“True” Accessibility Barriers of Heritage Buildings

Abstract

Heritage buildings, which symbolize the pride of a nation, were built prior to the development of current standards, including those for accessibility. As nations strive for equity, diversity, and inclusion, creating barrier-free environments, including heritage buildings, becomes imperative. This study aims to identify the “true” accessibility barriers of heritage buildings. Accordingly, a three-part study was conducted: review current standards and best practices; document and investigate the accessibility lived experiences of people with different abilities in heritage buildings; and analyze and discuss the data. The findings revealed that 19%, 17%, and 64% of reported “true” barriers per building were attributed to the conflict between accessibility and heritage preservation, accessibility standard clarity/specificity, and accessibility standard compliance, respectively. In comparison, accessibility-trained professionals attributed 16%, 39%, and 45% of their assessments to the same categories. A significant number of accessibility barriers in heritage buildings can be mitigated by applying current standards. The accessibility needs of people with cognitive/intellectual disabilities are the least addressed and understood by the standards and accessibility-trained professionals.

1. Introduction

Abilities are inherent characteristics of human conditions and experiences that vary from person to person. In 2021, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that nearly 1.3 billion people, about 16% of the global population, experience some form of disability [1]. In a “2022 Canadian Survey on Disability”, 27% of Canadians aged 15 and older were found to experience some form of disability [2]. Consequently, it is essential to recognize the importance of fostering accessibility to promote inclusivity and engagement in all aspects of life. The “United Nations General Assembly” initiated the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)” in Paris on 10 December 1948, as a significant milestone in the history of human rights. The declaration advocated for all humans’ fundamental rights to life, freedom, and safety, upholding these rights in the event of disability [3,4]. Article 25 of the declaration states that [4]:

“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control”.

The incorporation of the term “disability” in the UDHR has since led to significant forward strides of global acknowledgement and inclusion of people with disabilities, leading to the adoption of the “Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)” during the sixty-first session of the “General Assembly” through resolution A/RES/61/106 on 13 December 2006, in New York [5]. The CRPD is a pivotal benchmark in safeguarding equal rights for all individuals, including those with disabilities, with the right to full access to all physical environments. Article 9 of the CRPD emphasizes eliminating all barriers to accessibility including those in buildings and calls for developing minimum standards and guidelines for accessibility.

Thereafter, substantial initiatives have focused on integrating accessibility into the design codes and standards for new buildings and to a lesser degree for existing buildings. Heritage buildings pose additional challenges, as their construction predates the consideration of accessibility as a design requirement [6,7,8,9]. Moreover, heritage buildings, along with their architectural features, construction, and materials, hold significant value, as they connect people with their past, symbolize the pride and joy of society, and generate economic and social benefits through travel and tourism, making their preservation crucial [10,11]. Thus, striking a balance between both accessibility and heritage preservation is vital.

This study aims to uncover the “true” accessibility barriers to heritage buildings from the perspectives of people with physical, sensory, and cognitive/intellectual disabilities and the conflict between harmonizing accessibility and heritage preservation. The methodology put forward to achieve the objectives is made up of three parts: (1) review the building codes and standards, reported case studies, and global best practices with similar experiences in solving conflicts between accessibility and preservation of heritage buildings; (2) document the accessibility experiences of people with different types and degrees of disabilities as they visit Canadian heritage buildings; and (3) analyze and quantify the data from experiences of people with different abilities to determine the “true” accessibility barriers to heritage buildings.

2. Accessibility of Heritage Buildings—Global Initiatives

Driven by the “UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2006”, extensive global efforts were made to advance accessibility to the built environment including heritage buildings and other built and natural environments. The challenge is to balance accessibility with heritage preservation. In the USA, the decision-making process is usually dictated by the advisory council of the “Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG)”, composed of representatives from the “State Historic Preservation Offices” (SHPOs), the “National Park Service” (NPS), individuals with disabilities, and advocates representing people with disabilities, to decide on the minimum accessibility requirements for historic buildings not covered by the existing codes or guidelines [12]. At a minimum, the ADAAG guidelines mandate the provision of one accessible route and accessible entry to all sites. However, these guidelines become more flexible when applied to heritage buildings to allow room for alternative solutions when conflicting with heritage preservation. For conflicting heritage rehabilitation projects, the “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation” guides the council in making appropriate choices in the case of any physical intervention [13]. The “Agriculture South Building” in Washington, DC, seen in Figure 1, serves as an example of such physical intervention [14].

In the UK, the “Equality Act” implemented in 2010 requires all buildings, including heritage ones, to have equal access for all individuals [15,16]. As a result, the “Approved Document M: Access to and Use of Buildings” was developed as a baseline for accessibility in heritage buildings without compromising the heritage significance. This document stresses the need to consult the local authority preservation and access officers during the decision-making [17]. Additionally, “Historic England” provides several guidelines on enhancing accessibility in heritage buildings while maintaining preservation principles, prioritizing the heritage values when conflicts arise [18,19]. Ypres Tower, Rye, shown in Figure 2, represents a remarkable example of promoting accessibility at heritage sites in the UK, where an accessible door along with a gentle-sloped pathway provides access to the ground level of the monument. Another remarkable solution can be found in the Manchester Art Gallery, UK, where the thoughtful design of a ramp that rises to the portico entrance, illustrated in Figure 3, ensured that the symmetrical composition of the main façade remains undisturbed. A power-assisted door was installed in the Royal Opera House, London, UK, shown in Figure 4, at the portico entrance to ease entry for all visitors [18].

Germany embraces the “where possible” approach, acknowledging the challenges associated with preserving heritage buildings. The “Berlin Monument Authorities” emphasize assessing every case individually, as one approach to eliminate all barriers is impractical. The decision is usually made by comparing the potential harm to a site to the advantages of accessibility [20]. The lifting platform installed in Albrechtsburg Castle, shown in Figure 5, represents one of the innovative accessibility solutions that did not compromise historical preservation. The platform was integrated into the existing stairs with a sensor strip that automatically deactivates upon accidental contact [21].

In Australia, the “Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA)” played a crucial role in prohibiting discrimination in access to facilities, unless undue hardship applies [22]. Therefore, the “Burra Charter of Australia” provides guidelines on managing the preservation of heritage buildings during any physical modifications to heritage features [23], while “Improving Access to Heritage Buildings” provides guidelines promoting accessibility through several alternatives [24].

In Italy, a series titled “Guidelines to Overcome Architectural Barriers in Cultural Heritage Sites” was issued by the “Ministry of Cultural Heritage” in 2008. These guidelines aim to enhance accessibility in museums and exhibition spaces, covering various aspects such as exterior access and pathways. In a circular released on 6 July 2018, the Ministry further reaffirmed its commitment to enhancing accessibility without compromising heritage preservation. The San Petronio church, Bologna, Italy, illustrated in Figure 6, maintained its historical integrity by preventing any interventions on the façade. Instead, an alternative accessible entrance was provided at a former service entrance [25].

Japan prioritizes the preservation of heritage buildings and emphasizes minimizing alterations when possible. While the “Japanese Building Code” includes specifications for accessibility, heritage structures often remain exempt. However, tourist sites still provide wheelchair assistance and virtual tours in heritage sites [26].

In brief, international efforts across diverse cultural contexts have made significant advances to balance accessibility and heritage preservation. However, the inconsistent and/or different approaches presented have created a burden and indecisiveness on how to make heritage buildings accessible. Decision-making is often subjective to the personnel involved in the traditional committees, with a bias toward prioritizing heritage preservation over accessibility. Furthermore, the flexibility of existing accessibility requirements and guidelines, particularly when applied to heritage buildings, allows room for different interpretations and understanding of what is considered minimum requirements that do not necessarily reflect the actual needs of people with disabilities. Of significance is that most of the documented accessibility enhancements only address physical barriers, such as installing elevators or ramps, with minimal, if any, consideration given to sensory and cognitive barriers. Moreover, some of the proposed alternative solutions are found to lack the inclusion and equality of individuals, such as providing an accessible side or back entrance for people with disabilities.

3. Canada’s Heritage Buildings and Accessibility Standards

Accessibility and heritage buildings are major pillars of social sustainability [27,28,29]. In 1976, Canada signed the “Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage” aimed at protecting its heritage sites [30]. Three decades later, accessibility was recognized as a social requirement, driven by the 2007 UN CRPD [31]. At present, accessibility is a right and not a privilege. Accordingly, heritage buildings need to be accessible to all Canadians. Canada’s rich history and culture are attributed to its diverse population with different perspectives and backgrounds; therefore, it is essential to honour those who shaped the nation’s development [32,33]. Moreover, heritage buildings play a vital role in enriching the social and economic pillars by offering jobs and attracting tourism [34]. Therefore, protecting the future of these heritage buildings not only provides a connection to the past but also is an economic catalyst by attracting businesses and investors.

In terms of accessibility, the “Accessible Canada Act”, which builds on the “Canadian Human Rights Act”, was enforced as a federal law passed by the parliament on 21 June 2019, to create a barrier-free Canada by 2040 [35]. However, historic buildings are exempt, with claims of undue hardship or damaging their heritage value. The “National Building Code of Canada” (NBC) sets minimum requirements for accessibility, primarily applied to new construction. For existing buildings, minimum accessibility requirements can be enforced in case of major renovations or occupancy change [36]. Furthermore, the “Accessibility Standards Canada (ASC)” contributed to the mission of the “Accessibility Canada Act” by developing and revising accessibility standards. Currently, a new accessibility standard specific to heritage buildings is being developed titled “CAN-ASC-2.7: Heritage Buildings and Sites-Accessibility for Federally Regulated Entities as defined by the Accessible Canada Act” which is intended to go beyond the minimum accessibility specifications for accessible entrances and pathways, washroom facilities, wayfinding, and emergency egress [37]. Additionally, “CSA/ASC B651:23 Accessible design for the built environment” is a pivotal standard that addresses accessibility requirements for new buildings and spaces [38]. It is a comprehensive document that covers various design, construction, and operation aspects, including accessible routes, entrances, washroom facilities, circulation, and emergency provisions. The standard emphasizes universal design principles for a safer and more independent environment for people with physical, sensory, and cognitive disabilities.

The CSA/ASC B651:23 standard was objectively reviewed to identify potential conflicts between accessibility requirements and the preservation of heritage buildings. The outcome, which is summarized below, provides a path forward to identifying and mitigating potential accessibility barriers in existing buildings, specifically heritage buildings.

• Space and dimensional constraints: area allowances and dimensional constraints of entrances, halls, corridors, accessible routes, doors and doorways, ramps, and washroom facilities that do not provide enough manoeuvrability space for individuals with wheeled mobility devices.
• Doors and doorways requirements: replacing heritage-designated doors with accessible ones might impact the existing elements like walls, partitions, doors, etc.
• Vertical circulation requirements: buildings that cannot accommodate the installation of accessible vertical circulation means like ramps, elevators, and platform lifts may impede the navigation of individuals with physical and sensory impairments.
• Stairs and stairways requirements: altering stairs’ features can be challenging in existing conditions without harming the heritage fabric.
• Elevating devices: elevating devices can facilitate vertical circulations; however, their installation could be unfeasible and/or potentially damaging to the heritage spaces.
• Headroom and protruding object requirements: removing or adjusting headroom or protruding object space could potentially cause damage to the heritage fabric.
• Lack of luminance (colour) contrast: walls, floors, doors, and ceilings that lack luminance (colour) contrast with their surroundings impede the wayfinding for those relying on visual cues.
• Illumination considerations: installing lighting fixtures in dim spaces could damage the heritage fabric. Art pieces and sensitive materials might be affected by excessive lighting.
• Tactile indicators and signage requirements: installation of tactile indicators and signage as per the standard’s requirements might cause destruction to the fabric such as floors, stairs, walls, etc.
• Air ventilation/control and acoustics: the building’s interior might be affected by enhancing the air ventilation and acoustics to accommodate those with functional or cognitive disabilities.

This review reveals that the era style of construction, which forms part of the building’s heritage significance, is the cause of the accessibility barriers. Moreover, decision-making committees have traditionally granted exemptions from accessibility requirements subjectively, considering factors like undue hardship, cost, and number of beneficiaries. In Canada, has the ad hoc approach to decision-making been objective and practical while maintaining a balance between accessibility and heritage preservation? To answer this question, an experimental program, which includes various heritage buildings and participants with diverse abilities, was developed to identify the “true” barriers and corresponding root causes.

4. Experimental Investigations

A team comprising engineering students, technical advisors, and participants with lived experiences identified as individuals with physical, sensory, and cognitive/intellectual disabilities was entrusted to survey the accessibility features of heritage buildings across Canada. Each participant selected two buildings with heritage designation, documented their “true” accessibility experiences as they navigated the buildings, and proposed recommendations to reduce accessibility barriers. It should be noted that the participants were asked to assess only the buildings’ accessibility features and not to conduct an accessibility and/or heritage audit. Additionally, two members from the McMaster University team, who have received accessibility training at the Rick Hansen Foundation, were asked to survey four heritage buildings previously surveyed by people with cognitive/intellectual disabilities.

Eighteen heritage buildings across Canada, including two buildings representing “First Nations in Canada”, were surveyed and documented [39]. For the consistency and completeness of the evaluation, a site survey protocol was developed and provided to the participants. The protocol includes the following steps:

• Step 1—identify the historical significance of the building and list the character-defining elements, if designated by the Canadian Register of Historic Places (CRHP).
• Step 2—determine whether the building has undergone any accessibility renovations.
• Step 3—refer to the CSA B651 accessibility standard to become acquainted with relevant accessibility requirements.
• Step 4—prepare a schematic of the building for documentation.
• Step 5—conduct a site visit and identify any accessibility barriers.
• Step 6—assess the causes of the accessibility barriers.
• Step 7—prepare a summary report.

The list of the surveyed buildings is presented in

Table 1. List of surveyed historical sites [39].

Name	Year Built	Location	Primary Use	Participant’s Type of Disability
Her Majesty’s/St. Paul’s Chapel of the Mohawks National Historic Site of Canada	1785	Brantford, Ontario	Religious Facility or Place of Worship	Intellectual/Developmental
Province House	1811–1819	Halifax, Nova Scotia	Government Legislative Building	Vision
Chiefswood National Historic Site of Canada	1853–1856	Six Nations Grand River Reserve, Ontario	Museum	Intellectual/Developmental
Art Gallery of Nova Scotia	1861–1868	Halifax, Nova Scotia	Art Museum	Vision
The Cundall Home	1877	Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island	Museum/Historic Site	Physical
Victoria City Hall National Historic Site of Canada	1878–1891	British Columbia	Government City Hall	Physical
Le Labo retail store, Gastown Historic District National Historic Site of Canada/Granville Townsite	1886–1914	Vancouver, British Columbia	Historic Neighbourhood/Suburb	Hearing
Tacofino taco bar, Gastown Historic District National Historic Site of Canada/Granville Townsite	1886–1914	Vancouver, British Columbia	Historic Neighbourhood/Suburb	Hearing
Gulf of Georgia Cannery National Historic Site of Canada	1894–1964	British Columbia	Museum/ Historic Site	Physical
Calgary Old City Hall	1907–1911	Calgary, Alberta	Government City Hall	Intellectual/Developmental
Winnipeg Law Courts National Historic Site of Canada	1912–1916	Winnipeg, Manitoba	Government City Hall	Intellectual/Developmental
Manitoba Legislative Assembly	1913–1920	Winnipeg, Manitoba	Government Legislative Building	Intellectual/Developmental
Pacific Central Station—Canadian National Railways/VIA Rail Station	1917	Vancouver, British Columbia	Historic or Interpretive Site	Intellectual/Developmental
University Hall—McMaster University	1930	Hamilton, Ontario	University Building	Intellectual/Developmental
Hamilton Hall—McMaster University	1930	Hamilton, Ontario	University Building	Intellectual/Developmental
Calgary Public Building	1930–1931	Calgary, Alberta	Government Office Building	Intellectual/Developmental
Vancouver City Hall	1935–1936	Vancouver, British Columbia	Government City Hall	Intellectual/Developmental
Charlottetown Library Learning Centre, Dominion Building	1955	Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island	Public Library	Physical

. Subsequently, each building was analyzed independently to identify the root causes of accessibility barriers encountered by the participants with lived experiences while acknowledging the uniqueness and historical significance of the building. The accessibility barriers were categorized as conflict between accessibility and heritage preservation, accessibility standard compliance, or accessibility standard clarity/specificity. A summary of the barriers reported by the participants is presented next. Details pertaining to the participants’ reports and surveyed heritage buildings can be found in Chidiac et al. [39].

4.1. Barriers Due to Conflict Between Accessibility and Heritage Preservation

This section provides a summary of the accessibility barriers that can solely be attributed to the conflict with heritage preservation. The corresponding accessibility standard clauses are provided for reference.

• Some spaces do not provide enough manoeuvring areas for mobility devices, hindered by original pipes and machinery. CSA/ASC B651:23 clause 4.1 specifies a minimum manoeuvring area for mobility devices.
• Some hallways are narrow and pose a barrier to manoeuvre with mobility devices. CSA/ASC B651:23 clause 4.1 provides the clear floor area required to accommodate users with wheeled mobility devices.
• The washrooms do not have enough space to accommodate individuals with powered-mobility devices. The original washroom layout impedes adjusting its dimensions. CSA/ASC B651:23 clause 6.2.2 provides the manoeuvring clear floor area in washroom facilities.
• The original doors are very narrow. CSA/ASC B651:23 clause 5.2.1 mandates a clear opening width of 860 mm.
• The original door handles are round-style knobs and require fine motor skills and twisting of the wrist to operate. CSA/ASC B651:23 clause 5.2.7.1 recommends using lever handles or push plate/door pull (U-shaped handles).
• The original high thresholds at doorways pose a physical barrier to navigating with mobility devices. CSA/ASC B651:23 clause 5.2.6 mandates thresholds not to be more than 13 mm.
• The original stairs are steep and poorly designed with inadequate handrails and closely spaced treads. CSA/ASC B651:23 clause 5.4 provides detailed requirements for accessible stairs.
• The absence of elevators or elevators that do not serve all floors poses a challenge to navigate the site. Installing elevators in heritage buildings can be challenging without affecting the heritage fabric.
• The building is only accessible via stairs with no ramps provided at all entrances. This poses a challenge for individuals with mobility impairments, particularly when elevators are not provided as an alternative.
• The original seats are very narrow. CSA/ASC B651:23 clause 6.7.1.1 specifics the clear floor area for seating space.
• The poor acoustics generate echo in a large volume of space. CSA/ASC B651:23 clause 4.7.3 recommends designing a sound-controlled environment.

4.2. Barriers Due to Heritage Preservation and/or Standard Compliance

A summary of the barriers that are potentially due to heritage preservation but mainly due to compliance with the accessibility standards was compiled along with the corresponding accessibility standard clause.

• The stairs are poorly maintained and lack tactile attention indicators and handrails. This barrier does not meet the CSA/ASC B651:23 clause 5.4 stairs requirements.
• The stairs lack colour contrast and tactile surface indicators. This barrier does not meet the CSA/ASC B651:23 clause 5.4 stairs requirements.
• The public washroom facilities are inaccessible due to the limited space to accommodate mobility devices. This barrier does not meet CSA/ASC B651:23 clause 6.2 washroom facilities requirements.
• The signs are poorly designed, dark, and hard to locate. This barrier does not meet CSA/ASC B651:23 clause 4.6 signage requirements and clause 4.6.5 which requires the level of illumination on signs to be at least 200 lx.

4.3. Barriers Due to Accessibility Standard Compliance or Specificity

Barriers attributed to accessibility standard compliance were reported by most participants. Some of the accessibility standard clauses are found to lack specificity which could be problematic and lead to accessibility barriers. The list below summarizes both findings along with the corresponding accessibility standard clause.

• The accessible ramp to access the building is very long. CSA/ASC B651:23 clause 5.5.1 requires a horizontal distance between the ramp’s level landings no greater than 9000 mm.
• The main entrance or washroom doors are not power-assisted and hard to open manually. CSA/ASC B651:23 clause 5.2.8 recommends the use of a power-assisted door if a force greater than 22 N is required to open a door.
• The stairs lack colour contrast and have a slippery surface. CSA/ASC B651:23 clauses 5.4.1 and 5.4.2 provide the requirements for stairs treads, risers, and nosing.
• The carpets on the stairs have a busy pattern that disorients an individual with a visual impairment. CSA/ASC B651:23 clause 5.4.1 recommends avoiding busy patterns on stairs.
• There were no colour-contrasted strips on the glazing doors. CSA/ASC B651:23 clause 5.2.10 mandates marking glazed panels with a continuous opaque strip.
• There were no accessible washroom facilities on every floor. CSA/ASC B651:23 is not specific about the number of washrooms in the building.
• There were no seating options with armrests. CSA/ASC B651:23 clause 6.7.2.2 requires providing a mix of seats, where there is more than one, i.e., some with backrests, some with armrests, and some with both.
• The lighting was poor in the main spaces of the building, making it hard to read signs or distinguish between major features. CSA/ASC B651:23 is not specific on the level of illumination in the general areas of a building. However, clause 4.6.5 requires the signage illumination to be at least 200 lx.
• Signs throughout the site are poorly designed or non-existent, posing difficulties in navigation/wayfinding. CSA/ASC B651:23 clause 4.6 provides signage requirements.

5. Analysis and Discussion

The heritage buildings’ survey reports and the literature have revealed the challenges and complexity of harmonizing heritage preservation and accessibility. The results showed that the barriers are not solely due to conflict between accessibility and heritage preservation but also to other contributing factors such as lack of clarity/specificity in the accessibility standard and/or compliance with the standard requirements as documented in

Table 2. Summary of barriers reported by people with and without disabilities.

Type of Disability	Barriers to Accessible Heritage Buildings
	Causes	Number	Total Number	Total/Buildings
Physical	Heritage preservation	4	27	9
	Standard compliance	21
	Standard clarity	2
Sensory—vision	Heritage preservation	9	35	18
	Standard compliance	21
	Standard clarity	5
Sensory—hearing	Heritage preservation	5	28	14
	Standard compliance	17
	Standard clarity	6
Cognitive/intellectual	Heritage preservation	14	135	14
	Standard compliance	64
	Standard clarity	57
Accessibility-trained people	Heritage preservation	14	85	21
	Standard compliance	38
	Standard clarity	33

. A breakdown of the causes, shown in Figure 7, reveals that 19% of the total barriers per building stem from conflicts between accessibility and heritage preservation, while 64% arise from standard compliance being the major contributor regardless of the type of disability. Arguments for standard compliance often arise from financial constraints and undue hardship considerations. The standard clarity/specificity pertaining to the needs of people with sensory and cognitive disabilities contributed to 17% of the total barriers, as it often leaves the standard requirements open to interpretations.

An interesting observation is the percentage of barriers attributed to the standard clarity by people with sensory and cognitive/intellectual disabilities in comparison to people with physical disabilities. This finding reflects the maturity of the standard in clearly addressing the accessibility needs of people with physical disabilities compared to people with other disabilities. Table 2 shows that the total number of barriers normalized by the number of buildings visited is the largest for trained professionals, followed by people with sensory, cognitive, and then physical disabilities. Regardless of the causes, the normalized number of barriers shows a ratio of four to one reported by people with a sensory disability compared to people with a physical disability, and a ratio of two to one reported by people with a cognitive/intellectual disability compared to people with a physical disability. This finding reveals that the experiences of people with varying abilities while accessing and enjoying heritage buildings are not the same. People with sensory disabilities are found to encounter the most accessibility barriers. Notably, trained people who received accessibility training without lived experience with disabilities identified more barriers per building in comparison to people with disabilities. However, the results from the ANOVA single-factor test revealed that the observed differences between the groups’ means are not statistically significant. This implies that, statistically, the documented causes of barriers for all groups are not dependent on people’s varying abilities.

By further categorizing the barriers shown in Figure 7 into physical, sensory, and cognitive, as illustrated in Figure 8, a trend was observed among the participants suggesting that people tend to recognize best the barriers that most directly impact them. For instance, people with physical disabilities identified 64% of the total barriers as physical, with the remaining 36% affecting people with sensory and cognitive barriers. Of interest was the percentage of physical barriers identified by people with sensory disabilities, cognitive disabilities, and trained people, as their results are roughly the same, ranging between 28% and 38%. Moreover, people with physical disabilities are found to be less aware of the accessibility barriers for people with other types of disabilities. Another interesting finding is the accessibility barriers identified by people with sensory disabilities, being vision and hearing. Those with visual impairments have identified 28%, 36%, 19%, and 16% of the accessibility barriers for people with physical, visual, hearing, and cognitive disabilities, respectively, whereas those with hearing impairment have identified 38%, 38%, 14%, and 10% of the accessibility barriers for people with physical, visual, hearing, and cognitive disabilities, respectively. This indicates that people with hearing disabilities often have better navigation experiences than those with visual impairments. For the people with cognitive/intellectual disabilities, they identified 30%, 20%, 9%, and 42% of the accessibility barriers for people with physical, visual, hearing, and cognitive disabilities. These results indicate that people with disabilities, in general, can identify the physical barriers, as they are the most apparent, with people with physical disabilities being slightly more attuned to these challenges. In comparison, the accessibility barriers facing people with cognitive/intellectual disabilities are mostly identified by people with cognitive/intellectual disabilities. This finding shows that apparent barriers, such as physical ones, are more identifiable by all individuals compared to less visible accessibility barriers encountered by people with cognitive/intellectual disabilities. The same deduction applies to accessibility-trained people. Another interesting finding is that individuals with visual and hearing disabilities experienced different levels of accessibility barriers. People with visual disabilities have identified the barriers that impact them as the highest percentage, followed by people with physical disabilities, whereas those with hearing disabilities have 14% of the total accessibility barriers impacting their access. The finding was tested using an ANOVA single-factor statistical test. The results revealed that, statistically, the differences observed in the means are statistically significant. This confirms that people with varying abilities experience accessibility barriers differently.

The results of Figure 8 were further dissected to assess the accessibility barriers identified by people with cognitive/intellectual disabilities and trained professionals. The findings, derived from the same four buildings, shown in Figure 9, reveal that the accessibility barriers faced by people with cognitive/intellectual disabilities are not easily detected even by accessibility-trained professionals. People with cognitive/intellectual disabilities are more attuned to their needs and aware of the apparent barriers facing those with physical and visual disabilities. All these findings are reflected in the development state of the current accessibility standards and accessibility retrofit practices.

Comparing the barriers reported by people with disabilities to the list of potential conflicts identified in Section 3, one observes no correlations. The list shows that about 60% of the potential conflicts between accessibility and preservation of heritage will impact the accessibility of people with physical impairment, with the remaining 30% to 40% adversely impacting the accessibility of people with sensory and cognitive impairments. This finding demonstrates that (a) the conflicts are not the main contributors to accessibility and (b) perceived barriers by trained professionals can differ from “true” barriers identified by people with disabilities.

6. Conclusions

This study aims to identify the ‘true” barriers that prevent people from accessing and enjoying heritage buildings and quantify the percentage of these “true” barriers that stem from conflicts between preserving heritage and accessibility. The literature review, the survey of heritage buildings by people with and without disabilities, and the analysis and discussion of the data yielded the following conclusions:

• Accessibility standards, which are continuously evolving, do not meet the needs of all people with disabilities, specifically people with sensory and cognitive/intellectual disabilities. It is found to lack clarity, specificity, and completeness.
• Accessibility barriers identified in Canada’s heritage buildings include entrances and doors, stairs, building layout, lighting, acoustics, seating, floor areas and dimensions, and washroom facilities. A significant number of them can be mitigated by applying current accessibility standard requirements.
• Conflicts between accessibility and heritage preservation constitute about 19% of the “true” barriers in comparison to issues associated with code compliance and code clarity.
• A total of 19%, 17%, and 64% of reported “true” barriers per heritage building were attributed to conflict between accessibility and heritage preservation, accessibility standard clarity/specificity, and accessibility standard compliance, respectively.
• A total of 16%, 39%, and 45% of reported “perceived” barriers per heritage building by accessibility-trained people were attributed to the conflict between accessibility and heritage preservation, accessibility standard clarity/specificity, and accessibility standard compliance, respectively.
• The needs of people with cognitive/intellectual disabilities are the least addressed and understood by accessibility codes and standards and accessibility-trained professionals.

This study assumes that the experiences of people with disabilities and the accessibility barriers encountered in Canadian heritage buildings are universal and, therefore, can be applied worldwide. Moreover, the results of this study are based on a small sample of professional people with disabilities. Although the findings are found consistent and logical, more studies are needed for confirmation and to guide the development of accessibility standards.