The Urban Built Environment and Inaccessibility

Abstract

A contemporary life style is based on the ability to participate in social activities, such as working in a work place, making purchases in retail stores, taking lessons at a school, and receiving medical treatment at hospitals because modern cities are characterized by high spatial differentiation of various activity opportunities. Persons with physical impairments are, however, restricted by different barriers to access activity opportunities inherent in the urban built environment. The following features of the built environment are barriers in the way of the activities of persons with lower limb impairments: 1) buildings with an entrance that has a level difference, stairs or a heavy door; 2) street paths with a slope, stairs or irregularities; 3) public transportation with stairs at the entrance or a gap between platforms. In an urban space full of such barriers, persons with lower limb impairments have difficulties accessing activity opportunities so that they are prevented from participating in social activities and are thus marginalized from the mainstream of modern society.This article has two purposes: 1) to examine the characteristics of the urban built environment in terms of barriers that restrict the activities of persons with lower limb impairments; 2) to elucidate the extent of inaccessibility in urban spaces that contain barriers through analysis of spatial accessibility by persons with lower limb impairments to local activity opportunities, taking into account barriers related to entering/exiting buildings and travelling on streets. The author selected the early developed area of Tama New Town, Tokyo, as a study area for the above purposes.The results of the analysis are summarized as follows. Accessibility measurement values were considerably lower when considering barriers than when not considering barriers. When considering barriers, accessibility decreased dramatically around the main regional center and sub regional center as well as along the main roads, and the distribution of points having relatively high accessibility tended to be localized. On the other hand, the decrease in accessibility when considering barriers was moderate around neighborhood centers, but, in absolute terms, the extent of accessibility was not high. Such (in)accessibility patterns are related to the fact that there are many barriers to travel on streets because of the large undulations in the northern part of the study area, the fact that there are many buildings with barriers at their entrances along the main roads, and the fact that there are many buildings with a flat entrance, with the exception of clinics, in neighborhood centers located in relatively flat areas on pressure ridges.If one considers that outside stairs, street inclinations and a level difference or stairs at the entrance of buildings represent formidable barriers that cannot be negotiated by persons with lower limb impairments, the results of analysis show that access to activity opportunities by persons with lower limb impairments is restricted to a very considerable degree. Such inaccessibility for persons with physical impairments seems to suggest that Tama New Town is an urban space created for able-bodied persons. However, due to the aging of the local population, discrepancies currently exist between those able-bodied persons who are implicitly assumed to be residents in the development plan and those who actually live in the study area. The results of this article, therefore, suggest that middle-aged or elderly persons are likely to experience severe restriction with regard to social activity participation after becoming physically impaired, since various features of the built environment turn into disabling barriers. This inaccessibility issue is expected to become broadly manifest in residential areas developed on hilly terrain at an early date and where the local population has been aging, such as the area covered by this study.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 2 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.