The Socio-spatial Construction of (In)accessible Public Toilets

Abstract

Summary. This paper examines the rights of disabled people to access public spaces in Western societies through an analysis of the provision of accessible public toilets in Ireland. Providing a critical analysis around the themes of social justice and citizenship, the investigation is based on an examination of present-day planning legislation, interviews conducted with 35 disabled people-19 in the Republic of Ireland and 16 in Northern Ireland-and a case study of one particular town, Newbridge, County Kildare, Ireland. These data reveal that in Ireland and the UK, planning legislation is weak and often not enforced. Accessible public toilets are few and far between; those that do exist are often poorly designed; and, this lack of provision severely delimits the daily spatial behaviour of disabled people. This lack of provision, it is argued, is expressive of a wider set of ableist power geometries and signi es that disabled people do not, as yet, have the same civil rights as non-disabled people.

Public Toilets: An Exploratory Study on the Demands, Needs, and Expectations in Turkey

“…As Kitchin and Law (2001) find, and also this study, the most commonly stated accessibility problem is that entry to toilets is prevented by steps. In our study, eight of fourteen toilets have level changes at the entrances to the stalls, and this is problematic for people with rheumatoid arthritis (who find it difficult to lift their feet), for people with visual disabilities (who struggle to see the steps), for pregnant women (who may experience both of the aforementioned issues), and for parents who may be using toilets with their children.…”

“…Regarding ability issues, the provision of public toilets is seen as a crucial determinant for the disabled to participate in society. Kitchin and Law (2001) reveal three critical themes in relation to the provision of public toilets for disabled people: (1) a lack of accessible toilets because of vandalism, and poor and limited provision; (2) poor toilet design (eg, steps, inadequate door size); and (3) misuse of toilets (eg, they are sometimes used as storage cupboards and/or are kept locked). As a result of these themes, disabled people exhibit constrained patterns of spatial behaviour and daily routines.…”

“…Reviewing the literature shows that there are various accessible design attempts, barrierfree projects, and inclusive models exploring the inclusion of these different and disparate groups and how to achieve their needs, demands, and expectations of public services (Afacan, 2012;Goldsmith, 1997;Hall and Imrie, 1999;Kitchin and Law, 2001). Some insight into the implications of design and policy practice for these groups can be listed as follows: urban developments for an aging population, where they have easy access to services (toilets, phones, ATMs) and public transportation; universally designed outdoor gardens and parks (including toilets) serving children and people with all types of impairment; government policies and laws for sustainable social development of public services and assistive technologies to support people with dementia in urban environments.…”

“…However, such building codes only set out the type, height, and design of appliances, fixtures, and stalls, and say nothing about how the social patterns relate to and affect these standards. That aspect of public toilets provision should also be explored (Kitchin and Law, 2001;Molotch and Noren, 2010). To fill the above described gap in the literature, in the current study we look at ways of understanding the complex interplay between the social and physical from the public toilet user's perspective and contribute to existing literature by examining public toilet provision in an understudied region (Turkey).…”

Introduction: Tourism and inequalities.

“…Their chapter highlights (Kitchin and Law, 2001) prevent people with disabilities from fully participating in and contributing to tourism, and reveal how disability interacts with age to create further inequalities. Disability also intersects with poverty and gender in this regard -for example as Richards et al (Chapter 2) point out, over 80% of people with low or no vision in the UK of working age are unemployed, while the impacts of disabilities are felt disproportionately by the populations of LEDCs, particularly women who have less access to medical care.…”