=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2323/SKI-Canada-2019-7-5-3
|storemode=property
|title=Classifying and Mapping Accessible Mobility on Post-Secondary Campuses
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2323/SKI-Canada-2019-7-5-3.pdf
|volume=Vol-2323
|authors=Shifa Hayat,Victoria Fast
}}
==Classifying and Mapping Accessible Mobility on Post-Secondary Campuses==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2323/SKI-Canada-2019-7-5-3.pdf
Spatial Knowledge and Information Canada, 2019, 7(5), 3
Classifying and Mapping Accessible Mobility
on Post-Secondary Campuses
SHIFA HAYAT VICTORIA FAST
Department of Geography Department of Geography
University of Calgary University of Calgary
shifa.hayat1@ucalgary.ca victoria.fast@ucalgary.ca
Mobility-related disabilities are the third
ABSTRACT most prevalent type of disability as they
affect 9.6% of the population; this means
Mobility impairment is one of the leading that over 2.6 million Canadians require the
causes of disability and an increasing use of an assistive device, such as a walker,
number of students using mobility aids (e.g. wheelchair, or scooter (Statistics Canada,
wheelchairs) on campuses face numerous 2017).
navigational barriers that hinder their
achievement of higher education (Statistics Of the 6.2 million Canadians with disability,
Canada, 2017; Canadian Human Rights 13.1% are youth aged 15 to 24 years
Commission, 2017). However, there is a lack (Statistics Canada, 2017). The median ages
of information in both public resources and of college and university students are 21.6
legislation regarding what and where these and 23.8 years respectively, which means
barriers are. The purpose of this research is that a significant number of young adults
to better understand barriers and aids to attending post-secondary institutions may
mobility that persons with disability also have disabilities (Statistics Canada,
encounter outdoors on campus grounds. We 2010).
identify key outdoor accessible mobility
(AM) features, establish a methodology for The built environment, which includes post-
their classification, and assess the grounds secondary campuses, is often not adapted to
of three post-secondary institutions in the needs of persons with mobility issues.
Calgary, Canada for their degree of Inadequate design commonly results in the
accessibility. Preliminary findings show that urban landscape lacking accessibility, and
campuses are far from the ideal of universal therefore undermining the “degree to which
design and inclusion. an environment can be approached,
entered, operated in, or used safely and with
1. Introduction dignity by people with disabilities” (Welage
and Liu, 2011). Many places lack accessible
mobility (AM) features (e.g. sidewalk curb
This research seeks to assess and
cuts, wheelchair ramps). As such, people
understand aspects of the exterior built
with mobility-related disabilities are denied
environment that could present barriers to
free and independent access to public spaces
persons with mobility-related disabilities.
essential for pursuing education (e.g.
These barriers most impact people who use
campuses), due to barriers in the pedestrian
an assistive device to navigate places, such
network (e.g. high curbs, stairs) (Ferreira
as a wheelchair.
and Sanches, 2007; Imrie and Kumar,
1998). It is therefore unsurprising that
According to the 2017 Canadian Survey on
persons with disability are less likely to hold
Disability, 22% of the Canadian population
a Bachelor’s degree than those without
aged 15 years and over had one or more
disabilities (Statistics Canada, 2017).
2 Classifying and Mapping Accessible Mobility
disability (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, built environment and can also inform
2015). accessibility standards that will be a key part
of the proposed Accessible Canada Act
In order for students with mobility-related (Government of Canada, 2018).
disabilities to successfully pursue higher
education, it is important that the campus 2. Methods and Data
be physically accessible (Hill, 1992). For
most students, deciding which post- A classification system for barriers and aids
secondary institution to attend is mostly to mobility was created and used for data
based on ranking, location, and tuition. For collection. Comprehensive spatial datasets
students with physical disabilities however, featuring these barriers and aids were
one key consideration is whether sufficient created for three post-secondary campuses
accommodations exist for navigating in the City of Calgary. Statistical and
campus with an assistive device. geospatial methods were being applied to
assess and compare the extent to which each
Canadian news magazine, Maclean’s, is one campus meets existing accessibility
of the oldest and most prominent publishers guidelines.
of annual university rankings (Honey,
2015). Maclean’s ranking methodology
2.1 Classification System
includes weighting factors such as the
amount of research funding or major
We began by identifying and classifying
awards won by students or faculty, cost of
barriers and aids to accessible mobility
tuition, reputational surveys, and student
(AM). AM features were classified into five
satisfaction (Maclean’s, 2018b). A “Build
categories: transportation (e.g. parking
Your Own Ranking” tool even allows users
stalls), routes (e.g. sidewalks), ramps,
to select factors such as “Great Parties” and
intersections (e.g. curbs), and building
“Great Food” (Maclean’s, 2018a).
entrances (Welage and Liu, 2011). The
Meanwhile, there is no information
categories are consistent with interviews of
available on how accessible a college or
wheelchair users reporting that common
university campus is. The Christopher and
barriers are narrow sidewalks, no ramps, no
Dana Reeve Foundation (2018)
curb cuts, and poor sidewalk surfaces
recommends prospective applicants with
(Kasemsuppakorn et al., 2015). Table 1
disability to visit campuses beforehand to
outlines how each AM feature (e.g. parking
find out whether appropriate wheelchair
stall, door) was classified based on criteria
accommodations exist. However, to visit
derived from three existing accessible
each campus in person is a costly and
design frameworks: The City of Calgary’s
impractical endeavor, and one that is
Access Design Standards (City of Calgary,
otherwise unneeded for students without
2016), the Rick Hansen Foundation
disabilities (Piro, 2017).
Accessibility Certification (Rick Hansen
Foundation, 2019) program, and the
While the ultimate goal of this research
Americans with Disability Act (US
project is to develop a methodology for
Department of Justice 2010). Figure 1 in the
calculating campus accessibility scores —
appendix shows example photographs of
both indoors and outdoors — and
these AM features.
incorporate these into university rankings,
this paper focuses exclusively on identifying,
classifying, and quantifying outdoor
features in the built environment that
impact wheelchair accessibility. In doing so,
this research deepens the understanding of
the scope of accessibility inequities in the
Classifying and Mapping Accessible Mobility 3
Table 1: List of AM features and their respective vector data models and criteria for classification; the appendix
contains photos of each AM feature as examples.
Vector
AM feature data model Criteria Classification Photo
used
Within 50 m of barrier-free building entrance; signage;
sufficient width; and, near sidewalk curb ramp or access Accessible A
Parking stall Point aisle
If any criterion for “Accessible” classification is unmet Inaccessible B
Meets minimum number of required accessible parking
Accessible N/A
Parking lot Polygon spaces (RHFAC, 2019)
If any criterion for “Accessible” classification is unmet Inaccessible N/A
Parking payment Operable parts’ height between 0.91 m and 1.1 m Accessible N/A
machine or transit Point
ticket machine If any criterion for “Accessible” classification is unmet Inaccessible C
Automatic; door width ≥ 0.85 m; and, does not lead to
Accessible D
Door and gate Point steps only
If any criterion for “Accessible” classification is unmet Inaccessible E
Width is ≥ 1.5 m; and, no criteria for “Moderately
Fully accessible F
Accessible” and “Inaccessible” classifications are met
Width is between 1.5 m and 0.92 m with passing spaces;
Moderately
or, unlevel or cracked surface; and, no criterion for G
Sidewalk or trail Line accessible
“Inaccessible” classification is met
Width is ≤ 0.91 m; width is between 1.5 m and 0.91 m
with no passing spaces; grate openings or level changes
Inaccessible H
are ≥ 13 mm within path of travel; or, severely unlevel or
cracked surface
Ramp with handrails and edge protection on both sides Fully accessible I
Curved or circular ramp; or, ramp with missing Moderately
Steps or ramp Line J
handrails and or edge protection accessible
Steps not accompanied by a ramp Inaccessible K
Aligned with direction of travel; wholly contained within
Fully accessible L
markings; and, matches curb ramp on other side of road
Curb cut Point Bull-nosed; or, projects into vehicular traffic lanes, Moderately
M
parking spaces, etc. accessible
Does not exist and direction of travel encounters curb Inaccessible N
2.2 Data Modelling and Set-up layers in ArcGIS Online, a cloud-based
mapping platform, and added to a web map.
ArcGIS Desktop software was used to create
a feature class for each identified AM 2.3 Data Collection
feature. Some features were further itemised
to have a more precise dataset. For example, Data was collected in July 2018 for three
doors were divided into four separate post-secondary campuses in Calgary:
classes: entry doors, exit-only doors, University of Calgary (UofC), Southern
unknown doors, and gates. Additional layers Alberta Institute of Technology (SAIT), and
were created to represent other relevant Mount Royal University (MRU). ESRI’s
information, such as areas under Collector application was used to access the
construction and service areas. Attachment web map and collect data on a GPS-enabled
functionality was enabled for each layer to cellular device. The grounds of each campus
store pictures of observations during data were gridded and surveyed to map, classify,
collection. Table 1 also lists the vector data and photograph the previously identified
model used to represent each feature class. barriers and aids to mobility on-the-fly. The
Layers were projected to the Web Mercator presence of some AM features was recorded
coordinate system to be published as hosted as being at a fixed point, such as doors and
curb cuts, while others were recorded as a
4 Classifying and Mapping Accessible Mobility
line along the length of a sidewalk, such as a of accessible entry doors out of the total
staircase or cracked and unlevel sidewalk number of entry doors added as values to a
surface. After choosing which new feature to new attribute table field. Choropleth
collect and placing it on the map, selections cartographic techniques were implemented
using drop-down menus (previously set for using graduated color symbology with four
each layer using domains and sub-types in equal interval classes to represent the
ArcGIS Desktop) were made regarding the proportion of accessible entrances per
feature’s access rating (e.g. inaccessible) and building, and an additional fifth class to
barrier type (e.g. steps only without assign a unique color to buildings with no
accompanying ramp), and any additional accessible entrances at all.
comments were written in the Notes field.
At the end, the Extract Data tool in ArcGIS Lastly, the NAD 1983 UTM Zone 11N
Online was used to package and export the coordinate system in the transverse
collected data to ArcGIS Pro for mapping. Mercator projection was used in order to
preserve distance in length calculations (e.g.
2.4 Visualizing Accessible Mobility for the length of inaccessible and
moderately accessible sidewalks).
Once data collection was complete, the next
phase was to map the data to better 3. Results
visualize overall accessibility on campus. To
do so, curb cuts were generalized into point This project resulted in the creation of a
representations of street crossings and a comprehensive spatial dataset of barriers
choropleth of building footprints was and aids at the UofC, SAIT, and MRU
created representing the proportion of campuses with over 3,900 features mapped.
accessible doors per building; also included
in the visualizations were inaccessible and Figures 2 to 4 in the appendix are maps
moderately accessible sidewalks and visualizing findings on accessible entrances
parking lots. Other AM features were not per building, the distribution and
included in the maps as they were better accessibility of street crossings, accessibility
described qualitatively or represented of parking lots, and inaccessible and
quantitatively in a chart. moderately accessible sidewalks for each
campus. There are no apparent patterns in
For now, only curb cuts located at the spatial distributions of these AM
intersections between roads and sidewalks features across campuses. However,
were generalized and included in the maps, although sidewalks impacted by barriers are
and not the isolated curb cuts found in dispersed mostly randomly over campuses,
parking lots or service areas, for example. it is noteworthy to mention that several
This was done to focus exclusively on the sections of city sidewalks on campus
accessibility of street crossings that are vital perimeters are only moderately accessible.
to navigational connectivity. Points Also, there are several segments of both
representing street crossings were mapped moderately accessible and inaccessible
as fully accessible if only fully accessible sidewalks near the East Residences at MRU.
curb cuts were present at the intersection;
as moderately accessible if at least one curb All gates (e.g. to the SAIT C-train station
cut at the intersection was only moderately and UofC community garden), unknown
accessible; and, as inaccessible if any curb (locked doors usually located in service
cut at the intersection was found to be areas) and exit-only (e.g. emergency exits)
missing. doors, parking payment machines and
transit ticket vending machines are
Footprints for campus buildings were inaccessible on all three campuses.
manually digitized and had the proportion
Classifying and Mapping Accessible Mobility 5
Figure 5 in the appendix quantitatively perceived differently by individuals in terms
summarizes the classification of AM of what and how impactful they are. Future
features on campuses. For example, 75% of work will therefore involve crowdsourcing
buildings at MRU have zero accessible information from wheelchair users to
entrances, as do 28% of buildings at UofC incorporate real-world experiences into the
and 22% at SAIT. The highest proportion of classification system. Lastly, methodology
inaccessible and moderately accessible for calculating an overall accessibility for
sidewalks were found at MRU, which had each campus needs to be investigated and
4638 metres of sidewalks impacted by some implemented for a better at-a-glance metric
type of barrier; this is considerably higher of accessibility.
than 1362 metres of inaccessible and
moderately accessible sidewalks at SAIT, Some applications of this research can
and 816 metres at UofC. On average, it was include incorporating the comprehensive
calculated that approximately 61% of AM spatial datasets of AM features for UofC,
features at MRU are inaccessible, 53% at SAIT, and MRU into digital, map-based
SAIT, and 49% at UofC. Therefore, MRU is smart city applications (e.g. Google Maps)
the least accessible and UofC is the most for accessible route planning. The data can
accessible amongst the three campuses also inform decision making to create more
assessed based on existing accessibility inclusive and accessible campuses by
guidelines. However, this is only a prioritizing the elimination of identified and
comparative generalization because all three mapped barriers.
campuses are far from the ideals of a fully
accessible built environment. Acknowledgements
4. Conclusion This research was funded by the University
of Calgary’s Pure Undergraduate Research
The results so far from mapping AM Experience (PURE) award.
features reveal that there are significant
barriers that limit a person with mobility References
impairment from easily navigating campus
grounds. This preliminary work provides a Canadian Human Rights Commission
methodological basis for the classification of (2017). Left Out: Challenges faced by
features as barriers and aids with varied persons with disabilities in Canada’s
levels of accessibility according to specific schools [PDF file]. Retrieved from
guidelines. Understanding the patterns of https://www.chrc-
accessible mobility revealed by this research ccdp.gc.ca/eng/file/14904/download?t
helps provide a deeper understanding of oken=ZlyFcWmB
inequities in the built environment that
likely extend across urban areas all over the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation
world. (2018). Choosing a college to best fit
your child’s needs [Web]. Retrieved
Several areas of further research can be from
investigated. Firstly, AM features identified https://www.christopherreeve.org/livin
and classified by this work are only a g-with-paralysis/for-parents/higher-
fraction of the barriers that persons with education
disability face on a daily basis. One example
of another variable that should be assessed City of Calgary (2016). Access Design
for its role in accessibility is the topographic Standards: Advisory Committee on
gradient of campus areas, in addition to Accessibility [PDF file]. Retrieved from
mapping AM features located indoors. http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Docu
Secondly, barriers and aids to mobility are
6 Classifying and Mapping Accessible Mobility
ments/development/access_design_sta Maclean’s (2018a). Build Your Own
ndards.pdf?noredirect=1 Ranking. Retrieved from
https://www.macleans.ca/education-
Ferreira, M. A. G., & Sanches, S. da P. hub/build-your-own-university-
(2007). Proposal of a sidewalk ranking/
accessibility index. Journal of Urban
and Environmental Engineering, 1(1), Maclean’s (2018b). University Rankings
1–9. 2018: Methodology. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.4090/juee.2007.v1n https://www.macleans.ca/education/u
1.001009 nirankings/university-rankings-2018-
methodology/
Government of Canada (2018). Proposed
Accessible Canada Act – Summary of Piro, V. (2017). Applying to College as a
the Bill [Web]. Retrieved from Wheelchair User. Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.canada.ca/en/employmen Retrieved from
t-social- https://www.insidehighered.com/views
development/programs/accessible- /2017/04/06/challenges-wheelchair-
people-disabilities/act-plain-language- users-face-when-visiting-colleges-essay
summary.html
Rick Hansen Foundation (2019).
Hill, J.L. (1992). Accessibility: Students with Accessibility Resources [Web].
Disabilities in Universities in Canada. Retrieved from
The Canadian Journal of Higher https://www.rickhansen.com/become-
Education, 22(1), 48-83. Retrieved accessible/accessibility-resources
from
http://journals.sfu.ca/cjhe/index.php/c Statistics Canada (2010). Trends in the Age
jhe/article/view/183122/183098 Composition of College and University
Students and Graduates [Web].
Honey, K. (2015). 2016 Maclean’s Retrieved from
University Rankings: A letter from the https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/
editor. Maclean’s. Retrieved from 81-004-x/2010005/article/11386-
https://www.macleans.ca/education/m eng.htm
acleans-university-rankings-a-letter-
from-the-editor/ Statistics Canada (2017). A demographic,
employment and income profile of
Imrie, R., & Kumar, M. (1998). Focusing on Canadians with disabilities aged 15
Disability and Access in the Built years and over, 2017 [Web]. Retrieved
Environment. Disability and Society, from
13(3), 357-374. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/
https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599826 89-654-x/89-654-x2018002-eng.htm
687
US Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015). People
Kasemsuppakorn, P., Karimi, H. A., Ding, with a disability less likely to have
D., & Ojeda, M. A. (2015). completed a bachelor’s degree [Web].
Understanding route choices for Retrieved from
wheelchair navigation. Disability and https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/p
Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, eople-with-a-disability-less-likely-to-
10(3), 198–210. have-completed-a-bachelors-
https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2014 degree.htm
.898160
Classifying and Mapping Accessible Mobility 7
US Department of Justice (2010). 2010 ADA
Standards for Accessible Design [PDF
file]. Retrieved from
https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010A
DAStandards/2010ADAStandards.pdf
Welage, N., & Liu, K. P. Y. (2011).
Wheelchair accessibility of public
buildings: A review of the literature.
Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive
Technology, 6(1), 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.201
0.522680
8 Classifying and Mapping Accessible Mobility
Appendix
A B C D
E F G H
I J K L
M N
Figure 1: Photographs of AM features as listed in Table 1: accessible parking stall (A), inaccessible parking stall (B),
inaccessible parking payment machines (C), accessible doors (D), inaccessible doors (E), fully accessible sidewalk (F),
moderately accessible sidewalk (G), inaccessible sidewalk (H), accessible ramp (I), moderately accessible ramp (J),
inaccessible steps (K), fully accessible curb cut (L), moderately accessible curb cut (M), inaccessible curb cut (N).
9 Classifying and Mapping Accessible Mobility
Figure 2: Map of AM features at the University of Calgary (UofC).
1 Classifying and Mapping Accessible Mobility
0
Figure 3: Map of AM features at the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology
(SAIT).
Classifying and Mapping Accessible Mobility 1
1
Figure 4: Map of AM features at Mount Royal University (MRU).
1 Classifying and Mapping Accessible Mobility
2
Legend for Building
Building Entrances UofC [VALUE]% (14) [VALUE]% (24) [VALUE]% (9)
[VALUE]% (2)
Entrances
2%
(1)
None accessible
SAIT [VALUE]% (4) [VALUE]% (7) [VALUE]% (5) [VALUE]% (1)
5.5% (1) ≤ 25% accessible
≤ 50% accessible
MRU [VALUE]% (45) [VALUE]%
[VALUE]%
(6) [VALUE]%
(3) (5)
2% ≤ 75% accessible
(1)
UofC 23% (24) [VALUE]% (22) [VALUE]% (56) ≤ 100% accessible
Street Crossings
SAIT [VALUE]% (18) [VALUE]% (12) [VALUE]% (56)
Legend for Street
MRU [VALUE]% (17) [VALUE]% (15) [VALUE]% (24) Crossings, Parking
Lots, and Steps and
Ramps
UofC [VALUE]% (27) [VALUE]% (12)
Inaccessible
Parking Lots
Moderately
SAIT [VALUE]% (14) [VALUE]% (6) Accessible
Fully accessible
MRU [VALUE]% (13) [VALUE]% (11)
UofC [VALUE]% (74) [VALUE]% (24)
Steps and Ramps
Legend for
Sidewalks
SAIT [VALUE]% (71) [VALUE]% (5)
MRU
MRU [VALUE]% (283) [VALUE]% (10) SAIT
Inaccessible or UofC
moderately [VALUE]% (4638 m) [VALUE]% (1362 m)[VALUE] (816 m)
accessible sidewalks
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent
Figure 5: Results summarizing the classification of AM features mapped at the University of Calgary (UofC), Southern Alberta Institute of Technology (SAIT), and
Mount Royal University (MRU).