This study focuses on how the parents of individuals with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities (PIMD) experience urban space. Persons with PIMD may require multiple adjustments to access public spaces. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the representatives of the aforementioned category. Grounded theory methodology procedures served as a theoretical framework. The study results made it possible to identify the perspectives of the studied population on the accessibility of urban space. Some parents emphasized the ways in which urban spaces are accessible, however, most interviewees noted difficulties and barriers that significantly limit the accessibility of urban spaces. The study findings indicate signs of progress towards augmenting the accessibility of public venues. However, it is crucial to address issues that hinder the exercise of laws, policies, and practices designed to ensure spatial inclusion for people with PIMD and their families. The study findings provide a starting point for developing a clearer understanding of how adjusting the accessibility of public spaces may improve the quality of life of families of people with PIMD.
BickenbachJ. E. (2012). Ethics, law and policy. Sage.
2.
BickenbachJ. E.ChatterjiS.BadleyE. M.ÜstünT. B. (1999). Models of disablement, universalism and the international classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps. Social Science and Medicine, 48(9), 1173–1187. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(98)00441-9
3.
BoysJ. (2014). Doing Disability Differently: An Alternative Handbook on Architecture, Dis/Ability and Designing for Everyday Life. Routledge.
4.
BurnsS. P.MendoncaR. J.SmithR. O. (2023). Accessibility of public buildings in the United States: A cross-sectional survey. Disability & Society, 39(11), 2988–3003. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2023.2239996
5.
ButlerR.BowlbyR. (1997). Bodies and spaces: An exploration of disabled people’s experiences of public space. Environment and Planning: Society and Space, 15(4), 411–433. https://doi.org/10.1068/d15041
6.
CareyA. C. (2013). The sociopolitical contexts of passing and intellectual disability. In BruneJ.WilsonD. J. (Eds.), Disability and passing: Blurring the lines of identity (pp. 142–166). Temple University Press.
7.
CarlssonG.SlaugB.SchmidtS.NorinL.RonchiE.GefenaiteG. (2022). A scoping review of public building accessibility. Disability and Health Journal, 15(2), 101227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2021.101227
8.
CastrodaleM.CrooksV. A. (2010). The production of disability research in human geography: An introspective examination. Disability and Society, 25(1), 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590903363415
9.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory. A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Sage Publications.
10.
Council of Europe Disability Strategy 2017–2023. (2017). Human Rights: A reality for all, Council of Europe Disability Strategy 2017–2023.
11.
de CerteauM. (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. University of California Press.
GehlJ. (2006). Life between buildings: Using public space. Danish Architectural Press.
14.
GibsonB. E. (2014). Parallels and problems of normalisation in rehabilitation and universal design: Enabling connectivities. Disability & Rehabilitation, 36(16), 1328–1333. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2014.891661
15.
GlaserB. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Sociology Press, Mill Valley.
16.
HammondV.MusselwhiteC. (2013). The attitudes, perceptions and concerns of pedestrians and vulnerable road users to shared space: A case study from the UK. Journal of Urban Design, 18(1), 78–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2012.739549
17.
HeylighenA. (2012). Inclusive built heritage as a matter of concern: a field experiment. In LangdonP.ClarksonJ.RobinsonP.LazarJ.HeylighenA. (Eds.), Designing Inclusive Systems (pp. 207–216). Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2867-0_21
18.
HodappR. M. (2007). Families of persons with Down syndrome: New perspectives, findings, research, and service needs. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13(3), 279–287. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrdd.20160
ImrieR. (2004). Demystifying disability: A view of the International Classification of Functioning and Health. Sociology of Health and Illness, 26(3), 287–305. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2004.00391.x
21.
ImrieR.HallP. (2001). Inclusive design: Designing and developing accessible environments. Taylor&Francis.
22.
ImrieR.KumarM. (2010). Shared Space and sight loss. Policies and practices in English Local Authorities. Thomas Pocklington Trust.
23.
ImrieR.LucksR. (2014). Designing inclusive environments: Rehabilitating the body and the relevance of universal design. Disability and Rehabilitation, 36(16), 1315–1319. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2014.936191
24.
JoL of 2018.1202. (2018). Announcement on the uniform text of the Construction Law Act.
25.
JoL of 2019.1696. (2019). Act on Providing Accessibility to Persons with Special Needs.
26.
KruithofK.WillemsD.van Etten-JamaludinF.OlsmanE. (2020). Parents’ knowledge of their child with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities: An interpretative synthesis. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 33(6), 1141–1150. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017320919874
27.
LidI. M. (2014). Universal design and disability: An interdisciplinary perspective. Disability and Rehabilitation, 36(16), 1344–1349. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2014.931472
LontsiF. R. Z.WandjieC. B. M. (2022). Assessment of public and private buildings accessible to people with motor and sensory disabilities in the city of Yaoundé (political capital of Cameroon. Open Access Library Journal, 9(4), e8462. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1108462
30.
LuijkxJ.VlaskampC. (2012). Toch is het een goede keus geweest. Ervaringen van ouders van kinderen met ernstige meervoudige beperkingen [Still, it was the right choice. Experiences from parents of children with severe to profound multiple disabilities]. Garant uitgevers.
31.
MassingueS. A.OviedoD. (2021). Walkability and the right to the city: A snapshot critique of pedestrian space in Maputo, Mozambique. Research in Transportation Economics, 86(2021), Article 101049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2021.101049
32.
McKinneyV.AmosunS. L. (2020). Impact of lived experiences of people with disabilities in the built environment in South Africa. African Journal of Disability, 9(2020), 518. https://doi.org/10.4102/ajod.v9i0.518
33.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldanaJ. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (3rd ed). Sage Publications.
34.
MitterN.AliA.SciorK. (2018). Stigma experienced by family members of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities: Multidimensional construct. BJPsych Open, 4(5), 332–338. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2018.39
35.
NakkenH.VlaskampC. (2007). A need for a taxonomy for profound intellectual and multiple disabilities. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 4(2), 83–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-1130.2007.00104.x
36.
NussbaumM. C. (2004). Hiding from Humanity: Disgust, Shame and the Law. Princeton University Press.
37.
NussbaumM. C. (2006). Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
38.
ParaskevopoulosD.BektasbT.GabrielT.ChrisC.PottsdN. (2016). A cycle-based evolutionary algorithm for the fixed-charge capacitated multi-commodity network design problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 253(2), 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.12.051
39.
ParkinJ.SmithiesN. (2012). Accounting for the needs of blind and visually impaired people in public realm design. Journal of Urban Design, 17(1), 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2012.646139
40.
PetersonP. H. (2021). Built environment accessibility in the eastern province of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as seen by persons with disabilities. Journal of Accessibility and Design for All, 11(1), 115–147. https://doi.org/10.17411/jacces.v11i1.294
41.
PintoA.KöptckeL. S.DavidR. B.KuperH. (2021). A national accessibility audit of primary health care facilities in Brazil – are people with disabilities being denied their right to health?”. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(6), 2953. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18062953
42.
PowellJ. J. W. (2011). Barriers to Inclusion: Special Education in the United States and Germany (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315635880
43.
RiegerJ.StrichfadenM. (2016). Taken for granted: Material relations between disability and codes/guidelines. Societies, 6(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc6010006
44.
SlovicA. D.TomasielloD. B.GiannottiM.de AndradeM. F.NardocciA. C. (2019). The long road to achieving equity: Job accessibility restrictions and overlapping inequalities in the city of Sao Paulo. Journal of Transport Geography, 78(2019), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.06.003
45.
StraussA. L.CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research. Grounded Theory. Procedures and Techniques. Sage Publications.
46.
SuS.ZhouH.XuM.RuH.WangW.WengM. (2019). Auditing street walkability and associated social inequalities for planning implications. Journal of Transport Geography, 74, 62–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.11.003
47.
TsigdinosS.TzourasP. G.BakogiannisE.KepaptsoglouK.NikitasA. (2022). The future urban road: A systematic literature review-enhanced Q-method study with experts. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 102(2022), 103158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.103158
WeissD. J.NelsonA.GibsonH. S.TemperleyW.PeedellS.LieberA.HancherM.PoyartE.BelchiorS.FullmanN.MappinB.DalrympleU.RozierJ.LucasT. C. D.HowesR. E.TustingL. S.KangS. Y.CameronE.BisanzioD.BattleK. E. (2018). A global map of travel time to cities to assess inequalities in accessibility in 2015. Nature, 553(7688), 333–336. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25181
ŻytaA. (2004). Rodzeństwo osób z głębszą niepełnosprawnością intelektualną. [Siblings of people with a deeper intellectual disability]. Impuls Publishing House.
