A survey on understanding factors that influence accessibility in national and provincial parks for adults with disabilities and caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Information is vital for trip planning to a national park for people with disabilities. • People with disabilities rely on private transportation to get to parks. • Inaccessible built environment is the biggest barrier to enjoying a park visit. • Psycho-emotional barriers leave people with disabilities frustrated and disappointed. Over 8 million Canadians have a disability, and many develop secondary health conditions. Access to nature through national and provincial parks has benefits for wellbeing which can improve the quality of life of people with disabilities and minimize the impacts of related health conditions. To facilitate equitable access to parks and park activities, we captured the perspectives of people with disabilities and their caregivers to uncover the factors that influence park accessibility. We developed a Canada-wide online survey with open and closed-ended questions, which were organized in relation to the four stages of a park visit: (1) planning a trip to the park, (2) traveling to the park, (3) facilities and activities at the park, and (4) feelings post-visit. Closed ended questions were summarized using descriptive statistics and open-ended questions were analyzed using a summative content analysis. A total of 210 (136 people with disabilities and 74 caregivers) participants completed this study. We found that four key factors impacted park accessibility: access to information at the planning stage, accessible transportation at the traveling stage, built environment while interacting with park facilities and activities, and inclusivity of the park when reflecting post-visit. Many barriers to accessing parks still exist for people with disabilities and caregivers. Future research could explore topics such as park information, crowding, implementation of adaptive technologies in parks, and representation of people with disabilities in park governance. Research should consider persons experiencing environmental sensitivities, both vision and hearing loss, and people with hidden disabilities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".