Anthropometry and Standards for Wheeled Mobility: An International Comparison

Abstract

Space requirements for accommodating wheeled mobility devices and their users in the built environment are key components of standards for accessible design. These requirements typically include dimensions for clear floor areas, maneuvering clearances, seat and knee clearance heights, as well as some reference dimensions on wheeled mobility device sizes. Recent research from four countries was reviewed and compared with their prevailing accessibility standards to identify needs for improving standards. Findings from ongoing anthropometry research on wheeled mobility in the U.S. were used for evaluating the adequacy of existing U.S. accessibility standards. Preliminary analysis suggests that the U.S. standards, which are based on research conducted in the 1970s, need to be updated to address advances in wheeled mobility technology and changes in user demographics. The analysis highlights the importance of integrating research with standards development, organizing international collaborations, and developing international standards.

Lack of research-based standards for accessible housing: problematization and exemplification of consequences

“…Our findings support current conclusions stressing the necessity to apply 11 research results to policy and standard development (Steinfeld et al 2010) in order to ensure that the standards actually lead to enhanced accessibility for the intended population.…”

“…It is inexpedient and problematic that definitions of the same standards vary among culturally comparable countries, because this variation impacts on the proportion of dwellings society considers to be accessible. This was elucidated also in another recent study evaluating national standards in 4 relation to wheeled mobility users across the United States, Canada, Britain and Australia (Steinfeld et al 2010). Since designers make use of standards as an important information source during the process of designing accessible dwellings (Nickpou and Dong 2008), standards play a crucial role for citizens, professionals, and society at large.…”

“…Accordingly, it is crucial that the knowledge informing standards is valid and moreover reflect inclusion of the intended population (Keates and Clarkson 2004). However, due to existing cross-national variation in standard definitions, it is reasonable to question the knowledge base informing current housing standards and invest in research contributing to enhanced validity in the definition of standards (Steinfeld et al 2010).…”

“…The lack of a distinct and widely accepted definition is an essential problem in this field of research and practice (Iwarsson et al 2005;Steinfeld et al 2010). We use a definition, stating that accessibility is a relative concept, based on the assumption that activity limitations and restricted participation arise from the gap between the functional capacity of an individual or group and the environmental demands.…”

“…While none of them targeted housing specifically, they pointed out significant sex differences in design requirements (Pacquet, Feathers 2004;Koey, Das 2004;Das, Kozey 1999), and that current standards are not updated and do not support design adequately. It was concluded that since the standards do not reflect the body structure and functional capacity of 5 the population with disabilities and the use of today's mobility devices, research-based revisions of current standards are required (Steinfeld et al, 2010;D'Souza, Steinfeld et Pacquet, 2009;Steinfeld, Pacquet, Feathers 2004;Ringaert et al 2001). …”