Measuring accessibility for people with a disability

159Citations
Citations of this article
247Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

This paper discusses some of the inherent problems associated with measuring accessibility for people on a landscape of surfaces, barriers, and travel modes. Along with this discussion we propose a new perspective for measuring accessibility with a focus on people with differing abilities. Even though our focus is on people with a physical disability, such an approach can be easily extended and is able to be generalized to other needs and differences. Traditional measurements of accessibility are flawed, as they fail to directly account for mobility and physical differences among people. They ignore structural barriers and individual mobility limitations that affect travel time, effort, and even successful completion. To make sense of this dilemma, we propose an accessibility measurement framework that includes measures of absolute access, gross access, closest assignment access, single and multiple activity access, probabilistic choice access, and relative access. Most of these measures of access have been proposed by others, but our framework attempts to codify an approach that helps to overcome weaknesses in using only the absolute access measurement currently used in ADA compliance. Such measures can be used to map accessibility as well as to help select the mitigation or renovation projects that yield the greatest increase in accessibility for people with disabilities. We argue that for many urban and building design problems providing absolute access for people with physical disabilities should be accompanied by the use of a relative access measurement, so that removing barriers can be done in the order that provides the greatest improvement in access for a given level of expenditure.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Church, R. L., & Marston, J. R. (2003). Measuring accessibility for people with a disability. Geographical Analysis, 35(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.2003.tb01102.x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free