Safety and accessibility for persons with disabilities in the Swedish transport system – prioritization and conceptual boundaries

Abstract

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Sustainable Development Goals stipulate that persons with disabilities have equal rights to access and safely use transport systems. The aim of the current study is to explore stakeholders’ perspectives of the relationship and prioritization between safety and accessibility in the Swedish discussion of disability and transport. The data consist of interviews with 15 informants from the National Council for Disability and Transport and other key stakeholders. Reflexive thematic analysis led to identification of four themes: basis for priorities is a matter of governing; challenges to measuring and evaluating different values; importance of knowledge and building forums; and a universal system of accessibility and safety is a challenge. The results indicate the road ahead for a possible holistic and sustainable governance in the transport systems. However, how this will be put into practise is not yet defined.

Points of interest

• According to several regulations, persons with disabilities have equal rights to safety and accessibility in the transport system. However, there are challenges to combining different concepts and perspectives.

• Lack of mandates for institutions to address both safety and accessibility leads to goal conflicts and a risk that focuses become entrenched with clearly defined boundaries.

• There are challenges in evaluating different values and perspectives in relation to accessibility.

• A facilitating aspect for sustainability regarding safety and accessibility is to create opportunities and systems to allow for the exchange of knowledge.

• Integration of safety and accessibility may be encouraged by the use of existing sets of holistic approaches (i.e. Vision Zero and Universal Design).

Keywords:

• Accessibility
• Disability
• Road safety
• Sustainability
• Universal Design
• Vision Zero

Introduction

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD; United Nations 2006), stipulates that persons with disabilities have the same rights as other citizens. The United Nations (2015) stress that improving transport systems for persons with disabilities is prioritized as explicitly written in the Sustainability Goals (SDG). Goal number 11.2 states: ‘By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations, women, children, persons with disabilities and older persons’ (United Nations 2015). In the case of Sweden, ratification of the SDG is made. In addition, regulations are stipulated in both the international conventions (cf. United Nations 2006) and national laws (c.f., SFS 2008:567), that all people, including persons with disabilities, have equal rights to others.

Identified values within the SDGs concerning transport are safety, affordability, accessibility, and sustainability. In a Swedish context, one may consider (economic) affordability as a less urgent value compared to low- and middle-income countries (cf. Kett, Cole, and Turner 2020; Maxwell and Granlund 2011) and out of scope for this article, although recognizing that this is a crucial issue for some individuals. However, the relationship between the other values raises questions of how these may be integrated, considered and realized. That said, the aim of the current study is to explore stakeholders’ perspectives of the relationship and prioritization between safety and accessibility in the Swedish discussion of disability and transport. It concerns both conceptual boundaries and common goals.

Previous studies targeting transport decisions by persons with impairments show that it is an emotional burden because of interpersonal discrimination (Mogaji et al. 2022; Wayland et al. 2022). However, Sweden has been considered as a forerunner concerning the rights of persons with disabilities, although there are still considerable challenges for example by longitudinal studies and from intersectional aspects (Strandberg, Möller, and Widén 2017). Contradictory processes of creating a transport system for all and at the same time recognizing the unique demands of different impairments is pointed out (Stjernborg 2019). This duality is also described by Egard, Hansson, and Wästerfors (2022), concluding that there are no quick fixes to accommodate the needs of all societal groups. The ‘no quick fix design’, relates well to the challenges and opportunities of working with concepts such as universal design and transport sustainability.

Social sustainability in relation to disability, and transport

Although progress has been made in many countries in Europe regarding the rights of persons with disabilities, it is still a marginalized group in the society (European Commission 2022). Systematic knowledge of sustainable transport and disability is clearly limited. In a systematic review (SBU 2019) examining scientific knowledge and gaps in initiatives or working methods for persons with disabilities, no systematic review concerning transport and disability was found at all. Recent studies have, however, shown that persons with disabilities appear to be and may experience exclusion and discrimination in various ways in the transport system (Calle et al. 2022; Velho 2018; Wayland et al. 2022), and the issue has been linked to theories on capabilities and social justice (Beyazit 2011). Exclusion from the transport system can also be linked to a limited access to society (Mackett and Thoreau 2015), and to economic, social and civic life (Bjerkan and Øvstedal 2020). Inclusion of social issues in the sustainability goals is therefore important, although it is complicated to implement at the national level (cf., Fenney Salkeld 2016).

The sustainability goals clearly state that society has to provide safe, accessible and sustainable transport for persons with disabilities, although integrating these goals could lead to conflicts of goals, values, and interests (Brolan 2016). The challenge of ensuring safe and accessible systems may be measured by its outcome, an ‘outcome that is not safe and accessible is not sustainable’ (Tyler 2017, 64).

In order to study the relationship between safety and accessibility and to understand the challenges of integrating such policies at the same time, it is necessary to identify both the conceptual boundaries and common denominators. Conceptual boundaries can be explained by a general lack of inclusion of disability in sustainability policy (Fenney Salkeld 2016). The potential lack of targeted sustainability measures is related to sustainability governance. A study by Abernethy (2016) indicates that it is necessary to find common denominators between concepts of sustainability in order to break the conceptual boundaries and thus work more effectively with sustainability governance. By investigating overlapping areas of interest for health promotion and sustainability governance approaches, Abernethy (2016, 458) refers to six overlapping themes: (1) Process towards social change, (2) A holistic or systems approach, (3) Focus on social justice or equity, (4) Deliberative participatory approach, (5) Precautionary principle, which we interpret as being sensitive towards a vulnerable societal group and to be both proactive and preventive in relation to the needs of that group, and (6) Knowledge translation or information sharing.

Conceptual boundaries as well as common denominators are addressed in the current study to provide an understanding for governing sustainable goals in relation to persons with disabilities in the Swedish transport sector.

The development of disability policy in the Swedish transport sector

Swedish policy for transport and disability can be found within two different policy areas and different sets of official documents and other reports. Policies and goals are also presented within disability policy, where transport is one of many areas covered. They can also be found in documents stemming from the transport sector where disability can be either one of many perspectives or the only focus.

Departing from the transport sector, a major policy development in Sweden was the introduction of Vision Zero in 1997 (Belin, Vedung, and Tillgren 2012; Kristianssen, et al. 2018). The goal of Vision Zero was to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries in the road traffic system. In the original text (Swedish Government Bill 1997), disability was only addressed as an effect of traffic crashes. In the following Swedish Government Bill (2004), persons with disabilities were discussed in terms of vulnerable road users, whereas the Government Bill (Swedish Government 2009a), provides a concrete standpoint: ‘everyone, including persons with disabilities, should be able to travel with public transport is an important democratic issue’ (Swedish Government 2009a, 171, our translation). In addition, new national transport policy goals were introduced in 2009 (Swedish Government 2009b), containing two types of goals: one focusing on safety, environment, and health, and one focusing on accessibility. The latter goal specifically called for the transport system to be designed to be accessible, as well as user-friendly for persons with disabilities.

In the national Swedish government disability strategies (Swedish Government 2000), safety for persons with disabilities and accessible public transport, were focal points. Furthermore, the CRPD (United Nations 2006), ratified by Sweden in 2008, led to the adoption of a new national disability strategy in 2011 (Swedish Government 2011). One purpose of the strategy was to set up a system for continuous evaluation and data collection. As a consequence, the Swedish Agency for Participation (Swedish: Myndigheten för delaktighet) presented a possible structure for implementation, evaluation, and direction of Swedish disability policy in 2016 (Swedish Agency for Participation 2016). The report focused on new perspectives on governing disability, equality rights, and accessibility. The concept of Universal Design (UD) – to make right from the start (The Center for Universal Design 1997) – was introduced. UD is a set of thoughts that address the design of products, environments, programmes and services to be usable by all people without special solutions (United Nations 2006). However, although transport was one of the prioritized target areas and safety was addressed in the report (Swedish Agency for Participation 2016), this was mostly done in general terms and in relation to public transport. Based on the suggestions from that report, the Swedish Government updated the national strategies in 2017, including new goals and a new direction for disability policy (Swedish Government 2017). The national strategies stressed the need for investments in accessible transport and an updated transport policy.

As a result of the disability policy direction, an inquiry was set up (SOU 2019:23). The inquiry was tasked with reviewing the governance, implementation structure, and evaluation of the government’s disability policy. It devoted a section to transport and disability, and as the focus of the text was to identify effective steering procedures and mandates. The overall target in the transport sector is that ‘persons with disabilities have equal access to transport’ (SOU 2019:23, 162). The Swedish Transport Administration (Swedish: Trafikverket, hereafter STA) was suggested to have a coordinating, supporting, and driving role within transport; whereas the Swedish Agency for Participation should have a long-term cross-sectoral responsibility for implementation.

In summary, when tracing the policy and conceptual development of transport and disability in the case of Sweden, it is evident that it is influenced by both global policy developments and national prioritizations (for a more in-depth analysis of governing perspectives on disability and transport, see Kristianssen and Warnicke forthcoming). However, in these sets of investigations and regulations, the relationship and prioritization between safety, accessibility and sustainability are not described, problematized or mentioned.

Swedish Transport Administration and the Council for Accessibility and Usability for Persons with Disabilities

The inquiry from 2019 (SOU 2019:23) suggests that the STA should be assigned the responsibility for coordinating transport and disability issues in Sweden. However, STA already has an established responsibility for transport and disability issues and is hosting a national Council addressing those issues: The Council for Accessibility and Usability for Persons with Disabilities (Swedish: Rådet för Tillgänglighet och Användbarhet för Funktionsnedsatta, hereafter RTAF).

RTAF is a council with a constellation of invited representatives from different disability associations, branch organizations and public authorities (see Figure 1). The council meets four times a year, with 10–15 participants attending each meeting.

Figure 1. Affiliation of all of the representatives that have attended RTAF sometimes from the start 2015 to 2021.

Methods and data collection

RTAF is identified as the national consortium that addresses issues about transport and disability. It constitutes a particularly good base for the selection of informants, as the members stem from the public, private and branch (i.e. profit making business) sectors. The consortium regularly discusses current challenges regarding transport and disability and constitutes a microcosm of actors.

This paper draws on 11 interviews with 13 representatives in the RTAF. All representatives in the consortium were invited to participate in the study. Invitations were sent by e-mail. The interviews were offered digitally via Zoom, Skype, or Teams or through in-person interviews. Two of the interviews were conducted in person: one at Örebro University and the other at a regional STA office. The remaining nine interviews were conducted digitally. At one of the interview sessions, three informants were present. The interviews were semi structured and lasted for between 60 to 90 min. The interviews were conducted with five informants affiliated with disability associations, four interviews with informants affiliated with public authority, and four informants affiliated with different branch organizations. To clarify perspectives and validate key reports used in this article, two additional interviews were conducted: one with an informant (working at a public authority with overall transport analysis) and one representing a transport safety organization.

The data were analysed in line with reflexive thematic analysis based on Clarke and Brown (2006). Both authors attended all interviews except one. Notes were taken by the researchers during the sessions. The interviews were transcribed verbatim. The analysis started with familiarizing ourselves with the dataset, i.e. by reading the transcriptions several times. During the reading, the authors made notes about initial analytic observations and insights. The notes related to each interview but also in relation to the other interviews. As there were three different groups of representatives (i.e. from disability associations, public authorities, and branch organizations), their different aspects of the concepts were noted during the analysis.

The next step was to systematically code the data. The data was analysed with the aim of the current study in mind: to explore stakeholders’ perspectives of the relationship and prioritization between safety and accessibility in the Swedish discussion of disability and transport. The data were labelled and put into codes. Patterns of codes were identified and clustered together into broader clusters with significant meaning. The clusters were generated into initial themes. The themes were further discussed, developed, and reviewed. The themes and pattern of shared meaning were refined, defined and named. Throughout the process, the authors moved back and forth in the analysis as new thoughts and patterns became clear. Four main themes were finally identified in the dataset.

Ethical consideration

The study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association 1964). The informants were invited on a voluntary basis and as representatives of disability associations, public authorities, or branch organizations. They received information about the aims, methods, sources of funding, any possible conflicts of interest, institutional affiliations of the researchers, and the anticipated benefits. They were also informed of the right to refuse to participate in the study or to withdraw consent to participate at any time without reprisal. The informants agreed via oral consent to participate in the study, which was recorded via a Dictaphone. They were guaranteed that their names would not be revealed and that the interviews would be anonymized.

Results

The analysis of the interviews revealed four themes related to the stakeholders’ perspective of the relationship and prioritization between safety and accessibility in the Swedish disability discussion for the transport sector. The four main themes were as follows: the basis for priorities as a matter of governance; challenges to measure and evaluate different values; the importance of knowledge and building forums; and a universal system for accessibility and safety is a challenge. The first two themes have two sub-themes each (Table 1).

Table 1. Overview of themes and subthemes of the results.

Theme	Sub-theme
The basis for priorities is a matter of governing	Responsibility, mandate and regulation are interrelated
	Shared responsibility is nobody’s responsibility – the desire for overall responsibility
Challenges to measure and evaluate different values	Difficulty measuring accessibility
	Security – the possibility of combining safety and accessibility
Importance of knowledge and building forums
A universal system for accessibility and safety is a challenge

The basis for priorities is a matter of governing

Responsibility, mandate and regulation are interrelated

The relationship and the prioritization between safety and accessibility is addressed in different ways depending on the mandate and responsibility of each actor. The informants represent public authorities, branch organizations, and disability associations, and have different roles, responsibilities and perspectives. The informants in this study argue that responsibility and mandate are closely interrelated. Public authorities have specific tasks within certain geographical areas, which influence their answers. The public authorities primarily emphasize responsibility for safety, and stress that their perspective is based on laws and goals. They also stress the cooperation with other public authorities. Supervisory authorities follow up on their responsibility, which is clearly regulated in detail by the government, e.g. safety takes precedence in relation to accessibility within regulations. Safety appears to enter the agenda before, for example, a facility is used for the first time. Stated responsibility for safety, based on the authorities’ objectives, also raises financial concerns. The authorities argue that they must have financial support for their work.

It is not us who are responsible for it [safety], and we have also raised that, where the money for those arrangements should be found in a national plan in such an aspect, we do not have the money for it, we do not set the goals. Then, it is not us. (Public authority no. 5: p. 28)

Branch organizations refer to their mandates as regulated in laws and sets of regulations. From a branch perspective, the focus is clearly guided by internal instructions and target follow-ups. The follow-ups by branch organizations are, however, of a different type than the government or public authority evaluation: the target follow-ups are based on the authorities as a creators of requirements, where safety is regulated and of special priority.

The different organizations work with, there may be some who work with railway issues, thus train traffic, and then there are some who work with bus traffic, and […] accessibility must operates between these worlds, and you have to connect, because road safety, it is like another layer. (Branch organization no. 6: p. 4)

The disability associations’ interests derive from their members, who direct what is prioritized. Disability associations point out a responsibility towards the members – from their perspective. An example of how the interests of persons with disabilities can be considered is through public surveys. A critique of how broader surveys have been conducted was raised. To protect the members’ interests, it was suggested that special considerations should be made in general, rather than starting from the idea that safety should also be extended to persons with disabilities.

Often when you talk about persons with disabilities and public transport, you only think of those who are in the special public transport [unable to hear] disabilities service and that kind of community travel, but not about how persons [unable to hear] how it works in ordinary public transport, and they have never been asked a specific question, but when they have made the surveys, they have only done it on a sample of Sweden’s population, and then persons with disabilities are not taken into account in the investigations. (Disability association no. 8: p. 4)

Specific directives and laws identify a certain focus and responsibility and attribute it to some institutions that are responsible and have a mandate to perform the task. No one claims to be responsible for all values (i.e. safety, accessibility, and sustainability). Although accessibility and safety are regulated, the informants perceive that the accessibility regulation is weaker than the laws that govern safety.

We try to do it as well as possible for as many people as possible. That is our ambition. We have written in our guidelines that we must always at least meet the legal requirements, and that is basic. (Branch organization no. 3: p. 4)

The prevailing view is that every perspective is important. This is the case even if a single horizon of understanding is stressed. However, to push issues solely from one perspective, responsibility or mandate, can be a risky, leading to entrenched and bounded thinking.

Shared responsibility is nobody’s responsibility – the desire for overall responsibility

The informants stated that no authority or organization has an overall responsibility for safety, accessibility, and sustainability today. There is a fear that a shared responsibility and such a mandate for the aforementioned values is far too wide.

Well, that [accessibility] is what these disabilities groups are passionate about and work for and that is their agenda. Traffic safety is a lot of work but maybe a little in other forums. In addition, I try to have one leg in each camp, so I do not know if it will be too wide. (Public authority no. 1: p. 10)

An identified desire is that one actor will have an overall responsibility for solving the challenge of coordinating safety and accessibility as sustainability goals. One view is that the prioritization of values should be administered at one higher merged level. Thus, it should not involve several actors as it may be a risk that several regulations could become contradictory. One example of contradiction was the clash between cultural and accessibility values. Historically protected buildings listed by their high cultural value, were noted as challenging in processes to adapt buildings for accessibility.

In RTAF, the interlocutors have different perspectives. On the one hand, RTAF lacks an overall mandate; on the other hand, a strength is the possibility of impact through lobbying activities. The activities facilitate consensus, and a desire for overall responsibility of mandate for both safety and accessibility was displayed in the interviews.

Challenges to measure and evaluate different values

Difficulty measuring accessibility

Several of the informants point out that traditionally only certain groups of persons with impairments have been considered: persons who use wheelchairs and persons with vision or hearing loss. However, other types of disabilities have now been given enough attention in accessibility and safety issues in relation to transport. The traditional focus on certain groups seems to have led to stereotypical perceptions of what accessibility can/should look like, which makes it difficult to assess for whom the environment actually is accessible.

The constant demand, what types of disabilities, how should we handle different needs, the perception on the wheelchair is very very traditional, but there are many more, how should we be able, how to weigh together, how one thinks about these different types of impairments and what problems then arise in our environments and such. There are a lot of issues that you struggle with and maybe even too few resources. (Branch organization no. 6: p. 3)

Questions of who can value what good or acceptable accessibility were discussed by the informants. Safety is stated to be well regulated in laws and regulations, which provides clarity. Accessibility is also regulated by law, although laws do not define in detail how something should be accessible in various situations.

There is a law that it should be accessible, but on the other hand it has not been defined how, and that … also in the Public Transport Act it says that it should be accessible to persons with reduced mobility, visual impairment and cognitive difficulties, so that it is … but it is that you have not found out: ‘what do these groups need then for it to be accessible?’. Have you asked them? No, they have not done that. (Disability association no. 8: p. 10)

The informant assigns the knowledge of accessibility to the individual to evaluate. The idea is that the individual has the competence to evaluate their accessibility requirements. The dilemma, however, stems from individuals different needs that must be highlighted, recognised and adapted to. One identified dilemma of competitive values was defined by one of the informants.

I travel by train a lot, when you travel by train a lot, there is this thing with allergies to guide dogs … you don’t become less allergic, just because it’s a guide dog. You are just as allergic to it. (Disability association no. 4: p. 9)

Individuals may thus have different needs as may appear as a challenge. However, in the integration of the individual and need, the environment is a decisive factor for what an accessible and safe environment is. One of the informants emphasized that persons with disabilities can be seen as a threat instead of a resource in the work towards accessibility: ‘do not see that competence as a threat. It is a challenge. I think. That you are actually a resource’. (Disability association no. 4: p. 3). To find out about every person’s needs implies that everyone’s ability can be considered when stipulating legislation and regulations. Legislation and regulation, however, are not the same, as something that is functioning and sustainable.

Create solutions that work that not only follow laws and rules but that actually work, these are two completely different things, and it is also a great knowledge factor that you must keep in mind, that just because you follow an law or rule or paragraph does not mean it works. Sometimes the legislation is wrong; it does not work at all. In addition, it is also a problem, so it is both connected to what I'm talking about and the whole system and lack of knowledge because you cannot at all stages trust that there is actually someone who can. (Branch organization no. 6: p. 5)

So if it is formally accessible, it does not always have to be useful for everyone anyway. In addition, that is important to keep in mind. (Disability association no. 11: p. 9)

Regardless of regulation, in reality, it is thus each individual’s perception of accessibility that displays opportunities for each person. In adddion to this, some individuals struggle with further challenges as their needs change over time.

Security – the possibility of combining safety and accessibility

Some groups are more dependent than others on public transport, support, and transport services. Some informants point to security as the basis for something to be safe, while others emphasize that when something is accessible, it is also safe. It is unequivocal, however, that ‘security is much greater than safety’ (Public authority no. 5: p. 22). Security appears to be subjective and something that in the long run is about reliability: the reliability of knowing how something works and that it works. A clear challenge is difficulties in legislating reliability in relation to situations that arise suddenly when deviations and events occur or could potentially occur. A perspective on challenges in accessibility is when something happens, for example, a broken connection on some part of a journey.

Nothing is better than the weakest link, if this elevator does not work at this station where I have to change, well then I will not arrive, without getting help from someone then. So there is a lot to do… (Public authority no. 5: p. 9)

Security is viewed as the basis for whether anyone leaves home at all to use public transport. In the absence of a sense of security, actual safety and accessibility play a secondary role, which affects the idea of a sustainable system.

Importance of knowledge and building forums

Knowledge appears to be a complex issue, as the combination of safety and accessibility in the field of public transport urges dynamic knowledge acquisition and coordination: an issue of ‘building knowledge’ (Public authority no. 5: p. 7). Knowledge building is largely done through a constant exchange of experience and information between individuals with different competencies and perspectives. A constant dialogue is needed, and changes in the world have to be considered. In relation to evaluating the function of accessibility, one informant illustrates how an institution can work to keep knowledge. To achieve sustainability in relation to safety and accessibility over time, a basic and continuous knowledge update is required.

There are constantly new staff, so we think that education… Maybe we ourselves realize that we need to look slightly more closely. So it is such a question we have to deal with. […] However, it [gaining knowledge] is always on the agenda that we should do something every year. (Public authority no. 1: p. 5)

An example of a knowledge-building forum for the transport area is RTAF, where dialogue is conducted on both safety and accessibility. As emphasized by all informants, the council is a unique opportunity for creation of dialogue based on several perspectives and arguments. The council works to link the discussion of laws and regulations to real challenges in a real environment. At the meetings, the RTAF makes study visits to locations that are exemplary or challenging in relation to safety and accessibility. The study visits seem to be a way of creating opinions that influence the government to revise the regulation.

It is not only interpersonal knowledge and meetings in a real environment that give sustainability a face; legislation in the form of UD also emphasizes how safety, accessibility and sustainability can be put into practise.

A universal system for accessibility and safety is a challenge

A universal design that is accessible and safe for everyone is approached as a challenge. The informants stress that it is difficult to adapt environments that have rigorous safety regulations (such as flights and airports) and that there is also a lack of understanding of how processes and adaptations can be put into practice.

Boundaries of who should be included in the UD and whether it is possible to make sustainable, safe solutions that are accessible, are also discussed in the interviews. On the one hand, they emphasize that UD is for the benefit of all – not just persons with disabilities. On the other hand, they indicate that there is a risk that no one will be satisfied with the goal of satisfying everyone (including persons with disabilities).

I think it can be easier to accept, if the entrance is suitable for me who have a wheelchair, it is easier to get in with a pram as well. There are many gains with it, so it is not only, but we have not built society so before, so that. However, it can probably be good in the long run. However, that is a challenge in itself. (Disability association no. 4: p. 9)

The informants indicate that there are several goal conflicts in relation to UD. To find sustainable solutions requires broad knowledge. In addition, careful consideration of risks and benefits with different solutions needs to be addressed. Another reflection among the informants is that visible disabilities have an advantage in UD compared to non-visible impairments.

From a process point of view, UD seems to be easier to constructing new buildings or new constructions in the introduction of new services. It seems to be more difficult when something existing must be changed, adapted and/or redone. Since the principles and ideas on UD are relatively new, they need to be put into practise and developed to become a natural part of all processes related to transport. In addition, also economic preconditions seem to be a significant factor in how UD can be taken into account.

Discussion

Disability and transport is not one single policy area. This turns out to be relevant regarding the use and meaning of concepts as well as for the direction of future developments when handling disability issues in the transport sector. Without a common set of concepts and prioritization, the risk is that each policy area is developing parallel structures. The policies appear to not always fit together (i.e. cultural values versus accessibility for example), and the distribution of responsibility is unclear. However, a key challenge of working with sustainability is addressed by the informants, where the goals are better reached if using an integrative approach. In the inquiry from 2019, the STA is proposed to be responsible for coordinating transport and disability issues, although how this will be managed is not specified.

The informants relate to safety, but they rarely develop this concept. However, the informants pointed to safety as regulated in a static way, and accessibility difficult to measure. Several of our informants claim that focusing on accessibility will also lead to better safety and in the long run also be sustainable. The informants in this study have shown through examples how safety concerns vary depending on the type of disability. Accessibility appears to be more fluid, although it is apparently a key concept in both the documents and the in the interviews. However, accessibility does not automatically lead to safety or security.

It is a challenge to integrate concepts in general, also related to transport issues. There is an identified risk that it is an issue of dealing with empty words. Therefore, as the informants pointed out, it is important to build platforms and meeting hubs where knowledge is both disseminated and created. The RTAF council appears to be an important hub, where the relationship between the concepts outlined and used in this study is addressed. In accordance with this, some of the informants argue for RTAF to get a broader mandate. Today, transport safety and accessibility do not meet naturally as conceptual parts of sustainability.

We see a fruitful path in departing from the rights of persons with disabilities in the development and integration of the concepts as well as in policy-making. Returning to Abernethy’s model (Abernethy 2016), we find common denominators between safety and accessibility that could alleviate breaching conceptual as well as institutional barriers. First, safety and accessibility goals are directed towards change and improvement for all groups in the society, also including vulnerable groups. Second, both concepts are related to a holistic approach. Vision Zero and UD are systemic perspectives focusing on designing a forgiving infrastructure and policies departing from the complex composition of what it means to be a human being. Third, by departing from a precautionary perspective focusing on the needs of the individuals, all concepts become important. An ethical approach to rights and to the value of the human being can be found in both the concept of Vision Zero and UD. At the same time, there are, as mentioned, clear conceptual boundaries making conceptual integration more complicated. However, neither Vision Zero nor UD could serve as quick-fix-solutions (cf., Øksenholt and Aarhaug 2018).

The RTAF Council appears to be a hub for exchanging ideas with a sensitivity for each opinion, although there is no governing mandate. It thus becomes clear that there are conceptual barriers in terms of sustainability. Our results show that accessibility is the dominating concept, but that is it interpreted differently in relation to type of impairment. Identifying a common knowledge base and setting up a clear governing system are key aspects in integrating sustainability concepts.

Finally, we find tensions of what is possible, from a business sector perspective and in relation to infrastructure, mobility and economy. It is obvious that these tensions have repercussions for disability rights. The situation seems to be the case in both developing countries as well as in rural communities (cf., Duri, and Luke 2022; Gibberd, and Hankwebe 2022; Levesque 2022). A discussion of adding integrated aspects of security, accessibility and economy, might lead to new insights into how to create a sustainable and fair society for persons with disabilities.

Conclusion

Persons with disabilities constitute a vulnerable group who have equal rights to an accessible, safe, affordable and overall sustainable transport system. Swedish policy for disabilities and transport is divided into two different sets of official documents and policy areas. A tension between the perspectives appears as an issue. In addition, the division of mandate and responsibility leads to division of concepts – into conceptual barriers. However, there is a will to work in a more integrated manner. The concepts are hard to evaluate and prioritize, as the aspects are often viewed either from an individual, or a governing perspective. Knowledge of a broadening perspective is urgent. No institution is designated to govern safety and accessibility as integrated concepts of sustainability. How to manage and put the prioritization into practice is not defined. The risk is that the division leads to delayed development and a weak power of action in the Swedish disability context.

Disclosure statement

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

Data availability statement

The data set associated with the current paper is stored by the authors in accordance to the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association 1964).

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the Swedish Transport Administration under Grant number: TRV 2017/105570.