(Dis)ability and the experience of accessibility in the urban environment

Alter

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 181-194

  Lid, Inger Marie ^a   Solvang, Per Koren ^a  

^a OSLO METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY   (Norway)

Author keywords

Accessibility; Biopsychosocial perspective; CRPD; Universal design; Urban environment

Indexed keywords

AMBIVALENCE; CITY; CONFERENCE PAPER; CRUTCH; DISABILITY; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SOCIAL INTERACTION; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; URBAN AREA; WALKING; WHEELCHAIR;

EID: 84950327028     PISSN: 18750672     EISSN: 18750680     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.alter.2015.11.003     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (45)

1. Alvesson, M., Sköldberg, M. (2009). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. London: Sage.
2. Anvik, C. H. (2009). Embodied spaces in the making: visually impaired people, bodies and surroundings. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 11(2), 145-157.
3. Bickenbach, J. E. (2012). Ethics, law and policy. Sage: Thousand Oaks.
4. Bickenbach, J. E., Chatterji, S., Badley, E. M., Üstün, T. B. (1999). Models of disablement, universalism and the international classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps. Social Science and Medicine, 48(9), 1173-1187.
5. Butler, R., Bowlby, R. (1997). Bodies and spaces: An exploration of disabled people's experiences of public space. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 15, 411-433.
6. Campbell, F. K. (2009). Contours of ableism. The production of disability and abledness. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
7. Castrodale, M., Crooks, V.A. (2010). The production ofdisability researchin human geography:An introspective examination. Disability and Society, 25(1), 89-102.
8. De Certeau, M. (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
9. Edwards, C., Harold, G. (2014). DeafSpace and the principles of universal design. Disability, Rehabilitation, 36(16), 1350-1359.
10. Engel, G. L. (1977). The need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine. Science, 196(4286), 129-136.
11. Garland-Thomson, R. (2009). Staring. How we look. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. Gehl, J. (2006). Life between buildings: Using public space. Copenhagen: Danish Architectural Press.
13. Gibson, B. E. (2014). Parallels and problems of normalization in rehabilitation and universal design: Enabling connectivities. Disability, Rehabilitation, 36(16), 1328-1333.
14. Goodley, D. (2011). Disability Studies. An interdisciplinary introduction. London: Sage.
15. Gray, D. B., Gould, M., Bickenbach, J. E. (2003). Environmental barriers and disability. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 20(1), 29-37.
16. Heylighen, A. (2008). Sustainable and inclusive design: A matter of knowledge? Local Environment, 13(6), 531-540.
17. Heylighen, A. (2012). Inclusive built heritage as a matter of concern: a field experiment. In P. Langdon, P. Langdon, et al. (Eds.), Designing Inclusive systems. London: Springer-Verlag.
18. Heylighen, A., Van Doren, C., Vermeersch, P. (2013). Enriching our understanding ofarchitecture through disability experience. Open House International, 38(1), 7-19.
19. Hammond, V., Musselwhite, C. (2013). The attitudes, perceptions and concerns of pedestrians and vulnerable road users to shared space: A case study from the UK. Journal of Urban Design, 18(1), 78-97.
20. Hsieh, H., Shannon, S. (2005). Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
21. Imrie, R. (2004). Demystifying disability: A review of the International Classification of Functioning and Health. Sociology of Health and Illness, 26(3), 287-305.
22. Imrie, R., Kumar, M. (2010). Shared Space and sight loss. Policies and practices in English Local Authorities. Thomas Pocklington Trust.
23. Imrie, R., Lucks, R. (2014). Designing inclusive environments: Rehabilitating the body and the relevance of universal design. Disability and Rehabilitation, 36(16), 1315-1319.
24. Imrie, R., Hall, P. (2001). Inclusive design: Designing and developing accessible environments. London: Taylor, Francis.
25. Iwarsson, S., Ståhl, A. (2003). Accessibility, usability and universal design-positioning and definition of concepts describing person-environment relationships. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25, 57-66.
26. Koch, T. (2005). The Ideology of Normalcy: The Ethics of Difference. Journal of Disability and Policy Studies, 16, 123-129.
27. Kriegel, L. (2004). Beloved enemy: a cripple in the crippled city. In R. O'Brien (Ed.), Voices from the edge (pp. 121-136). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28. Kvale, S., Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Los Angeles: Sage.
29. Lefebvre, H. (1996). Writings on cities. Malden: Blackwell.
30. Lid, I. M. (2014). Universal Design and disability: An interdisciplinary perspective. Disability and Rehabilitation, 36(16), 1344-1349.
31. Lid, I. M. (2013). Developing the theoretical content in Universal Design. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 15(3), 203-215.
32. Moser, I. (2000). Against normalisation: Subverting norms of ability and disability. Science as Culture, 9(2), 201-240.
33. Nijs, G., Daems, A. (2012). And what if the tangible were not and vice versa? On boundary works in everyday mobility experience of people moving into old age: for Daisy (1909-2011). Space and Culture, 15(3), 186-197.
34. Nussbaum, M. C. (2004). Hiding from Humanity: Disgust, Shame and the Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
35. Nussbaum, M. C. (2006). Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
36. Parkin, J., Smithies, N. (2012). Accounting for the needs of blind and visually impaired people in public realm design. Journal of Urban Design, 17(1), 135-149.
37. Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Elam, G. (2003). Designing and Selecting Samples. In J. Ritchie, J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative Research Practice. A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers (pp. 77-108). London: Sage.
38. Sanford, J. A. (2012). Universal design as a rehabilitation strategy. New York: Springer.
39. Sayer, A. (2011). Why things matter to people: Social science, values and ethical life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40. Shakespeare, T. (2006). Disability rights and wrongs. London: Routledge.
41. Solvang, P. (2000). The emergence of an us and them discourse in disability theory. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 2(1), 3-20.
42. Steinfeld, E., Maisel, J. (2012). Universal design: Creating inclusive environments. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.
43. Thomson, R. G. (1997). Extraordinary bodies: Figuring physical disability in American culture and literature. New York: Columbia University Press.
44. Tuan, Y. (1990). Topophilia: A study of environmental perceptions, attitudes and values. New York: Columbia University Press.
45. United Nations. (2007). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In United Nations Enable. http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?navid=12&pid=150