GIS for Environmental Decision Making - Chapter 13 potx

The mapping trials allowed both participants with mobility difficulties and able-bodied participants to construct an individual accessibility map of the campus.. Figure 13.2 Partial vie

211

Multiple Windows on Accessibility: An Evaluation of Campus Buildings by Mobility-Impaired and

Able-Bodied Participants Using PPGIS

C Castle and C Jarvis 13.1 INTRODUCTION

The 2001 Briefing of the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) estimated that 8.5 million people are disabled in the UK1, of whom over 1.8 million claimed benefits for mobility difficulties2 The UK Government is committed to promoting rights and improving opportunities for disabled people, and argues that disabled people need to be brought into the mainstream of society in order to effect real change in their lives, and to change stereotypical attitudes entrenched in society The implementation of the 1995 and 2005 Disability Discrimination Acts with their measures to end inequity, and the setting up of the DRC, are examples of steps being taken towards this objective3

One area of change that these political moves have brought has been a deliberate broadening of involvement within UK Universities, accompanied by monies from bodies such as the Higher Education Foundation for England (HEFCE) to implement urgent changes to campus environments4 Historically, an exceptionally small percentage of those with disabilities would have survived the educational process to reach higher education; participation rates remain low, but are increasing5 Nevertheless, recent papers reporting views of disabled students still point to continuing and frustrating problems in accessing their higher education5-7 The physical accessibility of facilities to those with ambulatory difficulties, the subject of this chapter, is one such area

In their campus review, Shevlin et al.8, p21 sum up their respondents’ comments

on the subject of access and mobility with the conclusion that ‘Students expend enormous amounts of time and energy in negotiating many seemingly accessible buildings’ This statement echoes themes common across several papers looking at

UK university life for the mobility-disabled5-7 Two important themes of particular relevance to this chapter can be drawn from the assertion by Shevlin et al.8 Firstly, and taking a highly pragmatic view, how can better accessibility be achieved within the immediate resource limits, whist continually increasing pressure for change; and secondly, how can we bridge the information gap between portraying buildings

or routes as seemingly accessible, and reality?

© 2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

The answer to this first question is clearly ongoing, with a requirement for structural and internal changes to UK campuses In the meantime, can information regarding the accessibility of buildings be better represented so less time and energy is wasted unnecessarily? Detailed accessibility audits available via the Internet can provide some measure of information for potential and indeed current students at some Universities7 However, these are not a practical solution for the student seeking to orientate themselves to a new campus or unfamiliar buildings on

a day-to-day basis, where a map might be more suitable Earlier work by Vujakovic and Matthews9, for example, demonstrates the potential of city-wide accessibility maps, while one of Chard and Couch’s7 respondents notes with disappointment the removal of mobility-related symbolism on campus mapping Many campus maps do contain accessibility symbols, but there is little in the cartographic literature regarding the most effective style, symbolism and scale of approach to accessibility mapping Moreover, the creation of accessibility maps has traditionally required a significant surveying investment9, placing the ability for construction and the power of content in the hands of delegated authority rather than empowered citizen or group

Secondly, and significantly, Shevlin et al.8 use the term ‘seemingly accessible’

to describe campus buildings There may be pragmatic issues connected with the reliability of accessibility information produced by the able-bodied: planning rules

or detailed pro-forma used in accessibility audits may be implemented accurately, yet their results miss important but individual facets of accessibility In the context

of University life with its rich potential for social contact it seems that there is a strong possibility that the UK’s ‘needs assessment’ approach to provision, and what might be hoped for in an individual’s normal development, might part company relatively easily Neither do planning rubrics necessarily reflect the requirements

of individuals, in all their diversity; as Imrie10, p464 notes, there is ‘more that divides than unites disabled people’ These points are echoed by many poignant responses

across the wider socio-cultural literature For example, one of Imrie and Kumar’s11, p367 respondents comments about a building which frustrates him (from an access viewpoint), as it was identified as ‘fully accessible’ by the City Council in

Newcastle (a ‘fully accessible’ city), ‘… Now, you can imagine that other buildings which don’t even match this quality are nowhere near accessible But I think it’s the perception of what’s accessible and what isn’t’ Certainly Vujakovic and

Matthews9 identify significant differences in the mental maps of an area of Coventry constructed by able-bodied and disabled participants of their study, although they do not explore how different the maps of the two groups might be if they were asked to construct a map for the assistance of those with ambulatory difficulties They do however find significant differences in choice of symbolism, albeit from a very small sample Taken together, these varied sources suggest that accessibility information and maps may best be constructed by those who themselves understand the constraints of the subsequent users

Many recent papers also highlight the moral imperative for partnership, particularly in a research context10,12 Kitchin12, p25, following Oliver13, observes

that research should be ‘both emancipatory (seeking positive societal change) & empowering (seeking positive individual change through participation)’

Moreover, such partnerships are important if the products are to gain credibility; another of Kitchin’s12, p34 respondents suggests that ‘it is important that disabled people undertake and present research because it makes more of an impact due to the fact that it is `straight from the horse’s mouth`’ Whatever forms of information are produced on accessibility, ‘it is only disabled people who can know what it is like to be disabled and so only disabled people can truly interpret and present data from other disabled people’12, p26

Within this context, this chapter reports the findings of a pilot study exploring the potential of a Public Participation Geographical Information System (PPGIS) to build accessibility maps that draw on the local knowledge of campus respondents with ambulatory difficulties for their detailed content PPGIS have received much attention within the GIS research community, particularly during the mid-to-late 1990s14-18 Critically in the context of respondent comments within the disability literature, this particular study draws on other recent studies adopting a bottom-up approach to PPGIS, where community members are able to proactively provide information rather than be restricted to responding to information supplied to them19 The approach taken here also follows that of Haklay and Harrison20 and Carver et al.16, who observe that PPGIS systems conducted via the Internet and World Wide Web (WWW) can increase public participation in planning and, by so doing, make such processes more democratic and locally relevant Harris and Weiner’s17 work in particular stemmed from growing concerns about the potentially disadvantageous social implications of GIS, and the need to use GIS to empower disadvantaged and marginalized groups instead21 In the main, however, previous work with PPGIS has been levelled at community responses to planning applications, yet from recent respondents’ comments within the broader disability literature PPGIS would seem an approach with high potential for accessibility mapping

In particular, this chapter reviews the development and results of a PPGIS for accessibility mapping developed for the central campus at the University of Leicester in the summer of 2003 We investigate the ease by which the PPGIS framework was used and developed by campus participants, the perceived usefulness of the products and the potential level of empowerment that might be achieved by the approach As an important component of the study, we also asked

a sample of able-bodied students to build accessibility maps within the same setting, based on their perceptions of requirements

13.2 METHODOLOGY 13.2.1 PPGIS: Technical Framework

The primary software package used for this study was Questionmark™’s Perception™22 While alternative software such as ESRI’s ArcIMS® and Microsoft’s MapPoint® Web Service could potentially offer greater flexibility and resources for participants developing their own accessibility maps, we were keen to avoid major obstacles in using the system for those not familiar with GIS The Perception package offers an extensive range of question delivery options, particularly drag and drop questions, which were used to place symbols over a familiar cartographic base of the existing campus map Thus, the software offered both the ability to create the accessibility maps in a manner that was expected to be relatively easy for the non-expert user, while simultaneously delivering the remainder of the questions for each of the cartographic trials

The Perception mapping interface was embedded within an Internet site, which served a variety of functions Primarily designed to collect and display the empirical data, it also served to advertise and explain the purpose of the research Additionally, the Web site provided a schedule of the project to keep participants informed of when surveys became available online Amongst other pages, a results archive provided the participants with the survey results and links to further reference material This approach enabled the PPGIS to work essentially as a self-generating survey, with the potential for a cumulative rate of growth

13.2.2 PPGIS: Stages of Development

The cartographic development of the PPGIS was divided into two trial stages, the symbolism trials and the mapping trials

The symbolism trials were designed principally to investigate which

accessibility symbols should be included in the final maps Mindful of the cartographic findings of Fry23 and Vujakovic and Matthews9, and also the need to engage with participants at the early planning stages of the work, a secondary aim

of this trial was to examine preferences regarding the symbols themselves A questionnaire was used for this process, rather than the preferred focus group approach, owing both to data protection issues and also the timing of the study in regard to students’ examinations and summer leave Only participants with mobility difficulties were requested to complete the symbolism trial

The mapping trials allowed both participants with mobility difficulties and

able-bodied participants to construct an individual accessibility map of the campus These individual products were subsequently developed into community maps On the Internet site (available at http://www.casa.ucl.ac.uk/cjec/msc/index.htm), respondents could add predefined symbols describing accessibility levels to a familiar map of the central Leicester University campus (see screenshot in Figure 13.1) The chosen symbols from the previous symbolism trial (decided by the

majority of votes received), could be ‘dragged and dropped’ onto a detailed map of the buildings within Leicester campus Participants were required to 'click' on any, and as many of, the tiles which comprised the site map, for locations where they had knowledge of access to, and facilities within buildings for people with mobility difficulties The maps were split into tiles to decrease the download time, and to make adding symbols more manageable Questions (1-15) represented a different symbol within the cartographic trial, i.e., Q1 level access, Q2 steps, etc., but the actual symbols available for ‘drag and dropping’ were solid blue boxes (just visible

in the bottom-left corner of Figure 13.1), representing the symbol stated at the beginning of each question For Question 16 participants had to select accessibility classification from a pull down list which matched (as close as possible) the overall accessibility characteristics of each building the participant assessed within this tile

Figure 13.1 Example of the screen layout for the symbol mapping trial

The final classification maps (see example in Figure 13.2) were created by analyzing the results of Question 16, while the individual building accessibility symbol maps were produced from Questions 1-15, as shown in Figure 13.3

Placement of the individual symbols was determined by producing simple density and contour maps for each symbol type

Figure 13.2 Partial view of accessibility classification maps and key produced by participants with mobility difficulties (left), and able-bodied participants (right) Numerals within each building represent the number of participants who contributed to the classification of accessibility

Figure 13.3 Comparison of accessibility symbol maps produced by participants with mobility difficulties (left and top), able-bodied participants (right and bottom) for the George Porter and Fraser Noble buildings Classification of building accessibility uses the same shading as in Figure 13.2

Respondents for both trials were recruited in several ways An email was posted to persons known to Leicester University’s AccessAbility Centre (AAC), and leaflets and posters were distributed around the campus While the Web site was available to all, the principal targets of the initial surveys were disabled people, carers, and their families/friends The study was open to those with disabilities of both a permanent and temporary nature, and the classification of disability was open to the respondents’ interpretation We recognize that our focus on ambulant disability covers only a proportion of disabled people, and especially neglects people with visual impairments However, the visual nature of this work prevented people with a serious visual impairment from participating in this research

13.2.3 PPGIS Evaluation

Participants’ perceptions and attitude towards PPGIS, and their practical experience producing and using the accessibility maps, were reviewed by questionnaire, for reasons previously stated Freeform space was however incorporated within this format, with a prompt for participants to comment regarding any matters not explored by the set questions or the relevance, use or expression of the questions Similar to the symbolism trial, only participants with mobility difficulties completed this evaluation Before participants started the evaluation form, a brief outline of PPGIS was provided

Five issues were investigated within the evaluation, a list that reflects the context of the Leicester study (as a pilot for a wider town study), with an academic and computer literate populace:

• The ease and efficiency of producing the accessibility maps using the GIS system, in contrast to respondents’ perceived ease of cartographic trials by hand on paper;

• Participants’ general confidence in producing accessibility maps that accurately mirrored their intentions;

• Respondents’ overall experience with PPGIS during the study, and suggestions for improvement;

• The value participants placed on the resultant accessibility maps;

• Respondents’ perceptions of PPGIS as a means of empowering disadvantaged and marginalized groups in campaigns for public access and planning regulations

13.3 RESULTS

Sixteen participants (11 of whom were female) with ambulatory mobility difficulties contributed to the study, representing 40% of the eligible population with a registered mobility difficulty across the university The majority of these participants (13) were students under the age of 45, and all held a job or attended

lectures that required them to use multiple locations on the campus, on a daily basis Similar to the participants with mobility difficulties, the age profile of the 16 able-bodied participants was positively skewed, with the majority (14) of participants under the age of 35, nine of whom were female

13.3.1 Symbolism Trial (Only Participants with Mobility Difficulties)

The first nine symbols (level access, steps, parking, cash machine, restaurant access, access via ramp, accessible computer terminal, lift access and telephone access) were accepted by the majority of respondents with mobility difficulties (more than 13 in every case) as appropriate for inclusion within the accessibility maps Only a few respondents suggested that clearer and/or more appropriate symbols were available, but they were unable to indicate viable alternatives However, one symbol that participants did not think would best represent the accessibility of a location (10 respondents), and should not be included in the accessibility symbol maps (11 respondents), was the minimum doorway width symbol From the choice of a unisex symbol for toilet facilities, one for each sex,

or all three of these depending on the facilities available, 10 respondents elected for all three possibilities to remain available to them Within the open question area, additional symbols for difficult/double/heavy sets of doors (six respondents) and electronic doors (10 respondents) were requested and subsequently added to the final range

In response to the penultimate question, asking whether participants would like

to indicate areas that were particularly inaccessible using symbols struck through with a red cross, 14 participants said no

The final question examined a possible solution if participants said that a/multiple symbol(s) offended them, or over emphasized their disability A selection of ‘abstract’ and ‘conceptual’ symbols designed by Fry23 were presented

as alternatives to the pictorial versions Respondents unanimously voted to use the pictorial symbols and 13 felt that these did not emphasize a/their disability

13.3.2 Mapping Trial (All Participants)

The mapping trials generated general accessibility classification maps by participants with mobility difficulties and those who were able-bodied (see Figure 13.2, left and right respectively) Information regarding the accessibility of buildings on the campus was submitted for 28 map tiles by participants with mobility difficulties and for 47 by able-bodied participants In total, over 95% of the spatial data created by the participants was used to create the final accessibility symbol maps (Figure 13.3) All of the accessibility symbol maps for individual buildings and the general accessibility classification maps can be viewed at

http://www.casa.ucl.ac.uk/cjec/msc/index.htm

Analysis of the building access classifications revealed several clear differences between the maps produced by the two groups of participants Table 13.1 lists the

results for individual buildings Able-bodied students perceived 17 buildings

(53%) to have full/partial access to the majority of floors, but with limited facilities

available within these buildings (Category 3 in Figure 13.2) Another 12 buildings

(38%) were considered fully accessible with many facilities available (Category 4)

Table 13.1 Classifications of building accessibility by study participants

Access Category by Participant Group Building Name Difficulties Mobility Able-Bodied

Difference in Able-Bodied Participants’

Perception

Note: N/A = Not assessed a Ordered from top on map b Ordered clockwise from top right

Participants with mobility difficulties perceived the accessibility and facilities

of the buildings rather differently Six buildings (21%) were considered to have no access or facilities available for people with mobility difficulties (Category 1) A further eight buildings (29%) were considered to have access only to their ground floors (Category 2) Of these buildings, six were classed as Category 3 by the able-bodied participants, and one was rated as Category 4 Seven buildings (25%) were classed as Category 3 by participants with mobility difficulties, but of the six also assessed by the able-bodied students only three were given the same classification and the other three were graded as Category 4 Finally, another seven buildings (25%) were rated as Category 4 by the participants with mobility difficulties, all of which were assessed and given the same classification by the able-bodied participants

Overall, 22 of the 37 campus buildings were classified by both groups of participants In half of these cases (i.e., 11) the ratings from the two groups were the same and in the other half the buildings were perceived as more accessible by able-bodied respondents than those with mobility difficulties None of the buildings were regarded as less accessible by the able-bodied participants

Not only did able-bodied participants perceive campus buildings to be generally more accessible, but for the buildings that both groups assessed, able-bodied participants only contributed 77% of the accessibility symbols provided by those with mobility difficulties (excluding parking symbols) In fact, although able-bodied participants assessed 14% more buildings, they contributed 21% fewer symbols Figure 13.3 illustrates these two trends Able-bodied participants classified the George Porter building as being fully accessible with many facilities available for people with mobility difficulties However, they were unable to provide any indication of these facilities On the other hand, participants with mobility difficulties assessed the George Porter building as only having ground floor access, with limited facilities Similarly, the Fraser Noble building (an examination hall) was rated by able-bodied participants as fully/partially accessible with limited facilities while respondents with mobility difficulties classified it as ground floor access only, with limited facilities Several participants with mobility difficulties confirmed that their classification was a result of the building containing multiple steps and staircases to other floors, with no lift access Other examples of such differences were also recorded and can be found at

http://www.casa.ucl.ac.uk/cjec/msc/leicester_uni_ppgis_able_bodied_access_maps htm (not navigable from the main Internet site)

Copies of the final accessibility maps, and information regarding the project Web site, were sent to Leicester University’s AccessAbility Centre

13.3.3 PPGIS Evaluation (Only Participants with Mobility Difficulties)

The majority of respondents perceived the PPGIS system an efficient means of submitting and representing their local knowledge They were comfortable with