Periodic Reporting for period 4 - InclusivePublicSpace (Inclusive Public Space: Law, Universality and Difference in the Accessibility of Streets)
Période du rapport: 2023-07-01 au 2025-06-30
This project explored legal and social justice problems associated with city streets in which environments or interactions exclude or disadvantage pedestrians who are disabled or older people or carers, focusing on India, Kenya, the Netherlands, the UK and the US. It had three main objectives:
Objective 1 – Experiential: To advance understanding of the causes and impact of exclusion.
Objective 2 – Legal: To advance understanding of how law is, and could be, used to make public space more inclusive.
Objective 3 – Perceptual: To advance understanding of whether and why exclusionary public space is regarded as a minority issue and to foster greater awareness and solidarity.
Re Objective 1, interviewees identified overlapping and inter-connecting factors as exclusionary, including barriers arising from physical infrastructure (including poor design or maintenance) and interactions with other road-users, such as drivers, cyclists, other pedestrians or even animals. Some were long-standing – eg poorly maintained, obstructed or missing footpaths; the prioritisation of vehicular traffic; obstructive parking and vegetation; inadequate or inaccessible crossing infrastructure; cambered streets and steep gradients; high kerbs with limited ramped access points; footpaths at the same height as carriage-ways with insufficient tactile markings; crowds; poor lighting; litter, dirt and slippery surfaces; and hostile attitudes or lack of awareness. There were also newer challenges - eg, in the Netherlands and the UK in particular- initiatives to increase cycling which failed adequately to embed considerations of accessibility for pedestrians. The impact of exclusionary streets was affected by factors such as impairment type and severity, poverty and gender.
Re Objective 2, there were explicit accessibility requirements in several project countries – and, in all, implicit accessibility requirements in other types of law (eg on equality,; planning, traffic, crime and negligence. There were significant problems of enforcement and implementation in all countries but some promising initiatives.
Re Objective 3, we developed three main types of output to help raise awareness and build solidarity: short documentaries, virtual reality films, and guides (underpinned by relevant law) aimed both at road-users wishing to minimise exclusion and at people excluded or injured by relevant barriers.
Objective 1 – Experiential: To advance understanding of the causes and impact of exclusion.
Objective 2 – Legal: To advance understanding of how law is, and could be, used to make public space more inclusive.
Objective 3 – Perceptual: To advance understanding of whether and why exclusionary public space is regarded as a minority issue and to foster greater awareness and solidarity.
Re Objective 1, interviewees identified overlapping and inter-connecting factors as exclusionary, including barriers arising from physical infrastructure (including poor design or maintenance) and interactions with other road-users, such as drivers, cyclists, other pedestrians or even animals. Some were long-standing – eg poorly maintained, obstructed or missing footpaths; the prioritisation of vehicular traffic; obstructive parking and vegetation; inadequate or inaccessible crossing infrastructure; cambered streets and steep gradients; high kerbs with limited ramped access points; footpaths at the same height as carriage-ways with insufficient tactile markings; crowds; poor lighting; litter, dirt and slippery surfaces; and hostile attitudes or lack of awareness. There were also newer challenges - eg, in the Netherlands and the UK in particular- initiatives to increase cycling which failed adequately to embed considerations of accessibility for pedestrians. The impact of exclusionary streets was affected by factors such as impairment type and severity, poverty and gender.
Re Objective 2, there were explicit accessibility requirements in several project countries – and, in all, implicit accessibility requirements in other types of law (eg on equality,; planning, traffic, crime and negligence. There were significant problems of enforcement and implementation in all countries but some promising initiatives.
Re Objective 3, we developed three main types of output to help raise awareness and build solidarity: short documentaries, virtual reality films, and guides (underpinned by relevant law) aimed both at road-users wishing to minimise exclusion and at people excluded or injured by relevant barriers.
Law and Policy Reports
For each of the five project countries, we completed an extensive law and policy analysis, available on the Project website. These cover law at national, state and city levels; a range of policy contexts (eg disability, older people, transport, planning and equality); and various types of law (eg constitutional, human rights, equality, tort, criminal and traffic law). These informed our interviews, particularly with stakeholders, and provided the basis for our awareness-raising guides discussed below.
Fieldwork
Across the five project countries, we interviewed 278 pedestrians about exclusionary experiences in two selected cities per country; and 119 stakeholders who engaged with problems of inaccessible streets as lawyers, policy-makers, planners or activists/influencers. Because of COVID, these interviews took place online or by phone rather than in person. We also worked with interested pedestrian participants to produce film footage of exclusionary environments and interactions.
Film Production
First, we produced a set of short documentaries for each project country. Most highlight specific thematic concerns (eg poor drainage, parking on pavements) identified as priorities by interviewees.Footage is of streets selected by interviewees, often including images of them. Quotes from interviews are incorporated. City-focused films (covering several themes) were made for Mombasa and Nairobi in response to interviewee requests.
Second, we produced a set of virtual reality films for each country. These are filmed either from the perspective of one of our pedestrian participants, or from that of a person walking close behind them.
Awareness-Raising Guides
For each country we created two types of guide, underpinned by relevant law and shaped by the interview data. One is aimed at disabled pedestrians encountering accessibility barriers; and the other at people using or occupying street spaces interested in more inclusive practice.
Dissemination
We held public lectures in each country, as well as in-person workshops with participants, focusing on disseminating and discussing emerging findings. We have also disseminated our work through a dedicated IPS final conference in Leeds; and papers at conferences in many other countries (eg Ireland, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Norway) and to international online audiences. Further we have published in open access journals, academic and lay; and established an impactful website.
For each of the five project countries, we completed an extensive law and policy analysis, available on the Project website. These cover law at national, state and city levels; a range of policy contexts (eg disability, older people, transport, planning and equality); and various types of law (eg constitutional, human rights, equality, tort, criminal and traffic law). These informed our interviews, particularly with stakeholders, and provided the basis for our awareness-raising guides discussed below.
Fieldwork
Across the five project countries, we interviewed 278 pedestrians about exclusionary experiences in two selected cities per country; and 119 stakeholders who engaged with problems of inaccessible streets as lawyers, policy-makers, planners or activists/influencers. Because of COVID, these interviews took place online or by phone rather than in person. We also worked with interested pedestrian participants to produce film footage of exclusionary environments and interactions.
Film Production
First, we produced a set of short documentaries for each project country. Most highlight specific thematic concerns (eg poor drainage, parking on pavements) identified as priorities by interviewees.Footage is of streets selected by interviewees, often including images of them. Quotes from interviews are incorporated. City-focused films (covering several themes) were made for Mombasa and Nairobi in response to interviewee requests.
Second, we produced a set of virtual reality films for each country. These are filmed either from the perspective of one of our pedestrian participants, or from that of a person walking close behind them.
Awareness-Raising Guides
For each country we created two types of guide, underpinned by relevant law and shaped by the interview data. One is aimed at disabled pedestrians encountering accessibility barriers; and the other at people using or occupying street spaces interested in more inclusive practice.
Dissemination
We held public lectures in each country, as well as in-person workshops with participants, focusing on disseminating and discussing emerging findings. We have also disseminated our work through a dedicated IPS final conference in Leeds; and papers at conferences in many other countries (eg Ireland, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Norway) and to international online audiences. Further we have published in open access journals, academic and lay; and established an impactful website.
Theoretical and Transdisciplinary
IPS work advances the state of the art by pioneering the crossing of conventional disciplinary boundaries. It intersects the broad interdisciplinary fields of Disability Studies, SocioLegal Studies, Urban Studies, Transport Studies and Mobility Studies. The Special Topic Issue, edited by Orchard and Lawson in 2024-5 and published by MDPI, includes articles in the Laws and Urban Studies journals. Also, our forthcoming book brings human rights and equality law scholarship into conversation with ‘mobility justice’ scholarship for the first time.
Objective 1
The focus of IPS empirical work on five countries advances the state of the art by providing a basis for comparative analysis of the experience of disabling pedestrian exclusion in both Global North and South cities. The depth of its qualitative data on this issue is groundbreaking. It provides the basis for novel thematic analysis, within and between cities, on (a) the extent of commonality of concerns between disabled pedestrians with different types of impairment, older pedestrians, and parent/carers walking through streets with young children; and (b) the impact of factors such as poverty, gender or impairment status on the experience of exclusionary pedestrian barriers.
Objective 2
IPS advances the state of the art by identifying and critiquing the nature and operation of multiple types of law relevant to the inclusion of disabled and older pedestrians. Its extensive empirical data on issues of access to justice and access to law in this context is highly original and valuable.
Objective 3
Our use of virtual reality to build political solidarity and generate momentum for social change pushes boundaries in various ways. VR has not previously been used to raise awareness of the nature and impact of accessibility barriers in streets. Further, our embedding of audio-description into the VR films makes them accessible to people with visual impairments who are generally excluded from VR experiences. We have had very positive feedback from disabled and non-disabled viewers alike and plan to work further on generating the impact and potential of VR in this context.
IPS work advances the state of the art by pioneering the crossing of conventional disciplinary boundaries. It intersects the broad interdisciplinary fields of Disability Studies, SocioLegal Studies, Urban Studies, Transport Studies and Mobility Studies. The Special Topic Issue, edited by Orchard and Lawson in 2024-5 and published by MDPI, includes articles in the Laws and Urban Studies journals. Also, our forthcoming book brings human rights and equality law scholarship into conversation with ‘mobility justice’ scholarship for the first time.
Objective 1
The focus of IPS empirical work on five countries advances the state of the art by providing a basis for comparative analysis of the experience of disabling pedestrian exclusion in both Global North and South cities. The depth of its qualitative data on this issue is groundbreaking. It provides the basis for novel thematic analysis, within and between cities, on (a) the extent of commonality of concerns between disabled pedestrians with different types of impairment, older pedestrians, and parent/carers walking through streets with young children; and (b) the impact of factors such as poverty, gender or impairment status on the experience of exclusionary pedestrian barriers.
Objective 2
IPS advances the state of the art by identifying and critiquing the nature and operation of multiple types of law relevant to the inclusion of disabled and older pedestrians. Its extensive empirical data on issues of access to justice and access to law in this context is highly original and valuable.
Objective 3
Our use of virtual reality to build political solidarity and generate momentum for social change pushes boundaries in various ways. VR has not previously been used to raise awareness of the nature and impact of accessibility barriers in streets. Further, our embedding of audio-description into the VR films makes them accessible to people with visual impairments who are generally excluded from VR experiences. We have had very positive feedback from disabled and non-disabled viewers alike and plan to work further on generating the impact and potential of VR in this context.