The Characteristics and Needs of Pedestrians with Mobility Impairments

How to Move Around Comfortably and Safely with a Reduced Ability to Walk, See, Hear, Feel or Process
  • Marjolein de Jong
Conference paper


Mobility is one of the preconditions for being able to participate in social life: individuals perform activities because of economic, social, recreational and other personal reasons. Mobility constraints may lead to a decreased participation. Making the mobility landscape more inclusive is not an easy task at all: the whole travel chain has to be designed and organized in such a way that the specific needs of several groups are taken into account. The accessibility of an environment is not only determined by the barrier context of the person, but also by the environment and the activity undertaken. Depending on these constraints, people with reduced abilities to walk, see, hear, feel or process information can move around more or less independently.


Pedestrians Reduced mobility Accessibility Mobility impairments 


  1. 1.
    Arfken, C. L., H. W. Lach, et al. (1994). "The prevalence and correlates of fear of falling in elderly persons living in the community." American Journal of Public Health 84(4): 565–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Backer-Grøndahl, A., A. H. Amundsen, et al. (2007). Trygt eller truende? Opplevelse av risiko på reisen. 913/2007 Oslo, Transportøkonomisk institutt (TØI).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Backer-Grøndahl, A., A. Fyhri, et al. (2009). "Accidents and unpleasant incidents: Worry in transport and prediction of travel behaviour." Risk Analysis 29: 1217–1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bernhoft, I. M. and G. Carstensen (2008). "Preferences and behaviour of pedestrians and cyclists by age and gender." Transportation Research Part F 11(2008): 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bertera, E. M. (2008). "Fear of falling and activity avoidance in a national sample of older adults in the United States." Health and Social Work 33(1).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Borst, H. C., H. M. E. Miedema, et al. (2008). "Relationships Between Street Characteristics and Perceived Attractiveness for Walking" Journal of Environmental Psychology 28(4): 353–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bourgeois, M. (2002). Vervoersarmoede in Vlaanderen. Brussel, Belgium, Koning BoudewijnstichtingGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bruce, D. G., A. Devine, et al. (2002). "Recreational physical activity levels in healthy older women: the importance of fear of falling. ." Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 50 (1): 84–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coleman, R. and D. J. Pullinger (1993). "Designing for our future selves." Applied Ergonomics 24(1): 3–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    CROW (2002). Toegankelijkheid van de openbare ruimte. Ede, CROW.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    de Jong, M., C. Kaufman, et al. (2010). What does walking mean for groups with special needs? - Tasks and how they are perceived. Pedestrians' Quality Needs. Final Report of the COST project 358. Methorst R., Monterde i Bort H., Risser al. Cheltenham, Walk21: 22.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    de Jong, M. and W. Sweers (2010). Self Assessment Tool - Manual. Deliverable 4.2. Mediate – Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    European Commission (2011). WHITE PAPER Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Facebook page: Olifantenpaadjes (2012).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Froyen, H., C. Asaert, et al. (2006). Ontwerpen voor Iedereen. Integraal en Inclusief.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fyhri, A., T. Hof, et al. (2010). The Influence of Perceived Safety and Security on Walking. Pedestrians’ Quality Needs. Final Report of the COST project 358. Methorst R., Monterde i Bort H., Risser al. Cheltenham, Walk21: 22.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Glasl, P., W. Rauh, et al. (1993). Vorrang für Fußgänger. Wien: VCÖ Verkehrsclub Österreich.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goldsmith, S. (1997). Designing for Disabled: The New Paradigm. Oxford, Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Greene, E. (2003). Urban safety in residential areas: spatial variables in crime and feeling of (in)security. Paper presented at the World Bank Urban Research Symposium 2003, Washington D.C., U.S.A.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    KMBS (2012). "Koninklijke Maatschappij voor Blinden en Slechtzienden vzw." Retrieved 2012, from
  21. 21.
    Kraushar, M. F., V. J. DeSantis, et al. "Enabling Blind and Visually Impaired Patients to Achieve Maximal Personal and Occupational Goals: The Importance of Nonvisual Skills." American Journal of Ophthalmology 149(5): 695–696.e692.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liv Øvstedal, Tone Øderud, et al. (2010). Indicators describing the accessibility of urban public transport. Deliverable 2.2. Mediate – Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mercado, R., A. Páez, et al. (2010). "Transport policy and the provision of mobility options in an aging society: a case study of Ontario, Canada. ." Journal of Transport Geography 18: 649–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Øvstedal, L. and E. Olaussen Ryeng (2002). Who is the most pleased pedestrian? Walk 21. San Sebastian, Spain.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    PROMISING (2011). Measures for pedestrian safety and mobility problems. Final report of Workpackage 1 of the European research project PROMISING (Promotion of Measures for Vulnerable Road Users), Deliverable D1. National Technical University of Athens NTUA, Athens.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sánchez, J. and M. Sáenz (2010). "Metro navigation for the blind." Computers & Education In Press, Corrected Proof.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schlansky, A., R. Hasenstab, et al. (2006). Gehen bewegt die Stadt: Nutzen des Fußverkehrs für die urbane Entwicklung, (Broschüre). Berlin: FUSS e.V. Fachverband Fußverkehr Deutschland.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sharmeen, F., T. Arentze, et al. (2010). Modelling the dynamics between social networks and activity-travel behavior: Literature review and research agenda. 12th WTCR. Lisbon.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    SIZE (2005). "SIZE - Life quality of senior citizens in relation to mobility conditions. 5th Framework programme." from
  30. 30.
    Stafford, J. and G. Pettersson (2004). People’s perceptions of personal security and their concerns about crime on public transport: research findings. Department for Transport, UK.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    UN (2012). "UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities." Retrieved June, 2012, from
  32. 32.
    Van den Wyngaert, H. (2010). Toegankelijkheid visueel gehandicapten in de stad. Traffic and Transportation sciences. Hasselt, Hasselt University.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    van der Burg, J.-D. and M. 't Hart (2012). Olifantenpaadjes. Desire lines.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    WHO (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF, World Health Organization. Geneva.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    WHO (2004). World report on road traffic injury prevention. Geneva, World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    WHO (2009). "Factsheet nr 282. Visual impairments and blindness." 2010, from
  37. 37.
    Wunsch, D., G. Haindl, et al. (2007). Gehen in der Donaustadt. Was das Gehen attraktiv macht und was es erschwert: Kommunikation mit Bürgerinnen und Bürgern in ausgewählten Gebieten des XXII. Wiener Gemeindebezirks. Im Auftrag der MA 18 Stadtentwicklung und Stadtplanung, Wien.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ziegler, F. and T. Schwanen (2011). " `I like to go out to be energised by different people': an exploratory analysis of mobility and wellbeing in later life. ." Ageing & Society 31: 758–781.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Transportation Research Institute (IMOB)Hasselt UniversityHasseltBelgium

Personalised recommendations