Access is one of the most important rights for persons with disabilities (PWDs), particularly for movement-challenged persons (MCPs). To adopt appropriate policy measures that ensure this right for MCPs, it is necessary to evaluate accessibility appropriately. There are, however, very few accessibility measures applicable to MCPs. The current study proposes a framework for a novel comprehensive accessibility measure for MCPs (CAMMCP) by integrating parameters of universal design and the impact of mode-specific challenges faced by MCPs with existing accessibility measures following an origin-to-destination approach. The study presents a literature review of existing accessibility measures and suggests approaches to modify measures to suit mobility challenges faced by MCPs. Modified accessibility measures have been integrated with other parameters related to universal design and mode-specific problems. Universal-design-related parameters will include ramp slope and curb cuts, which can be measured through physical survey. Information on the impact of mode-specific challenges to MCP accessibility can be collected through questionnaires and participatory survey methods. The study also suggests approaches to modifying existing accessibility measures that do not differentiate between mobility constraints for MCPs and non-MCPs when evaluating accessibility. CAMMCP will be helpful for transportation policymakers taking the initiative to improve built-environment accessibility for MCPs as well as for evaluating projects through the lens of transport equity. It can be particularly helpful in determining walkability and transit-service accessibility. Hopefully, it will help build better road networks and transportation modes to develop a sustainable and inclusive transportation system.
BhattC.HandyS.KockelmanK.MahshammaniH.GopalA.SrourI.WestonL.Development of an Urban Accessibility Index: Literature Review. Report No. TX-01/7-4938-1. Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas Austin, 2020.
2.
GeursK. T.EckR. R. J. V. Accessibility Measures: Review and Application. National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Netherlands, 2001.
3.
MillerE. J.Accessibility: Measurement and Application in Transportation Planning. Transport Review, Vol. 38, No. 5, 2018, pp. 551–555.
4.
BuddJ. W.MumfordK. A.Family-Friendly Work Practices in Britain: Availability and Perceived Accessibility. Human Resource Management, Vol. 45, 2006, pp. 23–42.
5.
HiggsG.A Literature Review of the Use of GIS-Based Measures of Access to Health Care Services. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, Vol. 5, 2005, pp. 119–139.
6.
HandyS. L.NiemierD. A.Measuring Accessibility: An Exploration of Issues and Alternatives. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 29, 1997, pp. 1175–1194.
7.
ChengY. H.ChenS. Y.Perceived Accessibility, Mobility, and Connectivity of Public Transportation Systems. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 77, 2015, pp. 386–403.
8.
LättmanK.OlssonaL. E.FrimanM.A New Approach to Accessibility: Perceived Accessibility versus Objectively Measured Accessibility in Daily Travel. Journal of Transportation Economics, Vol. 69, 2018, pp. 501–512.
9.
CurlA.The Importance of Understanding Perceptions of Accessibility When Addressing Transport Equity: A Case Study in Greater Nottingham, UK. The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2018, pp. 1147–1162.
10.
WillsonA. G.A Family of Spatial Interaction Models, and Associated Developments. Environment and Planning A: Space and Economy, Vol. 3, 1971, pp. 1–32.
RyanM.LinT. G.XiaJ. C.RobinsonT.Comparison of Perceived and Measured Accessibility between Different Age Groups and Travel Modes at Greenwood Station, Perth, Australia. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2016, pp. 406–423.
ParkJ.ChowdhuryS.Investigating the Barriers in a Typical Journey by Public Transport Users with Disabilities. Journal of Transport and Health, Vol. 10, 2018, pp. 361–368.
15.
WannerM.ThomasG.Martien-DienerE.KahlmeierS.MartinB.Active Transport, Physical Activity, and Body Weight in Adults: A Systematic Review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 42, No. 5, 2012, pp. 493–502.
16.
LättmanK.OlssonL.FrimanM.FujiiS.Perceived Accessibility, Satisfaction with Daily Travel, and Life Satisfaction among the Elderly. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 16, 2019, pp. 1–15.
17.
FerrariL.BerlingerioM.CalabresenF.ReadesR.Improving the Accessibility of Urban Transportation Networks for People with Disabilities. Transportation Research: Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 45, 2013, pp. 27–45.
18.
BhuiyaM. M. R.A Study on Mobility Pattern of Movement Challenged Persons of Dhaka. Unpublished Master of Urban and Regional Planning Thesis. Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Bangladesh, 2019.
19.
LuoW.WangF.Measures of Spatial Accessibility to Health Care in a GIS Environment: Synthesis and a Case Study in the Chicago Region. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 30, 2003, pp. 865–884.
20.
TalG.HandyS.Measuring Non-Motorized Accessibility and Connectivity in a Robust Pedestrian Network. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2012. 2299: 48–56.
21.
MamunM. S. A.LewisE. J.A Composite Index of Public Transport Accessibility. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2011, pp. 69–87.
22.
YoshidaN.UweD.Measurement of Accessibility and Its Applications. Journal of Infrastructure Development, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2009, pp. 1–16.
23.
FodaM. A.OsmanA. O.Using GIS for Measuring Transit Stop Accessibility Considering Actual Pedestrian Road Network. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 13, No. 4, 2010, pp. 23–40.
24.
WittenK.PearceJ.DayP.Neighborhood Destination Accessibility Index: A GIS Tool for Measuring Infrastructure Support for Neighborhood Physical Activity. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, Vol. 43, 2011, pp. 205–223.
25.
DaiD.WangF.Geographic Disparities in Accessibility to Food Stores in Southwest Mississippi. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 38, 2010, pp. 689–677.
26.
FurstE. W. M.VogelauerC.Mobility of the Sight and Hearing Impaired: Barriers and Solutions Identified. Qualitative Market Research An International Journal, Vol. 15, No. 4, 2012, pp. 369–384. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/13522751211257060.
27.
BombomL. S.AbdullahiI.Travel Patterns and Challenges of Physically Disabled Persons in Nigeria. Geo Journal, Vol. 81, No. 4, 2016, pp. 519–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-015-9629-3.
28.
CarlssonG.Travelling by Urban Public Transport: Exploration of Usability Problems in a Travel Chain Perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy. Vol. 11, No. 2, 2004, pp. 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/11038120410020548.
29.
BenjaminJ. D.A Study of the Impact of APTS on Service Quality Perceptions of Elderly and Disabled Riders. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2006, pp. 53–70.
30.
NevenE.EctorsW.“I Am Dependent on Others to Get There”: Mobility Barriers and Solutions for Societal Participation by Persons with Disabilities. Travel Behaviour and Society, Vol. 30, 2023, pp. 302–311.
PerrsonH.AhmanH.YnglingA.Universal Design, Inclusive Design, Accessible Design, Design for All: Different Concepts—One Goal? On the Concept of Accessibility—Historical, Methodological and Philosophical Aspects. Universal Access in Safety Society, Vol, 14, 2014, pp. 505–526. https://doi.org/0.1007/s10209-014-0358-z.
34.
LidI. M.Developing the Theoretical Content in Universal Design. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, Vol, 15, No. 3, 2013, pp. 203–215.
GossettA.MirzaM.BarndsA. K.FeidtD.Beyond Access: A Case Study on the Intersection between Accessibility, Sustainability, and Universal Design. Disability Rehabilitation Assistance and Technology, Vol. 4, No. 6, 2009, pp. 439–450. https://doi.org/10.3109/17483100903100301.
37.
ZallioM.ClarksonP.Inclusion, Diversity, Equity and Accessibility in the Built Environment: A Study of Architectural Design Practice. Building And Environment, Vol. 206, 2021, p. 108352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108352.
38.
WatchornV.TuckerbR.HitchD.FrawleyP.Co-Design in the Context of Universal Design: An Australian Case Study Exploring the Role of People with Disabilities in the Design of Public Buildings. Design Journal, Vol. 27, No. 1, 2023, pp. 68–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2023.2264652.
Foundation for Promoting Personal Mobility and Ecological Transportation Japan. Guidelines to Improve Barrier-Free Access for Public Transport Passenger Facilities. 2001. http://www.ableinfo.co.kr/upload/libFile/Nega_treatyFile_98.pdf. Accessed March 15, 2024.
HenlyM.BruckerD. I.Transportation Patterns Demonstrate Inequalities in Community Participation for Working-Age Americans with Disabilities. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 13, 2019, pp. 93–106.
VelhoR.Transport Accessibility for Wheelchair Users: A Qualitative Analysis of Inclusion and Health. International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology, Vol. 8, 2019, pp. 103–115.
47.
GebbresselassieM.Wheelchair Users’ Perspective on Transportation Service Hailed through Uber and Lyft Apps. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2023. 2677: 1164–1177.
Wojnowska-HeciakM.SuchockaM.BlaszcyzkM.MuszynskaM.Urban Parks as Perceived by City Residents with Mobility Difficulties: A Qualitative Study with In-Depth Interview. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 19, No. 4, 2022, p. 2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19042018.
RodrigueJ. P.ComtoisC.SlackB.The Geography of Transportation Systems. Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, New York, NY, 2006.
53.
DillJ.Measuring Network Connectivity for Bicycling and Walking. In Proc., 83rd Annual Meeting of the Transport Research Board, Washington, D.C., January 11–15, 2004.
54.
RotoliF.ChristidisP.NavajasC. E.IbáñezR. N. N.Potential Impacts on Accessibility and Consumer Surplus of Improvements of the European Railway System. Transportation Research Procedia, Vol. 3, 2014, pp. 319–332.
55.
Ben-AkivaM.LarmenS. R.Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1985.
56.
AllenW. B.LiuD.SingerS.Accessibility Measures of U.S. Metropolitan Areas. Transportation Research B: Methodological, Vol. 27, 1993, pp. 439–449.
57.
SimonsD.BourdeaudhuijJ. D.ClarysP.GeusB.VandelanotteC.CauwenbergJ.DeforcheC.Choice of Transport Mode in Emerging Adulthood: Differences between Secondary School Students, Studying Young Adults and Working Young Adults and Relations with Gender, SES and Living Environment. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 103, 2017, pp 172–184.
58.
BlackJ.ConroyM.Accessibility Measures and the Social Evaluation of Urban Structure. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 9, No. 9, 1997, pp. 1013–1031.
59.
HansenW. G.How Accessibility Shapes Land Use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 25, No. 2, 1959, pp. 73–76.
60.
HansonS.SchwabM.Accessibility and Intra Urban Travel. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 19, 1987, pp. 735–747.
61.
ChurchR. L.MattsonJ. R.Measuring Accessibility for People with a Disability. Geographical Analysis, Vol. 35, 2010, pp. 83–95.
62.
MavoaS.WittenK.McCreanorT.O’SullivanD.GIS Based Destination Accessibility via Public Transit and Walking in Auckland, New Zealand. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 20, 2012, pp. 15–22.
63.
RadkeJ.MuL.Spatial Decomposition, Modeling and Mapping Service Regions to Predict Access to Social Programs. Geographic Information Sciences, Vol. 6, 2000, pp. 105–112.
64.
RosenmenR.TennekoonV. S.HillL.Measuring Bias in Self-Reported Data. International Journal of Behavioural and Healthcare Research, Vol. 2, No. 4, 2011, pp. 320–332.
BhuiyaM. M. R.ShaoW.JonesS.Measuring Accessibility of Movement Challenged Persons During Earthquake Evacuation of Dhaka City, Bangladesh: A Participatory GIS-Based Approach. Applied Geography, Vol. 156, 2022, p. 102974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2023.102974.
67.
ShaheenS.CohenA.StockerA.MartinD.Mobility on Demand: A Smart, Sustainable and Equitable Future. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2019.
68.
BhuiyaM. M. R.Accessibility of Movement Challenged Persons and Their Earthquake Risk Perception. Unpublished Masters of Geography thesis, The University of Alabama, 2021.
