سامانه پشتیبانی خدمات اطلاعات

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات161
تعداد شماره‌ها6,532
تعداد مقالات70,502
تعداد مشاهده مقاله124,118,384
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله97,224,419
احمدی, لیلا, توکلی نیا, جمیله. (1402). حمل‌ونقل همه‌شمول: به اشتراک‌گذاری فضاهای حمل‌ونقل همگانی با سالمندان، توان‌جویان، کودکان و نوجوانان. , 11(3), 137-160. doi: 10.22059/jurbangeo.2023.367537.1879
لیلا احمدی; جمیله توکلی نیا. "حمل‌ونقل همه‌شمول: به اشتراک‌گذاری فضاهای حمل‌ونقل همگانی با سالمندان، توان‌جویان، کودکان و نوجوانان". , 11, 3, 1402, 137-160. doi: 10.22059/jurbangeo.2023.367537.1879
احمدی, لیلا, توکلی نیا, جمیله. (1402). 'حمل‌ونقل همه‌شمول: به اشتراک‌گذاری فضاهای حمل‌ونقل همگانی با سالمندان، توان‌جویان، کودکان و نوجوانان', , 11(3), pp. 137-160. doi: 10.22059/jurbangeo.2023.367537.1879
احمدی, لیلا, توکلی نیا, جمیله. حمل‌ونقل همه‌شمول: به اشتراک‌گذاری فضاهای حمل‌ونقل همگانی با سالمندان، توان‌جویان، کودکان و نوجوانان. , 1402; 11(3): 137-160. doi: 10.22059/jurbangeo.2023.367537.1879

حمل‌ونقل همه‌شمول: به اشتراک‌گذاری فضاهای حمل‌ونقل همگانی با سالمندان، توان‌جویان، کودکان و نوجوانان

پژوهش‌های جغرافیای برنامه‌ریزی شهری
مقاله 8، دوره 11، شماره 3، آبان 1402، صفحه 137-160    اصل مقاله (921.66 K)
نوع مقاله: پژوهشی - کاربردی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jurbangeo.2023.367537.1879
نویسندگان
لیلا احمدی1؛ جمیله توکلی نیا* 2
1گروه جغرافیای انسانی و آمایش، دانشکده علوم زمین، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
2گروه جغرافیای انسانی و آمایش، دانشکده علوم زمین، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
چکیده
انتظار می‌رود هر گروه کاربری و نیازهای خاص آن‌ها در برنامه‌ریزی و ارائه خدمات حمل‌ونقل همگانی در نظر گرفته شود. رویکرد همه‌شمول به‌عنوان پاسخی به این چالش، خلق محیط‌های دربرگیرنده‌ای را تضمین می‌کند که برای تمامی شهروندان با طیف وسیعی از توانایی‌ها و محدودیت‌ها سازگار است. شناسایی موانع محیط‌های حمل‌ونقل همگانی برای جابجایی سالمندان، توان‌جویان، کودکان و نوجوانان از دیدگاه حمل‌ونقل همه‌شمول.پژوهش حاضر از حیث هدف کاربردی است که در ابتدا با استفاده از روش اسنادی تجربیات جهانی در مورد موانع جابجایی افراد آسیب‌دیده و کم‌توان را بررسی کرده و سپس به کمک 60 مصاحبه نیمه ساختاریافته که با بیست فرد سالمند، بیست توان‌جو و بیست کودک و نوجوان انجام داده است، سعی در انعکاس صدا و تجربیات آن‌ها به‌عنوان نمایندگان گروه‌های به حاشیه رانده شده در فضای حمل‌ونقل همگانی دارد. گروه سالمندان مناسب‌سازی محیط‌های حمل‌ونقل را در پرداختن به ویژگی‌های طراحی و همچنین بهبود دسترسی جست‌وجو می‌کردند درحالی‌که افراد توان‌جو ابتدا به آموزش کارکنان و در درجه بعدی مسئله طراحی فیزیکی اشاره داشتند. کودکان نیز افزایش انعطاف‌پذیری و بهبود امنیت و ایمنی را ازجمله مهم‌ترین خواسته‌های خود می‌دانستند. با توجه به روند روبه رشد سالمندی در کشور و آگاهی روزافزون از لزوم مشارکت همه شهروندان در زندگی اقتصادی و اجتماعی جوامع، اتخاذ رویکرد همه‌شمول در خلق و ارائه محیط‌های حمل‌ونقل، می‌تواند آن را به یک جایگزین جذاب برای افراد کم‌توان و آسیب‌پذیر و افرادی که نقص و عدم استقلال در جابجایی را تجربه می‌کنند، تبدیل کند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
حمل‌ونقل همگانی؛ حمل‌ونقل همه‌شمول؛ حمل‌ونقل فراگیر؛ نارسایی‌های حمل‌ونقل؛ نیازهای برآورد نشده جابجایی
عنوان مقاله [English]
Inclusive transportation: sharing public transportation spaces with the elderly, disabled, children and teenagers
نویسندگان [English]
Leyla Ahmadi1؛ Jamileh Tavakolinia2
1Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
2Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]
ABSTRACT
Public transportation plays a central role in people's daily commute, connecting them to work, education, and leisure environments. It's essential to consider the specific needs of each user group when planning and providing these services. To address this challenge, inclusive approach is necessary to ensure the creation of barrier-free transport environments that are compatible with all citizens, regardless of their abilities and limitations. This research used the documentary method to investigate global experiences regarding the transport barriers of disabled people. The study also conducted 60 semi-structured interviews with 20 elderly people, 20 disabled people, and 20 children and teenagers. The aim was to reflect the voices and experiences of these people as representatives of marginalized groups. Through analysis of research literature and conducted interviews, it has been found that addressing certain issues can greatly improve the inclusivity of public transportation.. The elderly group expressed the need for optimized transportation environments through better design features and improved access. Disabled individuals prioritized employee training and the physical design of transportation environments. Children placed importance on increasing flexibility and enhancing security and safety measures. Considering the growing trend of aging in the country and the growing awareness of the need for the participation of all citizens in the economic and social life of societies, adopting an all-inclusive approach in creating and providing transportation environments can make it an attractive alternative for disabled and vulnerable people
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Public transportation is essential for daily commutes, connecting people to work, education, and leisure activities. There is a strong connection between transportation accessibility and social exclusion experienced by people with disabilities, as recent research has shown. This issue has gained the attention of both scientific communities and political decision-makers in recent years. Just because someone has a disability, it doesn't mean that they are not entitled to a fulfilling life. Disability is not only determined by personal characteristics but is also affected by environmental and situational factors. Consequently, travel impairment should be considered a product of human-environment interaction, and people with disabilities may face transportation problems due to a lack of necessary transportation functions. The transport system must be accessible to all, particularly vulnerable groups and those with mobility impairments, and should be promoted as a reliable alternative to private transportation. Unfortunately, due to physical limitations and societal environments that assume high mobility, people with disabilities may become isolated from economic and political affairs, opportunities, services, and social networks.
 
Methodology
The current research has used a mixed approach, combining both qualitative and quantitative data to investigate the characteristics of inclusive transportation spaces in Tehran. To determine the indicators for the qualitative part, document study and content analysis techniques were used, in addition to a survey. Face-to-face interviews and thematic analysis techniques were also employed to study the characteristics of the participating community. For the quantitative part, Shannon's entropy method was used. The research participants were elderly individuals (men and women over 65 years old), disabled individuals (men and women with physical and movement disabilities), and children and teenagers (boys and girls between 7 and 16 years old) who have experience using public transportation services in Tehran. A sample size of 20 people was considered for each study group (elderly, disabled, and children/teenagers), resulting in a total of 60 participants.
 
Results and discussion
Conducting documentary studies and content analysis of research literature showed that dealing with issues such as flexibility, comfort, reliability, physical design, access, security and personal safety, economic issues, staff training, and readability are important indicators that are considered getting them can turn public transportation environments into inclusive spaces. Then an attempt was made to identify the concerns and needs of these people in public transportation environments by conducting interviews with the group of elderly people, disabled people, and children and teenagers as representatives of vulnerable groups. Physical design, comfort, and security, and safety were the most important issues mentioned by participants from all three groups to improve transportation. Although there was some overlap between the ideas and concerns presented, the demands of each group were prioritized differently. For example, the elderly group sought to optimize transportation environments by addressing design features as well as improving access, while the group of disabled people first referred to staff training and secondly to the issue of physical design. Children also considered increasing flexibility and improving security and safety as one of their most important demands. Then, in order to determine the priorities of inclusive transportation planning, taking into account the opinions of participants from all three groups, the weight of the components from the interviews, with the Shannon entropy of the case Calculated. Considering that the basis of entropy is based on the fact that the greater the dispersion in the values of an index, the more important that index is, it was very appropriate for the current research that was trying to pay more attention to the special needs of each group. The results of entropy showed that the highest weight belongs to the training of employees, and secondly, economic issues require more attention. Other weights also belong to the flexibility index, readability, security and safety, physical design, access, and convenience, and finally, the least amount of weight was given to the reliability index.
 
Conclusion
Considering the demographic changes and social developments such as the growing trend of population aging and the increasing awareness of the need for the participation of all citizens in the economic and social life of societies, adopting an all-inclusive approach in creating and providing transportation environments can be a suitable and appropriate response to promote Spatial justice in cities. This approach acknowledges that human abilities are not only diverse but also undergo changes along the way of life. This inclusive approach is a way of creating and providing environments that are inherently accessible not only to people without disabilities, but also to people with disabilities, the elderly, and many others, such as children, who are often left out by traditional design.
 
Funding
There is no funding support.
 
Authors’ Contribution
Authors contributed equally to the conceptualization and writing of the article. All of the authors approved thecontent of the manuscript and agreed on all aspects of the work declaration of competing interest none.
 
Conflict of Interest
Authors declared no conflict of interest.
 
Acknowledgments
 We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper, especially the members of the panel and also Mr. Mohammad Pour Akrami.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
Public transport, Inclusive transport, Univeral transport, Transport disadvantage, Unmet travel needs
مراجع
  1. بیکر، ترز ال، (1994)، نحوه انجام تحقیقات اجتماعی. ترجمه هوشنگ نایبی (1394)، چاپ سوم، تهران، نشر نی.
  2. حکمت‌نیا، حسن و موسوی، میرنجف، (1385)، کاربرد مدل در جغرافیا با تأکید بر برنامه‌ریزی شهری و ناحیه‌ای، چاپ اول، تهران، علم نوین.
  3. کمالی، یحیی، (1397) روش‌شناسی تحلیل مضمون و کاربرد آن در مطالعات سیاست‌گذاری عمومی، سیاست‌گذاری عمومی، 4 (2)، 189-208 https://doi.org/10.22059/PPOLICY.2018.67875
هی، ایان، (2000)، روش‌های تحقیق کیفی در جغرافیای انسانی، ترجمه احمد پوراحمد، (1393)، تهران، سمت.

  1. Aarhaug, J., & Elvebakk, B. (2015). The impact of universally accessible public transport–a before and after study. Transport Policy, 44, 143-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.08.003
  2. Ahmad, M. (2015). Independent-mobility rights and the state of public transport accessibility for disabled people: Evidence from southern Punjab in Pakistan. Administration & Society, 47(2), 197-213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399713490691
  3. Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative research, 1(3), 385-405. https://doi.org/10.1177/146879410100100307
  4. Baker, Therese. L. (1994). Doing social research. Translated by Hoshang Nayebi, third edition, Ney, Tehran. [In Persian]
  5. Banister, D., & Bowling, A. (2004). Quality of life for the elderly: the transport dimension Transport policy, 11(2), 105-115. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0967-070X(03)00052-0
  6. Barnes, J., Morris, A., Welsh, R., Summerskill, S., Marshall, R., Kendrick, D., ... & Bell, J. (2016). Injuries to older users of buses in the UK. Public Transport, 8, 25-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-015-0113-8
  7. Beecroft, M., & Pangbourne, K. (2015). Personal security in travel by public transport: the role of traveller information and associated technologies. IET intelligent transport systems, 9(2), 167-174. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-its.2013.0166
  8. Bérubé B. (1981). Barrier-free design--making the environment accessible to the disabled. Canadian Medical Association journal, 124(1), 68–78.
  9. Bezyak, J. L., Sabella, S. A., & Gattis, R. H. (2017). Public transportation: an investigation of barriers for people with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 28(1), 52-60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207317702070
  10. Biggs, S., & Carr, A. (2015). Age-and child-friendly cities and the promise of intergenerational space. Journal of Social Work Practice, 29(1), 99-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650533.2014.993942
  11. Biggs, S., & Carr, A. (2016). Age friendliness, childhood, and dementia: Toward generationally intelligent environments. Age-friendly cities and communities in international comparison: Political lessons, scientific avenues, and democratic issues, 259-276. HTTPS://DOI.ORG/10.1007/978-3-319-24031-2
  12. Bjerkan, K. Y., & Øvstedal, L. R. (2020). Functional requirements for inclusive transport. Transportation, 47(3), 1177-1198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-018-9939-7
  13. Bjerkan, K. Y., Nordtømme, M. E., & Kummeneje, A. M. (2013). Transportation to employment. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 15(4), 342-360. https://doi.org/10.1080/15017419.2012.735199
  14. Börjesson, M. (2012). Valuing perceived insecurity associated with use of and access to public transport. Transport Policy, 22, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.04.004
  15. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  16. Broome, K., McKenna, K., Fleming, J., & Worrall, L. (2009). Bus use and older people: A literature review applying the Person–Environment–Occupation model in macro practice. Scandinavian journal of occupational therapy, 16(1), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/11038120802326222
  17. Buys, L., Snow, S., van Megen, K., & Miller, E. (2012). Transportation behaviours of older adults: an investigation into car dependency in urban Australia. Australasian journal on ageing, 31(3), 181-186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6612.2011.00567.x
  18. Casadó, R. G., Golightly, D., Laing, K., Palacin, R., & Todd, L. (2020). Children, Young people and Mobility as a Service: Opportunities and barriers for future mobility. Transportation research interdisciplinary perspectives, 4, 100107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2020.100107
  19. Ceccato, V., & Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2022). Fear of sexual harassment and its impact on safety perceptions in transit environments: a global perspective. Violence against women, 28(1), 26-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801221992874
  20. Chica-Olmo, J., Gachs-Sánchez, H., & Lizarraga, C. (2018). Route effect on the perception of public transport services quality. Transport Policy, 67, 40-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.03.024
  21. Church, A., Frost, M., & Sullivan, K. (2000). Transport and social exclusion in London. Transport policy, 7(3), 195-205 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-070X(00)00024-X
  22. Clarkson, P. J., & Coleman, R. (2015). History of inclusive design in the UK. Applied ergonomics, 46, 235-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.03.002
  23. Clarkson, P. J., Coleman, R., Keates, S., & Lebbon, C. (2013). Inclusive design: Design for the whole population, springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0001-0
  24. Coleman, R., ClaRkSON, J. O. H. N., & Cassim, J. (2016). Design for inclusivity: A practical guide to accessible, innovative and user-centred design. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315576626
  25. Cooper, B. A., Cohen, U., & Hasselkus, B. R. (1991). Barrier-free design: a review and critique of the occupational therapy perspective. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45(4), 344-350. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.45.4.344
  26. Currie, G., & Delbosc, A. (2010). Modelling the social and psychological impacts of transport disadvantage. Transportation, 37, 953-966. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-010-9280-2
  27. Cushing, D. F., & van Vliet, W. (2016). Intergenerational communities as healthy places for meaningful engagement and interaction. Families, Intergenerationality, and Peer Group Relations; Punch, S., Vanderbeck, RM, Skelton, T., Eds, 239-265.. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-026-1_10
  28. Davey, J. A. (2007). Older people and transport: coping without a car. Ageing & Society, 27(1), 49-65. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X06005332
  29. Deka, D., Feeley, C., & Lubin, A. (2016). Travel patterns, needs, and barriers of adults with autism spectrum disorder: report from a survey. Transportation research record, 2542(1), 9-16. https://doi.org/10.3141/2542-02
  30. Erlandson, R. F. (2007). Universal and accessible design for products, services, and processes. CRC Press.
  31. Fatima, K., & Moridpour, S. (2019). Measuring public transport accessibility for elderly. In MATEC Web of Conferences (Vol. 259, p. 03006). EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201925903006
  32. Fellesson, M., & Friman, M. (2008). Perceived satisfaction with public transport service in nine European cities. Journal of the Transportation Research Forum (Vol. 47, No. 1424-2016-118014, pp. 92-102). https://doi.org/10.5399/osu/jtrf.47.3.2126
  33. Fobker, S., & Grotz, R. (2006). Everyday mobility of elderly people in different urban settings: The example of the city of Bonn, Germany. Urban studies, 43(1), 99-118. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980500409292
  34. Forhan, M. (2009). An analysis of disability models and the application of the ICF to obesity. Disability and rehabilitation, 31(16), 1382-1388. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280802572981
  35. Fotel, T., & Thomsen, T. U. (2003). The Surveillance of Children's Mobility. Surveillance & Society, 1(4). https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v1i4.3335
  36. Friman, M., Edvardsson, B., & Gärling, T. (2001). Frequency of negative critical incidents and satisfaction with public transport services. I. Journal of retailing and consumer services, 8(2), 95-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-6989(00)00004-7
  37. Friman, M., Gärling, T., & Ettema, D. (2019). Improvement of public transport services for non-cycling travelers. Travel Behaviour and Society, 16, 235-240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2018.03.004
  38. Gallagher, B. A., Hart, P. M., O'Brien, C., Stevenson, M. R., & Jackson, A. J. (2011). Mobility and access to transport issues as experienced by people with vision impairment living in urban and rural Ireland. Disability and rehabilitation, 33(12), 979-988. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2010.516786
  39. Gilhooly M, Hamilton K, O’Neil M, Gow J, Webster N and Pike F (2002) Transport and Ageing:Extending Quality of Life via Public and Private Transport. Glasgow, UK: Glasgow CaledonianUniversity. Available at https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/1312/1/PDF%20ESRC%20Transport%20Final%20Report.pdf
  40. Goldsmith, S. (2007). Universal design. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780080520209
  41. Gregor, P., Newell, A. F., & Zajicek, M. (2002). Designing for dynamic diversity: interfaces for older people. In Proceedings of the fifth international ACM conference on Assistive technologies (pp. 151-156). https://doi.org/10.1145/638249.638277
  42. Haegele, J. A., & Hodge, S. (2016). Disability discourse: Overview and critiques of the medical and social models. Quest, 68(2), 193-206. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2016.1143849
  43. Haider, J. (2007). Inclusive design: Planning public urban spaces for children. In Proceedings of the institution of civil engineers-municipal engineer (Vol. 160, No. 2, pp. 83-88). Thomas Telford Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1680/muen.2007.160.2.83
  44. Hanson, J. (2004). The inclusive city: delivering a more accessible urban environment through inclusive design. Available at:. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/3351
  45. Hay, I. (2000), Qualitative research methods in human geography, translated by Ahmed Pourahmad, (2013), Samt, Tehran. [In Persian].
  46. He, S. Y., Thøgersen, J., Cheung, Y. H., & Alesia, H. Y. (2020). Ageing in a transit-oriented city: Satisfaction with transport, social inclusion and wellbeing. Transport Policy, 97(1), 85-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.06.016
  47. Hekmatnia, H., & Mousavi, M. (2006). Application of Models in Geography with Emphasis on Regional and Urban Planning. [In Persian].
  48. Hensher, D. A., Stopher, P., & Bullock, P. (2003). Service quality––developing a service quality index in the provision of commercial bus contracts. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 37(6), 499-517. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0965-8564(02)00075-7
  49. Hine, J., & Mitchell, F. (2001). Better for everyone? Travel experiences and transport exclusion. Urban studies, 38(2), 319-332. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980020018619
  50. Hjorthol, R. (2013). Transport resources, mobility and unmet transport needs in old age. Ageing & Society, 33(7), 1190-1211. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X12000517
  51. Imrie, R., & Hall, P. (2003). Inclusive design: designing and developing accessible environments. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203362501
  52. Iwarsson, S., & Ståhl, A. (2003). Accessibility, usability and universal design—positioning and definition of concepts describing person-environment relationships. Disability and rehabilitation, 25(2), 57-66. https://doi.org/10.1080/dre.25.2.57.66
  53. Jansuwan, S., Christensen, K. M., & Chen, A. (2013). Assessing the transportation needs of low-mobility individuals: Case study of a small urban community in Utah, Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 139(2), 104-114. HTTPS https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000142
  54. Jones, L., Davis, A., & Eyers, T. (2000). Young people, transport and risk: comparing access and independent mobility in urban, suburban and rural environments. Health education journal, 59(4), 315-328. https://doi.org/10.1177/001789690005900405
  55. Kamali, Y. (2018). Methodology of thematic analysis and its application in public policy studies. Iranian Journal of Public Policy, 4(2), 189-208. https://doi.org/10.22059/PPOLICY.2018.67875 [In Persian].
  56. Kamruzzaman, M., Yigitcanlar, T., Yang, J., & Mohamed, M. A. (2016). Measures of transport-related social exclusion: A critical review of the literature. Sustainability, 8(7), 696. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070696
  57. Kaplan, M., Sanchez, M., & Hoffman, J. (2017). Intergenerational pathways to a sustainable society (pp. 141-162). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47019-1
  58. Karner, A., London, J., Rowangould, D., & Manaugh, K. (2020). From transportation equity to transportation justice: within, through, and beyond the state. journal of planning literature, 35(4), 440-459. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412220927691
  59. Keates, S., Clarkson, P. J., Harrison, L. A., & Robinson, P. (2000, November). Towards a practical inclusive design approach. In Proceedings on the 2000 conference on Universal Usability (pp. 45-52 https://doi.org/10.1145/355460.355471
  60. Kett, M., & Deluca, M. (2016). Transport and access to inclusive education in Mashonaland West Province, Zimbabwe. Social Inclusion, 4(3), 61-71. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v4i3.502
  61. Kett, M., Cole, E., & Turner, J. (2020). Disability, mobility and transport in low-and middle-income countries: a thematic review. Sustainability, 12(2), 589. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020589
  62. Kim, J. K., Ulfarsson, G. F., & Sohn, K. (2014). Transportation deficiencies for older adults in Seoul, South Korea. Transportation Research Record, 2469(1), 76-88. https://doi.org/10.3141/2469-09
  63. Kim, S., & Ulfarsson, G. F. (2013). Transportation in an aging society: Linkage between transportation and quality of life. Transportation research record, 2357(1), 109-115. https://doi.org/10.3141/2357-13
  64. Li, H., Raeside, R., Chen, T., & McQuaid, R. W. (2012). Population ageing, gender and the transportation system, Research in transportation economics, 34(1), 39-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2011.12.007
  65. Lindsay, S. (2020). Accessible and inclusive transportation for youth with disabilities: exploring innovative solutions. Disability and rehabilitation, 42(8), 1131-1140. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2018.1517194
  66. Lindsay, S., & Lamptey, D. L. (2019). Pedestrian navigation and public transit training interventions for youth with disabilities: a systematic review. Disability and rehabilitation, 41(22), 2607-2621. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2018.1471165
  67. Logan, P. A., Dyas, J., & Gladman, J. R. (2004). Using an interview study of transport use by people who have had a stroke to inform rehabilitation. Clinical rehabilitation, 18(6), 703-708. https://doi.org/10.1191/0269215504cr742oa
  68. Low, W. Y., Cao, M., De Vos, J., & Hickman, R. (2020). The journey experience of visually impaired people on public transport in London. Transport Policy, 97, 137-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.07.018
  69. Lubin, A., & Deka, D. (2012). Role of public transportation as job access mode: Lessons from survey of people with disabilities in New Jersey. Transportation research record, 2277(1), 90-97. https://doi.org/10.3141/2277-11
  70. Lucas, K. (2006). Providing transport for social inclusion within a framework for environmental justice in the UK. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 40(10), 801-809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2005.12.005
  71. Luiu, C., Tight, M., & Burrow, M. (2017). The unmet travel needs of the older population: a review of the literature. Transport Reviews, 37(4), 488-506. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2016.1252447
  72. Ma, H., & Peng, Z. (2017, January). Study on law of barrier-free environmental construction in China. In 2017 International Conference on Education, Culture and Social Development (ICECSD 2017) (pp. 220-223). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/icecsd-17.2017.49
  73. Mace, R. (1985). Universal design: Barrier free environments for everyone. Designers West, 33(1), 147-152.
  74. Mackett, R. (2015). Improving accessibility for older people–Investing in a valuable asset. Journal of Transport & Health, 2(1), 5-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2014.10.004
  75. Mahmoud, M., & Hine, J. (2016). Measuring the influence of bus service quality on the perception of users. Transportation Planning and Technology, 39(3), 284-299. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060.2016.1142224
  76. Martens, K. (2018). Ageing, impairments and travel: Priority setting for an inclusive transport system. Transport Policy, 63, 122-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.12.001
  77. McCray, T., & Brais, N. (2007). Exploring the role of transportation in fostering social exclusion: The use of GIS to support qualitative data. Networks and Spatial Economics, 7, 397-412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-007-9031-x
  78. Metz, D. (2003). Transport policy for an ageing population. Transport reviews, 23(4), 375-386. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144164032000048573
  79. Mitchell, L., & Burton, E. (2006). Neighbourhoods for life: Designing dementia‐friendly outdoor environments. Quality in Ageing and Older Adults, 7(1), 26-33. https://doi.org/10.1108/14717794200600005
  80. Mogaji, E., & Nguyen, N. P. (2021). Transportation satisfaction of disabled passengers: Evidence from a developing country. Transportation research part D: transport and environment, 98(2):102982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102982
  81. Mosca, E. I., Herssens, J., Rebecchi, A., Froyen, H., & Capolongo, S. (2019). “Design for All” manual: From users’ needs to inclusive design strategies. In Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018) Volume VII: Ergonomics in Design, Design for All, Activity Theories for Work Analysis and Design, Affective Design 20 (pp. 1724-1734). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI220856
  82. Nelischer, C., & Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2023). Intergenerational public space design and policy: A review of the literature. Journal of Planning Literature, 38(1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/08854122221092175
  83. Newell, A. F., & Gregor, P. (2000, November). “User sensitive inclusive design”—in search of a new paradigm. In Proceedings on the 2000 conference on Universal Usability (pp. 39-44). https://doi.org/10.1145/355460.355470
  84. Nordbakke, S., & Schwanen, T. (2015). Transport, unmet activity needs and wellbeing in later life: exploring the links. Transportation, 42, 1129-1151. https://doi.org/10.1145/355460.355470
  85. Null, R. (Ed.). (2013). Universal design: Principles and models. CRC Press.
  86. Odeck, J., Hagen, T., & Fearnley, N. (2010). Economic appraisal of universal design in transport: Experiences from Norway. Research in transportation economics, 29(1), 304-311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2010.07.038
  87. Ostroff, E. (2011). Universal design: an evolving paradigm. Universal design handbook.
  88. Park, J., & Chowdhury, S. (2018). Investigating the barriers in a typical journey by public transport users with disabilities. Journal of transport & health, 10, 361-368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2018.05.008
  89. Patrick, M., & McKinnon, I. (2022). Co-creating Inclusive Public Spaces: Learnings from Four Global Case Studies on inclusive Cities. The Journal of Public Space, 7(2), 93-116. https://doi.org/10.32891/jps.v7i2.1500
  90. Patrick, V. M., & Hollenbeck, C. R. (2021). Designing for all: Consumer response to inclusive design. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31(2), 360-381. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1225
  91. Persson, H., Åhman, H., Yngling, A. A., & Gulliksen, J. (2015). Universal design, inclusive design, accessible design, design for all: different concepts—one goal? On the concept of accessibility—historical, methodological and philosophical aspects. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14(4), 505-526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0358-z
  92. Phillips, J., Walford, N., Hockey, A., Foreman, N., & Lewis, M. (2013). Older people and outdoor environments: Pedestrian anxieties and barriers in the use of familiar and unfamiliar spaces. Geoforum, 47, 113-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.04.002
  93. Preston, J., & Rajé, F. (2007). Accessibility, mobility and transport-related social exclusion. Journal of transport geography, 15(3), 151-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2006.05.002
  94. Rahman, M. M., Strawderman, L., Adams-Price, C., & Turner, J. J. (2016). Transportation alternative preferences of the aging population. Travel Behaviour and Society, 4, 22-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2015.12.003
  95. Risser, R., Lexell, E. M., Bell, D., Iwarsson, S., & Ståhl, A. (2015). Use of local public transport among people with cognitive impairments–A literature review. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 29, 83-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.01.002
  96. Rosenberg, D. E., Huang, D. L., Simonovich, S. D., & Belza, B. (2013). Outdoor built environment barriers and facilitators to activity among midlife and older adults with mobility disabilities. The Gerontologist, 53(2), 268-279. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gns119
  97. Schwanen, T., Lucas, K., Akyelken, N., Solsona, D. C., Carrasco, J. A., & Neutens, T. (2015). Rethinking the links between social exclusion and transport disadvantage through the lens of social capital. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 74, 123-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.02.012
  98. Shakespeare, T. (2004). Social models of disability and other life strategies. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 6(1), 8-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15017410409512636 Singh, N., & Vasudevan, V. (2018). Understanding school trip mode choice–The case of Kanpur (India). Journal of transport geography, 66, 283-290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.12.007
  99. Siren, A., & Hakamies-Blomqvist, L. (2005). Sense and sensibility. A narrative study of older women’s car driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 8(3), 213-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2005.04.008
  100. Smith, C. C., Cihak, D. F., Kim, B., McMahon, D. D., & Wright, R. (2017). Examining augmented reality to improve navigation skills in postsecondary students with intellectual disability. Journal of Special Education Technology, 32(1), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643416681159
  101. Smith, M. J. (2008). Addressing the security needs of women passengers on public transport. Security Journal, 21, 117-133. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.sj.8350071
  102. Steinfeld, E., & Maisel, J. (2012). Universal design: Creating inclusive environments. John Wiley & Sons.
  103. Story, M. F. (2001). Principles of universal design. Universal design handbook. https://doi.org/10.26687/archnet-ijar.v2i2.234
  104. Su, F., & Bell, M. G. (2012). Travel differences by gender for older people in London. Research in Transportation Economics, 34(1), 35-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2011.12.011
  105. Terry, G., Hayfield, N., Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology, 2, 17-37. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  106. Thaithatkul, P., Chalermpong, S., Laosinwattana, W., & Kato, H. (2022). Mobility, activities, and happiness in old age: case of the elderly in Bangkok. Case studies on transport policy, 10(2), 1462-1471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2022.05.010
  107. UNhabitat, 2022, World cities report, Envisaging the Future of Cities. Available at: https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2022/06/wcr_2022.pdf
  108. Van den Berg, P., Arentze, T., & Timmermans, H. (2011). Estimating social travel demand of senior citizens in the Netherlands. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(2), 323-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.03.018
  109. Vavik, T. (Ed.). (2009). Inclusive buildings, products & services: challenges in universal design. Tapir Academic Press.
  110. Verbich, D., & El-Geneidy, A. (2016). The pursuit of satisfaction: Variation in satisfaction with bus transit service among riders with encumbrances and riders with disabilities using a large-scale survey from London, UK. Transport Policy, 47, 64-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.12.009
  111. Wasfi, R., Levinson, D., & El-Geneidy, A. (2006). Measuring the transportation needs of people with developmental disabilities, presented at the 86th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board in Washington, DC, January 21-25 200. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1743631.
  112. Wennberg, H., Hydén, C., & Ståhl, A. (2010). Barrier-free outdoor environments: Older peoples’ perceptions before and after implementation of legislative directives. Transport policy, 17(6), 464-474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.04.013
  113. Yumita, F. R., Irawan, M. Z., Malkhamah, S., & Kamal, M. I. H. (2021). School Commuting: Barriers, Abilities and Strategies toward Sustainable Public Transport Systems in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Sustainability, 13(16), 9372. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169372
  114. Zając, A. P. (2016). City accessible for everyone–improving accessibility of public transport using the universal design concept. Transportation Research Procedia, 14, 1270-1276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.199
  115. Zeitler, E., & Buys, L. (2015). Mobility and out-of-home activities of older people living in suburban environments: ‘Because I'm a driver, I don't have a problem'. Ageing & Society, 35(4), 785-808. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X13001086
  116. Zwerts, E., Allaert, G., Janssens, D., Wets, G., & Witlox, F. (2010). How children view their travel behaviour: a case study from Flanders (Belgium). Journal of transport geography, 18(6), 702-710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.10.002
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 222
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 220


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب