A journey access tool to facilitate mobility-related access for people with disabilities in low and middle income countries

People with disabilities (PWD) experience difficulties in accessing the transport system (including both infrastructure and services) to meet their needs for health care, employment and other activities. Our research shows that lack of access to the journeys needed for these purposes is a more significant barrier in low and middle income countries than in high income countries, and results in inadequate health care, rehabilitation and access to education and employment. At the same time, the existing transport system in low and middle income countries presents much higher road crash risks than in high income countries. By combining the principles and methods of Road Safety Audit and disability access, and adapting these Western approaches to a low/middle income country context, we have worked with Handicap International Cambodia to develop a Journey Access Tool (JAT) for use by disabled peoples’ organisations (DPOs), people with a disability and other key stakeholders. A key element of the approach is that it involves the participation of PWD on the journeys that they need to take, and it identifies infrastructure and service improvements that should be prioritised in order to facilitate access to these journeys. The JAT has been piloted in Cambodia with a range of PWD. This presentation will outline the design of the JAT and the results of the pilot studies. The information gained thus far strongly suggests that the JAT is a valuable and cost-effective approach that can be used by DPOs and professionals to identify barriers to access and prioritise the steps needed to address them.

Mobility, accessibility and activity participation : a comparative assessment of methods to identify rural transport disadvantage

Traditionally, transport disadvantage has been identified using accessibility analysis although the effectiveness of the accessibility planning approach to improving access to goods and services is not known. This paper undertakes a comparative assessment of measures of mobility, accessibility, and participation used to identify transport disadvantage using the concept of activity spaces. A 7 day activity-travel diary data for 89 individuals was collected from two case study areas located in rural Northern Ireland. A spatial analysis was conducted to select the case study areas using criteria derived from the literature. The criteria are related to the levels of area accessibility and area mobility which are known to influence the nature of transport disadvantage. Using the activity-travel diary data individuals weekly as well as day to day variations in activity-travel patterns were visualised. A model was developed using the ArcGIS ModelBuilder tool and was run to derive scores related to individual levels of mobility, accessibility, and participation in activities from the geovisualisation. Using these scores a multiple regression analysis was conducted to identify patterns of transport disadvantage. This study found a positive association between mobility and accessibility, between mobility and participation, and between accessibility and participation in activities. However, area accessibility and area mobility were found to have little impact on individual mobility, accessibility, and participation in activities. Income vis-àvis ´ car-ownership was found to have a significant impact on individual levels of mobility, and accessibility; whereas participation in activities were found to be a function of individual levels of income and their occupational status.

Discussion Paper : Proposed CDIO Standard 13 - Internationalisation and Mobility

The benefits and growing need for international transparency in engineering qualifications, simple cross-credit processes, international dual awards and mechanisms to encourage student mobility, are receiving much attention around the world at present. In response, there are a number of global initiatives now looking at how these issues may be addressed, particularly in Europe, North America and Australia. CDIO has adopted 12 Standards as guiding principles for program reform and evaluation. The 12 CDIO Standards address program philosophy curriculum development, design-build experiences and workspaces, new methods of teaching and learning, faculty/academic development, and assessment and evaluation. However, none of the Standards address international qualifications nor student mobility. This discussion paper presents the underpinning case for introducing the 13th CDIO Standard, Internationalization and Mobility.