Rationale to Develop Guidelines for Inclusive Living Religious World Heritage Sites in India

Shweta Vardia

Rachna Khare

Abstract

India is recognized by a range of its significant historical, cultural and natural properties. India’s religious heritage is a significant asset, a unique and irreplaceable resource. It reflects a rich and diverse expression of past societies and forms an integral part of local, regional and national cultural identity. The religious historic structures have diverse forms, functions, typologies and most of them were not originally designed to accommodate people with disabilities and special needs. But today's need is that everyone should have the privilege to be able to participate in the religious practices, rituals, ceremonies and belief systems and also enjoy and appreciate the historic buildings, site, and landscapes. For some people, barriers exist which make visiting, enjoying and practicing religion and beliefs in living religious heritage sites difficult or sometimes impossible. The paper aims to study the need to develop guidelines for creating inclusive living religious world heritage sites in India. The main objective is to identify the challenges of inclusive design in living religious heritage sites. The study is conducted through extensive analysis of secondary data, case studies and observations of various World Heritage Sites. The study presents that each heritage sites have unique opportunities and limitations and a standardize approach is not always feasible. It is necessary to address both heritage and inclusive design in an integrated and balance manner. This research investigation systematically establishes the need of guidelines for the Inclusive Religious World Heritage Sites in India. The paper sequentially presents issues related to Inclusive Design, Living Religious World Heritage sites, accessibility in heritage sites and concludes there in.

Keywords: Inclusive Design, Accessibility, World Heritage Sites, Living Religious Sites, People with disabilities.

Introduction

A nation is recognized by a range of its significant historical, cultural and natural properties. India’s religious heritage is a significant asset, a unique and irreplaceable resource which reflects a rich and diverse expression of past societies and forms an integral part of local, regional and national cultural identity. India possesses approximately 3700 nationally protected monuments and sites, and out of which 36 are nominated as World Heritage Sites and 43 are in the tentative list of World Heritage Sites. The list has both cultural and natural sites and consists of varied typologies of monuments, group of monuments, religious sites, historic precincts and archeological sites. The religious historic sites too have diverse forms, function, and several typologies and most of them were not originally designed to accommodate people with disabilities and special needs. These structures have a great number of architecture barriers like narrow passage, staircases, high and uneven risers, no elevators, change in floor levels, steep slopes, pinched doorways, corbelled pathways, etc and also have various rituals and belief systems associated with them. But today's need is that everyone should have the privilege to be able to participate in the religious practices, rituals, ceremonies and belief system and also enjoy and appreciate the religious historic buildings, site, and landscapes. For some people, barriers exists which make visiting and practicing religion, rituals, beliefs and faith in religious heritage sites difficult or sometimes impossible. The ones who face difficulties are persons with disability, mobility impairment, vision and hearing impaired, elderly, children, and women, poor and unschooled.

Now the question is how to unite heritage and inclusive design? Further, the challenge is that the World Heritage Sites that are supposed to be universal and bringing cultures together are still inaccessible to some categories of people. Furthermore, how can we create inclusive living religious World heritage sites without threatening the heritage value of site and its environment?

Making the living religious heritage sites, inclusive and accessible in an appropriate and sensitive manner can increase awareness and appreciation of its cultural, social and economic value. It assists in meeting society’s requirement to protect its architectural heritage, whilst also meeting the need to provide equal access for all, as far as is practicable. The main challenge is to combine the conservation of heritage of religious nature with the necessity to be inclusive in an aesthetical ethical, balanced and integrated manner.

Universal Design-Global and Indian Scenario

Universal Design –International Perspective

Universal design is a commitment to design for all people and it implies a belief that all people, regardless of their physical condition, can benefit from the same environment, if designed appropriately. The inclusive vision of universal design emerged from 20 years’ experience with the “Barrier Free Design” movement to Inclusive Design in the United States; a legal approach entrenched in providing specialized and separate designs for people with disabilities and eliminates environmental barriers for them. Ron Mace and Ruth Hall Lusher, both experts in accessibility and architects with disabilities, conceptualized the inclusive vision of universal design to reduce duplication, high cost and segregation that results from separate environments for people with disabilities, and into a unified approach of barrier free design to benefit a wider population. Originally defined by Ron Mace, universal design is, “The design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design.”(Mace, 1985) In the mid 1990’s the concept of universal design was further elaborated by the development of the Principles of Universal Design (CUD, 1997): Equitable use, Flexibility in use, Simple and intuitive use, Perceptible information, Tolerance for error, Low physical effort and Size and space for approach and use.

Since the origin, the concept of universal design has under gone refinement by wide range of experts around the world. Today, it is recognized that the goals of universal design must go beyond usability to address promotion of health, wellness and social participation, and the environment plays critical role in mitigating disability and improving performance. Universal design makes products and services more accessible, paving the way for an inclusive society.

Universal Design –Indian Perspective

Indians are very different from the west in the way of culture and tradition. The social fabric of Indian culture is very unique and diversified too. Anything which is foreign cannot be adorned over it to look good as it never fits in, and so are the imported as standards. Therefore, Universal Design principles in Indian context may require its contextual connection. When Universal Design Principles are applied, products and environments meet the needs of potential users with a wide variety of characteristics. Continuing the spirit of Universal Design that advocates against “One design fits all”, the Universal Design India (UDI) Principles are developed by an interdisciplinary team of Indian experts [Khare, 2011;Mullick, 2011] to address the needs of diverse population in the Indian context. The UDI principles [1. Equitable, 2. Usable, 3. Cultural, 4. Economy, 5. Aesthetics] are stand alone universal design goals that focus on Indianess, inclusivity and social differences related to culture, age, gender, disability, caste, class, religion, poverty and urban/rural background. UDI principles neither make any connection to nor build upon seven Universal Design principles. Applying universal design principles to ensure that heritage assets are accessible and inclusive involves understanding the vast range of human abilities and frailties at all stages of life from childhood to old age. There is no such person as ‘an average person’ and there are as many differences in the characteristics of ‘disabled’ users as there are among ‘nondisabled’, for example height, strength, dexterity, stamina, and intellectual, vision or hearing abilities.

In seeking solutions the main aim is to find one that is usable by everyone. However there are times when it is necessary to provide alternatives. If a solution designed specifically for use only by people with disabilities cannot be avoided, then it should be sensitively integrated within the existing architectural or landscape context.

Disability Population in India

According to RPWD Act 2016, “person with disability’ means a person suffering from not less than 40% of any disability as certified by the medical authority (certified any hospital or institution , specified for the purpose of this act by notification by the appropriate Government). As per Census 2011, in India, out of the 1.21 billion population, about 26.8 million persons are ‘disabled’ which is 2.21% of the total population. Among the disabled population 56% (15 million) are males and 44% (12 million ) are females. In the total population, the male and female populations are 51% and 49% respectively. In Census 2011 information on eight types of disability (disability in seeing, in hearing, in speech, in movement, in mental retardation, in mental illness, any other and multiple disability) has been collected. In India, 20% of the disabled persons are having disability in movement, 19% are with disability in seeing, and another 19 % are with disability in hearing. 8% has multiple disabilities. The percentage of persons having disability in movement is the highest among all the other disabilities.

As per the existing population data from Census 2011, it is clear that there is increase in the disabled population from 2001 to 2011 from 2.13% to 2.21% The recently passed RPWD Act 2016 includes 21 types of disability and the information on disabled population data is yet to be prepared. As per the earlier trends we see an increase in the disabled population, therefore in new census data there may be further increase in the disabled population. India has a large number of people with special needs and from diverse backgrounds. The disability population in India represents diverse backgrounds like age, ability, disability, gender, literacy, socio-economic strata and may belong to different urban or rural parts of country.

Living Religious World Heritage Sites

Heritage

Heritage is our legacy from the past, what we live with today, and what we pass on to future generations. Our cultural and natural heritage is both irreplaceable sources of life and inspiration. India has an extraordinarily rich, vast and diverse cultural heritage. A glimpse of this richness and variety can be seen in the form of monuments and archaeological sites, 3,700 monuments and sites including 37 world heritage properties, to date, are protected by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and also approximately 5000 monuments protected by the states.

World Heritage Sites in India

The UNESCO world heritage convention 1972 defines cultural heritage as monuments: architectural works, works of monumental sculpture and painting, elements or structures of an archaeological nature, inscriptions, cave dwellings and combinations of features, which are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological point of view. World Heritage Sites are cultural and/or natural sites considered to be of ‘Outstanding Universal Value’, which have been inscribed on the World Heritage List by the World Heritage Committee and UNESCO seeks to preserve and protect it. These places or buildings are thought to have special importance for everyone and represent unique, or the most significant or best, examples of the world’s cultural and/or natural heritage. As of January 2018, there are 1,092 sites listed, 845 cultural, 209 natural, and 38 mixed properties, in 167 state parties. India has 36 nominated sites and stands sixth in ranking of the countries with the most number of UNESCO World Heritage Sites, with 28 sites of cultural importance while seven other are known for their natural splendor. Also at present there are 43 sites on the tentative list of World Heritage Sites.

Living Religious World Heritage Sites in India

The World Heritage Sites encompass of various typologies of heritage sites like residential religious, institutional, commercial, community, military, memorials vernacular, natural sites etc. Heritage of Religious Interest is one of the largest thematic categories on World Heritage List: “20% of the World Heritage sites have religious connections.” Religious heritage is perhaps the largest single category of heritage properties to be found in most countries around the world. Wijesuriya (2003) states that “the inherent livingness of Religious Heritage distinguishes it from the secular heritage”. “The idea of livingness embedded in the religious heritage is synonymous with continuity, which is also fundamental premise of conservation” Engelhardt & Rogers (2009). When referring to the living heritage, often it is defined as the Intangible Cultural Heritage; the dimension of heritage which is still constantly in use, such as the traditional practices, rituals and special skills. "Intangible cultural heritage is by definition not linked to specific monuments or places, but is stored in the minds of tradition bearers and communities and conserved in the continuity of practice".

INTACH Charter, (2004) in article 1.1 defines many unprotected heritage sites are still in use, and the manner in which they continue to be kept in use represents the ‘living’ heritage of India. This heritage manifests in both tangible and intangible forms, and in its diversity defines the composite culture of the country. Conserving the ‘living’ heritage, therefore, offers the potential to conserve traditional buildings, traditional ways of building and traditional way of life associated with the buildings.

ICCROM Forum (2005) of Living Religious Heritage states that understanding heritage of religious interest requires recognizing that the intangible significance of tangible religious objects, structures and places is the key to their meaning. It also requires sensitivity to the overall cultural historical context to properly appreciate the spirit of a place and its symbolic significance, beyond its material existence. Jokilehto (2010), defines living religious heritage "is the tangible and intangible embodiment of the many and diverse faiths which have sustained human life through time. It is of particular importance, given its vital role in conveying, expressing, and sustaining the faiths which give spiritual identity, meaning and purpose to human life. The tangible and intangible cannot be separated since all cultural material has intangible value. The religious forces are based on belief systems which have been at ‘the core of our life’, and noting that any form of living heritage is inseparable from the frameworks of religion or belief system of its society. In living heritage sites associational value is important as it majorly contributes to the continued existence of the site. The religious heritage discourse is an extremely sensitive area which is associated with the faith, religious values and the religious laws that might challenge the professional conservationists in intervening with the religious properties. The living religious places in UNESCO's World Heritage List placed for (1) Religious and spiritual significance; (2) Integral part of larger ensembles, such as historic cities, cultural landscapes and natural sites. A detailed list of nominated and tentative World heritage sites in India, cultural importance was prepared categorizing the sites based on the religious and spiritual significance and integral part of larger ensembles. Out of the 28 nominated sites of cultural importance, 4 sites are classified as living religious and 12 as integral part of larger ensembles. Refer table 1.

Table 1. List of Nominated World heritage sites showing the Living Religious sites in India

The similar is the case of tentative list, out of 33 sites of cultural importance, 7 classified as living religious and 13 as integral part of larger ensembles. Refer table 2. The 4 site in nominated list and 7 in tentative list are the living religious sites consisting of Hindu, Jain and Sikh temples, Churches, Buddhist shrines, Mosques etc. and have different religious practices, rituals and belief systems. The observations and study are based on these case studies.

Table 2. List of Tentative World heritage sites showing the Living Religious sites in India

Requisite for Inclusive Heritage Sites

International Guidelines, Resolutions and Standards

The International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2007) of the United Nations organization was created mainly to promote, protect and ensure the rights and dignity of all persons with disabilities. The Article 30 of the convention addresses participation of persons with disabilities to take part on an equal basis with others in cultural life and enjoy access to places for cultural performances and services, such as theatres, museums, cinemas, libraries and tourism services, access to monuments and sites of national cultural importance. The UN mandate of UNCRPD cast certain responsibilities on the member nations for equal participation of persons with disability (PwDs) in arts and cultural life and India is its signatory signed in 2007.

The World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) document “Accessible Tourism for All” imparts all Member states to take all possible measures to facilitate tourist travel by persons with disabilities. It calls upon States to make their tourism sites and establishments accessible to persons with disabilities and to offer them special facilities at no additional charge to them:- To publish clear and detailed information on existing receptive facilities for persons with disabilities as well as the problems they may encounter during their tourist travel. The World heritage sites are the most prominent tourist destinations of a country. India is a signatory member of UNWTO and has to adhere to the guidelines proposed.

International conservation organizations have also promoted improved access to heritage places. The ICOMOS Charter on International Cultural Tourism Charter (1999) promotes and manage tourism in ways that respect and enhance the heritage and living cultures of the host communities, and to encourage a dialogue between conservation interests and the tourism industry. In clause 1.1 the principle states that “The natural and cultural heritage is a material and spiritual resource, providing a narrative of historical development. It has an important role in modern life and should be made physically, intellectually and/or emotively accessible to the general public. The ICOMOS Charter on Interpretation and Preservation of Cultural Heritage Sites (known as the Ename Charter-2008) promotes understanding and appreciation of cultural heritage, fosters public awareness, and safeguards tangible and intangible values and respect the authenticity of cultural heritage sites. The first principle relates to ‘access and understanding’ states that: Interpretation and presentation activities should also be physically accessible to the public, in all its variety. In cases where physical access to a cultural heritage site is restricted due to conservation concerns, cultural sensitivities, adaptive reuse, or safety issues, interpretation and presentation should be provided off-site.

National Guidelines, Resolutions and Standards

The Government of India enacted the Right of Person with Disability Act 2016 and signed and ratified the UN convention on the rights of person with disability in 2007. The RPWD Act 2016, in section 29 states that Government and the local authorities shall take the measures to promote and protect the right of all persons with disabilities to have a cultural life and to participate in recreational activities equally with others. Section also states “developing technology, assistive devices and equipments to facilitate access and inclusion for persons with disabilities in recreational activities.”

The “National Policy for the Conservation of Ancient Monuments, Archaeological Sites and Remains” was approved by the Ministry of Culture in January, 2014. The Conservation Policy focuses on the ancient monuments, archaeological sites and remain, protected by the Archaeological Survey of India under its Ancient Monuments, Archaeological Sites and Remains (AMASR) Act, 1958 (Amendment and Validation, 2010). The policy attempts a contemporary approach to conservation and various principles to be adopted for interventions within and around a monument. The policy in the Section 13 deals with “Access for the Differently-abled persons.” and states that a monument should be available to all the citizens of the country including those who are differently-abled. Care should be taken to employ all means possible to facilitate access, provide specially designed visitor amenities, as well as provide information and interpretation of a monument to differently-abled individuals. The facilities and access should be provided in a way that such provisions do not, compromise the authenticity and integrity of the monument or create visual disorder.

World Heritage Sites and Inclusive Design

Inclusive Design cares about the human rights, universal accessibilities, and freedom of choice while conservation aims for the value, significance of heritage environment, rules of reversibility, adaptive re use and sustainability of the tangible and intangible heritage from the past to the present to the future. Both the philosophies should have no conflict. But to achieve universal accessibilities while conserving the cultural significance of the historic structures often require sensitive reconciliation. Dialogue and compromise are extreme important in this work. The aim should be to provide the greatest level of accessibility without compromising or destroying the parts of the building that make an important contribution to its heritage significance. Retaining heritage values doesn’t mean that making provision for Inclusive environment can be ignored or discounted and vice a versa. If any heritage values are adversely affected, alternative methods and solutions can be evaluated.

The operational guidelines of World Heritage Convention declares that World heritage sites belong to everyone and should be preserved for future generations and it must have an adequate protection and management system to ensure its safeguarding.

The concept of ‘management’ emerged comparatively late in the forty-year history of the World Heritage Convention. But the requirement to achieve the outputs and outcomes of successful management – identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of heritage of Outstanding Universal Value – has been there from the outset. Over the years, achieving these ends has become more complex because of the increasing pressures of the modern world and also because of the widening range of what can be inscribed on the World Heritage List (Resource Manual, 2002)

As one of the most important paradigms of our time, sustainable development refers to a pattern of resource use that balances the fulfillment of basic human needs with the wise use of finite resources so that they can be passed on to future generations for their use and development. Since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, the paradigm of sustainable development has been broadened to include three constituent but mutually supportive elements; environmental protection, economic growth and social equity. Since the adoption of the Convention in 1972, the international community has embraced the concept of "sustainable development". The protection and conservation of the natural and cultural heritage are a significant contribution to sustainable development. The role of the world heritage committee is to revise the dossier and adopt the Operational Guidelines. Heritage management also has led to an increase emphasis on the contribution that heritage can make to sustainable development and to social cohesion. More and more countries are turning towards a values-led approach to heritage conservation. In this approach, the significance of a heritage property is first established in a participatory process involving all those who have an interest in it. Having defined the significance (statement of significance), this becomes the framework for developing conservation policy and strategy where the condition of the property, rules and regulations, the needs of the communities, etc. are taken into account.

Challenges and problems for Inclusive World Heritage Sites in India

The challenges and problems observed during the study for an Inclusive World heritage sites in India are as follows. Firstly, during India visit in 2001, Dr. Stephen Hawking desired to visit four monuments in Delhi. The places were a nightmare for the disabled and exposed the lacunae in Archeological Survey of India’s (ASI) approach and thinking on the issue of accessibility for the disabled. ASI and the Institute for the Physically Handicapped, under instructions from the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, built temporary ramps practically overnight at all the four monuments. Later, ASI also announced a policy to make all historic places, including heritage sites, disabled-friendly.

Further, the Non-profit organizations such as Svayam,Samarthyam and others along with ASI have started the initiative of making the World Heritage sites in India accessible and inclusive. The World heritage sites selected are: Red Fort, Qutub Minar Complex, Taj Mahal, Ajanta & Ellora caves. Several ramps and other service infrastructure were developed on sites and announced to be accessible by ASI. These efforts lack comprehensive approach to serve all disabilities in the entire trip chain.

In 2009 an access audit of the ‘Taj Mahal’(the most famous monument in India) was conducted by ‘Shivani Gupta’(expert having paraplegia and uses wheel chair for movement) for National Centre for Promotion of Employment for Disabled People (NCPEDP). A.S.I. has not been able to pass the basic standards of accessibility. The observations are: The arrival to Taj Mahal experience was strenuous as the parking is located approximately one kilometer from the complex entrance. There are battery operated vehicles, cycle rickshaws and horse carts (tangas) that are used by visitors to negotiate this distance. None of these vehicles are accessible to people using wheelchairs, which are left with no option but to wheel this distance. There are two steps to the ticket counter and no ramp, thus inaccessible to wheelchair users. A separate entrance is provided for the people with disabilities the accessible route to the actual monument is around the periphery which is much longer. The only accessibility feature that has been provided is few ramps along the circulation routes which are difficult to negotiate as they do not merge seamlessly with the ground and handrails have been installed at much lower heights. But no ramps have been provided at entrances to the main monuments, i.e., the Taj Mahal, the mosque, the meeting room and the central pavilion. There is no consideration for people with sensory disabilities. The rest rooms, drinking facilities, locker rooms are still not accessible to people with disabilities. The designated accessible toilet cubicle is not accessible to wheelchair users. There are no proper signage directing people to the accessible route, neither is there any information in Braille. Moreover, the main monument is still not accessible. "An orthopedically disabled person can with difficulty come very close to the main Taj monument, but being able to actually get onto it is still a distant dream," said Gupta. The accessible environment is achieved in heritage sites with respect to the disability sector while considerations of heritage values and significance for all are still missing.

In 2010 Accessible Tourism in India, under Indian Institute of Tourism and Travel Management conducted a study commissioned by Ministry of Tourism on “Problems and Prospects of Accessible Tourism in India.” The study was conducted on six attraction : Taj Mahal, Amber Fort, Qutub Minar, Sun temple, Mamallapuram , Old Goa churches for a total of 1205 tourists with reduced mobility Mostly the purpose of travel is leisure, but for domestic tourist religious attractions are higher, and next attraction is culture base and vice a versa for foreign tourists. Refer Table 3.

Table 3: Preferred Attractions for tourists with reduced mobility in India (Accessible Tourism in India 2010)

In 2016 ASI with Ministry of Culture, under the Accessible India Campaign invited bids for Access audits of 100 identified monuments in India. ASI in the RFP document provided the Access Audit Checklist to be used by access auditors undertaking access audit of public buildings as a part of the Accessible India Campaign along with the CPWD Handbook on Barrier free and Accessibility. The checklist provided is not adequate to the heritage buildings or sites, it doesn’t have any relevance to heritage values and significance.

Table 4: Problems faced by tourists with reduced mobility at World heritage sites in India (Accessible Tourism in India 2010)

Conclusions

It is important to consider that to successfully improve access to historic buildings and places, it is necessary to address both conservation and inclusive design needs in an integrated and balanced manner. Thus, there is wide variety of Living religious sites and each with a different function, rituals, religious practices and belief system which may result in development of range of different access solutions. It is impossible to remove all the barriers from sites. In some sites it may be easier to have access while other may require skill and creativity to provide access. The solution depends on the purpose of the use and function and its anticipated users bearing in mind that no one should be discriminated against. The religious heritage discourse is an extremely sensitive area which is associated with the faith, religious values and the religious regulation that might challenge the professional conservationists in intervening with the religious properties. World Heritage properties-especially living religious and sacred sites require specific policies and guidelines for protection, management and inclusive design that take into account their distinct spiritual nature as a key factor in their conservation and that such policies cannot be sustainable without in-depth consultation with the appropriate stakeholders. The understanding of heritage of religious interest requires recognizing that the intangible significance of the tangible objects, structures and places is the key to their meaning.

Thus it is important to encourage dialogue among all the stakeholders, accessibility experts and conservation professionals rather than following the prescriptive code of practices. The challenges involved in combining good historic preservation with good accessibility are demanding. Universal design offer guidelines that will help lead to better design solutions. An integrated approach followed for conservation, management and Inclusive design for the living religious world heritage sites would not only help include people with disabilities but would enhance overall value of the heritage site for mass appeal.

References

Easy access to historic buildings. (2004). English Heritage.

Silberman, Neil A. (2009). Process Not Product: The ICOMOS Ename Charter (2008) and the Practice of Heritage Stewardship. The Journal of Heritage Stewardship.

English Heritage. (2005). Easy access to historic landscapes. Swindon: English Heritage.

Martin, Eric. (1999). Improving access to heritage buildings: a practical guide to meeting the needs of people with disabilities. Canberra: Australian Council of National Trusts and Australian Heritage Commission.

Cullinane, (2012). National Disability Authority. Code of practice for accessible heritage sites. Dublin: NDA (2011)

Khare R. & Mullick A. (2012). Universal design india principles; A contextual derivative for practice. Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting. Sage Publication. 56: 624-628

Mace R. (1985). Universal design, barrier free environments for everyone. Los Angeles: Designers West.

Mullick A & Steinfeld E. (1997). Universal design: What it is and isn’t. Innovation, Spring, 14-18.

National Disability Authority. (2011). Access-Improving the Accessibility of Historic Buildings and Places. Government of Ireland.

Ostroff E. (2001). Universal design: The new paradigm. In Ostroff, E. & Preiser, W.(Eds.). Universal design handbook. New York: McGraw Hill.

Steinfeld, E. (2008). The concept of universal design. uiGarden, Retrieved from http://www.uigarden.net.

Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre. (2008). Accessible Tourism, Challenges and opportunities. Government of Australia.

The Center for Universal Design (1997). The principles of universal design (version 2.0). Raleigh, NC: NC State university, The center for universal design. Retrieved on 2-6-08 from http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/about_ud/udnonenglishprinciples.html.

UDIP. (2011). Universal design in India. Design for all newsletter, Abir Mullick (ed.), Vol-6 No-11, Design for All Institute Publication, India.

Manual on accessible tourism for all: Principles, tools and best practices Module V: Best practices in accessible tourism. (2016.) World Tourism Organization (UNWTO).

Code of practice on accessible heritage sites. NDA, Ireland.

Providing for physical access to heritage places. (2011). New Zealand Historic Places Trust Pouhere Taonga.

The Australia ICOMOS charter for the conservation of places of cultural significance (The Burra charter). (1981). (Australia ICOMOS).

ICOMOS Charter on the interpretation and presentation of cultural heritage sites. (2008).

International charter for the conservation and restoration of monuments and sites (The Venice charter). (1964).

Charter for the conservation of historic towns and urban areas (The Washington charter). (1987).

International cultural tourism charter - managing tourism at places of heritage significance. (1999).