Multiple-Stakeholder Perspectives on Accessibility Data and the Use of Socio-Technical Tools to Improve Sidewalk Accessibility
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Disability and Accessibility in the Urban Setting
1.2. Accessibility Data
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Project Sidewalk
2.2. Workshops Participants
2.3. Data Collection
2.3.1. First Series of Workshops
2.3.2. Second Series of Workshops
2.3.3. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Participants
3.1.1. Perspectives on Accessibility Data, Crowdsourcing, and AI Tools
3.1.2. Usage of Accessibility Data and Tools
3.1.3. Management and Collection of Accessibility Data
3.1.4. Accuracy/Trust of Data and Tools
3.1.5. Access and Accessibility of Data and Tools
3.1.6. Second Phase of Workshops
4. Discussion
Limitations
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- World Health Organization. World Report on Disability. Available online: http://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/report.pdf (accessed on 22 November 2022).
- Okoro, C.A.; Hollis, N.D.; Cyrus, A.C.; Griffin-Blake, S. Prevalence of Disabilities and Health Care Access by Disability Status and Type Among Adults—United States. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2018, 67, 882–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lid, I.M.; Solvang, P.K. (Dis) ability and the experience of accessibility in the urban environment. ALTER—Eur. J. Disabil. Res./Rev. Eur. Rech. Handicap 2016, 10, 181–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shakespeare, T. The Social Model of Disability. In The Disability Studies Reader, 2nd ed.; Lennard, J.D., Ed.; Routledge: Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK, 2006; pp. 197–204. ISBN 978-0-4159-5334-4. [Google Scholar]
- Bigonnesse, C.; Mahmood, A.; Chaudhury, H.; Mortenson, W.B.; Miller, W.C.; Martin Ginis, K.A. The role of neighborhood physical environment on mobility and social participation among people using mobility assistive technology. Disabil. Soc. 2018, 33, 866–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Omura, J.D.; Hyde, E.T.; Whitfield, G.P.; Hollis, N.D.; Fulton, J.E.; Carlson, S.A. Differences in perceived neighborhood environmental supports and barriers for walking between US adults with and without a disability. Prev. Med. 2020, 134, 106065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Barclay, L.; McDonald, R.; Lentin, P.; Bourke-Taylor, H. Facilitators and barriers to social and community participation following spinal cord injury. Aust. Occup. Ther. J. 2016, 63, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Labbé, D.; Mahmood, A.; Seetharaman, K.; Miller, W.C.; Mortenson, W.B. Creating inclusive and healthy communities for all: A photovoice approach with adults with mobility limitations. Soc. Sci. Med. Qual. Methods 2022, 2, 100173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenberg, D.E.; Huang, D.L.; Simonovich, S.D.; Belza, B. Outdoor built environment barriers and facilitators to activity among midlife and older adults with mobility disabilities. Gerontologist 2012, 53, 268–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warner, G.; Desrosiers, J.; Packer, T.; Stadnyk, R. Factors affecting ability and satisfaction with social roles in persons with neurological conditions: The importance of mobility and stigma. Br. J. Occup. Ther. 2018, 81, 207–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levasseur, M.; Généreux, M.; Bruneau, J.F.; Vanasse, A.; Chabot, É.; Beaulac, C.; Bédard, M.M. Importance of proximity to resources, social support, transportation and neighborhood security for mobility and social participation in older adults: Results from a scoping study. BMC Public Health 2015, 15, 503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamraie, A. Mapping Access: Digital Humanities, Disability Justice, and Sociospatial Practice. Am. Q. 2018, 70, 455–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Imrie, R.; Luck, R. Designing inclusive environments: Rehabilitating the body and the relevance of universal design. Disabil. Rehabil. 2014, 36, 1315–1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Milligan, N.V.; Nieuwenhuijsen, E.R.; Grawi, C.L. Using a participatory action strategic approach to enhance accessibility and participation in arts and cultural events: Results of four focus groups. Disabil. Health J. 2014, 7, 105–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (1990). 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131–12134. Available online: https://www.ada.gov/law-and-regs/ada/ (accessed on 2 October 2023).
- Eisenberg, Y.; Heider, A.; Gould, R.; Jones, R. Are communities in the United States planning for pedestrians with disabilities? Findings from a systematic evaluation of local government barrier removal plans. Cities 2020, 102, 102720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferleger, D. Planning for Access: Sidewalks and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plan. Environ. Law 2012, 64, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Council on Disability. The Impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act: Assessing the Progress toward Achieving the Goals of the ADA. Available online: https://www.aucd.org/docs/ADA%20Impact%20Report.pdf (accessed on 2 October 2023).
- Stafford, L.; Baldwin, C. Planning Walkable Neighborhoods: Are We Overlooking Diversity in Abilities and Ages? J. Plan. Lit. 2018, 33, 17–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ai, C.; Tsai, Y. Automated Sidewalk Assessment Method for Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance Using Three-Dimensional Mobile Lidar. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2016, 2542, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deitz, S.; Lobben, A.; Alferez, A. Squeaky wheels: Missing data, disability, and power in the smart city. Big Data Soc. 2021, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levine, K.; Karner, A. Approaching accessibility: Four opportunities to address the needs of disabled people in transportation planning in the United States. Transp. Policy 2023, 131, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahmood, A.; O’Dea, E.; Bigonnesse, C.; Labbé, D.; Mahal, T.; Qureshi, M.; Mortenson, W.B. Stakeholders Walkability/Wheelability Audit in Neighbourhoods (SWAN): User-led audit and photographic documentation in Canada. Disabil. Soc. 2020, 35, 902–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prescott, M.; Miller, W.C.; Routhier, F.; Mortenson, W.B. Factors affecting the activity spaces of people who use mobility devices to get around the community. Health Place 2020, 64, 102375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eisenberg, Y.; Hofstra, A.; Berquist, S.; Gould, R.; Jones, R. Barrier-removal plans and pedestrian infrastructure equity for people with disabilities. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2022, 109, 103356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seekins, T.; Rennie, B.; Hammond, J. Exploring the Feasibility of Using “Google Street View” to Assess the Accessibility of Community Environments: Developing Definitions and Observational Protocol for Image Recognition and Classification. Environ. Contexts Disabil. 2014, 8, 123–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hara, K.; Sun, J.; Moore, R.; Jacobs, D.; Froehlich, J. Tohme: Detecting curb ramps in google street view using crowdsourcing, computer vision, and machine learning. In Proceedings of the 27th annual ACM symposium on User Interface Software and Technology UIST ‘14, Honolulu, HI, USA, 5–8 October 2014; Association for Computing Machinery: New York City, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 189–204. [Google Scholar]
- Hosseini, M.; Saugstad, M.; Miranda, F.; Sevtsuk, A.; Silva, C.T.; Froehlich, J.E. Towards Global-Scale Crowd+AI Techniques to Map and Assess Sidewalks for People with Disabilities. In Proceedings of the AVA: Accessibility, Vision, and Autonomy (CVPR 2022 Workshop), New Orleans, LA, USA, 19–24 June 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gibson, P.J.; Marshall, W.E. Disparate Approaches to Maintaining Roads and Sidewalks: An Interview Study of 16 U.S. Cities. Transp. Res. Rec. 2022, 2676, 553–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Froehlich, J.E.; Brock, A.M.; Caspi, A.; Guerreiro, J.; Hara, K.; Kirkham, R.; Schöning, J.; Tannert, B. Grand challenges in accessible maps. Interactions 2019, 26, 78–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saha, M.; Chauhan, D.; Patil, S.; Kangas, R.; Heer, J.; Froehlich, J.E. Urban Accessibility as a Socio-Political Problem: A Multi-Stakeholder Analysis. Proc. ACM Hum. -Comput. Interact. 2020, 4, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Terashima, M.; Clark, K. The Precarious Absence of Disability Perspectives in Planning Research. Innov. Dev. Urban Plan. Scholarsh. Res. 2021, 6, 120–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Korngold, D.; Lemos, M.; Rohwer, M. Smart Municipalities for All: A Vision for an Inclusive, Accessible Urban Future. AT&T. 2017. Available online: https://g3ict.org/publication/smart-cities-for-all-a-vision-for-an-inclusive-accessible-urban-future#:~:text=Accessible%2C%20Urban%20Future-,Smart%20Cities%20for%20All%3A%20A%20Vision,an%20Inclusive%2C%20Accessible%2C%20Urban%20Future&text=Smart%20cities%20aspire%20to%20use,as%20we%20lead%20our%20lives (accessed on 13 October 2023).
- Bolten, N.; Caspi, A. Towards routine, city-scale accessibility metrics: Graph theoretic interpretations of pedestrian access using personalized pedestrian network analysis. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0248399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eisenberg, Y.; Glover, J.; Winnick, A.; Berquist, S.; Abuwaer, N.; Casterjon, A. Where the Sidewalk Ends: The State of Municipal ADA Transition Planning for the Public Right-of-Way in the Chicago Region. 2021. Available online: https://www.metroplanning.org/uploads/cms/documents/ensemblemedia_mpc_adatransitionplanreport_compliant.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2023).
- Ørngreen, R.; Levinsen, K.T. Workshops as a research methodology. Electron. J. E-Learn. 2017, 15, 70–81. [Google Scholar]
- Saha, M.; Saugstad, M.; Maddali, H.T.; Aileen, Z.; Holland, R.; Bower, S.; Dash, A.; Chen, S.; Li, A.; Hara, K.; et al. Project Sidewalk: A Web-based Crowdsourcing Tool for Collecting Sidewalk Accessibility Data at Scale. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI ‘19, Glasgow, Scotland, UK, 4–9 May 2019; Association for Computing Machinery: New York City, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
- Bigham, J.P.; Ladner, R.E.; Borodin, Y. The design of human-powered access technology. In Proceedings of the 13th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility ASSETS’ 11, Dundee, Scotland, UK, 24–26 October 2011; Association for Computing Machinery: New York City, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 3–10. [Google Scholar]
- Santos, S.L.; Chess, C. Evaluating Citizen Advisory Boards: The Importance of Theory and Participant-Based Criteria and Practical Implications. Risk Anal. 2003, 23, 269–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zoom Video Communications Inc. Security Guide. Available online: https://explore.zoom.us/docs/doc/Zoom-Security-White-Paper.pdf (accessed on 13 October 2023).
- Archibald, M.M.; Ambagtsheer, R.C.; Casey, M.G.; Lawless, M. Using Zoom Videoconferencing for Qualitative Data Collection: Perceptions and Experiences of Researchers and Participants. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2019, 18, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsieh, H.F.; Shannon, S.E. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual. Health Res. 2005, 15, 1277–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (2022), Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology 3rd Edition. Available online: https://assets-002.noviams.com/novi-file-uploads/iteea/standards/xstnd.pdf (accessed on 13 October 2023).
- Peck, E.M.; Ayuso, S.E.; El-Etr, O. Data is personal: Attitudes and perceptions of data visualization in rural Pennsylvania. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI ‘19, Glasgow, Scotland, UK, 4–9 May 2019; Association for Computing Machinery: New York City, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Landry, R.; Amara, N.; Lamari, M. Climbing the ladder of research utilization evidence from social science research. Sci. Commun. 2001, 22, 396–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lid, I.M. Implementing universal design in a Norwegian context: Balancing core values and practical priorities. Disabil. Stud. Q. 2016, 36, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kadir, S.A.; Jamaludin, M.; Rahim, A.A. Building managers’ views on accessibility and UD Implementation in public buildings: Putrajaya. J. ASIAN Behav. Stud. 2018, 3, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lid, I.M. Universal design and disability: An interdisciplinary perspective. Disabil. Rehabil. 2014, 36, 1344–1349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Federal Highway Administration. Access for Individuals with Disabilities under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA Handbook; Federal Highway Administration: McLean, VA, USA, 2007; FHWA-HCR-07-002.
- Goodchild, M.F.; Li, L. Assuring the Quality of Volunteered Geographic Information. Spat. Stat. 2012, 1, 110–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, Z.T.; Johnson, P.A. Citizen and government co-production of data: Analyzing the challenges to government adoption of VGI. Can. Geogr./Géographe Can. 2020, 64, 374–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haklay, M. How good is volunteered geographic information? A comparative study of OpenStreetMap and Ordnance Survey datasets. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2010, 37, 682–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vlachokyriakos, V.; Crivellaro, C.; Le Dantec, C.A.; Gordon, E.; Wright, P.; Olivier, P. Digital civics: Citizen empowerment with and through technology. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI ‘16, San Jose, CA, USA, 7–12 May 2016; Association for Computing Machinery: New York City, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 1096–1099. [Google Scholar]
- Dickinson, J.; Díaz, M.; Le Dantec, C.A.; Erete, S. “The cavalry ain’t coming in to save us”: Supporting Capa Municipalities and Relationships through Civic Tech. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2019, 3, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dobransky, K.; Hargittai, E. The disability divide in internet access and use. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2006, 9, 313–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hennig, S.; Zobl, F.; Wasserburger, W.W. Accessible Web Maps for Visually Impaired Users: Recommendations and Example Solutions. Cartogr. Perspect. 2017, 88, 6–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Characteristics | PwML * (n = 11) | PwVL ** (n = 10) | Caregivers (n = 7) | ADA Coordinators and Urban Planners (n = 8) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age range | 18–39 | 5 | 6 | 1 | 3 |
40–49 | - | - | 3 | 3 | |
50–64 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2 | |
65–79 | 4 | - | - | - | |
Place of residence | Urban | 5 | 8 | 4 | - |
Suburban | 5 | 2 | 3 | - | |
Level of government | Local | - | - | - | 2 |
Region (within State) | - | - | - | 4 | |
State | - | - | - | 2 | |
Employment status | Full time (35+ h/week) | 3 | 3 | 3 | 8 |
Part time (up to 34 h/week) | 2 | 1 | 1 | - | |
Unemployed or retired | 6 | 6 | 3 | - | |
Assistive device | Cane(s) | 2 | 2 | - | - |
Crutches | 2 | - | - | - | |
Walker | 2 | - | - | - | |
Manual Wheelchair | 1 | - | - | - | |
Power Wheelchair | 7 | - | - | - | |
Scooter | - | - | - | - | |
Service dog | - | 2 | - | - | |
White cane | - | 9 | - | - | |
Other (e.g., screen reader) | 1 | 1 | |||
Primary mode of transportation | Personal vehicle (as passenger) | 7 | 3 | - | - |
Walk or wheel | - | - | - | - | |
Paratranasit/dial-a-ride | 2 | 1 | - | - | |
Ride share app (Uber/Lyft) | - | 1 | - | - | |
Local transit (bus, train) | 2 | 4 | - | - | |
Use of website or app for route planning & wayfinding | Direction websites (Google maps) | 7 | 1 | - | - |
Navigation apps for people with visual limitations | - | 6 | - | - | |
Organization completed an ADA transition plan | - | - | - | 5 | |
Organization has collected Public-Right-Of-Way data | - | - | - | 3 | |
Organization has used crowdsourced data | - | - | - | 4 |
Topics Discussed | Content |
---|---|
Usage of Accessibility data and tools | Purposes varies depending on the users |
Current use of accessibility tools | |
Management and Collection of Accessibility data | Centralization of accessibility data with other infrastructure information |
Right amount of data | |
Responsibility of data collection | |
Accuracy/Trust of Data and Tools | Having access to updated data |
Accuracy affected by data collector | |
Limitations of crowdsourcing and AI | |
Access and Accessibility of Data and Tools | Issues with technology of tools |
Accessibility of the online data collection tools | |
Public access to the data |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Labbé, D.; Eisenberg, Y.; Snyder, D.; Shanley, J.; Hammel, J.M.; Froehlich, J.E. Multiple-Stakeholder Perspectives on Accessibility Data and the Use of Socio-Technical Tools to Improve Sidewalk Accessibility. Disabilities 2023, 3, 621-638. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities3040040
Labbé D, Eisenberg Y, Snyder D, Shanley J, Hammel JM, Froehlich JE. Multiple-Stakeholder Perspectives on Accessibility Data and the Use of Socio-Technical Tools to Improve Sidewalk Accessibility. Disabilities. 2023; 3(4):621-638. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities3040040
Chicago/Turabian StyleLabbé, Delphine, Yochai Eisenberg, Devon Snyder, Judy Shanley, Joy M. Hammel, and Jon E. Froehlich. 2023. "Multiple-Stakeholder Perspectives on Accessibility Data and the Use of Socio-Technical Tools to Improve Sidewalk Accessibility" Disabilities 3, no. 4: 621-638. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities3040040