The Politics of Disablement: A Review on Issues Pertaining to Access for All to Public Spaces

Everyday, across the globe, politics of inclusion and exclusion take place in living spaces which are designed with the normate template in mind. This template spells out the standard measurements into which a “normal” able bodied person can operate in. This template solely refers to the implicit, often unconscious model of a privileged, able bodied individual. The assumption is that everyone has to fit and behave in a manner that befits the given space. Consideration of the normate template however leads to the formation of barriers which perpetuate segregation and discrimination of people with disabilities. In the quest to advocate for equitable access by all, regardless of physical stature, researchers are aware that the pendulum of studies on disability swings back and forth between the models and the theories of disability. One glaring factor which most people agree on is the fact that inappropriate layout and design of the built up environment is what leads to a handicap. In addition to the lack of physical access, people with disabilities have to grapple with attitudinal barriers. These are mental inferences and assumptions on the capabilities of a person. Through this research a review of secondary data was conducted with a view to shift the accessibility lens to embrace facets enhancing universal access for all.

Access, Physical Barriers,Disability Models, Disability Theories, Universal Design

1. Flemmer, Claire & McIntosh, Alison. (2025). Equitable Access to the Built Environment for People with Disability. Athens Journal of Τechnology & Engineering. 12. 41-54. 10.30958/ajte.12-1-3. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388692054_Equitable_Access_to_the_Built_Environment_for_People_with_Disability/citation/download [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Boogert,F., Klein, K., Spaan, P.,Sizoo, B.,Bouman, Y., Witte J.G. Hoogendijk, W.,, Roza, S. Sensory processing difficulties in psychiatric disorders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Psychiatric Research Volume 151, July 2022, Pages 173-18. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022395622002242#sec1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Terashima, M and Clark, K. (2021). The Precarious Absence of Disability Perspectives in Planning Research. Journal of Urban Planning, Volume 6 (1) pp 120 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Kapsalis, E., Jaeger, N., & Hale, J. (2022). Disabled-by-design: effects of inaccessible urban public spaces on users of mobility assistive devices – a systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 19(3), 604–622. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2022.2111723 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Biglieri, S., McQuillan, R., Macdonald, D. and Ross, T. (2025).Understanding accessibility and disability in the planning profession: an examination of planners’ knowledge and practices. Town Planning Review. Vol 96 Number 3. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2024.58 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Thomas, Derek. (2016). Placemaking: An Urban Design Methodology. 10.4324/9781315648125. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Hamraie, A. (2013). Designing Collective Access: A Feminist Disability Theory of Universal Design. Home / Archives / Vol. 33 No. 4 (2013): Special Issue: Improving Feminist Philosophy and Theory By Taking Account of Disability / https://dsq-sds.org/index.php/dsq/article/view/3871/3411 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Calvert S. (2021). Challenges for People with Disabilities. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/ballardbrief/vol2021/iss3/6/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Park, J., & Chowdhury, S. (2021). Towards an enabled journey: barriers encountered by public transport riders with disabilities for the whole journey chain. Transport Reviews, 42(2), 181–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2021.1955035 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Park, K., Esfahani, H. N., Novack, V. L., Sheen, J., Hadayeghi, H., Song, Z., & Christensen, K. (2022). Impacts of disability on daily travel behaviour: A systematic review. Transport Reviews, 43(2), 178–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2022.2060371 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Bezyak, J. L., Sabella, S., Hammel, J., McDonald, K., Jones, R. A., & Barton, D. (2019). Community participation and public transportation barriers experienced by people with disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 42(23), 3275–3283. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2019.1590469 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Yeo R. Chronic poverty and disability. Somerset: Action on disability and development; 2001. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Banks LM, Kuper H, Polack S. Poverty and disability in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2017 Dec 21;12(12):e0189996. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189996. Erratum in: PLoS One. 2018 Sep 26;13(9):e0204881. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204881. PMID: 29267388; PMCID: PMC5739437. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Rimmer JH, Riley B, Wang E, Rauworth A, Jurkowski J. Physical activity participation among persons with disabilities: barriers and facilitators. Am J Prev Med. 2004 Jun;26(5):419-25. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2004.02.002. PMID: 15165658 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749379704000297) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Frank van den Boogert, Katharina Klein, Pascalle Spaan, Bram Sizoo, Yvonne H.A. Bouman, Witte J.G. Hoogendijk, Sabine J. Roza,(2022). Sensory processing difficulties in psychiatric disorders: A meta-analysis,Journal of Psychiatric Research,Volume 151,Pages 173-180 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2022.04.020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. 16 Oliver, M. (1990). The Politics of Disablement. Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. 17 Evans, D., (2017). Un/covering: Making Disability Identity Legible. DIsability Quarterly. Vol 37 No1. https://dsq-sds.org/index.php/dsq/issue/view/182 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. 18 Shakespeare, T. (2006). Disability Rights and Wrongs. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. 19 Barnes, C., & Mercer, G. (2010). Exploring Disability (2nd ed.). Polity. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Department for Work and Pensions Equality Information. (2011). https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7a322c40f0b66eab99a707/equality-info-report-2011.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation. (1976). Fundamental Principles of Disability. London: Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Garland-Thomson, R. (2009). Staring: How We Look. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Llewellyn, A., & Hogan, K. (2000). The Use and Abuse of Models of Disability. Disability & Society, 15(1), 157–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590025829 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. OECD. (2010). Sickness, Disability and Work: Breaking the Barriers. OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Barnes, C. (2003) ‘What a difference a decade makes: reflections on doing “emancipatory”disability research’. Disability and Society, 18 (1), 3-17.https://www.independentliving.org/docs6/barnes2003.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. SpecialEducationNotes.io. (2024). Economic Model of Disability. Retrieved from www.specialeducationnotes.io [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Roulstone, A., & Prideaux, S. (2012). Understanding disability policy. Policy Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Bambra, C. (2005). The worlds of welfare: Illusory and gender blind? Social Policy and Society, 4(3), 311–318. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259362028_The_worlds_of_welfare_Illusory_and_gender_blind [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Harris, J. (2000). Is there a coherent social conception of disability?. Journal of Medical Ethics, 26(2), 95–100. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Oliver, M., & Barnes, C. (2012). The New Politics of Disablement. Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Degener, T. (2017). A human rights model of disability. United Nations. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. WHO. (2011). World Report on Disability. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/teams/noncommunicable-diseases/sensory-functions-disability-and-rehabilitation/world-report-on-disability [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Smart, Julie. 2004. “Models of Disability: The Juxtaposition of Biology and Social Construction.”. Handbook of Rehabilitation Counseling, Redigert Av T. F. Riggar and Dennis R. Maki, 25–49. New York: Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Mantey, E.E. (2014). Accessibility to inclusive education for children with disabilities: a case of two selected areas in Ghana. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Siegen. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Dube, T., Ncube, S.B., Mapuvire, C.C., Ndlovu, S., Ncube, C. & Mlotshwa, S. (2021). Interventions to reduce the exclusion of children with disabilities from education: A Zimbabwean perspective from the field, Cogent Social Sciences, 7:1, 1913848, DOI: 10.1080/23311886.2021.1913848. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Tam, K.Y., Zhao, M., Seevers, R.L., Liu, Y. & Bullock, L.M. (2022). Examining Physical Accessibility of Campuses for University Students with Mobility Impairments in China. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 35(2), 161 – 174. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Barnes, C. 2018. “Theories of Disability and the Origins of the Oppression of Disabled People in Western Society.” In Disability and Society: Emerging Insights and Issues, edited by L. Barton, 43–60. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Wendell, S. 1996. The Rejected Body. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Lefebvre, H. (1996 [1967]) ‘The Right to the City’, in E. Kofman and E. Lebas (eds) Writings on Cities, pp. 63–184. London: Blackwell. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Marcuse P. (2009).From critical urban theory to the right to the city. City. 13 (2–3), pp 185-196. Taylor & Francis. DOI: 10.1080/13604810902982177. Retrieved on from http://look.gvsu.edu:8000/opc/uploads/39/Marcuse,from-critical-urban-theory-to-.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Pinder, D. (2015). Reconstituting the Possible: Lefebvre, Utopian and the Urban question. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 39(1)), pp 28-45. Doi: 10.1111/1468-2427.12083. Retrieved on 23rd July, 2016 from online wileylibrary.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2427.12083/full [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Bolay, J. (2015). Urban Planning in Africa: which alternative for poor cities? The case of Kodougou in Burkina Faso. Current Urban Studies 3 (1), pp 413-431. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/cus.2015.34033 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Brenner, M., Marcuse, P. & Mayer, P.(2012). Cities for people, not for profit: Critical Urban Theory and the right to the city. New York: Routledge [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. D'Souza, N. (2004). Is Universal Design a Critical Theory? In S. Keates and J. Clarkson, (Eds.), Designing a More Inclusive World (pp 3-9). London: Springer. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-85729-372-5_1#page-1. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Centre for Universal Design (1997). The principles of universal design. Centre for Universal Design. http://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/pubs_p/docs/poster.pdf. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Steinfeld, E. & Maisel, J. (2012). Universal design: Creating inclusive environments. John Wiley and sons: New York. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Rattray, N., Raskin, S. & Cimino, J. (2008). Participatory research on universal design and accessible space at the University of Arizona. Disability Studies Quarterly. Volume 28, No.4. http://www.dsq-sds.org. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Iacono, M., Krizek, K. & El- Geneidy, A. (2010). Measuring non- motorized accessibility: Issues, alternatives and execution. Journal of Transport Geography, 18, 133-140. http://tram.mcgill.ca/Research/Publications/Access_JTG.pdf. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Sawadsri, A. (2011). Embodiment in the disabling built-environment: an experience of daily life. Forum Ejournal. Newcastle University. doi: 1354-5019-2009-01. Pg 53-66. http://research.ncl.ac.uk/forum. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Lossack R & Grabowski H (2000). The axiomatic approach in the universal design theory. First international conference on axiomatic design. Proceedings of ICAD2000 First International Conference on Axiomatic Design. June 21-23, 2000. Cambridge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Burgstahler, S. (2012). A goal and a process that can be applied to the design of any product or environment. Universal design: Process, principles and applications. http://www.washington.edu/doit/Brochures/PDF/ud.pdf. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Preiser, W. (2007). The Seven Principles of Universal Design into planning practice. In J. Nasar and J. Evans-Cowley (Eds.). Universal design and visitability: from accessibility to zoning. https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1811/24833/UniversalDesign&Visitability2007.pdf;jsessionid=BF39A489F4FDAAE771E3EE606D29CCF0?sequence=2. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Depoy, E. & Gilson. S. (2010). Disability design and branding: Rethinking disability within the 21st Century. Disability Studies Quarterly 30.2. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Lawson, B. (1997). How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. Architectural Press [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Ruptash, S. (2013). How to promote UD through passion, knowledge and regulations. Trends in universal design. An anthology with global perspectives, theoretical aspects and real world examples. http://www.bufetat.no/PageFiles/9564/Trends%20in%20Universal%20Design-%20PDF-%20lannsert%2016.%20januar.pdf. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Newell, A. & Gregor, P. (2002). Design for older and disabled people- where do we go from here? Journal of Universal Access Vol. 2:2: 3–7 /.DOI 10.1007/s10209-002-0031-9. https://download.springer.com/static/pdf/419/art%253A10.1007%252Fs10209-002-0031-9.pdf?auth66=1402044181_d57a5f2824cc341a2dddecd232b573b4&ext=.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]