Accessibility of public buildings in the United States: a cross-sectional survey

Abstract

Despite existing revised legislation on the accessibility of public buildings in the United States, people with disabilities continue to experience barriers that limit their participation and engagement in the context of the community. This researcher developed, cross-sectional survey study, explored trends in accessing public buildings, accessibility problems encountered, and approaches for accessing information and resources for accessibility of specific buildings among people with disabilities (n = 109). Respondents largely reported on accessibility barriers encountered in communal spaces and how having prior knowledge of accessibility may have influenced their plans to access the community. Despite having knowledge that accessibility guidelines exist, a majority of respondents were not particularly familiar with how to retrieve this information and reported interest in web- and mobile-based technology to locate and share accessibility information. This study highlights how people with disabilities experience accessibility challenges and the implications for web-based resources to provide accessibility information.

Points of interest

• This article highlights that despite legislation to improve accessibility, many public buildings continue to not be accessible creating major barriers to community living in persons with disabilities.

• Persons with disabilities are largely unaware of how to locate information about the accessibility of public buildings in the community.

• Persons with disabilities believe that acquiring accessibility information about buildings before planning an outing would be beneficial.

• Accessing information about the accessibility of public buildings through websites or apps appear to be an approach that people with disabilities are interested in using in their everyday life.

• Persons with disabilities are interested in sharing comments and ratings about the accessibility of public buildings.

Keywords:

• Universal design
• self-help devices
• smartphone
• mobile applications
• disabled persons
• architectural accessibility

Introduction

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD; UN General Assembly 2007) was intended to be an international instrument for human rights where people with disability are viewed as being capable of claiming rights, making life decisions, and being active contributing members of society. It recognizes the existence of widespread environmental barriers due to the inaccessibility of public buildings, transportation infrastructure, and information and communication services. The CRPD recommends that parties take reasonable measures, such as providing public signage in Braille and easy-to-read and understandable forms, integrating inclusive design approaches for accessible information and communication, and ensuring facilities and services provided to the general public consider the needs of persons with disabilities (UN General Assembly 2007). The foundational principles were modelled after the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), though the Convention was never ratified in the United States. Although the ADA includes guidelines for accessibility in the United States, inaccessible buildings remain a key issue for people living with disabilities who desire to fully access and participate in their communities (e.g. Hammel et al. 2015; Jenkins, Yuen, and Vogtle 2015; Rosenberg et al. 2013).

People with disabilities are an under-recognized population who experience disparities (Krahn, Walker, and Correa-De-Araujo 2015). Furthermore, it is well-recognized that environmental factors are a social determinant of health (Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion 2021) that can negatively influence health, participation, and quality of life outcomes (e.g. Kashif et al. 2019; Iezzoni 2011; Withers and Speight 2017). With nearly 26% of Americans living with some type of disability (CDC 2020), the inaccessibility of buildings in the context of the community may be a significant contributor to this major public health problem. Not participating or engaging in communities may lead to negative health and quality of life outcomes as this relationship has been suggested as cyclical (Hammel et al. 2015; Satariano et al. 2016; Whiteford 2000).

All people, regardless of disability status, deserve the right to access and participate in their community as they desire. A major issue in our society is that disability is often framed as a problem in need of a solution (Tichkoskly and Michalko 2012). Addressing barriers in the built environment are necessary to meet the needs of people with disabilities; however, it is not a one-size-fits-all solution. For instance, Bichard (2018) highlights several articles focused on inclusive design. She calls consideration toward how an inclusive approach; albeit meant to consider the needs of most individuals, can be a ‘detriment’ to others. For example, Bichard (2020) describes how tactile paving can support mobility for people with low vision and inadvertently create barriers to mobility in older adults and those who use mobility aids. It is critical to understand the complexity of inclusion (Bichard 2018, 2020).

People with disabilities are frequently limited due to environmental barriers. For instance, a systematic literature review (Bigonnesse et al. 2018) revealed that for people with mobility impairments, multiple physical environmental factors negatively influenced mobility and social participation. Although public building accessibility is one facet of community barriers faced by people with disabilities, it is important to consider effective approaches toward enhancing community engagement and participation. Empowerment through knowledge and resources is one approach to contemplate as fully accessible communities, albeit critical, will require significant resources to bring to fruition. Empowerment has been described as a value, a goal in health promotion, and a prerequisite for health (Cyril, Smith, and Renzaho 2016; Wallerstein 2006). Although empowerment theory has been studied across domains, empowerment in health promotion may be particularly relevant to accessibility issues faced by people with disabilities. Laverack and Labonte (2000) describe empowerment in health promotion as taking a bottom-up approach, which may ‘support the community in the identification of issues which are important and relevant to their lives and enable them to develop strategies to resolve these issues.’ The positive impact of empowerment and knowledge on health outcomes and facilitation of decision-making has been demonstrated in several studies (e.g. Camerini, Schulz, and Nakamoto 2012). However, we are unaware of any studies that examine knowledge or empowerment specific to the accessibility of public buildings through the lens of people with disabilities as the consumer. Furthermore, the voices of people with disabilities continue to be lacking in the literature, particularly as it relates to experiences with accessibility in the context of the community. Therefore, this survey study sought to explore trends in accessing public buildings, accessibility problems encountered and approaches for accessing information and resources for accessibility of specific buildings among persons with disabilities.

Research process

Research design and study population

This cross-sectional survey study was approved by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Institutional Review Board. All participants self-reported disability or responded on behalf of someone with a disability. Participants were excluded if they reported being <18 years of age. The questionnaire was distributed to a local independent living centre (ILC) in Wisconsin that posted the study in a state-wide newsletter and distributed it to contacts, ILCs, and building accessibility experts. If respondents agreed to complete the survey, they independently indicated their consent on a web-based study information page before being directed to the survey. Data were collected using a researcher-developed questionnaire.

Instrument

A brief 23-item questionnaire was developed based on a review of existing literature. The conceptual foundation of the questionnaire was Person-Environment-Occupation (PEO; Law et al. 1996) which describes how the complex interaction between person, environment, and occupation elements facilitate engagement and participation. PEO assumes each element interacts continuously across time and space in ways that increase or diminish people’s ability to meet their goals. We built upon this theory by adding additional questions on knowledge which is often overlooked in accessibility. The questionnaire included 22 closed-ended question items with opportunities to expand with an option for an ‘other’ response designation. The questionnaire also included one open-ended item. It was specifically designed to examine trends in accessing public buildings, accessibility problems encountered, and approaches for accessing information and resources for accessibility of specific buildings among persons with disability.

The content of the questionnaire was developed by a team with more than 30 years of combined experience related to the assessment of buildings for accessibility, including familiarity with the ADA Accessibility Guidelines and existing instruments that evaluate architectural accessibility. The intended population that the questionnaire was designed for was any person living with a disability in the United States and it was carefully constructed as to not discriminate between disability or impairment types. Any person that met the inclusion criteria was eligible to complete the questionnaire. The tool was created using Qualtrics software and was designed to be self-administered via a URL link on any computer, tablet, or smartphone with a browser. Following trial and feedback by other staff in a research centre who were unfamiliar with the survey questionnaire, but had expertise in usability and software accessibility, the developing team reviewed and made modifications to improve flow, language, and content. Refer to Supplemental Online Material to view the core content of the survey.

Data analysis

Quantitative data were analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 25; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Descriptive statistics were used to calculate frequencies and percentages. Responses were not required for each question. Data were analysed using responses received.

One open-ended question was used in the survey and was analysed qualitatively. The question stated, ‘Please share with us the worst experience you have had with a building being inaccessible, for whatever reason.’ Data were analysed using a qualitative descriptive approach (Colorafi and Evans 2016). Initial hand coding was completed by two investigators (SB and RM) integrating a first level approach to identify concepts and categories. The investigators met and reached a consensus on the developed codes. Second level line-by-line coding was then completed by SB and RM. A codebook was developed by SB which further defined each theme’s inclusion by detailing the definition of the (1) theme (2) inclusion criteria, (3) exclusion criteria, (4) typical exemplars, (5) atypical exemplars, and (6) spoken examples that were close to fitting inclusion but did not meet all criteria. Codes and themes were reviewed and confirmed by RS. The research team maintained an audit trail of decisions during analysis which included emergent codes, reflective notes, and primary and secondary coding logs.

Results

Characteristics of study participants

The survey was initiated 183 times. The total number of respondents who completed the survey in its entirety was 109. This included the demographic questions and qualitative elements of the survey. Respondents who completed the demographics questions (N = 121) were primarily female (n = 80, 66.1%), while 27.6% were males (n = 32.2) and 1.7% preferred not to answer (n = 2) the sex demographic question. Respondents reported their race as White (N = 101, 85.6%), Black or African American (n = 9, 7.6%), Asian (n = 1, 0.8%), mixed (n = 3, 2.5%), and other (n = 4, 3.4%). The age of respondents ranged from 24 to 84 with a mean age of 53.85 years.

Accessing public buildings

Of the people with disabilities who responded to our survey, 96% reported that they go to public buildings at least sometimes. In fact, when asked about the frequency of going to public buildings, 57% (n = 57) reported very often, 24% (n = 24) reported fairly often, 15% (n = 15) reported sometimes, and 4% (n = 4) reported not very often. 70.4% (n = 69) percent of respondents reported that they have arrived at a building only to realize they could not access that building. Of the respondents, 60.4% (n = 58) reported that they were prevented from accomplishing their intended task at the building due to an environmental barrier.

Respondents also answered questions about the importance of knowing about the accessibility of a building before planning a visit. When asked if knowing if a building was accessible beforehand would have changed their plans, 69.1% (n = 67) reported yes, 7.7% (n = 7) reported maybe, and 23.7% (n = 23) reported no. When asked if knowing if knowledge about the building accessibility would help with planning activities better, 59.8% (n = 58) reported definitely, 16.5% (n = 16) reported somewhat, 10.3% (n = 10) reported a little, 5.2% (n = 5) reported not at all, and 8.2% (n = 8) reported being unsure. Only 16.5% (n = 16) of respondents did not think it was important to know if an accessible bathroom was available while 9.3% (n = 9) reported it was slightly important, 14.4% (n = 14) reported it was moderately important, 22.7% (n = 22) reported it was very important, and 37.1% (n = 36) reported it was extremely important.

Familiarity with ADA guidelines

Respondents answered questions about how familiar they were with existing ADA Guidelines and if they are aware of how they can retrieve information related to ADA Accessibility Guidelines. When asked about their familiarity with ADA guidelines, 20.2% (n = 20) were extremely familiar, 21.2% (n = 21) were very familiar, 40.4% (n = 40) were moderately familiar, 16.2% (n = 16) were slightly familiar, and 2% (n = 2) were not familiar. When asked if they were aware of a way to retrieve ADA Accessibility Guideline information about a building, 15.2% (n = 15) reported definitely yes, 23.2% (n = 23) reported probably yes, 11.1% (n = 11) reported might or might not, 36.4% (n = 36) reported probably not, and 14.1% (n = 14) reported definitely not.

Using web-tools to locate information on accessibility

Respondents to the survey answered questions related to locating information about the accessibility of public buildings using computers or smart devices, websites, or apps to locate information about the accessibility of public buildings. Ninety-eight percent of respondents reported that they had access to a computer or mobile device that had internet access. When asked if they would use an app designed to provide information about the accessibility of buildings, 43.9% (n = 43) reported definitely yes, 27.6% (n = 27) reported probably yes, 10.2% (n = 10) reported probably not, 3% reported definitely not (n = 3), and 15.3% (n = 15) were not sure. Seventy-one percent reported probably or definitely being interested in using an app designed to provide accessibility information about buildings. Although there was a documented respondent interest in accessibility information, only 13% reported being familiar with websites or apps that provide this service. Furthermore, respondents were definitely (29%) or probably (37%) interested in sharing comments and ratings on the accessibility of public buildings. Lastly, when given the choice between receiving generic or personalized accessibility information from an app, >50% of respondents preferred generic information.

In summary, respondents reported going to public buildings and as many as 70% have experienced being unable to access the building after arriving. If they were able to access the building about 60% were unable to accomplish their intended tasks. Having the knowledge about accessibility before venturing to the building would have been at least somewhat supportive in planning activities better in about 76% of respondents while nearly 70% would have changed their plans altogether. Less than half of respondents were very or extremely familiar with ADA guidelines and less than half were at least probably aware of how to access accessibility information. While about 82% of people were unfamiliar with websites or apps that provide accessibility information about public buildings, >70% of people would be at least probably interested in using an app that provided this information.

Qualitative results

Sixty respondents provided examples of real-life barriers they encountered when attempting to access buildings in the community. Analysis of the qualitative data revealed shared perspectives presented as three major themes: (1) Disruption to community living, (2) Receipt of inaccurate information, and (3) Long-term consequences.

Disruption to community living

Our analysis revealed that people with disabilities may experience substantial difficulty participating in their community due to several factors including entrances, stairs, elevators, unclear signage, and characteristics of rural areas and historic architecture. Every person that responded detailed experiences that seemed to stop them in their tracks. Disrupted experiences described occurred in places, such as parks, hotels, libraries, stores, schools, and fire stations. Most problems seemed to abound in ingress with problems accessing or opening the front doors, although issues were reported in various areas of the buildings or spaces. One respondent stated,

My worst experience was in Savannah, Georgia, in the old district. Given the number of buildings granted to be “historic” in nature, there was an almost complete lack of accessibility to any of the shops. At most, I was able to enter two businesses.

This concern was echoed among other respondents who described old and repurposed government buildings lacking most accessibility features and others who described areas where many people with mobility impairments may choose to not attempt to access the community at all given the high number of inaccessible buildings, particularly in rural areas and historic districts.

Other participants described problems with going to school, post offices, grocery shopping, and voting. For instance, one respondent stated,

[I had trouble] voting at a fire station that had locked its accessible entrance. The person I was with had to go inside an inaccessible door and have the workers open the garage door. If I had been alone, I wouldn’t have been able to vote.

Although the potential for a range of environmental barriers exists, some of the most common problems were experienced when steps were present at the entrance, signage, and directions were unclear, elevators were non-existent or malfunctioning, and when bathrooms lacked accessibility features like wide doorways and grab bars. For instance, one respondent reported often needing to leave locations because the bathrooms lacked space for incontinence care, while another respondent described falling in the bathroom because grab bars were not present near a low toilet seat.

Receipt of inaccurate information

Respondents also described instances where they attempted to locate accessibility information ahead of time and were misinformed about the location being accessible. Each respondent detailed an experience they had where they attempted to access information on accessibility before venturing to the location but the inaccurate information made the experience more challenging or negative. This may have been due to employees lacking accurate knowledge or websites not providing accurate information. Websites for businesses also provided inaccurate information about accessibility. For example, one respondent described going on a date and being told there was an accessible entrance. Unfortunately, upon his arrival, an accessible entrance did not exist. Another respondent said,

My brother-in-law had ALS. He and his wife and I travelled to several national parks together. We secured “handicap accessible” hotel rooms. We ran into this barrier– at one hotel we could get his wheelchair in through the door to the room, but not into the bathroom. It is a very [sic] difficult process, he had to somehow swing from the door of the bathroom onto the toilet.

Another respondent described a similar experience,

I called ahead to a restaurant to ask whether it was accessible for wheelchairs. They said it was. I wheeled the two miles to the location to find only steps into the place. I phoned them to ask where the accessible entrance was and they said to meet them at the side door where there was a step of about 7 inches high. They came out and told me to “tip back in the chair,” a power wheelchair, and they would get me in. (They were going to lift the chair and me up into the building.) I told them “No way!” and left.

Being misinformed about the accessibility of a building was a major frustration among respondents who attempted to plan outings to minimize problems with access in the community.

Long-term consequence

People with disabilities discussed how difficulties with accessibility led to problems, such as losing appointments or careers, not feeling welcome, feeling humiliated, and giving up on attempting to access parts of the community. The majority of the examples involved employment or professional positions. People described problems like being removed from projects because they could not attend or were late to meetings, unable to perform at their best as they endured extreme challenges before presentations or meetings, or cases where it was essentially impossible to access the space needed. Respondents largely described these encountered problems as ultimately affecting opportunities like advancement in careers. For instance, one respondent described a time to address a community council meeting.

When we arrived, the accessible entrance (with an interior lift) was locked and there was no way to contact anyone inside the building (all activities were on the second floor). My co-worker entered the open door and walked up a flight of steps to where the lift was docked and rode the lift down to the “accessible” entrance in order to get me inside. We were later told that that door had to be kept locked so ‘undesirables’ wouldn’t wreck the lift.

Another respondent stated, ‘[The] elevators were broken and I could not do the steps. I was then removed from the project due to the task not being completed.’ Other respondents described situations where they never returned to a location after experiencing substantial trouble. For example,

I needed to visit a university disability resource office and it was located on the second floor of a building without an elevator. I have a spinal cord injury, can’t walk, and use a wheelchair so I was unable to access needed services. Needless to say, I didn’t feel welcome at the university and transferred the next semester.

Others described intense emotions when they were not able to access their community as desired.

[I] stayed at a hotel one time to see my brother in the Air Force. I told them I needed a handicap room. They said, “not a problem.” I brought along my own commode just in case. Thank God I did. They had no handicap rooms, I had to [sleep] in my chair, couldn’t get into the bed, couldn’t use their toilet, it was horrible.

Another respondent described an embarrassing experience when looking for an accessible entrance to a building,

Looking for an accessible entrance and not being able to find one is embarrassing and it confuses me as to why I and others with mobility issues who use accessible entrances would be embarrassed by a public buildings’ noncompliance with the ADA and the Rehab Act of 1973. [It] feel[s] incredibly foolish racing around a rather large building in the dark and never uncovering the hidden accessible entrance.

The respondents in this study recognized the barriers they encountered during everyday life in the context of the community. They discussed the importance of being able to access communal spaces and how major barriers can influence the desire to access and participate in the community.

Discussion

Findings from this survey study support the idea that people with disabilities encounter barriers to accessing the community as they desire. Our findings also suggest that having accurate knowledge about building accessibility before venturing into the community could prevent disruption to community living in persons with disabilities. Although people with disabilities are generally familiar with ADA Guidelines for building accessibility, our findings reveal that the clear majority are not aware of how to retrieve Accessibility Guideline information about buildings. Web-based tools may offer a readily available approach for accessing information about public building accessibility. Most people are not familiar with available websites or apps but would be interested in using an app to access generic information about the accessibility of public buildings. It is surprising that the sample did not prefer tailored accessibility information. We infer that this could be related to the hesitancy of sharing personal information online and may be unaware of useful personalized accessibility information formats.

Locating information about the accessibility of public buildings to anticipate barriers or identify buildings that are indeed accessible, is one potential solution for people with disabilities who desire to access the community. Our results show that accessibility information can be provided to people since nearly 82% of people with disabilities are unfamiliar with websites or apps that can provide accessibility information about public buildings. Unfortunately, professionals with expertise in topics, such as healthcare or disability may be providing the information or resources directly to the person with a disability or their caregiver. This approach, albeit helpful, may actually encourage dependence and unwittingly facilitate dependency on professionals instead of providing people with the tools to use themselves to locate this information. The consequence of this may result in people with disabilities and their caregivers relying on themselves to find their own information resources in complex systems flooded with relevant and irrelevant information.

Although web-based information on public building accessibility is available in some countries, these platforms are few and far between and have ongoing issues. For instance, the information that is presented may be generic or population-specific (e.g. mobility impairments), may be specific to certain regions or communities only, or rely solely on crowdsourced data which may not populate to the extent needed to be effective. Nonetheless, sourcing dynamic and actionable information in the form of a Digital Knowledge Ecosystem can be used to support decision-making and empower users (Ginige 2016). With the increased adoption and use of mobile technology, public buildings’ accessibility information can be incorporated into an open socio-technical system where people with disabilities or other stakeholders could access information before venturing into communal spaces. This is an empowerment-based intervention approach that leverages information and knowledge to facilitate an engaged and informed consumer, thus shifting the power to persons with disabilities to make informed decisions and plans when accessing the community. To address the possible limitations occurring within existing information platforms, development teams must consider more equitable and accessible approaches, such as incorporating tailored accessibility information and providing information that extends beyond siloed communities. If crowdsourcing information, teams must consider alternative approaches to building data. Our findings show that only 29% of people with disabilities would definitely contribute to sharing comments and ratings about the accessibility of public buildings. Data can be generated through various approaches and leveraging other stakeholders, such as building owners or professionals with expertise in accessibility may be needed. It is also important to further examine why people may not be interested in sharing their comments or ratings on building accessibility. We speculate that people who do not want to share this information may (1) always access the same buildings and not have a need for this type of platform or (2) enjoy the experience of venturing into the community and problem-solving approaches to use the space or advocating for accessibility needs. With this in mind, it is critical to remember that each person with a disability is unique and it is impossible to group into one perspective to fully understand the experience and preferences.

The accessibility of the information is critical. Although some information is available on the internet, the websites or apps must be accessible to people with various impairments and disabilities. Accessing the information beyond websites and apps must be prioritized. Not everyone has access to the internet or smartphones. Although our findings show that 96% of respondents had access to a computer or smartphone, this data may be misleading as a major limitation of this study is that it is a web-based survey and respondents most likely have access to these technologies. It is inherently important that this information also be available at alternative locations, such as libraries or government buildings.

Guidelines for accessibility in the United States were adopted in 1990, making it challenging to fully incorporate an inclusive design approach in every building in various communities. Only newly constructed buildings built after the adoption of ADA are required to comply with ADA standards and guidelines. Unfortunately, respondents to our survey discussed various encounters with accessibility barriers that discouraged future outings for them in the community. Lack of accessible building modifications in the community can have major implications for population health and the economy. Fletcher et al. (2015) describe a lack of enthusiasm for universal and inclusive design for buildings in the United States, while other concepts, such as environmental sustainability have exploded with interest. This is not unexpected, as sustainability is often incentivized by the federal government in the form of tax credits. Furthermore, the most recent UN Report (IPCC 2021) on climate change calls for immediate action to prevent human-induced climate change which may include a focus on sustainability and energy efficiency. Although this is undoubtedly important and a sense of urgency exists around this initiative, it is also critical that focus on accessibility as it relates to participation for all persons be met with the same equitable fervour. This is particularly pressing, considering the looming demographic shift sometimes referred to as the ‘greying of America’ where the American population is expected to have more older adults than children for the first time in US history by 2035 (Vespa, Armstrong, and Medina 2020).

Respondents shed light on long-term outcomes associated with lacking access to public buildings. In this study, respondents discussed how being unable to access public buildings have negatively impacted the ability to: excel in a career, engage in various organizations, socialize, travel, obtain an education, grocery shop, go to a post office, and even exercise the right to vote. Increased frustration and anger were underlying in most comments provided by the respondents in our study. All these factors may lead to a decrease in an individual’s self-efficacy and sense of worth and are in direct violation of providing individuals with disabilities with an equal opportunity to participate and direct their own lives.

Characteristics of the built environment are associated with disability indicating the need for accessible spaces and infrastructure improvements (Danielewicz, d’Orsi, and Boing 2018). This may be particularly problematic for people with disabilities if they are unable to live in desirable locations with newer and more accessible buildings which may be due to affordability concerns (Burns et al. 2021). Specifically, relationships between neighbourhood deprivation and accessibility of places have been examined with some findings suggesting that disadvantaged groups may have lower accessibility in their areas than advantaged groups which further perpetuates social inequities (Li et al. 2019). Recognizing the benefits of participation and community engagement on well-being and quality of life (e.g. Rogers et al. 2011; White et al. 2016), it is of great significance to address public building accessibility to ensure equitable access to communal spaces for people with disabilities. Although we did not specifically seek to examine deprivation and moderators of equitable access to the community among the sample of respondents, future research should further explore this relationship to advance potential interventions for people with disabilities in disadvantaged neighbourhoods or communities.

Limitations

Although this survey offers important information on the accessibility of public buildings for persons with disabilities, it is not without limitations. A direct contact approach was not used, and the electronic survey likely had non-response bias and may involve an underrepresentation of people with disabilities who may not be able to access the internet or have greater severity of impairments limiting the use of the electronic survey. Respondents were not required to answer any questions within the survey. The sample of respondents was primarily white and female, with most respondents residing in the State of Wisconsin, limiting the generalization of the findings. Unfortunately, the survey itself did not prompt the collection of ethnicity data. The survey was cross-sectional and therefore cannot directly evaluate causal or time-based relationships. Lastly, we did not collect data on pre-disability participation or if the disability was congenital or acquired, which limits our analysis of behavioural patterns of community engagement. Despite the limitations of survey studies, the findings from this study can be used to support intervention development across settings for persons with disabilities who face accessibility barriers in the community. Additional studies with other methods of inquiry are needed.

In conclusion, this study sheds light on how people with disabilities experience accessibility challenges in public buildings in the United States. Our study revealed that survey respondents largely encountered accessibility barriers, did not know how to locate accessibility information about specific buildings, and would be interested in using web-based technology to locate information on accessibility before making plans in the community. These findings provide guidance on potential web-based interventions to improve knowledge on building accessibility and empower community participation.

Acknowledgements

We thank Lauren Selingo, Mason Drake, Laryn O’Donnell, and Qussai Obiedat for their support on this project within the UW-Milwaukee R2D2 Lab. We also thank the people with disabilities who contributed to this study by completing the survey.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The work of the Access Rating for Buildings project was supported by a grants from the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research, NIDILRR/NIDIRR grant numbers H133G100211 and 90IFDV0006. NIDILRR is a Center within the Administration for Community Living (ACL), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The contents of this work do not necessarily represent the policy of NIDILRR, ACL, HHS, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.