Going to the Source for Accessibility Assessment by Phyllis Cangemi, Wayne Williams, and Paul Gaskell During the latter half of the 20th century, dramatic changes have taken place in the lives and status of persons with disabilities. In the past, many lived in institutions or were isolated at home. Today, an increasing number of people with a broad range of disabilities are living independently in the mainstream of the community. We owe many of these changes to medical and technological advances, but perhaps even more importantly, to the numerous human and civil rights struggles that have taken place during this period. The Civil Rights Movement of the fifties and sixties, and the major wars of the era, Korea and Vietnam, have all had a profound effects upon the Disability Rights Movement of the seventies and eighties. As a society, we have clearly progressed from "placing" persons with disabilities into institutions to beginning to recognize and advocate for the rights of all people to participate as equal human beings in all areas of life, including outdoor recreation and the nature experience. We still have a long way to go before equal access becomes a reality for persons with disabilities. Though two decades have elapsed since the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-480), and the National Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-112), few facilities or programs covered by these laws have been made truly accessible. The Architectural Barriers Act and the National Rehabilitation Act (Sect. 504) required, respectively, that all (new and renovated) facilities and all programs receiving federal funding (directly or indirectly, in whole or in part) be made accessible to persons with disabilities. The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 1974 (P.L.94-142) also contributed to the removal of attitudinal and physical barriers that discouraged participation by persons with disabilities in the society. However, it was not until the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act on July 26, 1990, that the mandate for equal access was extended to include the private sector for the first time. With the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Congress and the President reaffirmed their support for the right of all people to have access to all areas of the society in which we live. They also confirmed that prejudice and discrimination toward persons with disabilities have occurred in this country, and that these behaviors are no longer acceptable. For the most part, the enabling legislation, and the ensuing regulations have been little understood by the officials and professionals responsible for implementing them. There has been a major lack in the training of all professionals on the new codes. For park professionals, this lack of knowledge concerning the access regulations has been compounded by the absence of specific standards that address park environments. Without adequate direction from the governmental agencies responsible for writing codes, and without adequate enforcement concerning their compliance with the more general access standards already in existence, park agencies have been more or less adrift for the past two decades. Out of the confusion and lack of enforcement, access to many park areas has been nonexistent. In those areas where there has been the desire to do the "good" or "right" thing, facilities and programs have often been created that were more separate than equal and, if not quite separate, not truly integrated, either. Since the passage of the Architectural Barriers Act in 1968, federal standards on accessibility have been developed by several federal agencies, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Defense, and the U.S. Postal Service. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 established the Architectural Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (ATBCB) to coordinate enforcement of the standards of these various agencies. After considering the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) accessibility criteria (ANSI A117.1-1980), ATBCB issued a comprehensive set of federal standards in 1981 entitled Minimum Guidelines and Requirements for Accessible Design (MGRAD). These standards, and those contained in the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) and the Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), serve as the major sources of accessibility criteria for recreation facility planners. The UFAS standards must be followed to assure compliance with federal accessibility legislation. Agencies must also comply with state and local building codes, where applicable. Some states and local jurisdictions have their own accessibility regulations which may exceed the federal requirements; in those instances park agencies must meet or exceed those state and local standards. To comply with standards and go beyond their intent in providing for accessibility, the following strategies should be of assistance. Planning Strategies The adoption of several strategies can greatly improve the process of removing barriers to accessibility. Among these are the following: 1) Use a systems approach. Barrier-free design should be an integral part of the planning process. As such, accessibility should be considered alongside such factors as slope, soil type, and proximity to utilities in feasibility studies. Accessibility should be an element in comprehensive and regional planning at local, state and even national levels. 2) Acquire a thorough knowledge of the laws and accessibility standards. Your planners, designers, and resource and program staff should be fluent in accessibility issues as well as federal (UFAS), state and local requirements. 3) Include persons with disabilities as planning team members. The idea of the interdisciplinary team has been an accepted part of planning for decades. Congress recognized the advantages of input from a multiplicity of disciplines when they passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA requires the application of this approach in the preparation of environmental impact statements. A person with a disability has a unique perspective on accessibility. 4) Include an accessibility specialist on your planning team. A person with a disability who has extensive professional training and experience working with federal, state and local access laws and codes as well as experience in recreation planning can be a prime candidate to serve as a consultant or team member in a recreation planning effort. Not all access specialists are persons with disabilities though many are, just as many human rights specialists have been persons who have experienced prejudice. Knowing the codes and the issues is the primary prerequisite for being an access specialist. In the future, with increased education and enforcement of the accessibility requirements, planners and designers who are already required to follow these standards, will become fluent in access themselves. 5) Exceed standards whenever possible. UFAS and ADAAG requirements should be viewed as minimum rather than optimum standards. Standards can be of enormous help in the early years of a movement. Once a movement has gained acceptance and momentum, planners should be encouraged to reach beyond conventional approaches and seek innovative solutions. 6) Accessibility should extend beyond the parking lot. Too often planners limit themselves to the immediate vicinity of primary facilities. Plans should allow persons with the desire for adventure to participate to the absolute limit of their stamina and abilities. Planners should consider accessibility with regard to backpackers with visual or balance difficulties, anglers using wheelchairs or crutches, and other backcountry users of all abilities. 7) Include the commercial recreation and hospitality industries in planning. Public and private agencies in the cities of New Orleans, Louisiana, and Winston-Salem, North Carolina, have recently published tour guides featuring information on accessibility at hotels, restaurants, museums,coliseums, and other facilities. North Carolina has published a directory entitled, "Outdoor Recreations for the Disabled in North Carolina." The directory provides information on the accessibility of programs and facilities at commercial outdoor recreation operations such as ski resorts, trout ponds, whitewater outfitters, and scuba schools. Information should not be limited to public parks and recreation facilities. Businesses benefit through expanded markets when they remove barriers. Major problems can occur when information provided in such guides is incorrect. It is important that the information collected be accurate and current, and that terms used in your publication be clearly defined. This is another instance in which an access consultant can be a real asset. Finally, even with the best efforts to provide the public with good information, there are bound to be some inaccuracies (if only because of changing conditions between printings). Therefore, it is important to make clear to the reader the limits of your guide, and encourage its use in a more general,not a literal fashion. Design Strategies Although design often calls for unique solutions to specific demands, the adoption of key strategies improves the process. Designers should consider the following: 1) Design to incorporate accessibility into existing outdoor environments that present varying levels of difficulty. In the late 1970's and early eighties, the federal government and several states produced a number of guideline publications on creating accessible park and recreation facilities and, to a lesser extent, programs. While none of these documents has undergone a careful scrutiny with regard to consistency with existing federal (UFAS and ADAAG) requirements, every one is clearly in conflict with the current path of travel standards found in UFAS and ADAAG (albeit developed primarily with the urban environment in mind). There is a critical need for "path of travel"access standards to specifically address the natural environment, as well as distinguish between core areas of parks and wilderness areas. Until such standards are developed for natural environments, we cannot recommend that you adhere to the "path of travel" guidelines in any of these publications. Meanwhile, a few of these publications may have real value, but only when used by professionals who are truly literate in the existing access laws,codes and issues. Among them are the U.S. Department of the Interior Heritage and Conservation Service's old (but still interesting) DRAFT of A Guide to Designing Accessible Outdoor Recreation Facilities (1979); the New Mexico Natural Resources Department's Accessible Fishing: A Planning Handbook (1984), produced by Nordhaus, Kantrowitz, and Siembieda; and, the State of California Department of Park and Recreation's DRAFT Access to Parks Guidelines (1990) (not yet available). The Department of the Interior Draft guidelines, as well as the New Mexico document, and the California Draft guidelines (and others) all organized their publications around the (as yet untested) "levels of accessibility" concept. This concept is based both upon their view that persons with disabilities represent a broad range of abilities and desires for adventure, and that natural environments present a broad range of difficulties. Kay Ellis, Accessibility Specialist with the National Park Service, suggests substituting "levels of difficulty" for "levels of accessibility." She reasons that facilities are either accessible or they are not. It is Ms. Ellis' opinion that "levels of difficulty" describes the reality that facilities are often accessible to some, but not to others. Each of the above-mentioned publications includes some form of evaluative system and/or check list based upon several "levels of accessibility" for specific types of site functions. The New Mexico planners and others recognized the importance of providing more detailed access information than the international access symbol, particularly when the current access to even basic facilities is so incomplete. They also recognized that persons with disabilities, from those who use wheelchairs and other mobility assistive devices to persons with visual and other disabilities, represent a broad continuum of ability and daring. People with disabilities are just like everyone else different. 2) Plan for a continuous path of travel. The accessibility of points A and C is meaningless if point B between presents a barrier. For example, an otherwise accessible restroom becomes inaccessible to a person with a grasping difficulty if the restroom door has a knob instead of a lever. Accessibility must be consistent. More complex,outdoor facilities such as large state parks can be designed so that accessibility telescopes from easier to more difficult levels. Such an approach allows for all people to go as far as their inclinations and abilities will allow. Trails, overlooks, and fishing piers should be designed with this principle in mind. 3) Aesthetics and environmental values should be given consideration in the planning process. When accessibility is incorporated into the initial design process, those features which make a facility functional for all will also be pleasing to all. For example, a grassy berm with a concrete retainer wall provides a seating option for everyone, including persons using wheelchairs. It also adds interest to an otherwise flat terrain. This was a feature developed at Flood Park in San Mateo County, California. In another innovative project a corrugated metal tunnel was built by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to allow visitors to safely and accessibly cross the road separating the parking lot and a lake at one of its preserves. The tunnel also served to decrease the grade as well as erosion. When existing facilities are modified, every effort should be made to avoid an add-on appearance. Avoid over-construction. Materials and design should follow the theme of the original design and blend into the environment. 4) Beware of supplies and building materials whose manufacturers tout them as "accessible," but which, in fact, do not comply with government standards. Some plumbing fixtures, for example, meet the access requirement, and others do not; knowing the difference takes a thorough knowledge of the codes and experience. The ubiquitous international symbol of accessibility is often applied indiscriminately to products without regard for the standards (and the law) that that symbol is meant to represent. 5) Facilities must be accessible to everyone. For example, raised buttons must be placed on elevators to be accessible to persons with visual difficulties. They must be placed at a height that is accessible to people of small stature, and to those using wheeled assistive devices. Again, continuous path of travel should be a guide for selecting materials as part of a total design. In order to incorporate accessibility into their facilities and programs, park planners, designers, and managers must first learn and then comply with the laws, UFAS, and other access codes. Despite the limits of existing standards with respect to certain recreational facilities, they must still meet those standards. They are the primary source for accessibility assessment. Agencies may also work with access specialists as planning and design consultants. The expertise and insights that these professionals can provide on the laws and standards relating to accessibility should supplement, not replace the agency's knowledge. Park agencies are required by law to provide facilities and programs that allow all visitors the opportunity to participate in the recreation and nature experience. In the final analysis, they alone bear the responsibility for meeting that mandate. References California Department of Parks and Recreation. Access to Parks: Guidelines for Access to the Programs and Facilities of the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation. San Luis Obispo, California Design Institute, School of Architecture Environmental Design, California Polytechnic State University, 1990. Gaskell, Paul and Williams, Wayne E. Outdoor Recreation for the Disabled in North Carolina. Raleigh: North Carolina Recreation Resources Service, 1988. Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. A Guide to Designing Accessible Outdoor Recreation Facilities. Ann Arbor, Michigan: HCRS Lake Central Regional Office, 1979. Molnar, Doran J.& Rutledge, Albert J.Anatomy of a Park.New York: McGraw-Hill,1986. Nordhaus, Richard S.; Kantrowitz, M. H.; and Siemieda, William J. Accessible Fishing: A Planning Handbook. Albuquerque: New Mexico Natural Resources Department, 1984. Park Access Digest, Vol.2, No.1, Margaret B. Fahringer, Editor. Redwood City, CA: Whole Access, 1992. President's Commission on Americans Outdoors. Report and Recommendations to the President of the United States. Washington, D.C.: G.P.O., 1986. Winston-Salem Mayor's Committee for the Handicapped. Access Winston-Salem: A Guide for Persons with Disabilities, 1986. About the Authors Phyllis Cangemi is the founder (1983) and Executive Director of Whole Access, a Redwood City, California based nonprofit organization. The organization provides a number of educational services including full or half day workshops tailored to a wide variety of needs for groups complying with access regulations. Whole Access provides paid consulting services to park managers, designers and planners for technical information, site access surveys, program recommendations and specific design. Ms. Cangemi has trained with the California Department of Rehabilitation and Office of the State Architect on state and federal access laws, and attended numerous other accessibility conferences and training sessions. She is very active in presenting workshops and papers at a number of national parks and trails conferences. She served on the California State Parks Accessibility Task Force, 1987 to 1990, which was responsible for developing the Access To Parks Guidelines (draft 1990). She presented four papers on access to nature at the February 1992 IVth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas in Caracas, Venezuela (a prelude to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in June, 1992). She has served as technical advisor to the San Francisco Bay Trail, the San Francisco Bay Area Ridge Trail, and the Brooklyn/Queens Greenway (New York). Wayne Williams and Paul Gaskell are Associate Professors in the Department of Health, Leisure and Exercise Science at Appalachian State University. Williams has conducted research for the National Park Service and written for Disabled Outdoors. He serves on the board of Patterns, Inc., a North Carolina based organization that promotes accessibility in outdoor recreation. Paul Gaskell has published articles addressing the recreation needs of special populations and has served on the boards of numerous organizations promoting outdoor recreation opportunities for persons with disabilities. Both have worked with Special Olympics, Senior Games and Cerebral Palsy Games.