UD Knowledge Creation

Type of the Paper: Peer-reviewed Conference Paper / Full Paper

Track title: Topic 3: Engagement | co-creation, co-design, design and stakeholder management processes

UD knowledge creation

René Sørensen Overby ¹

¹ Bevica Fonden; rene@bevica.dk

Names of the Track editors: Clarine van Oel Names of the reviewers: Göran Lindahl Clarine van Oel Journal: The Evolving Scholar DOI:10.24404/6230d0345e57b895ac66fbd0 Submitted: 15 Mar 2022 Accepted: 22 Augus 2022 Published: 10 June 2024 Citation: Sørensen Overby, R. (2022). UD Knowledge Creation. The Evolving Scholar | ARCH22. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution BY license (CC BY). © 2022 Sørensen Overby, R. published by TU Delft OPEN on behalf of the authors.

Abstract: This paper seeks to identify how users and architects, through collaborations, are generating knowledge on Universal Design (UD). In addition to the need for architects to build a solid foundation of architectural knowledge, insight into users’ life practices is essential to UD knowledge creation. Users’ experience and perception of space offer a qualitative alternative to quantitative notions of space. Through thirty-two interviews, the paper contributes a qualitative perspective on collaborative practice between users and architects. An unfolding of knowledge creation shows that accessibility as quantifiable measurement seems to have taken root in collaborative practice, while knowledge on UD is still sprouting. The research also shows that interpretations of accessibility, as compensating solutions for a few, have an impact on both collaborations, knowledge creation, and architecture. Hence, increasing awareness of the greater collective responsibility of inclusion and movement towards concepts such as UD and inclusive architecture challenges architectural practices when expected to align with societal movements. If human diversity and architectural practice are to meet UD ideals, advanced user-based knowledge and awareness of social aspects of architecture, in line with legislation and technical insight, are suggested. In order to create spaces that are inclusive and increase possibilities for more, architects must seek nuanced user knowledge and insight associated with their daily practice. The research point is that how UD knowledge is created and put into action is crucial to determining whether architectural design processes can respond to societal ambitions and international conventions.

Keywords: Universal Design; Participatory processes; Knowledge creation

1. Introduction

With societal and international movements towards concepts such as universal design (UD) and inclusive architecture, understandings of the term user and diversity are changing in Denmark. These movements are challenging the architectural practice, in which the built environment is expected to align with societal interpretations of UD and inclusive built environments. It also challenges user-participatory processes that must relate to new interpretations of the term User, understood as All of Us.

The research indicates that the relationship between the built environment and the human body still has potential for knowledge creation. New frameworks for collaborative work between users and professional actors are suggested to gain comprehensive user-based knowledge closely related to the user's body, experience, and perception.

UD responds to the awareness that accessible design solutions and inclusive built environments should not only eliminate barriers for some but enhance participation and experiences for everyone [Sørensen & Ryhl, 2018]. The research point is that how UD knowledge is created and put into action is crucial to determining whether architectural design processes can respond to societal ambitions and international conventions, such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

In the CRPD, Universal Design is introduced to generate Inclusive Environments that reduce barriers and limitations. In article 2, universal design is defined as “the design of products, environments, programmes and services to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design” [CRPD 2006, article 2]. This wording builds on the most accepted definition of UD, outlined by architect Ronald L. Mace in the 1980s (in Ostroff, 2001).

When I use the term UD knowledge creation in this setting, it is understood as the co-production of knowledge between architects and users, meant to generate buildings, products, and environments that are inherently accessible to all users, to the greatest extent possible, regardless of abilities. This is also how I understand the notion 'All of Us'. I use the term 'space' as a social construct, a structuring and dialectical actor for human life, and I use 'architecture' as construction and design. Space is one of many elements of architecture (Lefebvre, 1991).

2. Theories and Methods

Drawing upon selected studies from the PhD research project “Generating Inclusive Built Environments through User-Driven Dialogue in the Architectural Design Process,” I lay out a framework for understanding collaborative practice between user representatives from Disabled People's Organisations Denmark (DPOD) and professional actors in the architectural field. I seek to identify how users and architects, through collaborations, are generating knowledge on universal design.

I present selected research findings covering thirty-two qualitative semi-structured interviews with a focus on collaborative work and knowledge creation: Twelve interviews with user representatives and eight interviews with professional actors from the architectural field. In addition, twelve representatives of the DPOD organisation were interviewed. Interviews with users from DPOD represent groups of disabilities that are all interrelated in the requirements of UD and accessible design solutions in Danish Building Regulations (BR18). That is, physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory disabilities, such as people with visual impairments and/or hearing impairments, people with communicative and/or cognitive disabilities, or people with mobility disabilities.

When collaborating in architectural contexts, I reflect on the influence of quantitative and qualitative knowledge and hypothesize how qualitative knowledge can support innovative interactions between users and architects in collaboration on UD. Hereafter, I discuss the scope of reviewing existing knowledge creation and expanding the area of architectural knowledge to respond to human diversity, including disability (Author, 2018). If human diversity and architectural practice are to meet UD ideals, the research suggests advanced user-based knowledge and awareness of the social aspects of architecture. I describe a growing orientation towards nuanced understandings of special practice, including the relation between social and space. I do so with attention to Henri Lefebvre's thoughts on social space and Inger Marie Lid's model of UD knowledge (Lid, 2013; Lefebvre, 1991).

When collaborating in architectural contexts, I reflect on the influence of quantitative and qualitative knowledge and hypothesize how qualitative knowledge can support innovative interactions between users and architects in collaboration on UD. Hereafter, I discuss the scope of reviewing existing knowledge creation and expanding the area of architectural knowledge to respond to human diversity, including disability (Sørensen, 2018). If human diversity and architectural practice are to meet UD ideals, the research suggests advanced user-based knowledge and awareness of the social aspects of architecture. I describe a growing orientation towards nuanced understandings of special practice, including the relation between social and space. I do so with attention to Henri Lefebvre's thoughts on social space and Inger Marie Lid's model of UD knowledge (Lid, 2013; Lefebvre, 1991).

2.1. A Spatial Turn
In the following, I describe a theoretical turning towards nuanced understandings of 'space', including thoughts of the relation between 'social' and 'space'. I do so with attention to the phenomenon of the 'turn' and the French sociologist and philosopher, Henri Lefebvre.

Within the last 20–30 years, an orientation towards new understandings of space has moved the humanities and social sciences. In the Spatial Turn, a wider arena of disciplines and research fields, in addition to architectural theory, have been rethinking spatial concepts and exploring the spatial dimensions of human life. The interest in human life and sociality as spatially situated has grown across disciplines (Fabian, 2010; Lund Hansen, 2013).

One of the great theorists of spatial thinking is the French Marxist sociologist and philosopher Henri Lefebvre (1901–1991). Lefebvre is best known for his pioneering contributions to socio-spatial theory. Especially his work “La production de l'espace” (the production of space, 1974/1991) has had an extraordinary impact, and for many theorists in the Spatial Turn, the writings of Henri Lefebvre are a theoretical starting point (Lefebvre, 1991).

According to Lefebvre, space must be explained as multidimensional, and understanding space is therefore reflexive movements between physical, mental, and social dimensions as procedural spaces. In his writing, Lefebvre seeks to explain how physical, mental, and social spaces are produced between the logic of concrete space and the logic of abstract space. The logic behind concrete space is formed by the activities of everyday life, while the logic of abstract space is formed in intellectually conceptualised spaces. Concrete space is an interaction between body and space, while abstract space, according to Lefebvre, is affected and alienated from the body (Lefebvre, 1991).

Lefebvre's thoughts can be understood as a confrontation with space as materially created, non-moving, and non-dialectical. Turning towards nuanced understandings of space, Lefebvre explains space as procedural, and his studies of space are therefore not about the physical space but about how space is thought, practiced, and experienced (Lefebvre, 1991).

Lefebvre points out that early quantifiable notions of space have followed architecture through time, leaving its imprints in architecture as empty spaces (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 200). Instead, Lefebvre's notion of space is a complex social construction based on values, everyday life, and the social production of meanings that influence spatial practice. To understand that process, Lefebvre formulated a conceptual triad, the perceived-conceived-lived triad (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 40). 

1. Spatial practice, perceived space

2. Representation of space, representations, and abstractions of space

3. Representational spaces, lived space

The first moment (the spatial practice) is perceived space and signifies the spatial knowledge production of society. Spatial practice structures human life through interactions, routes, and networks connecting places and people. It is historically and culturally conditioned while also portraying a society's spatial and social characteristics. Spatial practice is limited by existing knowledge, but it is still interacting with new realisations and understandings. This way, spatial practice can only operate from the sources of knowledge found in a society (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 38).

The second moment (representations of space) is understood as intellectually conceptualised space. This space is formed by the conceptual bodies of society. It is a theoretical and technological representation of the living space. Representations of spaces are not living spaces; they are abstract and intellectually conceived (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 39). Although representations of space are abstract, they have a role to play in political and social practice. Intellectual representations of space also have practical influence as they materialise through architecture (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 41).

The living space is the third moment (representational space). This space is directly lived and is created and recreated through people's various needs and modifications of space. The space of representations connects to social and cultural life, and it is this space that humans, through imagination, try to change and align with their own lives. The representation space also adds new layers to the physical space in the form of symbolism, poetry, and sensuousness (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 39).

2.1.1. Dialectical characteristics of knowledge creation

According to Lefebvre, the basis for knowledge of space cannot be philosophical or mathematical alone. If one places knowledge of space in philosophical thinking, it will merely reach a quantifiable level; it will become a representation of space or an abstraction. In the production of lived space knowledge must be understood as dialectical, movements between how space is thought, practiced, and experienced (Lefebvre, 1991).

Inger Marie Lid, a Norwegian researcher, has similar thoughts on UD knowledge. Lid's understanding of universal design is based on interactions between levels of knowledge. In her work, Lid has developed a knowledge model in relation to Universal Design (In Norwegian: Universell Utforming (Aslaksen et al. 1997)). Through the model, Lid explains three levels of knowledge that touch on UD: overall value sets and conceptualization at a macro level, technical regulations, and design principles at a meso-level, and perceived quality of space and user knowledge at a micro level. In Lid's model, associations with Lefebvre's production of space are seen as dialectical moments. However, Lid refers to the creation of UD, while Lefebvre refers to the production of space. Lid's understanding of UD is like Lefebvre's understanding of space and interactions between different levels of knowledge. As in Lefebvre's spatial triangle, perceived space, represented space, and lived space are reflected in Lid's matrix (Lid, 2013; Lefebvre, 1991).

Lid's macro level frames knowledge of ethics, understanding of disability, and thinking about human rights. The macro-level operates with UD knowledge through politicisation, legislation, and rights. This is the level of spatial practice that Lefebvre identifies.

The meso-level is an intermediate level that covers knowledge of planning, technical regulation implementation, and collaborative processes. To develop and implement UD at the meso-level, technical knowledge and skills are required. This is the level Lefebvre sees as the representation of space, intellectual concepts, and abstractions of space.

The micro level identifies knowledge of the individual's perspective, knowledge of where and how barriers arise, and who experiences the barriers. The micro level requires knowledge of the interaction between individual and environment [Lid, 2013]. This is the level Lefebvre sees as representational spaces, the space of lived life. It is also this level that Lefebvre argues must be met by the other two levels to realise the practice of lived space in architecture (Lefebvre, 1991).

3. Results

Space as a social construct, a structuring and dialectical actor for human life, initiates an understanding of spaces as acting and performative. Architecture's physical constructs contribute to people's opportunities for expression in social constructs, actively shaping our daily practices and social structures.

At times, people find that architecture does not support opportunities for action and development. One finds that space, as a social construct, does not respond to one's needs. In this way, architecture contributes to regulating how one, as a human being, can unfold and interact with others. Therefore, architecture also has limiting properties.

In Denmark, Disabled People's Organisations Denmark (DPOD) is finding that people with disabilities are limited in social space. DPOD is experiencing that, members of the organisation encounter barriers in architecture which limit the opportunities to act and participate on an equal footing with others. The experience of not being included in society arises from the fact that physical constructs hinder social constructs. As a result, the organisations have put political pressure on building legislation and construction practices. Furthermore, DPOD have engaged as user participants in architectural design processes and the creation of UD knowledge.

With ambitions to influence the development of UD in a broad sense, DPOD engages at all levels of Lids’ matrix. The intended return on this engagement is of an architectural and social nature (Sørensen, 2018). 

3.1. Diversity Including Disability

From selected studies from the PhD research project, I now lay out a framework for understanding collaborative practice and how knowledge is created between DPOD user representatives and construction parties.

With the goal of influencing built environments, user representatives from local DPOD groups engage with construction parties to share their experiences of UD and accessibility. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities most often situates this engagement. Users participate in municipal construction meetings. Users also participate in architectural design processes to inspire accessibility and inclusive designs. Together with the construction parties, DPOD has become a significant player in collaborative processes on UD and accessibility.

However, the research shows that knowledge of UD is still sprouting, while long-term interpretations of accessibility as solutions for people with disabilities have taken root in knowledge creation between users and architects (Sørensen, 2018). Interviewed user representatives do not refer to a practice of UD knowledge creation and interpretations of the term user, understood as ‘all of us’. Nor do they mention UD as a driving force in collaborative design processes.

"Well, I have to admit that when we got the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and was introduced to universal design, I said yes, it is then a new word we must learn and remember. But when we talk about it in everyday life, it is not universal design" - interviewed user representative

Interviews with user representatives show that knowledge of accessibility is understood as more tangible than concepts such as UD and inclusive architecture. Several interviewed refer to UD as "airy and indefinable" or something that is difficult to understand and explain. Others state that UD knowledge is reserved for the field of architecture. UD seems to be interpreted as knowledge that belongs to a conceptual world, what Lefebvre calls representations of space, the intellectually conceptualised space (Lefebvre, 1991).

The interviews show that the collaborative practice is instead maintained with a predominant focus on accessibility, often based on and described in quantifiable details or mathematical representations. Several interviews with users and architects describe a collaboration among those who together adhere to regulatory instructions and keep to Building Regulations and their codification. Accessibility is described in measurable details or referred to as specific paragraphs in technical regulations or supplementary standards.

"That kind of thing is regulated by law in Denmark, so we react on a legal text and complies with it" - interviewed architect

More specifically, the collaborative practice is described with a focus on people with disabilities and quantifiable sub-elements of architecture such as accessible door widths, wheelchair ramps, and arrangements of accessible toilet facilities. Also, this mathematical approach can be found in the interviewed architects’ conceptions of disability, which tend to be influenced by a medical discourse that considers disability as an individual condition to be treated or assisted. According to that view, disability can be defined using measurable criteria, and the solution to the condition lies in architectural assistance to the body's function.

Unintentionally, this notion encourages design thinking that separates accessibility from architecture, so that accessible solutions appear as sub-solutions, often detached from architectural concepts. Interpretations of accessibility as special solutions for a few both influence the understanding of human diversity and architectural quality. The physical construct influences the social construct and unintentionally results in people's differentiation.

These solutions are limited by responding to impairment alone, as opposed to architectural solutions that include human diversity and are inherently accessible to all users, regardless of abilities, as UD understood in CRPD (Sørensen & Ryhl, 2018).

4. Discussion

The research show that UD knowledge creation rarely explicitly investigates the relationship between the built environment and the human body. In case collaborative practice, do take the body into account; it is often done through a mathematical or dimensional lens. The focus on abstractions and quantifiable representations, which Lefebvre calls the second moment, leaves an absence of knowledge in the third moment, the lived space. This is knowledge of people’s living space created and recreated through various needs and modifications, an interaction between body and space (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 39).

Knowledge, closely related to the user's body, the user's experience, and the user's perception, is what Lefebvre reasons must be met by the other two moments to achieve lived space in architecture. In a UD perspective, this is what Lid identifies as essential in the creation of UD knowledge: knowledge of the individual's perspective and the interaction between individual and environment [Lid, 2013]. Because levels of knowledge are understood as interrelated in the Lid’s matrix, the absence of knowledge of the user and lived space has consequences for other levels.

Lefebvre's ambition in exposing philosophical or mathematical abstractions of space was to distance himself from concepts of space that are non-real and cannot be experienced or sensed by humans. He saw the quantifiable understanding of space as a co-creator of what he called "depeopled spaces" (Lefebvre, 1991). Lefebvre notices the importance of daily life in spatial practice and emphasises that if spatial practice is to meet the user in architecture, it requires knowledge about perception and use of space and insight into the lived space. He argued how the architect's representations of space and the living space must approach each other. To avoid mathematical abstractions and architectural conceptualization taking precedence over the living space, users must convey daily life experiences, and professional construction parties must engage in knowledge of the user's lived space. In collaborations on UD and accessibility, Lefebvre's thoughts are no less valuable, as acknowledgement of the relationship between body and environment has led to the development of design approaches like Universal Design (Heylighen, 2013).

According to Lefebvre, the production of lived space cannot be built on philosophical or mathematical knowledge alone; then it becomes an abstraction alienated from the body [Lefebvre, 1991]. In creation based on UD knowledge and translating daily life into living spaces, there is a potential to look behind technical representations and let numbers and measurements be supported by human experience. Also, moving collaborative practices beyond accessibility legislation and current building regulations might open doors for new and subtle notions of disability and inclusive built environments. Rethinking the term "user" and embracing processes that include a wider range of heterogeneous individuals could encourage new understandings of human diversity, including disability, and bring the architectural field closer to societal movements towards concepts such as UD and inclusive environments, as formulated in the CRPD (Sørensen, 2018). New sorts of innovative collaborations between users and the architectural field are suggested as possible means for a wider understanding of human diversity. Exploratory workshops, co-design, prototyping, and mock-up modelling are well-known methods that interact body and space in knowledge creation. In the creation of UD knowledge, these formats can still be challenged and enhanced in new experimental settings to meet even wider user groups, regardless of abilities.

“There is architectural motivation and quality in designing architecture with a set of values that leans on a universal design mindset. There is a quality in architectural holistic thinking and accessibility, which is not a visible element that stands out from the rest of the architectural design” - interviewed architect

Furthermore, in future UD knowledge creation, there will be the opportunity to shift the focus from people's disabilities to people's various functional abilities. Understanding how different functional and sensory abilities perceive spaces is important for architectural practices. This type of knowledge allows you, as an architect, to focus on the spatial qualities that the user experiences. In future collaborations between users and architects, one can imagine that the sensed and the experienced are favoured over the non-sensed and the non-experienced. A blind user, for example, will not only tell the architect what one does not see but also the barriers that come with blindness in interaction with the environment. Instead, the user will tell or show how space is experienced and perceived without the sense of sight. Good acoustics are important because you use your hearing to a greater extent. Surfaces with texture can tell which room you are in and give a sensuous experience of the room. Through which senses and bodily experiences is space perceived when one does not see?

Attending to the bodily experiences of users with various functional and sensory abilities may reveal spatial qualities architects may not be familiar with, reminding us that architecture is not only seen but experienced by all senses simultaneously (Pallasmaa, 1996). This is valuable knowledge, and in this understanding of user participation, the user (together with the architect's professional insight) becomes central in translating lived space into architecture. When designing spaces for people, attention to the user's bodily abilities and experiences, combined with architectural objectives, is useful insight (Heylighen, 2013).

Interdisciplinary co-creation of knowledge, understood as collaborative and iterative processes involving different types of expertise and skills, is another way to meet UD ideals. Interdisciplinary collaborations between practitioners, researchers, user panels, political actors, etc. could point to new working communities in which diverse competences together generate UD knowledge and cross-disciplinary perspectives. The co-creation of knowledge so that one can jointly respond to national and international ambitions opens prospects for new constructions of an interdisciplinary nature. Lefebvre maintained that space must be understood not only as a concrete (material) entity but also as an ideological, social, and lived one.

5. Conclusions

An ever-increasing societal and international awareness of greater collective responsibility for inclusion and movement towards concepts such as universal design and inclusive architecture challenges spatial practice, which is expected to align with international ambitions. It also challenges the user-participatory processes, which in the future must deal with new interpretations of user concepts, understood as 'all of us'. Inclusion of a diverse user group will require comprehensive knowledge of people's very different authenticities and meet the necessity for developing the practical applicability of UD.

The research points out that this development will set a new framework for collaborative practice between users and construction professionals and will require adapted knowledge creation. Challenges could be countered by an increased focus on awareness of diverse user groups and their daily practices. In translating the concrete world of life into architecture, qualitative knowledge of life can strengthen the work of UD and ensure that users with different bodily abilities are represented in the broad user definition.

If human diversity and architectural practice are to correspond with UD ideals, the research suggests advanced user-based knowledge and awareness of social aspects of architecture (in addition to quantifiable measurements and technical insight).

How UD knowledge is created and activated in architectural practice becomes indicative of whether collaborative practice can respond to larger societal ambitions and international conventions. Reflecting the need for furthering the comprehensive understanding of the spatial implications of UD, the research points to a wider arena of disciplines and research fields that, in the future, can create UD knowledge from interdisciplinary perspectives and bridge knowledge with international ambitions.

Data Availability Statement

https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html

https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/international-classification-of-functioning-disability-and-health

Contributor statement

Describe properly all author contributions and all types of contribution, see Policies (tudelft.nl) 

Acknowledgments

The article draws on the Phd project “Generating Inclusive Built Environments through User Driven Dialogue in the Architectural Design Process”, funded by the Bevica Foundation and the Vandføre Foundation.

References

1. Aslaksen et al. (1997) Universal Design: Planning and Design for All. The Norwegian State Council on Disability

2. Heylighen A. (2013) Van Doren C, Vermeersch PW. Enriching our understanding of architecture through disability experience. Open House Int 2013;38:7–19

3. Imrie, R. (2012) Universalism, Universal Design and equitable access to the built environment. Disability & Rehabilitation, 2012; 34(10): 873–882. London: Informa UK, Ltd.

4. Iwarsson, S. & Stahl, A. (2003). Accessibility, Usability and Universal Design: positioning and definition of concepts describing person-environment relationships. Disability and rehabilitation, Vol 25, no 2, 57-66

5. Lefebvre, H. (1991 [1974]). The Production of Space: Cambridge, Massachusetts. Black-well Publishing.

6. Lid IM. (2014) Universal Design and disability: an interdisciplinary perspective, Disability and Rehabilitation, 36:16, 1344-1349

7. Lid, IM. (2013). Universell utforming: verdigrunnlag, kunnskap og praksis. Oslo: Cappelen Damm

8. Lid, IM. (2012). Disability as a human condition discussed in a theological perspective. Diaconia. Journal for the Study of Christian Social Practice. Vol. 3.

9. Lid, IM. (2010). Accessibility as a Statutory Right. Nordic Journal of Human Rights. Vol. 28.

10. Ostroff, E. (2001) Universal design: the new paradigm. Universal design handbook, Edited by:

Preiser, W.F.E & Ostroff, E. New York: McGraw-Hill. Chapter 1, 1.1–1.12

11. Pallasmaa, J. (1996). The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses. London: Academy.

12. Preiser, W.F.E & Ostroff, E. (2001) Universal Design Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.

13. Story M.F (2001) Principles of Universal Design. Universal Design Handbook, Edited by: Preiser,

W.F.E & Ostroff, E. New York: McGraw-Hill. Chapter 10, 10.1–10.17

14. Sørensen, R., & Ryhl, C. (2018). Responding to Diversity Including Disability. In C. Storni, K. Leahy, M. McMahon, P. Lloyd, & E. Bohemia (Eds.), Design Research Society 2018, Design as a catalyst for change: Proceedings of DRS 2018 International Conference: Catalyst (Vol. 5, pp. 1894-1908). [524] Loughborough University, London: Design Research Society. Proceedings of DRS

15. Sørensen, R. (2018). Spatial (E)quality from a User Perspective. In G. Craddock, C. Doran, L. McNutt, & D. Rice (Eds.), Transforming our World Through Design, Diversity and Education: Proceedings of Universal Design and Higher Education in Transformation Congress 2018 (pp. 743-749). [115] Amsterdam: IOS Press. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, Vol. 256

16. WHO. 2001. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva: World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/international-classification-of-functioning-disability-and-health

17. United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html (Accessed 12 March 2021)