DEVELOPING METHODOLOGY for ACCESSIBILITY RESEARCH in RURAL ENVIRONMENTS

TRANSED 2012 . 20th SEPTEMBER, 2012

GAURAV RAHEJA , Ph.D.Assistant Professor . Dept. of Architecture & PlanningIndian Institute of Technology (IIT) Roorkee

method ruralaccessibility

I N D I A = Rural Bharat + Urban India

70% 30%

600,000 villages

700 million people

Demographic Status

• 1 in 20 individuals has disability [ UN ]

• 3 out of 4 of those live in Developing Nations

• 1/3 rd of world’s disabled population is in India

• High prevalence rate of Movement disabilities

• Complex scenario – More than 70% live in rural areas

• 3.2 % higher prevalence of disabilities in rural areas

…..and the numbers are increasing

Types of Disabilities Number of Disabled Percentage

Seeing 10634881 48.55

Speech 1640868 7.49

Hearing 1261722 5.76

Movement 6105477 27.87

Mental 2263821 10.33

Total 21906769 100.00

Source : Census 2001

Demographic Status

Identification of Issues / stakeholdersPerceptions vs Reality

Background studiesTacit KnowledgeLiterature ReviewsPrecedent / Case studiesReconnaissance surveysQualitative / Quantitative analysis

Field studiesSurvey InteractionsCommunity Participation

Tacit KnowledgeFocus group discussionsSketch design evolutionAlternative concepts

Prototype developmentFull scale modellingFeedbacks

MethodologicalDevelopment

Impairment Disability Handicap

Person

Environment

New Conception of Disablement Process

I C I D H – 2002 International Classification of Impairments Disabilities and Handicaps

Poverty and Disability – a vicious cycle

MOBILITY ACTIVITIES

MOBILITYAIDS

Case Studies

S.No. Parameters Definition

1 Reachability Ability to reach from the station point to the location where one performs that ADL.

2 Accessibility Ability to enter and exit from the facility

3 Usability Ability to use the space and complete the ADL

4 Safety The sense of imbalance, lack of support wrt the ADL

5 Privacy The feeling of being secured and not being looked over while ADL is under performance

TOILETING ACTIVITIES

Toileting_Perceptual Distance * Disability Type Crosstabulation

17 7 24

39.5% 16.3% 55.8%

2 4 6

4.7% 9.3% 14.0%

12 1 13

27.9% 2.3% 30.2%

31 12 43

72.1% 27.9% 100.0%

Count

% of Total

Count

% of Total

Count

% of Total

Count

% of Total

In the house

Near the house

Quite far from the house

Toileting_PerceptualDistance

Total

Ambulant Non Ambulant

Disability Type

Total

Toileting_Space Typology * Disability Type Crosstabulation

0 1 1

.0% 2.3% 2.3%

4 4 8

9.3% 9.3% 18.6%

15 5 20

34.9% 11.6% 46.5%

12 2 14

27.9% 4.7% 32.6%

31 12 43

72.1% 27.9% 100.0%

Count

% of Total

Count

% of Total

Count

% of Total

Count

% of Total

Count

% of Total

Open space in the house

Enclosed Space with nosanitary fixture

Enclosed space withsanitary fixture

Open Fields

Toileting_SpaceTypology

Total

Ambulant Non Ambulant

Disability Type

Total

Crosstab

3 6 9

7.0% 14.0% 20.9%

12 6 18

27.9% 14.0% 41.9%

10 0 10

23.3% .0% 23.3%

4 0 4

9.3% .0% 9.3%

2 0 2

4.7% .0% 4.7%

31 12 43

72.1% 27.9% 100.0%

Count

% of Total

Count

% of Total

Count

% of Total

Count

% of Total

Count

% of Total

Count

% of Total

Very Difficult

Moderately Difficult

Barely Difficult

Neither

Barely Easy

Toileting_URS

Total

Ambulant Non Ambulant

Disability Type

Total

Toileting Perceptual Experience Rating

Personal Factors

Age

Sex

Education

Caste/ Religion

Occupation

Economic Factors

Degree of Disability

Disability type

Assistive Device

Physical

Walking surfaces

Presence / Absence of built features

Thresholds/ Levels

Long Distances

to cover

Lack of resting

spaces Open Drainage

Privacy

Spatial Layout

Social

Family Support

Extended Family support

Friends

Acquaintances

People in Authority

Health Professionals

Institutional

Individual’s attitude

Family Attitude

Social Norms / Practices of the Region / Religion

Rehabilitation Policies

Individualistic Approach vs Community Approaches

Environmental Factors

Conceptual Model of Understanding

Universal Design

Principles

Simple and Intuitive useThe use of design is easy to understand regardless of the user’s experience, knowledge, language skills or concentration levels.Equitable useThe design does not disadvantage or stigmatize any group of users.Perceptible InformationThe design communicates necessary information effectively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user’s sensory abilities.Tolerance for ErrorThe design minimizes hazards and the adverse consequences of accidental or unintended fatigue.Flexibility in useThe design accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and abilities.Low physical effortThe design can be used efficiently and comfortably and with a minimum of fatigue.Size and space for approach and useAppropriate size and space is provided for approach, reach, manipulation and use, regardless of the user’s body size, posture or mobility.

Bottom-up methodology of Universal Design Source: Goldsmith. S, (2001)

the barefoot designers

DESIGN SOLUTIONS

Source : Cambodia WATSAN Report

Child resting on the flat area of the ramp

Gradient of the Ramp

Aids and Adaptations

Issues of Appropriateness for the Rural Context

•Cost and Affordability

•Locally available materials and resources

•Cultural acceptability

•Local beliefs and attitudes

•Gender appropriateness

future RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Very little representative work in the domain of accessibility for rural Environments.

Database creation on accessibility issues with reference to diversedisability needs in rural contexts.

Lack of reliable measurement/analytical tools

Development of reliable methodological tools for measurability and analysis

Individualised solution approach needs to extend beyond.

Solutions evolved through participatory approach and based uponthe principles of universal design need to be developed.

CONCLUDING REMARKS &

Approach to PROBLEM

Almost anything you do will be insignificant but it is very important that you do it.

- Mahatma Gandhi

gaurav rahejagr.iitr@gmail.com