Participation of people with disabilities in local governance: … · 2017-07-04 · Participation of people with disabilities in local governance: Measuring the effects of inclusive

Participation of people with disabilities in local governance:

Measuring the effects of inclusive local development strategies

Normand Boucher, Pascale Vincent, Patrick Fougeyrollas, Priscille Geiser, Damien Hazard and Hugues Nouvellet

September 2015

KNOWLEDGE CAPITALIZATION

BOOKLET

Leaflet 7 COMPARATIVE PORTRAIT OF SOCIAL PARTICIPATION BY SITE,

RESULTS OF THE LIFE-H AND MQE

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The research team would like to thank in particular our partners and other local stakeholders at the four trial sites that agreed to collaborate on this project. We want to highlight the essential contribution of field coordinators Josée Razanarison, Cities and Disability project manager at Handicap International Madagascar, Brigitte Larbodie, director of the APF Gironde delegation in Bordeaux, Edmundo Xavier of Vida Brasil in Salvador, Olivier Collomb D'Eyrames, director of Regroupement des Organismes de Personnes Handicapées Region 03 (Quebec), as well as of Aude Brus, manager of technical studies and scientific research at Handicap International (HI), in moderating the closing seminar in Lyon in December 2014. HI provided essential human resource and document translation support. We also want to thank Eric Plantier-Royon, disability program officer for the City of Villeurbanne, and Philippe Miet, APF European and international policy advisor, for their contributions at various stages of implementation of this project. Thanks also to the people with disabilities who donated their time to fill out the various questionnaires used during the trial. We are grateful to Chantal Cloutier for her work on the layout of the final report. Lastly, we wish to thank the funding bodies for their financial support for this project, including the Rhône-Alpes region for its financial contribution to the organization of the closing seminar.

International Foundation of Applied Disability Research (FIRAH)

Caisse nationale pour l’autonomie et la solidarité (CNSA)

Reunica - Comité coordination action handicap (CCAH)

In 2015 REUNICA became AG2R LA MONDIALE

Malakoff-Mederic - Comité coordination action handicap (CCAH)

Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation and Social Integration (CIRRIS)

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

FINANCIAL PARTNERS

3

CRPD: Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

CIEDEL: International Study Center for Local Development

CIRRIS: Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation and Social Integration

ILD: Inclusive local development

HI: Handicap International SPI: Socio-political Participation Index

LIFE-H: Assessment of life habits MQE: Measure of the Quality of the Environment

DPO: Disabled people's organization DCP: Disability Creation Process

VB: Vida Brasil

4

The associations Handicap International and Vida Brasil, noting that people with disabilities are

frequently excluded from decision-making processes that concern them, joined forces with two

research centers, CIEDEL and CIRRIS, for an applied research project aimed at improving their

participation. The goal of the research was to identify and trial methods, tools and analysis

indicators to measure the effects of inclusive local development (ILD) strategies on improving the

individual and collective civic participation of people with disabilities in the governance

mechanisms of their community. It was carried out using a participatory approach in four

territories in Brazil, Canada, France and Madagascar, from 2012 to 2014.

This leaflet on the Comparative portrait of social participation by site, results of the LIFE-H and

MQE is the seventh in a series of ten leaflets designed to capitalize on this experience and

contribute to thinking on the effective implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons

with Disabilities, in particular its articles 4.3, 19 and 29.

Like the territorial and local governance characterizations, the LIFE-H and MQE provide a snapshot of the social participation of people with disabilities at a given time. They also provide a snapshot of the quality of their living environment. Trialing of the tools is a key aspect of the evaluation approach which also includes an analysis of the results derived from use of the tools. Forty people with disabilities were asked to fill out the LIFE-H and MQE at each site, so as to establish a portrait of their social participation and the quality of their living environment during 2014. PROFILE OF PARTICIPANTS A total of 147 people with disabilities filled out the questionnaires, of the 160 targeted (Figure 1); 40% are from Toliara, which represents an acceptable level of participation for conducting more sophisticated statistical analyses. We did not seek to obtain a representative sample, which was too difficult to define due to the lack of statistics available for each site. Given the context for trialing the tools, a diversity of participants was sought instead, in particular in terms of age and types of disability.

FIGURE 1: Breakdown of respondents by country (n=147)

16,3%

25,9%

17,0%

40,8% Bordeaux (France)

Salvador (Bresil)

Québec (Canada)

Toliara (Madagascar)

The ratio of men to women is essentially equal, and most people are between the ages of 18 and 50, with a secondary education for the majority of them (Figures 2-3 and 4).

FIGURE 2: Age of respondents (n=147)

5

13,6%

21,1%

24,5%

19,0%

15,6%

6,1%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

moins 18 ans

18-30 ans

31-40 ans

41-50 ans

51-60 ans

61 ans et +

Pour

cent

age

de ré

pond

ants

Âge des répondants (n=147)

FIGURE 3: Gender of respondents (n=147)

49,7%50,3%

Sexe des répondants (n=147)

Feminin

Masculin

6

FIGURE 4: Respondent level of education (n=117)

29,1%

52,1%

11,1% 7,7%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

POur

cent

age

de ré

pond

ants

Niveau de scolarité

Niveau de scolarité des répondants (n=117)

The great majority live alone with no children, while 50% of participants indicated that they had a motor impairment (Figures 5-6 and 7).

FIGURE 5: Family status of respondents (n=122)

72,1%

22,1%

4,1%

1,6%

État civil des répondants (n=122)

Célibataire

En couple

Divorcé/séparé

Veuf

FIGURE 6: Share of respondents with children (n=123)

27,6%

72,4%

Proportion des répondants ayant des enfants (n=123)

Oui

Non

7

FIGURE 7: Breakdown of respondents by type of disability (n=149)

50,7%

11,0% 15,1%21,2%

2,1%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Pour

cent

age

de r

épon

dant

s

Type de déficience

Type de déficience des répondants (n=146)

PERCEIVED IMPACT OF INITIATIVES CONDUCTED In order to determine a benchmark for the initiatives conducted in recent years and their perceived impact, participants had to indicate the level of impact of these initiatives on the achievement of their daily activities. A majority of them viewed this impact as significant, or very significant (Figure 8).

FIGURE 8: Perceived impact of initiatives conducted to improve physical accessibility in

daily activities

21,9%30,7%

43,9%

2,6% 0,9%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Po

urc

en

tage

de

ré

po

nd

ants

Niveau d'impact

Niveau d'impact des mesures prises pour améliorer l'accessibilite physique

dans la réalisation des activites quotidiennes (n=114)

8

FIGURE 9: Results of the Assessment of Life Habits

10,9%22,2%

9,6% 6,8%14,3% 15,0% 15,6%

4,8%

25,7%

41,5%

24,8%36,9%

30,6%

47,9%

30,1%29,3% 19,0%

42,2%30,6%

17,7%

36,1%

23,2%

42,3%29,1%

58,5%

29,9%

60,3% 63,9% 66,7%

42,9%53,7%

77,6%

38,2% 35,4% 32,8% 34,0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%P

ou

rce

nta

ge d

e r

ép

on

dan

ts

8 et + tres peu perturbe

4-7 moyennement perturbe

0-3 tres perturbe

In the area of social participation, a relatively varied profile appears based on life habits, where we note that achievement of social roles is significantly more disrupted than accomplishment of daily activities (Figure 9) for all participants. When we examine the results more closely, we see that mobility is relatively disrupted for a majority of participants according to the LIFE-H scale. We must remember here that the initiatives being evaluated, or what we have designated as the common thread, for three of the four territories involved improved physical accessibility of public infrastructures such as sidewalks, transportation, public buildings, etc. Lastly, we note that other life habits whose achievement is disrupted are recreation, education, work and housing, while interpersonal relations are little disrupted.

FIGURE 10: Level of satisfaction of respondents by categories of life habits

4,1%

20,8%

3,4% 5,4% 6,8% 6,1% 3,6% 2,8%10,6% 8,2% 4,7% 6,0%

33,6%

38,2%

23,8%31,3%

40,1% 40,8%33,8%

18,6%

46,5%

30,1% 39,8%29,1%

62,3%

41,0%

72,8%63,3%

53,1% 53,1%62,6%

78,6%

43,0%

61,6%55,5%

64,9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Po

urc

en

tage

de

ré

po

nd

ants

Très insatisfait/Insatisfait +/- Satisfait Satisfait/Très satisfait

When we examine the level of satisfaction expressed for each life habit (Figure 10), we note that participants are more or less satisfied, and dissatisfied with those identified as disrupted (Figure 9). It is interesting to note that activities related to housing present with a relatively high level of

9

dissatisfaction, like those related to community life which corresponds to “getting around, using the services of community organizations.”

FIGURE 11: Satisfaction with mobility by territory (n=144)

Figure 11 illustrates the level of satisfaction with respect to mobility by territory. It reveals that the participants in Salvador are the most dissatisfied, followed by those in Bordeaux. Once again, we draw attention to the proportion of participants who say they are more or less satisfied: it is relatively high in each of the regions, at 30%.

FIGURE 12: Satisfaction with community life by territory (n=142)

We observe the phenomenon with the “community life” habit in which one third of participants in Salvador declare themselves very dissatisfied, and 47% more or less satisfied, while this latter proportion rises to more than 50% in Bordeaux (Figure 12).

When we examine the social participation profile of men and women, we note few significant differences. We can observe a significant difference (statistical) by gender for life habits related to

10

communication, housing and responsibilities. These differences remain difficult to explain for the time being. Figure 13: Life habits scores * Women (n=73)

Figure 14: Life habits scores * Men (n=74)

RESULTS PRESENTED BY TERRITORY

11

When we look at the level of achievement of life habits by territory, we note that it is in Toliara and Salvador that the quality of social participation measured with the LIFE-H is the most disrupted (Figures 15-16-17 and 18). Once again, particular attention should be paid to the yellow section in the graphs indicating an average level of disruption for activities related to housing, which impacts two-thirds of participants in Bordeaux, for example, and 32%, 50% and 30% of participants respectively in Quebec, Salvador and Toliara. This level of achievement means that the respondents require technical and human assistance and encounter difficulties in achieving their activities. It is at this level of achievement that the introduction of changes aimed at reducing barriers in the person's environment can lead to a change in achievement of life habits. The same model also applies to mobility in each of the territories, where we see a large share of participants for whom this life habit is somewhat disrupted. On the contrary, it is in interpersonal relations that the largest share of participants report a level of achievement that is not or very little disrupted in each of the territories.

FIGURE 15: Assessment of Life Habits (Toliara, Madagascar)

25,0% 21,7%10,2% 6,7%

23,3%16,7%

33,3%

6,7%

31,7% 37,2% 35,7% 40,4%

30,0%50,0%

30,5% 35,0%15,0% 30,0%

21,7%

23,3%

36,7% 30,2% 30,4% 24,6%

45,0%

28,3%

59,3% 58,3% 61,7%53,3%

45,0%

70,0%

31,7% 32,6% 33,9% 35,1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


4-7 moyennementperturbe0-3 tres perturbe

12

FIGURE 16: Assessment of Life Habits (Quebec, Canada)

0,0%8,3%

0,0% 4,0% 4,0% 4,0% 0,0% 4,0% 0,0%

20,0%12,0% 16,0%

24,0%

50,0%

24,0% 16,0% 12,0%

32,0%

20,0% 16,0% 28,0%

20,0%48,0%

28,0%

76,0%

41,7%

76,0% 80,0% 84,0%

64,0%

80,0% 80,0%72,0%

60,0%

40,0%

56,0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



0-3 tres perturbe

FIGURE 17: Assessment of Life Habits (Bordeaux, France)

0,0%8,3% 12,5% 12,5% 12,5% 12,5% 8,3% 4,2%

30,4%

50,0%

8,3%

25,0%29,2%

45,8%29,2%

16,7% 20,8%

66,7%

37,5%

16,7%

30,4%

16,7%

50,0%

41,7%

70,8%

45,8%58,3%

70,8% 66,7%

20,8%

54,2%

79,2%

39,1% 33,3%41,7%

33,3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

8 et + très peu perturbé

4-7 moyennement perturbé

0-3 très perturbé

13

FIGURE 18: Assessment of Life Habits (Salvador, Brazil)

2,6%

41,7%

13,2%5,3% 7,9%

21,1%

2,6% 2,6%

30,6%

56,5%

28,1%

54,3%36,8%

44,4%

34,2%36,8% 28,9%

52,6%

47,4%

10,5%

44,4%

13,0%

53,1%

28,6%60,5%

13,9%

52,6% 57,9% 63,2%

26,3%

50,0%

86,8%

25,0% 30,4%18,8% 17,1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



0-3 tres perturbe

PERCEIVED INFLUENCE OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE DAILY ACTIVITIES OBTAINED WITH THE MQE FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS AND BY TERRITORY

Overall results This snapshot of social participation cannot reveal every detail of the situation without adding the perception of the living environment of participants with disabilities. The measure of the quality of the environment is developed from a series of six key environmental factors: support and attitudes of the family and entourage; income, employment and income security; government and public services; physical environment and accessibility; technology; and measures of equal opportunity and policy orientations. The results are first presented according to these six key factors overall and by territory, to highlight specificities. Other forms of statistical analysis were then applied to reveal significant relationships between certain variables. From the outset, the two factors that are in the category support and attitudes are perceived by the majority of participants as accelerators (Figure 19), while the situation is slightly different for the factors in the income, employment and employment security category, where job availability appears to be a major barrier for participants (Figure 20). In both cases, we must remember that participants were asked to respond by estimating the influence, in general, of these factors on achievement of their daily life.

14

FIGURE 19: Measure of the Quality of the Environment – Support and attitudes of family

and entourage

5,6% 6,3%

89,5% 89,7%

4,8% 4,0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Soutien de l'entourage Attitudes des personnes de l'entourage

Po

urc

en

tage

de

ré

po

nd

ants

Aucune influence

Facilitateur

Obstacle

FIGURE 20: Measure of the Quality of the Environment – Income, employment and

employment security

46,3%

21,7% 20,9%31,3%

45,0%

75,4% 78,0% 56,3%

8,8%2,9% 1,1%

12,5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Disponibilite des emplois du milieu

Milieu et conditions de travail

Revenus personnels Programmes publics d'assurances ou de

compensation

financière

Po

urc

en

tage

de

ré

po

nd

ants

Aucune influence

Facilitateur

Obstacle

15

FIGURE 21: Measure of the Quality of the Environment – Physical environment and

accessibility

0,0%

28,8%17,2%

28,0%43,3% 45,2%

19,5%34,5% 38,6%

12,9%

91,7%

67,3%77,0%

64,5%

51,2%

26,6%

33,9%

21,6%

43,2%

75,2%

8,3% 3,8% 5,7% 7,5% 5,5%

28,2%

46,6% 44,0%

18,2% 11,9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Po

urc

en

tage

de

ré

po

nd

ants

Obstacle Facilitateur Aucune influence

The results shown in Figure 21 reveal interesting perceptions of the influence of the physical environment and of accessibility. Thus, weather conditions, accessibility of roads, time allotted to complete a task, and noise or sound intensity are perceived as barriers by 30 to 45% of participants, while 28% perceive the public transit services and physical accessibility of buildings as such.

FIGURE 22: Measure of the Quality of the Environment – Technology and technical

assistance

7,1% 6,3%13,5%

84,1% 89,6%81,3%

8,8%4,2% 5,2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Televiseurs & radios Services de communication electronique

Aides techniques

Po

urc

en

tage

de

ré

po

nd

ants

Aucune influence

Facilitateur

Obstacle

16

FIGURE 23: Measure of the Quality of the Environment – Public, governmental or

community services

21,8% 20,4% 18,5%8,5%

74,5% 77,7%

67,7% 84,9%

3,6% 1,9%

13,8%6,6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Services commerciaux du milieu

Services socio-sanitaires

Services educatifs Services des organismes

communautaires du

milieu

Po

urc

en

tage

de

ré

po

nd

ants

Aucune influence

Facilitateur

Obstacle

Technology and technical assistance are largely perceived as accelerators by participants (Figure 22), as are public, governmental and community services to a lesser extent, i.e. slightly below 80% (Figure 23).

FIGURE 24: Measure of the Quality of the Environment – Equal opportunity and policy

orientations

10,8%

42,6% 40,0%

78,5%

52,9%51,3%

10,8%4,4%

8,8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Modes de participation aux prises de décisions

Politiques & programmes gouvernementaux

Règlements & procédures administratives

Po

urc

en

tage

de

ré

po

nd

ants

Aucune influence

Facilitateur

Obstacle

17

The perception of the influence of public programs, rules and procedures is more divided, with 42% and 40% of participants, respectively, perceiving them as barriers (Figure 24).

Presentation of results by territory

FIGURE 25: Perception of the environment – Physical environment and accessibility

(Salvador, Brazil)

0,0%

56,3%

0,0%

46,9%

72,7%61,3%

37,9%

70,4%

44,4%

17,2%

87,5%

40,6%

23,5%

53,1%

27,3%35,5%

41,4%

18,5%

40,7%

75,9%

12,5%3,1%

76,5%

0,0% 0,0% 3,2%

20,7%11,1% 14,8%

6,9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Po

urc

en

tage

de

ré

po

nd

ants



(Quebec, Canada)

0,0%

23,8%

4,8% 9,5%

33,3%

71,4%

27,8%

0,0%

52,6%

19,0%

100,0%66,7%

76,2% 71,4%

42,9%

14,3%

22,2%

21,1%

15,8%

42,9%

0,0%9,5%

19,0% 19,0% 23,8%14,3%

50,0%

78,9%

31,6%38,1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Po

urc

en

tage

de

ré

po

nd

ants


18


(Bordeaux, France)

0,0%8,3% 12,5% 12,5%

30,8%46,2%

33,3%

53,8%

75,0%

8,3%

100,0%91,7%

62,5% 62,5%

61,5%38,5%

25,0%

15,4%

8,3%

83,3%

0,0% 0,0%

25,0% 25,0%

7,7%15,4%

41,7%30,8%

16,7%8,3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Po

urc

en

tage

de

ré

po

nd

ants



(Toliara, Madagascar)

0,0%15,4% 18,6%

26,1%33,3% 27,1%

5,1%17,5%

10,0% 7,7%

80,0%

82,1% 79,7% 69,6%65,0%

23,7%

35,6%

31,6%

76,7%89,7%

20,0%

2,6% 1,7% 4,3%1,7%

49,2%59,3%

50,9%

13,3%

2,6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Po

urc

en

tage

de

ré

po

nd

ants


19

When we examine these results, once again by large category of factors, we note constants for certain factors such as accessibility of paths and roads, which is perceived as a significant barrier for a large share of participants in each of the territories, ranging from 30% in Bordeaux and 33% in Quebec and Toliara, to 72% in Salvador (Figures 25-28).

FIGURE 29: Physical accessibility of buildings – By mobility score (n=105) (p<0.05)

59,09%

27,45%

6,25%

40,91%

64,71%

81,25%

0,00%7,84%

12,50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0-3 tres perturbe 4-7 moyennement perturbe 8 et + tres peu perturbe

Aucune influence

Facilitateur

Obstacle

The influence of weather conditions is perceived as a major barrier by a large share of participants (61% in Salvador and 72% in Quebec), as is the time allotted for executing a task, except in Toliara. We note that noise or sound intensity is perceived as a major barrier in Salvador, a city considered to be very noisy, with 70% of participants, and, surprisingly, Bordeaux comes next with 53% of respondents. The other factors to consider are physical accessibility of buildings and public transit in some territories such as Salvador. We should recall here that the initiatives chosen specifically aimed to improve physical accessibility during the period of the study, whose results serve to note the persistence of some barriers to social participation for people with disabilities. In this final sub-section, analyses were used to highlight the existence of certain significant relationships in statistical terms, such as the perception of the influence of building access, which varies depending on the level of achievement of life habits. Thus, the more disrupted the mobility life habit, the more access to buildings is perceived as a barrier (Figure 29).

20

FIGURE 30: Accessibility of roadways in your environment – By Recreation score (p<0.05)

47,92%

62,50%

24,39%

52,08%

34,38%

60,98%

0,00% 3,13%

14,63%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0-3 tres perturbe 4-7 moyennement perturbe 8 et + tres peu perturbe

Aucune influence

Facilitateur

Obstacle

FIGURE 31: Analysis of certain variables and level of achievement (p<0.05) – Recreation

score by type of disability (n=137)

38,6%

18,8%

47,6%

36,7%

25,7%

12,5%

47,6%

30,0%

35,7%

68,8%

4,8%

33,3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

motrice auditive visuelle intellectuelle



0-3 tres perturbe

We see the same relationship between the level of achievement of the recreation life habit, and the perception of the influence of road accessibility (Figure 3028); this factor must doubtless be considered as important in the achievement of recreation by participants. It is interesting to note that the level of achievement of the recreation life habit varies significantly by participants' type of disability, and the group with a visual impairment is that for which recreation activities are most disrupted (Figure 31).

21

FIGURE 32: Level of achievement of mobility – By type of disability (n=141) (p<0.05)

23,6%

0,0%

45,5%

16,1%

52,8%

37,5%

40,9%

45,2%

23,6%

62,5%

13,6%

38,7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

motrice auditive visuelle intellectuelle



0-3 tres perturbe

We observe a similar significant relationship with the level of achievement of the mobility life habit, which also varies by type of disability, where the group with a visual impairment has much more disrupted mobility (Figure 30).

FIGURE 33: Perception of the physical environment and accessibility by people with a

visual impairment

0,0%

26,7%

41,2% 41,2%

65,0%

45,0%50,0% 47,1%

18,2% 20,0%

100,0%

66,7%

58,8% 58,8%

35,0%

25,0% 16,7%

11,8%

54,5%

80,0%

0,0%6,7%

0,0% 0,0% 0,0%

30,0% 33,3%41,2%

27,3%

0,0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Véhiculepersonnel

utilisé

Services detransport

en commun

Accessibilitephysique de

la residence

Accessibilitephysique

des edifices

Accessibilitedes voies de

circulation

Conditionsclimatiques

Intensitélumineuse

Bruit ouintensité

sonore

Tempsalloué pour

executerune tache

Objetsutilisés

Po

urc

en

tage

de

ré

po

nd

ants


22

FIGURE 34: Perception of the physical environment and accessibility by people with an

intellectual impairment

0,0%8,3%

16,7%11,8%

23,3%

40,0%

13,8%20,7%

58,8%

14,3%

100,0%91,7%

62,5%

58,8%

63,3% 30,0%

37,9%31,0%

17,6%

61,9%

0,0% 0,0%

20,8%29,4%

13,3%

30,0%

48,3% 48,3%

23,5% 23,8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Véhiculepersonnel

utilisé

Services detransport en

commun

Accessibilitephysique de

la residence

Accessibilitephysique

des edifices

Accessibilitedes voies de

circulation

Conditionsclimatiques

Intensitélumineuse

Bruit ouintensité

sonore

Tempsalloué pour

executerune tache

Objetsutilisés

Po

urc

en

tag

e d

e r

ép

on

da

nts


Lastly, we note an interesting but not statistically significant variation in the perceived influence of the physical environment and accessibility by type of disability (Figures 33 and 34), where accessibility of roadways appears to be a larger barrier for visual impairments than for people with an intellectual impairment, for whom weather conditions are a greater barrier in their daily lives.

CONCLUSION

In this exercise a snapshot helps to illustrate the level of respondents' social participation, both individually and collectively, i.e. viewed as a group or as a given population with certain characteristics. This collective dimension should not be neglected, because it serves to establish an overview of a population, here people with disabilities in a given territory, in a given environment. The results here should not be confused with those obtained using the SPI and presented in leaflet 6, which looks at collective participation from the perspective of the socio-political stakeholders that are the DPOs. The portrait of the influence of the environment that the MQE serves to establish supplements that of the achievement of life habits, by identifying the accelerators and barriers perceived as most important by participants. The major barriers are related to accessibility of roadways and of all locations, in a proportion ranging from 30% in Bordeaux, to more than 70% in Salvador. We observe the same phenomenon for weather conditions, perceived as a significant barrier in all the territories. People living in disabling situations with respect to mobility are more likely to view the quality of their physical environment as a barrier, than those who do not live in such situations. There is no dominant factor perceived as an accelerator in all the territories; we note instead a diversity of influences. This information or data contributes to orienting local initiatives to improve the situation of social participation of these populations.

23

The use of the LIFE-H and MQE can thus be recommended to any stakeholder wishing to assess the participation of people with disabilities in a given territory, and to gather information at the level of the individual.

Leaflet 8 which follows presents the Characterization of local governance in TOLIARA and

BORDEAUX.

Documents

Participation of people with disabilities in local governance: … · 2017-07-04 · Participation of people with disabilities in local governance: Measuring the effects of inclusive