1 Introduction
The Law of Barrier-Free Environment Construction of the People's Republic of China came into effect on September 1, 2023
[1], which designates the target group as individuals with disabilities, the elderly, and others with accessibility needs, legally guaranteeing the rights of social justice and landscape justice for mobility disadvantaged groups. It specifies the goal of universal environment construction, i.e., to facilitate safe and independent movement for people with disabilities and the elderly, enabling them to access buildings, use their facilities, utilize public transportation, communicate information, and receive social services. Scholars have noted that although handcycles, motorized wheelchairs, electric wheelchairs, and disabled-friendly vehicles assist the daily travels of mobility disadvantaged groups, current transport policies, infrastructure, and vehicle designs do not fully meet their needs
[2]. For example, the Law of the People's Republic of China on Road Traffic Safety classifies wheelchairs as "assistive devices" permitted only indoors and in specific hospital areas
①.
① The Law of the People's Republic of China on Road Traffic Safety stipulates that motorized wheelchair-cars for the disabled are non-motor vehicles that are allowed to be driven on roads after getting registered and licensed by the traffic administration department of public security agency; conveyances like electric wheelchairs and elderly scooters are not legally identified as non-motor vehicles and are not allowed to be driven on roads.
While legal scholars have focused on the rights of mobility disadvantaged groups in barrier-free access, priority, road use, and pedestrian traffic
[3]~[6], their studies largely remain at discussions on statutory rights, seldom addressing the challenges and problems in reality. Among existing research on the right of barrier-free access of mobility disadvantaged groups, some studies focus on the relationship between public awareness, physical environment, and right-of-way. Deficient public and institutional awareness of universal accessibility leads to physical environment defects, which prevents the realization of priority rights for people with disabilities
[5]. In terms of physical environment, researchers have examined the characteristics of barrier-free facilities using Kernel density analysis
[7], travel restrictions
[8], and spatial mismatches of barrier-free facilities at the community scale
[9]. Some scholars also argue that the goal of universal accessibility construction urgently needs to shift its emphasis from completion degree to availability
[10]. However, there is still a lack of explanation regarding the specific travel needs and travel characteristics of wheelchair users, with only a few scholars focusing on the travel characteristics of the disabled groups. For instance, from the perspective of social equity and inclusion, the proliferation of shared bicycles has solved the "last kilometer" travel issue for most people, but has not responded to the needs of those with lower limb disabilities
[11]. Furthermore, inadequate performance evaluation, lack of coordinated standards, and insufficient collaboration among implementing agencies have caused many traffic accidents
[12] and failed to resolve the issue of "barrier-free islands"
②[13].
② Barrier-free islands refer to the challenging reality of inadequate and unbalanced barrier-free environment construction caused by insufficient resource allocation, coordination, and mechanism guarantees (source: Ref. [
13]).
The emergence of electric wheelchairs, electric-traction wheelchair③, and other electric micro-mobility devices has stirred discussions on the barrier-free environment for mobility disadvantaged groups in aspects of industry standards, transportation regulations, and travel safety. Additionally, new devices such as IoT Inspector and portable panoramic cameras offer new methods for data collection on barrier-free environments. This study thus aims to focus on wheelchair users among mobility disadvantaged groups, utilizing smart sensing devices to record their travel data. By combining life logs and mapping workshops, this research seeks to create profiles of wheelchair users, analyze their travel preferences and travel barriers, and compare the bumpiness of different paving materials for sidewalks; then the study proposes strategies for creating a barrier-free urban environment, to further guarantee the rights of mobility disadvantaged groups.
③ At present there is no clear definition for electric-traction wheelchairs. Media and e-commerce platforms often use terms like "electric leading" or "electric traction" to describe the manual wheelchairs with added electric devices. The China Rehabilitation Assistive Devices Directory (2023 Edition) refers to such devices as manual wheelchairs with additional small electric tractions that can be used for low-speed travels indoors and outdoors, including on-road travels.
2 Research Methods and Data Collection
This study focuses on wheelchair users with lower limb disabilities residing in Beijing ("volunteers" hereafter). Their mobility devices include manual wheelchairs, electric wheelchairs, and electric-traction wheelchairs (collectively "wheelchairs" hereafter). Combining quantitative and qualitative research methods, this study investigated volunteers' travel modes, routes, and barrier-free accessibility needs.
The researchers recorded volunteers' daily travel data on both weekdays and weekends through life log surveys, including movement routes, types of spatial environments, and subjective experiences. Spatial data analysis was conducted on the types of destinations, travel preferences, and travel obstacles encountered. Additionally, through a mapping workshop, researchers and volunteers collaboratively created cartographic narratives to discuss the details of travel barriers. Given that the bumpiness of sidewalks significantly impacted volunteers' travel preference, the researchers further conducted a comparative analysis on the bumpiness of different paving materials for sidewalks. Based on quantitative and qualitative findings, improvement strategies for adaptive roads were proposed.
2.1 Volunteer Profile
In mid-August 2023, ten volunteers were recruited online, with five female and five male participants and 80% of them under the age of 35. All of the volunteers used wheelchairs due to limb or spinal cord injuries. Their mobility devices included five electric-traction wheelchairs, three manual wheelchairs, and two electric wheelchairs. Volunteers' professions included landscape architects, architects, e-commerce professionals, and software engineers (Tab.1).
Tab.1 Overview of the volunteers in this research |
| Volunteer No. | Gender | Age | Reason for using wheelchair | Wheelchair type | Occupation |
|---|
| A | Female | 28 | Spinal cord injury | Electric-traction | New media practitioner |
| B | Male | 32 | Spinal cord injury | Electric-traction | Medical practitioner |
| C | Male | 52 | Limb injury | Electric-traction | E-commerce practitioner |
| D | Female | 36 | Limb injury | Manual | Landscape architect |
| E | Female | 26 | Spinal cord injury | Electric-traction | E-commerce practitioner |
| F | Female | 28 | Spinal cord injury | Manual | Telemarketer |
| G | Male | 24 | Limb injury | Electric | Business agent |
| H | Male | 53 | Limb injury | Electric | Architect |
| I | Female | 34 | Spinal cord injury | Electric-traction | Foundation staff |
| J | Male | 23 | Limb injury | Manual | Software engineer |
2.2 Life Log Surveys
Volunteers were asked to do a life log survey on a weekday and a weekend day between August 26 and October 2, 2023 to record their daily travels. The sensing device used in the survey was the IoT Inspector, developed by UrbanXYZ (Patent No. 202322990046.X), which consists of panoramic photography and road surface sensing devices (Fig.1). The panoramic photography device, mounted at the rear of the wheelchair, includes sensors and a panoramic camera that can record the spatial environment from volunteers' perspective while protecting their privacy. The sensors trigger the camera to take a photo every 10 seconds, simultaneously recording the wheelchair's geological location. The road surface sensing device includes incline and vibration detectors that measure road incline and bumpiness along the travel routes; this device is easily attachable and detachable from the wheelchair using clamping and positioning components.
Fig.1 IoT inspection device. |
Full size|PPT slide
The life log data comprise panoramic photos, timestamps, geological coordinates, and textual data of volunteers' audio transcripts. The IoT Inspector collected 9, 261 panoramic photos, among which 6, 443 valid photos were retained after removing redundant and indoor images. The valid photos, along with the audio transcripts, were manually audited and tagged with categories of spatial type, road type, description of travel barriers, and barrier type (Tab.2). Bases on spatial coordinates, QGIS software was employed to statistically analyze and visualize the destination types, travel distances, road types, and barrier types.
Tab.2 Label categories in the travel log survey |
| Label category | Interpretation |
|---|
| Spatial type | Road/path |
| Indoor environment |
| Outdoor environment |
| Traffic conveyance |
| Road type | Sidewalk |
| Non-motor lane |
| Motor lane (including mixed traffic lane) |
| Description of travel barriers | Shared bikes parking, blocking wheelchair access |
| Pedestrian occupying non-motor lane |
| Motor vehicles parking, occupying non-motor lane |
| Non-motor vehicle is parking, occupying non-motor lane |
| Non-motor vehicles reversely running |
| Barrier-free compartment or wheelchair parking lot occupied |
| Disordered mixed traffic of motor and non-motor vehicles |
| No crosswalk or traffic lights |
| Entrance/exit bollards obstructing wheelchair access |
| Entrance/exit without wheelchair ramps, or constructed with substandard gradient or materials |
| Entrance/exit difficult to open |
| Elevation differences at sidewalk junctions |
| Pedestrian overcrossing without accessible elevators/ramps |
The researchers developed the UrbanXYZ–Panoramic Space data visualization platform, which automatically identifies features in the uploaded photos and links them with spatio-temporal information, supporting street view representation (Fig.2). This, combined with the records of volunteers' subjective experiences, can help identify details of travel obstacles.
Fig.2 Interface of UrbanXYZ–Panoramic Space data visualization platform. |
Full size|PPT slide
2.3 Mapping Workshop
In collaboration with Diversability Lab, a mapping workshop was held on October 15, 2023. Professionals or students of expertise in built environment design were invited as mappers, and public participants were recruited openly. Each mapping group included at least one volunteer, one mapper, and one public participant. Such a grouping was to increase the awareness of built environment professionals and the general public about travel barriers to the mobility disadvantaged group.
Before the workshop, the researchers demonstrated the route mapping by taking Volunteer E as an example. The visualization method of this mapping, referring to previous research
[14], was realized through group discussions upon panoramic photos, audio transcripts, and volunteers' narratives, and each volunteer's travel route was represented with photo collages (Fig.3). Descriptions of travel obstacles included details of spatial environment, public behaviors, and feedback on problem-solving experiences. The mapping approach was considered an interactive, dialogic, and reflective dynamic process to generate "situated knowledge"
[15] based on spatial cognitive narratives.
Fig.3 Mapping visualization: example of Volunteer E's travel route. |
Full size|PPT slide
2.4 Comparative Analysis on Bumpiness of Different Paving Materials for Sidewalks
Based on insights from the life logs and mapping workshop regarding sidewalk obstacles, it was found that the bumpiness significantly affected volunteers' preference for using non-motor lanes. To further probe to wheelchair users' right-of-way on non-motor lanes, a comparative analysis on the bumpiness of different paving materials for sidewalks was conducted.
After classifying the sidewalk paving materials recorded from the life logs, the researchers planned a survey route that covered all the paving materials types. Using the IoT Inspector, data of the acceleration and angular velocity in the x, y, and z axes were collected, and the bumpiness of each material was calculated as:
where accX, accY, and accZ represent the acceleration in the x, y, and z axes, respectively; gyroX, gyroY, and gyroZ represent the angular velocity in the x, y, and z axes, respectively; and result indicates the product of the vector magnitudes of acceleration and angular velocity, i.e., bumpiness.
A total of 622 photos of sidewalk paving materials and 234, 111 pieces of bumpiness results were collected from 20 road segments. The photos were matched with the bumpiness results. Given that the bumpiness recording frequency (every 0.025 ~ 0.033 seconds) was higher than that of the photography (every 10 seconds), the researchers manually audited and associated the data of paving materials with bumpiness results. The final dataset of 234, 111 bumpiness results, associated with paving material types, was used for the comparative analysis of the bumpiness across different paving materials.
3 Research Findings
3.1 Types of Travel Destinations
The results of life log surveys showed that volunteers' travel routes covered most districts in Beijing, including Dongcheng, Xicheng, Chaoyang, Fengtai, Haidian, Changping, Tongzhou, and Daxing. The types of travel destinations included traditional food markets, supermarkets, retail shops (e.g., restaurants, convenience stores, beverage shops), shopping malls, parks, office buildings, churches, and residential communities, encompassing nearly all types of urban public spaces (Fig.4). Apart from daily commuting destinations (i.e., residential communities and office buildings, accounting for 39.95% and 12.75%, respectively), markets (19.22%), parks (14.26%), and supermarkets (10.10%) were also frequently visited destinations.
Fig.4 Analysis of travel destination types. |
Full size|PPT slide
On weekdays, volunteers primarily traveled for commuting purposes, with an average travel distance of 8.52 km (minimum of 0.48 km, maximum of 32.80 km); 80% of travel distances were within 10 km, and 40% within 0.7 km. On weekends, the average travel distance was 35.47 km (minimum of 0.97 km, maximum of 95.78 km), generally exceeding weekday travel distances (Fig.5).
Fig.5 Analysis of travel distances on weekday and weekend. |
Full size|PPT slide
The volunteers were young and middle-aged wheelchair users with varied professions and diverse travel needs. Their primary mode of travel was wheelchair use, often combined with subway travel, making them representative of young and middle-aged mobility disadvantaged groups with ordinary work and daily travel demands.
3.2 Travel Preferences and Obstacles Types
The results of life log surveys showed that 62% of volunteers preferred to take non-motor lanes for travel, while 24% chose sidewalks and 14% chose motor lanes.
The main problems encountered on non-motor lanes included improper parking of motor vehicles (58.12%) and reverse running of non-motor vehicles (35.90%). Volunteers using sidewalks mainly faced improper parking of non-motor vehicles (31.46%) and elevation differences at sidewalk junctions (30.34%). Those using motor lanes largely encountered mixed traffic with non-motorized vehicles (62.31%) and parking obstructions (33.17%). The improper parking of vehicles and disordered mixed traffic made most volunteers take motor vehicle lanes, which led to more danger for wheelchair users who would be in vehicle blind spots (Tab.3).
Tab.3 Main travel barriers influencing volunteers' preference to different road types |
| Description of travel barriers | For volunteers taking non-motor lane | For volunteers taking sidewalk | For volunteers taking motor lane |
|---|
| Shared bikes parking, blocking wheelchair access | — | 31.46% | — |
| Motor vehicles parking, occupying non-motor lane | 58.12% | 16.85% | 33.17% |
| Non-motor vehicles parking, occupying non-motor lane | — | — | 1.76% |
| Non-motor vehicles reversely running | 35.90% | 2.25% | 2.76% |
| Disordered mixed traffic of motor and non-motor vehicles | — | 8.99% | 62.31% |
| No crosswalk or traffic lights | 2.56% | — | — |
| Entrance/exit without wheelchair ramps, or constructed with substandard gradient or materials | 1.71% | 8.99% | — |
| Entrance/exit difficult to open | — | 1.12% | — |
| Elevation differences at sidewalk junctions | 1.71% | 30.34% | — |
The most common obstacle type encountered was improper traffic behaviors (47.97%), followed by problems caused by inadequate construction of traffic facilities (42.50%) and barrier-free facility construction (9.53%). Improper traffic behaviors primarily involved improper occupancy, for example, non-motor vehicles parking on sidewalks or pedestrians walking on the non-motor lanes. Road facility issues were primarily due to mixed traffic on some minor lanes, making wheelchair users have to share lanes with motor vehicles, increasing safety risks. Issues caused by inadequate construction of barrier-free facilities included elevation differences, which were often caused by the staged access of residential buildings, missing or non-compliant wheelchair ramps, or substandard ramp materials (Tab.4).
Tab.4 Statistics of types of travel barriers |
| Barrier type | Description of travel barriers | Proportion |
|---|
| Improper traffic behaviors | Motor vehicles parking, occupying non-motor lane | 33.75% |
| Non-motor vehicles parking, occupying non-motor lane | 8.59% |
| Non-motor vehicles reversely running | 3.75% |
| Shared bikes parking, blocking wheelchair access | 1.09% |
| Pedestrian occupying non-motor lane | 0.47% |
| Barrier-free compartment or wheelchair parking lot occupied | 0.31% |
| Inadequate construction of traffic facilities | Disordered mixed traffic of motor and non-motor vehicles | 40.47% |
| No crosswalk or traffic lights | 1.88% |
| Entrance/exit bollards obstructing wheelchair access | 0.16% |
| Inadequate construction of barrier-free facilities | Entrance/exit without wheelchair ramps, or constructed with substandard gradient or materials | 4.69% |
| Elevation differences at sidewalk junctions | 2.03% |
| Pedestrian overcrossing without accessible elevators/ramps | 2.03% |
| Entrance/exit difficult to open | 0.78% |
However, panoramic photos and statistical analyses see limitations and could not fully capture travel obstacles and volunteers' real perceptions. For instance, researchers could not determine from photos alone what specific sidewalk obstacles led to volunteers choosing non-motor lanes. During the mapping workshop, volunteers provided researchers with more situated knowledge, explaining the details of travel obstacles (Tab.5, Fig.6).
Tab.5 Detailed description of travel barriers from some volunteers |
| Volunteer | Detailed description of travel barriers |
|---|
| A | "The front entrance of the office building Ⅰ work in, which is a 5A-grade office building in Fengtai District, has no access for wheelchair users. So every day Ⅰ have to walk against the road through the basement and motor vehicle lane to get into the office building." |
| C | "The potholes in the road are particularly obstacles for me. I don't like the bumps because they hurt my body." |
| D | "When entering the office park, an iron fence stands at one of the intersections. Normally this is fine for pedestrians, but for our wheelchairs, the access is too narrow to pass.""The reason for not taking sidewalks is that most of them are bumpy and poor in maintenance... and the turnings of the sidewalks don't have curb ramps that is difficult for us to pass. So basically I would like to choose non-motor lanes when I travel." |
| I | "The path is even challenging for pedestrians, let alone wheelchair users like us. For example, electric line poles and road blockings stand right in the middle of the curb slopes, making it too narrow to pass." |
Fig.6 Examples of specific travel barriers encountered by volunteers. |
Full size|PPT slide
The findings reveal that the road facilities and barrier-free issues on sidewalks made most volunteers have to choose non-motor lanes. Specially, barriers caused by inadequate construction of traffic facilities included disordered mixed traffic of motor and non-motor vehicles, improper parking of shared bikes and other non-motor vehicles, occupancy by tree pools and road ancillary facilities, unleveled tree pools or rolling pavement by tree roots, elevation differences, barriers at non-motor lane ends, anti-slip features with over/little resistance, blind tracks, etc., would all impact road evenness and accessibility. One significant reason influencing volunteers' travel preference was that sidewalks had a higher bumpiness for wheelchair users, which could harm individuals with limb disabilities, especially those with spinal cord injuries. Barrier-free facility problems were mainly due to non-compliant or missing curb ramps or wheelchair ramps.
3.3 Comparative Analysis on the Bumpiness of Different Paving Materials for Sidewalks
Given that sidewalk bumpiness is a primary reason for volunteers opting to use non-motor lanes, the researchers conducted a comparative analysis on the bumpiness between five common paving materials for sidewalks (limestone, brick, marble, permeable brick, and granite) with asphalt, the most common paving materials for non-motor lanes. The study found that asphalt-paving non-motor lanes had lower bumpiness than sidewalks paved with permeable bricks, corroborating volunteers' preference for non-motor lanes.
The analysis revealed that the median bumpiness of asphalt paving was generally lower than that of limestone, marble, permeable brick, and granite (Tab.6 and Tab.7, Fig.7). Notably, the bumpiness of brick was close to that of asphalt, with lower values of both the median and the upper and lower quartile, as well as the lowest variance, indicating its overall superiority in bumpiness over asphalt. The variance analysis of bumpiness data for different paving materials showed a p-value of less than 0.05, indicating a significant disparity.
Tab.6 ANOVA for the bumpiness of different paving materials |
| Group | Sample size | Mean | Variance | Median |
|---|
| Brick | 32, 498 | 4.42 | 23.59 | 3.46 |
| Asphalt | 82, 011 | 5.64 | 52.25 | 3.79 |
| Limestone | 206 | 3.97 | 7.25 | 3.91 |
| Granite | 55, 978 | 6.42 | 58.17 | 4.11 |
| Marble | 3, 946 | 5.57 | 23.72 | 4.54 |
| Permeable brick | 59, 472 | 6.03 | 30.29 | 4.89 |
Tab.7 ANOVA results for bumpiness of different paving materials |
| Source | SS | df | MS | F | p-value | F-critical |
|---|
| Between group | 88 673.9225 | 5 | 17734.7845 | 406.875476 | 0 | 2.2141377 |
Fig.7 Box plots of bumpiness for different paving materials. |
Full size|PPT slide
Further comparative analysis was conducted between brick and granite, which had the closer medians of bumpiness to asphalt and with various paving patterns. The findings showed that though natural-cleft granite provided a more natural and rustic visual effect compared with flamed and bush-hammered finishes, it has a significantly higher bumpiness: the variance (114.85) and mean (12.10) of bumpiness indicated that generally natural-cleft granite has a high bumpiness and a large variability among samples (Tab.8, Fig.8). Generally, bricks had a low bumpiness, but different paving patterns exhibited varied bumpiness, where basket-weave paving performed better than herringbone 45° and stretcher-bond patterns (Tab.9, Fig.9).
Tab.8 Comparative analysis results of the bumpiness of different paving patterns of granite |
| Paving pattern | Maximum | Minimum | Mean | Variance |
|---|
| Bush-hammered | 98.04 | 0 | 5.15 | 32.83 |
| Naturally-cleft | 106.94 | 0 | 12.10 | 114.85 |
| Flamed | 177.49 | 0 | 5.44 | 42.95 |
Fig.8 Photos of different paving patterns of granite: naturally-cleft, flamed, and bush-hammered, from left to right. |
Full size|PPT slide
Tab.9 Comparative analysis results of the bumpiness of different paving patterns of brick |
| Paving pattern | Maximum | Minimum | Mean | Variance |
|---|
| Herringbone 45° | 38.04 | 0 | 4.49 | 21.98 |
| Basket-weave | 34.2 | 0 | 7 | 17.29 |
| Stretcher-bond | 55.57 | 0 | 3.36 | 26.81 |
Fig.9 Photos of different paving patterns of brick: herringbone 45°, basket-weave, and stretcher-bond, from left to right. |
Full size|PPT slide
4 Conclusions and Discussion
By utilizing a self-developed IoT Inspector, combined with life log surveys, mapping workshops, and a comparative analysis on the bumpiness of varied paving materials, this study refined the accessibility needs of wheelchair users in urban environments. The main findings are as follows.
1) Mobility disadvantaged groups have diverse daily travel needs, with traditional food markets, supermarkets, and parks being the most frequently visited destinations except for commuting; their weekend travel distances significantly exceeding weekday distances.
2) Mobility disadvantaged groups prefer non-motor lanes over sidewalks.
3) Travel obstacles are mainly caused by improper traffic behaviors and inadequate construction of traffic facilities, such as improper parking of vehicles and disordered mixed traffic.
4) Asphalt, commonly paving material used for non-motor lanes, has a better performance in bumpiness than the paving materials commonly used for sidewalks like permeable brick, granite, limestone, and marble; however, brick has an overall best performance in bumpiness than asphalt, and exhibits smaller variations in bumpiness.
5) For paving materials like granite and brick, different paving patterns also result in varied bumpiness.
4.1 Wheelchair Users' Preference for Non-Motor Lanes and their Right-of-Way
The preference for non-motor lanes by mobility disadvantaged groups highlights the gap between wheelchair users' actual needs and the lagging construction of barrier-free environment in cities, particularly sidewalks. Current urban spatial construction and traffic management regulations are primarily designed for pedestrians, often overlooking the right-of-way and environmental needs of mobility disadvantaged groups. In addition, there is a general lack of understanding of the travel needs of such groups, and a poor awareness of their assistive devices like electric or electric-traction wheelchairs. The study found that mobility disadvantaged groups have the need to independently and safely use both sidewalks and non-motor lanes, as well as access public transportation and public spaces. For urban planning and traffic management, this poses a challenge to the inclusiveness of non-motors' right-of-way for new travel devices, which requires a broader societal consensus and public participation to jointly create an inclusive and adaptive travel environment.
In the discussion of public right-of-way, the travel rights of mobility disadvantaged groups need to be prioritized. The Law of Barrier-Free Environment Construction will promote the definition of right-of-way in the fields of transportation and planning to achieve a societal consensus of prioritizing mobility disadvantaged groups' rights on non-motor lanes, ensuring social justice in the current transition towards low-carbon transportation. According to current regulations, wheelchairs are excluded from non-motor vehicles and thus do not have the right-of-way of non-motor lanes. However, it is critical to take into consideration of the reality that wheelchair users have the demand to use non-motor lanes. This paper aims to promote a more in-depth discussion and definition of mobility disadvantaged groups' right-of-way through thorough argumentation and broad public participation.
This paper suggests that the construction experiences from other countries can be drawn for a reference. For example, UK classifies (powered) wheelchairs and mobility scooters into three categories: the first, manual wheelchairs can be used on sidewalks or pedestrian areas at speeds not exceeding 6 km/h; the second, powered wheelchairs and scooters can be used on sidewalks at speeds not exceeding 6 km/h; and the third, powered wheelchairs and scooters can be used on both sidewalks and roads at speeds not exceeding 12 km/h
[16]. This hierarchical regulation on wheelchair types and speeds helps maximize the inclusion of the accessibility of transportation means with different mobility abilities while safeguarding the safety of travelers. With the updating of transportation means for mobility disadvantaged groups and the diversification of travel needs, this kind of refined management of right-of-way can help improve China's construction of barrier-free environment.
4.2 Improvement Strategies for Adaptive Roads in Urban Barrier-Free Environment
For landscape design of urban pedestrian environment, it is necessary to enhance the adaptability and equity of mobility disadvantaged groups. The study results reveal that current problems found in sidewalks mainly include substandard curb ramps, unleveled tree pools, bollards blocking, and bumpiness of paving materials. These issues not only force wheelchair users to choose non-motor lanes but also increase safety risks for cyclists and pedestrians.
Standards for barrier-free facility construction and related spatial environment construction should comprehensively consider the needs of wheelchair users, pedestrians, and cyclists. This paper recommends academic or professional standards-setting institutions to launch funding studies on new barrier-free infrastructure construction, and to demonstrate the feasibility of relevant standardization and promotion of pilot projects.
1) Compared with the commonly used permeable bricks and granite, asphalt and bricks would cause less bumpiness. Considering permeability, future urban renewals can use permeable asphalt concrete, cement concrete or bricks for sidewalk pavement. Moreover, the use of these materials can improve surface smoothness and reduce costs. Standardized design and construction processes of sidewalk paving can also help improve surface smoothness.
2) Raised crosswalk facilities can avoid the elevation differences caused by substandard curb ramps in existing urban areas while enhancing sidewalk continuity. This can also guide motor and non-motor vehicles to slow down and ensure the visibility and safety of wheelchair users and pedestrians (Fig.10). In addition, refined assessments can be conducted to identify road segments with low non-motor traffic flows, where traffic calming strategies
[17] can be adopted and raised crosswalk pilot projects can be taken place. Then, evaluations on the safety and friendliness for mobility disadvantaged groups are required, while considering the convenience for visually disadvantaged individuals and possible drainage problems.
Fig.10 Elevated crosswalk. |
Full size|PPT slide
3) Current urban road spatial planning and design standards generally consider leveling tree pools as a suggestion. It is recommended to revise relevant specifications to make it a mandatory requirement and to propose maintenance requirements for tree grates, so as to improve the travel experience of mobility disadvantaged groups.
4) Bollard facilities are often installed to restrict the entry of electric vehicles into pedestrian areas, for management reasons. However, current bollards and turning pedestrian entrances lack standard design requirements, obstructing wheelchair passage. It is suggested to conduct research to establish scientific and procedural standards at local and national scales for bollard facility settings, ensuring the legal rights of mobility disadvantaged groups in public spaces. Additionally, it is recommended to test bollard facilities in different sizes, inviting organizations and individual volunteers into performance evaluations, so as to ensure the independent use by all types of users with different disabilities.
4.3 An Innovative Approach Combining Multi-Sourced Data Perception and Workshops
By employing a multi-dimensional research approach that integrates life log survey, mapping workshops, and comparative analysis, this study investigated wheelchair users' travel needs and barriers from their own perspectives. This approach enables researchers to become translators between travelers' needs and the existing spatial environment, and the visualized translation results can be presented to the public and government decision-makers, helping effectively increase public awareness of travel barriers and promote social actions to address real-world travel issues.
The researchers conducted detailed empirical studies and life log surveys on the needs of wheelchair users, providing more accurate demand descriptions and data support for inclusive landscape design. The incorporation of public participation through mapping activities helped represent travel scenarios and form situated knowledge, deepening the public's understanding of localized travel needs, preferences, and barriers faced by mobility disadvantaged groups. By constructing situated knowledge, this study hopes to foster a consensus on inclusive landscapes among researchers, designers, and users, offering a new research paradigm for future travel demand studies.
It is worth noting that the sample size of life log surveys in this study is relatively small, which may lead to certain limitations to the research results. Future efforts can expand the sample size, using the travel data collection and analysis methods from this study, to enrich the understanding and evidence of the travel needs of mobility disadvantaged groups.
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
PDF(4227 KB)
Tab.1 Overview of the volunteers in this research
Fig.1 IoT inspection device.
AI Summary
