IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jdisab/v3y2023i4p40-638d1289105.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multiple-Stakeholder Perspectives on Accessibility Data and the Use of Socio-Technical Tools to Improve Sidewalk Accessibility

Author

Listed:
  • Delphine Labbé

    (Department of Disability and Human Development, University of Illinois-Chicago, Chicago, IL 60608, USA)

  • Yochai Eisenberg

    (Department of Disability and Human Development, University of Illinois-Chicago, Chicago, IL 60608, USA)

  • Devon Snyder

    (Department of Disability and Human Development, University of Illinois-Chicago, Chicago, IL 60608, USA)

  • Judy Shanley

    (Easterseals, Chicago, IL 60604, USA)

  • Joy M. Hammel

    (Department of Disability and Human Development, University of Illinois-Chicago, Chicago, IL 60608, USA
    Occupational Therapy Department, University of Illinois-Chicago, Chicago, IL 60608, USA)

  • Jon E. Froehlich

    (Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA)

Abstract

For people with disabilities, accessible pedestrian infrastructure can support independence, mobility, and improved quality of life. Yet, most pedestrian infrastructure presents barriers that impede movement. A major challenge for cities to improve pedestrian accessibility is the lack of reliable data on sidewalk accessibility. Little is known about the type of data needed for cities, as well as how different stakeholders perceive and use sidewalk data. Therefore, this study seeks to explore the perceptions of multiple stakeholders on the use, gathering, and application of sidewalk accessibility data. We conducted a series of workshops with 51 participants, including people with disabilities, caregivers, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) coordinators, and urban planners, to discuss sidewalk accessibility data and data collection tools. We used the socio-technological tool Project Sidewalk as an example. Participants identified various uses for the accessibility data such as route planning, barrier removal plans, and advocacy, and discussed issues of usability, trust, access, and accessibility of the data and tools. Our findings contribute to a better understanding of important factors that impact the use and application of accessibility data and how to implement accessibility data collection initiatives that utilize socio-technological approaches such as crowdsourcing.

Suggested Citation

  • Delphine Labbé & Yochai Eisenberg & Devon Snyder & Judy Shanley & Joy M. Hammel & Jon E. Froehlich, 2023. "Multiple-Stakeholder Perspectives on Accessibility Data and the Use of Socio-Technical Tools to Improve Sidewalk Accessibility," Disabilities, MDPI, vol. 3(4), pages 1-18, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jdisab:v:3:y:2023:i:4:p:40-638:d:1289105
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2673-7272/3/4/40/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2673-7272/3/4/40/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Susan L. Santos & Caron Chess, 2003. "Evaluating Citizen Advisory Boards: The Importance of Theory and Participant‐Based Criteria and Practical Implications," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 269-279, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Timothy C. Earle, 2004. "Thinking Aloud about Trust: A Protocol Analysis of Trust in Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 169-183, February.
    2. Brian Witt, 2019. "Evaluating the Effects of a Minimalist Deliberative Framework on the Willingness to Participate in a Payment for Ecosystem Services Program," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-26, June.
    3. Karen Bickerstaff & Gordon Walker, 2005. "Shared Visions, Unholy Alliances: Power, Governance and Deliberative Processes in Local Transport Planning," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 42(12), pages 2123-2144, November.
    4. Kieran C. O’Doherty & Michael K. MacKenzie & Dan Badulescu & Michael M. Burgess, 2013. "Explosives, Genomics, and the Environment," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(1), pages 21582440134, March.
    5. Jeffrey R. Masuda & Theresa Garvin, 2006. "Place, Culture, and the Social Amplification of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 437-454, April.
    6. Lucie Laurian, 2005. "Public Input in Toxic Site Cleanup Decisions: The Strengths and Limitations of Community Advisory Boards," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 32(3), pages 445-467, June.
    7. Katherine A. McComas & John C. Besley & Zheng Yang, 2008. "Risky Business: Perceived Behavior of Local Scientists and Community Support for Their Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1539-1552, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jdisab:v:3:y:2023:i:4:p:40-638:d:1289105. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.