Access to historic environments for tourists with disabilities: a compromise?

Historic environments, the basis for heritage tourism, are difficult to access for people with disabilities. Many countries have introduced legislation to promote equal rights for people with disabilities. Historic environments, however, enjoy protection under national planning systems which limit the physical access improvements that can be made. The significance of historic environments for tourism in the UK is outlined. Barriers restricting tourists with disabilities accessing historic sites are reviewed from the heritage tourism service provider's viewpoint. Interests of the major stakeholders are considered in terms of the apparent conflict between conservation and access issues as heritage tourism service providers seek to comply with disability discrimination legislation. From a study of access improvements made by major heritage tourism service providers, good practice is identified. However, physical access improvements to enable tourists with disabilities to visit historic environments are a compromise because of the strength of conservation interests. Questions remain as to whether this compromise is acceptable to the tourist with disabilities and whether intellectual access is an acceptable substitute for physical presence.

Heritage property, tourism and the UK Disability Discrimination Act

Heritage tourism depends on a physical resource based primarily on listed buildings and scheduled monuments. Visiting or staying in a historic building provides a rich tourism experience, but historic environments date from eras when access for disabled people was not a consideration. Current UK Government policy now promotes social inclusion via an array of equal opportunities, widening participation and anti-discrimination policies. Historic environments enjoy considerable legislative protection from adverse change, but now need to balance conservation with public access for all. This paper discusses the basis of research being undertaken by The College of Estate Management funded by the Mercers Company of London and the Harold Samuel Trust. It assesses how the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act has changed the legal obligations of owners/operators in managing access to listed buildings in tourism use. It also examines the key stakeholders and power structures in the management of historic buildings and distinguishes other important players in the management process.

Modeling infant speech sound discrimination using simple associative networks

Infants' responses in speech sound discrimination tasks can be nonmonotonic over time. Stager and Werker (1997) reported such data in a bimodal habituation task. In this task, 8-month-old infants were capable of discriminations that involved minimal contrast pairs, whereas 14-month-old infants were not. It was argued that the older infants' attenuated performance was linked to their processing of the stimuli for meaning. The authors suggested that these data are diagnostic of a qualitative shift in infant cognition. We describe an associative connectionist model showing a similar decrement in discrimination without any qualitative shift in processing. The model suggests that responses to phonemic contrasts may be a nonmonotonic function of experience with language. The implications of this idea are discussed. The model also provides a formal framework for studying habituation-dishabituation behaviors in infancy.

Innovation care pathways and the healthcare built environment: An explanatory framework and research agenda

The built environment in which health and social care is delivered can have an impact on the efficiency and outcomes of care processes. The health-care estate is large and growing and is expensive to build, adapt and maintain. The design of these buildings is a complex, difficult and political process. Better use of care pathways as an input to the design and use of the built environment has the potential to deliver significant benefits. A number of variations on the idea of care pathways are already used in designing health-care buildings but this is under-researched. This paper provides a framework for thinking about care pathways and the health-care built environment. The framework distinguishes between five different pathway ‘types’ defined for the purpose of understanding the relationship between pathways and infrastructure. The five types are: ‘care pathways’, ‘integrated care pathways’, ‘patient pathways’, ‘patient journeys’ and ‘patient flows’. The built environment implications of each type are discussed and recommendations made for those involved in either building development or care pathway projects.

Care pathways and designing the healthcare built environment: an explanatory framework

The built environment in which health and social care is delivered can have an impact on the efficiency and outcomes of care processes. The health-care estate is large and growing and is expensive to build, adapt and maintain. The design of these buildings is a complex, difficult and political process. Better use of care pathways as an input to the design and use of the built environment has the potential to deliver significant benefits. A number of variations on the idea of care pathways are already used in designing health-care buildings but this is under-researched. This paper provides a framework for thinking about care pathways and the health-care built environment. The framework distinguishes between five different pathway ‘types’ defined for the purpose of understanding the relationship between pathways and infrastructure. The five types are: ‘care pathways’, ‘integrated care pathways’, ‘patient pathways’, ‘patient journeys’ and ‘patient flows’. The built environment implications of each type are discussed and recommendations made for those involved in either building development or care pathway projects.