Purpose – By comparing the legislative regimes in different states, this paper aims to provide a platform upon which an agenda of “good practice” can be formulated and initiated in relation to the provision of access to the built environment for disabled people. Design/methodology/approach – The paper utilizes a desktop approach to examine the various regimes. Particular focus is placed upon the regimes in the European Union States of the UK, Malta, Ireland and France and these are contrasted with those in the non-European states of Australia and the USA. Findings – The paper shows how the UK, Malta and possibly Ireland have attempted to take a path of amicable cooperation and negotiation to establish the principle of “reasonable” adjustments to improve access to new and old buildings, whereas France and the USA have tended to adopt a prescriptive course of technical detail and legal compliance to enhance access. The paper also reveals how Australia follows an intermediate route of cooperation and human rights legislation to achieve the same goals. Practical implications – The paper places new insights into the public domain through the evaluation of the strengths and weakness of each approach. Originality/value – This paper uniquely recognizes a number of mistakes that have to be avoided in future legislation and makes tangible recommendations on how to make further progress in the quest to make the built environment more accessible to disabled people.
|Journal||International Journal of Law in the Built Environment|
|Publication status||Published - 2009|