Physical Accessibility in Higher Education: Evaluating a University Campus in Ecuador for Sustainable Inclusion

Abstract

Physical accessibility is a human right constituted in legal regulations, which mandates guaranteeing inclusive and equitable spaces in higher education, aligning with the Sustainable Development Goals, especially with goal 4, which guarantees inclusive and equitable quality education, goal 10, which aims to reduce inequalities by promoting the inclusion of people with disabilities, and goal 11 which seeks to create sustainable and accessible environments. University centers must adhere to the strict principles of universal accessibility to ensure that all individuals, regardless of their abilities, can navigate and use their facilities independently and safely. In this context, the objective of this article is to evaluate the physical accessibility of an Ecuadorian university’s campus, identifying barriers that limit the full inclusion of university students with disabilities. For this purpose, an ad hoc instrument was applied based on the guidelines of national and international regulations on accessibility. The evaluation was conducted in one of the buildings with the highest student concentrations in Quito, Ecuador. It is concluded that the campus has made significant progress in implementing accessibility, although it is necessary to make important changes, as almost half of the evaluated elements are barely accessible.

1. Introduction

Physical accessibility is a fundamental right that guarantees inclusion processes in higher-education institutions and thus achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4, which states that inclusive and equitable quality education should be ensured and lifelong learning opportunities should be promoted for all; SDG 10, which aims to reduce inequalities; and SDG 11, which aims to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable [1].

Accessibility is a recently introduced concept in Ecuador. In the educational field, significant challenges have been encountered in its implementation. However, access to education for persons with disabilities and, in general, attention to special educational needs have received a substantial boost since the transformation of the Ecuadorian legal framework due to the 2008 Constitution and the United Nations Convention [2], which established the right to inclusive education and attention to persons with disabilities. Physical accessibility remains an unresolved issue. University environments, in particular, have infrastructure that hinders the mobility of students with disabilities, thus limiting their equal access to higher education [3].

In Ecuador, cities have become gigantic death traps not only for people with disabilities but also for those without disabilities [4,5,6,7]. A survey by the organization ‘Quito Cómo vamos’ revealed a steady increase in pedestrian fatalities in Quito, the Ecuadorian capital. In 2021 there were 90 and in 2022 there were 96 (Source: https://www.lahora.com.ec/pais/estadisticas-revelan-incremento-muertes-peatones-quito/, accessed on 8 June 2025). Pedestrian mobility is a significant problem in Ecuador that remains unsolved and which is directly related to physical accessibility. A recent study has shown that the difficulties pedestrians face in Quito are already a public issue (Source: https://repositorio.flacsoandes.edu.ec/handle/10469/10201, accessed on 8 June 2025). The Ecuadorian press has effectively highlighted this issue. Urban spaces that prioritize vehicle use over pedestrian use have been built, with the foreseeable consequences this has entailed.

Despite the current regulations, citizens in general, and students in particular, express concern about the accessibility conditions of current educational spaces [8,9,10,11]. It is, therefore, necessary to determine to what extent this impression corresponds to reality. Physical education spaces must be evaluated, and this data must be used to understand the current situation and undertake measures that bring us closer to the goal of universally accessible physical-education environments.

In Ecuador, compulsory education begins at the initial, primary, and high school levels, that is, until approximately the age of 18. Higher education, therefore, is not compulsory, and the socioeconomic conditions of a large percentage of Ecuadorians result in limited access to university studies. Consequently, unemployment rates are rising, and living conditions are not improving for many [12,13].

According to the latest census in 2022, the national population of 18-year-olds was 302,480, comprising 79,576 men and 222,904 women. Of this population group, only 160,503 young people reported attending a regular or formal educational institution [14]. Only 53% of Ecuadorian students can access universities or higher-education institutions.

The results are even more alarming among the 20- to 24-year-old population of 1495.912 people; 977.962 are not enrolled in higher education [14]; therefore, 35% of this age group is enrolled in higher-education institutions. This change in statistics compared to the 18-year-old group could be explained by the high dropout rates among university students, especially when they have a disability.

In Ecuador, 487,543 people are registered with a disability, according to the National Council for Disabilities [15]. Of these, 5917, or 1.21%, are enrolled in universities and polytechnic schools. This alarming figure requires immediate government policies to improve the educational inclusion processes for students with disabilities. This study aims to support these processes by evaluating physical accessibility. This study is a crucial and potentially determining factor in the framework of the educational inclusion process. Of the students pursuing university studies in Ecuador, 53.21% have a physical disability [15]. This study highlights the importance of a university’s public policy in adapting its infrastructure to ensure its right to education.

This gap in access to higher education affects the academic development of people with disabilities and also limits their labor-market integration and participation in society, reinforcing cycles of exclusion and inequality. According to SDG 4, “Quality education,” and SDG 10, “Reduced inequalities,” higher-education institutions must adopt accessibility policies that allow all students to access and navigate their campuses with autonomy and dignity.

In this context, this research aims to evaluate the physical accessibility of an Ecuadorian university campus and determine the extent to which its infrastructure meets national and international accessibility standards. The selected campus belongs to one of the oldest universities in the country with the highest student enrollment. It has 10,722 students. Of this number, 60 students with disabilities are registered, which is 0.55% of the total. Of this percentage, 31% have a physical disability, 13% have a visual disability, and 16% have an intellectual disability. A total of 28% of the 60 students with disabilities have a hearing disability, and 10% have a psychosocial disability.

Based on this general objective, we set these specific objectives: (a) select an Ecuadorian university campus that, based on the size of its student population, is representative of the access its users receive; (b) evaluate the degree of physical accessibility of this campus by verifying compliance with the national and international standards that regulate it; (c) analyze the results to draw conclusions regarding the physical accessibility status of this campus and propose improvement strategies aligned with the SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) [16].

The hypothesis for this research study is as follows: the university campus moderately meets the accessibility parameters following national and international regulations.

This study is important for advancing the construction of inclusive and accessible environments that align with SDG 4 (“Quality education”), 10 (“Reduced inequalities”), and 11 (“Sustainable cities and communities”) [1]. This research will not only provide insight into the current status of accessibility in higher-education institutions but will also develop an assessment model that can be replicated in other contexts. Furthermore, the findings can serve as a basis for formulating public policies that promote more equitable education by eliminating physical barriers in university educational spaces. Strengthening accessibility in higher-education institutions contributes to building a more just, equitable, and inclusive society where everyone has equal access to education.

2. Background

Physical accessibility has been studied in various spaces of Latin American life. Although these studies are not abundant, they are significant and demonstrate the extent to which states on this continent are working to provide their citizens with an inclusive living experience.

In Latin America, a study [17] was conducted on physical accessibility in the Mexican municipality of Manzanillo. The planned indicators included ramps, intersections, pavement quality, and signage, among others. The evaluation tool was applied to the streets with the highest pedestrian and vehicular traffic in the historic center of Manzanillo. The previously predicted indicators were ramps, intersections, pavement quality, signage, and others. The assessment tool was applied to the streets with the highest pedestrian and vehicular traffic in Manzanillo’s historic center. The main conclusion was that this sector lacks accessible spaces that guarantee pedestrian-friendly transit for all pedestrians. This situation is exacerbated by the perception among passersby that the environment is uncomfortable and unsafe. This study contributed not only to the lack of accessible designs but also to the lack of maintenance. Thus, the results conclude that the historic center does not guarantee safe and accessible transit for all pedestrians, reflecting a failure to comply with SDG 11, which calls for safe and accessible urban environments [1]. The lack of adapted designs and maintenance exacerbates this problem, creating unwelcoming spaces for people with reduced mobility.

On the other hand, in Lima, Sánchez et al. [18] studied the pedestrian infrastructure within an urban bypass located in the city center. The results revealed a defective layout and inadequate use of space. Added to this was an inappropriate furniture layout and the incorrect size of ramps and access areas. These deficiencies underscore the need to integrate universal design principles into urban planning, a key objective for achieving SDG 10, “Reduced inequalities,” and SDG 11, Sustainable cities and communities” [1].

The study of physical accessibility has also examined the cognitive framework underlying the development of strategies for designing inclusive physical environments. In this regard, Treccani and Marconcini compared two survey methodologies [19]. One is characterized by in situ research, and the other is based on artificial intelligence through semi-automated processes. The results of this comparison enabled the authors to propose a comprehensive strategy that combines both approaches, allowing the design of inclusive spaces also to leverage the benefits currently offered by technological tools. This type of research, directly related to Sustainable Development Goals 4 and 11, demonstrates the potential of technology to improve accessibility in educational and urban settings.

At Musamus Merauke University, Syanjayanta and Joenso evaluated accessibility in the Department of Architecture lecture hall [20]. To this end, they considered the regulations established by the local government on this matter. The findings revealed that this space does not comply with current regulations. The consequences of this extend to the point where the site becomes dangerous for users in the event of a natural disaster. This study again highlights the urgent need for higher-education institutions to integrate accessibility criteria into their planning, ensuring that campuses are inclusive spaces and provide the required safety.

Overall, the results of this research confirm the need to investigate accessibility conditions in diverse settings.

The findings of this research underscore the importance of assessing accessibility in various contexts, ranging from urban settings to university campuses. Ensuring accessibility in educational spaces is crucial for including students with disabilities, enabling them to function independently and equitably, which aligns with the principles of SDG 4 (Quality Education).

Although some Latin American countries, such as Brazil, have made progress in developing accessibility regulations [21], the effective implementation of these policies remains a challenge. Research in this area is crucial for developing innovative solutions that transform university environments into truly inclusive and accessible spaces. In this sense, this study aims to contribute to achieving the SDGs by evaluating physical accessibility on an Ecuadorian university campus, providing evidence that can be used to drive improvements in educational infrastructure and inform the design of inclusive policies.

3. Theoretical Framework

Universal accessibility, although mandated by regulations, is not always evident in public and private spaces worldwide [22,23,24]. Discussing accessibility in Ecuador, where the concept has only recently begun to be considered, means encountering difficulties when searching for information; therefore, implementing it presents complications [25,26]. The lack of structured data on accessibility in educational and urban infrastructure represents an obstacle to developing effective strategies that promote full inclusion. In addition to physical accessibility, digital accessibility must also be considered, as it plays a crucial role in eliminating barriers faced by people with disabilities. In this context, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.2) are essential, as they provide a comprehensive set of recommendations to make content more accessible to a broader range of individuals with various types of disabilities [22]. These guidelines also support curricular adaptations that enable equitable access to learning processes.

Ensuring both physical and digital accessibility in higher-education institutions guarantees and fosters inclusion, aligning with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and contributing to the development of public policies that support people with disabilities. [27]

Ecuador has included the concept of Universal Design in its technical manuals for architecture and engineering since 2007 and reaffirmed its relevance in 2008 through the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [2]. These efforts to improve inclusion are also aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals. It is important to note that disability is mentioned in several SDG sections, specifically in education, growth and employment, inequality, accessibility of human settlements, and data collection. [1]

Disability in Ecuador, as measured by numbers, indicates that there are 471,205 people registered with some form of disability [15]. Thus, the number of people who would benefit from an effective inclusion and accessibility program is significant, as is the education and information of those responsible for implementing the plans, as suggested by various studies [27,28,29].

The importance of Universal Design lies in facilitating transportation, transfer, and daily life for individuals with disabilities, even if their condition is not permanent [30,31]. ‘Universal design’ is conceived as environments, spaces, and services of which use is permitted without prior adaptations or specific designs for certain situations. Accessibility is considered a global quality of the environment in which partialities cannot be perceived [32,33]. This approach is aligned with SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) [1], as it aims to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. Sustainable development cannot be achieved without significantly transforming how urban spaces are built and managed [1]

This concept, universal design, is key to achieving mobility, autonomy, and equity, as it facilitates access to physical spaces, means of transportation, and technology. Universal design has added value because it supports the inclusion of not only people with disabilities but also older adults, children, and mothers who must travel with their babies in strollers.

In this area of inclusion, characteristics and elements necessary for a space to be considered accessible to all have been established. These concepts include the aforementioned “accessibility,” “universal design,” and “design for all” [34]. However, despite being complementary, they differ in certain respects. As Santana and Maroto [2] and Arjona [35] mention, ‘design for all’ is the first conceptualization of the term. It involves structuring a space to accommodate unrestricted use and encompasses aspects of accessibility primarily aimed at people with disabilities [29,36,37].

Integrating universal design, design for all, and accessibility into physical infrastructure is crucial for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. These principles not only improve the quality of life of people with disabilities but also support the entire population. As stated by the UN [1], this is an opportunity for countries and their societies to embark on a new path to improve the lives of all people, leaving no one behind.

Several Ecuadorian government agencies are involved in developing and legislating the terms and conditions that guarantee the comprehensive well-being of users. Through collaborative work, they ensure compliance with requirements and standards to maintain and, in other cases, implement accessibility, incorporating it into the daily management of spaces to safeguard their functionality. Among the agencies involved in these efforts are the Ministry of Urban Development and Housing (MIDUVI), the National Risk and Emergency Management Service, the Ministry of Economic and Social Inclusion, the National Council for Disability Equality (CONADIS), the Technical Secretariat for Inclusive Management of Disabilities (SETEDIS), and the Ecuadorian Standardization Service (INEN) [38].

Universal accessibility within the Ecuadorian legal framework is reflected in documents seeking uniformity in universal design. These regulations include Universal Accessibility Plans, Ecuadorian Technical Standards, Ecuadorian Universal Accessibility Regulations, and, perhaps most importantly, the Ecuadorian Construction Standard (NEC). The NEC, first signed in 2014 in a Ministerial Agreement proposed by Minister Diego Aulestia, the Minister of Urban Development and Housing, officially made its first chapters permanent in 2015. This document lays the groundwork for various updates that will be effectively implemented over time, ensuring the minimum requirements for buildings are met. Access to the country’s physical environments has thus been ensured for anyone.

According to the Ministry of Urban Development and Housing [39], the Ecuadorian Construction Standard aims to enhance the quality of life for Ecuadorians and foster a culture of safety and prevention. Therefore, it defines the basic principles for earthquake-resistant design of structures, establishes minimum safety and quality parameters for buildings, optimizes control and maintenance mechanisms in construction processes, reduces consumption and improves the energy efficiency of buildings, and advocates for compliance with the basic principles of habitability and health. Furthermore, it establishes the responsibilities, obligations, and rights of all actors involved in construction (p. 3).

The mandatory nature of the NEC at the national level is supported by legal provisions and, above all, by the Fifteenth General Provision of the Organic Law Reforming the Organic Code of Territorial Organization, Autonomy, and Decentralization (COOTAD), published in 2014 [39], which stipulates its continuity and expansion, as well as its use throughout the national territory for the construction process of buildings and properties, both in their internal and external components.

The characteristics of the Ecuadorian Construction Standard encompass broad features introduced in its various editions, with the most recent edition, NEC [39], featuring complete chapters, including Universal Accessibility (UA). This document addresses Structural Safety (NEC-SE), Habitability and Health (NEC-HS), and Basic Services (NEC-SB). Furthermore, it is mentioned that the primary focus of the regulations is on people with disabilities, pregnant women, older adults, and anyone in vulnerable situations [39]. To validate this government text, the Standardization Standards and Principles of Standardization (NTE INEN) from the Ecuadorian Standardization Institute are considered the regulatory body. Duarte et al. [38] explain that the application of minimum requirements is planned for all construction fields, with some exceptions, such as existing buildings managed by a local regulatory entity and places where remodeling must be completed to meet the standards. The determination and prioritization of the process to be fulfilled, based on the NEC, will always seek to facilitate mobility for all, considering the use of the space by users, both inside and outside, as well as the flow of people using it. In addition, they mention the need to consider accessibility chains, which are “the set of elements that, organized sequentially and logically, allow the process of interaction between the user and the built environment” [39]. The concept of the accessibility chain has been addressed from various perspectives. It is one of the latest contributions to understanding how spaces should be built for accessibility [28,40,41].

Despite these legal initiatives, no regulation has been established regarding the inclusion of virtual spaces, which are relegated to Universal Design, thereby hindering the experience of those who need to use the web. Even web pages produced by state, local, and government agencies do not comply with international accessibility regulations, thus representing another area that needs improvement for the full scope of accessibility in Ecuador.

Physical accessibility on a university campus refers to the ability of all people, including those with disabilities, to access campus facilities and services. Similar to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 [1], physical accessibility indicators can be classified into three levels: A, AA, and AAA, and they are used to measure and improve the physical accessibility of a university campus. Below are some ways in which WCAG 2.1 levels A, AA, and AAA can relate to physical accessibility on a university campus:

Level A: WCAG 2.1 Level A includes more basic guidelines for ensuring accessibility, such as providing text alternatives for images and graphics and ensuring that color contrast in signage is appropriate for all users. Physical accessibility may include installing wheelchair-accessible ramps in all buildings and creating reserved parking spaces for individuals with disabilities. Level AA: WCAG 2.1 Level AA includes additional guidelines to ensure greater accessibility, such as ensuring website navigation is consistent and easy for all users to use and providing a clear and consistent structure for the content. Physical accessibility may include installing tactile and audible signage for the visually impaired and placing guide tapes on the floor to help visually impaired individuals navigate.

Level AAA: WCAG 2.1 Level AAA includes even stricter guidelines to ensure complete and equal accessibility for all users. These guidelines include providing a plain-language alternative for technical or complex content and ensuring that content can be controlled using external devices such as keyboards and mice. Physical accessibility may include installing elevators in all buildings to ensure everyone can access upper floors and implementing assistive technology to help people with disabilities navigate the campus. WCAG 2.1 accessibility levels A, AA, and AAA are qualitative and cannot necessarily be related to quantitative values or scores. This study is motivated by the fact that accessibility is a multidimensional concept encompassing diverse aspects, such as design, interaction, and perception.

However, it is possible to evaluate it quantitatively by considering some proposed accessibility criteria with a precise measure. In this study, we assigned values below 50% for an A accessibility level, between 50% and 75% for an AA level, and above 75% for an AAA level, according to WCAG 2.1.

Therefore, it is essential to comprehensively assess the accessibility of the university campus’s physical space, taking into account the accessibility guidelines and principles outlined in WCAG 2.1 and other relevant standards and regulations. Accessibility experts should conduct this assessment, including the participation of people with disabilities and other relevant stakeholders, to ensure that all necessary perspectives are considered.

It is essential to note that these scores do not represent a comprehensive assessment of the physical space’s accessibility but rather only of some of its aspects. Therefore, it is necessary to complement the quantitative and qualitative assessments to gain a deeper understanding of the university campus’s accessibility. Furthermore, it is essential to remember that accessibility is a continually evolving goal, and ways to improve it should always be sought, taking into account feedback from people with disabilities and other stakeholders. Physical accessibility on a university campus refers to the ability of all people, including those with disabilities.

By using WCAG 2.2 levels A, AA, and AAA as accessibility indicators, it is possible to improve the physical accessibility of a university campus and ensure that all people, regardless of their abilities or disabilities [42], can access campus services and facilities equitably and fairly.

4. Materials and Methods

This qualitative research study employs a rubric developed from the legal guidelines and regulations that higher education facilities must comply with to achieve accreditation from the Council for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (CACES) in Ecuador.

The methodological design was based on a documentary review of national and international construction regulations. A rubric was applied that reflects the universal accessibility requirements contemplated in Ecuadorian and international regulations, aligned with the principles of Universal Design and the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.2), as well as Ecuadorian regulations and those of international organizations such as the ISO and the Chilean Universal Accessibility Manual, which has served as a regional benchmark.

The results were analyzed using the same scale established in the instrument, taking into account the accessibility of various spaces within this educational institution, considering the diverse access needs of potential users. The rubric evaluated 23 items. This instrument was developed using guidelines for the design and construction of spaces such as sidewalks and exterior circulation, elevators, connectivity, stairs, auditoriums, bars and restaurants, controls, furniture, orientation, parking, handrails, hallways, pedestrian crossings, doors, ramps, safety and evacuation, restrooms, surfaces, glass surfaces, and fords.

The parameters to be evaluated were collected from the Ecuadorian Technical Standards (NTE INEN), the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards, and the Chilean Universal Accessibility Manual as an international benchmark for accessibility [43]. The characteristics to be considered included the elements’ size, shape, components, and spatial distribution to understand their interaction with users and how they influence their experience of transportation, use, and orientation.

As part of this process, the campus of a higher education institution in Ecuador was selected. This campus comprises 16 buildings, covering approximately 20,000 square meters and housing a student community of over 10,000 students. One of the buildings on this campus was chosen as the center for applying the rubric. The selection was made based on the criterion that this building houses the most significant number of students and staff, with the Schools of Business, Medicine, Nursing, Physical Therapy, Psychology, and Nutrition located within its thirteen-story and two-story facilities. The connectivity chain also extends from the building’s main entrance to the main bar. This path includes the street furniture in the student meeting plaza, the building’s underground parking lot, and the ramps surrounding this same tower. As can be seen, the services and structure of the selected building offer a broad representation of the interaction between educational community members.

The results obtained were analyzed using the scale established in the evaluation instrument to determine the level of accessibility of the spaces. The methodology applied in this study enabled the identification of physical barriers and provided concrete recommendations for improving accessibility within the framework of the Sustainable Development Goals related to persons with disabilities, promoting inclusive and sustainable universities.

Procedures

The physical accessibility assessment process on the university campus was carried out in several phases, ensuring a structured and validated approach. The steps followed were as follows:

There was construction of a rubric based on a comparative analysis of national and international regulations. Then, there was consideration of Ecuadorian technical standards (INEN), ISO guidelines, the University of Chile accessibility manual, and WCAG 2.2 to achieve an inclusive approach. A detailed analysis of the parameters and items comprising the rubric was conducted, ensuring that they encompassed all critical aspects within the framework of physical accessibility. Adjustments were made to improve the instrument’s clarity and applicability. The research team, comprising the authors of this article, reached a consensus on the construction of the rubric. Once the first draft was prepared, it was submitted to the National Council on Disabilities (CONADIS). This is the highest governmental body responsible for designing public policies to improve inclusion in the country. The expert of this institution, an architect specializing in the area, considered that the rubric included all the normative requirements in force. However, they noted that the country does not have sufficient conditions to implement the changes that the same regulations demand, paradoxically. They considered it would take Ecuador several years to implement the modifications that would allow full physical accessibility.

Evaluation and validation of the instrument, conducted with the participation of users with reduced mobility, provided insight into the perspectives of these individuals on the barriers and challenges they face within the university-campus infrastructure. Consequently, a group of students who are part of the researcher-in-training seedbed of our research group includes two students with physical disabilities. These students tested the rubric in the building under study. The validation of the rubric was also carried out in other buildings of this same university in order to verify that the rubric covered all possible architectural aspects.

Part of the testing also consisted of simulating access by another group of students who did not have a disability but who used a wheelchair to verify that the accessibility chains were continuous.

Feedback was incorporated to refine the rubric and ensure its effectiveness and relevance. The initial application of the rubric was in the selected building on the university campus. Moreover, there was preliminary data collection to identify possible methodological adjustments. The modification of the evaluation criteria was based on the results of the pilot test. The rubric’s format and structure was optimized to facilitate its application and interpretation. The final version of the rubric can be reviewed at the following link: https://www.puce.edu.ec/investigacion/public/grupoC/6/46, accessed on 8 June 2025.

Complete evaluation of the selected building was undertaken, considering the accessibility chain and user interactions with the environment. There was analysis of the data obtained and determination of the accessibility index, according to the applied rubric. The classification of the accessibility level is based on established parameters (A, AA, and AAA), which align with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.2) and international standards.

Figure 1 illustrates a timeline composed of seven sequential stages for assessing the physical accessibility of a campus. A colorful icon and descriptive text in English represent each stage. The process begins with the design of an evaluation rubric (“Design Evaluation Rubric”) and continues with an initial review and adjustment. The rubric is then validated and applied in a pilot phase (“Perform Pilot Application”). A second review and adjustment is then performed, followed by applying the rubric (“Apply Rubric Completely”). Finally, the accessibility index is calculated (“Calculate Accessibility Index”). The visualization employs a distinct color palette for each phase, presenting a clear, orderly, and progressive approach.

The methodological procedure described above enabled an optimal evaluation of the accessibility of the higher education campus, identifying areas for improvement and potential strategies for infrastructure optimization.

5. Results

Applying the rubric on a university campus allowed the identification of the accessibility level of its various spaces and buildings, categorizing them into three levels: high, medium, and low accessibility.

• High (AAA): Optimal accessibility;
• Medium (AA): Partial accessibility;
• Low (L): Limited accessibility.

The rubric shows the areas evaluated and the key elements comprising each area. Each component was analyzed according to the current regulations’ criteria and marked as either met or not met, depending on its compliance with the standards. Thus, it is stated, for example, that in the “Exterior Sidewalks” area, nine out of thirteen items comply with the regulations. The rubric contains a formula that assigns a percentage of accessibility in each area based on the number of items met.

Regarding the level of accessibility, the results obtained are shown in the following

Table 1. Results obtained from the application of the rubric.

Parameter	Total No.	Met No.	Percentage	Interpretation
Sidewalks and Outdoors	13	9	69.23%	AA
Elevators	28	23	82.14%	AAA
Connectivity	4	3	75.00%	AA
Stairs	14	8	57.14%	AA
Auditoriums	16	7	43.75%	A
Bars and Restaurants	7	3	42.86%	A
Controls	29	24	82.76%	AAA
Furniture	19	10	52.63%	AA
Urban Furniture	18	17	94.44%	AAA
Orientation 1	19	9	47.37%	A
Orientation 2	26	13	50.00%	A
Parking Lots	19	7	36.84%	A
Handrails	11	9	81.82%	AAA
Hallways	6	5	83.33%	AAA
Pedestrian Crossings	11	5	45.45%	A
Staff	3	1	33.33%	A
Doors	17	13	76.47%	AAA
Ramps	12	4	33.33%	A
Safety and Evacuation	16	6	37.50%	A
Bathrooms/Hygiene	30	6	20.00%	A
Surfaces	12	6	50.00%	A
Glass Surfaces	11	8	72.73%	AA
Curb Cuts	5	0	0.00%	A
Overall Accessibility	346	196	56.65%	AA

:

Among the evaluated parameters, it is clear that the lowest-scoring items are auditoriums, bars and restaurants, orientation 1, orientation 2, parking, pedestrian crossings, staff, ramps, security and evacuation, restrooms, surfaces, and curbs. This case means that of the 23 parameters evaluated, 12 have a low accessibility level, dominated by “A.”

Of the remaining 11 parameters, 5 have a medium accessibility level of “AA.” These are sidewalks, exteriors, connectivity, stairs, furniture, and glass surfaces.

The parameters determined to have a high accessibility level of “AAA” are elevators, controls, street furniture, handrails, hallways, and doors.

Thus, the evaluated building has a medium accessibility level of “AA,” with an accessibility percentage of 56.65%.

On the other hand, as part of the analysis, it can be noted that the access routes available to reach the building present obstacles that disrupt the accessibility chain due to the lack of ramps or their inadequate design.

The doors on the ground floor of the building are wide, allowing easy entry for students. The restrooms on this floor have an accessible stall, the only one on all floors available for people with disabilities.

There are three functional elevators, eliminating the need for stairs for those who cannot access them. However, during the implementation of the rubric, it was noted that the service is often saturated by the number of students, making it difficult to use. It is important to consider this case when redesigning the rubric to include the volume of elevator users and peak hours in the evaluation. It is important to note that elevators must be optimized according to the type of user [44,45,46].

A strength of the building is that all floors are similar and have a single level of access, eliminating the need for ramps to ensure mobility. The signage found throughout the building is also a strength, although it requires maintenance and inclusive adaptations such as Braille, which would expand its use to all users. This design is consistent with the position that recommends buildings have a single level specifically to assist people with reduced mobility. Similarly, studies indicate that accessibility for people with visual impairments should be achieved through multisensory signage [47].

The results indicate that fewer academic spaces have also received less attention regarding physical accessibility. These spaces are bars, restaurants, ramps, and fords. In this way, the physical space reflects the institutional focus regarding the well-being it provides to the entire educational community.

As physical accessibility is also expressed in the indications offered for the transit of people, whether these are provided by signage or by the institution’s staff, it is an area that also reflects a weak aspect of the university and that can be resolved more quickly than other elements that require more significant investment and architectural intervention. Orientation and staff training are low-scoring aspects of the rubric.

In this way, the objective outlined in the study [38] would be achieved, which aims to make all areas of the building accessible. Additionally, by complying with all the requirements, the institution will convey to all members of its community its goal of providing accessibility to all its users in all the environments that make up its campus. In this way, universal design would also be achieved. Faced with the current reality that people with reduced mobility require assistance to access some of these spaces or are unable to access them, the changes in the lower-scoring items would ensure their accessibility without the need for additional support or adaptations.

Overall, we can affirm that the selected space on the university campus reflects a significant degree of accessibility, although it still has a long way to go before being considered fully accessible. This level of accessibility achieved represents a milestone in the objective outlined in the regulations. Full accessibility is a lofty ideal, but it should not be abandoned.

On the other hand, the regulations are clear, and the rubric adheres to them. Therefore, if external institutional accessibility certification processes existed, the environment studied in this research would undoubtedly fail to meet the requirements. The fact that a large percentage of elements are in Category A and another percentage in Category AA suggests that such a certification would be denied.

Considering the nature of the higher education institution in which the study was conducted, the results of this evaluation are not necessarily pedagogical. HEIs provide education in all areas, not only through a curriculum but also in the physical environment where various educational community members congregate. They are considered models for imitation or discussion in multiple areas of interest to a country. Precisely, they must also be prototypes to achieve physical accessibility.

In this sense, the Ecuadorian university, to which we have already presented the results obtained in this study, requires a technical self-assessment to determine, in a similar manner to this study, the areas that require improvement or the implementation of changes in this area. Only a study of this type will enable sound decisions that encompass budgets, resources, and processes. The goal is necessary and laudable: complete physical accessibility. This study can be further expanded to other spaces on the same university campus; however, replicating it in appropriately selected settings on other university campuses, as well as in other cities across the country, would be even more beneficial. Similarly, it would be interesting to evaluate accessibility in non-educational settings with high levels of citizen concentration, such as shopping malls, movie theaters, or food courts, to extend the impact of the research and promote accessible and sustainable urban environments, thereby meeting the Sustainable Development Goals.

6. Limitations and Future Research

This study encounters some limitations, the first of which is precisely the fact that the rubric was applied in only one educational institution and only one of its buildings, although this is the largest on the campus. A more excellent validation of the rubric and expansion of results will be achieved to the extent that it can be applied to the entire campus of the institution under study, as well as to the campuses of other institutions.

It is also a limitation that this study was conducted at a privately funded university. This study means that it has more significant financial resources than public universities. Therefore, the rubric could yield critical results in a hypothetical study in public educational centers. We are not, therefore, in a position to generalize these results to the campuses of all Ecuadorian higher education institutions, although these results may be a good predictor of what might be found in some of them.

7. Conclusions

In conclusion, this study met its objective of evaluating the physical accessibility conditions of a university campus in Ecuador. We confirmed the hypothesis that the level of accessibility of the selected university campus is medium, beyond which improvements are required to achieve full inclusion for all visitors, especially those who require a high level of accessibility to navigate the campus.

The selected environment meets accessibility regulations at a medium level. Many of the elements evaluated using the rubric (25) do not meet national and international regulations or meet them at a low level (A: 52.17). Another group meets them at a medium level (AA: 21.74). Moreover, finally, the remaining group meets them at a high level (AAA: 26.09). These results confirm the hypothesis established for this study: the university campus meets the accessibility parameters to a moderate extent. These results demonstrate partial progress in implementing universal accessibility [17], aligning with certain principles of the Sustainable Development Goals: SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) [1,2]. However, they reveal that a significant area, covering just over 50%, has a low level of compliance, highlighting significant barriers that limit the mobility, autonomy, and independence of people with disabilities. This study also contributes to the equitable participation of students and staff with reduced mobility. The institution under investigation requires in-depth implementation to make its campus accessible, achieving full inclusion in education, social, and work settings.

This study thus contributes, for the first time, to the systematic evaluation of the physical accessibility of a university campus with a single instrument. The rubric, built for this purpose and validated on the campus itself, contributes to evaluating the accessibility of any university campus in Ecuador. However, it can also serve as a reference for evaluating university campuses in Latin America, as it encompasses the desirable levels of accessibility in general.

In this sense, this research focuses on evaluating physical accessibility in a comprehensive and detailed manner, as it does not overlook any element not addressed in the Ecuadorian and regional regulations. From this point on, the application of this instrument is required on other university campuses, not only to evaluate them and compare their results with those obtained in this study but also to assess the evaluative depth of the rubric in case new elements are not considered that affect universal accessibility [8].

Its contribution also allows an indirect evaluation of the Ecuadorian regulations and the fulfillment of the regulatory role of state institutions in complying with the regulations and guaranteeing accessible and quality education for all students [7].