$community_name

Public space

Accessibility

CONTEXT

 

Citizens have the right to access and enjoy the public space with a guarantee of comfort and security, regardless of their physical and mental conditions. Favouring personal autonomy in terms of getting around and enjoying public space tends to minimise the prevalence of physical and mental health problems.

It is important to consider ‘universal design’ and therefore ‘design for everyone’. The public space must guarantee safe accessibility and mobility for everyone, provide a neutral gathering space, and facilitate communication.

OBJECTIVE

• Facilitate safe access for all users of the public space (the elderly, people with reduced mobility, children, etc.).
• Reduce isolation caused by physical and communicative barriers in people with mobility and sensory problems.
• Foster gathering spaces and spaces where people can carry out physical activity.

PROPOSALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

• Prioritise pedestrians and cyclists over motor vehicles.
• Take into account the various types of disabilities (physical, sensory and cognitive).
• Design the public space in accordance with the needs of the various user groups (e.g. urban furniture, public toilets, fountains, children’s play areas, and sport and leisure infrastructure).
• Create welcoming and peaceful spaces where people can feel at ease.
• The public space should be attractive and high quality, given that it is related to increased physical activity and a better perception of safety (reducing fear of crime and fear of accidents) (Aytur et al., 2015; Foster et al., 2012; Liao et al., 2017; Sugiyama et al., 2015). Access barriers and unsafe structures (e.g. poorly designed bends and ramps, abandoned spaces, reduced visibility, etc.), however, are associated with a decrease in the use of the public space and in physical activity and also with the presence of unwanted activity (e.g. crime, vandalism, drug use) and accidents and injuries (Aytur et al., 2015; Belon et al., 2016).
• Foster compact neighbourhoods with mixed land use that strengthen local, everyday services (400 m is the approximate distance that people are willing to walk to access everyday services) (Foster et al. 2014, Smith et al. 2010, Van Cauwenberg et al. 2010).
• Favour accessibility to buildings, public services, shops and public transport by removing architectural and communication barriers.
• Design safe pedestrian crossings at intersections and halfway along blocks in order to prioritise and connect pedestrian routes. Ensure there is enough time to cross and provide visible access ramps. Make connections between pedestrian routes, cycling infrastructure and public transport intuitive (Davison and Lawson 2006; McCormack & Shiell 2011).
• Foster intermodal passenger transport (e.g. providing bicycle parking and park and ride facilities to allow people to leave their vehicles at public transport stations).
• Create a good network of accessible public transport. Public transport must be good quality, frequent, accessible and affordable (in an urban context the recommended distances are: less than 400 m to the nearest bus station, less than 600 m to the metro station and less than 800 m to the railway station) (Arundel et al. 2017, Giles-Corti et al. 2016, Hooper et al. 2015).
• Provide access to bicycle infrastructure within a range of 400 m from people’s homes in order to foster active transport (Buehler and Pucher, 2012; Krizek & Johnson, 2006; Pucher et al., 2010).
• Include and unify clear and understandable signage elements. Use pictograms. Include sound elements (e.g. traffic lights with auditory signals, sound indicators in lifts, PA systems in public transport). Use light signals or information screens.
• Ensure that public lighting is uniform and homogenous in order to avoid dazzling and/or dark spots. • Announce any changes made to public thoroughfares.
• Take action to prevent antisocial behaviour and vandalism (e.g. littering, graffiti, abandoned spaces etc.) and ensure compliance with by-laws and regulations (e.g. car parks, noise, speed, road works etc.) (Belon et al. 2016, Foster et al. 2014, WHO 2016).
• Control the installation of obstacles on public streets (signs, display cases, etc.), especially on routes accessible by pedestrians.
• Use flooring, textures and colours that make it easy to distinguish zones. Take into account that the misuse or abuse of different flooring, textures and colours may be counterproductive in terms of accessibility.
• Prioritise the use of accessible ramps. If there is no space to install an accessible ramp, prioritise the use of vertical lifting platforms.
• Foster the use of continuous rails on stairs and ramps, especially at the end and the beginning.

REFERENCE EXPERIENCES

LEGISLATION

• ORDEN VIV/561/2010, de 1 de febrero, por la que se desarrolla el documento técnico de condiciones básicas de accesibilidad y no discriminación para el acceso y utilización de los espacios públicos.
• Decret 135/1995, de 24 de març, de desplegament de la Llei 20/1991, de 25 de novembre, de promoció de l'accessibilitat i de supressió de barreres arquitectòniques, i d'aprovació del Codi d'accessibilitat.

STUDIES AND TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION

• Gobierno de España - Ministerio de la Vivienda, 2010. Accesibilidad en los espacios públicos urbanizados.
• OMS, 2016. Urban green spaces and health: A review of evidence.
• Organización ONCE, 2003. Accesibilidad para personas con ceguera y deficiencia visual. Jocs infantils accessibles del Parc de la Ciutadella a Barcelona.

Scientific papers:

• Arundel, J., et al., 2017. Creating liveable cities in Australia: Mapping urban policy implementation and evidence-based national liveability indicators.
• Aytur, S., et al., 2015. Measuring physical activity in outdoor community recreational environments: Implications for research, policy, and practice. Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports, 9(1).
• Belon, A., et al., 2016. Community Lenses Revealing the Role of Sociocultural Environment on Physical Activity. American Journal of Health Promotion, 30(3).
• Buehler, R., Pucher, J., 2012. Cycling to work in 90 large American cities: New evidence on the role of bike paths and lanes. Transportation, 39(2).
• Davison, K., Lawson, C., 2006. Do attributes in the physical environment influence children’s physical activity? A review of the literature. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 3(19).
• Foster, S., Giles-Corti, B., Knuiman, M., 2012. Does Fear of Crime Discourage Walkers? A Social-Ecological Exploration of Fear As a Deterrent to Walking. Environment and Behavior, 46(6).
• Foster, S., et al., 2014. Does walkable neighbourhood design influence the association between objective crime and walking? International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 11(1).
• Giles-Corti, B., et al., 2016. City planning and population health: a global challenge. The Lancet, 388(10062).
• Hooper, P., et al., 2015. The building blocks of a “Liveable Neighbourhood”: Identifying the key performance indicators for walking of an operational planning policy in Perth, Western Australia. Health and Place, 36.
• Krizek, K.J., Johnson, P.J., 2006. Proximity to Trails and Cycling and Walking. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(1).
• Liao, Y., et al., 2017. Associations of older Taiwanese adults’ personal attributes and perceptions of the neighborhood environment concerning walking for recreation and transportation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(12).
• McCormack, G.R., Shiell, A., 2011. In search of causality: A systematic review of the relationship between the built environment and physical activity among adults. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 8(1).
• Pucher, J., Dill, J., Handy, S., 2010. Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: an international review. Preventive Medicine, 50.
• Smith, G., et al., 2010. What is my walking neighbourhood? A pilot study of English adults’ definitions of their local walking neighbourhoods. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 7.
• Sugiyama, T. et al., 2015. Quality of Public Open Spaces and Recreational Walking. American Journal of Public Health, 105(12).
• Van Cauwenberg, J., et al., 2011. Relationship between the physical environment and physical activity in older adults: A systematic review. Health and Place, 17(2).

---

---