The Precarious Absence of Disability Perspectives in Planning Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One in five people in the world are said to have some type of disability. Disability is not merely individuals’ compromised capability in navigating the built environment, but rather the ‘misfit’ of capabilities with how a given living environment is organized. Planning, therefore, has a crucial role to play in responding to the needs of this significant population through changes to the built and social environment. However, discussion on planning theories and practices with a focus on persons with disability (PWD) has been limited to more specific realms of ‘design,’ and precariously absent in broader planning research. This systematic literature review aims to inform potential directions for planning scholarship by exploring the current and historic planning research investigating the needs of PWD. We compiled relevant papers from five prominent English language planning journals, some of which are long-standing (Town Planning Review, 1910–, Journal of the American Planning Association, 1935–). A very limited number of papers (n = 36) on topics related to PWD of any type have been published in the five journals throughout their existence, with even fewer focusing on the population. The subareas of planning these papers addressed include housing, transportation, land use, policy, and urban design. Many papers called for participation by PWD in the planning and decision-making processes, and some recent papers advocated for the production of evidence related to costs of creating accessible infrastructure. A critical look on some disciplinary divides and enhanced roles of planning research would be beneficial.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.041 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".