Mapping review of accessible pedestrian infrastructures for individuals with physical disabilities

References

• World Health Organization. The World Bank. World report on disability. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011. p. 350.
   Google Scholar
• Emploi et Développement social Canada. Canadiens en contexte – Vieillissement de la population: Emploi et Développement social Canada; 2014. Available from: www4.rhdcc.gc.ca/[email protected]?iid=33.
   Google Scholar
• Rosso AL, Taylor JA, Tabb LP, et al. Mobility, disability, and social engagement in older adults. J Aging Health. 2013;25:617–637.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke PJ. The role of the built environment and assistive devices for outdoor mobility in later life. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2014;69(1):S8–S15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fougeyrollas P. La funambule, le fil et la toile. Transformations réciproques du sens du handicap. Québec, Canada: Les Presses de l’Université Laval; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva: WHO; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• McClain L, Cram A, Wood J, et al. Wheelchair accessibility – living the experience: function in the community. Occup Ther J Res. 1998;18:25–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fange A, Iwarsson S, Persson A. Accessibility to the public environment as perceived by teenagers with functional limitations in a south Swedish town centre. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24:318–326.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Law M. Muriel driver lecture -the environment: a focus for occupational therapy. Can J Occup Ther. 1991;58:171–180.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Letts L, Law M, Rigby P, et al. Person-environment assessments in occupational therapy. Am J Occup Ther. 1994;48:608–618.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tranter RT, Slater R, Vaughan N. Barriers to mobility: physically-disabled and frail elderly people in their local outdoor environment. Int J Rehabil Res. 1991;14:303–312.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McClain L, Medrano D, Marcum M, et al. A qualitative assessment of wheelchair users’ experience with ADA compliance, physical barriers, and secondary health conditions. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil. 2000;6:99–118.
   Google Scholar
• Shumway-Cook A, Patla A, Stewart AL, et al. Assessing environmentally determined mobility disability: self-report versus observed community mobility. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53:700–704.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deliot-Lefevre P. L’accessibilité des cadres bâtis, des lieux publics et des transports. Gérontol Soc. 2006;4:11–23.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper BA, Cohen U, Hasselkus BR. Barrier-free design: a review and critique of the occupational therapy perspective. Am J Occup Ther. 1991;45:344–350.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen MA, Tell EJ, Wallack SS. Client-related risk factors of nursing home entry among elderly adults. J Gerontol. 1986;41:785–792.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Debnam K, Harris J, Morris I, et al. Durham county socially isolated older adults: an action-oriented community diagnosis. Department of Health Behavior and Health Education. Chapel Hill (NC): University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Public Health; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Gill TM, Allore HG, Han L. Bathing disability and the risk of long-term admission to a nursing home. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2006;61A:821–825.
   Google Scholar
• Jette AM, Branch LG, Sleeper LA, et al. High-risk profiles for nursing home admission. Gerontologist. 1992;32:634–640.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markham JPG, Gilderbloom JI. Housing quality among the elderly: a decade of changes. Int J Aging Hum Dev. 1998;46:71–90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fomiatti R, Moir L, Richmond J, et al. The experience of being a motorised mobility scooter user. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2014;9:183–187.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gallagher BA, Hart PM, O’Brien C, et al. Mobility and access to transport issues as experienced by people with vision impairment living in urban and rural Ireland. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33:979–988.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vital signs: disability and physical activity — United States, 2009–2012: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2014 [cited 2015]. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6318a5.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Brownson RC, Hoehner CM, Day K, et al. Measuring the built environment for physical activity: state of the science. Am J Prevent Med. 2009;36:S99–123 e12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millington C, Ward Thompson C, Rowe D, et al. Development of the Scottish Walkability Assessment Tool (SWAT). Health Place. 2009;15:474–481.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett S, Kirby RL, Macdonald B. Wheelchair accessibility: descriptive survey of curb ramps in an urban area. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2009;4:17–23.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kerr J, Rosenberg DE. Walking route audit tool for seniors [WRATS] 2009 [2010–12–15]. Available from: http://activelivingresearch.org/walking-route-audit-tool-seniors-wrats.
   Google Scholar
• Keysor JJ, Jette AM, LaValley MP, et al. Community environmental factors are associated with disability in older adults with functional limitations: the MOST study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2010;65:393–399.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giesbrecht EM, Ripat JD, Cooper JE, et al. Experiences with using a pushrim-activated power-assisted wheelchair for community-based occupations: a qualitative exploration. Can J Occup Ther. 2011;78:127–136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoehner CM, Ivy A, Ramirez LKB, et al. Active neighborhood checklist: a user-friendly and reliable tool for assessing activity friendliness. Am J Health Promot. 2007;21:534–537.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations. Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities New York. 2006. Available from: http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml.
   Google Scholar
• United States Access Board. Americans with disabilities act and architectural barriers act accessibility guidelines. Washington (DC): United States Access Board; 2004. p. 1–310.
   Google Scholar
• Steinfeld E, Maisel JL. Universal design: creating inclusive environments. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Center for Universal Design. The principles of universal design, Version 2.0. Raleigh (NC): North Carolina State University; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Brownson RC, Chang JJ, Eyler AA, et al. Measuring the environment for friendliness toward physical activity: a comparison of the reliability of 3 questionnaires. Am J Public Health. 2004;94:473–483.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brownson RC, Hoehner M, Brennan LK, et al. Reliability of two instruments for auditing the environment for physical activity. J Phys Act Health. 2004;1:189–207.
   Google Scholar
• Cerin E, Saelens BE, Sallis JF, et al. Neighborhood environment walkability scale: validity and development of a short form. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38:1682–1691.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clifton KJ, Smith ADL, Rodriguez D. The development and testing of an audit for the pedestrian environment. Landsc Urban Plan. 2007;80:95–110.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dannenberg AL, Cramer TW, Gibson CJ. Assessing the walkability of the workplace: a new audit tool. Am J Health Promot. 2005;20:39–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emery J, Crump C, Bors P. Reliability and validity of two instruments designed to assess the walking and bicycling suitability of sidewalks and roads. Am J Health Promot. 2003;18:38–46.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee SM, Tudor-Locke C, Burns EK. Application of a walking suitability assessment to the immediate built environment surrounding elementary schools. Health Promot Pract. 2008;9:246–252.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gray DB, Hollingsworth HH, Stark S, et al. A subjective measure of environmental facilitators and barriers to participation for people with mobility limitations. Disabil Rehabil. 2008;30:434–457.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keysor J, Jette A, Haley S. Development of the home and community environment (HACE) instrument. J Rehabil Med. 2005;37:37–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirtland KA, Porter DE, Addy CL, et al. Environmental measures of physical activity supports: perceptions versus reality. Am J Prev Med. 2003;24:323–331.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cunningham GO, Michael YL, Farquhar SA, et al. Developing a reliable senior walking environmental assessment tool. Am J Prev Med. 2005;29:215–217.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pikora TJ, Bull FC, Jamrozik K, et al. Developing a reliable audit instrument to measure the physical environment for physical activity. Am J Prev Med. 2002;23:187–194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saelens BE, Frank LD, Auffrey C, et al. Measuring physical environments of parks and playgrounds: EAPRS instrument development and inter-rater reliability. J Phys Act Health. 2006;3:190–207.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Suminski RR, Heinrich KM, Poston WS, et al. Characteristics of urban sidewalks/streets and objectively measured physical activity. J Urban Health. 2008;85:178–190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Troped PJ, Cromley EK, Fragala MS, et al. Development and reliability and validity testing of an audit tool for trail/path characteristics: the path environment audit tool (PEAT). J Phys Act Health. 2006;3:158–175.
   Google Scholar
• Williams JE, Evans M, Kirtland KA, et al. Development and use of a tool for assessing sidewalk maintenance as an environmental support of physical activity. Health Promot Pract. 2005;6:81–88.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Spivock M, Gauvin L, Brodeur JM. Neighborhood-level active living buoys for individuals with physical disabilities. Am J Prev Med. 2007;32:224–230.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirchner CE, Gerber EG, Smith BC. Designed to deter. Community barriers to physical activity for people with visual or motor impairments. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34:349–352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boarnet MG, Day K, Alfonzo M, et al. The Irvine-Minnesota inventory to measure built environments: reliability tests. Am J Prev Med. 2006;30:153–159.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wennberg H, Hyden C, Stahl A. Barrier-free outdoor environments: older peoples’ perceptions before and after implementation of legislative directives. Transp Policy. 2010;17:464–474.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dejeammes M. Urban mobility plans and accessibility. J Transp Land Use. 2009;2:67–78.
   Google Scholar
• Institut Belge pour la Sécurité Routière. Service public fédéral Mobilité et Transports. Le code de la rue: La rue pour to us. Brussels, Belgium: Institut Belge pour la Sécurité Routière; 2005. p. 13.
   Google Scholar
• Government of United Kingdom. Inclusive Mobility. In: London Department for Transport, editor. London: London Department for Transport; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• USA. Department of justice Code of federal regulations: ADA standards for accessible design. 1994 [2010/09/28]. Available from: www.ada.gov/adastd94.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Transportation. Pedestrian design for accessibility within the public right-of-way. In: Administration FH, editor. Washington (DC): US Department of Transportation; 2009. p. 6.
   Google Scholar
• Commission de la capitale nationale. Guide des bonnes pratiques pour l’accessibilité aux espaces extérieurs. Ottawa, Canada: Commission de la capitale nationale; 2010. p. 183.
   Google Scholar
• CSA Group. Conception accessible pour l’environnement bâti. CSA G, editor. Mississauga (ON): CSA Group; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Commission canadienne des droits de la personne [Canadian Human Rights Commission]. Pratiques exemplaires de conception universelle à l’échelle internationale: examen général [International best practices in universal design]. Canada: Canadian Human Rights Commission; 2007. Available from: www.chrc-ccdp.ca/pdf/bestpractices_fr.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Br Med J. 2009;339:b2535.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26:91–108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Law M, Stewart D, Pollock N, et al. Guidelines for critical review form – Quantitative studies 1998 [cited 2014]. Available from: http://www.srs-mcmaster.ca/ResearchResourcesnbsp/ResearchGroups/CentreforEvidenceBasedRehabilitation/EvidenceBasedPracticeResearchGroup/tabid/630/Default.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• Letts L, Wilkins S, Law M, et al. Guidelines for critical review form: qualitative studies (version 2.0) 2007 [cited 2014]. Available from: http://www.srs-mcmaster.ca/ResearchResourcesnbsp/ResearchGroups/CentreforEvidenceBasedRehabilitation/EvidenceBasedPracticeResearchGroup/tabid/630/Default.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• Deenadayalan Y, Perraton L, Machotka Z, et al. Day therapy programs for adolescents with mental health problems: a systematic review. Int J Health Sci Pract. 2010;8:1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Alevandratos K, Barnett F, Thomas Y. The impact of exercise on the mental health and quality of life of people with severe mental illness: a critical review. Br J Occup Ther. 2012;75:48–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan-Jones B. Modern road crossing designs and visually impaired people. Proc Inst Civil Eng Munic Eng. 2001;145:185–190.
   Google Scholar
• Laakso M, Sarjakoski T, Sarjakoski LT. Improving accessibility information in pedestrian maps and databases. Cartographica. 2011;46:101–108.
   Google Scholar
• Lavery I, Davey S, Woodside A, et al. The vital role of street design and management in reducing barriers to older people’s mobility. Landsc Urban Plan. 1996;35:181–192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newton R, Ormerod M, Burton E, et al. Increasing independence for older people through good street design. J Integr Care. 2010;18:24–29.
   Google Scholar
• Nodin Y. Faciliter la ville aux personnes à mobilité réduite. Le Moniteur. 2006;5153:62–65.
   Google Scholar
• Norgate SH. Accessibility of urban spaces for visually impaired pedestrians. Municip Eng. 2012;165:231–237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearlman J, Cooper R, Duvall J, et al. Pedestrian pathway characteristics and their implications on wheelchair users. Assist Technol. 2013;25:230–239.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenberg DE, Huang DL, Simonovich SD, et al. Outdoor built environment barriers and facilitators to activity among midlife and older adults with mobility disabilities. Gerontologist. 2012;53:268–279.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharp S, Savill T. The pedestrian environment – user friendly or ‘no-go’ for blind and partially sighted people? 8th International conference on transport and mobility for elderly and disabled people. 1998 Sep; Perth, Australia: Indomed Pty. Ltd.; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Tomic S. Hamilton urban braille system: urban design for an aging society. Plan Can. 2003;43:41–43.
   Google Scholar
• York SL. Residential design and outdoor area accessibility. NeuroRehabilitation. 2009;25:201–208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amosun SL, Burgess T, Groeneveldt L, et al. Are elderly pedestrians allowed enough time at pedestrian crossings in Cape Town, South Africa? Physiother Theory Pract. 2007;23:325–332.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Barlow JM, Bentzen BL, Bond T. Blind pedestrian and the changing technology and geometry of signalized intersections: safety, orientation, and independence. J Vis Impair Blind. 2005;99:1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Bochsler TM, Legge GE, Gage R, et al. Recognition of ramps and steps by people with low vision. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54:288–294.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bollard E, Fleming H. A study to investigate the walking speed of elderly adults with relation to pedestrian crossings. Physiother Theory Pract. 2013;29:142–149.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brubaker CE, McLaurin CA, McClay IS. Effects of side slope on wheelchair performance. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1986;23:55–58.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Canale I, Felici F, Marchetti M, et al. Ramp length/grade prescriptions for wheelchair dependent individuals. Paraplegia. 1991;29:479–485.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cappozzo A, Felici F, Figura F, et al. Prediction of ramp traversability for wheelchair dependent individuals. Paraplegia. 1991;29:470–478.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Childs CR, Boampong DK, Morgan K, et al. Effective kerb heights for blind and partially sighted People. London: Civil, Environmental, and Geomatic Engineering of the University College of London; 2009. p. 1–30.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper RA, Molinero AM, Souza A, et al. Effects of cross slopes and varying surface characteristics on the mobility of manual wheelchair users. Assist Technol. 2012;24:102–109.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper RA, Wolf E, Fitzgerald SG, et al. Evaluation of selected sidewalk pavement surfaces for vibration experienced by users of manual and powered wheelchairs. J Spinal Cord Med. 2004;27:468–475.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallon C. Tactile surfaces in the pedestrian environment: experiments in wolver Hampton. Wokingham, UK: Transport Research Laboratory; 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Holloway C, Tyler N. A micro-level approach to measuring the accessibility of footways for wheelchair users using the capability model. Transp Plan Technol. 2013;36:636–649.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoxie RE, Rubenstein LZ. Are older pedestrians allowed enough time to cross intersections safely? J Am Geriatr Soc. 1994;42:241–244.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imrie R. Auto-disabilities: the case of shared space environments. Environ Plan A. 2012;44:2260–2277.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ishida T, Takemoto H, Ishida S, et al. Evaluation of sidewalk unevenness based on wheelchair travelling resistance. Transp Res Record. 2006;1956:68–75.
   Google Scholar
• Johansson M, Rosén M, Küller R. Individual factors influencing the assessment of the outdoor lighting of an urban footpath. Lighting Res Technol. 2011;43:31–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kockelman K, Zhao Y, Blanchard-Zimmerman C. Meeting the intent of ADA in sidewalk cross-slope design. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2001;38:101–110.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lemaire ED, O’Neill PA, Desrosiers MM, et al. Wheelchair ramp navigation in snow and ice-grit conditions. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91:1516–1523.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li Y, Hsu JA, Fernie G. Aging and the use of pedestrian facilities in winter-the need for improved design and better technology. J Urban Health. 2013;90:602–617.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parkin J, Smithies N. Accounting for the needs of blind and visually impaired people in public realm design. J Urban Design. 2012;17:135–149.
   Google Scholar
• Payne A. Spatial knowledge acquired by visually impaired users through change in footpath materials. The Ethical Design of Places, Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association. Raleigh (NC): North Carolina State University; 2009. p. 72–77.
   Google Scholar
• Sanford JA, Story MF, Jones ML. An analysis of the effects of ramp slope on people with mobility impairments. Assist Technol. 1997;9:22–33.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Savill TA, Gallon C, McHardy G. Delineation for cyclists and visually impaired pedestrians on segregated, shared routes. Wokingham, UK: Transport Research Laboratory; 1997. p. 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Schroeder BJ, Rouphail NM, Hughes RG. Working concept of accessibility: performance measures for usability of crosswalks by pedestrians with vision impairments. Transp Res Record. 2010;2140:103–110.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stahl A, Newman E, Dahlin-Ivanoff S, et al. Detection of warning surfaces in pedestrian environments: the importance for blind people of kerbs, depth, and structure of tactile surfaces. Disabil Rehabil. 2010;32:469–482.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas C. Briefing: minimum effective kerb height for blind and partially sighted people. Proc Inst Civil Eng Munic Eng. 2011;164:11–13.
   Google Scholar
• Vredenburgh AG, Hedge A, Zackowitz IB, et al. Evaluation of wheelchair users’ perceived sidewalk and ramp slope: effort and accessibility. J Archit Plan Res. 2009;26:145–158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker JM, Horton SA, Wright JM, et al. Walking velocities of older pedestrians at controlled crossings. Top Geriatr Rehabil. 1987;3:65–70.
   Google Scholar
• Wolf E, Cooper RA, Pearlman J, et al. Longitudinal assessment of vibrations during manual and power wheelchair driving over select sidewalk surfaces. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2007;44:573–580.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lid IM. Universal design and disability: an interdisciplinary perspective. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36:1344–1349.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morales E, Gamache S, Edwards G. Winter: public enemy #1 for accessibility exploring new solutions. J Accessibil Design. 2014;4:29–51.
   Google Scholar
• Phillips B, Ball C, Sackett D, et al. Levels of evidence. In: Jeremy Howick editor. Medicine CfE-b. Oxford, UK: Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Scott AC, Barlow JM, Guth DA, et al. Nonvisual cues for aligning to cross streets. J Vis Impair Blind. 2011;105:648–661.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al., The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar