender
Disability Age
Religion Ethnicity
Horizontal inequality refers to the differences in opportunities between groups with a
shared identity characteristic (UNDP 2022). An ethnic minority or minority language
group, for example, may experience a lack of economic opportunities compared to
3. Intersectionality stems from critical race theory and was first used by Kimberlé Crenshaw to explain the
employment experiences of Black women in the United States. See: Crenshaw, 1989.
15
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
others in the community in which they live. While disability is diverse and intersects
with other characteristics, persons with disabilities share some horizontal inequalities
as a group experience. How an individual experiences intersectionalities and horizontal
inequalities may be complex.
Intersectionalities and horizontal inequalities both require consideration in inclusive
urban design. On the one hand, horizontal inequalities may be mitigated through the
removal of barriers, including through effective universal accessibility interventions (see
section 2.c). On the other, intersectionalities remind us that one size does not fit all,
and solutions need to be adapted to particular needs and contexts. To ensure urban
solutions are appropriately designed requires effective consultation with a range of end
users. In terms of disability inclusion, this includes people with different impairments
and of different genders and ages and different spatial locations.
Standard practice 3: Engage with a wide range of persons with disabilities, including
diversity of gender, age, and impairment types, in the design and delivery of urban
development interventions. Diverse participation will help to maximize the sustainability of
interventions and the livability of urban areas for all.
c. Accessibility and inclusion
i. Universal accessibility
With reference to the CRPD, universal
The CRPD refers to Universal Design
accessibility (UA) is understood as “the design
and not universal accessibility. In
of products, environments, programmes and
this guide, the term “universal
services to be usable by all people, to the
accessibility” is used to reiterate
greatest extent possible, without the need for
the importance of removing barriers
adaptation or specialized design” (UN 2006,
to participation for persons with
article 2).
disabilities by improving accessibility
of the built environment. UA is not a disability-specific intervention. Rather,
Source: UN, 2006 it aims to ensure that facilities, infrastructure,
goods, services, and technologies are accessible
and usable by all, including persons with
disabilities. UA lies at the heart of good urban design and takes into account the dignity
and diversity of all end users. As the CRPD Committee notes, UA “should contribute to
the creation of an unrestricted chain of movement for an individual from one space to
another, including movement inside particular spaces, with no barriers” (UN Committee
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2014).
Importantly, UA goes beyond unrestricted movement and the removal of physical
barriers. In other words, UA does not stop at the front door or the counter. UA
emphasizes that all facilities and infrastructure should be usable. Having physical
16
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
access, for example, to a shop, bank, or government office is not enough. The objective
of UA is to ensure that the services offered by these facilities are also accessible on an
equal basis. UA interventions that do not consider the full suite of barriers individuals
may encounter will fall short of this objective.4
Figure 2.3. Examples of UA users
The benefits of UA extend to a wide range of end users and situations, and they reach
beyond persons with permanent disabilities. This reach maximizes the return on
investment of UA interventions and their relevance to target communities.
Permanent Temporary Situational
Person with Parent carrying
Touch Person with one arm
an injured arm an infant
Person with Person distracted
Sight Person who is blind
a cataract while driving
Person with an Person working in
Hearing Person who is deaf
ear infection a noisy restaurant
Person who Person with a
Speech Person with laryngitis
is nonverbal heavy accent
Adapted from UNESCAP 2019.
ii. Reasonable accommodation
Even if UA is delivered to its fullest extent, it will not remove barriers for all persons
with disabilities. Adjustments or accommodations may be needed for some. A central
concept defined and recognized by the CRPD is reasonable accommodation, which
means the implementation of
necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a
disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure
persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of
all human rights and fundamental freedoms. (UN 2006, article 2)
Examples of reasonable accommodation include the provision of sign language
interpretation for a workshop participant; adjustments to the workplace, including
the provision of communication software, for an employee; flexible study periods and
deadlines for a student with psychosocial disability; or the provision of a temporary
ramp to give a wheelchair user access to a meeting in the absence of an accessible
and suitable venue. Importantly, reasonable accommodation focuses on the access
needs of the individual rather than persons with disabilities as a group. While what
4. See World Bank 2022a and 2022b technical notes on accessibility, including accessibility in the urban
environment. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/disability/publication/technical-note-on-accessibility
17
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
is considered an “undue burden” is not well-defined in international or Indonesian
law and is open to legal interpretation, the weight of responsibility is placed on the
agency, service provider, or employer to ensure reasonable accommodation.5 A lack of
resources is not a sufficient justification for not providing accommodation (Amnesty
International 2016).
Standard practice 4: Anticipating demand and requests for reasonable accommodation,
along with ensuring appropriate resource allocations, is central to good disability-inclusive
program management.
iii. Inclusion
Accessibility is a prerequisite for inclusion (UN Committee on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities 2014), and UA and reasonable accommodation are key parts of an
effective disability-inclusive urban development strategy (see figure 2.3). They will not by
themselves, however, result in disability inclusion.
Ensuring urban development processes are inclusive and outcomes are equitable
requires acknowledging that persons with disabilities face disproportionate exclusion
and marginalization. Persons with disabilities are overrepresented among the poor,
have lower educational attainment and poorer health outcomes than persons without
disabilities, and are among the most marginalized individuals within any identity group
(see section 2.b.iv).
Figure 2.4. Key Components of Disability-Inclusive Development
Disability Inclusion
Universal Participation
Accessibility
Reasonable
Accommodation Disability
5. See UN 2006, article 18. Also, Government of Indonesia 2016, paragraph 50.
18
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
To be effective, disability-inclusive urban development must equip persons with
disabilities with the skills and authority to participate in decision making and planning in
the communities in which they live. This requires removing barriers through accessibility
interventions (UA and reasonable accommodation) and addressing marginalization
through interventions that empower and actively promote participation. At the same
time, it is essential to raise awareness of disability and to challenge stigma and
prejudice within institutions and communities. How to implement disability-inclusive
urban development is the focus of the following chapter.
Standard practice 5: Accessibility is a precondition for inclusion but is insufficient alone.
Disability-inclusive urban development also requires fostering participation, empowering,
and creating opportunities for persons with disabilities to contribute to decision making.
EKA PRISTIANTO
A person in a wheelchair reaching a toilet door handle.
19
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
3. Implementing Disability Inclusion
a. Organizations of persons with disabilities
i. Importance of working with OPDs
Working with and alongside persons with disabilities is central to disability-inclusive
development. The active involvement of OPDs (see section 2.b.ii) was pivotal to the
development of the CRPD:
The participatory processes and the involvement of persons with disabilities, through
their representative organizations, in the negotiation and drafting of the Convention
proved to be an excellent example of the principle of full and effective participation,
individual autonomy and the freedom to make one’s own decisions. (UN Committee on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2018)
While the core activities of OPDs may vary, OPDs provide a voice for persons with
disabilities. Research has shown that OPDs improve participation in community
consultations and access to services and facilities, including infrastructure, for persons
with disabilities (Grills et al. 2020).
ii. Potential contributions of OPDs
Ensuring persons with disabilities have a voice in decision making is essential to
ensuring urban environments are accessible and livable and that the benefits of urban
environments reach all citizens. In addition to ensuring
The World Bank’s
equity, the active involvement of persons with disabilities
Environmental and Social
helps ensure interventions are fit for purpose, reduces
Framework emphasizes
wastage, and safeguards investments. inclusive stakeholder
engagement throughout the
OPDs can directly contribute to the delivery of urban
project life cycle.
development programming in multiple ways, among which
Environmental and Social
are the following:
Standard 10 notes stakeholder
identification and engagement,
• Facilitating the identification of community members
including disadvantaged
with disabilities
groups, should be initiated
• Empowering community members with disabilities, at the early stages of project
development and decision
and their families, through discussion, formal
making to be most effective.
trainings, and demonstration of their leadership
Source: World Bank, 2017.
20
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
• Raising awareness of disability inclusion among program teams, community
members, and local government institutions, including at the kelurahan level6
• Conducting accessibility audits (see section 3.b.iv) and providing guidance on
universal accessibility considerations and priorities
• Providing technical guidance on the specific access needs of individuals with
disabilities, including reasonable accommodation
• Conducting monitoring and evaluation of universal accessibility interventions
iii. Considerations for working with OPDs
a. Representation
OPDs are, by definition, representative organizations. While some represent persons
with disabilities in general, others may represent persons with a particular impairment,
such as individuals who are blind or partially sighted, or a particular group, such as
women with disabilities. Where possible, it is preferable to work with a range of OPDs
or organizations that are pan-disability to ensure broad representation. It may not be
reasonable, for example, to expect an OPD
The Ministry of Transportation (Kementrian focusing on the Deaf 7 to fully represent
Perhubangan) held a socialization and persons with physical impairments or vice
accessible transportation simulation
versa. Addressing horizontal inequalities
in Jakarta in 2019. The event, which
included the participation of sixty OPD and intersectionalities (see section 2.b.iv)
representatives, resulted in a commitment in urban development programming requires
by twenty-three public and private service diverse representation that includes persons
providers covering land, sea, air, and with disabilities of different genders and
rail transportation to deliver accessible ages, as well as the parents or carers of
facilities and infrastructure. This event children with disabilities.
also helped accelerate the realization of
Regulation 98, 2017, on Accessible Public Not all persons with disabilities are
Transportation Services.
members of OPDs. This could be for a range
Source: InfoPublik, 2019 of reasons, including a lack of opportunity
or through personal choice. Membership
in an OPD is not a prerequisite for individuals with disabilities to be included in urban
development programming, and engaging with OPDs is not a substitute for ensuring the
direct participation of community members with disabilities in planning, implementation,
and evaluation.
6. A kelurahan is an administrative unit comparable to a suburb in an urban area. It is the equivalent of a
village in a rural area.
7. Deaf is used here as a proper noun to refer to a group of persons who are deaf and share a particular
language and culture.
21
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
b. Community engagement
An OPD based in Klaten district
OPDs are often well placed to facilitate engagement in the province of Central Java,
with community members with disabilities. OPD worked with the District Disaster
Management Agency (BPBD) on a
staff can establish communication and build trust
donor-funded disaster risk reduction
between community members with disabilities and
project. Effective and trusted
external stakeholders, including program implementers working relations established under
and officials, while increasing participation in the project led to BPBD inviting the
kelurahan planning and decision making. OPD to collaborate in establishing a
disability service unit (DSU).
Increasingly, OPDs in Indonesia have built working
The DSU allows the sharing of
relations with local governments. It should not be expertise and responsibilities
assumed, however, that OPDs have connections between the OPD and BPBD for the
to government in all kelurahan. Stigma within purpose of mainstreaming disability
communities can be a barrier to entry for OPDs. inclusion in disaster risk reduction
Working partnerships with OPDs should be reciprocal. planning and policy in Klaten.
On the one hand, OPDs can facilitate engagement Source: Pertiwi et al. 2019.
for the implementing partner with individuals with
disabilities in communities. On the other, the implementing partner can facilitate
introductions to officials and access to the communities themselves.
c. Resourcing
OPDs in Indonesia, as elsewhere in Asia and the Pacific, are experiencing rising
demand for their services and, increasingly, are called upon to contribute to a range of
development programs and activities. In the past, OPDs were largely advocacy focused
and poorly resourced. Today OPDs are being asked to provide technical guidance and
support across the spectrum of development planning and programming, but the
majority of OPDs remain small and under-resourced. It is essential that partnerships
with, and requests for technical assistance to, OPDs are appropriately resourced and
budgeted. This includes meeting requests for reasonable accommodation as required
(see section 2.c.ii).
OPDs also need to be equipped with sufficient information to contribute meaningfully
to urban development programming. Representative organizations cannot realistically
be expected to have expertise in development sectors ranging from food security to
transportation. Working relationships with OPDs need to be professionalized. This
includes ensuring adequate resourcing and appropriate briefings and making program
information available to OPDs, as well as having clear terms of reference and allocation
of responsibilities between OPDs and implementing partners.
Standard practice 6: Ensure that OPD engagement is fully considered and in program
budgets and that OPDs are properly remunerated for the technical assistance and
services they provide.
22
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
b. Disability data
i. The issue with disability data
Over the past two decades, work on disability data in global development has largely
focused on improving the collection of disability prevalence data. There have been two
main aims:
• To standardize and improve the collection of prevalence data to allow comparison
between, and within, countries (see section 2.b.iii)
• To disaggregate data sets, such as census data sets, to gain an understanding of
differences in opportunities between persons with and without disabilities
Standardization and disaggregation are necessary for effective measurement of
progress against the CRPD and disability inclusion in the SDGs and related frameworks.
As such, efforts to improve disability data collection have largely focused on government
at the national level.8 Tools developed for use by national governments, particularly the
Washington Group questions, are increasingly being used in a range of programming
contexts (see section 3.b.iv).
As noted (see section 2.a), the social model of disability urges us to consider both
the individual (with impairment) and (disabling) barriers in society. Efforts to improve
the collection of disability data have often targeted collecting data on individuals,
for example, to understand prevalence or how many individuals with disabilities are
in a population. Improved prevalence data allow us to disaggregate and identify
differences in opportunities between persons with and without disabilities, such as
educational attainment, household income, or type of employment. Prevalence data
does not provide information on the underlying causes of inequalities and exclusion. To
understand root causes, we need to consider the other side of the social model. That is,
in addition to determining the number of individuals with disabilities in a community, we
need to identify, assess, and understand barriers.
8. See World Bank 2020 for guidance on collecting disability data in household surveys and questionnaires.
https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/456131578985058020/pdf/Disability-Measurement-in-
Household-Surveys-A-Guidebook-for-Designing-Household-Survey-Questionnaires.pdf
23
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
Figure 3.1. Four data collection points for disability inclusive urban development
programming
4. Inclusion and equity
(evaluate impact and use)
3. Participation
and empowerment
(monitor processes and
assess outcomes)
2. Barriers
(identify and
document removal)
1. Individuals
with disabilities
(identify and
disagreggate)
Documenting and recording barriers alongside interventions to improve participation
and subsequent use and impact should be a key part of disability data collection in
urban development programming (see section 2.b.v).
ii. Hidden populations
A key challenge in urban development programming is identifying persons with
disabilities in a community or working area. This is a prerequisite for increasing
participation and disability inclusion.
Persons with disabilities may be part of what is known as a hidden, or invisible,
population, whose existence is obscured by stigma, prejudice, or fear of harm. Members
of hidden populations may take active measures to stay hidden or to hide members of
their households. A parent of a child with disabilities, for example, may hide the child
out of shame or embarrassment, and neighbors may not know the child lives next door
(Robinson and Kani 2014). Similarly, community officials and leaders may deny the
presence of persons with disabilities in their communities or underreport individuals
with particular impairments, such as persons with psychosocial disabilities. This
is further complicated by impairments or health conditions that are non-visible and
subsequently overlooked or ignored. For example, people with autism, chronic pain,
epilepsy, or chronic fatigue syndrome.
Hidden populations are, by definition, hard to identify and data collection approaches
need to consider that there may be stigma associated with being identified or labelled
as a person with disabilities. While there are data collection tools, such as the
Washington Group questions (see section 3.b.iv), that are designed to avoid stigma
when collecting disability prevalence data, there is no guarantee the use of these tools
will identify all persons with disabilities in a household. Identification of persons with
24
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
disabilities requires acknowledgment that the person is visible and is a member of the
household in the first instance.
iii. Identifying persons with disabilities in a kelurahan
Snowball sampling, a form of nonrandom sampling that assumes people of a particular
identity group may be connected, can be effective in identifying hidden populations
(see figure 3.1). Parents of children with disabilities in a community, for example, may
know each other through informal networks. Introductions to program teams through
members of a network are more likely to be trusted, which can help with identifying
other members of the network. Snowball sampling can be a cost-effective approach that
can be used in programs with limited resources.
Figure 3.2. Illustrative Example of Snowball Sampling
Source: NAD 2017.
Snowball sampling begins by identifying one person with disabilities. This person is
then asked if they know other persons with disabilities, and the process is repeated
to identify further persons with disabilities. There is no commonly agreed-upon point
at which the process of snowball sampling should end. It may conclude when all
contacts in a network are identified, or it may be terminated by constraints on time and
resources.
The following should be considered when using snowball sampling:
• The process should be started with more than one individual to avoid being limited
by one person’s network. It is also recommended to start with individuals with
different types of disabilities, including non-visible disabilities.
• The first person with disabilities can be identified through key informants in the
kelurahan, such as health workers or teachers, or from administrative data from the
kelurahan, the Department of Social Affairs, or other agencies.
• OPD members and/or community members with disabilities should be included to
build trust and facilitate identification.
25
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
Snowball sampling should be considered the first step in identifying persons with
disabilities in a kelurahan. It would be wrong to assume all persons with disabilities
have been identified by the end of this process, as more may be forthcoming once
a program has established a reputation for good disability-inclusive practice.
Identification and widening participation in program activities should continue
throughout the program cycle.
iv. The Washington Group questions
Much has been written about the Washington Group questions on functioning, including
their use in programming in Indonesia. In addition, considerable guidance is available
from the Washington Group and others (Washington Group on Disability Statistics, n.d.).
The Washington Group has developed several question
Snowball sampling and the
sets to improve the standardization and comparability
Washington Group questions
of disability prevalence data. The most recognizable,
were combined to good effect in
developed for use in censuses and surveys, is the a project targeting persons with
“Short Set” of six questions (see box 3.1). Modified disabilities in selected villages
versions of the Short Set have been used in national in four Indonesian districts
Indonesian surveys (see section 2.b.iii).9 in 2014. OPD members and
village volunteers trained in the
The Short Set has a number of notable features: appropriate survey skills collected
data to identify community
• It avoids stigma by not referring to disability. The members with disabilities, and
Washington Group questions intentionally do not approximately 2,000 persons
refer to disability. This is to avoid underreporting with disabilities were identified.
This total was over 40 percent
due to stigma that may be associated with the
higher than the figures available
term “disability” or equivalent in different cultures.
from official data.
It is important that data collectors do not refer
Source: CDRP, University of Sydney
to disability when introducing the questions 2015.
or survey.
• It can be used by data collectors with no disability expertise. The questions in
the Short Set use simple language and refer to limitations a person may have
performing everyday activities. Activity limitations are used as an indicator of
difficulties in functioning.
• It is designed to be incorporated into existing data collection tools. The questions
are not intended to be used alone. They are designed to be incorporated into
preexisting or new survey tools. Supplementation by questions on the use of
assistive technology or support needs is not uncommon. Adding a question
on whether the respondent identifies as a person with disabilities can also be
9. The Washington Group recommend the questions are not modified. https://www.washingtongroup-
disability.com/fileadmin/uploads/wg/Documents/Questions/new-_WG_Implementation_Document__2_-_
The_Washington_Group_Short_Set_on_Functioning__1_.pdf
26
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
helpful. Again, it is important that disability not be mentioned before the
Washington Group questions have been asked.
• It can identify a range of people with access needs. This includes respondents
who have access needs but may not self-identify as persons with disabilities—for
example, some older people.
Box 3.1. The Washington Group Short Set of Questions on Functioning
The following questions and associated response options are from the Washington Group
Short Set on Functioning. Suggested introductory sentences are included.
[The next questions ask you about difficulties you may have doing certain activities]
1. Do you have difficulty seeing, even if wearing glasses?
2. Do you have difficulty hearing, even if using a hearing aid?
3. Do you have difficulty walking or climbing steps?
4. Do you have difficulty remembering or concentrating?
5. Do you have difficulty (with self-care such as) washing all over or dressing?
sing your usual (customary) language, do you have difficulty communicating,
6. U
for example understanding or being understood?
[The following should be read in full after each question]
Would you say:
a. No – no difficulty
b. Yes – some difficulty
c. Yes – a lot of difficulty
d. Cannot do it at all
Source: Washington Group on Disability Statistics, n.d.
Note: Apart from the use of glasses in question 1 and the use of hearing aids in question 2, the
questions ask about difficulties the respondent may have without the use of assistive devices or
other support.
The wider adoption of the Washington Group questions, particularly the Short Set,
by nongovernmental actors is contributing to a clearer picture of the challenges
organizations can experience when using the questions (Robinson et al. 2021). The
following should be considered when designing data collection using the Washington
Group questions:
• Sufficient time and resources must be allocated to train data collectors. The
Washington Group questions are designed to be used by data collectors with
no disability expertise. However, the time required to train data collectors in the
effective use of the questions is often underestimated.
27
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
• How the questions are asked affects the quality of data collected. Common issues
include mentioning disability when introducing the questions, using inconsistent
or ad hoc explanations, making on-the-fly translations into local languages, and
questioning the answers provided by respondents.
• Measures need to be taken to avoid known data collection issues. Such measures
include having local language translations, in addition to Bahasa Indonesia
translations, available in advance; using standard additional questions from the
Washington Group’s Extended Set if explanations are needed;10 and consideration
of using scripts, which are read word for word, if time for training is limited.
• Data should be analyzed by different thresholds. In censuses and surveys, if
an individual responds “a lot of difficulty” or “cannot do it at all” to at least
one question about functioning, that respondent is considered a person with
disabilities. In urban development programming, where the overarching objective is
to identify individuals with access needs, using the “some difficulty” threshold will
minimize the risks of missing any individuals with functioning difficulties.
• The choice of data collection tools should be guided by the data collection aims.
The Washington Group questions are an important tool for identifying prospective
program participants at the kelurahan level. While the questions have been applied
to a range of programming situations, such as for measuring attendance at
meetings and workshops, using them in these situations can be time consuming.
For meetings with officials, professionals, and OPD representatives, a direct
question may be sufficient. The data essential to planning such events are those
necessary to determine access needs so that reasonable accommodation can be
provided as required.
The Washington Group questions are not a diagnostic tool. Used alone, they do not
provide information on barriers, access needs, or eligibility for services. When combined
with snowball sampling, however, they are an effective means of identifying persons with
disabilities at the kelurahan level and providing standardized data for activity planning
and for monitoring and evaluation across a program.
It is important to note that global estimates of 16 percent prevalence of persons with
disabilities referenced above were based on analysis of Global Burden of Disease
data and not on data collected using the Washington Group questions (WHO 2022).
The percentages of persons identified using the Washington Group questions at the
community level vary, depending in part on how well the questions are asked and the
sampling frame used. The Washington Group questions are not designed to identify all
persons with disabilities in a population; they are designed to identify most persons
with disabilities. As noted previously, the identification of persons with disabilities
should be ongoing and a key component of community engagement.
10. See the Washington Group Extended Set on Functioning (WG-ES), Washington Group, n.d., https://www.
washingtongroup-disability.com/question-sets/wg-extended-set-on-functioning-wg-es/.
28
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
v. Measuring barriers and monitoring inclusion
The identification of persons with disabilities is essential, but it is not the only disability-
related information required to guide urban development programming (see figure 3.1).
We also need to consider barriers, accessibility, and the monitoring and evaluation of
inclusion processes and outcomes.
a. Identifying barriers and access audits
“An accessibility access audit
Ensuring seamless connectivity is central to assesses the extent and quality of
inclusive urban design. Seamless connectivity accessibility of the built environment,
enables persons with disabilities and others with information and sevices. An access
access needs to move unimpeded between two audit is generally conducted by
professional access consultants,
places—for example, from home to work or from
who are specialists in accessibility
home to health centers or schools. Barriers that
and accredited in their knowledge,
impede movement between locations and access and perform systematic assessment
to, and use of, infrastructure and services need and reporting on the accessibility of
to be identified, documented, and addressed. an environment.”
Access audits are an effective way of collecting this Source: UNESCAP 2016
information.
The importance of access audits at “all stages of the process of planning, design,
construction, maintenance, and monitoring and evaluation” is emphasized under
Goal 3 of the Incheon Strategy.11 UNESCAP (the United Nations Economic and Social
Commission for Asia and the Pacific) recognizes access audits as good practice and
advises consideration of the following components when designing an audit:
• Checklist audit to ensure items to be evaluated comply with relevant standards
and legislation
• Walk through to assess connectivity and continuity of access. This is not limited to
physical infrastructure and includes access to and use of services.
• User consultation to collect information from persons with disabilities on access to,
and use of, the items being audited (UNESCAP 2016)
All three components of an access audit are related and should be included. The audits
should be conducted by urban design professionals working in partnership with persons
with disabilities. OPDs are well placed to provide access audit services and should be
consulted as standard practice.
11. Goal 3 is “Enhance access to the physical environment, public transportation, knowledge, information,
and communication” (UNESCAP 2012).
29
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
b. Access needs and reasonable accommodation
While the Washington Group questions can be an effective tool for identifying persons
with disabilities, they do not provide information on individuals’ access needs. Different
people who have “difficulty walking,” for example, may have distinct access or support
needs, depending on their impairment or individual circumstances. Examples may
include the use of a walking cane, crutches, a manual or powered wheelchair, or another
form of assistive device or support. Once persons with disabilities have been identified,
their access needs must be ascertained. It is also important to ensure information and
communication needs are also fully considered.
When planning meetings and consultations, data on access needs are required to
ensure persons with and without disabilities can participate on an equal basis. Planners
must understand individual access needs and what reasonable accommodation they
need to provide (see box 3.2.). Accessibility checklists are a useful aid to planning and
to ensure consistency across program activities and locations.12
Box 3.2. Examples of Items for Inclusion in an Accessibility Checklist for Meetings and Events
When planning your event, have you considered the following?
• Invitations, event information, and materials in plain language and accessible
formats.
• Digital materials have been checked for accessibility and screen reader compatibility.
• In-person invitations to persons with disabilities for community-level events
• Collection of information on access and communication needs of participants
• Accessibility of transportation and location and whether individual support is required
• Whether the venue, facilities, and any accommodation to be used are accessible
• Seating, visibility, and layout of rooms
• Walk-through with OPDs to check and advise on accessibility
• Closed captioning and sign language interpretation
• Hard copies of materials are in plain-language and available in alternative formats
inlcuding large-print and Braille.
• Accessibility briefing for presenters and facilitators
• Earthquake/fire safety briefing and evacuation procedures, including for participants
with mobility difficulties
• Prevent briefings for people with specific impairments, for example, deaf participants.
12. See, for example, CBM 2021.
30
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
c. Monitoring processes and evaluating outcomes
When preparing General Comment 2 on accessibility, the Committee on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities discussed accessibility in ten dialogues with governments.13
A common challenge identified was “the lack of an adequate monitoring mechanism to
ensure the practical implementation of accessibility standards and relevant legislation”
(UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2014).
Environmental and Social Standard 4 In urban development programming, delivering
of the World Bank’s Environmental and universal accessibility is both a process and an
Social Framework notes the importance outcome. Evaluating outcomes requires data
of universal accessibility in the design on interventions, including the accessibility
and construction of new buildings and
solutions provided and their compliance with
structures. Also, the need to consult
regulations and standards (see boxes 1.1
with stakeholders and users, including
OPDs. and 3.3). Evaluations also require data on
persons with disabilities and how persons
The application of UA under Standard
with disabilities have used the infrastructure
4 is tracked using related World Bank
corporate indicators. and services provided. A good evaluation of
UA is one that considers use by persons with
Source: World Bank, 2017 and 2022a
disabilities as a core indicator.
S E M A R A N G C I T Y C O O R D I N AT O R T E A M
A UA assessment in kelurahan Kemijen in Semarang City.
13. General Comments are interpretive texts on select articles of the CRPD prepared by the Committee on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/crpd/general-comments
31
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
Box 3.3. Disability Inclusion Indicators in the Australian Aid Program
The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade uses a range of indicators to
evaluate disability inclusion across its aid program. For the Australian NGO Cooperation
Program (ANCP), these include the following:
• Number of persons with disabilities who received disability support services specific
to their needs
• Number of OPDs actively involved with the project
• Number of people trained in disability awareness and inclusion
• Number of people trained in the delivery of disability support services
See DFAT ANCP indicators guidance, 2020. https://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/aid/
ancp-indicators.
For investments, including bilateral investments of more than A$3 million, Aid Quality
Checks include mandatory reporting on the following items:
• The investment actively involves people with disabilities and/or OPDs in planning,
implementation and monitoring and evaluation.
• The investment identifies and addresses barriers to inclusion and opportunities for
participation for people with disabilities to enable them to benefit equally from the
aid investment.
• Description of how the investment is making a difference to persons with disabilities.
See DFAT Aid Quality Check template: https://www.dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/
Pages/aid-quality-check-template.
Monitoring of inclusion within processes is central to disability-inclusive development.
It should cover participation within key events and contributions to decision making,
including in established processes at the kelurahan level (see section 3.c.ii), and it
should address participation by a range of persons with disabilities, including diversity
with respect to impairment type (or functioning difficulty), gender, and age. Ongoing
monitoring is essential for identifying and responding to barriers to participation over
time. Monitoring includes assessing measures to empower individuals to participate
and contribute to program activities (see section 2.c.iii).
Standard practice 7: Disability data is more than prevalence data. Collecting data on
barriers, accessibility improvements, participation, and use by persons with disabilities is
also needed to inform and improve urban development processes and evaluate outcomes.
32
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
c. Institutional engagement
i. Disability as a crosscutting issue
The CRPD and Indonesia’s Law No. 8 on Persons with Disabilities firmly establish
disability inclusion as a crosscutting concern that is “everyone’s business.” Ministries
and departments with established leadership on
disability affairs, such as Social Affairs, Health, and The National Council on
Education, are joined by multiple agencies, including Disability Affairs, Philippines,
was established in 2008. The
Manpower and Transmigration, Communication
council is mandated to formulate
and Information Technology, Community and
policies and propose legislation
Village Empowerment, Disaster Risk Management, on disability affairs. A key role
Transportation, and, of course, Public Works and is to coordinate efforts across
Housing. This implies the need for horizontal government and take the lead in
coordination across agencies and vertical disability programming. The council
coordination across multiple administrative levels. works with other government
agencies to develop and maintain
Coordination challenges were identified in an a data bank on disability and
evaluation of Surakarta, Central Java, as an inclusive strengthen referral services.
city (kota inklusif). Although the study found good Source: National Council on Disability
Affairs at https://www.ncda.gov.ph/
progress on inclusion, it warned that “a lack of
coordination between [government] departments can
create gaps in accessible infrastructure provision” (Patrick et al. 2022). These gaps
adversely affect seamless connectivity and the livability of urban areas.
The concern is that, without strong institutional commitment, “everyone’s business”
can become “nobody’s business” (Roberts et al. 2019). New entrants to the field
need to gain experience and establish leadership on disability inclusion within their
working sectors or areas. This can be facilitated by acknowledging whole-of-government
responsibility for disability inclusion and drawing on expertise and resources, including
data, from disability-focused agencies, such as Social Affairs.
ii. Planning at the kelurahan level
Ensuring disability inclusion in the development of community settlement plans
(Rencana Penataan Lingkungan Permukiman, or RPLP) requires consideration of
principles outlined previously, including the following:
• Identification of community members with disabilities
• Identification and removal of barriers to participation
• Identification of individual needs and provision of reasonable accommodation
• Empowerment of community members with disabilities to participate in
planning processes
33
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
• Awareness raising on disability inclusion among community members and
kelurahan officials
• Engagement with OPDs, including appropriate resource allocations, to facilitate
the above
Formal mechanisms for community engagement in kelurahan planning include
development planning forums, or musrenbang. Law No. 6 2014 on Villages requires the
establishment of an elected Village Consultative Body (Badan Permusyawaratan Desa, or
BPD). The BPD reports to the District Head via the Subdistrict Head and is responsible
for oversight of village administration and for ensuring the aspirations of the wider
community are included. Community Empowerment Institutions (Lembaga Pemberdayaan
Masyarakat, or LPM) provide an equivalent mechanism for community engagement in
kelurahan planning. KOTAKU locations also benefit from the participation of community
boards of trustees in the development of community settlement plans.14
It should not be assumed that knowledge of national-level commitments and
legislation have trickled down to the kelurahan level. A need for awareness raising and
socialization at the local and kelurahan levels on disability inclusion and responsibilities
across all levels of governance should be anticipated and included in program design.
Activities should target both formal kelurahan institutions, including the LPM, and the
wider community.
Wider community engagement and awareness raising are essential to challenge
stereotypes and stigma concerning disability. This includes any preconception that
persons with disabilities are unable to participate or contribute. Effective awareness
raising begins with training and standard setting (see section 3.d.i) within program
teams on disability inclusion. The value of partnering with OPDs in community
engagement activities should not be underestimated. Maximizing opportunities for
officials and community members to have conversations with OPD members with
disabilities can effectively change perceptions and understandings (see box 3.4).
14. Community boards of trustees (Badan Keswadayaan Masyarakat or Lembaga Keswadayaan Masyarakat)
were established previously in urban areas under Indonesia’s National Community Empowerment Program
(Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat).
34
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
Box 3.4. From Identification to Participation and Inclusion
KOTAKU facilitators in Malang, East Java, worked with a local OPD to identify persons
with disabilities.
Partnering with the OPD assisted the collection of data and the identification of persons
with disabilities in kelurahan. The facilitators reflected, however, that identifying persons
with disabilities was not enough to ensure participation in kelurahan planning and
decision making processes. Community members with disabilities were reluctant to
speak in community forums and tended to agree with what was proposed by others,
rather than expressing their own opinions.
Ensuring the participation of community members with disabilities in planning
processes involves building confidence and empowering individuals who are frequently
excluded to speak. Identification of persons with disabilities is just one part of the
process toward inclusion.
Interview by KOTAKU management team
In comparison to long-established women’s groups (Pemberdayaan Kesejahteraan
Keluarga, or PKK), persons with disabilities do not benefit from having a formal
representative group at the village or kelurahan level (see box 3.5). Where they are
active in kelurahan, it should not be assumed that persons with disabilities are included
or represented in either formal or informal representative groups of “vulnerable” people
(kelompok rentan).
Box 3.5. Observations on Women’s Participation in Community Settlement Planning (RPLP)
The following summarizes the findings of reports from KOTAKU facilitators across
thirty working areas:
• The participation of women in planning is facilitated by established women’s groups.
• Participation in planning is often segregated, with men involved in overall planning
and women focusing on specific areas, such as livelihoods.
• Despite participation in the planning process, women remain underrepresented in
kelurahan institutions and, therefore, in decision making.
• Women’s participation does not usually consider or include women with disabilities.
• Women with disabilities are underrepresented in, or absent from, planning processes
and kelurahan institutions.
iii. Sustaining good practice
The sustainability of a UA intervention ultimately depends on the value placed on it
by the community and the availability of resources to maintain it over time. In terms
of good disability-inclusive practice, it is important to consider the sustainability
35
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
of processes established during the intervention and not just the infrastructure
improvements delivered.
a. Establishing the value of universal accessibility
The value of UA extends beyond persons with disabilities. It includes direct benefits to
other user groups and indirect benefits to the wider society. The concept of functioning
(see section 2.b.iv) is helpful for framing how UA can directly benefit wider user groups.
Difficulties in functioning include restrictions in participation and limitations on activity.
Activity limitations form the basis of the Washington Group questions. Everyone will
experience functioning difficulties at some stage in their lives, for example, a decline
in hearing or mobility in older age. Similarly, accidents, injuries, and illness will affect
our ability to function, either over the short or long term. UA can contribute to reducing
inequalities in participation between groups and individuals. UA is not a disability-
specific intervention, and the direct benefits to other user groups should be emphasized.
The indirect benefits of UA are numerous. They
The cost effectiveness of UA
include economic impacts obtained by facilitating
was demonstrated in a KOTAKU
increased participation in the labor force,
study that analyzed a communal
reducing reliance on welfare payments, promoting
toilet construction and a street
independent living, and increasing tax revenue.
rehabilitaton pilot project.
Opportunity and nonfinancial costs for individuals
When compared to the direct and are also reduced by increased participation in
indirect costs of support from social and community events and enhanced well-
a personal assistant both UA being. Other benefits of UA include higher school
pilots provided a clear return on enrollment and a decreased burden on health
investment. This included financial systems, with improved access encouraging earlier
returns from a relatively low number treatment and better health-seeking behavior.
of users as well as the benefits
Alongside the fiscal benefits from investing in
of increased independence for
UA are policy benefits. Raising awareness of the
potentially diverse user groups.
importance of UA at all levels of government,
Source: World Bank 2023 extending to the kelurahan level, ensures policy
coherence. Strengthened policy coherence can
contribute to the sharing of responsibilities for delivering and sustaining UA across
multiple levels of government.
The preventive aspects of UA are also notable. They include the enablement of
independent evacuation in the event of emergencies or hazard events, which, again,
extends to a wide range of user groups, including foreign visitors in tsunami-prone
tourist areas. Universal accessibility can also reduce the risks of traffic accidents by
promoting, for example, the use of dedicated sidewalks by pedestrians with and without
mobility aids, as well as parents using baby carriages and strollers.
36
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
b. Financing and resourcing
Maintaining, sustaining, and upgrading UA interventions requires financing and budget
allocations over time, which, in turn, again requires engagement with institutions that
are not always considered to have a direct responsibility for disability. The following are
examples of institutions with direct responsibilities for financing and planning at the
district (or city) level:
• District Secretariat (Sekretariat Daerah)
• Regional People’s Representative Council (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah,
or DPRD)
• District Financial and Asset Management Agency (Badan Pengelolaan Keuangan
dan Aset Daerah)
• District Development Planning Agency (Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah,
or BAPPEDA)
Regulation No. 17 on Subdistricts notes the role of the subdistrict head in coordinating
and communicating kelurahan-level planning to the district and the responsibility of the
district to allocate funds to the kelurahan for development purposes (Government of
the Republic of Indonesia 2017). Budget allocations to and the autonomy of kelurahan
are not equivalent to those available to rural villages under Law No. 6 2014 on Villages.
Access to funding at the kelurahan level requires coordination with subdistrict heads
and district-level institutions. Program teams should engage with these stakeholders in
the early stage of programming and ensure they are informed throughout the program.
c. Sustaining processes
As emphasized, disability-inclusive development is both a process and an outcome.
While the delivery of UA is often focused on the tangible, such as accessible buildings
and facilities, sustaining the processes that provide persons with disabilities with a
voice in urban development planning processes can have lasting positive impacts.
Ongoing working relationships with OPDs, for example, will be of benefit to a range of
development processes and outcomes.
Relationships with OPDs, including those between OPDs and local government
and kelurahan officials and institutions, should be maintained and, where possible,
formalized (see box 3.6). This can include establishing focal points within respective
agencies and organizations and scheduling regular updates and meetings. When
establishing focal points, consideration should be given to allocating roles and
responsibilities to positions rather than individuals. This can ensure continuity if
individual officials change positions or departments. Access needs change over time
and continued working relationships with OPDs can aid monitoring and provide guidance
on the need for infrastructure upgrades.
37
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
Box 3.6. Drawing on Established Inclusion Mechanisms in KOTAKU
KOTAKU facilitators in Surakarta, Central Java, were able to draw on established
coordination mechanisms for disability inclusion. A Disability Advocacy Team (Tim
Advokasi Difable, or TAD) was established by the Department of Social Affairs in
2010. TAD includes OPDs, civil society, and academic representatives, along with
representatives of the city government. TAD participates in planning and monitoring
accessibility in infrastructure development in the city.
The KOTAKU team coordinated activities through TAD, including the use of UA principles
in detailed engineering designs. TAD facilitated access to a range of government and
nongovernmental stakeholders, including from the private sector. The KOTAKU team
reflected that TAD had high levels of capacity, based on its accumulated experience, and
was highly proactive and committed to the KOTAKU project.
—Interview by KOTAKU management team
Mechanisms used to ensure persons with disabilities participate in urban development
planning should also be formalized. This includes ensuring persons with disabilities
have a voice and are heard in kelurahan level institutions, including the LPM and
musrenbang. Equitable urban development programming will explore opportunities for
sustaining output, processes, and outcomes throughout the program cycle.
Standard practice 8: Institutionalization of disability inclusion should be both internally
and externally facing. It requires building internal organizational capacities, challenging
preconceptions, and formalizing mechanisms for equitable decision making. This can be
facilitated by drawing on the skills and experiences of partners.
d. Managing disability inclusion
i. Leadership and standard setting The Charter of the Network
Translating policy commitments on disability inclusion of Indonesian Mayors for
Inclusive Cities was signed by
into practice and ensuring regulatory compliance requires
fourteen mayors in 2017. The
leadership. Without buy-in and clear commitments by
charter promotes disability-
directors and managers, including informed PIUs for World inclusive urban development
Bank projects, disability inclusion will not be prioritized, to ensure cities are livable
and the necessary resources will not be allocated (see for all. Under the leadership
section 3.d.ii). of the Indonesian Association
of City Governments (APEKSI),
Steering organizations and institutions to become more the network had grown to
disability inclusive does not require wholesale change. It twenty-seven cities by 2019.
is a process that builds on related human development Source: APEKSI Asosiasi
values, such as equity and equality of opportunity. An Pemerintah Kota Seluruh Indonesia
[APEKSI City Government
organization working on women’s empowerment, for Association of All Indonesia] at
example, should be sure to address barriers and ensure https://apeksi.id/.
38
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
mechanisms are in place to ensure the meaningful participation of women with
disabilities. To achieve this, greater attention to intersectionalities is needed (see
section 2.b.iv) but the organization does not need fundamentally to change how it
works. Disability inclusion simply adds a new “layer” to existing institutional policy and
practice (Mahoney and Thelen 2010).
Disability inclusion is no longer optional in urban development programming; it is a legal
requirement.15 From a leadership perspective, disability inclusion minimizes institutional
and reputational risks by ensuring regulatory compliance and that interventions are fit
for purpose.
Establishing an institutional policy or strategy on disability inclusion can help
communicate expectations and set standards. Standard setting is essential to ensure
disability inclusion is prioritized by managers,
“Inclusive cities are important for planners, and designers and that resources
Indonesia and are part of efforts are allocated. Policies and strategies alone are
to reduce poverty and realize the insufficient, however. They must be effectively
commitment of the country to the communicated by senior management and
Sustainable Development Goals.
regularly revisited to reinforce expectations,
Cities should be liveable for all people,
including persons with disabilities.
and they must include clear allocation of
There are many ways mayors can responsibilities on disability inclusion to project
improve the decency of cities teams, team leaders, and PIUs.
through the development of inclusive
infrastructure and facilities as well as The more visible disability is in an organization
educational and health services.” and its work, the more likely disability inclusion
Source: Professor Dr. Bambang Brodjonegoro, will be prioritized. Actions to make disability
Minister of National Development Planning visible include reviewing human resource
(BAPPENAS), quoted in ILO 2017.
and recruitment procedures and proactively
promoting diversity in the workplace. This can
be supported by an internal accessibility audit and review. Staff trainings and informal
seminars with OPDs can help allay concerns, provide opportunities for discussion, and
facilitate prioritization of disability inclusion.
15. As specified in Law No. 8 2016, on Persons with Disabilities.
39
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
ii. Planning and budgeting for disability inclusion
Ensuring disability inclusion in urban development programming requires resources. All
too often, disability inclusion is only considered late in a program, making budget and
time allocation difficult. Early consideration in planning and budget development will
ensure disability inclusion is adequately resourced and can be effectively implemented.
If planned from the outset, the additional financial cost of delivering universally
accessible buildings and infrastructure is minimal. A World Bank study estimates costs
can be as low as 0.5 to 1 percent of overall construction costs (Metts 2000). This cost
estimate is based on case studies from South Africa,
including UA in construction of a convention center, The World Health Organization
retrofitting a school for accessibility, and incorporating assumes a 10 percent budget
UA into construction of a new school. Output-focused allocation is required for disability
inclusion. This is considered a
cost estimates, however, do not include the costs of
conservative estimate.
ensuring disability inclusion in program processes.
This estimate includes 0.5 to 1
As indicated in this guide, a range of actions should be percent of construction costs for
considered in disability-inclusive programming. These physical accessibility, improving
access to information and
include partnering with OPDs to provide guidance
communication, and awareness
and technical assistance, identifying persons with
raising and training of staff.
disabilities in communities and empowering individuals
Source: WHO 2022
to participate, conducting access audits, providing
reasonable accommodation, and engaging with
stakeholders to raise awareness and ensure sustainability. While these actions do
not necessarily need to be expensive, they do need to be anticipated and included in
budgets and workplans (see box 3.7).
M A L A N G C I T Y C O O R D I N AT O R T E A M
Children using the space around the public toilet facility in Tanjungrejo, Malang City.
40
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
Box 3.7. Examples of Resource Allocations for Program Planning
When budget and work planning, have you considered the following?
• Reasonable accommodation to ensure individuals with disabilities can participate in
activities and events
Note: Persons with disabilities often face additional transportation costs and may need
to be accompanied by a carer
• Budget allocations for OPDs for professional inputs and technical assistance
• Time to identity persons with disabilities in communities, including training in data
collection tools to be used, such as the Washington Group questions
• Time and resouces to enable/empower persons with disabilities to contribute
effectively to program processes
• Accessible meetings and events, including venue hire
Note: For formal events, held at hotels or similar facilities, lower-cost venues may have
limited accessibility
• Communications, including closed captioning and sign language interpretation at
events and activities
Note: The number of sign interpreters is limited and they often need to be booked
in advance
• Accessible and alternative-format materials and documents, including program
reports and publications
• Awareness raising and staff training on disability inclusive urban development
practice
When considering budget line allocations and the time required for training, awareness
raising, and engagement to ensure effective disability inclusion, we need to reconsider
perspectives. The issue is not that disability-inclusive urban development is expensive
or resource intensive. Rather, it is that “business as usual” practices that exclude
persons with disabilities underestimate the real costs of urban development.
Leadership on, and prioritization of, disability inclusion and UA will ensure that all
Indonesians benefit from the potential of urban areas in the years to come.
41
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
References
Amnesty International. 2016. “UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Observations on the Draft General Comment No 4 of the UN Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities.” Amnesty International, London. https://www.refworld.org/
pdfid/56a0806d4.pdf.
Cameron, L., and D. C. Suarez. 2017. “Disability in Indonesia: What Can We Learn from the
Data?” Australia Indonesia Partnership for Economic Governance. https://fbe.unimelb.
edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/2615375/Disability-in-Indonesia-August-2017.pdf.
CBM. 2021. “Toolkit: Accessible Meetings. Practical Guidance on Organising Accessible and
Inclusive Events and Meetings, with Tips on Issues to Consider in the Planning, Delivery
and Follow-Up Stages.” GBM Global Advisory Group, Melbourne. https://www.cbm.org.
au/resource/accessible-meetings-and-events-a-toolkit.
CDRP (Centre for Disability Research and Policy). 2015. “Technical Report 2: Capacity
Building for Disability-Inclusive Disaster Risk Reduction in Indonesia.” Centre for
Disability Research and Policy, University of Sydney. https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/
bitstream/handle/2123/13493/Tech_Report_2_Capacity_Building_Report_FINAL.
pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
Crenshaw, K. 1999. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist
Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics.” University
of Chicago Legal Forum, Vol. 1989.
Government of Australia. 2015. “Development for All 2015–2020: Strategy for Strengthening
Disability-Inclusive Development in Australia’s Aid Program.” Department of Foreign
Affairs and Trade, Canberra. https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/development-
for-all-2015-2020.pdf.
Government of the Republic of Indonesia. 2006. “Undang-undang Nomor 8, 2016 tentang
Penyandang Disabilitas” [Law number 8 of 2006 concerning persons with disbailities].
Jakarta.
Government of the Republic of Indonesia. 2017. “Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia
Nomor 17 Tahun 2017 tentang Kecamatan” [Government regulation of the Republic of
Indonesia number 17 of 2017, concerning subdistricts]. Jakarta.
Grills, N., M. Hoq, C. Wong, K. Allagh, L. Singh, F. Soji, and G. Murthy. 2020. “Disabled People’s
Organisations Increase Access to Services and Improve Well-Being: Evidence from a
Cluster Randomized Trial in North India.” BMC Public Health 20, no. 145. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s12889-020-8192-0.
International Disability Alliance. 2017. “Disability Data Disaggregation. Joint Statement
by the Disability Sector.” Fifth meeting of the IAEG-SDG’s, Ottawa. https://www.
internationaldisabilityalliance.org/data-joint-statement-march2017.
42
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
ILO (International Labour Organization). 2017. “Towards Inclusive Cities in Indonesia.”
International Labour Organization news, Jakarta, Indonesia, November 2, 2017. https://
www.ilo.org/jakarta/info/public/pr/WCMS_593078/lang--en/index.htminclusion%20
of%20persons%20with%20disabilities.
InfoPublik. 2019. “Kemenhub Sosialisasikan Transportasi Ramah Penyandang Disabilitas.”
[Ministry of Transportation Socialises Disability Friendly Transport]. https://infopublik.id/
kategori/nasional-ekonomi-bisnis/372209/kemenhub-sosialisasikan-transportasi-ramah-
penyandang-disabilitas
KEMENKES. n.d. “Hasil utama RISKESDAS 2018” [Main results of RISKESDAS 2018]. Ministry
of Health, Jakarta https://kesmas.kemkes.go.id/assets/upload/dir_519d41d8cd98f00/
files/Hasil-riskesdas-2018_1274.pdf.
Mahoney, J., and K. Thelen. 2010. “A Theory of Gradual Institutional Change.” In Explaining
Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power, ed. J. Mahoney and K. Thelen. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Patrick, M., I. McKinnon, K. Putri Prastika, N. Asterina, and F. Jamil. 2022. “Inclusive Design
and Accessibility in Solo, Indonesia.” AT2030 Inclusive Infrastructure Case Studies.
https://cdn.disabilityinnovation.com/uploads/images/Indonesia-case-study-executive-
summary.pdf?v=1655806520.
Metts, R. L. 2000. “Disability Issues, Trends and Recommendations for the World Bank.”
Social Protection Discussion Paper No. 0007. World Bank, Washington, DC. https://
documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/503581468779980124/pdf/multi0page.pdf.
Pertiwi, P., G. Llewellen, and M. Villeneuve. 2019. “People with Disabilities as Key Actors in
Community-Based Disaster Risk Reduction.” Disability & Society 34 (no. 9–10: 1418–
44). https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2019.1584092.
NAD (Norwegian Association of Disabled). 2017. “Disability Inclusion and Disaster Risk:
Principles and Guidance for Implementing the Sendai Framework.” Norwegian
Association of Disabled, Oslo. https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/document/
disability-inclusion-and-disaster-risk-principles-and-guidance-implementing-sendai-
framework/.
Roberts, M., F. G. Sander, and S. Tiwari (eds). 2019. Time to Act: Realising Indonesia’s
Urban Potential. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/
handle/10986/31304.
Robinson, A., and S. Kani. 2014. “Disability-Inclusive DRR: Information, Risk and Practical-
Action.” In R. Shaw and T. Izumi (eds). Civil Society Organisation and Disaster Risk
Reduction: The Asian Dilemma. Tokyo: Springer.
Robinson, A., L. Nguyen, and F. Smith. 2021. “Use of the Washington Group Questions in Non-
Government Programming.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health 18 (11143). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8582947/.
Rosen, N. E., C. Lord, and F. R. Volkmar. 2021. “The Diagnosis of Autism: From Kanner to DSM-
III to DSM-5 and Beyond.” Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 51:4253–70.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10803-021-04904-1.
43
KOTAKU Guide to Disability Inclusion
UN (United Nations). 2006. “United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities.” United Nations, New York. https://www.un.org/development/desa/
disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-
of-persons-with-disabilities-2.html.
——. 2015a. Paris Agreement. United Nations, New York. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/
files/english_paris_agreement.pdf.
——. 2015b. “Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030.” United
Nations, New York. https://www.undrr.org/publication/sendai-framework-disaster-risk-
reduction-2015-2030.
——. 2015c. “Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”
United Nations, New York. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/
documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf.
——. 2017. “New Urban Agenda.” United Nations, New York. https://habitat3.org/wp-content/
uploads/NUA-English.pdf.
UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 2014. “General Comment No.
2 (2014). Article 9 [of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities]:
Accessibility.” Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Eleventh session,
New York,
March 31–April 11, 2014. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/812025.
——. 2018. “General Comment No. 7 (2018) on the Participation of Persons with Disabilities,
including Children with Disabilities, through their Representative Organizations, in
the Implementation and Monitoring of the Convention [on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities].” UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, New York. http://
docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.
44