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).